Googled (good example of proper evolution!) "somethink"
Google has it correct "Do you mean: something"
As does the Urban Dictionary.
PERFECT!!
Chat Forum
[closed]
Somethink annoying
-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
What would be a 'pointless' grammatical form?
split infinitives - why would it matter ? Someone, sometime, must have made up this rule, I suspect only to taunt others with.
I/me - I often find myself having to think for a long period to work out which to use in some circumstances, so it's just a barrier to expression, particularly as both words refer to the same person
the apostrophe - what's it FOR ? We never need it in speech!
But, just because we can't name these 'abstruse grammatical forms', doesn't mean we should (or could) discard them
you are the first to suggest the names of the rules matter at all. I'm saying dump them because they're useless, not because I don't know what they're called.
The thing is, language is a tool for thinking
I'd like to see some evidence for this - I think in fact the reverse is true - having to translate thoughts into words gets in the way. I suspect we can think far faster than we can translate
and, ultimately, the ability to think
very funny, but IMO completely wrong!
So we fight for clear, correct English
"Fight" ?? Fight how ? Isn't it more a case of muttering frustratedly into metaphorical beards ? At root, there is nothing you CAN do, people will individually decide, from moment to moment, how they will express themselves without reference to your opinions.
Posted 3 years ago # -
oh, and how about "something" ?
Posted 3 years ago # -
oh, and how about "something" ?
Regional accent innit?Tell you what though - Ginormous. What a pointless, annoying and stupid (non)word.
Posted 3 years ago # -
We all use concepts like, just off the top of my head, subcategorisation, diathesis, predicate-argument structure, valence, adicity, arity, case structure and theta-role assignment every day
A remarkable example of making the opposite argument to that which you appeared to be attempting
I don't think I've ever seen a sentence with so many words I don't know, yet I have a good vocabulary. Essentially the use of language forms to intimidate or overawe, rather than actual communication.di·ath·e·ses (-sz)
1. A hereditary predisposition of the body to a disease, a group of diseases, an allergy, or another disorder.
2. Grammar the passive voice is also called diathesis.I'm wondering why such a rare word is used for 2 unrelated meanings ?
adicity (plural adicities)
1. (logic, mathematics, computer science) The number of arguments or operands a function or operation takes. For a relation, the number of domains in the corresponding Cartesian product.
you've lost me here
Posted 3 years ago # -
oh, and how about "something" ? Regional accent innit?
Regional dialect
Posted 3 years ago # -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive
I'm none the wiser.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I'm none the wiser.
me either!
Boldly, I hit him
I hit him boldly
I boldly hit him
Him I boldly hitall mean the same ?
Posted 3 years ago # -
simonfbarnes - Member
oh, and how about "something" ?
Regional accent innit?
Regional dialect
Now that's pedantic!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Now that's pedantic!
Pronunciation and vocabulary are 2 different things - they do usually go together but they need not.
Posted 3 years ago # -
lol, I knew 'fight' was a bad word choice.
you are the first to suggest the names of the rules matter at all. I'm saying dump them because they're useless, not because I don't know what they're called
I was suggesting the exact opposite of that; I was making the point that we use these syntactic rules all the time without realising it. But it's impossible to 'dump them'.
having to translate thoughts into words gets in the way
Gets in the way of what? Giving form to nebulous floaty half-finished ideas in your head that you're sure must be right because you've just thought them?
the apostrophe - what's it FOR ?
As aracer's already pointed out, it can modify meaning, sometimes crucially, in written text. No, you don't need it in speech, which is a different system.
Anyway I don't understand your position. You seem to be using language to argue against the systems that make language work … ?
Actually I think we're talking about different things. You're talking about the things English teachers might tell you that you can't do: split infinitives, hang participles, blah blah. I'm not. I'm thinking about psycholinguistics and how language conveys meaning, so I think I'll depart this debate before I get accused of being a troll, again.
Posted 3 years ago # -
No, you don't need it in speech, which is a different system
Is that so ? How is meaning changed by transcription ?
I was suggesting the exact opposite of that; I was making the point that we use these syntactic rules all the time without realising it.
But you said:But, just because we can't name these 'abstruse grammatical forms', doesn't mean we should (or could) discard them.
, which evoked my reply:
[/quote]you are the first to suggest the names of the rules matter at all.[quote]Anyway I don't understand your position. You seem to be using language to argue against the systems that make language work … ?
I'm only arguing against officious stickling to the 'rules' as a barrier to relaxed speech. I think language allows for creative/negligent input
I'm thinking about psycholinguistics and how language conveys meaning
EXACTLY!! The meaning trancends the grubby details of expression
so I think I'll depart this debate before I get accused of being a troll, again.
this isn't "Just a minute", you're allowed to change the subject!
Giving form to nebulous floaty half-finished ideas in your head that you're sure must be right because you've just thought them?
I often noticed myself stumbling over the words because they couldn't keep up with what I was thinking. Ideas requiring whole sentences can flick into the mind in a fraction of a second
Posted 3 years ago # -
Simon - I'm not a fan of sticking to the rules just because, hence I couldn't care less if you decide to wantonly use a split infinitive (irony intended). Not particularly bothered about the use of me instead of I if that's what comes naturally, though using I where me would be correct because the speaker has this half-baked idea about being correct does grate. Plenty more like that, where the "rules" don't actually help with the meaning and accuracy - though I'm a little cautious as this can be the thin end of the wedge. What I am bothered by is inaccurate usage, or plain laziness which results in ambiguity or incorrect meaning - either because the speaker/writer can't be bothered or they've not been correctly educated (which isn't their fault).
ALso worth pointing out that there is a difference between speech and writing - shortcuts in the former are far more acceptable.
Posted 3 years ago # -
partial electrocutions can wind some people up apparently
Posted 3 years ago # -
Posted 3 years ago # -
which results in ambiguity or incorrect meaning
this is a particularly rich field for entertainment and irony
ALso worth pointing out that there is a difference between speech and writing
I would say speech was the authentic basis of language (etymology 'tongue') and writing an attempt to mimic and record it. Punctuation is there to cope with its limitations
Posted 3 years ago # -
I feel it's time..
Posted 3 years ago # -
we've hardly started yet :o)
Posted 3 years ago # -
the blatant mis-use and mis-understanding of numbers, fractions, percentages and ratios. Lazy numerical journalism really pisses me off.
Got bored reading this but - many terms have a technical definition and a common-usage one, as explained in dictionary definitions. Saying 'decimate' or 'a fraction of' carries a commonly accepted meaning. So it's okay, and there are loads of examples of the same thing of which you are probably not aware. If you get too hung up on the technical definitions of words then you are a dweeb, a geek, or a nerd. Or you are functionally autistic but with anger issues and an inflated sense of self-importance
Posted 3 years ago # -
we've hardly started yet
Quite - plenty more left in this one, given it's now going in a slightly different direction
I would say speech was the authentic basis of language (etymology 'tongue') and writing an attempt to mimic and record it.
From a historical perspective you're right. However the written word is nowadays an important thing in it's own right, and certainly from a legal perspective carries far more weight than the spoken word.Posted 3 years ago # -
I regularly get into arguments with yoofs who declare that old cars/bikes/phones etc are 'retro'. No young man, they are not, they are old. Retro is when things are designed to look old but are new, as distinct from actually old. You idiot.
But they argue that all of their mates use the word retro in the same way and that I should get with the times, as young people naturally have the right to reassign words for their own usage.. No no no! Then they start talking about the word 'gay' and how the young people of the world have very succesfully redeployed that for their own use.
Alas I cry, gay still means happy, still means homosexual, but also now means stupid. What are we going to use to replace retro now that it's clarity has been muddied by a new meaning in a very similar area? It is enough to drive a man to distraction.
Sodding yoofs.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Tormski - Retro is Gay you mean Old Skool
Posted 3 years ago # -
No young man, they are not, they are old
interpreting a word differently does not make one an idiot, unless perhaps your definition of idiot is 'someone who thinks differently to me' ?
Posted 3 years ago # -
By the way, which means good at the moment - Hot or Cool?
Trying to explain to a German girlfriend many years ago about Hot and Cool being the same thing when describing stuff. Then she went and told her friends I was cold in bed.
Posted 3 years ago # -
interpreting a word differently does not make one an idiot
It does if you're interpreting that word differently because you don't understand what the word actually means and think it means something different. I'd suggest that's the likely case with the word "retro", as it seems like it might mean what they think it does.Oh and 200!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Words are not subject to interpretation. They have clearly defined meanings. Some have multiple meanings but they are usually suitably distinct so as not to cause confusion. Retro does not mean 'old'. If you think it does, they you are either misinformed (idiot) or attempting to modify the language with an unsuitably indistinct usage of the word (idiot).
There is a certain degree of condescending piety in your post (though years of reading your whitterings lead me to expect nothing less). I do not consider people different to me to be idiots and I suspect that it is you that is a little jaded, not I. Maybe it is because you are so retro. Sorry, old.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Words are not subject to interpretation. They have clearly defined meanings
funniest post yet :o)
what of irony, double entendre, punning, metaphor ? Bending words to mean different things is one of the great pleasures of language!
There is a certain degree of condescending piety in your post
sounds good though I'm not sure what it means. One might say my postings are somewhat disingenuous when my usage is quite studied, but I'm not trying to enforce my own standards on anyone else, or expecting them to follow suit
Posted 3 years ago # -
irony - where the intended meaning is different to the written meaning, nothing to do with the definition of the words, merely the spirit in which they are written.
double entendre & punning - surely that is where the dual meanings of some words are exploited for comic effect? A pun would make no sense whatsoever if the original meaning of a word could not be nailed down to a very specific set of meanings.
metaphor - a way to draw meaning from seemingly unrelated topics. No word bending there from what I can see.
Language is a gas man and and I am fully aware of the disingenuous nature of your postings, which is why I always enjoy your whitterings. On this matter though I am afraid you are wrong.
Posted 3 years ago # -
and I suspect that it is you that is a little jaded, not I.
I never suggested anyone was either jaded (which I'm certainly not) or an idiot which seems, at least to me, to be unlikely too.
Posted 3 years ago # -
perhaps your definition of idiot is 'someone who thinks differently to me' ?
If that were the case then I would consider my self jaded.
I think I will come back again tomorrow, I forgot how good this place was for the pursuit of sophistry and banter.
X
Posted 3 years ago # -
haste ye back for more countdown style nerdage....
Posted 3 years ago # -
On this matter though I am afraid you are wrong.
I think perhaps we're both right. Certainly, most words DO have clearly defined meanings, or at least definitions even if unclear, but these are just nominal, and subject to continual elision and redefinition
My central thesis in this, as in so many other topics, is that if you concentrate on the minutiae of a process or thing, you can easily miss the point of it. So, for example, unless you are only using language to sound good, picky details about the exact form of expression are irrelevant, and would better be ignored, as in speech, which is often littered with errs, umms, and mistakes. And with language, the distortions are fundamental to its development. New words are either made up on the fly or hammered out of old ones, and new arrangements (grammar) also emerge, or are copied from other languages, partly because younger people want to sound different to (and wind up) their elders
Posted 3 years ago # -
If that were the case then I would consider my self jaded.
well, I don't understand how 'jaded' can be made to mean 'contemptuous', but it's your right to promote that interpretation, and time will tell if becomes popular. My understanding of it is: bored or disenchanted (which might be wrong too)
Posted 3 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
