Uses of the Language that Hack Me Off

[luchog]

Originally Posted by xtifr

Yes, well, this sort of thread is definitely the type to attract prescriptivists, who are, for all intents and purposes*, the linguistic equivalent of creationists, and should be accorded equivalent respect.

So many logical fallacies in that first sentence, it would take all night to address the entire post. Fortunately, it pretty much speaks for itself. Pretentious Post-Modernist posturing; something else that's pretty annoying.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

There was the flap over "ebonics" a few years ago... "Black English". Don't hear so much about it currently, but some of the terms have become inserted uncomfortably into the language like "axe" instead of "ask" and "li-berry" for that place where you keep books.

I don't suppose the prevalance of hip-hop music has made most language nazis happy, but this has been the cse with popular music for as long as it's been around. There's a Thin Man movie, Song Of The Thin Man, where Keenan Wynn, playing a jazz musician, indulges in "be-bop" speak to Nick and Nora...

'Axe' predates Ebonics by quite a spell.

Listen to Muddy Waters from 1955. (0:58)

[Lucian]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

'Axe' predates Ebonics by quite a spell.

Listen to Muddy Waters from 1955. (0:58)

Actually, it's quite a bit older than that:

Originally Posted by Lucian

In Old English, the forms "axian" and "ascian" co-existed. "Axian" seems to be the older form. It underwent metathesis and became "ask;" in some dialects, it has metathesized again. Similarly, in English, "tax" and "task" were the same word, but the unmetathesized and metathesized versions ultimately developed different meanings.

[xtifr]

Originally Posted by Rat

It is of course true that one cannot sustain a coherent objection to the word 'alright'

Sure you can. A descriptivist would have no problem calling it non-standard at best. Which is exactly what the dictionary calls it. (Which is unsurprising, since dictionaries are uniformly descriptivist these days.)

The reasons for calling it non-standard are threefold: one, it's extremely rare compared to "all right", which appears more than twenty times as often in most corpora; two, it's even more rare in formal writing--practically non-existent, in fact; and three, it irritates some people.

The last is not a sufficient reason unto itself, but combined with the other reasons, adds weight, and helps distinguish it from the merely rare category.

Of course, if it weren't actually rare, and if it was, in fact, common in the writing of the very prescriptivists who rail against it (as so many things the prescriptivists rail against are), then the descriptivists would laugh at the prescriptivists, as they so often do.

[xtifr]

Originally Posted by luchog

So many logical fallacies in that first sentence, it would take all night to address the entire post. Fortunately, it pretty much speaks for itself. Pretentious Post-Modernist posturing; something else that's pretty annoying.

A counter-argument (if I can dignify it with that term) which displays either appalling ignorance of modern (not post-modern) linguistics or a near-religious dedication to an anti-scientific view of language. But since I'm not a mind reader, I won't pretend (unlike you) that I can tell which of those is correct. I'm hoping it's the former.

Given that you said "Post-Modernistic", can I assume you subscribe to the "anything-goes" fallacious view of descriptivism? I thought I had addressed that, but some people are so wed to that straw man that they find it almost impossible to get past.

[Brainache]

Originally Posted by xtifr

A counter-argument (if I can dignify it with that term) which displays either appalling ignorance of modern (not post-modern) linguistics or a near-religious dedication to an anti-scientific view of language. But since I'm not a mind reader, I won't pretend (unlike you) that I can tell which of those is correct. I'm hoping it's the former.

Given that you said "Post-Modernistic", can I assume you subscribe to the "anything-goes" fallacious view of descriptivism? I thought I had addressed that, but some people are so wed to that straw man that they find it almost impossible to get past.

Descriptivism: It is what it is.

[LandR]

Irregardless, I've heard people use this when they should be using regardless.

It sounds completely stupid.

[Foolmewunz]

BBC International, June 14 0200 GMT. The expert commentator brought in to discuss the Lance Armstrong doping allegations story advised that Lance "... has won seven Tour de Frances...".

I can think of any number of reasons that the mistake was made, particularly because the S on Tours de France would be silent (if she spoke French). But while I'm sure she was a little frazzled being on the Beeb, one catches oneself in midstream on that kind of error. If you're concerned that "seven Tours de France" sounds just like "seven Tour de France", you just add the word "titles" or "championships". You do not pluralize a country!

And along with that - which I'll admit is a rare case - you have the pluarlization of "ful" words. I'm an old fart and simply cannot stand cupfuls or spoonfuls. It's cupsful or spoonsful. Don't cite usage. I know the former is acceptable and even perhaps preferred. It's just another of those many hack-me-offs. ( How 'bout that. Ending a sentence with a preposition and pluralizing it at the same time.)

[DallasDad]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

It's just another of those many hack-me-offs. ( How 'bout that. Ending a sentence with a preposition and pluralizing it at the same time.)

Sorry, Foolmewunz -- "hack-me-off" is a noun in that sentence. No rule violations for you. Nothing to see here. Move along!

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by DallasDad

Sorry, Foolmewunz -- "hack-me-off" is a noun in that sentence. No rule violations for you. Nothing to see here. Move along!

I know. I hyphenated it for a reason. Over at the Grammar Resistance we have to learn the rules first in order to break them.

[Cactus Wren]

I once debated usage with a subliterate teenager who maintained stoutly that since the word "think" was a verb, not a noun -- there is no such thing as a "think" -- the correct form MUST BE the phrasing he'd always used: "If you think that's correct usage you've got another thing coming!"

It was amusing, because when I asked him, "Another what coming? Another bug? Another hot-dog bun? Another wastebasket? Another blueberry bush? Another sofa cushion? Another Interstate highway exit?" all he could do was insist, over and over, that it must be a "thing", because a "thing" could be given to someone and a "think" could not.

Honestly, his determined defense of his incorrect usage reminded me of my kid brother arguing that since the hand lens he was showing me was not made of glass, it must be and should be called a "magnifying plastic", not a "magnifying glass".

Of course, my kid brother was four at the time.

[xtifr]

Originally Posted by LandR

Irregardless, I've heard people use this when they should be using regardless.

It sounds completely stupid.

Right, that one's marked as non-standard too, but unlike "alright", it appears in a statistically noticable amount formal writing as well as informal, suggesting that a moderate percentage of people believe it's standard (but not enough that it can reasonably be called standard).

Of course, a purely logical argument against it fails, because language isn't inherently logical, and other common words fail the same logic test, like "debone", where the "de-" is purely redundant. Why people peeve so much about this one in particular is a bit of a mystery. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate? (I admit it bugs me as well, but only mildly, and I can't offer any good reasons except that it seems like a bit of a faux pas.)

[Rat]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

BBC International, June 14 0200 GMT. The expert commentator brought in to discuss the Lance Armstrong doping allegations story advised that Lance "... has won seven Tour de Frances...".

I can think of any number of reasons that the mistake was made, particularly because the S on Tours de France would be silent (if she spoke French). But while I'm sure she was a little frazzled being on the Beeb, one catches oneself in midstream on that kind of error. If you're concerned that "seven Tours de France" sounds just like "seven Tour de France", you just add the word "titles" or "championships". You do not pluralize a country!

And along with that - which I'll admit is a rare case - you have the pluarlization of "ful" words. I'm an old fart and simply cannot stand cupfuls or spoonfuls. It's cupsful or spoonsful. Don't cite usage. I know the former is acceptable and even perhaps preferred. It's just another of those many hack-me-offs. ( How 'bout that. Ending a sentence with a preposition and pluralizing it at the same time.)

I agree that it's Tours De France, and it's also courts martial. But I am reminded of an Onion thing about William Safire going to Burger King and ordering three Whoppers Junior, and now I'm always tempted to ask for a pack of Marlboros Light. So it's clearly possible to take this too far. But it's definitely teaspoonfuls and the like. I think it was Bill Bryson who quoted a case of a recipe that asks you to add three teaspoonsfull of parsley and simmer until tender, which is going to take a long time till the spoons become tender.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Rat

I agree that it's Tours De France, and it's also courts martial. But I am reminded of an Onion thing about William Safire going to Burger King and ordering three Whoppers Junior, and now I'm always tempted to ask for a pack of Marlboros Light. So it's clearly possible to take this too far. But it's definitely teaspoonfuls and the like. I think it was Bill Bryson who quoted a case of a recipe that asks you to add three teaspoonsfull of parsley and simmer until tender, which is going to take a long time till the spoons become tender.

I like the "Three Whoppers Junior".

Rather than figuring out how to pluralize brands, I'll just say the brand with the number, e.g. "Two Marlboro Light". I don't even throw in a please! (But I raise my voice to turn it into a question, e.g. sound a little polite.) But over here, if you get them to so much as understand what you're asking for, you're content. Whether the object requires an S is not a big issue.

After living in Asia for so long, we screw over the language so badly that I once got into a long argument with a friend that it was perfectly cromulent to order "two beer". I'd been ordering in pidgin (Chinese doesn't use plurals like we do - the modifiers tell you whether it's one or two or more) for so long that it just sounded natural to me, so I was actually arguing that it could well be a collective noun. That was about six years ago. After I sobered up, I decided to curtail my laziness and pay a little attention to what I was saying.

ETA: Talk about annoying! The jaw-drop smiley used in the middle of the paragraph causes the following line to have an irregular space above it. I went back to edit that about four times looking for some sort of embedded text that was forcing an extra half line.

[bigred]

Originally Posted by luchog

Sorry, you lose. There is a huge difference between the occasional typographical error, something I have never complained about, and egregious use of language that means something entirely different from the user's intent.

And, just since you don't seem to have caught it, only one semicolon was used incorrectly in that quote. Or the entire post, for that matter. Dwelling on a minor typo while ignoring the actual content of the post is nothing more than a disingenuous evasion by someone incapable of addressing the actual point. There's a name for that particular logical fallacy; but I forget what it is at the moment.

LOL - where to start:

- Pretending for a moment that anyone buys your "it was a typo" bit, two semi-colons were in fact used incorrectly.

- Even more hilarious was that in your response above vehemently denying it, you did it again! I suggest you avoid semicolons; they just aren't your thing.

- What WAS the actual point? That your posts are a shining example of the pot/kettle thing?

And while we're at it, I'm having a hard time finding a post by you that doesn't contain a glaring grammatical error. Granted, this is just a message board where people often take the "write like you speak" thing to extremes, but again there's that pot/kettle thing.....

Quote:

Pretentious Post-Modernist posturing; something else that's pretty annoying.

There you go again.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by xtifr

A counter-argument (if I can dignify it with that term) which displays either appalling ignorance of modern (not post-modern) linguistics or a near-religious dedication to an anti-scientific view of language.

Cool. I love sentences with no predicate. Welcome to The Grammar Resistance.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Cactus Wren

I once debated usage with a subliterate teenager who maintained stoutly that since the word "think" was a verb, not a noun -- there is no such thing as a "think" -- the correct form MUST BE the phrasing he'd always used: "If you think that's correct usage you've got another thing coming!"

It was amusing, because when I asked him, "Another what coming? Another bug? Another hot-dog bun? Another wastebasket? Another blueberry bush? Another sofa cushion? Another Interstate highway exit?" all he could do was insist, over and over, that it must be a "thing", because a "thing" could be given to someone and a "think" could not.

Honestly, his determined defense of his incorrect usage reminded me of my kid brother arguing that since the hand lens he was showing me was not made of glass, it must be and should be called a "magnifying plastic", not a "magnifying glass".

Of course, my kid brother was four at the time.

*Grammar do, or grammar do not. There is no 'correct'.*


But in formal grammar, it would be 'You've got another thought coming'.

'Another think coming' is part of the idiomatic form... and as such, quite correct.

[Checkmite]

Sports scores.

If a game is officially designated as Seattle vs. Boston and Boston scores first, the score is 0–1, not 1–0. Yet people have a habit of always reciting a score with the highest number first. When the score is recited more than once during a game this is confusing: if the first time someone tells you the score it's 2–1 and the next time it's 3–2, does that mean each side scored a point or one side scored two points, reversing the order of the score?

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Sports scores.

If a game is officially designated as Seattle vs. Boston and Boston scores first, the score is 0–1, not 1–0. Yet people have a habit of always reciting a score with the highest number first. When the score is recited more than once during a game this is confusing: if the first time someone tells you the score it's 2–1 and the next time it's 3–2, does that mean each side scored a point or one side scored two points, reversing the order of the score?

Bwhaha! Now get some Europeans in here for real fun.

Yankees v. Red Sox as listed in the USA has the New Yorkers visiting Boston. In the rest of the world, the home team is listed first. So your 1-2 could be 2-1 to many of them.

It's easy to avoid this. Add a word -usually one or two syllables.

"What's the score?"
"Yankees 2-1."

[vexed]

Originally Posted by Mr Manifesto

...

The kicker, though, is that there is an exception to this rule. When you talk about an alternative universe (like one where JFK didn't get assassinated and yada yada yada), you actually say 'alternate universe'.

...

Yada, Yada, Yada
Look, if you can't be bothered to write a decent sentence, don't write it, okay? I hate this one used in everyday speech as well. Office workers most guilty of using it.

So... what exactly is your opinion of the phrase 'yada, yada, yada' again?

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

But in formal grammar, it would be 'You've got another thought coming'.

'A thought' is a unit of thinking whereas 'a think' is a session, so I'd say 'another think coming' is grammatically fine 'n dandy and not just OK idiomatically. You'd say "I'm going to have a bit of a think about this", no?

[xtifr]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Cool. I love sentences with no predicate. Welcome to The Grammar Resistance.

Actually, technically, that was the object--the subject and verb were both implicit. Ellipsized. Perfectly grammatical, albeit informal.

I don't resist grammar. I love grammar. I just scorn those peeving pinheads who try to place artificial and false limits on it, and in doing so, try to make the language smaller, less expressive, and less beautiful. But I fully support those who peeve about ugly or incompetently malformed language.

ETA: On the topic of "another thing coming", I always assumed that was a simple error, but it turns out to be quite an old and entrenched one. "Another think coming" dates back to the late 19th century, and "another thing coming" to the very early twentieth. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/langu...es/004971.html

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Bwhaha! Now get some Europeans in here for real fun.

Yankees v. Red Sox as listed in the USA has the New Yorkers visiting Boston. In the rest of the world, the home team is listed first. So your 1-2 could be 2-1 to many of them.

Not sure that follows. The first listed team is the first listed number in the score. It makes no difference whether the Europeans usually put the home team first if we're talking about a baseball game in the US. The French don't care how the Phillies are doing.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Not sure that follows. The first listed team is the first listed number in the score. It makes no difference whether the Europeans usually put the home team first if we're talking about a baseball game in the US. The French don't care how the Phillies are doing.

If you get the Daily Bugle, it'll show Argentina v France, American style. A guy from France walking through the pub would think of the game as France v Argentina. (Being French and naturally culturally superior, there's no way he picked up the Daily Bugle to see how "we" have it listed.) You'd thus have two possible "listings".

I know of this confusion first hand. Being American I could not figure out for the life of me why the Tottenham stands were full of people wearing scarlet red who were singing You'll Never Walk Alone. The game was listed as Liverpool v Tottenham.

Further, your proposal assumes that everyone watching knows how the game was listed in the first place. I find this is rarely the case among casual viewers, who are the ones most apt to be needing the score (because the devotees and die-hard fans will have been following closely enough to not only know the way they were listed but also know the score).

So, as I said, I'll take the easiest solution. Add the name of the leader when you give the score. It's less than a second to get those few syllables out.

[xtifr]

Ok, first of all, sport(s) reporting is generally something that's going to have things to "hack off" anyone who cares about language. (I just saw an example where a paper reported that one team had a "sauteed" defense--a bunch of us are still puzzling over that.)

Second of all, when I see announcements of games in US media, it's usually listed as "So-and-so at whozit", unless they're listing a particular team's upcoming schedule, in which case they'll list that team first in all cases, with "@" to indicate away games and "v" to indicate home games. And when the scores are announced, it's usually either "winner 5, loser 2" as Checkmite said, or "visitors X, home Y" as Foolmweunz said, but even that has exceptions--for example, a team's home paper will typically mention their team first in the headline, no matter what the venue.

If you're looking for consistency or good grammar/fluency in the sport(s) pages, you're looking in the wrong place.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by GlennB

'A thought' is a unit of thinking whereas 'a think' is a session, so I'd say 'another think coming' is grammatically fine 'n dandy and not just OK idiomatically. You'd say "I'm going to have a bit of a think about this", no?

I would use 'thought' in formal writing unless quoting someone else or referencing the idiom.

Outside of that I'd use whatever struck my informal fancy.

Quote:

noun

Informal the act of thinking: give it a good think

http://www.yourdictionary.com/think

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by xtifr

Ok, first of all, sport(s) reporting is generally something that's going to have things to "hack off" anyone who cares about language. (I just saw an example where a paper reported that one team had a "sauteed" defense--a bunch of us are still puzzling over that.)

Second of all, when I see announcements of games in US media, it's usually listed as "So-and-so at whozit", unless they're listing a particular team's upcoming schedule, in which case they'll list that team first in all cases, with "@" to indicate away games and "v" to indicate home games. And when the scores are announced, it's usually either "winner 5, loser 2" as Checkmite said, or "visitors X, home Y" as Foolmweunz said, but even that has exceptions--for example, a team's home paper will typically mention their team first in the headline, no matter what the venue.

If you're looking for consistency or good grammar/fluency in the sport(s) pages, you're looking in the wrong place.

It is a relative of 'headline-ese', 'ad-speak', poetry, and so forth, and divests itself of grammatical rules in favor of an internally consistent structure.

[Psi Baba]

Originally Posted by xtifr

Ok, first of all, sport(s) reporting is generally something that's going to have things to "hack off" anyone who cares about language.

We have a radio sports guy here who decided that he was tired of everyone putting an 's' on the abbreviation RBI (for those who don't know: a baseball term meaning "runs batted in"). Most people will automatically say "McCutchen had 5 RBIs today." This guy has taken to saying simply "McCutchen had 5 RBI today." (since the 'R' is already standing for a plural). It sounds odd when spoken, but I agree with him. For a while, just to be funny, he was saying Rs BI, as it "McCutchen had 5 RsBI today."

[luchog]

Originally Posted by xtifr

Given that you said "Post-Modernistic", can I assume you subscribe to the "anything-goes" fallacious view of descriptivism?

No, simply that I get annoyed by what is so clearly a misuse of the term to support Post-Modernist relativism.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by bigred

- Pretending for a moment that anyone buys your "it was a typo" bit, two semi-colons were in fact used incorrectly.

Sorry, no. Learn the difference between dependent and independent clauses.

I've yet to see you point out any other "glaring grammatical errors" that aren't a clear lack of understanding on your side.

[xtifr]

Originally Posted by luchog

No, simply that I get annoyed by what is so clearly a misuse of the term to support Post-Modernist relativism.

Can you point to one instance where I support whatever it is that you are calling "Post-Modernist relativism"? Because honestly, I have no idea what you're on about. (I'm rather intrigued to be accused of Post-Modernism--I don't think I've heard such an accusation since the 1970s, if then.)

[Rat]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

*Grammar do, or grammar do not. There is no 'correct'.*


But in formal grammar, it would be 'You've got another thought coming'.

'Another think coming' is part of the idiomatic form... and as such, quite correct.

It is, but I wasn't aware of it until relatively recently. And it's a 'think', of course, because it follows "If you think x...", but to me it was always 'thing'. And to demonstrate that I am not a strict prescriptivist (if there is any such thing), I continue to use 'thing'. It may not be the older form, but it's well established idiomatically, and it makes sense to me. It's daft (I know it wasn't you that did this) to ask what 'thing' it is exactly, as 'thing' occurs (along with 'something' and similar forms) in all sorts of other idioms.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Rat

It is, but I wasn't aware of it until relatively recently. And it's a 'think', of course, because it follows "If you think x...", but to me it was always 'thing'. And to demonstrate that I am not a strict prescriptivist (if there is any such thing), I continue to use 'thing'. It may not be the older form, but it's well established idiomatically, and it makes sense to me. It's daft (I know it wasn't you that did this) to ask what 'thing' it is exactly, as 'thing' occurs (along with 'something' and similar forms) in all sorts of other idioms.

But how can you have another 'thing' coming when you haven't had the first 'thing' yet?

[xtifr]

Its "another thing coming" in the song, which I only learned a few days ago--I always heard it as "think". But preferring "thing" is one think thing. Claiming that it's wrong to say "another think coming" is where we cross the line into absurdity.

Of course, older vs. younger doesn't really count for much. We don't limit "terrific" to things that cause terror, even though that's the older meaning of the term, and we don't insist on spelling "the" with þ (thorn).

[Rat]

Originally Posted by xtifr

Its "another thing coming" in the song, which I only learned a few days ago--I always heard it as "think". But preferring "thing" is one think thing. Claiming that it's wrong to say "another think coming" is where we cross the line into absurdity.

Of course, older vs. younger doesn't really count for much. We don't limit "terrific" to things that cause terror, even though that's the older meaning of the term, and we don't insist on spelling "the" with þ (thorn).

I think your missing an apostrophe in you're first word.

Anyway, if we're covering terrific, then I think it's about time someone trotted out the chestnut about the awful, artificial, amusing St Paul's Cathedral. Also, we don't insist on þ indeed, but people insist on writing "ye olde" to get the olde worlde feel, and it perhaps irrationally annoys me when they actually pronounce it as "ye".

[bigred]

Originally Posted by luchog

Sorry, no. Learn the difference between dependent and independent clauses.

You first. I'll hold my breath waiting.

[xtifr]

Originally Posted by Rat

I think your missing an apostrophe in you're first word.

Yes, but at least I know enough to realize it's missing when I look, rather than operating under the delusion that I typed an error-free post.

Quote:

Anyway, if we're covering terrific, then I think it's about time someone trotted out the chestnut about the awful, artificial, amusing St Paul's Cathedral. Also, we don't insist on þ indeed, but people insist on writing "ye olde" to get the olde worlde feel, and it perhaps irrationally annoys me when they actually pronounce it as "ye".

Heh, I like the one about St. Paul's. Hadn't heard that before. As for "ye olde", that rather annoys me no matter how it's pronounced. I think the topic is covered well under Ye Olde Butcherede Englishe. (Warning, TVTropes may eat your brain.)

[CORed]

Originally Posted by Psi Baba

We have a radio sports guy here who decided that he was tired of everyone putting an 's' on the abbreviation RBI (for those who don't know: a baseball term meaning "runs batted in"). Most people will automatically say "McCutchen had 5 RBIs today." This guy has taken to saying simply "McCutchen had 5 RBI today." (since the 'R' is already standing for a plural). It sounds odd when spoken, but I agree with him. For a while, just to be funny, he was saying Rs BI, as it "McCutchen had 5 RsBI today."

The plural of RBI is "Ribbys".

[OrangeCatz]

When reading a list of numbers, such as a phone number, I prefer people to say "zero" instead of "O".

[Rat]

I can't now recall if anyone's said this (and I can't be bothered to check when typing on my phone), but it fills me with an almost insuperable urge to kill when I see or hear 'restauranteur'. I believe that some dictionaries now list it as an alternative form, but frankly those dictionaries are wrong, descriptivism be damned.