A lot v alot
CatalinaIslandView
so much and continues to constantly do so and we don't have an
Academy, what/who is the final authority on our language? For example,
"a lot" was the correct spelling but lately I see it spelled "alot" in
various publications. When is a spelling or usage wrong (contact and
intrigue were not originally verbs and now are) or when is the word in
transition and will eventually be accepted as correct? I'm sorry this
is not very articulate but it's early in the morning...
Thanks for any help. I'm sorry this ng seems to have changed for the
worse. I've been reading it almost since the beginning.
TIA
Harlan Messinger
> Can a linguist answer this question for me? Since English has changed
> so much and continues to constantly do so and we don't have an
> Academy, what/who is the final authority on our language?
No one. Various publishers produce style guides that are authoritative
for works published under their aegis and that other organizations and
individuals find useful to adopt because they provide a measure of
reason and consistency, but there is no overarching final authority.
> For example,
> "a lot" was the correct spelling but lately I see it spelled "alot" in
> various publications. When is a spelling or usage wrong (contact and
> intrigue were not originally verbs and now are) or when is the word in
> transition and will eventually be accepted as correct? I'm sorry this
> is not very articulate but it's early in the morning...
There's no one answer to this. Generally they become "accepted" when
they come to be used often enough by people who write carefully. It's a
circular criterion.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
There's a difference between spellings and word usage and vocabulary.
For spelling, there is a "correct" (sometimes more than one) and an
"incorrect," and in the English-speaking world, fortunately, it is not
governments that try to impose such decisions, but respectable
publishers, particularly of dictionaries -- going back to Samuel
Johnson in 1755 (who was the first to try to include _all_ words in
his dictionary, not just "hard words").
For word usage, such as verbal "contact," if people say it, and are
understood, and don't "sound funny" when they say it, it has become
part of the language. Sometimes such things are resisted -- yesterday
someone mentioned that in a certain company they say "incent" a lot --
meaning 'incentivize'. Will that catch on?
For vocabulary, there are several ways for new words to come into use.
They can simply be invented (like gas and quark and Kodak and Xerox).
They can be borrowed from other languages when new things become known
(like moccasin and tomato and sushi). They can percolate up from slang
and jargon until the general population becomes comfortable using them
(and then they lose their social value as slang and jargon, too).
Adam Funk
["a lot" vs "alot"]
> There's a difference between spellings and word usage and vocabulary.
>
> For spelling, there is a "correct" (sometimes more than one) and an
> "incorrect," and in the English-speaking world, fortunately, it is not
> governments that try to impose such decisions, but respectable
> publishers, particularly of dictionaries -- going back to Samuel
> Johnson in 1755 (who was the first to try to include _all_ words in
> his dictionary, not just "hard words").
>
> For word usage, such as verbal "contact," if people say it, and are
> understood, and don't "sound funny" when they say it, it has become
> part of the language. Sometimes such things are resisted -- yesterday
> someone mentioned that in a certain company they say "incent" a lot --
> meaning 'incentivize'. Will that catch on?
Is there any argument that "alot" sounds different from "a lot"?
I've read claims (which I find hard to believe) that some people
pronounce "would of" differently from "would've".
--
Usenet is a cesspool, a dung heap. [Patrick A. Townson]
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2009-10-12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> ["a lot" vs "alot"]
>
> > There's a difference between spellings and word usage and vocabulary.
>
> > For spelling, there is a "correct" (sometimes more than one) and an
> > "incorrect," and in the English-speaking world, fortunately, it is not
> > governments that try to impose such decisions, but respectable
> > publishers, particularly of dictionaries -- going back to Samuel
> > Johnson in 1755 (who was the first to try to include _all_ words in
> > his dictionary, not just "hard words").
>
> > For word usage, such as verbal "contact," if people say it, and are
> > understood, and don't "sound funny" when they say it, it has become
> > part of the language. Sometimes such things are resisted -- yesterday
> > someone mentioned that in a certain company they say "incent" a lot --
> > meaning 'incentivize'. Will that catch on?
>
> Is there any argument that "alot" sounds different from "a lot"?
'Course not. Cf. <allot>. What does that have to do with anything I
said?
> I've read claims (which I find hard to believe) that some people
> pronounce "would of" differently from "would've".
There would be a difference if they supposed that "'ve" is an
abbreviation for some word or other, instead of being just the clitic
it is.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
wrote:
This is really not on the topic of correctness or linguistic
authority, but the subject line made me think of something else I've
been meaning to ask about. In my own English I have two pronunciations
of the negative-emphatic item "at all" (as in "not at all"), both of
which seem equally natural to me. One has the /t/ flapped, as it would
be in "at others", and the other has the /t/ aspirated as it would be
in "a tall" or "attack". So the first would represent the more
conservative two-word treatment, and the second treats it as a single
word. Are both these common?
Ross Clark
DKleinecke
With me it is a register difference. If I am speaking informally it
"would have" sounds exactly like "would of". More formally I really
do articulate the "have". I don't think "would of" actually occurs in
either register so there is no confusion. Likewise all the other
auxiliaries that can take "have". I predict that fully articulated
"have" will be obsolete is another century.
DKleinecke
Are you sure?
I pronounce "a tall" or "attack" with the accent on the second
syllable and the 't' is aspirated as usual. I pronounce "at all" with
the accent on the "at" and the 't' is flapped. Perhaps you use the
two different accent patterns in free variation.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Nope, the accent is on the second syllable in both variants.
Ross Clark
Peter T. Daniels
It's (synchronically) neither "of" nor "have." it's just /v/ or /@v/.
BTW yesterday at Borders I saw a book that might be sort of what
you're looking for -- called *1000 Typefaces*, no author prominently
acknowledged, published by Chronicle Books, $29.95. Some fonts get
featured two-page displays, most are two to four per page, and every
one has a paragraph of evaluation -- and some of the evaluations are
fairly negative.
Peter T. Daniels
Flapped seems US, aspirated UK.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Ah, my ambivalent Canadian heritage again...
But what interests me is: I assume that flap means (some kind of)
boundary following the /t/, and aspiration means none. And it seems to
me that synchronically lexically semantically the expression is a
single morpheme. So is the flapped version genuinely conservative
(phonology lagging behind semantics) or is it perhaps influenced by
the spelling? Which is why I connected it with "alot" vs "a lot".
There's one important difference, though, and that's the possibility
of interpolating (at least) "whole" between the words, whereas as far
as I know nothing can intervene in "at all". (Both "at- fucking/bloody-
all" and "a-fucking/bloody-tall" sound ridiculous.)
Ross Clark
Franz Gnaedinger
wrote:
If 'a lot' is written 'alot' it becomes a word like 'all'
or 'many' or 'five' and had to be treated alike:
'all books', 'many books', 'five books', 'alot books'
instead of 'a lot of books'. Does any of those
publishers go so far as to write and print 'alot books'?
Language development and evolution goes along
with technology. The more new technology, the more
language change. Information technology already
produced 20,000 new English words, and this
goes along with often drastic simplification of words
and of grammar as well. It is even a game people
play: who can come up with the most curageous
and funny but sensible abbreviation? They try
nearly everything, and a few abbreaviations catch
on, while most of them are ignored. The same as
with inventions: only a few really ingenious ones
make sense, the others are soon forgotten.
Language development and evolution demands
genius, and I consider 'alot of books' or correctly
'alot books' not really ingenious, but who knows?
Hans Aberg
> If 'a lot' is written 'alot' it becomes a word like 'all'
> or 'many' or 'five' and had to be treated alike:
> 'all books', 'many books', 'five books', 'alot books'
> instead of 'a lot of books'.
Or perhaps "alotof", like "albeit". English already has such constructs.
Hans
PaulJK
> Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
>> If 'a lot' is written 'alot' it becomes a word like 'all'
>> or 'many' or 'five' and had to be treated alike:
>> 'all books', 'many books', 'five books', 'alot books'
>> instead of 'a lot of books'.
Here and there, you may hear something like "a lotta books",
but "alot books"? Who have you heard say that?
pjk
Ruud Harmsen
<paul....@paradise.net.nz>: in sci.lang:
>Hans Aberg wrote:
>> Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
>>> If 'a lot' is written 'alot' it becomes a word like 'all'
>>> or 'many' or 'five' and had to be treated alike:
>>> 'all books', 'many books', 'five books', 'alot books'
>>> instead of 'a lot of books'.
>
>Here and there, you may hear something like "a lotta books",
>but "alot books"? Who have you heard say that?
I like this comment alot.
Whole lotta luv. AC/DC. No, whole lotta woman.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.eu
PaulJK
Yeah, you say whole lotta luv, that's a lotta luv, man.
Yeah, I say that alot.
pjk
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> Or perhaps "alotof", like "albeit". English already has such constructs.
Do you also say afew?
I am no native speaker of English, but I discern
a slight semantic difference between 'few' and
'a few':
few papers have been written on this question
= I am an expert in the field, I know the authors
who work on this question and the papers they
wrote, and they are small in number
few papers have been written on this topic
= the topic is new, only a few papers have
been written on it so far, some of them I know,
of some others I have heard, and there might
be some more, but not many, all in all only
a few papers
If this holds we would have to say few in the first
case and afew in the second case, while saying
'alot' but 'a few' makes no sense, because using
only one word for a lot and two words for a few
is contrary to what one may call a depicting truth
of language: a lot of words and letters or at least
two words (a lot) or three words (a lot of) for
many things, one word (few or afew) for a small
number of things.
It's getting awfully complicated!
Ruud Harmsen
<fr...@bluemail.ch>: in sci.lang:
>I am no native speaker of English, but I discern
>a slight semantic difference between 'few' and
>'a few':
Ja. Few = wenige, a few = einige.
(English-Deutsch).
Dutch: weinig/enkele.
Not the same thing. "Few" is a low number, "a few" is an unspecified
(usually not very great) number of objects.
Hans Aberg
> Hans Aberg wrote:
>> Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
>>> If 'a lot' is written 'alot' it becomes a word like 'all'
>>> or 'many' or 'five' and had to be treated alike:
>>> 'all books', 'many books', 'five books', 'alot books'
>>> instead of 'a lot of books'.
>
> Here and there, you may hear something like "a lotta books",
> but "alot books"? Who have you heard say that?
> pjk
You misquoted, making look as though I said it, and then the error is
propagated down the thread.
Hans
Peter T. Daniels
I think the aspirated version is spelled <a-tall>.
Do you have the McCawley Fs. (*Studies Out in Left Field*)? I think
that's where Quang Phuc Dong (aka JMcC)'s piece on the fucking infix
was published. It seems morpheme boundaries are irrelevant, because we
have both "abso-bloomin'-lutely" and "in-fuckin'-credible"; is there
maybe a constraint that you need more than two syllables?
Peter T. Daniels
> On Oct 13, 10:27 am, Hans Aberg <haberg_20080...@math.su.se> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Or perhaps "alotof", like "albeit". English already has such constructs.
>
> Do you also say afew?
>
> I am no native speaker of English, but I discern
> a slight semantic difference between 'few' and
> 'a few':
Unfortunately you left the "a" out of both your examples. (Which I
personally prefer to "both of your examples," but my publisher Jim
Eisenbraun, an Indiana native, insists that there are American
dialects where quantifiers like "both" and "all" cannot be treated
like adjectives but must be treated like nouns with the "of.")
> few papers have been written on this question
> = I am an expert in the field, I know the authors
> who work on this question and the papers they
> wrote, and they are small in number
only the last five words are needed to define "few papers"
> few papers have been written on this topic
> = the topic is new, only a few papers have
> been written on it so far, some of them I know,
> of some others I have heard, and there might
> be some more, but not many, all in all only
> a few papers
One really can't use the expression being defined within the
definition!
only the last seven words are needed to define "a few papers"
This is one of the easiest ways to identify a non-native speaker. The
distinction is hard to explicate. Perhaps it helps to recall *"only
few"; only "only a few" is possible.
"Few papers have been written" calls attention to the gap in the
literature.
"A few papers have been written" suggests that an effort has been made
to fill the gap in the literature.
(Which reminds me, an Oxford University Press advertisement printed in
the journal *Language* some years ago _actually said_ "This volume
fills a much-needed gap in the literature.")
> If this holds we would have to say few in the first
> case and afew in the second case, while saying
> 'alot' but 'a few' makes no sense, because using
> only one word for a lot and two words for a few
> is contrary to what one may call a depicting truth
> of language: a lot of words and letters or at least
> two words (a lot) or three words (a lot of) for
> many things, one word (few or afew) for a small
> number of things.
The way you spell it has nothing to do "how many words you are
saying." The two expressions are the same length and their spellings
are historical accident.
> It's getting awfully complicated!
Which is yet another reason why "Magdalenian" is not a legitimate
proposal for a human language.
PaulJK
Sorry, as the quote marks in the above text show, I was
responding to what Franz said. I referred to 'alot books'
which is exactly what Franz said.
pjk
Hans Aberg
> Hans Aberg wrote:
>> PaulJK wrote:
>>> Hans Aberg wrote:
>>>> Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
>>>>> If 'a lot' is written 'alot' it becomes a word like 'all'
>>>>> or 'many' or 'five' and had to be treated alike:
>>>>> 'all books', 'many books', 'five books', 'alot books'
>>>>> instead of 'a lot of books'.
>>> Here and there, you may hear something like "a lotta books",
>>> but "alot books"? Who have you heard say that?
>>> pjk
>> propagated down the thread.
> Sorry, as the quote marks in the above text show, I was
> responding to what Franz said. I referred to 'alot books'
> which is exactly what Franz said.
Then you should have answered directly to Franz's post. In addition to
the formally correct quoting being hard to see, some newsreaders keep
track of the threading*), which will come out wrong.
Hans
*) Like <http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/thunderbird/>
Adam Funk
> Do you have the McCawley Fs. (*Studies Out in Left Field*)? I think
> that's where Quang Phuc Dong (aka JMcC)'s piece on the fucking infix
> was published. It seems morpheme boundaries are irrelevant, because we
> have both "abso-bloomin'-lutely" and "in-fuckin'-credible"; is there
> maybe a constraint that you need more than two syllables?
I can't think of an example with fewer than two syllables in the
original word, but in "bass-ackwards" the interpolation comes inside
the first one.
--
...the reason why so many professional artists drink a lot is not
necessarily very much to do with the artistic temperament, etc. It is
simply that they can afford to, because they can normally take a large
part of a day off to deal with the ravages. [Amis _On Drink_]
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2009-10-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > Do you have the McCawley Fs. (*Studies Out in Left Field*)? I think
> > that's where Quang Phuc Dong (aka JMcC)'s piece on the fucking infix
> > was published. It seems morpheme boundaries are irrelevant, because we
> > have both "abso-bloomin'-lutely" and "in-fuckin'-credible"; is there
> > maybe a constraint that you need more than two syllables?
>
> I can't think of an example with fewer than two syllables in the
> original word, but in "bass-ackwards" the interpolation comes inside
> the first one.
That's not an infix ("interpolation") -- it's a Spoonerism.
It's pretty safe to say that NO infix can intervene _within_ a
syllable in English.
Adam Funk
> On Oct 14, 9:16 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-10-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> > Do you have the McCawley Fs. (*Studies Out in Left Field*)? I think
>> > that's where Quang Phuc Dong (aka JMcC)'s piece on the fucking infix
>> > was published. It seems morpheme boundaries are irrelevant, because we
>> > have both "abso-bloomin'-lutely" and "in-fuckin'-credible"; is there
>> > maybe a constraint that you need more than two syllables?
>>
>> I can't think of an example with fewer than two syllables in the
>> original word, but in "bass-ackwards" the interpolation comes inside
>> the first one.
>
> That's not an infix ("interpolation") -- it's a Spoonerism.
I don't see why "bass-ackwards" is any more of a spoonerism or less of
an infix than the two example you gave...
> It's pretty safe to say that NO infix can intervene _within_ a
> syllable in English.
...except that it violates that principle. Maybe the principle isn't
100% correct?
--
Bob just used 'canonical' in the canonical way. [Guy Steele]
Brian M. Scott
<a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in
<news:aohhq6x...@news.ducksburg.com> in sci.lang:
> On 2009-10-14, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 9:16�am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>> On 2009-10-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> Do you have the McCawley Fs. (*Studies Out in Left Field*)? I think
>>>> that's where Quang Phuc Dong (aka JMcC)'s piece on the fucking infix
>>>> was published. It seems morpheme boundaries are irrelevant, because we
>>>> have both "abso-bloomin'-lutely" and "in-fuckin'-credible"; is there
>>>> maybe a constraint that you need more than two
>>> I can't think of an example with fewer than two syllables in the
>>> original word, but in "bass-ackwards" the interpolation comes inside
>>> the first one.
>> That's not an infix ("interpolation") -- it's a Spoonerism.
> I don't see why "bass-ackwards" is any more of a spoonerism or less of
> an infix than the two example you gave...
It obviously is a Spoonerism of <ass backwards>,
interchanging null (at the beginning of <ass> and /b/ (at
the beginning of <backwards>). It clearly isn't derived
from <backwards> by infixation of <ass>.
<Abso-bloomin'-lutely> and <in-fickin'-credible> clearly are
not Spoonerisms of anything and clearly do show infixation.
[...]
Brian
Adam Funk
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:26:50 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
>> I don't see why "bass-ackwards" is any more of a spoonerism or less of
>> an infix than the two example you gave...
>
> It obviously is a Spoonerism of <ass backwards>,
> interchanging null (at the beginning of <ass> and /b/ (at
> the beginning of <backwards>). It clearly isn't derived
> from <backwards> by infixation of <ass>.
><Abso-bloomin'-lutely> and <in-fickin'-credible> clearly are
> not Spoonerisms of anything and clearly do show infixation.
OK, you've convinced me about the spoonerism and non-spoonerisms. But
how is it certain that "bass-ackwards" can't also be viewed as
infixation? Or, how is infixation defined so that this can't be an
example of it?
--
Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results,
but that's not why we do it. [Richard Feynman]
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2009-10-14, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:26:50 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
> >> I don't see why "bass-ackwards" is any more of a spoonerism or less of
> >> an infix than the two example you gave...
>
> > It obviously is a Spoonerism of <ass backwards>,
> > interchanging null (at the beginning of <ass> and /b/ (at
> > the beginning of <backwards>). It clearly isn't derived
> > from <backwards> by infixation of <ass>.
> ><Abso-bloomin'-lutely> and <in-fickin'-credible> clearly are
> > not Spoonerisms of anything and clearly do show infixation.
>
> OK, you've convinced me about the spoonerism and non-spoonerisms. But
> how is it certain that "bass-ackwards" can't also be viewed as
> infixation? Or, how is infixation defined so that this can't be an
> example of it?
Why would you set up an absolutely unique example of "infixing a
morpheme after the onset of a syllable" to account for this one word,
when the process of Spoonerism is a familiar source of language play?
Adam Funk
Why are you incapable of answering an honest question without being
arrogant?
--
hmmmm: sounds like the same DLL hell problem my cousin had. try
deleting all DLLs in your Windows/system32 directory and see what
happens. (Bryce Utting)
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2009-10-15, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 4:13 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2009-10-14, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
> >> > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:26:50 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
> >> >> I don't see why "bass-ackwards" is any more of a spoonerism or less of
> >> >> an infix than the two example you gave...
>
> >> > It obviously is a Spoonerism of <ass backwards>,
> >> > interchanging null (at the beginning of <ass> and /b/ (at
> >> > the beginning of <backwards>). It clearly isn't derived
> >> > from <backwards> by infixation of <ass>.
> >> ><Abso-bloomin'-lutely> and <in-fickin'-credible> clearly are
> >> > not Spoonerisms of anything and clearly do show infixation.
>
> >> OK, you've convinced me about the spoonerism and non-spoonerisms. But
> >> how is it certain that "bass-ackwards" can't also be viewed as
> >> infixation? Or, how is infixation defined so that this can't be an
> >> example of it?
>
> > Why would you set up an absolutely unique example of "infixing a
> > morpheme after the onset of a syllable" to account for this one word,
> > when the process of Spoonerism is a familiar source of language play?
>
> Why are you incapable of answering an honest question without being
> arrogant?
How is that "arrogant"? I asked why you would set up a special process
to cover an individual case when that case is covered by an existing
rule.
But if you want to talk about "arrogant," howcome you hijack
legitimate sci.lang threads by, at some point and without notice,
crossposting them to your infantile buddies at "kibology" (aka the
kibble group)?
Adam Funk
> On Oct 16, 9:14 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> Why are you incapable of answering an honest question without being
>> arrogant?
>
> How is that "arrogant"? I asked why you would set up a special process
> to cover an individual case when that case is covered by an existing
> rule.
It's the way you tell 'em.
--
When Elaine turned 11, her mother sent her to train under
Donald Knuth in his mountain hideaway. [XKCD 342]
Richard Herring
<paul....@paradise.net.nz> writes
>Hans Aberg wrote:
>> Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
>>> If 'a lot' is written 'alot' it becomes a word like 'all'
>>> or 'many' or 'five' and had to be treated alike:
>>> 'all books', 'many books', 'five books', 'alot books'
>>> instead of 'a lot of books'.
>
>Here and there, you may hear something like "a lotta books",
>but "alot books"? Who have you heard say that?
Magdalenians.
He also hasn't noticed that we don't say "heaps books" or "piles books"
or "dozens books" or any of those other imprecise quantifiers that need
"of".
--
Richard Herring
PaulJK
> In message <hb1fnl$aes$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, PaulJK
> <paul....@paradise.net.nz> writes
>> Hans Aberg wrote:
>>> Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
>>>> If 'a lot' is written 'alot' it becomes a word like 'all'
>>>> or 'many' or 'five' and had to be treated alike:
>>>> 'all books', 'many books', 'five books', 'alot books'
>>>> instead of 'a lot of books'.
>>
>> Here and there, you may hear something like "a lotta books",
>> but "alot books"? Who have you heard say that?
>
> Magdalenians.
That's true. I keep forgetting about them guys, ANS of MAG DAL ENI.
I keep forgetting too that some of them live still amongst us today.
> He also hasn't noticed that we don't say "heaps books" or "piles books"
> or "dozens books" or any of those other imprecise quantifiers that need
> "of".
They could be Books for Dummies on evolution of medieval counting
and units of measurements, books about Heaps, Piles and Dozens.
pjk
Franz Gnaedinger
> In message <hb1fnl$ae...@news.eternal-september.org>, PaulJK
> <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> writes
>
> >Hans Aberg wrote:
> >> Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> >>> If 'a lot' is written 'alot' it becomes a word like 'all'
> >>> or 'many' or 'five' and had to be treated alike:
> >>> 'all books', 'many books', 'five books', 'alot books'
> >>> instead of 'a lot of books'.
>
> >Here and there, you may hear something like "a lotta books",
> >but "alot books"? Who have you heard say that?
>
> Magdalenians.
>
> He also hasn't noticed that we don't say "heaps books" or "piles books"
> or "dozens books" or any of those other imprecise quantifiers that need
> "of".
Thanks for confirming my argument: I said if 'a lot' is written
together, 'alot', 'I like it alot', then it raises the question
whether one will still have to write 'a lot of books' or can
also write a single word, 'alot of books', but then logic
would demand that 'alot' is treated like 'all' or 'many' or
'five': all books, many books, five books, alot books.
I don't support 'alot' as one word; colloquial 'I like it alot'
is okay, but only as a colloquial form, emphasis via an
uncommon writing, expressing some kind of exuberance
or enthusiasm. If that uncommon form became the rule
one would have to look out for a new form of conveying
enthusiasm. Every language has ways of expressing
feelings that overflow and melt language to some extent.
Leave them be and don't turn them into general forms.
Hope I made myself halfways understandable. Grammar
is richer than what a textbook offers. Language always
finds a way around the rules, a lesson learned to me
by Pater Rupert Ruhstaller.
Adam Funk
> But if you want to talk about "arrogant," howcome you hijack
another words "why"
[Mais où sont les KevinS d'antan?!?]
> legitimate sci.lang threads by, at some point and without notice,
> crossposting them to your infantile buddies at "kibology" (aka the
> kibble group)?
You're the Louis XVIII of the USERNET.
--
History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of
urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.
(Thurgood Marshall)
Adam Funk
> But if you want to talk about "arrogant," howcome you hijack
> legitimate sci.lang threads by, at some point and without notice,
> crossposting them to your infantile buddies at "kibology" (aka the
> kibble group)?
Our computers do it AUTOMATICALLY.
David DeLaney
>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> But if you want to talk about "arrogant," howcome you hijack
>> legitimate sci.lang threads by, at some point and without notice,
>> crossposting them to your infantile buddies at "kibology" (aka the
>> kibble group)?
>
>Our computers do it AUTOMATICALLY.
same as on web forumms.
Dave "so are you going to angrily tell us we're using LANGUAGE?" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Doctroid
d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:38:41 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> But if you want to talk about "arrogant," howcome you hijack
> >> legitimate sci.lang threads by, at some point and without notice,
> >> crossposting them to your infantile buddies at "kibology" (aka the
> >> kibble group)?
> >
> >Our computers do it AUTOMATICALLY.
>
> same as on web forumms.
>
> Dave "so are you going to angrily tell us we're using LANGUAGE?" DeLaney
What I can't figure out is, if kibology is infantile, why isn't Peter T.
Daniels here 24/7?
I mean, making fun of names? Doesn't get much more puerile.
--
Sig available on request.
- Doctroid
Eb Oesch
> In article <slrnhf6ucp.39i....@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:38:41 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >> But if you want to talk about "arrogant," howcome you hijack
> > >> legitimate sci.lang threads by, at some point and without notice,
> > >> crossposting them to your infantile buddies at "kibology" (aka the
> > >> kibble group)?
>
> > >Our computers do it AUTOMATICALLY.
>
> > same as on web forumms.
>
> > Dave "so are you going to angrily tell us we're using LANGUAGE?" DeLaney
>
> What I can't figure out is, if kibology is infantile, why isn't Peter T.
> Daniels
(if that IS his real name)
> here 24/7?
>
> I mean, making fun of names? Doesn't get much more puerile.
Not true! Nominology is a perfectly respectable and serious
discipline, based on well established scientific principles. Not
knowing the full middle name limits the precision of the reading, but
it does not invalidate the procedure. Exchange syllables between the
given name and surname, consult the red guide to determine which of
the blue volumes to use for the final reading, factor in the Great
Vowel Shift, transliterate to Hebrew, ah, yes, there we go. It turns
out that "Peter T. Daniels" signifies "a big, stinky doodyhead".
David DeLaney
>Doctroid <doctr...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> �d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>> > Dave "so are you going to angrily tell us we're using LANGUAGE?" DeLaney
>>
>> What I can't figure out is, if kibology is infantile, why isn't Peter T.
>> Daniels
>
>(if that IS his real name)
>
>> here 24/7?
>>
>> I mean, making fun of names? �Doesn't get much more puerile.
>
>Not true! Nominology
doo doo, du du du
>is a perfectly respectable and serious discipline, based on well established
>scientific principles.
Oh. Er, never mind.
>Not knowing the full middle name limits the precision of the reading, but
>it does not invalidate the procedure.
I think one person has actually guessed mine. Like, ever. Including 'with
hints'.
Dave
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
You forgot about the Spanish Inquisition (nobody expects it,
afterall), which banned two "o"s from orbiting each other.
That explains why you came up with "a big, stinky doodyhead" and not
"a big, stinky doidyhead"
--
TimC
Beating is one thing ... pounding accompanied by the shakes is a bit
unnerving -- Andrew Comeau in RHOD
Piet de Arcilla
> Eb Oesch <ericboe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Doctroid <doctr...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> >> > Dave "so are you going to angrily tell us we're using LANGUAGE?" DeLaney
>
> >> What I can't figure out is, if kibology is infantile, why isn't Peter T.
> >> Daniels
>
> >(if that IS his real name)
>
> >> here 24/7?
>
> >> I mean, making fun of names? Doesn't get much more puerile.
>
> >Not true! Nominology
>
> doo doo, du du du
>
> >is a perfectly respectable and serious discipline, based on well established
> >scientific principles.
>
> Oh. Er, never mind.
>
> >Not knowing the full middle name limits the precision of the reading, but
> >it does not invalidate the procedure.
>
> I think one person has actually guessed mine. Like, ever. Including 'with
> hints'.
De?
Bryce Utting
>> Exchange syllables between the
>> given name and surname, consult the red guide to determine which of
>> the blue volumes to use for the final reading, factor in the Great
>> Vowel Shift, transliterate to Hebrew, ah, yes, there we go. It turns
>> out that "Peter T. Daniels" signifies "a big, stinky doodyhead".
>
> You forgot about the Spanish Inquisition (nobody expects it,
> afterall), which banned two "o"s from orbiting each other.
ah yes, one of the two notable outcomes of the great Spoonish
Inquisition scandal of 1683.
butting
--
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~butting
If you don't know what you're doing in C, you get a compiler error
or a segfault. If you don't know what you're doing in PHP, you call
it phpBB.
-- Matt Palmer
Etienne Rouette
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> But if you want to talk about "arrogant," howcome you hijack
>> legitimate sci.lang threads by, at some point and without notice,
>> crossposting them to your infantile buddies at "kibology" (aka the
>> kibble group)?
>
> Our computers do it AUTOMATICALLY.
Me too! I love V alot!
Not sure if I wuv the new one yet.
Etienne
PaulJK
> TimC <tcon...@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
>>> Exchange syllables between the
>>> given name and surname, consult the red guide to determine which of
>>> the blue volumes to use for the final reading, factor in the Great
>>> Vowel Shift, transliterate to Hebrew, ah, yes, there we go. It turns
>>> out that "Peter T. Daniels" signifies "a big, stinky doodyhead".
>>
>> You forgot about the Spanish Inquisition (nobody expects it,
>> afterall), which banned two "o"s from orbiting each other.
>
> ah yes, one of the two notable outcomes of the great Spoonish
> Inquisition scandal of 1683.
No doubt you meant Spoonish Inquisitoon, didn't yoo.
pjk
Adam Funk
On reflection, I think I posted some nonsense about this a while ago,
but I'm willing to try again.
1. "Bass-ackwards" is (IME) much more frequent than the unspoonerized
expression "ass-backwards", which I have heard only rarely and only
in a literal sense (e.g., "I slipped and fell ass-backwards in the
puddle"). OTOH, "bass-ackwards" seems to mean various kinds of "in
the wrong way", not just "in reverse" (e.g., "Stop doing it
bass-ackwards!"); "ass" seems to be an intensifier like "bloomin'".
2. I've also heard "back-asswards" (not sure whether to hyphenate it),
although not very often. Would that count as infixation?
(Random observation: "bass-ackwards" is very difficult for me to
type.)
--
"It is the role of librarians to keep government running in difficult
times," replied Dramoren. "Librarians are the last line of defence
against chaos." (McMullen 2001)
Wiblur The Once
>> But if you want to talk about "arrogant," howcome you hijack
>> legitimate sci.lang threads by, at some point and without notice,
>> crossposting them to your infantile buddies at "kibology" (aka the
>> kibble group)?
>
> Our computers do it AUTOMATICALLY.
I don't know about your's, but mine does it AutoMAGICALLY!!11!!
--
"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."
- George W. Bush
The Wiblovian Institute of Kibology
http://www.wiblovia.com
Otto Bahn
>>> But if you want to talk about "arrogant," howcome you hijack
>>> legitimate sci.lang threads by, at some point and without notice,
>>> crossposting them to your infantile buddies at "kibology" (aka the
>>> kibble group)?
>>
>> Our computers do it AUTOMATICALLY.
>
> I don't know about your's, but mine does it AutoMAGICALLY!!11!!
Mine does it oTTomagically.
--oTTo--
PaulJK
> On 2009-10-14, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> On Oct 14, 9:16 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>> On 2009-10-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you have the McCawley Fs. (*Studies Out in Left Field*)? I think
>>>> that's where Quang Phuc Dong (aka JMcC)'s piece on the fucking infix
>>>> was published. It seems morpheme boundaries are irrelevant, because we
>>>> have both "abso-bloomin'-lutely" and "in-fuckin'-credible"; is there
>>>> maybe a constraint that you need more than two syllables?
>>>
>>> I can't think of an example with fewer than two syllables in the
>>> original word, but in "bass-ackwards" the interpolation comes inside
>>> the first one.
>>
>> That's not an infix ("interpolation") -- it's a Spoonerism.
>>
>> It's pretty safe to say that NO infix can intervene _within_ a
>> syllable in English.
>
> On reflection, I think I posted some nonsense about this a while ago,
> but I'm willing to try again.
>
> 1. "Bass-ackwards" is (IME) much more frequent than the unspoonerized
> expression "ass-backwards", which I have heard only rarely and only
> in a literal sense (e.g., "I slipped and fell ass-backwards in the
> puddle"). OTOH, "bass-ackwards" seems to mean various kinds of "in
> the wrong way", not just "in reverse" (e.g., "Stop doing it
> bass-ackwards!"); "ass" seems to be an intensifier like "bloomin'".
You are making all this up, aren't'ya?
pjk
Adam Funk
> Adam Funk wrote:
>> 1. "Bass-ackwards" is (IME) much more frequent than the unspoonerized
>> expression "ass-backwards", which I have heard only rarely and only
>> in a literal sense (e.g., "I slipped and fell ass-backwards in the
>> puddle"). OTOH, "bass-ackwards" seems to mean various kinds of "in
>> the wrong way", not just "in reverse" (e.g., "Stop doing it
>> bass-ackwards!"); "ass" seems to be an intensifier like "bloomin'".
>
> You are making all this up, aren't'ya?
No, but I'm sure other people (who spend more time in the USA?) can
report from a larger sample.
--
I heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little
Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. [Bucky Katt]
Adam Funk
>> You forgot about the Spanish Inquisition (nobody expects it,
>> afterall), which banned two "o"s from orbiting each other.
>
> ah yes, one of the two notable outcomes of the great Spoonish
> Inquisition scandal of 1683.
Did they travel downstream on cunning punts?
--
Their tags shall blink until the end of days.
BoM 12:10
Adam Funk
>> Our computers do it AUTOMATICALLY.
>
> Me too! I love V alot!
>
> Not sure if I wuv the new one yet.
You're trying a BSD out?
--
Taken on the whole however this is a fine disc and a good example of
the current pop scene attempting to break out of its vulgarisms and
sometimes downright obscene derivative hogwash.
(Julian Stone-Mason B.A., 1972)
Adam Funk
>>Our computers do it AUTOMATICALLY.
>
> same as on web formulæ
IFYPFY
> Dave "so are you going to angrily tell us we're using LANGUAGE?" DeLaney
I refer my esteemed colleague to the analysis of "beable doidy
woxwox".
[Once more, with pedantry]
--
Two of the most famous products of Berkeley are LSD and Unix.
I don't think that this is a coincidence. [anonymous]
Adam Funk
> What I can't figure out is, if kibology is infantile, why isn't Peter T.
> Daniels here 24/7?
>
> I mean, making fun of names? Doesn't get much more puerile.
See <8v0uk6x...@news.ducksburg.com>; it might be the fake one.
--
Take it? I can't even parse it! [Kibo]