Golgo13
sesamoid96
On 1998/08/23,
Golgo13 <gol...@mindspring.com> wrote:
I leave the country for a few years and, lo
and behold, a new phrase is waiting for me
when I return. This "don't go there" expression
that I'm hearing constantly means, evidently,
"let's not talk about that,"
and it's definitely getting a boost from
"go into"
but I'd like a citation for it.
Who said it first, and where?
-------------------
You did not seem to get an answer to your question. The
below may help.
The Globe and Mail
Dec 28, 1996
By WARREN CLEMENTS
Blah, blah, blah?
Don't go there
THE Word Play cupboard is full to bursting with words
and expressions gathered over the past year. Here are
a few of them.
Monkey's wedding. Time magazine, citing this entry from
A Dictionary of South African English on Historical Principles,
defines it as 'the simultaneous occurrence of sunshine and rain.'
Curiously, the Dictionary of American Regional English
defines it (as well as 'monkey's wedding breakfast') as
'a state of disorder or disarray.'
Time also notes, from the Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage,
the words downhouse ('to belittle; to treat as of no account'),
nowherian ('a person who is not connected with any church or
who professes no religious faith') and humgrumshious,
a splendid way of describing someone who is 'rough; coarse;
crude in conduct.'
Don't go there. This expression has any number of
offshoots, among them 'don't even go there,'
'you don't even want to think of going there' and
'I'm not going there.' Comedians use it as a laugh line
to suggest a path they won't be taking, since it
would lead to a particularly profane, scatological or
sexual area of thought. Whoopi Goldberg popularized it
by using it during her stint as host of the Academy Awards.
It is now in the backlash stage. Spy magazine offered
'don't go there' as Number 93 on its list of the worst
people, places and things of 1996 ('It became the
country's most nauseating catchphrase'). The latest
issue of Men's Health magazine lists 'don't even go there'
among things it is tired of, along with 'teen-agers who
can't get their pants to stay up' and 'bad fitness
advice on infomercials.'
--- <snip remainder of 1996 article >--------
* * New additions to periodic table of elements * *
Name: WOMAN
Symbol: WO
Atomic weight: (Don't go there)
Physical properties: Generally round in form.
Boils at nothing and may *freeze* at any time.
Melts whenever treated properly. Very bitter if
mishandled.
Chemical properties: Very active. Highly unstable.
Possesses strong affinity with gold, silver,
platinum and precious stones. Volatile when
left alone. Also able to absorb great amounts
of exotic food. Turns slightly green when placed
next to a shinier specimen.
Usage: Highly ornamental. An extremely good catalyst
for dispersion of wealth. Probably the most powerful
income-reducing agent known.
Caution: Highly explosive in inexperienced hands.
Name: MAN
Symbol: XY
Atomic weight: 180 give or take 50
Physical properties: Solid at room temperature but
gets bent out of shape easily. Fairly dense and
sometimes flakey. Difficult to find a
pure sample. Aging samples are unable to conduct
electricity as easily as young samples.
Chemical properties: Attempts to bond with WO any chance
it can get. Also tends to form strong bond with itself.
Becomes explosive when mixed with KD (element: child) for
prolonged time. Neutralize by saturating with alcohol.
Usage: None known. Possibly good methane source. Good
specimens are able to produce large quantities on command.
Caution: In the absence of WO, this element rapidly
evaporates.
[from _Denver Rocky Mtn News_
Copyright 1999
June 1, 1999]
======
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
golgo13
> You did not seem to get an answer to your question. The
> below may help.
[Reference material trimmed]
Thank you very much. I was thinking about this question again, recently,
and lo - Whoopi gets the cite.
Kindest regards,
DLS
--
D.Sosnoski
gol...@mindspring.com
"When a thought takes one's breath away, a lesson
on grammar seems an impertinence." - TWH
sesamoid96
On 1999-jun-11, golgo13 wrote:
> sesamoid96... wrote:
>
> > [ses] You did not seem to get an answer to your
> > question. The below may help.
> [g13] [Reference material trimmed]
> Thank you very much. I was thinking about this
> question again, recently, and lo - Whoopi gets
> the cite.... Kindest regards
At a cost. Several grammatical and stylistic issues
have plagued me for too long. I need to finally resolve
them. Actually, I want to murder them. Thus did I sit
down with an assortment of grammar books about two weeks
ago to begin the effort. Only to become more unsure
of myself!
So: seek a living guide.
At a glance, I noticed your writing skill and
elevated concern about the topic. Upon viewing some of
your past postings, I found "Don't got here?". I had
never heard that phrase before. But that's probably
because I dan't watch TV, or read newspapers or
magazines (too overbusy with real life). Otherwise,
I'm unfamiliar with alt.usage.english, and I do not
read the newsgroup, and have no intention of doing so.
If it is possible to ask you the occasional question
about grammar etc, I would do that. Like a private
party. That's how it would have to be - of course, at
the same time likely to be generally edifying. I do not
like strangers or anyone who is less than perfectly
brilliant.
> [dls - (14jan99)] Normally, mastery of grammar is a
prerequisite to the study of style, isn't it?
Ripe for the testing.
> [dls - (21jun98)] In fact, the very notion that one
must forcefully reject all other belief systems in
order to prostrate oneself to one in particular is the
intellectually odious prospect which leads me to call
myself an atheist.
I just found this - it's a bonus, as the
general subject I'm working on has to do with getting
at the real "why's" here.
-------------
sesamoid96
<7jyoumadjerkh!desecrator&infinitelydulltoboot!%bute
ffectivelyreallyhurtmyfeelings$whyeverwhy
whywhywhy??@nnrp1.deja.com>, sesamoid96 wrote:
>
>
> On 1999-jun-11, golgo13 wrote:
>
> > > [dls] Kindest regards
>
> > [ses] At a cost... If it is possible to ask you
> > the occasional question about grammar etc, I would
> > do that. Like a private party. That's how it would
> > be generally edifying. I do not like strangers
> > or anyone who is less than perfectly brilliant.
>
> [dls - (13jun99)] If you care to discuss grammar
> and style, then by all means begin.
Very kindest thanks. I will/shall. Meanwhile, keep
in mind that I'm looking closely at your
alt.usage.english postings; don't hesitate to spiff them
with intensional example if you want to. My main griefs are
the relative pronouns, which/that, which I need to learn
concretely, conservatively and evidently cannot do short
of living exercise, and effect/affect, my absolute
sworn enemies.
My persective is that of historical linguistics, so,
really, I'm only reluctant to adventure without first
knowing the current, most firm footing.
sesamoid96
On 13jun99, Golgo13 wrote:
> > [ses] [In the email context] I do not like strangers
> > or anyone who is less than perfectly brilliant. [Therefore,
> > all alt.usage.english folks, please kindly refrain from
> > interfering in any way with this thread, marked
> > clearly Golgo13.] ...My perspective is that of
> > historical linguistics, so, really, I am only reluctant to
> > adventure without first knowing the accepted, most
> > sure, footing.
> [dls (alias Golgo13)] If you care to discuss grammar and
> style, then by all means begin.
Okay. It was a collector of "words books" who lent me the
grammar books that I began with a few weeks ago, which so
ignited my frustration. Among these were _Usage and
Abusage_ (Partridge, 1947, 1973 revision) and _Modern
English Usage_ (Fowler, 1965).
I've since learned that Fowler is a 'purist', and that
'purists' may be characters. A trusty history book of mine
said of Fowler, regarding a problem between lie-lay-lain and
lay-laid-laid:
"The brothers HG & FW Fowler (1931, p49) cite
with apparently delighted disapproval
"I suspected him of having laid in wait for the purpose"
from the writing of RG White, the eminent 19th century
American purist --for purists love above all to catch
other purists in some supposed sin against English grammar".
----------
I may suspect that, because they can be characters,
grammarians intentionally keep proper writing out of reach
by fancifying its rules into obscurity. You made this point
yourself concerning which/that.
> [dls - (14jan99)] ... I think the formal rule is,
> while daunting, concise.
>
> Nonrestrictive or nondefining elements
> should be set apart with commas.
> Use 'that' for restrictive modifiers
> and prefer 'which' in nonrestrictive phrases
> or subordinate clauses.
>
> [dls] That makes my eyes swim. So, simply:
>
> With commas, use which.
> No commas, use that.
>
--------------
A PROBLEM, however, with your simplification is that
relative clauses often fall at the end of sentences.
a.) Take the car that is parked beside mine.
b.) Take the car, which is parked beside mine.
C.) Take the car that is parked beside mine, that is
red, which is my brother's, that has a full gas
tank, so then you'll be able to drive all night.
In a, the choice is between several cars; the "that"
clause is therefore defining (i.e., integral to the
sentence).
In b, the choice might be between a car and a truck, so
the car's location is superfluous to the real point of
the communication, yet there's only one comma.
In c, I'm not too sure.
------------------
THE WAY AROUND the problem of comma-confusion is, I think,
offered in _Usage and Abusage_. I found that Partidge (p365)
enunciates a beginner-friendly rule.
His rule "...is that the
restrictive/defining/limitative/necessary
relative clause... cannot be
put in parentheses".
In other words, if you can put the clause in parentheses,
then use "which", because it is a non-defining clause,
unessential to the meaning of the sentence. Otherwise,
use "that" and no commas.
The advantage of this rule is that, while many beginners
stumble over when and where to use commas, everybody knows
that parentheses mean that a clause is non-defining and
that parentheses come in two's. If a clause can be placed in
parentheses without harming your sentence, then
simply replace the imagined parentheses with one or two
commas as appropriate.
a. I enjoy the food that is quite spicey.
b. I enjoy the food that is over there (which is spicy).
c. I enjoy this food (which he cooked) (which is quite spicey).
d. The book that I read last night (which was about genius) was
interesting.
e. The book (which I read last night) that was about genius was
interesting. The other two books that I read last night
were less so.
--------------
GOING FARTHER, I think it would be best to altogether stop
calling clauses restrictive/defining and
non-restrictive/non-defining, which are confusing terminologies.
Instead, think of them this way:
That, integral clause.
Which, additive clause.
For short, then, call the relative clauses by
the friendly acronyms TIC and WAC.
Then only a clause that you can WAC out of the
sentence is "non-defining", not integral to the meaning
of the sentence; i.e., it merely adds nonessential
information to the sentence. The added information could
always be put in parentheses within the sentence, or
the clause could easily be made into a separate sentence.
a.) "Take the car (which you'll find parked beside
mine) to work today, rather than your truck, because
I'll need the truck for heavy errands". This is a WAC
with two commas.
b.) "Take the car (which is parked beside mine)". This
is a WAC with one comma.
c.) "Take the car. It is parked beside mine. Don't take
the truck". The WAC is whacked right out of the sentence.
The crux is that a WAC is a clause that can be *whacked* out
of the sentence either by putting it in parentheses or into
a separate sentence. The clause merely contains added information.
a.) In England (which is a strangely proud land) you will
find good enemies and friends alike. [Use 2 commas]
b.) You will find good enemies and friends alike in
England (which is a strangely proud land). [Use 1 comma]
c.) In England, you will find good enemies and friends
alike. For it is a strangely proud land. [Whacked right out]
----------
a.) New Englanders *must* have grammar rules that make sense, that
illuminate, that foster a desire to reach for perfection.
----------