Re: Someone is wrong
Lloyd Parsons
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> <http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ov-pT1x-W8Y/SznwSSmL4lI/AAAAAAAADSU/sysUC8XwWJo/s
> 1600-h/xk.jpg>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yckp3tg
:)
Király
> :)
The best part is the irony - this thread is off-topic. :)
--
K.
Lang may your lum reek.
Father Justin
> Lloyd Parsons<lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
>> :)
>
> The best part is the irony - this thread is off-topic. :)
>
>
NO! You're wrong!
nospam
Erik Richard Sørensen
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> m...@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) wrote:
>> The best part is the irony - this thread is off-topic. :)
>
> wrong, I think that puts it on topic. ;)
Especially all those pee-cee-trolls rumbling and mumbling and scrambling
around of just pure envy that we have something they don't.:-)
Happy New Year.:-)!
Cheers, Erik Richard
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <mac-m...@Mstofanet.dk>
NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com
OpenOffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
isw
Father Justin <jus...@nobecauseihatespam.com> wrote:
> On 1/2/10 5:33 PM, Kir�ly wrote:
> > Lloyd Parsons<lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
> >> :)
> >
> > The best part is the irony - this thread is off-topic. :)
> >
> >
>
>
> NO! You're wrong!
Oh yeah? HITLER!
(Phew; I'm glad that's over)
Isaac
MC
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <QQP%m.58278$Db2.34303@edtnps83>, m...@home.spamsucks.ca (Kir�ly)
> wrote:
>
> > The best part is the irony - this thread is off-topic. :)
>
> Considering how much time and effort is spent here arguing about who is
> wrong, I think that puts it on topic. ;)
Time to trot out my law once again:
"Post in a news group and sooner or later someone will either correct
you, denounce the premise of the post, point out some real or imagined
error you have made, react angrily to some inference that was never
implied, gratuitously provide irrelevant information,* insist that you
gratuitously provide irrelevant information, castigate you for the
inadequacy of your research (without any knowledge of said research),
demand that you justify yourself by meeting some previously undisclosed
standard of erudition or education, or any combination of the above."
� MC's Law � � � All Rights Reserved. Worldwide Patents Pending. Reg.
Penna. Dept. Ag. "UNDER PENALTY OF LAW THIS TAG SHALL NOT BE REMOVED
EXCEPT BY THE CONSUMER" *The Schultz Amendment.
--
"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones
MC
isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
> > NO! You're wrong!
>
> Oh yeah? HITLER!
Time for a "definately"
You're definately a, um... what's the word? Oh, yeah. A "looser."
Glad I got those out of the way.
That just leaves "facist."
Wes Groleau
>>
>>> The best part is the irony - this thread is off-topic. :)
>> Considering how much time and effort is spent here arguing about who is
>> wrong, I think that puts it on topic. ;)
>
> Time to trot out my law once again:
>
> "Post in a news group and sooner or later someone will either correct
> you, denounce the premise of the post, point out some real or imagined
> error you have made, react angrily to some inference that was never
> implied, gratuitously provide irrelevant information,* insist that you
> gratuitously provide irrelevant information, castigate you for the
> inadequacy of your research (without any knowledge of said research),
> demand that you justify yourself by meeting some previously undisclosed
> standard of erudition or education, or any combination of the above."
>
> ‹ MC's Law © ® All Rights Reserved. Worldwide Patents Pending. Reg.
> Penna. Dept. Ag. "UNDER PENALTY OF LAW THIS TAG SHALL NOT BE REMOVED
> EXCEPT BY THE CONSUMER" *The Schultz Amendment.
I wouldn't want to be a law breaker, so in keeping with the third clause:
"Nothing in the law applies to discussing whether it's off-topic,
therefore it does not apply."
--
Wes Groleau
From a February workshop by Ellen Shrager
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1513
Steven Fisher
MC <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
> In article <isw-BD00DA.21170702012010@[216.168.3.50]>,
> isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
>
> > > NO! You're wrong!
> >
> > Oh yeah? HITLER!
>
> Time for a "definately"
>
> You're definately a, um... what's the word? Oh, yeah. A "looser."
>
> Glad I got those out of the way.
>
> That just leaves "facist."
Hitler's been invoked. Surely "facist" would be redundant.
Steve
MC
Steven Fisher <sdfi...@spamcop.net> wrote:
"Post in a news group and sooner or later someone will either correct
you, denounce the premise of the post, point out some real or imagined
error you have made, react angrily to some inference that was never
implied, gratuitously provide irrelevant information,* insist that you
gratuitously provide irrelevant information, castigate you for the
inadequacy of your research (without any knowledge of said research),
demand that you justify yourself by meeting some previously undisclosed
standard of erudition or education, or any combination of the above."
� MC's Law � � � All Rights Reserved. Worldwide Patents Pending. Reg.
Penna. Dept. Ag. "UNDER PENALTY OF LAW THIS TAG SHALL NOT BE REMOVED
EXCEPT BY THE CONSUMER" *The Schultz Amendment.
--
Wes Groleau
> Hitler's been invoked. Surely "facist" would be redundant.
I don't know what a facist is, but I suspect all three words
were in quotes to mock those who consistently misspell them
accordingly.
One thing that used to amaze me was my colleagues whose
main programming language had "separate" as one of its
reserved words who would nevertheless consistently
write "seperate."
--
Wes Groleau
It?s the Law!
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=93
D.F. Manno
> That just leaves "facist."
Someone who discriminates on the basis of face?
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would
have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His
existence. (Bertrand Russell)
MC
"D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
> In article <copespaz-94C746...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> MC <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> > That just leaves "facist."
>
> Someone who discriminates on the basis of face?
Definately
John McWilliams
> In article <dfmanno-7E277C...@news.albasani.net>,
> "D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <copespaz-94C746...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> MC <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> That just leaves "facist."
>> Someone who discriminates on the basis of face?
>
> Definately
>
Also, Hitler/nazis/fascists/ being invoked just to end the thread
doesn't do it....
--
john mcwilliams
MC
John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Definately
> >
> Think "Finite"! Then you'll get the spelling of definitely....
Do try and pay attention! I'm the one who first cited "definately" in
this thread as one of the most common misspellings on the net.
Sigh.
John McWilliams
> In article <hhuctr$rg5$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Definately
>>>
>> Think "Finite"! Then you'll get the spelling of definitely....
>
> Do try and pay attention! I'm the one who first cited "definately" in
> this thread as one of the most common misspellings on the net.
>
> Sigh.
Do try and understand there are others to whom I am speaking.
--
lsmft
nospam
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> > Do try and pay attention! I'm the one who first cited "definately" in
> > this thread as one of the most common misspellings on the net.
>
> I think the most common one is "alot".
>
> Also among the list is the misuse of "sight site & cite".
in my experience, it's loose/lose, with affect/effect a distant second.
Nick Naym
Steiner at mich...@michelle.org wrote on 1/5/10 1:16 AM:
> In article <copespaz-2FA692...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> MC <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
>
>> Do try and pay attention! I'm the one who first cited "definately" in
>> this thread as one of the most common misspellings on the net.
>
> I think the most common one is "alot".
>
> Also among the list is the misuse of "sight site & cite".
Very insightful. ;P
--
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)
Nick Naym
nos...@nospam.invalid wrote on 1/5/10 1:26 AM:
How about "irregardless?"
VAXman-
>In article 040120102226063174%nos...@nospam.invalid, nospam at
>nos...@nospam.invalid wrote on 1/5/10 1:26 AM:
>
That's not a misspelling, it's just bad English.
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG
http://www.quirkfactory.com/popart/asskey/eqn2.png
"Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"
Fred Moore
> MC wrote:
> > Definately
> >
> Think "Finite"! Then you'll get the spelling of definitely....
>
> Also, Hitler/nazis/fascists/ being invoked just to end the thread
> doesn't do it....
But invoking Godwin's Law of Usenet does establish the thread's finite
destiny. ;)
John McWilliams
> In article 040120102226063174%nos...@nospam.invalid, nospam at
> nos...@nospam.invalid wrote on 1/5/10 1:26 AM:
>
>> In article <michelle-EC9D04...@nothing.attdns.com>,
>> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> Do try and pay attention! I'm the one who first cited "definately" in
>>>> this thread as one of the most common misspellings on the net.
>>> I think the most common one is "alot".
>>>
>>> Also among the list is the misuse of "sight site & cite".
>> in my experience, it's loose/lose, with affect/effect a distant second.
>
> How about "irregardless?"
Yeah. It should be "disrirregarless"......
THE number one grammatical error is the extra apostrophe in the
possessive, "its". Or is it a speling eror? Or ignernce?
--
john mcwilliams
MC
Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
The Final Solution?
George Kerby
On 1/5/10 12:52 AM, in article
C7684BC2.4F3C2%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid, "Nick Naym"
<nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article michelle-EC9D04...@nothing.attdns.com, Michelle
> Steiner at mich...@michelle.org wrote on 1/5/10 1:16 AM:
>
>> In article <copespaz-2FA692...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> MC <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Do try and pay attention! I'm the one who first cited "definately" in
>>> this thread as one of the most common misspellings on the net.
>>
>> I think the most common one is "alot".
>>
>> Also among the list is the misuse of "sight site & cite".
>
>
> Very insightful. ;P
Are trying to incite a disagreement?
MC
Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article michelle-EC9D04...@nothing.attdns.com, Michelle
> Steiner at mich...@michelle.org wrote on 1/5/10 1:16 AM:
>
> > In article <copespaz-2FA692...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > MC <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Do try and pay attention! I'm the one who first cited "definately" in
> >> this thread as one of the most common misspellings on the net.
> >
> > I think the most common one is "alot".
> >
> > Also among the list is the misuse of "sight site & cite".
>
>
> Very insightful. ;P
There are a few Hollywood types whose names always get misspelled:
Wilford Brimley
Dan Aykroyd
Katharine Hepburn
Martin Scorsese
Fred McKenzie
> I think the most common one is "alot".
What word in this sentence is mispelled?
Fred Moore
MC <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
Hey, this is Usenet. The diffusion of bandwidth goes on FOREVER! All
part of The Great Expanding Circular Continuum. Every thread is
infinitely finite. :D
nospam
wrote:
> >How about "irregardless?"
>
> That's not a misspelling, it's just bad English.
right. irregardless is not a word.
nospam
<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> THE number one grammatical error is the extra apostrophe in the
> possessive, "its". Or is it a speling eror? Or ignernce?
oh yea, it's/its. that's very common.
Davoud
> THE number one grammatical error is the extra apostrophe in the
> possessive, "its". Or is it a speling eror? Or ignernce?
Ignorance. One can unfailingly distinguish between the literate and the
functionally illiterate by the way they write words that sound alike.
People who don't read have no way of knowing the difference between
advice - advise
its - it's
loose - lose
templet [sic] - template
then - than
there - their
your - you're
Functional illiterates don't know when to use "that" in place of
"which." In fact, this one often trips up the literate as well. Hint:
be a which hunter. Hunt down the "whiches" and replace them with "that"
as often as possible.
Functional illiterates are unlikely to write the correct form of the
following:
suppose to (correct: supposed to)
ice tea (iced tea)
whip cream (whipped cream)
mash potatoes (mashed potatoes)
They have no idea how to use commas, apostrophes, quotation marks, or
hyphens, so they use them haphazardly. That makes them look really
dumb, which they may not be at all. It ensures that their written words
won't be taken seriously.
What's wrong with all of that? Simply that (the GW Bush aberration
notwithstanding) literate people are going to continue to call the
shots, while the ignorant (and, in particular, the willfully ignorant),
the illiterates, and the just-don't-get-its are going to be standing on
the sidelines where they have always been, unable to get themselves
taken seriously, watching history pass them by.
Davoud
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
MC
wrote:
> Functional illiterates don't know when to use "that" in place of
> "which." In fact, this one often trips up the literate as well. Hint:
> be a which hunter. Hunt down the "whiches" and replace them with "that"
> as often as possible.
Even the best writers of British English tend to use that and which as
interchangeable. It's much more of a concern to users (especially
editors) of American English.
D.F. Manno
> Functional illiterates are unlikely to write the correct form of the
> following:
>
> suppose to (correct: supposed to)
> ice tea (iced tea)
> whip cream (whipped cream)
> mash potatoes (mashed potatoes)
The last three could be regional idioms, not errors.
Davoud
> > Functional illiterates don't know when to use "that" in place of
> > "which." In fact, this one often trips up the literate as well. Hint:
> > be a which hunter. Hunt down the "whiches" and replace them with "that"
> > as often as possible.
MC:
> Even the best writers of British English tend to use that and which as
> interchangeable. It's much more of a concern to users (especially
> editors) of American English.
I _did_ say even the literate are liable to make this mistake, di'n' I?
Wes Groleau
> THE number one grammatical error is the extra apostrophe in the
> possessive, "its". Or is it a speling eror? Or ignernce?
Its all 3 :-)
--
Wes Groleau
Ruining the moment
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=61
Wes Groleau
> Ignorance. One can unfailingly distinguish between the literate and the
> functionally illiterate by the way they write words that sound alike.
>
> People who don't read have no way of knowing the difference between
Ah, so they could cure their problem if they would
spend more time pouring over books?
--
Wes Groleau
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ A UNIX signature isn't a return address, it's the ASCII equivalent ^
^ of a black velvet clown painting. It's a rectangle of carets ^
^ surrounding a quote from a literary giant of weeniedom like ^
^ Heinlein or Dr. Who. ^
^ -- Chris Maeda ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wes Groleau
>
> Very insightful. ;P
Are you trying to insight a flame war?
--
Wes Groleau
The Miracle Worker?
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=668
Davoud
> > following:
> >
> > suppose to (correct: supposed to)
> > ice tea (iced tea)
> > whip cream (whipped cream)
> > mash potatoes (mashed potatoes)
D.F. Manno:
> The last three could be regional idioms, not errors.
Uh, no, because we don't write idioms unless we are writing dialogue.
In idiomatic speech it is fine to say "s'pose ta" and "ice tea" and the
like because it is difficult to pronounce a "d" when the next word
begins with a consonant without adding unusual emphasis to the "ed"
syllable and an unnaturally long pause between words. But writing isn't
speech and it is not meant to emulate speech.
That's the whole point; the illiterate write the way they speak because
they don't read and they don't know the right way to write. And no, I'm
not the police and I don't make or enforce the rules, but there _are_
rules and I try to be aware of them and to obey them -- lest I show
myself to be an illiterate.
I forgot to mention "hay" for the correct "hey," "yay" vice "yea," and
"Here! Here!" for affirmation. The correct words are "Hear! Hear!" but
only a reader would know that.
John McWilliams
> In article <050120101814300100%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Functional illiterates are unlikely to write the correct form of the
>> following:
>>
>> suppose to (correct: supposed to)
>> ice tea (iced tea)
>> whip cream (whipped cream)
>> mash potatoes (mashed potatoes)
>
> The last three could be regional idioms, not errors.
It still occasionally gives me a chill that at least one supermarket in
No. California has gone to
"can food"
"ice tea"
etc. Haven't yet seen "froze" food, but that's next.
Pronounciation: We're used to "Mary hadda little lamb", but some
broadcasters now say
"He hadda do that". "Soph- a - more" instead of Soph-more. "Ath-a-lete"
in place of ath-lete. Now also hearing: "They ran the ball to they
[their] left side of the line"- admittedly only on sports broadcasts so
far....
--
John McWilliams
John McWilliams
> John McWilliams wrote:
>> THE number one grammatical error is the extra apostrophe in the
>> possessive, "its". Or is it a speling eror? Or ignernce?
>
> Its all 3 :-)
Sweet! U gottem all 3 in the min. poss.
--
John McWilliams
Never use a large word when a diminutive one will do.
Don Bruder
John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> in place of ath-lete. Now also hearing: "They ran the ball to they
> [their] left side of the line"- admittedly only on sports broadcasts so
That observation, particularly the "where it's being heard" part, speaks
volumes.
(And it doesn't say anything that's even *REMOTELY* nice about sports
broadcasting - but then, why SHOULD it?)
--
Email shown is deceased. If you would like to contact me by email, please
post something that makes it obvious in this or another group you see me
posting in with a "how to contact you" address, and I'll get back to you.
Michael Siemon
wrote:
> Davoud:
> > > Functional illiterates don't know when to use "that" in place of
> > > "which." In fact, this one often trips up the literate as well. Hint:
> > > be a which hunter. Hunt down the "whiches" and replace them with "that"
> > > as often as possible.
>
> MC:
> > Even the best writers of British English tend to use that and which as
> > interchangeable. It's much more of a concern to users (especially
> > editors) of American English.
>
> I _did_ say even the literate are liable to make this mistake, di'n' I?
>
> Davoud
It is not a mistake. It is an arbitrary school-marm rule that has NEVER
held sway in educated English usage that way its advocates fondly
believe.
MC
<mlsiemon-8371D4...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
It is not considered a mistake by British editors. It is considered a
mistake by American editors. I find it a useful distinction.
isw
-snip-
> Functional illiterates are unlikely to write the correct form of the
> following:
>
> suppose to (correct: supposed to)
> ice tea (iced tea)
> whip cream (whipped cream)
> mash potatoes (mashed potatoes)
You left out the tasty but frigid treat that President Obama and his
girls had recently -- shaved ice 8^}
Isaac
D.F. Manno
wrote:
> Davoud:
> > > Functional illiterates are unlikely to write the correct form of the
> > > following:
> > >
> > > suppose to (correct: supposed to)
> > > ice tea (iced tea)
> > > whip cream (whipped cream)
> > > mash potatoes (mashed potatoes)
>
> D.F. Manno:
> > The last three could be regional idioms, not errors.
>
> Uh, no, because we don't write idioms unless we are writing dialogue.
> In idiomatic speech it is fine to say "s'pose ta" and "ice tea" and the
> like because it is difficult to pronounce a "d" when the next word
> begins with a consonant without adding unusual emphasis to the "ed"
> syllable and an unnaturally long pause between words. But writing isn't
> speech and it is not meant to emulate speech.
If you're going to make up your own meanings for words, there's not much
point to a discussion:
idiom, noun....
2. the language or dialect of a particular area or group.
3. a people's way of expressing themselves.
Davoud
> > > > Functional illiterates don't know when to use "that" in place of
> > > > "which." In fact, this one often trips up the literate as well. Hint:
> > > > be a which hunter. Hunt down the "whiches" and replace them with "that"
> > > > as often as possible.
> > MC:
> > > Even the best writers of British English tend to use that and which as
> > > interchangeable. It's much more of a concern to users (especially
> > > editors) of American English.
Davoud:
> > I _did_ say even the literate are liable to make this mistake, di'n' I?
Michael Siemon:
> It is not a mistake. It is an arbitrary school-marm rule that has NEVER
> held sway in educated English usage that way its advocates fondly
> believe.
I have just examined 33 e-mail newsletters from Lord Melvyn Bragg, host
of the BBC Radio 4 series "In Our Time." I searched for his usage of
"that" and "which." It would appear that Lord Bragg is on the
school-marm side in this usage, though he does slip occasionally.
The distinction between "which" and "that," _which_ careful writers on
both sides of the Atlantic observe, is, in fact, a clear and important
one, but it is a distinction _that_ even the most careful writers
sometimes forget. A workable, if imperfect, rule is to look for the
comma. If it isn't there, "that" is the word _that_ one should use.
Michael Siemon
wrote:
Sigh. I think you _might_ find it rather interesting to see the take
on this by actual linguists. I highly recommend Language Log, a blog
with its major contributors all very reputable linguists, at
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/
There are numbers of interesting threads, but one that is recurrent
is the issue of the panty-twisted grammar freaks who are all so bloody
sure that _they_ are so very right, but whose own behaviour rather
undercuts their assurance. One delightful exercise is to do something
like a quick reading of Strunk and White, and then go back immediately
to reread and see them blatantly violating their own strictures. Among
the recent notes that touch on issues like this, I suggest
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2019
This is a sort of "meta" appraisal in connection with a book review,
but there are substantive notes on many supposed issues (like the that/
which distinction you are touching on) in the archives there. I do,
very seriously, suggest you look into this. Language snobbery is very
insidiously attractive -- but most of its incarnations are in fact
rather ridiculously devoid of substantive merit.
Nick Naym
at wrote on 1/5/10 8:29 AM:
> In article <C7684C3A.4F3C3%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>, Nick Naym
> <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> writes:
>> In article 040120102226063174%nos...@nospam.invalid, nospam at
>> nos...@nospam.invalid wrote on 1/5/10 1:26 AM:
>>
>>> In article <michelle-EC9D04...@nothing.attdns.com>,
>>> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Do try and pay attention! I'm the one who first cited "definately" in
>>>>> this thread as one of the most common misspellings on the net.
>>>>
>>>> I think the most common one is "alot".
>>>>
>>>> Also among the list is the misuse of "sight site & cite".
>>>
>>> in my experience, it's loose/lose, with affect/effect a distant second.
>>
>> How about "irregardless?"
>
> That's not a misspelling, it's just bad English.
So is misusing sight, site and cite; loose and lose; and affect and effect.
--
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)
Nick Naym
ghost_...@hotmail.com wrote on 1/5/10 12:00 PM:
Are you trying to write a complete sentence?
Michael Siemon
MC <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
You will find that the American editors who "consider it a mistake"
often make that same mistake themselves. All you have to do is grep
through a corpus of their works... :-) Personally, I also found the
distinction "useful" when it was pointed out to me by someone -- until
I realized that the claim was not based on any realities of English
usage. By all means make the distinction in your own usage, if you
like. (But I suggest you not subject yourself to the humiliation of
actually examining your own textual products for consistency in this.
:-))
John Varela
wrote:
> MC wrote:
> > Definately
> >
> Think "Finite"! Then you'll get the spelling of definitely....
Whoosh!
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Richard Wakeford
> pouring
Poring
Sorry ;-)
Davoud
> > > > Functional illiterates are unlikely to write the correct form of the
> > > > following:
> > > >
> > > > suppose to (correct: supposed to)
> > > > ice tea (iced tea)
> > > > whip cream (whipped cream)
> > > > mash potatoes (mashed potatoes)
D.F. Manno:
> > > The last three could be regional idioms, not errors.
> >
> > Uh, no, because we don't write idioms unless we are writing dialogue.
> > In idiomatic speech it is fine to say "s'pose ta" and "ice tea" and the
> > like because it is difficult to pronounce a "d" when the next word
> > begins with a consonant without adding unusual emphasis to the "ed"
> > syllable and an unnaturally long pause between words. But writing isn't
> > speech and it is not meant to emulate speech.
D.F. Manno:
> If you're going to make up your own meanings for words, there's not much
> point to a discussion:
> idiom, noun....
> 2. the language or dialect of a particular area or group.
> 3. a people's way of expressing themselves.
No, that's the meaning of idiom that I understand and to which I was
referring. It's just that one does not write things like "mash
potatoes" unless one is writing dialogue.
Definition 2 is key, because it speaks of _language_ and dialect, which
refer to speech. Though such phrases as "the written language" are
common and convenient, it is important to emphasize that writing is not
language.
Language is what we speak, and there is a growing body of evidence to
indicate that we are genetically wired to develop it.
Writing, unchallenged as the most important invention in human history,
came aeons after language evolved. In no society was writing designed
to be the same as speech, and in every society, writing the way one
speaks signifies lack of knowledge of reading and writing.
Nick Naym
1/5/10 6:14 PM:
> John McWilliams:
>> THE number one grammatical error is the extra apostrophe in the
>> possessive, "its". Or is it a speling eror? Or ignernce?
>
> Ignorance. One can unfailingly distinguish between the literate and the
> functionally illiterate by the way they write words that sound alike.
>
> People who don't read have no way of knowing the difference between
>
> advice - advise
> its - it's
> loose - lose
> templet [sic] - template
> then - than
> there - their
> your - you're
>
> Functional illiterates don't know when to use "that" in place of
> "which." In fact, this one often trips up the literate as well.
True.
> Hint:
> be a which hunter. Hunt down the "whiches" and replace them with "that"
> as often as possible.
That is misleading...it appears to suggest that every occurrence of "which"
needs to be replaced with "that." The only qualifier in that sentence is "as
often as possible." God knows what that means!
The correct statement is: Hunt down the _defining_ "whiches" and replace
them with "that."
> Functional illiterates are unlikely to write the correct form of the
> following:
>
> suppose to (correct: supposed to)
> ice tea (iced tea)
> whip cream (whipped cream)
> mash potatoes (mashed potatoes)
>
> They have no idea how to use commas, apostrophes, quotation marks, or
> hyphens, so they use them haphazardly. That makes them look really
> dumb, which they may not be at all. It ensures that their written words
> won't be taken seriously.
>
> What's wrong with all of that? Simply that (the GW Bush aberration
> notwithstanding)
GW Bush is an idiom. (Sorry for the typo. <wink> )
> literate people are going to continue to call the
> shots, while the ignorant (and, in particular, the willfully ignorant),
> the illiterates, and the just-don't-get-its are going to be standing on
> the sidelines where they have always been, unable to get themselves
> taken seriously, watching history pass them by.
>
> Davoud
--
Ian Gregory
> No, that's the meaning of idiom that I understand and to which I was
> referring. It's just that one does not write things like "mash
> potatoes" unless one is writing dialogue.
Or poetry. For example, pioneering reggae poet Linton Kwesi Johnson (the
alternative poet-laureate) who "revolutionized literary English with his
electrifying fusion of oral verse, Jamaican Creole, radical politics and
dub rhythms". Here is the first verse of "Street 66" as published by
Penguin Classics:
di room was dark-dusk howlin softly
six-a-clak,
charcoal lite defying site woz
movin black;
di soun woz muzik mellow steady flow,
an man-son mind jus mystic red,
green, red, green ... pure scene.
OK, they could have published a phonetic transcript (using the IPA) but
that would have been a great deal less accessible.
Ian
--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
Wes Groleau
> You will find that the American editors who "consider it a mistake"
> often make that same mistake themselves. All you have to do is grep
If you read much in America, you'll find that a lot of American editors
do not understand "pore" vs. "pour"
--
Wes Groleau
"Thinking I'm dumb gives people something to
feel smug about. Why should I disillusion them?"
-- Charles Wallace
(in _A_Wrinkle_In_Time_)
Wes Groleau
I didn't think the smiley was necessary considering
the trend of this conversation.
--
Wes Groleau
Ostracism: A practice of sticking your head in the sand.
Davoud
> > No, that's the meaning of idiom that I understand and to which I was
> > referring. It's just that one does not write things like "mash
> > potatoes" unless one is writing dialogue.
Ian Gregory
> Or poetry.
Of course.
> For example, pioneering reggae poet Linton Kwesi Johnson (the
> alternative poet-laureate) who "revolutionized literary English with his
> electrifying fusion of oral verse, Jamaican Creole, radical politics and
> dub rhythms".
The claim that the largely unknown poet Kwesi Johnson has
"revolutionized literary English" is the most hyperbolical bit of
advertising that I have seen in a long time!
MC
<mlsiemon-0A67E1...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
Who said all editors were competent?!!!
Here's another usage I don't care for in the context of "that" and
"which": "that" when speaking of people. I prefer "who."
Paul Sture
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> Davoud wrote:
> > Ignorance. One can unfailingly distinguish between the literate and the
> > functionally illiterate by the way they write words that sound alike.
> >
> > People who don't read have no way of knowing the difference between
>
> Ah, so they could cure their problem if they would
> spend more time pouring over books?
Yes, and be able to say "My cup runneth over".
--
Paul Sture
Ian Gregory
> The claim that the largely unknown poet Kwesi Johnson has
> "revolutionized literary English" is the most hyperbolical bit of
> advertising that I have seen in a long time!
I don't know about elsewhere but in England LKJ is (alongside people
like Seamus Heaney) one of the best known living poets there is. He was
also only the second living poet to be published in the Penguin Classics
series. Has he "revolutionized literary English"? I don't know, but
neither do I know of any other living author who has a stronger claim to
have done so.
John McWilliams
> Richard Wakeford wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:37:19 -0500, Wes Groleau wrote:
>>
>>> pouring
>>
>> Poring
>>
>> Sorry ;-)
>
> I didn't think the smiley was necessary considering
> the trend of this conversation.
But, then, perhaps a smiley would have been "a good thing"?
IAE:
Anyone know a good way to distinguish when to use "take" and when to use
"bring"? I get it o.k. for most of it, but sometimes am not sure which
is what, that, it, he, him, her, which, those, or she....
--
john mcwilliams
John McWilliams
> In article <hi32fm$l5e$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Anyone know a good way to distinguish when to use "take" and when to use
>> "bring"?
>
>
> You never bring anything; you take it. Other people bring to you.
>
> "Please bring a dish to share because it's a pot luck dinner."
> "Sure, I'll take my cheese soufflé."
"Are you taking your gf to the party?
Yes, I am taking her along.
Please be sure to bring your gf when you come over.
Oh, yes, please do take some choc. cake home with you.
You's gots to dance with them that brung ya. "
Just trying out some phrases. It's simpler than I thought, I guess,
though the baffling ones aren't coming to me. If we can take five, I'll
bring it up later.
>
> "Johnny, take your report card to your parents to sign, and bring it back
> tomorrow."
Yes, I took it home, but then they grounded me....
--
john mcwilliams
D.F. Manno
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Anyone know a good way to distinguish when to use "take" and when to use
> > "bring"?
>
> Yes, take is to somewhere else; bring is to you.
>
> You never bring anything; you take it. Other people bring to you.
>
> "Please bring a dish to share because it's a pot luck dinner."
> "Sure, I'll take my cheese soufflé."
I've never heard anybody speak that way. The reply is almost always
"I'll _bring_ my cheese souffle."
Paul Sture
wrote:
I have another couple of peeves:
"could/should of" instead of "could/should have", e.g. "I could of done
that."
"been" instead of "being", e.g. "I am been pestered."
I could argue that the first of those ("could/should of") falls into
definition 2 above, "the language or dialect of a particular area or
group", since I first heard it at primary school, and still hear it
today when I vist that area.
--
Paul Sture
Paul Sture
"D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
> In article <michelle-F1DE53...@nothing.attdns.com>,
> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>
> > John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone know a good way to distinguish when to use "take" and when to use
> > > "bring"?
> >
> > Yes, take is to somewhere else; bring is to you.
> >
> > You never bring anything; you take it. Other people bring to you.
> >
> > "Please bring a dish to share because it's a pot luck dinner."
> > "Sure, I'll take my cheese soufflé."
>
> I've never heard anybody speak that way. The reply is almost always
> "I'll _bring_ my cheese souffle."
The location of both parties in the conversation is important:
Jack: "Hi John, we're having a party. Please bring a dish to share."
John: "Thanks Jack. We'll bring a cheese souffle."
They both hang up.
John to his wife: "I've promised that we'll take a cheese souffle to
Jack's party"
Jack to his wife: "John has promised to bring a cheese souffle."
--
Paul Sture
MC
> > "Please bring a dish to share because it's a pot luck dinner."
> > "Sure, I'll take my cheese soufflé."
>
> I've never heard anybody speak that way. The reply is almost always
> "I'll _bring_ my cheese souffle."
I'm with you.
MC
Paul Sture <paul....@sture.ch> wrote:
> > I've never heard anybody speak that way. The reply is almost always
> > "I'll _bring_ my cheese souffle."
>
> The location of both parties in the conversation is important:
>
> Jack: "Hi John, we're having a party. Please bring a dish to share."
> John: "Thanks Jack. We'll bring a cheese souffle."
>
> They both hang up.
>
> John to his wife: "I've promised that we'll take a cheese souffle to
> Jack's party"
> Jack to his wife: "John has promised to bring a cheese souffle."
Exactly.
Fred Moore
> In article <hi32fm$l5e$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Anyone know a good way to distinguish when to use "take" and when to use
> > "bring"?
>
> Yes, take is to somewhere else; bring is to you.
>
> You never bring anything; you take it. Other people bring to you.
>
> "Please bring a dish to share because it's a pot luck dinner."
> "Sure, I'll take my cheese soufflé."
>
> "Johnny, take your report card to your parents to sign, and bring it back
> tomorrow."
And the logic of
"I'm gunna take a dump now."
is what? :D
John McWilliams
> In article <dfmanno-CE9687...@news.albasani.net>,
> "D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>> "Please bring a dish to share because it's a pot luck dinner."
>> I've never heard anybody speak that way. The reply is almost always
>> "I'll _bring_ my cheese souffle."
>
> I'm with you.
O.K., we're narrowing in on it, at least for me.
In the above example, it perhaps is dependent on where the party's mind
set is. In speaking to the host, you say, yeah, "I'll bring some cheese
to your house". Then you think to yourself, "I'll stop by the store so I
can take cheese to the party".
--
john mcwilliams
Fred Moore
wrote:
...
> Functional illiterates are unlikely to write the correct form of the
> following:
>
> suppose to (correct: supposed to)
> ice tea (iced tea)
> whip cream (whipped cream)
> mash potatoes (mashed potatoes)
The last three are perfectly legit if used on a storefront. However,
they should be delimited by quotation marks. Perhaps you didn't read the
advertising supplement to Strunk & White. (I'm joking, of course.)
> They have no idea how to use commas, apostrophes, quotation marks, or
> hyphens, so they use them haphazardly. That makes them look really
> dumb, which they may not be at all. It ensures that their written words
> won't be taken seriously.
>
> What's wrong with all of that? Simply that (the GW Bush aberration
> notwithstanding) literate people are going to continue to call the
> shots, while the ignorant (and, in particular, the willfully ignorant),
> the illiterates, and the just-don't-get-its are going to be standing on
> the sidelines where they have always been, unable to get themselves
> taken seriously, watching history pass them by.
GWBush accent/ON/
OK, Day-Voood, yoo can take all that snooty pointy headed intlechul crap
and put it where the sun don't shine. Yur jus tryn to keep the REAL
people down with all that skool marm rules n regulayshun. Yur worsen the
damn gubmint! Jus cuz a cage fighter dudnt know where to put a comma or
pahsterfee, dudnt mean he caint whoop yur ass! Jus cuz Anna Nicole dint
speak the Queens inglush, dudnt mean she waznt twice the women of any
yorn, Gawd res hur sole.
An if yoo think yur gunna rule us, ya got another thing cummin. Long as
we got ar guns n the FOX channel tellin the the truth, yur dayz ur
nummerd!
GWBush accent/OFF/ ;)
Davoud, I'm on your side. I have a host of my own pet usage
peeves--enough to fill a book. However, I'm also a fan of the sentiment:
'Don't let language get in the way of communication.' -- unknown
Just as a brilliant artist can break the rules of composition or color
to create a masterpiece, sometimes one can violate syntax and grammar to
better make a point (I split that infinitive intentionally). Of course,
it helps if you know what you're doing. Fortunately, most of the people
who contribute to comp.sys.mac.* seem to most of the time.
BTW, according to the dictionary which came with 10.5, the first
definition of language is 'the method of human communication,
_either_spoken_OR_written_, consisting of the use of words in a
structured and conventional way' [emphasis added].
Davoud
> I have another couple of peeves:
>
> "could/should of" instead of "could/should have", e.g. "I could of done
> that."
> "been" instead of "being", e.g. "I am been pestered."
>
> I could argue that the first of those ("could/should of") falls into
> definition 2 above, "the language or dialect of a particular area or
> group", since I first heard it at primary school, and still hear it
> today when I vist that area.
If you're talking about writing, "could/should of" is an egregious
error. These are variants of "could've/should've," which should be
written as "could have/should have."
It seems to me that the use "could of/should of" in speech is not so
common; people say "could've/should've" unless they're speaking slowly
(perhaps while pondering) and emphasizing "could" or "should." "No, but
he _could_ of done it."
The use of could've and should've in speech is too widespread in the
U.S. to be considered a regional usage. It's universal here, getting
equal billing with "coulda" and "shoulda." I personally have no problem
with either set so long as they are used in informal speech. Indeed, "I
could have been a contender" would have been quickly forgotten. I use
both sets in certain circumstances.
Using these words in more formal speech reflects poorly on the speaker.
Fred Moore
Richard Wakeford <rwakeford...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:37:19 -0500, Wes Groleau wrote:
>
> > pouring
>
> Poring
Except that Wes was referring to books. A good book is often best
appreciated with a suitable beverage, often replenished. A snifter of
Laphroaig comes to mind.
Richard Wakeford
> A good book is often best
> appreciated with a suitable beverage, often replenished. A snifter of
> Laphroaig comes to mind.
Yes, but you don't pour the Laphroaig over the book which would be such a
waste. You drink that(or McCallum 10 year old) and pore over the book with
your eyes and brain!
Wes Groleau
> And the logic of
>
> "I'm gunna take a dump now."
>
> is what? :D
This is Language.
Logic is in the other building, next door to Mathematics.
Wes Groleau
> Yes, but you don't pour the Laphroaig over the book which would be such a
> waste. You drink that(or McCallum 10 year old) and pore over the book with
> your eyes and brain!
Not if you're a typical American editor.
To them, pour is a verb, synonym of study
and pore is a noun associated with acne.
--
Wes Groleau
On not nodding to Black people
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1019
Wes Groleau
> In article <050120101814300100%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
> wrote:
> ...
>> Functional illiterates are unlikely to write the correct form of the
>> following:
>>
>> suppose to (correct: supposed to)
>> ice tea (iced tea)
>> whip cream (whipped cream)
>> mash potatoes (mashed potatoes)
>
> The last three are perfectly legit if used on a storefront. However,
> they should be delimited by quotation marks. Perhaps you didn't read the
> advertising supplement to Strunk & White. (I'm joking, of course.)
The last three are legit if you are Mexican, own a restaurant,
and are giving commands to your illegal immigrant kitchen
workers from across the river.
--
Wes Groleau
Thinking it Through, Two
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=506
Steven Fisher
> Functional illiterates are unlikely to write the correct form of the
> following:
>
> suppose to (correct: supposed to)
> ice tea (iced tea)
> whip cream (whipped cream)
> mash potatoes (mashed potatoes)
The "whip cream" to "whipped cream" is weaker than the others here.
While "whipped cream" is great for the frothy, whipped stuff, it seems
incorrect for cream intending for whipping that hasn't been whipped yet.
In this case, while "whipping cream" is most correct I would prefer
"whip cream" to "whipped cream."
For that matter, I think dictionaries recognize "ice tea" now. It might
make sense for powders than "iced tea," for kind of the same reason as
whipping cream. A can of "iced tea" really makes no sense at all. I
dunno. I need to think of the iced tea one more.
The illiteracy I have a special hatred for is "try and," as in "I'll try
and call you tonight." Ugh. I flinch every time.
Steve
Richard Wakeford
> pore is a noun associated with acne.
Pore (v) : To gaze with close and steady attention. To ponder.
Chambers 20th Century Dictionary
John McWilliams
And, Wes has thousands of pores. So do you, and I do, too. Thank
heavens; they're an integral part of skin, not necessarily acne.....
--
John McWilliams
Fred Moore
Steven Fisher <sdfi...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> In article <050120101814300100%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Functional illiterates are unlikely to write the correct form of the
> > following:
> >
> > suppose to (correct: supposed to)
> > ice tea (iced tea)
> > whip cream (whipped cream)
> > mash potatoes (mashed potatoes)
>
> The "whip cream" to "whipped cream" is weaker than the others here.
> While "whipped cream" is great for the frothy, whipped stuff, it seems
> incorrect for cream intending for whipping that hasn't been whipped yet.
> In this case, while "whipping cream" is most correct I would prefer
> "whip cream" to "whipped cream."
'Whip cream' is a special product for the S&M crowd. Just the right
butterfat content to add snap while lubricating.
Richard Wakeford
> And, Wes has thousands of pores. So do you, and I do, too. Thank
> heavens; they're an integral part of skin, not necessarily acne.....
Yes, that's the noun, but the original comment came when Wes wrote "pouring
over a book" (as in reading it) which is incorrect. The correct verb is
poring.
Oh I give up ;-)
John McWilliams
Not to worry! I read the entire thread. I understood. My comment was
mostly gratuitous, but did want to say that pores aren't necessarily
connected with acne. I believe we all sweat (or glow) via them, and
other good things.
--
john mcwilliams
Wes Groleau
This whole thread has been about people
not knowing what words mean, yet when
I point out another common mistake,
you feel that _I_ am the one who needs
to be educated on it?
If you had paused just a few seconds longer
before "correcting" me, you might not have
even started anything you'd have to give up on.
--
Wes Groleau
Secunia Software to help you update
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1430
Richard Wakeford
> This whole thread has been about people
> not knowing what words mean, yet when
> I point out another common mistake,
> you feel that _I_ am the one who needs
> to be educated on it?
But I wasn't sure if you were being facile or not when I wrote my first
message which is why I added "sorry ;-)" after it.
> If you had paused just a few seconds longer
> before "correcting" me, you might not have
> even started anything you'd have to give up on.
If you had put "pouring" in quotes then I'd have definitely known you were
tongue in cheek with the comment. There had been so many similar mistakes
before hand that I just thought it was another.
I don't normally post on newsgroups, I just read and learn and ask the
occasional question or make the very occasional comment, but I do find the
standard of grammar quite lamentable and people seem happy with the lowest
common denominator. Sometimes sentences are really hard to understand when
wrong words or punctuations are used. You wrote "pouring" and I instantly
thought of someone literally pouring something over the page.
I shall, from now on, ignore all bad grammar and just accept that many
people don't care about the finer points of the English language and the
fact that, if spoken and written well, it is far easier to understand.
Whenever comments are made about faults on any of the newsgroups the
authors are instantly jumped on as being pernickety. I'm not saying that
you said I was, I realise (or hope) that you thought I'd misunderstood.
I shall now go back to lurking :-)
Wes Groleau
> I shall, from now on, ignore all bad grammar and just accept that many
> people don't care about the finer points of the English language and the
> fact that, if spoken and written well, it is far easier to understand.
Too true--although it's probably ignorance more often than negligence.
> Whenever comments are made about faults on any of the newsgroups the
> authors are instantly jumped on as being pernickety. I'm not saying that
> you said I was, I realise (or hope) that you thought I'd misunderstood.
I figured that, but I was frustrated at my inability to get the point
across without bluntly saying "I didn't mean that"
> I shall now go back to lurking :-)
Oh, don't do that! We always need more sane people to compensate
for the others!
--
Wes Groleau
Guidelines for judging others:
1. Don't attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
2. Don't attribute to stupidity that which
can be adequately explained by ignorance.
3. Don't attribute to ignorance that which
can be adequately explained by misunderstanding.
SpaceMonkeyGleep
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> Richard Wakeford wrote:
> > I shall, from now on, ignore all bad grammar and just accept that many
> > people don't care about the finer points of the English language and the
> > fact that, if spoken and written well, it is far easier to understand.
>
> Too true--although it's probably ignorance more often than negligence.
>
> > Whenever comments are made about faults on any of the newsgroups the
> > authors are instantly jumped on as being pernickety. I'm not saying that
> > you said I was, I realise (or hope) that you thought I'd misunderstood.
>
> I figured that, but I was frustrated at my inability to get the point
> across without bluntly saying "I didn't mean that"
>
> > I shall now go back to lurking :-)
>
> Oh, don't do that! We always need more sane people to compensate
> for the others!
I've often wondered -
If the speaker/writer manages to get the point (s)he's trying to make
across, is it not fair to say that (s)he has used the language
effectively?
The point doesn't come across "better" due to being delivered in "Strunk
approved" form, nor does it come across "worse" if delivered in "ghetto
ho-ese" - If the thought is conveyed clearly enough that the
listener/reader can comprehend it, isn't that the ultimate goal?
It seems to me that anything else is just a beauty pageant, and worth
*EXACTLY* as much. (namely, not a damn thing)
That said, I do have a few pet peeves regarding language, the most
irritating one being the misuse of "apostrophe-ess" to pluralize. Is
there *EVER* a situation where this is even slightly acceptable (and
therefore lacking in the stigma of illiteracy) or is it, as I suspect,
*ALWAYS AND FOREVER* completely wrong to attempt to make a plural by the
addition of "'s" on the end of a word?
One of my favorite (think "most hated") examples was a sign I routinely
had to pass while plying my trade - For several months, I had to go by
it at least twice, sometimes as many as six times in a day, so it was
unavoidable. And every time I went by, it leaped out at me in a massive
wave of annoyance. The sign?
Daubed onto both sides of a roughly 4 by 4 foot piece of bare plywood
using John Deer Green paint, in "I failed kindergarten - TWICE" all-caps
block letters about a foot high, was the text
FRESH EGG'S
4
SALE
Eventually, over my protests, the driveway that hosted the sign became
part of my delivery route, so rather than simply passing by it, I
actually had to pull in and make my delivery. Imagine my surprise when,
during the first delivery, I found that *EVERYTHING* I had ever thought
about the "bumpkin" status of the place was confirmed - I have little
doubt that every Jeff Foxworthy "If you've ever... ...you might be a
redneck" joke that's ever been told was represented somewhere on the
property. Amongst the I-don't-even-want-to-guess-how-many chickens
milling about could be seen many examples - No less than 9 cars up on
blocks, in various stages of disassembly and/or decomposition, several
of them with grass and weeds (and in one case, what appeared to be a
young apple tree) growing up through and poking out of the open hoods
and/or trunks. At least 11 mongrel dogs, all looking emaciated and
mangy. The traditional hillbilly tarpaper shack. Three camper-trailers,
only one with any visible wheels, all sporting blue-tarp awnings, and
one apparently using the blue tarp as a roof. The traditional piles of
metal junk that might once have been useful items such as tractors or
similar equipment, but had long since turned into rusting waste, and a
corrugated tin henhouse (from which, presumably, the advertised EGG'S
came) that looked as though a strong breeze would level it. All of it
covered in various layers of (you guessed it...) chicken crap.
Sometimes, "illiterate" is "skin deep". Other times, like that place,
it's "to the bone". Or beyond...
--
GLEEEEEP!
It ain't the bullet with my name on it that I'm afraid of - There's no dodging
that one. It's the one addressed "To whom it may concern" that worries me.
Davoud
> I've often wondered -
> If the speaker/writer manages to get the point (s)he's trying to make
> across, is it not fair to say that (s)he has used the language
> effectively?
No, it is not fair to say that, but it's is not black and white,
either. For whom is one writing? If for other functionally illiterate
persons, then one may have done OK. Or maybe not. If a dozen people
read what one writes and they go away with a dozen different
understandings, that is not effective writing.
If one is writing for literate persons, one will _try_ to write
properly. One will make mistakes sometimes, and the most frustrating of
those mistakes will come as a result of having read too much stuff that
is written by functionally illiterate persons.
Consider the larger effect of non-standard writing. If 300 million
people speak and write in their own way without regard to convention,
which is distilled from the large and extremely diverse body of
literary work that is deemed by educated people to represent elegant,
beautiful, and meaningful writing, how will we teach children and
non-natives to speak and write? Where would effective language use be?
Whom do you want to write the maintenance manual for the airliner on
which you fly, and whom do you want to read it? Ditto the books from
which your physician learned his art and science.
I'm with Dr. Cosby <http://tinyurl.com/cosby-english> and with those
who say that the use non-standard English is a guarantee of economic,
intellectual, and spiritual poverty. It's equivalent to tattooing the
Iron Cross and Death's Head all over one's face; it signifies that one
is a social misfit who is destined to stand on the sidelines and watch
the world pass one by.
> The point doesn't come across "better" due to being delivered in "Strunk
> approved" form, nor does it come across "worse" if delivered in "ghetto
> ho-ese" - If the thought is conveyed clearly enough that the
> listener/reader can comprehend it, isn't that the ultimate goal?
Bzzzzt! Wrong answer. Refer to Dr. Cosby again; also consider again
whom you want to write your aircraft maintenance manual. I'll spend all
day trying to understand a sentence improperly written by a non-native
speaker who is learning English, but I won't give 30 seconds to a
native who can't write proper English. Chances are, if he can't write
properly, he can't think properly, and his ideas are of no interest to
me.
> It seems to me that anything else is just a beauty pageant, and worth
> *EXACTLY* as much. (namely, not a damn thing)
Bzzzzt!
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all
������� Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
--Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn, 1819.
> That said, I do have a few pet peeves regarding language....
A confession that you value beauty in language, after all.
JF Mezei
> There was one place where the sign on the restroom was "Ladie's".
It should have been "Lady's bathroom"
In French/Qu�bec, there are verbs such as "manger" (to eat), and "mang�"
(eaten).
Both are pronounced the same. And very often, you see hand made signs
along the roads that use the wrong spelling.
Wes Groleau
>> The point doesn't come across "better" due to being delivered in "Strunk
>> approved" form, nor does it come across "worse" if delivered in "ghetto
>> ho-ese" - If the thought is conveyed clearly enough that the
>> listener/reader can comprehend it, isn't that the ultimate goal?
>
> Bzzzzt! Wrong answer. Refer to Dr. Cosby again; also consider again
> whom you want to write your aircraft maintenance manual. I'll spend all
> day trying to understand a sentence improperly written by a non-native
> speaker who is learning English, but I won't give 30 seconds to a
> native who can't write proper English. Chances are, if he can't write
> properly, he can't think properly, and his ideas are of no interest to
> me.
Skill at writing and skill at thinking are not invariably connected.
Someone, I think Jon Postel, said regarding communications protocols,
"Be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you produce."
However ignorant a person may be, he/she still merits at least some
civility as a fellow human.
On the other hand, ....
Your writing may seem perfectly normal to 75%, and graciously silently
tolerated by 20%, but
- There are always the 5% of curmudgeons that will verbally abuse you
for things that haven't even been _ever_ considered errors by most
educated people.
- The twenty percent may be forgiving, but that doesn't mean they don't
in their own minds make assumptions about you that may not be to your
advantage.
--
Wes Groleau
You be the judge
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=463
JF Mezei
> It should simply have been "Ladies".
I know this is getting pedantic here but...
would a sign on the door for a bathroom be better if it were LADIES'
and MEN'S ?
(the ladies' bathroom, the Men's bathroom).
Fred Moore
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
But since we're _being_ pedantic... ;)
The only place I have seen public baths in the general vicinity of
public excrement receptacles is at truck stops where professional
trucker can use them to bathe (well, okay, beach facilities, too). So
'rest' seems a bit more applicable than 'bath'. IMO 'men's toilet' or
'ladies'(s) toilet' is more accurate. However, what's infinitely more
important than what they're called is that they are operational.