Front Office Football Central  

Go Back   Front Office Football Central > Main Forums > Off Topic
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Statistics

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-04-2005, 01:02 PM   #1
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Grammar Police - Graduate School

Okay, from time to time I (and others) have posted a thread here to discuss, bemoan, berate, or otherwise converse about grammar and its (mis)use.

Most of these conversations turn into a pretty predictable venting about "pet peeves" and the like. We get all the apostrophe stuff (which gets to me), the homonym misuse stuff, the using-the-wrong-word-you-idiot stuff, and so forth. The thing is -- other than a few inevitable "fucking elitists" gate crasher posts in each thread, it ends up basically being the good grammar types sitting together in a thread and complaining about the people who use poor grammar. (...and spelling...and diction... I know, I know)

So - this thread is intended to be different.

If you've made it this far, you know that it's "would have" rather than "would of." You know the difference between "its" and "it's" and between "dominant" and "dominate." So, there's no need to cover that. If any of those items are puzzling to you ... move along people, nothing to see here.

- - -

In this thread - post grammar, spelling, usage, and pronunciation tips that people might actually be able to use. Common mistakes made by people who are otherwise on the ball, that sort of thing.

Links to sites detailing this stuff are okay, but I personally am lazy and prefer that you actually spoon this right to me. It's a weakness.

I intend to learn something here, and I hope you do, too.

QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 01:06 PM   #2
Farrah Whitworth-Rahn
Red-Headed Vixen
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Pictures are hung. People are hanged.
Farrah Whitworth-Rahn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 01:06 PM   #3
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Example usage:

The North Koreans' continued use of nuclear testing was clearly intended to flaunt international organizations.

- - -

The word you want here is flout, not flaunt.

To flout is to defy... to flaunt is to show off. It's actually not that subtle a difference, though I'd estimate that 80% or more of the people who seek to use the word "flout" end up incorrectly using the word "flaunt" instead.

This could end up becoming another one of these "language evolution" debates -- as in time, some dictionaries might start to include a secondary usage of "flaunt" to mean "to defy." It still doesn't make it right -- the word to use is "flout," period.
QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 01:07 PM   #4
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn
Pictures are hung. People are hanged.

This could go badly from here.
QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 01:08 PM   #5
Farrah Whitworth-Rahn
Red-Headed Vixen
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuikSand
This could go badly from here.

Sorry, just something an English professor once said to me. Stuck with me ever since.
Farrah Whitworth-Rahn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 01:11 PM   #6
Chas in Cinti
High School Varsity
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cincinnati, OH
When one receives a favor, they are grateful.

Not greatful...

-Chas
__________________
Email: [email protected]
Chas in Cinti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 01:15 PM   #7
albionmoonlight
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North Carolina
The past subjunctive to express hypothetical states. It does not come up much, but when it does, people tend to misuse it. I got into an argument with my boss about this, and she was right and I was wrong. So it has stuck in my head.

In formal English, you use the word "were" to express a hypothetical or non-factual state--not "was."

I wish that Brian Westbrook were training camp right now.

NOT

I wish that Brian Westbrook was in training camp right now.
_______________________________________

If I were Brian Westbrook, I would come to camp.

NOT

If I was Brian Westbrook, I would come to camp.
____________________________________________

CITE: http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/d.../d0082859.html
albionmoonlight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 01:17 PM   #8
Maple Leafs
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Presently means "soon", not "now".
__________________
Down Goes Brown: Toronto Maple Leafs Humor and Analysis
Maple Leafs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 01:18 PM   #9
KevinNU7
College Starter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Beantown
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maple Leafs
Presently means "soon", not "now".
__________________
Boston Bashers - III.14 - (8347)
KevinNU7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 01:22 PM   #10
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Here is one where, it seems, the good guys have finally surrendered:

short-lived

This word is derived from the word "life," and not from "live" -- and so it ought to be pronounced with a long "i" sound -- to more or less rhyme with the word "arrived." Of course, hardly anyone does so, nearly all say it with a short "i" sound.

The link I used above essentially concedes that the previously incorrect pronounciation is so common as to be rendered now correct. Shame, really.
QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 01:22 PM   #11
dacman
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: speak to the trout
pres·ent·ly ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prznt-l)
adv.
  1. In a short time; soon: She will arrive presently.
  2. Usage Problem. At this time or period; now: He is presently staying with us.
  3. Archaic. At once; immediately.
Usage Note: An original meaning of presently was “at the present time; currently.” That sense is said to have disappeared from the literary language in the 17th century, but it has survived in popular usage and is widely found nowadays in literate speech and writing. Still, there is a lingering prejudice against this use. The sentence General Walters is... presently the United States Ambassador to the United Nations was acceptable to only 50 percent of the Usage Panel in the late 1980s.
__________________
No signatures allowed.
dacman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 01:24 PM   #12
Karlifornia
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: San Jose, CA
At a formal dinner party, never say "ain't". Always say "ai not"
__________________
Look into the mind of a crazy man (NSFW)
http://www.whitepowerupdate.wordpress.com
Karlifornia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 01:26 PM   #13
Karlifornia
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: San Jose, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuikSand
Here is one where, it seems, the good guys have finally surrendered:

short-lived

This word is derived from the word "life," and not from "live" -- and so it ought to be pronounced with a long "i" sound -- to more or less rhyme with the word "arrived." Of course, hardly anyone does so, nearly all say it with a short "i" sound.

The link I used above essentially concedes that the previously incorrect pronounciation is so common as to be rendered now correct. Shame, really.

Ok, we need a grassroots campaign to rescue this baby from obscurity.
__________________
Look into the mind of a crazy man (NSFW)
http://www.whitepowerupdate.wordpress.com
Karlifornia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 01:28 PM   #14
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioFriendlyUnitShifter
Ok, we need a grassroots campaign to rescue this baby from obscurity.

Just shed a tear with me. That'll do.
QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 01:47 PM   #15
Klinglerware
College Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The DMV
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuikSand

The link I used above essentially concedes that the previously incorrect pronounciation is so common as to be rendered now correct. Shame, really.

Well, nothing much can be done about pronunciation changes over time, it seems like natural cultural progression to me. On this topic, I read an article about a theatre group that is attempting to produce some of Shakespeare's plays using Elizabethan pronunciation, the idea being that the dialogue flows more naturally (i.e., words that rhymed in Elizabethan times no longer rhyme now).

Oh, to thread-jack a little more: I find it ironic that this thread is labeled "Graduate School", since grad school is the one place where writers can take the most liberty with their prose (in fact, often creating new usage seemingly at will), without fear of mockery or retribution.
Klinglerware is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 01:48 PM   #16
korme
Go Reds
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Bloodbuzz Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn
Pictures are hung. People are hanged.

And some guys are hung.
korme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 01:52 PM   #17
korme
Go Reds
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Bloodbuzz Ohio
Here's one: does the word couple mean a pair in every sense? I mean, if I say "It has been a couple of years." Does that mean exactly two, or is it like few, where the word can be interpreted to mean a small amount?

If it solely means two, I don't know why anyone would go to the extent to say "a couple" instead of just saying "it's been 2 years."
korme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:00 PM   #18
JeeberD
General Manager
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Town of Flower Mound
Couple means two. Period.
__________________
UTEP Miners!!!

I solemnly swear to never cheer for TO
JeeberD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:02 PM   #19
Buzzbee
College Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
I'm afraid to post in this thread. I've typed 5 sentences so far, and deleted all of them for fear of making a stupid grammatical error.
__________________
Ability is what you're capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it. - Lou Holtz
Buzzbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:02 PM   #20
korme
Go Reds
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Bloodbuzz Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeeberD
Couple means two. Period.

That's what my whole family was trying to convince me. But after I typed the post, I looked it up.

Jeeber you are as dumb as my family!

cou·ple ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kpl)
n.
  1. Two items of the same kind; a pair.
  2. Something that joins or connects two things together; a link.
  3. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
    1. Two people united, as by betrothal or marriage.
    2. Two people together.
  4. Informal. A few; several: a couple of days.
  5. Physics. A pair of forces of equal magnitude acting in parallel but opposite directions, capable of causing rotation but not translation.
korme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:04 PM   #21
JeeberD
General Manager
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Town of Flower Mound
Dictionary.com is dumb in this instance, Shorty...
__________________
UTEP Miners!!!

I solemnly swear to never cheer for TO
JeeberD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:08 PM   #22
Buzzbee
College Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty3281
Here's one: does the word couple mean a pair in every sense? I mean, if I say "It has been a couple of years." Does that mean exactly two, or is it like few, where the word can be interpreted to mean a small amount?

If it solely means two, I don't know why anyone would go to the extent to say "a couple" instead of just saying "it's been 2 years."

Perhaps 'it's been 2 years' implies that it has been exactly two years, whereas 'it's been a couple of years' is less exact and implies a timeframe greater than one year but less than three years.
__________________
Ability is what you're capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it. - Lou Holtz
Buzzbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:09 PM   #23
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
The denotation of "informal," in most dictionaries, is akin to saying "not technically correct, but still common..." -- not exactly a ringing endorsement there.
QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:15 PM   #24
korme
Go Reds
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Bloodbuzz Ohio
Oh, ok. Didn't know that..
korme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:18 PM   #25
Raiders Army
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
Quote:
Originally Posted by albionmoonlight
The past subjunctive to express hypothetical states. It does not come up much, but when it does, people tend to misuse it. I got into an argument with my boss about this, and she was right and I was wrong. So it has stuck in my head.

In formal English, you use the word "were" to express a hypothetical or non-factual state--not "was."

I wish that Brian Westbrook were training camp right now.

NOT

I wish that Brian Westbrook was in training camp right now.
_______________________________________

If I were Brian Westbrook, I would come to camp.

NOT

If I was Brian Westbrook, I would come to camp.
____________________________________________

CITE: http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/d.../d0082859.html
Absolutely. Upon reading post #1 in this thread, this was the grammar usage mistake that I thought of.

I'd also throw out there that you should never end a sentence in a preposition.

Instead of my second sentence above, it should be "Upon reading post #1 in this thread, this was the grammar usage mistake that came to my mind."
Raiders Army is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:21 PM   #26
Samdari
Roster Filler
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Cicero
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuikSand
The denotation of "informal," in most dictionaries, is akin to saying "not technically correct, but still common..." -- not exactly a ringing endorsement there.

I'd go so far as to say it is equivalent to "slang" or perhaps that term's PC replacement.

I would also go so far to say that the definition of couple that you want to be true being listed as such validates what everyone has been trying to tell you for years - that couple means TWO.

The 'informal' definition that you want so much to be accurate being listed as such is really dictionary.com saying "lots of dumbasses use it to mean this, even though it really doesn't."
__________________
http://www.nateandellie.net Now featuring twice the babies for the same low price!

Last edited by Samdari : 08-04-2005 at 02:22 PM.
Samdari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:22 PM   #27
Huckleberry
College Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Can someone detail the history of raise versus rear?
__________________
The one thing all your failed relationships have in common is you.

The Barking Carnival (Longhorn-centered sports blog)
College Football Adjusted Stats and Ratings
Huckleberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:25 PM   #28
Celeval
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cary, NC, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by albionmoonlight
In formal English, you use the word "were" to express a hypothetical or non-factual state--not "was."
This is an easy one to remember.

"Oh, I wish I were an Oscar Meyer Weiner..."

Last edited by Celeval : 08-04-2005 at 02:54 PM.
Celeval is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:30 PM   #29
HomerJSimpson
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springfield, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samdari
The 'informal' definition that you want so much to be accurate being listed as such is really dictionary.com saying "lots of dumbasses use it to mean this, even though it really doesn't."


But of course, when "lots of dumbasses" becomes "the majority of use," it then becomes the "correct use." I know rigid-thinking people hate to admit it, but languages change over time (or else we'd still be using thee and thou).
HomerJSimpson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:32 PM   #30
Klinglerware
College Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The DMV
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson
But of course, when "lots of dumbasses" becomes "the majority of use," it then becomes the "correct use." I know rigid-thinking people hate to admit it, but languages change over time (or else we'd still be using thee and thou).

Hear, hear!
Klinglerware is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:33 PM   #31
Raiders Army
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson
But of course, when "lots of dumbasses" becomes "the majority of use," it then becomes the "correct use." I know rigid-thinking people hate to admit it, but languages change over time (or else we'd still be using thee and thou).
Thou art a dullard.
Raiders Army is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:33 PM   #32
Samdari
Roster Filler
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Cicero
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson
But of course, when "lots of dumbasses" becomes "the majority of use," it then becomes the "correct use." I know rigid-thinking people hate to admit it, but languages change over time (or else we'd still be using thee and thou).

You are confusing "correct use" and "common use"
__________________
http://www.nateandellie.net Now featuring twice the babies for the same low price!
Samdari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:34 PM   #33
korme
Go Reds
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Bloodbuzz Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samdari
I'd go so far as to say it is equivalent to "slang" or perhaps that term's PC replacement.

I would also go so far to say that the definition of couple that you want to be true being listed as such validates what everyone has been trying to tell you for years - that couple means TWO.

The 'informal' definition that you want so much to be accurate being listed as such is really dictionary.com saying "lots of dumbasses use it to mean this, even though it really doesn't."

A bit harsh, but, uh... okay.
korme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:36 PM   #34
Samdari
Roster Filler
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Cicero
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty3281
A bit harsh, but, uh... okay.

Not harsh at all. The term "dumbass" when applied to you, is synonymous with "cuddly"
__________________
http://www.nateandellie.net Now featuring twice the babies for the same low price!
Samdari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:36 PM   #35
Fritz
Lethargic Hooligan
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing
language change could be worse - it could be abrupt (mild hijack)

Old German spellings now verboten
Last Updated Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:59:56 EDT
CBC News
Most German traditionalists are reluctantly switching over to new German spelling rules that came into effect this week, designed to modernize and simplify the language.

But some are vowing to defy the rules and stick to the old ways.

"I don't agree with the changes," said German linguist Friedrich Denk, an outspoken critic of the reforms. "It's a black day for the German language. Our common orthography that has served us well for centuries is being destroyed."

More than six years ago, a special committee revised spelling rules in an attempt to rid the language of many of its quirks and make it more logical.

Germany, Austria and Switzerland have been in transition since then, with both sets of spelling rules in use.

Under the new system, extremely long compound words have been broken up, comma rules have been simplified, and in many cases a double-S replaces the old letter sign for the sound, which resembles a capital B.

School children have adapted easily to the changes, partly because their textbooks have been re-printed in accordance with the new spelling rules.

Several leading newspapers have stubbornly refused to introduce the changes, though, and stuck to the old spellings leading up to the Aug. 1 deadline for making the shift. Some politicians and intellectuals have even called for the reforms to be stopped, arguing that the new rules only serve to confuse things.

The German states of Bavaria and North Rhine-Westphalia are resisting the changes as long as they can.

The states, which are home to one-third of Germany's population, have opted to wait until the German Spelling Council has dotted the i's and crossed the t's on all the new rules before declaring the old ways incorrect.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...ing050802.html
---
__________________
donkey, donkey, walk a little faster
Fritz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:37 PM   #36
HomerJSimpson
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springfield, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samdari
You are confusing "correct use" and "common use"


No, I know exactly what both of those mean. I'm just pointing out that "common use" becomes "correct use" over time. Don't believe me? Read anything from the early 1800's and see if the gammar and definition of words have changed.
HomerJSimpson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:39 PM   #37
JeeberD
General Manager
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Town of Flower Mound
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fritz
land in many cases a double-S replaces the old letter sign for the sound, which resembles a capital B.

They can't get rid of the etset!!!
__________________
UTEP Miners!!!

I solemnly swear to never cheer for TO
JeeberD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:41 PM   #38
HomerJSimpson
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springfield, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuikSand
Here is one where, it seems, the good guys have finally surrendered:

short-lived

This word is derived from the word "life," and not from "live" -- and so it ought to be pronounced with a long "i" sound -- to more or less rhyme with the word "arrived." Of course, hardly anyone does so, nearly all say it with a short "i" sound.

The link I used above essentially concedes that the previously incorrect pronounciation is so common as to be rendered now correct. Shame, really.


Why is it a "good-guy/bad-guy" thing? At what year was diction of all english words perfected, and all words must be pronounced as such for all ages? 1850? 1901? 1958?
HomerJSimpson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:42 PM   #39
Raiders Army
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
Good guys=intellectuals
Bad guys=guys who don't wear deodorant
Raiders Army is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:45 PM   #40
Huckleberry
College Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Hey, I'm all for change. Just recognize that the changes are because too many people are/were uneducated.

It's going to rock when "pwn" is in the dictionary.
__________________
The one thing all your failed relationships have in common is you.

The Barking Carnival (Longhorn-centered sports blog)
College Football Adjusted Stats and Ratings
Huckleberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:47 PM   #41
Samdari
Roster Filler
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Cicero
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson
No, I know exactly what both of those mean. I'm just pointing out that "common use" becomes "correct use" over time. Don't believe me? Read anything from the early 1800's and see if the gammar and definition of words have changed.

Yes, the language does evolve. But, your previous post about how if "correct" language did not change, we would still be using "thee" and "thou" illustrates how you are confusing that with common usage. Both words are still proper, in every dictionary you will find, but have been dropped from common use. Their disappearance represents a change in common usage, not in proper usage. The organizations that define "correct" use of language operate on a time scale more commonly assciated with geological change.
__________________
http://www.nateandellie.net Now featuring twice the babies for the same low price!
Samdari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:48 PM   #42
Raiders Army
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry
Hey, I'm all for change. Just recognize that the changes are because too many people are/were uneducated.

It's going to rock when "pwn" is in the dictionary.
I'll be happy when it's on Wheel of Fortune.

_ _ _ _ _ ST _ _T _ _ NED!

PHRASE
RSTLNE CMD A
Raiders Army is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:48 PM   #43
Klinglerware
College Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The DMV
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson
No, I know exactly what both of those mean. I'm just pointing out that "common use" becomes "correct use" over time. Don't believe me? Read anything from the early 1800's and see if the gammar and definition of words have changed.

Yeah, and take a look at Chaucer:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin.../mideng-parsed

Language pronunciation, spelling, grammar, and usage will inevitably change over time
Klinglerware is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:51 PM   #44
HomerJSimpson
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springfield, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samdari
Yes, the language does evolve. But, your previous post about how if "correct" language did not change, we would still be using "thee" and "thou" illustrates how you are confusing that with common usage. Both words are still proper, in every dictionary you will find, but have been dropped from common use. Their disappearance represents a change in common usage, not in proper usage. The organizations that define "correct" use of language operate on a time scale more commonly assciated with geological change.


No, it was a change in proper usage. It would have been incorrect years ago (and not in geological "thousands" of years) *not* to use those words. It is now uncommon but also would be improper usage outside of certain areas (theology being the only one I can think of). Language changes more rapidly than you are giving it credit.
HomerJSimpson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 02:54 PM   #45
HomerJSimpson
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springfield, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klinglerware
Yeah, and take a look at Chaucer:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin.../mideng-parsed

Language pronunciation, spelling, grammar, and usage will inevitably change over time


You don't have to go back that far. Read anything written in the early 1800's and you'll quickly see words whose definitions have completely changed and very odd gammar usages.
HomerJSimpson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 03:00 PM   #46
HomerJSimpson
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springfield, USA
I'm sorry, QS. I think I took your thread the wrong way. I'll never be able to look in your big, yellow eyes again.
HomerJSimpson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 03:02 PM   #47
Passacaglia
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
Why would it be so bad if we were using 'thee' and 'thou' presentl -- er, right now?
Passacaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 03:09 PM   #48
Raiders Army
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
Quote:
Originally Posted by Passacaglia
Why would it be so bad if we were using 'thee' and 'thou' presentl -- er, right now?
Jesus copyrighted the usage. Any copying or duplication in part or in whole is prohibited without the express written permission of the Holy Trinity.
Raiders Army is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 03:11 PM   #49
Passacaglia
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiders Army
Jesus copyrighted the usage. Any copying or duplication in part or in whole is prohibited without the express written permission of the Holy Trinity.

Damnit! First he comes to kill me cause I'm Jewish, now this!
Passacaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2005, 03:17 PM   #50
duckman
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Muskogee, OK USA
I wonder how much QuikSand cringes when he reads my posts?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Sowell
“One of the consequences of such notions as "entitlements" is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexis de Tocqueville
“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
duckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:51 AM.



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.