3
   

Fine-Tuning 27, Just a Couple Things

 
 
Roberta
 
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 02:06 am
I lied. There's only one thing, not a couple. What's the one thing?

"Just a couple things" is WRONG. It should be just a couple OF things.

C'est tout.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 1,771 • Replies: 15
No top replies

 
Turner 727
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 02:52 am
Yeah, but here in the midwest we say it like that simply because we're cutting words out, like 'How you doing?' instead of 'How are you doing?'
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 04:02 am
Based on Standard English, Roberta's opinion is right.
And a thank to her for the heads up.

But based on informal English, or pidgin, Turner's opinion is acceptable.
Oh... dear Roberta, please don't always laugh at pidgin, because sometime it can save English language learners from emergency, when successful communication should be put on first position and they cannot come up with perfect grammar and rhetoric.


======================================
I've tried to figure out the meaning of C'est, but failed. Razz
0 Replies
 
Turner 727
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 04:40 am
C'est is French for 'That". Like C'est la Vie, "that's life" or C'est moi, "that's me".

At least, that's how I understand it. But then, I don't speak french.
0 Replies
 
Roberta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 04:56 am
C'est tout means that's all.

Oristar, I don't always speak perfect English. However, I usually know what's right and what isn't.

Turner, I doubt that hearing "Just a couple things" would bother me nearly as much as seeing it in writing. Taking a shortcut is one thing. Not knowing you're taking one is something else.
0 Replies
 
Turner 727
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 05:22 am
Oh, I agree with you completely.

But in this day and age of instantaneous communication, shortcuts are being used more and more. U no, ppl who type like this. cuz its faster.

I'm not the fastest typist around, only about 70 wpm, but that is still far below my speaking speed, not to mention my thought speed. I really struggle to type out what I'm thinking, and often times I have to stop myself from using those shortcuts.

How would you pronouce that? 'say tow'? I rather like that. Gonna have to start using it.
0 Replies
 
Roberta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 06:45 am
Turner, Writing in the conversational way we do here is a challenge. I want to write like I talk, but, like you, my fingers can't keep up. I eschew u r 2 gd 2 b tru. But I certainly write "gonna" when I'm shooting the breeze, typily speaking.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 09:23 am
Roberta wrote:
Turner, Writing in the conversational way we do here is a challenge. I want to write like I talk, but, like you, my fingers can't keep up. I eschew u r 2 gd 2 b tru. But I certainly write "gonna" when I'm shooting the breeze, typily speaking.


...I eschew you are to get to be true?

...typically speaking? Question My head got hurt. Razz


PS. If C'est = that, so there should be "That touts"?
0 Replies
 
mac11
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 09:26 am
C'est = that is
tout = all

It's pronounced "say too".
0 Replies
 
Roberta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 05:34 pm
...I eschew you are to get to be true?

...typically speaking? My head got hurt.


PS. If C'est = that, so there should be "That touts"?

Oristar, I eschew u r 2 gd 2 b tru = you are too good to be true.

I made up the word "typily." It suggests that we talk through typing. Hence speaking "typily." Sorry if I caused your head to hurt.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 06:44 pm
I agree with Roberta. Using a preposition in this instance used to be one of the easier things to learn re the english language in my elementary school, and I doubt the rules have changed here.

I like the plasticity of language and am sometimes open to change (I say that, and try to think of an instance when I have agreed with change.. ) Ah, but I know I have liked some change, whether or not I can illustrate that right now.

To me, this short cut diffuses clarity, and so I react against it. I will try to post back with a short cut I can see enhancing clarity. Please don't avoid dining while I consider.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 06:46 pm
Thanks mac11.

Reberta, you've inspired me of technic of how to make up new word. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
sarius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 11:05 pm
Pardon my ignorance, but when I first heard the word "couple", it was with reference to things in pairs. But soon I've found that it can be used synonymously with "few", which can mean more than two.

What I'm curious to know is which of the above was its very first meaning?

I suspect that it was originally supposed to mean "in pairs" but had come to mean "a few" due to commom misuse.
0 Replies
 
Turner 727
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 11:38 pm
Well, I use 'this' to denote singular items. Such as:

What do you think of this?

I use couple for things like when the group is usually only two. However, I've been known to slip a third item in.

Few would be more than a couple, but less than, say, six or seven. The it would be 'a lot'.

I'm sure you know all this already, but that's how I group things.
0 Replies
 
Roberta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2004 01:56 am
Sarius, I checked my dictionary, and, yes, a couple can mean a few. I didn't know this and have never used it that way.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2004 04:36 am
Roberta wrote:
I checked my dictionary, and, yes, a couple can mean a few. I didn't know this and have never used it that way.


Just because that is an informal usage, according to AHD
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Fine-Tuning 27, Just a Couple Things
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/30/2022 at 03:39:44