User Avatar Image

General Bitching

posted by Darth Marsden on - last edited - Viewed by 1.6K users

I looked and didn't see a thread like this, so I'm making one. Hopefully if the mods don't shut it down, you can all join me in this Anger Management class. Any stuff that pisses you off and you need to bitch about, whack it here.

-x-

So my Dad has an incredibly annoying habit of buying Christmas presents himself and then letting other people give them to him. He reasons that this means he definitely gets things that he wants, and other people don't have to worry about what to get him.

You can probably see where this is going.

Yep, I discovered today that the two main presents I got him, a pair of DVDs, are ones he's already bought for himself. I am so angry at the man I could just scream. And did (thankfully the house was empty or my mother would have had serious words at me).

All I've got left to give him are a few 'jokey' presents. And a mug. Woo. Almost tempted to keep them all for myself and just get him some coal, the git.

100 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @Chyron8472 said: The fact that a language changes over time does not excuse willful and blatant ignorance of how to use it.


    Yes it does, except we prefer the term 'variation' to 'blatant ignorance'. You might be interested (wishful thinking on my part perhaps) in reading some seminal studies by William Labov, or more recent relevant studies by Penelope Eckert. They're actually quite interesting.

    For example, so very many people can't tell the difference between when to use "I" verses "me" in a sentence, nor does this ever-increasing group of idiots know to phrase others before yourself in a sentence.

    ie. Using "me and her" (instead of "she and I") when referring to the subject of a sentence, is so obviously wrong yet used by so many, it's ridiculous.

    If you understand what they are saying, and would not feel a twitch in your head that tells you it is not a valid sentence of your native language, then it does not matter in speech. The concept of 'others before yourself' is a perfect example of prescriptive grammar, which does not apply to spoken language.

    Writing is another matter altogether.

  • ...I still will not accept "till" as a variant form of "until".

  • @Johro said: Thank you,
    ...but apparently it's both now. Sometimes, I hate this world.

    Oh, yeah. Now it's both. It's always been both! It says right there in the dictionary entry you just posted: "First known use: before 12th century." Till used as a preposition/conjunction dates back to Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse, possibly even earlier. Until is a more recent formation. It only dates to the 13th century, to Middle English. It's a compound preposition/conjunction, formed from un (meaning "up to," cognate to the Old Norse unz, and the Old High German unt) and the older till.

    Why would you post a link to a dictionary entry to prove a point, and then not read it and discover that it contradicts your point?

  • User Avatar Image
    Vainamoinen Moderator

    @Chyron8472 said: By saying "'Spellling' and 'grammar' are [...] two completely different things," are you saying that your rant is about spelling nazis and not about grammar nazis'? I should hope so.

    You're hoping in vain.

    Language changes, so does grammar. Maybe in two hundred years, there's no explicable difference between "I" and "me" or "she" and "her" any more, and it wouldn't be a less understandable or less "logical" language because of that change. Less people today seem to use these words according to the older rules, that might (might!) be a sign that these parts of your language are about to change. In no case is it a sign that some people are less intelligent or negligent than others, and in no case is it a sign of language "decay". The English language would become less complex in this respect (while developing new complexities elsewhere no doubt), no harm done.

    If you don't like it, don't use it that way. That is as much power as you have concerning language change - exactly one voice.

    In a job interview situation or in conversation with superiors you can expect people to "dress up" their language. Their ability to chose the most accepted language variation is of utmost importance to communicate their social status there. A signal of respect, a signal of their ability to adapt to the situation. In most other cases, in most other conversational circumstances, fuck it. Criticizing other people's language there has no sense but the one mentioned above.

  • @Johro said: ...I still will not accept "till" as a variant form of "until".

    How about if it's only got one L? As in "It wasn't til later that he discovered she had stolen his penis".

    Or would you require an apostrophe to be sated? So more like "'There was nothing he could do 'til she returned it after her night out with the girls".

    I'll agree that till is not acceptable, but mostly because a till is actually a physical thing. As in "He briefly wondering how much the till would ring up if she decided to pawn it in".

    Till as an action referring to a point in time yet to come is, to me, bollocks, and should always be until or 'til. For example: "But until she returned later that that brandishing either the member or a receipt, he decided to put the thought out of his head and use one of his spares he'd hidden from her 'til now."

  • @thesporkman said: Oh, yeah. Now it's both. It's always been both! It says right there in the dictionary entry you just posted: "First known use: before 12th century." Till used as a preposition/conjunction dates back to Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse, possibly even earlier. Until is a more recent formation. It only dates to the 13th century, to Middle English. It's a compound preposition/conjunction, formed from un (meaning "up to," cognate to the Old Norse unz, and the Old High German unt) and the older till.

    Why would you post a link to a dictionary entry to prove a point, and then not read it and discover that it contradicts your point.

    Because proponents of standard language ideology are generally more interested in maintaining the current standard than understanding the socio-historical trends that led to it.

  • @KuroShiro said: In the case of people using 'me' and 'her' as a subject of a sentence... I've never heard that once in my life. Could you provide an example? Like... 'Me am going to the store'? If you understand what they are saying, would not feel a twitch in your head that tells you it is not a valid sentence of your native language, then it does not matter in speech.

    You've obviously not watched enough television. There are so many characters in TV shows, litigants on court shows (like The People's Court) and interviews with various people on the news wherein people say things like "me and her went to the store" or something similar.

    I can't believe you're basically saying that no one is ever wrong in phrasing how they speak, and that such is a legitimate reason for change in the grammar of a language. The next thing you'll tell me is that "Ebonics" really is a legitimate dialect and not just an excuse to proliferate ignorance of proper use of the English language.

  • @Chyron8472 said: You've obviously not watched enough television. There are so many characters in TV shows, litigants on court shows (like The People's Court) and interviews with various people on the news wherein people say things like "me and her went to the store" or something similar.

    Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying (see the edit to my earlier post).


    I can't believe you're basically saying that no one is ever wrong in phrasing how they speak, and that such is a legitimate reason for change in the grammar of a language. The next thing you'll tell me is that "Ebonics" really is a legitimate dialect and not just an excuse to proliferate ignorance of the English language.

    Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. And ebonics very much *is* a legitimate dialect, with structural and lexical rules that have been studied and documented. Saying otherwise only proves your ignorance. Do you really want me to take the gloves off on this? Because you are empirically incorrect in the arguments you're making.

  • @Chyron8472 said: You've obviously not watched enough television. There are so many characters in TV shows, litigants on court shows (like The People's Court) and interviews with various people on the news wherein people say things like "me and her went to the store" or something similar.

    I can't believe you're basically saying that no one is ever wrong in phrasing how they speak, and that such is a legitimate reason for change in the grammar of a language. The next thing you'll tell me is that "Ebonics" really is a legitimate dialect and not just an excuse to proliferate ignorance of proper use of the English language.

    Ebonics is a legitimate dialect, and it even has a more regular and consistent grammar than Standard English.

  • User Avatar Image
    Vainamoinen Moderator

    @Chyron8472 said: I can't believe you're basically saying that no one is ever wrong in phrasing how they speak

    The concepts of "right" or "wrong" language belong to prescriptive grammar, and linguistics has left that path, what, 60 years ago. Isn't it great how science develops?

Add Comment