noone

TomServo · Post by **TomServo** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:14 am

Y'all - yall

Post by **Elderberry** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:18 am

TomServo wrote:Y'all - yall

Are either of those actual words? I thought it was short for "You all", but is that even correct use of English?

JK

TomServo · Post by **TomServo** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:32 am

jkisha wrote:
TomServo wrote:Y'all - yall
Are either of those actual words? I thought it was short for "You all", but is that even correct use of English?

JK

Funny you should ask... My German teacher in high school, Plano, TX.. Gave a long speech to the class about how y'all is in fact a word.

Fire_Moose · Post by **Fire_Moose** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:52 am

which brings up the issue of Regional words, aight?

The CO · Post by **The CO** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:02 pm

Y'all fills the same niche as yous (guys). English lacks a single word for addressing a group (All of you, you folks). This gives rise to regional words & phrases filling in the gap, with strange spellings since they are not actual words.

TomServo · Post by **TomServo** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:04 pm

I don't think regional applies anymore. I've heard more, Stereotypical, ghetto terminology in Walnut Creek, Ca...than I ever did living in West Oakland.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:51 pm

Risky wrote:irregardless - double negative

Edited to explain that I know this is not a spelling or grammar issue.
Regardless, it belongs here.

I hate the hatred of double negatives. If you look at spanish, it has mulitple negatives and they don't cancell each other out, but support each other so you have no doubt that the negative is meant. (I"m pretty sure this is true of all the "romance" languages.) That double negative stuff could be from math--where it actually makes sense.

"irregardless" simply isn't a word. It's something that stupid/poorly educated people use to make themselves seem clever and educated. Poor ninnies.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:56 pm

The CO wrote:... with strange spellings since they are not actual words.

Yes, they ARE "actual words."
I belive in being a "descriptive" grammarian, rather than the "restrictive" kind. I think the restrictives are anal retentive social climbers trying to make themselves seem smart. I believe that using the language as it is used in the period you are using is correct English. Which doesn't mean that you shouldn't understand why these misspellings (and that's what most of these are, misspellings) are wrong. But spelling is hard, a lot harder than talking. We have brain "modules" that help us speak, but we don't all have them for writing, because writing has never been so life and death as to be controlled by evolution.

And yes, I ding people all the time for those "misspellings" because they don't make sense, and I love things that don't make sense.

How much was the OED subscription, Eric?

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:18 pm

Personally I'm a little bit on proscriptive side, grammatically speaking. Most of the rules we have are there in order to promote clarity and dispel ambiguity. For instance, the double negative rule. "I treated him not unkindly" does not mean "I treated him very unkindly," nor does it mean "I treated him kindly."

There are circumstances in which playing fast and loose with grammatical, lexical, or semantic rules is allowable, even encouraged. However, the device has no meaning or value if you don't know what rules you're breaking or why they are rules.

The Greengrocer's apostrophe drives me crazy. As do signs that read "SLOW CHILDREN PLAYING."

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:22 pm

And I didn't want to shit on the RIP thread to say this [note how this sentence begins with a conjunction? Not so anal after all, am I?], but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Post by **Eric** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:37 pm

theCryptofishist wrote:How much was the OED subscription, Eric?

It was a gift from an uncle who understands my obsession with Knowing Things that I was going to renew (up until I got laid off)- roughly $300 a year. (Obviously not geared towards individuals, which sucks)

Yeppers. Even my family knows I'm bonkers.

I am thinking of scouring used book stores once I get employed & trying to get a physical edition. It would probably cost about the same, but no renewal fee. Even an out of date OED is more informative than most books.

Oh- the double negative thing? That's only because "standard" (or "Kings") English grew from the London area upper-class dialect, which doesn't use double negatives. Many English dialects do use double-negatives, which is why they persist in American English.

Post by **mdmf007** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:44 pm

Fire_Moose wrote:
Risky wrote:irregardless - double negative

Edited to explain that I know this is not a spelling or grammar issue.
Regardless, it belongs here.
How is this not spelling/grammar?

It's not a double negative either, it's not a real word.

I go with Moose on this one - Doing some searches on it, the best I can find is labeling it as slang.

Post by **Savannah** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:26 pm

The confusion of these two:

"Viscous" - meaning gelatinous, gooey, thick (with "c" pronounced like a "k")

"Vicious" - brutal, savage (soft "c")

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:41 pm

Eric wrote:
theCryptofishist wrote:How much was the OED subscription, Eric?
It was a gift from an uncle who understands my obsession with Knowing Things that I was going to renew (up until I got laid off)- roughly $300 a year. (Obviously not geared towards individuals, which sucks)

Yeppers. Even my family knows I'm bonkers.

I am thinking of scouring used book stores once I get employed & trying to get a physical edition. It would probably cost about the same, but no renewal fee. Even an out of date OED is more informative than most books.

Oh- the double negative thing? That's only because "standard" (or "Kings") English grew from the London area upper-class dialect, which doesn't use double negatives. Many English dialects do use double-negatives, which is why they persist in American English.

Does a subscription allow multiple people to use it? Or would they have to form an organization (at least on paper) in order to?

Risky · Post by **Risky** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:50 pm

theCryptofishist wrote:
Risky wrote:irregardless - double negative

Edited to explain that I know this is not a spelling or grammar issue.
Regardless, it belongs here.
I hate the hatred of double negatives. If you look at spanish, it has mulitple negatives and they don't cancell each other out, but support each other so you have no doubt that the negative is meant. (I"m pretty sure this is true of all the "romance" languages.) That double negative stuff could be from math--where it actually makes sense.

Double negatives were taught to me in grammar school as a no-no in the English language. Things change and maybe that has too.
If we are going to include every language here, I am sure we can find a multitude of exceptions.

theCryptofishist wrote:"irregardless" simply isn't a word. It's something that stupid/poorly educated people use to make themselves seem clever and educated. Poor ninnies.

Irregardless - It is not a word, which is why it is on my never-use list (in addition to my original complaint).

Risky · Post by **Risky** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:52 pm

nauseous - causing nausea; sickening
nauseated - to be feeling, or having been caused to feel nausea.

Risky · Post by **Risky** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:56 pm

mdmf007 wrote:
Fire_Moose wrote:
Risky wrote:irregardless - double negative

Edited to explain that I know this is not a spelling or grammar issue.
Regardless, it belongs here.
How is this not spelling/grammar?

It's not a double negative either, it's not a real word.
I go with Moose on this one - Doing some searches on it, the best I can find is labeling it as slang.

I guess I should have stayed within the structure of the posts of this thread.

irregardless = regardless.
Better?

maryanimal · Post by **maryanimal** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:29 pm

theCryptofishist wrote:
Risky wrote:irregardless - double negative

Edited to explain that I know this is not a spelling or grammar issue.
Regardless, it belongs here.
I hate the hatred of double negatives. If you look at spanish, it has mulitple negatives and they don't cancell each other out, but support each other so you have no doubt that the negative is meant. (I"m pretty sure this is true of all the "romance" languages.) That double negative stuff could be from math--where it actually makes sense.

"irregardless" simply isn't a word. It's something that stupid/poorly educated people use to make themselves seem clever and educated. Poor ninnies.

Well fishy, as far as double negatives go, it don't make no difference to me...just saying..

geospyder · Post by **geospyder** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:45 pm

Slight thread drift... Remember Mrs. Malaprop? One of her classics is...

"Sure, if I reprehend any thing in this world it is the use of my oracular tongue, and a nice derangement of epitaphs!"

reprehend s/b apprehend

oracular s/b vernacular

derangement s/b arrangement

epitaphs s/b epithets

Post by **Eric** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:01 pm

Risky wrote:Double negatives were taught to me in grammar school as a no-no in the English language.

Good thing that Shakespeare fella they taught us never used them:

Twelfth Night wrote:Not so, neither

Measure for Measure wrote:harp not on that nor do not banish treason

Romeo and Juliet wrote:thou expectedst not, nor I looked not for

as always, way too lazy to look up more or quote Chaucer's examples. (ruh-roh, incomplete sentence in this thread!)

Risky · Post by **Risky** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 7:34 pm

Sure, and the Stones sang I Can't Get No Satisfaction and
Bart Simpson stated "I won't not use no double negatives."

"Syntactically, perhaps the chief characteristic of vulgar American is its sturdy fidelity to the double negative. So freely is it used, indeed, that the simple negative appears to be almost abandoned. Such phrases as 'I see nobody,' 'I could hardly walk,' 'I know nothing about it' are heard so seldom among the masses of the people that they appear to be affectations when encountered; the well-nigh universal forms are 'I donâ€™t see nobody,' 'I couldnâ€™t hardly walk,' and 'I donâ€™t know nothing about it.'"
(H. L. Mencken, The American Language, 1921)

FIGJAM · Post by **FIGJAM** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:22 pm

"to form a MORE PERFECT union."

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:23 pm

FIGJAM wrote:"to form a MORE PERFECT union."

isn't that what got us Jeebus?

FIGJAM · Post by **FIGJAM** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:26 pm

No, but it's the real reason you dont trust the gubment.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:34 am

Sometimes my own arrogance staggers me.
I am very sorry that I implied that some of you are prissy pedants. In fact, I love this board and treasure many of the posters. I really meant to say that you had been taught by such, and I hoped that my posts would pull the scales from your eyes and free you from adherence to such.

However, I still think that this is tempest in a teapot. People manage quite well to understand the difference between "your" and "you're" in spoken english quite well; there is no need to differentiate them by sound. And I really believe that the "deep grammar" favors multiple negatives over the mathematicians' model where it does matter.

Post by **Elderberry** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 1:21 pm

Risky wrote:Sure, and the Stones sang I Can't Get No Satisfaction and
Bart Simpson stated "I won't not use no double negatives."

"Syntactically, perhaps the chief characteristic of vulgar American is its sturdy fidelity to the double negative. So freely is it used, indeed, that the simple negative appears to be almost abandoned. Such phrases as 'I see nobody,' 'I could hardly walk,' 'I know nothing about it' are heard so seldom among the masses of the people that they appear to be affectations when encountered; the well-nigh universal forms are 'I donâ€™t see nobody,' 'I couldnâ€™t hardly walk,' and 'I donâ€™t know nothing about it.'"
(H. L. Mencken, The American Language, 1921)

Sad statement on the value of education and learning.

JK

tamarakay · Post by **tamarakay** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:29 pm

2:00 a.m. in the morning.

Post by **AntiM** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:02 am

ATM machine

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:44 am

Yet another reason to chose "Bankomat."

Mojojita · Post by **Mojojita** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:49 pm

Misuse of "less" and "fewer".

The Plain English Campaign has a simple rule of thumb to help everyone: less means "not as much," whereas fewer means "not as many".

Fewer should be used when you are talking about items that can be counted individually, for example, "fewer than 10 apples". Less is correct when quantities cannot be individually counted in that case, e.g. "I would like less water".