63
   

What are your pet peeves re English usage?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 04:35 pm
And welcome you are to do so, you are.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 07:38 pm
I totally agree.
0 Replies
 
booman2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 07:59 pm
What a coincidence, you're sounding like Yoda, and I'm watching him on TV
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 09:58 pm
booman2 wrote:
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.


I have never once heard any jokester or punster explain themselves; what would be the point? And yet, surprise, surprise, kids get these things.

Quote:

"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]


Now, of course it must be noted, people of all ages sometimes miss the punchline.

My feeling is that Yogiisms aren't malapropisms. They're much too good for that.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 10:00 pm
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?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 10:23 pm
Setanta wrote:
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?


The quote from S Pinker addressed the issue that was raised, Setanta. I could have found a similar one from a number of sources. Speaking 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 to discuss these language issues.

This isn't like you, picking the most obscure portion of a posting to lead the discussion astray. I said, "My feeling". I'll leave you with a quote from The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English.

"... native speakers usually do not have reliable intuitions about these patterns of [language] use."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 10:30 pm
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.

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.

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.
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.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 10:43 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 10:51 pm
Setanta wrote:
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."

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 10:57 pm
Setanta wrote:
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.


It's truly ironic how your signature lines always seem to come back and bite you in the ass, Setanta. Laughing [I'm laughing with you, not at you]

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 11:01 pm
Merry Andrew wrote:
I totally agree.


Me three!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 11:23 pm
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.

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.

Quote:
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".


Nothing of what i've offered has been self-congratulatory. I've never been much interested in building a rockership [sic], either, and most assuredly, if you would trouble to expand your horizons of human understanding, even you could avoid the pitfall of worshiping at the altar of Pinker. I have hope for you, although with each passing day, the horizon of your liberation recedes further.

Quote:
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.


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.

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


Your continued insistence on a purist knowledge of how language works in a "pet peeves" thread illustrates my point about your misanthropic character.

Quote:
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."


It does not in the least surprise me that your response to my assertion: "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."--results in the non sequitur with which you replied. Young or old, you display a rigidity of adherence to a set of contentions about the structure and siginificance of language which is very much redolent of the young. Although perhaps aprocryphal, Mr. Clemens is reputed to observed that at age sixteen he knew his father to be the most ignorant man alive, but that at age twenty-one, he was astonish to discover what the old boy had learned in five years. That is decidely the picture which i have formed of you, with your rigidity, and your lofty pronouncements on language; but most of all, with your lying in wait for those who post here, so that you may spring out and ridicule them for their harmless offerings. I assert that for whatever your age may be, you have an immature outlook and behavior. I have never billed myself as an expert on language, and have only defended a harless venue for people to meet and discuss langauge as they know it, an everyday tool of communication. With each "contribution" on your part, you move that much closer to killing this thread altogether. What a wonderful accomplishment that will have been for you.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 11:32 pm
annifa wrote:

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.


There is a logical reason for this mistake, Annifa and it is made by educated speakers the world over. Sometimes, when we're writing, we are so caught up in the substance of what we want to say that these homophones enter our writing.

I've noticed quite a few in the various postings here at A2K, in fact one of the posters, who I'm sure all would agree is highly educated, had just such an "error" in one of 'their' postings. I remarked at that time to meself, "geeze, you oughta make note of that".

You never notice this in speech because the weak form of a phonologically reduced 'have' happens to have the same sound in English as the weak form for 'of'. This is especially true in NaE where <'ve> can at times, be unvoiced or very nearly so, a la, "I['ve] gotta go".

When our brains are overly focused, it's not at all surprising that a 'your' slips in for a <you're>, or a 'there' for a 'their', or an <it's> for an <its>. If this weren't the case, there would be no such occupation as editor or proofreader.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 12:13 am
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. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 12:14 am
McTag wrote:
I said that! Sounds young, youthful. But I was wrong. Older than me- and I'm very old. Laughing


Serious business, Boss? That is really sad then.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 12:17 am
Setanta wrote:
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. Sad

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.
[/b]

Your continued insistence on a purist knowledge of how language works in a "pet peeves" thread illustrates my point about your misanthropic character.

Yet another example. What was that signature line of yours again? Could you please, Setanta, at the very least, expose yourself to some of the simpler terminology so we can discuss things without having to continually bring you up to speed. [did I just split an infinitive?]

I am a descriptivist. That makes it impossible for me to be a purist. The purists are the ones whose errors I point out. Check a dictionary and then we can talk, okay.

Without the full context, you have no way of knowing what comment you can accurately make about Mr Berra's son's collocation. You can repeat something that you've book learned, ie. the meaning of the term <non sequitur> but your linguistic analysis could well be far off the mark.

[/quote]
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 12:22 am
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. Laughing


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. Smile
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 12:25 am
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.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 12:34 am
JTT wrote:
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. Laughing


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. Smile


You mean you lied about your age? I was born in 1944. In a previous post you gave your birth year as 1935, as I recall. Oh, my faith in human nature is dashed to the ground. Smile
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 12:44 am
Setanta wrote:
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.


Setanta, please stop. You are seriously jeopardizing your positions with respect to the fine and knowlegeable contributions you make in other threads.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/15/2025 at 11:41:55