What are your pet peeves re English usage?

The problem with the most famous of the Yogisms is that fifty years after he said it, people in responsible public speaking jobs, use it like it's proper, rather than explaining to impressionable youngsters who may be listening, "I am repeating a fifty year old malaprop' don't try this at home kids", or wherever.

"First, let's do away with the folklore that parents teach their children language. No one supposes that parents provide explicit grammar lessons, of course, but many parents (and some child psychologists who should know better) think that mothers provide children with implicit lessons.

... Children deserve most of the credit for the language they acquire. In fact, we can show that they know things that they could not have been taught." [S Pinker]

My feeling is that Yogiisms aren't malapropisms. They're much too good for that.

JTT wrote:

My feeling is that Yogiisms aren't malapropisms. They're much too good for that.

Leaving aside your worship at the altar of Pinker . . . you don't know Yogi, do you?

Speaking quite frankly, but with no rancor, and i may be wrong but from what i've seen to date, you seem to lack the requisite knowledge of what constitutes a harmless social activity.

It is precisely your lack of knowledge on language that makes you so ill equipped to decide this. But, as I've stated many times to this old canard that won't die, I encourage people to post whatever they want. And I reserve the right, though I shouldn't need to, to reply to any and all comments.

Knowledge consists of more than what one reads in one or even a few books--reading from many sources is required to get a complete picture of a person, a society, a time in the panoply of human endeavor and folly.

I agree. Reading far and wide is nothing but a good thing and you can give yourself a pat on the back for that. But I'm afraid that won't help you build a rockership, Setanata. One would also think that such a philosophy would condition one to avoid things like "worship at the altar of Pinker".

With regard to Yogi Berra, not only was he an active major league baseball player in my life time, he was also a manager, and a darling of the press, who loved to quote his malapropisms, precisely because that is what they were. When he said: "Nobody ever goes there anymore, it's too crowded," that was genuine, sincere Yogi. It is not only my life's experience, but the condensation of many newspaper and magazine articles, and a biography.

Without a doubt, there could have been some; but as I've noted, the record to date shows that your "life's experience" couldn't possibly include knowledge of how language works.

Quote:

"Our similarities are different."
This quote was actually said by Dale Berra, Yogi's son. It's interesting to note how similar they are in their linguistic ability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogiisms

You may be of any age for all that i know of the matter, but your lofty pronouncements have much the flavor of the young--who are so often the most intellectually rigid and intolerant.

Your decided reluctance to discuss how language works, I believe, illustrates my point, Setanata. I am having a difficult time squaring your last paragraph with this,

"Knowledge consists of more than what one reads in one or even a few books--reading from many sources is required to get a complete picture of a person, a society, a time in the panoply of human endeavor and folly."

Oh, and before you come stomping around, attempting to beat me over the head with the precise definition of a malapropism, here's one from Yogi:

I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did.

I totally agree.

It is precisely your lack of knowledge on language that makes you so ill equipped to decide this.

But, as I've stated many times to this old canard that won't die, I encourage people to post whatever they want. And I reserve the right, though I shouldn't need to, to reply to any and all comments.

I agree. Reading far and wide is nothing but a good thing and you can give yourself a pat on the back for that. But I'm afraid that won't help you build a rockership, Setanata. One would also think that such a philosophy would condition one to avoid things like "worship at the altar of Pinker".

Without a doubt, there could have been some; but as I've noted, the record to date shows that your "life's experience" couldn't possibly include knowledge of how language works.

Your decided reluctance to discuss how language works, I believe, illustrates my point, Setanata.

I am having a difficult time squaring your last paragraph with this,

Quoting what I wrote:

"Knowledge consists of more than what one reads in one or even a few books--reading from many sources is required to get a complete picture of a person, a society, a time in the panoply of human endeavor and folly."

Also, using "would of". Oh it would of, would it of? I should of known, shouldn't of I?

Have (now isn't that a good word?) probably moaned about that ^^ before on a2k, oh well, likes to make me point I does.

You may be of any age for all that i know of the matter, but your lofty pronouncements have much the flavor of the young--who are so often the most intellectually rigid and intolerant.

I said that! Sounds young, youthful. But I was wrong. Older than me- and I'm very old.

JTT wrote:

It is precisely your lack of knowledge on language that makes you so ill equipped to decide this.

What an utterly absurd hypothesis--by this criterion, pre-literate societies were incapable of effective social interaction. It is, however typical of your seeming penchant for sweeping pronouncements on language and it's significance.

You have missed the crucial point, Setanta. Knowing language and knowing about language are two very different things. You know your language well, some might even say, bombastically so.

You're making the naive assumption that a language needs a written form for communication. This has led you to your naive statement above.

[note my point, Annifa about the brain's focus which tends to cause all of us to make these types of errors; <it's significance>]

Quote:

But, as I've stated many times to this old canard that won't die, I encourage people to post whatever they want. And I reserve the right, though I shouldn't need to, to reply to any and all comments.

Yes, you never miss the opportunity to swoop down upon the unsuspecting innocent with your mighty weapon, the "correct, authorized" meaning of words and linguistic structure. Your theses on language are the antithesis, in fact, of living language. And, of course, you once again demonstrate through your linguistic facism your lack of the ability to accept this thread for what it is, a social venue. It is a casual and relaxed place, and has so often, in the past, been a place of harmless entertainment. You have been doing your damnest, however, to piss all over that aspect of it.

You've gotten this backassward, Setanta. I just defended you from these innocents who had you pegged as illiterate because you wrote <it's significance>.

I suggest that you actually follow your own advice and read up a bit on language and what it is and how it works. With each statement you reveal further just how little you know about language and its workings.

Quote:

Nothing of what i've offered has been self-congratulatory. I've never been much interested in building a rockership [sic],

Tsk tsk tsk.

Quote:

JTT wrote: Without a doubt, there could have been some; but as I've noted, the record to date shows that your "life's experience" couldn't possibly include knowledge of how language works.

Setanta replied:
This statement is sufficiently arrogant and condescending to stand, of its own, for evidence of your hubris. No comment on the quote of Mr. Berra's son, as it is a non sequitur.

The truth is the truth, Setanta. You know your language; you know precious little about the workings of your language.

[quote]Your decided reluctance to discuss how language works, I believe, illustrates my point, Setanata.

Setanta wrote:

You may be of any age for all that i know of the matter, but your lofty pronouncements have much the flavor of the young--who are so often the most intellectually rigid and intolerant.

I said that! Sounds young, youthful. But I was wrong. Older than me- and I'm very old.

McTag wrote:

Setanta wrote:

You may be of any age for all that i know of the matter, but your lofty pronouncements have much the flavor of the young--who are so often the most intellectually rigid and intolerant.

I said that! Sounds young, youthful. But I was wrong. Older than me- and I'm very old.

You were snookered, McTag. I had a wee bit o' fun at your expense. I'd say we're close to the same age. You thought me youthful because of my cheery demeanor.

As usual you either miss the point altogether, or you seek to dodge the point. This venue is not about what is or isn't the last word in "correct" language usage, for which we have no reason to assume authority on your part.

I find it necessary to point out to you once again that this thread is a social venue, and you continue to piss all over it. I do not purport to be an expert on language, and do genuinely enjoy language.

Your posturing as an "expert," and leaping upon everyone else's posts is pathetic. Is this how you preen your ego? What a sad, irrelevant little man you are.