Comments That Don't Warrant A Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

I HATE the application of the doubled consonant.

---

Same thing with canceled/cancelled.

.....and why can you spell lose, loose or lose?? Always a mind boggler

I was always taught that when you borrow something you should always return in the same condition, or better, than when you got it. Does that not apply anymore?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

see the third conjunction definition.

---

Clearly revisionist propaganda! :icon_wink:

As a general rule I support a more "descriptive" approach to grammar than a "prescriptive" one. That said, it is clear that the first 7 definitions there have a common theme, which the 8th overtly violates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian96

Clearly revisionist propaganda! :icon_wink:

As a general rule I support a more "descriptive" approach to grammar than a "prescriptive" one. That said, it is clear that the first 7 definitions there have a common theme, which the 8th overtly violates.

---

yes, i'm sure the 8th is the result of general acceptance due to usage -- one of the things i actually like about american english. it can become frustrating, though, when you know the origin of words and phrases that are seldom used in their original sense anymore. for example, "agenda" and "begs the question" are two that bother me. "agenda items" is a phrase i hear at least weekly and nobody seems to know that it is redundant (curse the nerd that pointed this out to me and ruined my bissful acceptance of the phrase).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

yes, i'm sure the 8th is the result of general acceptance due to usage -- one of the things i actually like about american english. it can become frustrating, though, when you know the origin of words and phrases that are seldom used in their original sense anymore. for example, "agenda" and "begs the question" are two that bother me. "agenda items" is a phrase i hear at least weekly and nobody seems to know that it is redundant (curse the nerd that pointed this out to me and ruined my bissful acceptance of the phrase).

---

how about "pin number"?

How about putting all these comments into its own thread????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgpix

How about putting all these comments into its own thread????

---

They are "Comments That Don't Warrant A Thread".

I've thought about it, but figured it would rub inudesu the wrong way. He REALLY would like to use to text message rules of grammar.:icon_razz:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dirtydawg

how about "pin number"?

---

And "VIN number."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddawg

They are "Comments That Don't Warrant A Thread".

I've thought about it, but figured it would rub inudesu the wrong way. He REALLY would like to use to text message rules of grammar.:icon_razz:

---

Maybe we should start a grammar-NAZI thread.

And add a forum for "threads that don't warrant a comment." :icon_wink:

Tonight is the Pepsi Smash concert featuring Rihanna, Fall Out Boy, and Lifehouse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddawg

They are "Comments That Don't Warrant A Thread".

I've thought about it, but figured it would rub inudesu the wrong way. He REALLY would like to use to text message rules of grammar.:icon_razz:

---

I'm very torn on this. Text language annoys me, but so does "standard" English. Text message is more logical, so I like that. But I'm just too used to normal (ha!) spellings.

I got into a little bit of trouble recently reading a book to a friend's kid. My wife didn't think I should be pronouncing both l's in "llama" while reading Llama Llama Red Pajama. She seemed to think it would teach the kid the wrong way to read that word. My defense was that the "right" way was wrong and stupid to begin with.

Those who are married will know how far that argument got me. . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

I'm very torn on this. Text language annoys me, but so does "standard" English. Text message is more logical, so I like that. But I'm just too used to normal (ha!) spellings.

I got into a little bit of trouble recently reading a book to a friend's kid. My wife didn't think I should be pronouncing both l's in "llama" while reading Llama Llama Red Pajama. She seemed to think it would teach the kid the wrong way to read that word. My defense was that the "right" way was wrong and stupid to begin with.

Those who are married will know how far that argument got me. . .

---

the answer is to concede and read it the real right way: "yama, yama..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

I'm very torn on this. Text language annoys me, but so does "standard" English. Text message is more logical, so I like that. But I'm just too used to normal (ha!) spellings.

I got into a little bit of trouble recently reading a book to a friend's kid. My wife didn't think I should be pronouncing both l's in "llama" while reading Llama Llama Red Pajama. She seemed to think it would teach the kid the wrong way to read that word. My defense was that the "right" way was wrong and stupid to begin with.

Those who are married will know how far that argument got me. . .

---

Obviously you don't have kids yet. Once I had my own I got over that sort of thing real quick. Didn't want my kids to sound like idiots just because their dad had an intellectual bone to pick with the English-speaking world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

the answer is to concede and read it the real right way: "yama, yama..."

---

Didn't get over that, however. I do, as much as I can, try to use the native pronunciations for most imported words, except for those that, in my subjective estimation, are so assimilated into the American lexicon that the foreign language origin has been all but lost.

Also reminds me of a friend who was always annoyed with the whole "Pierre Bossier" mall thing. In his view, if you are going to pronounce it as "Bozure" then you should call it the "Pete Bozure" mall. If you are going to insist on "Pierre," then you should pronounce it "Pierre Boss-i-ay." Hard to argue with his reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian96

Obviously you don't have kids yet. Once I had my own I got over that sort of thing real quick. Didn't want my kids to sound like idiots just because their dad had an intellectual bone to pick with the English-speaking world.

Well, naturally. It wasn't my kid. :)

Didn't get over that, however. I do, as much as I can, try to use the native pronunciations for most imported words, except for those that, in my subjective estimation, are so assimilated into the American lexicon that the foreign language origin has been all but lost.

I'm in a different place on this. English is English no matter how similar the words look. This is actually one of my beefs with our dumb language. If we're going to transliterate something, we should give it a logical (or at least logicalish) English spelling while we're at it, even if the language being transliterated from shares our Roman alphabet.

It's perfectly ok with me that the English word karaoke and the Japanese word カラオケ that it comes from (which would be written in identical Roman characters) are pronounced differently. They happen to mean the same thing, but obviously that is irrelevant - we don't feel forced to pronounce the English word for mountain (that is, "mountain"), the same way we pronounce the Japanese word for mountain (
山, or yama :icon_wink:).

I think this should be even more true when we borrow words from Romance languages. If the word for that particular pack animal from South America is going to be pronounced yama, then we ought to spell it that way. If the English word for that animal is going to be a different word altogether, like say lama, then that is fine (we don't use the same word to describe other animals) but then we should spell it lama instead of llama - which is stupid.
Our choices are l-a-m-a or y-a-m-a. Either are ok, but what we've been given is pointless.

This is especially true of silent letters, double letters, extra random consonants, etc.

---

I actually chose the Japanese example of mountain without considering (consciously) that it mirrored the pronounciation of the pack animal being discussed. Weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

I actually chose the Japanese example of mountain without considering (consciously) that it mirrored the pronounciation of the pack animal being discussed. Weird.

---

Your argument falls apart at the "English is English" proposition. There is nothing English about English at all. I would go so far as to say that the "English language" is neither. :D

Question: Do any other countries with sound-based (obviously English is not really "phonetic") alphabets have spelling bees? That right there should tell you something is wrong with our language! It would be hard to crown a winner of a Spanish spelling bee, as long as your participants were basically literate.