Jump to content

Modern language use that really really shits me


Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, random. said:

Well that's what it fucking is!

Why do Americans only think there is one Math?  There are millions of them!

Because there are words in English that are the same for singular or plural.  Usually for the reason of ease of pronunciation.  Maths is hard to say.  We all understand that the plural for math is math.  The context usually makes it clear if you are discussing one or many.  Same thing with that execrable English word ice creams.  I need 3 ice cream cones or 3 units of whatever ice cream.   No need to make it sound stupid.  "Hey kids, let's go to the corner store for some ice creams!"  Um, no.  The kids are smart enough to know they will all get ice cream, no superfluous 's' needed.  And then there's the coffee situation.  "Would you like a coffee?"  "No, I would like some coffee or a cup of coffee, thank you!"  I hate British English.  A language is about utility, not pedantry and strict adherence to sometimes stupid rules.  It's a means to an end, not the end itself.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 225
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I learned something over the years I spent in corporations listening to all that sort of fashionable bullshit. It is used almost exclusively by people who work in areas that don't have a speciali

Try a quantum leap before you paradigm shift. The synergy is better.

Being pro active is too much work and doesn't pay as much as people think.  I've always maintained my amateur active status, it's much less of a hassle.    I have to run now. I need to lean in to

Posted Images

6 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

Because there are words in English that are the same for singular or plural.  Usually for the reason of ease of pronunciation.  Maths is hard to say.  We all understand that the plural for math is math.  The context usually makes it clear if you are discussing one or many.  Same thing with that execrable English word ice creams.  I need 3 ice cream cones or 3 units of whatever ice cream.   No need to make it sound stupid.  "Hey kids, let's go to the corner store for some ice creams!"  Um, no.  The kids are smart enough to know they will all get ice cream, no superfluous 's' needed.  And then there's the coffee situation.  "Would you like a coffee?"  "No, I would like some coffee or a cup of coffee, thank you!"  I hate British English.  A language is about utility, not pedantry and strict adherence to sometimes stupid rules.  It's a means to an end, not the end itself.

Maths is hard to say?

And of course it's ice cream, they are only having one.

Unless they want 2 ice creams.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going forward, I think if we drill down into these actions, we'll see a possible end of play that delivers a solution to the current issues by leveraging our core competencies with buy in from the stakeholders before the eventual sunsetting of this effort.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/apr/25/top-10-worst-management-speak

Edit: Let's put our heads together on this one.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

he long axis utilizing a knife that

Utilized ... fucking utilized! ....

What . the . fuck happened to 'using', 'use' etc. 

But no, modern fuckwits use 'utilize', utilizing' because it's a bigger word.  Sounds more intelligent, they think.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, random. said:

Utilized ... fucking utilized! ....

What . the . fuck happened to 'using', 'use' etc. 

But no, modern fuckwits use 'utilize', utilizing' because it's a bigger word.  Sounds more intelligent, they think.

WTF do you think all of this is about?

Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're on the subject, "what the fuck" has become sorta lame. We need something a little more quizzically forceful, like "what in the flaming goitered asshole".

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

While we're on the subject, "what the fuck" has become sorta lame. We need something a little more quizzically forceful, like "what in the flaming goitered asshole".

In Sydney, a term of serious outrage is sometimes: "Cunt! What the cunting cunted cunt?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck has been around for about 600 years.

It ain't fucking going anywhere.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

While we're on the subject, "what the fuck" has become sorta lame. We need something a little more quizzically forceful, like "what in the flaming goitered asshole".

Even lacking an R, it's just too British 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dorado said:
40 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

While we're on the subject, "what the fuck" has become sorta lame. We need something a little more quizzically forceful, like "what in the flaming goitered asshole".

Even lacking an R, it's just too British 

As bhyde saide; lettes putte heades togethere on thisse oune, leveriage core compenties, and socialize it at lattere datte foire anarchistes buy in..........       :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

“I was in shock” No. You weren’t. You may have been surprised at what you saw. Shock is a medical condition.

”I was traumatised.” Again, no.

”Yeah, no, absolutely” when answering a question.

”Circle back” Just fucking what?

”Going forward” Oh, thanks for clearing that up, we were thinking about going backwards in time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything, even not very interesting stuff "Oh My God!!!!"

Yeah right, watever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

Because there are words in English that are the same for singular or plural.  Usually for the reason of ease of pronunciation.  Maths is hard to say.  We all understand that the plural for math is math.  The context usually makes it clear if you are discussing one or many.  Same thing with that execrable English word ice creams.  I need 3 ice cream cones or 3 units of whatever ice cream.   No need to make it sound stupid.  "Hey kids, let's go to the corner store for some ice creams!"  Um, no.  The kids are smart enough to know they will all get ice cream, no superfluous 's' needed.  And then there's the coffee situation.  "Would you like a coffee?"  "No, I would like some coffee or a cup of coffee, thank you!"  I hate British English.  A language is about utility, not pedantry and strict adherence to sometimes stupid rules.  It's a means to an end, not the end itself.

My Dear chap, if you spoke properly you'd say Mathematics not abbreviate the word...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Snaggletooth said:

As bhyde saide; lettes putte heades togethere on thisse oune, leveriage core compenties, and socialize it at lattere datte foire anarchistes buy in..........       :)

I humbly suggest that we run it up the flag pole and see who salutes it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, The Q said:

My Dear chap, if you spoke properly you'd say Mathematics not abbreviate the word...

There you go my good fellow.  We Americans are informal types.  No need to acquire a specific accent accent or manner of speech to indicate ones social standing.  So we say math, not mathematics.  And in my opinion it sounds silly and is a wasteful effort to add that 's' on the end of the 'th' combination.  Ease of use over rules is fine with me.  

The English and German languages originated from the same roots and went of in their own direction.  German is an extremely formal language and Germans like rules and order.  British English retains much of the formality and adherence to rules like the German language.

When the English language got to America, over time it lost much of its formality and the rules were often disregarded.  Rather than retain the British custom of knowing somebody's all important social standing by their accent and speech mannerisms, we Americans took an egalitarian approach to the language and discarded the formal class system of the British. 

As I said in another post, language is a tool.  Sometimes you use a screwdriver in place of a chisel or a wrench if you can't find a hammer.  It can be ugly, but it gets the job done. I find language to be similar.  The goal is not to see who can speak the most perfectly, or adhere rigidly to archaic and awkward rules. The goal is to convey ideas, meet needs, exchange information, etc.  Saying math instead of maths doesn't hinder those goals one bit in my opinion.

Cheerio chap, YMMV.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Lada said:

I humbly suggest that we run it up the flag pole and see who salutes it.

Throw it in the think-wok and see what bubbles up.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Off of?

Why?

One doesn't say "I sat on of the chair"

So why do Seppos say "I fell off of the chair" ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Black Sox said:

While I’m here, what is so difficult with the distinction between ‘lose’ and ‘loose’?

4 minutes ago, Ukuri said:

Off of?

Why?

One doesn't say "I sat on of the chair"

So why do Seppos say "I fell off of the chair" ?

In defense of us Seppos, many people do say I fell off the chair even if it is grammatically incorrect.  

I have a feeling that American English speakers are far more tolerant of grammatical errors than many other speakers of their country's native language.  Again, language is a tool.  If you are understood and get or do what you need, within reason what does it really matter if it is spoken perfectly or not.  Language pedantry can get quite annoying.  If you clearly understand what a person is saying, what purpose does it serve to correct their poor grammar?  It doesn't do anything to advance the conversation.  In my opinion language pedantry is often used as a distraction and deflection to hide the fact that the pedant doesn't have a legitimate answer to whatever the subject is and becomes pedantic rather than just admit that they don't know something or don't want to admit that they are wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Black Sox said:

While I’m here, what is so difficult with the distinction between ‘lose’ and ‘loose’?

Perhaps because many losers are rather loose with their command of their native language?  I do believe that they might be some of the same people that just can't understand that 'yours' doesn't require an apostrophe and confuse 'it's' with 'its'.

English is a marvelous language with a rich vocabulary and rather simple grammar compared to most other languages.  It is quite possible to learn simple English relatively quickly, especially if learned at an early age.  You can communicate almost any concept adequately with just present simple and past simple tenses and simple words.  In many languages there is no way to do that, you need to learn the language thoroughly, there is no simple version.  E.g. Polish has 7 cases and gender for nouns and you can't cheat.  You must use the correct case and the correct gender and modify the root verbs and nouns accordingly or people just won't understand you.  I will never understand why people thought it was a useful and good idea to assign gender to inanimate objects when developing a language.  Thank goodness when English and German went their separate ways, English dropped that convention while German still uses it.   However English does have it does have its pitfalls.  I think that the biggest ones are spelling and pronunciation.  Many languages are phonetic and consistent, although the grammar is a nightmare (I'm looking at you again Polish).  You say it and spell it just like you hear it (once you learn the correct pronunciation for each letter or combination of letters), with few or no exceptions.  Good luck with that in English.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

There you go my good fellow.  We Americans are informal types.  No need to acquire a specific accent accent or manner of speech to indicate ones social standing.  So we say math, not mathematics.  And in my opinion it sounds silly and is a wasteful effort to add that 's' on the end of the 'th' combination.  Ease of use over rules is fine with me.  

The English and German languages originated from the same roots and went of in their own direction.  German is an extremely formal language and Germans like rules and order.  British English retains much of the formality and adherence to rules like the German language.

When the English language got to America, over time it lost much of its formality and the rules were often disregarded.  Rather than retain the British custom of knowing somebody's all important social standing by their accent and speech mannerisms, we Americans took an egalitarian approach to the language and discarded the formal class system of the British. 

As I said in another post, language is a tool.  Sometimes you use a screwdriver in place of a chisel or a wrench if you can't find a hammer.  It can be ugly, but it gets the job done. I find language to be similar.  The goal is not to see who can speak the most perfectly, or adhere rigidly to archaic and awkward rules. The goal is to convey ideas, meet needs, exchange information, etc.  Saying math instead of maths doesn't hinder those goals one bit in my opinion.

Cheerio chap, YMMV.

 

Tha be fine old bor, we can a keep mardling abaat thass thing fur eerr, the Shanny'll neer unnnerstan anywhoo

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd never heard of Lean Sigma Six until reading Ed's post here so decided to look it up (by the way, look it up probably would have been in this thread if it was 50 years ago), and wholly fuck!

Not only is it all the worst shit I had to deal with in QC and HR combined, they created their own language to maximize the inability to know what they're talking about.

 

Just mind boggling.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The American company I work for introduced a new annual assessment system a couple of years back, it's obviously written by a Degree holding personnel manager.. They forget the 100,000+ employees who have to fill the thing in have never done that degree course.. Its full of terms invented by an obscure Professor or HR (or what ever it was called then) in the 1960's .

It was so confusing they had to hold courses on on what the hell, were the meanings of the terms used. 

Added to that it's littered with company slogans like "builds extraordinary teams" which do nothing but piss people off..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Q said:

Added to that it's littered with company slogans like "builds extraordinary teams" which do nothing but piss people off..

That is oune thinge, moire importantley it allienates employeese..............                 :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Maths is hard to say?

And of course it's ice cream, they are only having one.

Unless they want 2 ice creams.....

Perhaps it should be "ices cream", kinda like "attorneys general" - so that you can differentiate from "ices fruit", or anything else that might be frozen.


I'll get my hat....

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Willin' said:

I'd never heard of Lean Sigma Six until reading Ed's post here so decided to look it up (by the way, look it up probably would have been in this thread if it was 50 years ago), and wholly fuck!

Not only is it all the worst shit I had to deal with in QC and HR combined, they created their own language to maximize the inability to know what they're talking about.

 

Just mind boggling.

The thing that really annoyed me about Lean Six Sigma besides the jargon which reminded me of the language of Marxist-Leninist indoctrination, is that it was developed in the private sector, a combination of the Lean Manufacturing concept and the Six Sigma principles developed elsewhere. Then at some point the military decided it was a good thing.  Now while the military certainly has many corporate-industrial type processes it is still a very different environment. The biggest difference being that the main mission of the military is to break things and kill people vs the corporate drive for profits above all, as you well know.  The contortions that the DoD blackbelts were going through trying to get the LSS principles to apply to the military environment were sometimes laughable and often tragic.  I saw a lot of effort being made to fit very round pegs into very square holes at any cost.  "Don't force it, get a bigger hammer!"  I finally wrote it off in my mind as yet another example of the massive fraud, waste, and abuse that is rampant in today's DoD environment with its ever increasing reliance on giving huge amounts of money to various favored DoD contract companies which is rapidly turning the US military into a mercenary force.

I spent 6 years working in logistics at the US Army Europe HQ (HQ USAREUR).  I started there after the war in Bosnia had wound down as well as the peacekeeping mission in Kosovo.  It was rather slow and boring work mostly involving bringing thousands of railcars of excess equipment back to Germany and deciding its disposition, repair it and return to our stocks in Europe, send it to the US, or scrap it.  Then after 9/11 we busted our asses planning and preparing for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The amount of contracts that we had oversight over with KBR and other DoD contractors and the amount of money that was spent and the amount of fraud and waste that goes along with that kind of profligate spending was truly remarkable and extremely disturbing to me.  The excuse was that we had a war dammit and forget about correct procedures, just get the shit and send it down range and don't worry what it costs.  At the peak f the wars the US was spending 1 billion dollars a week.  I think we spent almost half of that money at HQ USAREUR because we were closer to the theater and depot level maintenance on equipment could be performed easier in Europe rather than ship it all the way back to the US.  Also the combat units in USAREUR rotated in and out of the theater along with troops from the US.  

I truly miss the unique fellowship and camaraderie of being a soldier and the next best thing, working as a civilian next to soldiers, but I don't miss the many negative changes I witnessed over a 20 year period of being a part of 'the big green machine'. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

Perhaps because many losers are rather loose with their command of their native language?  I do believe that they might be some of the same people that just can't understand that 'yours' doesn't require an apostrophe and confuse 'it's' with 'its'.

English is a marvelous language with a rich vocabulary and rather simple grammar compared to most other languages.  It is quite possible to learn simple English relatively quickly, especially if learned at an early age.  You can communicate almost any concept adequately with just present simple and past simple tenses and simple words.  In many languages there is no way to do that, you need to learn the language thoroughly, there is no simple version.  E.g. Polish has 7 cases and gender for nouns and you can't cheat.  You must use the correct case and the correct gender and modify the root verbs and nouns accordingly or people just won't understand you.  I will never understand why people thought it was a useful and good idea to assign gender to inanimate objects when developing a language.  Thank goodness when English and German went their separate ways, English dropped that convention while German still uses it.   However English does have it does have its pitfalls.  I think that the biggest ones are spelling and pronunciation.  Many languages are phonetic and consistent, although the grammar is a nightmare (I'm looking at you again Polish).  You say it and spell it just like you hear it (once you learn the correct pronunciation for each letter or combination of letters), with few or no exceptions.  Good luck with that in English.

English is MUCH easier to understand than KIWI

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dorado said:

This is all child's play compared to understanding a drunken Scotsman.

If it's not Scottish, it's crap.  Then just nod a lot.   Many years ago I complimented a woman on her accent - tis not an accent, tis a lilt.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

If it's not Scottish, it's crap.  Then just nod a lot.   Many years ago I complimented a woman on her accent - tis not an accent, tis a lilt.

Reminds me of the old joke. 

An American overheard two very large ladies in a British pub speaking in an incomprehesable lingo.  "Excuse me," he said, "but are you two ladies from Scotland?"  "Wales, you idiot!"  "Oh, I'm sorry. Are you two whales from Scotland?"

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, d'ranger said:

If it's not Scottish, it's crap.  Then just nod a lot.   Many years ago I complimented a woman on her accent - tis not an accent, tis a lilt.

she might rather you sais

Nice Lilt's

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, DA-WOODY said:
2 hours ago, d'ranger said:

If it's not Scottish, it's crap.  Then just nod a lot.   Many years ago I complimented a woman on her accent - tis not an accent, tis a lilt.

she might rather you sais

Nice Lilt's

Ist thet anorthere mammorey joke?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Snaggletooth said:

That is oune thinge, moire importantley it allienates employeese..............                 :)

It's been my experience that "This company is one big family" combined with "We work hard and play hard" is a great way to identify companies/clients you really don't want to work for or with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sidecar said:

Shirley = Surely for many Americans…….WTF?

That's an inside joke here.

As Eva Dent.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:
9 minutes ago, Sidecar said:

Shirley = Surely for many Americans…….WTF?

That's an inside joke here.

As Eva Dent.

Ist moire foire the Elk clique........                 :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, bhyde said:

It's been my experience that "This company is one big family" combined with "We work hard and play hard" is a great way to identify companies/clients you really don't want to work for or with.

Actually that is one of our company lines "work hard play hard..."  Our group holds the proud distinction of actually drinking all the scotch at the Saint Andrews Old Course Hotel...  in one night..  we played hard that year..

Thank goodness I was spending a few days in Edinburgh afterwards...  other wise that would been one dreadful flight back to Los Angeles..

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

There you go my good fellow.  We Americans are informal types.  No need to acquire a specific accent accent or manner of speech to indicate ones social standing.  So we say math, not mathematics.  And in my opinion it sounds silly and is a wasteful effort to add that 's' on the end of the 'th' combination.  Ease of use over rules is fine with me.  

The English and German languages originated from the same roots and went of in their own direction.  German is an extremely formal language and Germans like rules and order.  British English retains much of the formality and adherence to rules like the German language.

When the English language got to America, over time it lost much of its formality and the rules were often disregarded.  Rather than retain the British custom of knowing somebody's all important social standing by their accent and speech mannerisms, we Americans took an egalitarian approach to the language and discarded the formal class system of the British. 

As I said in another post, language is a tool.  Sometimes you use a screwdriver in place of a chisel or a wrench if you can't find a hammer.  It can be ugly, but it gets the job done. I find language to be similar.  The goal is not to see who can speak the most perfectly, or adhere rigidly to archaic and awkward rules. The goal is to convey ideas, meet needs, exchange information, etc.  Saying math instead of maths doesn't hinder those goals one bit in my opinion.

Cheerio chap, YMMV.

 

this.

it doesnt hinder you, but it hinders the listener.

why must the rest of the world continue to race to the bottom just to be with you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

this.

it doesnt hinder you, but it hinders the listener.

why must the rest of the world continue to race to the bottom just to be with you?

I am not sure what you are saying here.  If you are saying that if I talk to a British person and I say math instead of maths they won't understand what I am saying then I don't know what to say.  Perhaps is a listener has that much intellectual impairment that the lack of an 's' confuses them, then the conversation isn't going to be very productive anyway.  Or conversely, if the listener has average or above average intelligence and the lack of the 's' disturbs them so much because their arsehole is clenched tighter than a frog's pussy, well I don't think that conversation will get far either.  I don't see where that useless 's' at the end of math helped the British empire any, eh? 

By the way, 'doesn't' requires an apostrophe between the n and t.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

because their arsehole is clenched tighter than a frog's pussy

How about that!  Ed is turning Aussie!

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

I am not sure what you are saying here.  If you are saying that if I talk to a British person and I say math instead of maths they won't understand what I am saying then I don't know what to say.  Perhaps is a listener has that much intellectual impairment that the lack of an 's' confuses them, then the conversation isn't going to be very productive anyway.  Or conversely, if the listener has average or above average intelligence and the lack of the 's' disturbs them so much because their arsehole is clenched tighter than a frog's pussy, well I don't think that conversation will get far either.  I don't see where that useless 's' at the end of math helped the British empire any, eh? 

By the way, 'doesn't' requires an apostrophe between the n and t.   

It's a race to the bottom, like emojis.

On your point about conveying ideas, I agree.

But if we get lazy with our words, getting lazy with our ideas will be next.

As for the missing apostrophe, it's an American website and I just want to fit in!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

It's a race to the bottom, like emojis.

On your point about conveying ideas, I agree.

But if we get lazy with our words, getting lazy with our ideas will be next.

As for the missing apostrophe, it's an American website and I just want to fit in!

I understand your point to a point however languages are a living thing.  Just as British English morphed into American English for various reasons, languages are always changing.  Old words disappear, new words are invented and some word usage acquire additional meanings.  

It's a delicate balance for a language to change and sometimes the changes aren't good however the key is still to remember that language is not an end unto itself, it's a useful tool.  Just as language can become sloppy and become less useful for whatever reason, too much pedantry and insistence on 'correct' speech can become an obsession and a greater hinderance to communication than the adaptation of a word to the new country with a minor difference.  In addition, 'math' is accepted as the correct word in American English.  Certain abuses of a language don't become acceptable because the willful sloppy modification of the word due to a lack of education, a lack of caring or whatever, renders it difficult to understand.  That can become a problem beyond mere pedantry.

I think it is useful and necessary to tolerate a certain amount of sloppiness in a language as long as effective communication occurs.  I don't see any negative effect to drop the 's' from maths for example, because anybody knows that math is maths and the message doesn't lose anything from the change.  Whereas berating somebody for saying math instead of maths just to be pedantic causes far more damage than just letting it go.  

Dialects are a prime example.  People in different regions modify the language for whatever reason and perhaps if they travel to another region where the dialect is different, usually most people can still understand each other.  English having one of the largest vocabularies of any language is especially tolerant to this kind of abuse, because there are many ways to address an idea in English with different words, and they are all correct.  And if they aren't, with little effort anybody can still understand anybody else.  The biggest problem I have when I go to England or talk to people that speak British English is not understanding the different words, but trying to decipher the awful garbled way they say them.  And if you are going to tell me that Americans have a terrible accent, not the British I suggest you listen to the Beatles, the Rolling Stones or any other native British group singing.  Almost without fail, British singers lose some or all of their accent when they sing.  Why would that be?

Of course all of this just my perception, YMMV.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Notwithstanding anything above "off of" remains incorrect despite your assertion to the contrary in your response to my previous post.

Unless, of course, it was simply a typo.

I'll leave it up to you to find said typo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

I suggest you listen to the Beatles, the Rolling Stones or any other native British group singing.  Almost without fail, British singers lose some or all of their accent when they sing.  Why would that be?

Most extreme example of that I ever heard was Sade - she speaks like a docklands cockney but sings as smooth as silk.

People also lose stutters when they sing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

used have a girlfriend who used to say "oh my god" when climaxing.

i used to answer "yes?"

Reminds me of the long circulated and likely untrue story of the college professor asking if hell was endothermic or exothermic.  I'll spare you most of it, but it ends with:

"1. If hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose.

"2. If hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.

"So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in hell before I sleep with you', and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that hell is exothermic and has already frozen over.

"The corollary of this theory is that since hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct . . . leaving only heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting, 'Oh my God!'."

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

I understand your point to a point however languages are a living thing.  Just as British English morphed into American English for various reasons, languages are always changing.  Old words disappear, new words are invented and some word usage acquire additional meanings.  

It's a delicate balance for a language to change and sometimes the changes aren't good however the key is still to remember that language is not an end unto itself, it's a useful tool.  Just as language can become sloppy and become less useful for whatever reason, too much pedantry and insistence on 'correct' speech can become an obsession and a greater hinderance to communication than the adaptation of a word to the new country with a minor difference.  In addition, 'math' is accepted as the correct word in American English.  Certain abuses of a language don't become acceptable because the willful sloppy modification of the word due to a lack of education, a lack of caring or whatever, renders it difficult to understand.  That can become a problem beyond mere pedantry.

I think it is useful and necessary to tolerate a certain amount of sloppiness in a language as long as effective communication occurs.  I don't see any negative effect to drop the 's' from maths for example, because anybody knows that math is maths and the message doesn't lose anything from the change.  Whereas berating somebody for saying math instead of maths just to be pedantic causes far more damage than just letting it go.  

Dialects are a prime example.  People in different regions modify the language for whatever reason and perhaps if they travel to another region where the dialect is different, usually most people can still understand each other.  English having one of the largest vocabularies of any language is especially tolerant to this kind of abuse, because there are many ways to address an idea in English with different words, and they are all correct.  And if they aren't, with little effort anybody can still understand anybody else.  The biggest problem I have when I go to England or talk to people that speak British English is not understanding the different words, but trying to decipher the awful garbled way they say them.  And if you are going to tell me that Americans have a terrible accent, not the British I suggest you listen to the Beatles, the Rolling Stones or any other native British group singing.  Almost without fail, British singers lose some or all of their accent when they sing.  Why would that be?

Of course all of this just my perception, YMMV.

I have a BIG FAT Dictionary

that does Not contain the word Computer             

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2021 at 11:57 PM, random. said:

Utilized ... fucking utilized! ....

What . the . fuck happened to 'using', 'use' etc. 

But no, modern fuckwits use 'utilize', utilizing' because it's a bigger word.  Sounds more intelligent, they think.

Kind of like when Hemingway wrote about utilizing a bottle of wine

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, burndoc said:

Kind of like when Hemingway wrote about utilizing a bottle of wine

Did he?

Well there is a legitimate place for the word, however there are also legitimate places where 'used' should be used.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, random. said:

Did he?

Well there is a legitimate place for the word, however there are also legitimate places where 'used' should be used.

Sun Also Rises. Occasionally I liked to say I am tight instead of drunk after utilizing a bottle of Jack.

Cheers

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One would also utilize a bottle of wine to hit someone over the head.

They can be very utilitarian.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Most extreme example of that I ever heard was Sade - she speaks like a docklands cockney but sings as smooth as silk.

People also lose stutters when they sing.

Mel Tillis comes to mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

And if you are going to tell me that Americans have a terrible accent, not the British I suggest you listen to the Beatles, the Rolling Stones or any other native British group singing.  Almost without fail, British singers lose some or all of their accent when they sing.  Why would that be?

I've always maintained that the Brits just use that accent to get laid by foreign chicks. Likewise with Kiwis and Aussies.

Ask a Kiwi kid about his/ her accent and they'll all deny any such thing exists, but they like mine.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Perfect"  Really?  Two over easy, rye toast, hashbrowns and bacon. She replies "Perfect". Sell 100 ATT and 200 Calamos Global please. "Perfect" !  We have the elongation and compression properties  of the "Impact modifier study" .  Perfect :D. Please remove this number from your auto warranty call list,, "Perfect":lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

I understand your point to a point however languages are a living thing.  Just as British English morphed into American English for various reasons, languages are always changing.  Old words disappear, new words are invented and some word usage acquire additional meanings.  

It's a delicate balance for a language to change and sometimes the changes aren't good however the key is still to remember that language is not an end unto itself, it's a useful tool.  Just as language can become sloppy and become less useful for whatever reason, too much pedantry and insistence on 'correct' speech can become an obsession and a greater hinderance to communication than the adaptation of a word to the new country with a minor difference.  In addition, 'math' is accepted as the correct word in American English.  Certain abuses of a language don't become acceptable because the willful sloppy modification of the word due to a lack of education, a lack of caring or whatever, renders it difficult to understand.  That can become a problem beyond mere pedantry.

I think it is useful and necessary to tolerate a certain amount of sloppiness in a language as long as effective communication occurs.  I don't see any negative effect to drop the 's' from maths for example, because anybody knows that math is maths and the message doesn't lose anything from the change.  Whereas berating somebody for saying math instead of maths just to be pedantic causes far more damage than just letting it go.  

Dialects are a prime example.  People in different regions modify the language for whatever reason and perhaps if they travel to another region where the dialect is different, usually most people can still understand each other.  English having one of the largest vocabularies of any language is especially tolerant to this kind of abuse, because there are many ways to address an idea in English with different words, and they are all correct.  And if they aren't, with little effort anybody can still understand anybody else.  The biggest problem I have when I go to England or talk to people that speak British English is not understanding the different words, but trying to decipher the awful garbled way they say them.  And if you are going to tell me that Americans have a terrible accent, not the British I suggest you listen to the Beatles, the Rolling Stones or any other native British group singing.  Almost without fail, British singers lose some or all of their accent when they sing.  Why would that be?

Of course all of this just my perception, YMMV.

British English? American English?

I can accept that American is a dialect of English. And almost as incomprehensible as Chinese English.....

 

And accent is not language.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Willin' said:

I've always maintained that the Brits just use that accent to get laid by foreign chicks. Likewise with Kiwis and Aussies.

Ask a Kiwi kid about his/ her accent and they'll all deny any such thing exists, but they like mine.

I watch a lot of documentaries and it seems that many of them have a narrator with a British accent.  Also on YouTube are a lot of videos that explain things or are philosophical, etc. and again, the narrator in many of them has has this low, soothing British voice.  I guess they think it adds credibility or something.  "Hey, that must be profound, he said it with a British accent!"   :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is possible to become immune to certain aspects of phrase, for example "ya know" has no effect on me because of "Naruto" (It's a catch phrase)

On the other hand some nuance of languages can be quite confusing.

Going to pick on Japanese a bit here, but try looking up the phonetics for "thanks for the meal" & "I'm leaving the house".

Subtle difference to put it mildly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

I watch a lot of documentaries and it seems that many of them have a narrator with a British accent.  Also on YouTube are a lot of videos that explain things or are philosophical, etc. and again, the narrator in many of them has has this low, soothing British voice.  I guess they think it adds credibility or something.  "Hey, that must be profound, he said it with a British accent!"   :lol:

Reference, see (hear) Clive Burke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

British English? American English?

I can accept that American is a dialect of English. And almost as incomprehensible as Chinese English....

 

 

Get over yourself old boy.  The sun has set on the Empire, the country is bordering on irrelevance, and the queen is almost 100 years old with no viable successor in sight.  Nowadays Great Britain doesn't manufacture anything but money, lousy cars, and trouble.  

Us Yanks have taken the English language, banged all of the dents out of it, and surgically removed the antiquated class accents so revered by the upper class to remind the lower class of their place.  Like many things, Americans took something awful and of limited utility and remade into a thing of beauty and egalitarian usefulness.  So much so that it is now the preferred language of the world for business and tourism.

2 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

And accent is not language.

Of course not.  However it is intimately connected to the language.  It can identify a specific region of the domicile of the speaker.  British and Scottish accents can frustrate people to the point of contemplating homicide because of the utterances of the speaker are so garbled that they are virtually indecipherable.  And it is a very useful source of comic material and mockery.  You hear people imitating and mocking British accents all of the time.  You rarely hear somebody imitate an American accent.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

Us Yanks have taken the English language, banged all of the dents out of it, and surgically removed the antiquated class accents so revered by the upper class to remind the lower class of their place.  Like many things, Americans took something awful and of limited utility and remade into a thing of beauty and egalitarian usefulness.  So much so that it is now the preferred language of the world for business and tourism.

Adgreede!                                 :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

 

Us Yanks have taken the English language, banged all of the dents out of it, and surgically removed the antiquated class accents so revered by the upper class to remind the lower class of their place.  Like many things, Americans took something awful and of limited utility and remade into a thing of beauty and egalitarian usefulness.  So much so that it is now the preferred language of the world for business and tourism.

.

 

FIFY

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

Get over yourself old boy.  The sun has set on the Empire, the country is bordering on irrelevance, and the queen is almost 100 years old with no viable successor in sight.  Nowadays Great Britain doesn't manufacture anything but money, lousy cars, and trouble.  

Us Yanks have taken the English language, banged all of the dents out of it, and surgically removed the antiquated class accents so revered by the upper class to remind the lower class of their place.  Like many things, Americans took something awful and of limited utility and remade into a thing of beauty and egalitarian usefulness.  So much so that it is now the preferred language of the world for business and tourism.

Of course not.  However it is intimately connected to the language.  It can identify a specific region of the domicile of the speaker.  British and Scottish accents can frustrate people to the point of contemplating homicide because of the utterances of the speaker are so garbled that they are virtually indecipherable.  And it is a very useful source of comic material and mockery.  You hear people imitating and mocking British accents all of the time.  You rarely hear somebody imitate an American accent.

 

wait till the US americanises wine.......

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For fans of F. Scott Fitzgerald

 

Cocktail conjugation by F. Scott Fitzgerald

Present: I cocktail, thou/you cocktail, it cocktails, we cocktail, you cocktail, they cocktail.Imperfect: I was cocktailing.
Perfect/past definite: I cocktailed.
Past perfect: I have cocktailed.
Conditional: I might have cocktailed.
Pluperfect: I had cocktailed.
Subjunctive: I would have cocktailed.
Voluntary subjunctive: I should have cocktailed.
Preterite: I did cocktail.
Imperative: Cocktail!
Interrogative: Cocktailest thou?
Subjunctive conditional: I would have had to have cocktailed.
Conditional subjunctive: I ought have had to have cocktailed.
Participle: Cocktailing

If nothing else, you have learned that there are such things and pluperfect, preterite, subjunctive conditional, and conditional subjunctive.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PurpleOnion said:

For fans of F. Scott Fitzgerald

 

Cocktail conjugation by F. Scott Fitzgerald

Present: I cocktail, thou/you cocktail, it cocktails, we cocktail, you cocktail, they cocktail.Imperfect: I was cocktailing.
Perfect/past definite: I cocktailed.
Past perfect: I have cocktailed.
Conditional: I might have cocktailed.
Pluperfect: I had cocktailed.
Subjunctive: I would have cocktailed.
Voluntary subjunctive: I should have cocktailed.
Preterite: I did cocktail.
Imperative: Cocktail!
Interrogative: Cocktailest thou?
Subjunctive conditional: I would have had to have cocktailed.
Conditional subjunctive: I ought have had to have cocktailed.
Participle: Cocktailing

If nothing else, you have learned that there are such things and pluperfect, preterite, subjunctive conditional, and conditional subjunctive.

 

Which highlights something else that really shits me about modern language abuse.

Using a noun as a verb.

I consulted my Macquarie Dictionary which classifies cocktail  as a Noun or an Adjective. I also checked in the Oxford and the Cambridge Dictionaries, both of which confirmed my findings. Then just be sure I wasn't cherry picking and introducing some anti Seppo bias I consulted the Merriam-Webster. Well blow me down if this esteemed US tome doesn't agree with the other three. Cocktail  is a noun or an adjective but not a verb.

Sorta makes Mr Fitzgerald's dissertation, although humorous, somewhat irrelevant.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Ukuri said:

Which highlights something else that really shits me about modern language abuse.U

Sorta makes Mr Fitzgerald's dissertation, although humorous, somewhat irrelevant.

Mabey you shoude of cocktailled.............                                 :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Snaggletooth said:

Mabey you shoude of cocktailled.............                                 :)

Excellent use of the voluntary subjunctive: He should have cocktailed.

Your high school teacher will be proud.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ease the sheet. said:

wait till the US americanises wine.......

 

 

Really?  Really???   

Maybe you should look into the Judgement of Paris in 1976.  Interestingly it was organized by a British wine merchant, Stephen Spurrier, who wanted to decisively settle the claim that French Bordeaux blends were superior to California Cabernet Sauvignon and the French White Burgundies were better than the California Chardonnays.  The wine merchant sold only French wines and he was confident that the French wines would win.

Of course it didn't turn out that way and a 1973 Cabernet Sauvignon from Stags Leap cellars was rated number 1 in the red category and a 1973 Chardonnay from Chateau Montelena was rated number in the white category.  The wine world and particularly the French were appalled and embarrassed.   Spurrier claimed it was all very subjective and therefore not indicative of the superiority of the American wines.  I'm sure he would have not said a word had the French wines come out on top.

In 1986, on the 10th anniversary of the 1976 competition, Spurrier, still smarting from his beatdown 10 years earlier arranged another tasting in France of the same vintages of the red wines from 10 years earlier.  This time the results were even more embarrassing.  The California 1972 Clos du Val took first place instead of the 1973 Stags Leap and another California Cab, a 1971 Ridge Monte Bello took 2nd place.  The white wines were not tasted again because they felt they were past their prime.  I'm not sure if Mr. Spurrier committed suicide after his 2nd attempt at proving the superiority of French Bordeaux wines.

I have some experience with Bordeaux wines and I have tasted multiple vintages of all of the red Bordeaux wines form the competition, although not the years that the judges tasted.  The only Cali Cab that I had the pleasure of drinking from the competition was a 1976 Clos du Val and in my opinion it was outstanding and I would have thought it was from Bordeaux and not California had I not known before I tasted it.

Because I have not tasted many top grade Cali Cabs, I can't express my opinion overall.  I will say that I absolutely love good Bordeaux wines and I have tasted many bottles from all of the top tier Bordeaux Chateaux including several iconic ones. I have lived in Europe for the last 22 years, so I have easy access to French wines and I haven't run across or searched out California wines.  I am not much of a white wine drinker.

People that know fine wine much better better than I do generally agree that California produces high quality wines that are just as good as French wines. There are plenty of fucked up things in the US that I will readily agree with you about, but wine isn't one of them.  

Try harder my good fellow.

1 hour ago, Ukuri said:

Like they did for a la carte dining,

This is so appallingly ironic and laughable coming from somebody that is presumably British, the country known best for such culinary delights as 'bubble and squeak', 'trifle', and 'pub grub', that are so beloved that there are British restaurants all over the world.  Oh, wait, no there aren't.  I am not a big fan of McDonald's and I despise Starbucks, but I have seen both in large numbers all over Europe, Japan, and Korea, where I have lived at various times in my life.

Just so you know that I am not bullshitting about the wines I've drunk, this is me at a memorable wine tasting last year.  No wonder my smile is so big.

image.png.b59597a04270fd171d05eb9d44a5c602.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ukuri said:

Which highlights something else that really shits me about modern language abuse.

Using a noun as a verb.

I consulted my Macquarie Dictionary which classifies cocktail  as a Noun or an Adjective. I also checked in the Oxford and the Cambridge Dictionaries, both of which confirmed my findings. Then just be sure I wasn't cherry picking and introducing some anti Seppo bias I consulted the Merriam-Webster. Well blow me down if this esteemed US tome doesn't agree with the other three. Cocktail  is a noun or an adjective but not a verb.

Sorta makes Mr Fitzgerald's dissertation, although humorous, somewhat irrelevant.

 

While cocktail is an attempt to at humor or to demonstrate his dedication to boozing, I do have an issue with the trend to turning nouns into verbs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, PurpleOnion said:
56 minutes ago, Snaggletooth said:

Mabey you shoude of cocktailled.............                                 :)

Excellent use of the voluntary subjunctive: He should have cocktailed.

Your high school teacher will be proud.

Thack you.  It wase my middelle schoolle art teachere I wantned to inpresse.                         :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Snaggletooth said:

Thack you.  It wase my middelle schoolle art teachere I wantned to inpresse.                         :)

My middle school art teacher impressed many kids.  Or at least that's what the court documents said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Lada said:

 

image.png.b59597a04270fd171d05eb9d44a5c602.png

The irony being that none of those bottles look American.  In fact, they look French.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PurpleOnion said:

The irony being that none of those bottles look American.  In fact, they look French.

 

Yes, indeed all of them are.  Nothing ironic about it.  If you read my admittedly lengthy post I said that I have very little experience with California fine wines and the ones I've had were comparable to a fine Bordeaux.  I also wrote that I posted the picture to prove that I am not talking out my ass when it comes to fine wine, I know a bit about wine and I have some experience with it.  Some of the vintages of some of the bottles in the photo are reputed as some of the best best Bordeaux wines ever made.  The total cost of those few bottles there, were you to buy them at today's prices would buy a nice car.   Fortunately I have a very good friend with a very nice wine cellar and he shares it generously.

I don't know what it is with some people and reading comprehension on this site.  Somebody else did a similar thing last week in a different thread.  Sheesh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, animeproblem said:

Reference, see (hear) Clive Burke.

I don't recognize the name but I might have heard him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Snaggletooth said:

Ist oppsionalle, I nevere putte collisione on my olde cars eithere.........            :)

Ahhh, good point.  I hadn't considered that.

Link to post
Share on other sites