What are your pet peeves re English usage?

McTag wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Mine isn't, Mr McTag. Li, errr, falseho, ummmm, ignoran, unnnn, things that aren't true about language abound in this thread and I still love ya all! Very Happy

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

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

What pretentious tripe this is. You are a willful bull in the china shop. Your attitude toward the other participants here is disgusting.

0 Replies

Quote:

Set:
Your attitude toward the other participants here is disgusting.

I wasn't at all impolite to Booman or Annifa. I discussed the language points they raised in a very neutral fashion. The only one who is being impolite here is you, Setanta. But as this is a language thread, let's deal with the language issues.

Quote:

Setanta
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'm truly shocked by how quickly you can contradict yourself, Setanta and even more so that it doesn't dawn on you that you're doing so. At least in this aspect, Foxfyre was dead on!

You've formed a picture without a shred of proof, and lack of proof is something I've heard you often berate others for here at A2K.

And yet, you can dance around the actual issues, the language issues with an aplomb that defies gravity, Mr Bojangles.

Quote:

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.

Again with no rancor. You are either so clueless about language or you are so wrapped up in your zeal and the fire it's started within, that you can't even see that I'm the one defending language as "an everyday tool of communication". It's the others who consistently deny that fact. How have you gotten this so screwed up?

Why do these folks list their peeves and then let yours, or Blatham's or Georgeob's or mine or any other A2Ker's go by? Isn't that rather hypocritical?

All too often, it's meant as a silly jibe. Woiyo pulled this same stunt on you and I pointed out how silly it was. Did Big Set come running to Woiyo's defense? I truly hope you're not the homey type, Setanta. That, that would disappoint me greatly. I hold out this hope that people are driven by honesty, not by a fire that gets lit under their butts.

Quote:

Set:
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.

Would you like me to explain this further or are you now willing to retract your erroneous statements and accusations, 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>]

This is one of those everyday type mistakes I was talking about, Set.

[quote]Set:
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]

People who spread falsehoods about language are the ones who are pissing all over it. Go back to any thread where I've discussed the language issue and discuss the language issue Setanta instead of continuing to spread this nonsense that people have a right to malign others use of language.

[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.[/quote]

Let me explain this further. It will help untwist your knickers, ..., I hope. People know how to deploy their language in the same way people know how to breath, or walk. Ask them to explain the physiology of breathing or the kinesiological aspects of walking and you'll get blank stares.

So it is with language. It is incredibly complex. You accuse me of stating I'm an expert. False, I've never said that. I'm daily reminded of how little I know about my language. People falsely think that language is easy because we pull it off so effortlessly but let these same people try to analyse it and they quickly see it's not nearly so easy as they think.

[QUOTE]
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.

Here's the dictionary entry I asked you to check. I knew you wouldn't go get it because you often pitch things at people as a form of attack but you rarely follow up.

=============
M-W online:
purist: one who adheres strictly and often excessively to a tradition; especially : one preoccupied with the purity of a language and its protection from the use of foreign or altered forms.
=============

How do you expect that we can have any type of rational discussion if you won't get your meanings straight? All this time you have either mistakenly thought I was a purist or you don't understand the concepts well enough to participate? I'm not at all sure that, were I you, I'd want to have either applied to me.

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.

Now for the alleged non sequitur. This is a word that has two meanings, but, given your expansive knowledge, I think you knew that. Instead of just hurling it out to fill up space on the page, why didn't you state which meaning was yours. Let's allow that it was #1, from the M-W entry below. That's a fair assumption. But therein lies the problem.

You failed to account for the well known fact that, language always has context except in the pages of prescriptive grammars where context, which so often shows the "rules" to be in error, is treated with abhorrence.

Now, just to make it crystal clear, when Dale Berra spoke that collocation, there was context and that context, in all likelihood, allowed those present to grasp the meaning and knowing the Berras to appreciate the humor because they got the meaning. There could of, ooops, could have been others there who missed it completely.

There are hundreds, no, thousands of examples that may seem like non sequiturs but that doesn't mean they are. Here's one example;

Woman: I'm leaving you.
Man: Who is he?

Nobody would miss the meaning in this exchange if it were in a movie because intonation and the context would clue us in.

"Conversation out of context is virtually opaque." {S Pinker} Sentences in isolation are also often opaque.

===========
M-W online: non sequitur
1 : an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2 : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from anything previously said
================

0 Replies

Another nail in the coffin of this thread, and such a large and misshapen nail . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Another nail in the coffin of this thread, and such a large and misshapen nail . . .

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.

I entered this thread on page 56, possibly earlier. We are now on, I believe, page 125. Another Setanta myth laid to rest.

Now, I wonder if he'll ever address any questions that I pointedly ask of him on statements he has made about language.

0 Replies

My pet peeve?
People who don't seperate the more formal "written word" with the less formal "daily speech".

Like writing "em'na sure i wannu," or saying, "Well, I am not entirely positive that I really want to..." Though I'm guilty of doing both Very Happy

, and usually get caught by my friends that have ESL. Oops!

0 Replies

That pet peeve looks like a ferret to me.

I don't mind garbled, goofy language and innovative spelling as long as both parties recognise it's a joke, and that the sender can manage better.

Otherwise, it's a bit sad and limp.

0 Replies

I have been greatly amused by a new habit of the young, rendering "thanks" as "thankz" . . . it is so silly, given that their claim is that the innovative spelling is designed to save space.

One such individual posting here made a claim that the shorthand spelling saves space . . . in a posting of separate sentences, each triple spaced from the preceding one.

I understand the utility of the usage for text messaging on mobile phones.

Dare i state the obvious? This ain't no mobile phone.

0 Replies

No kidding Very Happy

!
I occaisionally abbreviate 'thanks' as 'thnx' or 'thx', but it actually <i>does</i> save space. (I'm probably one of what you'd consider 'the young'.)

I don't have a problem with mangeling (spelling?? :S) as long as everyone can understand it. But getting an email (first of all... it's an email. Just type the whole word!) that says "hey! goin 2 moo-V? W4nn4 come 2?" ... it was all I could do to email my friend back and say "umm... I would love to hang out, but I couldn't read your email. What did it say???" Laughing

0 Replies

BTW (ewwww!): yups, that is a ferret named Pepper, aka Pipsqueak.

0 Replies

It does prove a source of entertainment though . . .

SF, html won't work in your posts, but UBB will, if you substitue [ ] brackets for the < > whatever the hell you call them . . .

0 Replies

okay. thanks.

0 Replies

You welcome, Boss ! [/b][/size]

0 Replies

That it does. We have to derive some enjoyment from the efforts to reduce what can be a rather wordy language. Smile

Plus, typing 2 or 3 more letters can be the difference between sending an email at 6:46p and 46 seconds and 6:46p and 50 seconds. Oooooooooo!

<chuckles and shakes head>

Have to say, I am guilty of doing it with sms's though. When you are given a limit of 120 letters, it's amazing the ways you can find to shorten words Very Happy

.

Question: is I'd've a "legal" shortening of 'I would have'?

0 Replies

Dunno . . . do you anticipate being sued?

0 Replies

haa haa.

Meant, is it like 'gonna', 'wanna', 'whadja' etc. or would it pass muster in an English 101???
Don't remember from mine, and have a friend sitting here who insists that it's not 'proper' english. Don't know how else you would turn 'I would have' into a thingy-ma-bob with a apostrophe (like can't, won't, etc). But....

She says one of her pet peeves is improper usage of 's on the end of words that end in s. Uses my "sms's" as an example. I think she's just being picky Laughing

.

0 Replies

I've wondered about that too, at least in regard to pluralizing a set of initials. For example, here at a2K we have a system for private messaging that is usable by long time members. To save wear and tear on our brains, we call them pms. Pms brings to mind the initials for premenstrual syndrome to many; I use an apostrophe in cases like this as a way of clarifying that 'p' and 'm' are initials.

I assume this is an incorrect practice, but do it anyway in my stubborn way. However, I've seen others do this with plural initials too, and this makes me wonder if it actually is correct to do.

(Edit to say I now notice that the site itself calls them PMs.)

0 Replies

And some people use it in 100s or 1970s which I feel is definitely wrong. Apostrophes are like HRT - it's always better to try and do without.

0 Replies

... thus, I'd've and had've (along with couldn't and all other structures of their ilk) would not be correct in any fully-finished English essay except while quoting vernacular. At least, that is how it was when I was in school - apostrophes to casually skip letters in common words were a no-no in English 101.

However, as JTT will say, the language rules change.

Anyway, Welcome to a2k, SeattleFrettchen! Why do you have Seattle in your name if you're in Tuebingen? Cute little Frettchen you've got there, btw.

0 Replies

....Wowee zillickers!.. Shocked

.I see after I made an appearance last night, I missed the linquistical rumble, that later ensued between Setana & Jtt. So , albeit a little late, I have a coupla' points, that nevertheless should be addressed.
.....First point: A peeve of mine I didn't mention is making language a mandate rather than a tool. Please remember that the position of lanquage is as a TOOL OF COMMUNICATION Exclamation

...Tools don't use men,men use tools. If you have a nail to drive in and the closest thing to you is a monkey wrench, you shouldn't be ostracized, for using it. If you succeed in getting your point across, my "pet peeves" are just that, nothing more. My concern is mainly when someone in the position of say, a newscaster, misuses the language, without explanation. A youngster or newcomer should have a chance to learn proper english, before learning improvisations, malaprops, etc..
....Second point:Mssrs. Setana and JTT Twisted Evil

A debate is best utilized when the participonts priority is Seeking the truth, not winning the argument at all costs. This is done by arguing your position to the best of your ability, NOT ....contesting the right of your adversaries to have a different point of view. Now you guys shake hands, and get on with your lifses...hee,hee Twisted Evil

...o.k..lives.

0 Replies

What are your pet peeves re English usage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know