134 replies to this topic

[Broph]

Rhea, on Mar 21 2006, 07:02 PM, said:

Besides, how many times have you heard anyone say "he splattered his brain all over the pavement?" Given that the pieces are plural, not singular, "brains" is perfectly appropriate.

Just because you hear it doesn't make it right. How often do you hear "irregardless"? Just because you hear it doesn't make it right.

[Rhea]

Broph, on Mar 21 2006, 12:11 PM, said:

Rhea, on Mar 21 2006, 07:02 PM, said:

Besides, how many times have you heard anyone say "he splattered his brain all over the pavement?" Given that the pieces are plural, not singular, "brains" is perfectly appropriate.

Just because you hear it doesn't make it right. How often do you hear "irregardless"? Just because you hear it doesn't make it right.

I've already given you the dictionary entry where brain and brains are used interchangeably. What do you want, a certificate from the Oxford dictionary?      

Grammar is about the correct use of the language - all of it, not just the formal usage.

Quote

Grammar \Gram"mar\, n. [OE. gramere, OF. gramaire, F. grammaire
   Prob. fr. L. gramatica Gr ?, fem. of ? skilled in grammar,
   fr. ? letter. See Gramme, Graphic, and cf. Grammatical,
   Gramarye.]
   1. The science which treats of the principles of language;
      the study of forms of speech, and their relations to one
      another; the art concerned with the right use aud
      application of the rules of a language, in speaking or
      writing.

   Note: The whole fabric of grammar rests upon the classifying
         of words according to their function in the sentence.
         --Bain.

   2. The art of speaking or writing with correctness or
      according to established usage; speech considered with
      regard to the rules of a grammar.

            The original bad grammar and bad spelling.
                                                  --Macaulay.

   3. A treatise on the principles of language; a book
      containing the principles and rules for correctness in
      speaking or writing.

Please note that it doesn't say "formal" usage.

Edited by Rhea, 21 March 2006 - 04:01 PM.

[G1223]

Chakoteya, on Mar 21 2006, 06:58 AM, said:

Oh yes please, let me dream of the day when.....

And let us make it so that workers have to live in the company town frame for the 21st cent. This way they can avoid having to drive to their place of work. And leave the driving of cars to the rich people who will be able to have that privliage. I mean after all why should poor people deserve such 'freedom'. And company towns are not bad. Just listen to those songs from when we last had them.

16 Tons and what do you get a little bit older and deeper in debt. St.Peter don't you call I sold my soul to the company store.

[Broph]

Rhea, on Mar 21 2006, 08:27 PM, said:

I've already given you the dictionary entry where brain and brains are used interchangeably. What do you want, a certificate from the Oxford dictionary?      

It specifies it as slang; not proper language.

Quote

Grammar is about the correct use of the language - all of it, not just the formal usage.

Slang is not the "correct" use of the language.

Quote

Please note that it doesn't say "formal" usage.

It doesn't have to. Words such as "science", "right use" and "rules" should be enough to clarify things. When we studied grammar, slang was specified as not correct/proper use of the language.

[Lord of the Sword]

scherzo, on Mar 20 2006, 11:45 PM, said:

Whoever wrote this study has obviously never had to live with my  ATTACK CAT "Sneakers".  
He may seem docile enough to the casual observer, but make no mistake...I'm being hunted as I type this.   I even have to be careful when I make fun of communists, because the cat thinks he's Chairman Meow. Definitely claws for concern for anyone crossing the threshold into my...I mean "his"...home. Uh-oh...he's giving me that "what did I tell you about the bad puns?" look again...  

-scherzo

LMAO!

Hey, at least you've never been told "good boy" while you're feeding your pet. My African Grey Parrot sometimes does says that when I'm filling his food dish. As I place it in his cage he'll say "Good Boy"....Can't tell you how annoying that is.

[Hibblette]

^Well you are a good boy for feeding him.

How sweet.

All I ask for is for people to be aware of the balance between the private sector and our government.   Right now I fear we have given too much to the government and those special interest groups...

But Dwight Eisenhower said it best in his adios to the White House

Quote

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress. Lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of threat and stress.

Full farewell at this link:

http://www.americanr...erfarewell.html

[Lord of the Sword]

Hibblette, on Mar 21 2006, 07:36 PM, said:

^Well you are a good boy for feeding him.

How sweet.

Don't you start also. I get enough of that from him...LOL.  

[CurlyKirsty]

Lin731, on Mar 20 2006, 03:32 AM, said:

Quote

First of all, I can think of a ton of activities that are perfectly legal yet are also forbidden "just about everywhere." Sex, for example. So you're the one doing the "technical tapdancing," Lin. You're entitled to your opinion, certainly, but you're not entitled to your own facts. And the fact of the matter is, no one is denying smokers "access" to any place.

If I can't smoke in my own damned backyard, you bet your keister they ARE denying me access and the "facts" in this case indicate that they most certainly CAN. So let's see: You can't smoke in eateries in many places but you can drink. You can't smoke at any public venues (but again at many you can drink). Apparently in this particular town you can't smoke in your backyard (but again you can drink). You can't smoke within X number of feet in X number of places. You can't smoke indoors period and now apparently we're on the way to saying you can't smoke outdoors period as well or on your own damned property in some instances...Sorry but this is getting to be BS.

Quote

This, again, is the flaw in your logic: just because you can't smoke somewhere doesn't mean you can't be there.

No it simply means I don't want to be at any of those places for any extended period of time since now apparently we can't even go OUTSIDE without the frigging complaining, banning and citing. Nicotine is recognised as one of the most addictive substances around so when you throw out the "You can go anywhere you want, you just can't smoke" it totally ignores that fact. I know to you it means nothing but to smokers it does. It means "sure you can go anywhere ya want and be completely miserable without anywhere you can legally go to have a cigarette. That is where we're going with all this. It cracks me up to hear all the carping about people smoking outside while you breath in toxins from every vehicle that passes you on the street. You breath in toxins everytime you're near a factory.

Quote

If you (like LoTS) won't go anywhere you can't smoke, OK, but that is, was, and remains your choice. Can you honestly say you disagree with that assessment?

Nope I'm not like LoTS in that regard but then I agree with him in the it ISN'T "Our" choice, it's apparently all about YOUR choices (general your) because your choices end up limiting our choices. It's one thing to ban indoor smoking but when we're getting to the point of banning outdoor smoking too, then you ARE limiting our access. As you're not a smoker, I'm sure you don't understand nor do you care but that's the simple, bottom line that your logic always fails to address. Smokers are addicted to tobacco. Yeah they can go without smoking for hours at a time but when you restrict them to the point where they can't even go outside to have the occassional smoke, you by virtue of that restriction make choices for them. Addictions don't respond to logic, they are what they are. So yes, I disagree with your assessment. I can go hours without smoking but I can't go all day, everyday, everywhere indoors/outdoors with nowhere I can go at any time and have a cigarette. It's not the nature of the beast. If I could, I'd be a non-smoker already.

Quote

Yes-the insurance companies are in total control of our lifes. They do actually monitor us with our food and everything else. To get cheaper insurance you can even have big brother riding with you.

That's the other way they are getting us. If it's cheaper we are willing to give up our privacy and our right to choose on anything.

Yep, sad isn't it?

Quote

Yes.

No Ph_ it isn't, it's your choice imposed upon me. When you close off any means of compromise of any sort with bans of this type, you are imposing your will on me and removing any choices I might have. Laws like this tell smokers, that if you come here, you have nowhere you can legally light up period. That's entirely different from saying "You can't smoke in buildings".

Chakoteya, on Mar 20 2006, 04:37 PM, said:

Quote

New anti-smoking legislation will come into force in Scotland from 6am on Sunday March 26, 2006.

The new law bans smoking in the majority of enclosed public places, including workplaces, to protect people from the harmful effects of passive smoking. No Smoking signs must also be clearly displayed in all non-smoking premises.

Even the Scottish parliament has gone down this road, because of the poor health record of the Scottish people. The Irish have survived it too.

Face it, it's coming. Deal with it and give up the killer weed NOW. Find those tobacco growers a new cash crop instead.

Ireland has banned smoking in public places such as bars and resturants etc, the only ones doing really good business at the moment are the ones with pleasant smoking areas, otherwise the smokers congregate outside by the door or go where the smoking area is the nicest/warmest.   The government in the UK are banning smoking but also trying to ban the use of the heaters used in pub gardens on environmental reasons so what do you make of that little conundrum.  Ban smoking but cause environmental damage some other way.  

I am non-smoker but my friends and family smoke (I got chest infections when I smoked hence the reason why I am a non smoker) .  The pubs in Ireland themselves were virtually empty when we where there, unless there is entertainment.  I was in Dublin  and the small group of people I was with would regularly leave me on my own in the bar to go and smoke in the smoking area or outside, well that was fun and I felt so safe, NOT.  At the moment I have the choice to go to a non-smoking pub or bar but I will not have the option to go to a smokers bar once the legislation comes into effect.  

If they go as far as this town has done then it is time to pack up and move and does the legislation allow compensation for smokers and there families?  I suggest that if you are a militant non smoker you go live in wherever this is, you put your money and livelihood where your principles are and go to live in this place.

[Nonny]

Broph, on Mar 21 2006, 12:10 PM, said:

Nonny, on Mar 21 2006, 06:26 PM, said:

There is a big difference between "proper" and "grammatical."

Grammar is all about what is proper.

No it's not.  It's about structural relationships.  

Quote

Quote

Sometimes, oftentimes, proper English is not proper.

By definition, I disagree.

By what definition?

Broph, on Mar 21 2006, 03:26 PM, said:

Rhea, on Mar 21 2006, 08:27 PM, said:

I've already given you the dictionary entry where brain and brains are used interchangeably. What do you want, a certificate from the Oxford dictionary?      

It specifies it as slang; not proper language.

Of course it is.  

Quote

Quote

Grammar is about the correct use of the language - all of it, not just the formal usage.

Slang is not the "correct" use of the language.

Of course it is.

Quote

Quote

Please note that it doesn't say "formal" usage.

It doesn't have to. Words such as "science", "right use" and "rules" should be enough to clarify things. When we studied grammar, slang was specified as not correct/proper use of the language.

It does, they don't, and somebody taught you the same garbage that I was happy to unlearn well before I had the opportunity to study linguistics.  Ruler-wielding nuns are not arbiters of syntax.  Or morphology, for that matter; I'd still like to tell the old battle-axe that used to smirk, "ain't ain't a word and it ain't in the dictionary" at us, "oh yes it is!"    

Nonny

[Broph]

Nonny, on Mar 22 2006, 06:14 PM, said:

No it's not.  It's about structural relationships.

Structure suggests proper. And grammar goes beyond structural relationships. There is no place for slang in proper grammar.

Quote

By what definition?

Um, did you read the quote? "proper English is not proper". By defnition, proper English is proper. By definition, as I said.

Quote

Of course it is.

No; proper language is proper language. Slang is not proper language.

Quote

Of course it is.

Of course it's not.

Quote

It does, they don't, and somebody taught you the same garbage that I was happy to unlearn well before I had the opportunity to study linguistics.

You've said that several times "study linguistics". So it wasn't your major in college. It probably wasn't any real formal training at all, was it? It's something that you made up.

Quote

Ruler-wielding nuns are not arbiters of syntax.

Nobody said that they were.

Quote

I'd still like to tell the old battle-axe that used to smirk, "ain't ain't a word and it ain't in the dictionary" at us, "oh yes it is!"

It wasn't when she said it. It has only come to be as a result of ignorant people who didn't know any better, but through sheer repitition of their stupidity, had their say in our language. Similarly, it's likely that "irregardless" will get in dictionaries, too.

Would you ever say that someone's left arms were splattered all over the street?

Would you ever say that someone's bloods were splattered all over the street?

Would you ever say that someone's heads were splattered all over the street?

People say "brains" through ignorance. They hear someone else say it and they repeat it without thinking about it. It's like people who say "I could care less" when they couldn't care less.

You only have one brain. If anything a person's brain was splattered all over the street.

It's as simple as that. It's called proper English.

[Nonny]

Broph, on Mar 22 2006, 11:28 AM, said:

Nonny, on Mar 22 2006, 06:14 PM, said:

No it's not.  It's about structural relationships.

Structure suggests proper. And grammar goes beyond structural relationships. There is no place for slang in proper grammar.

You are mistaken.  

Quote

Quote

By what definition?

Um, did you read the quote? "proper English is not proper". By defnition, proper English is proper. By definition, as I said.

I originated the quote.  Are you planning on answering the question?  

Quote

Quote

Of course it is.

No; proper language is proper language. Slang is not proper language.

Is too.  

Quote

Quote

Of course it is.

Of course it's not.

Of course it is, in it's proper context.  

Quote

Quote

It does, they don't, and somebody taught you the same garbage that I was happy to unlearn well before I had the opportunity to study linguistics.

You've said that several times "study linguistics". So it wasn't your major in college. It probably wasn't any real formal training at all, was it? It's something that you made up.

How did you manage to get "so it wasn't your major in college" from "study linguistics"?    I was planning to go on for a PhD when health problems intervened and I didn't finish my MA, but I did receive my BA with high honors in linguistics.  Dialectology, sociolinguists and text analysis would have been my specialties.  

Quote

Quote

Ruler-wielding nuns are not arbiters of syntax.

Nobody said that they were.

Wrong again.  They said they were.  

Quote

Quote

I'd still like to tell the old battle-axe that used to smirk, "ain't ain't a word and it ain't in the dictionary" at us, "oh yes it is!"

It wasn't when she said it. It has only come to be as a result of ignorant people who didn't know any better, but through sheer repitition of their stupidity, had their say in our language. Similarly, it's likely that "irregardless" will get in dictionaries, too.

Sure it was.  Websters ain't the only game in town.  BTW you might want to check out page 953 in the American Heritage 3rd edition.  I think you might find it interesting.  

Quote

Would you ever say that someone's left arms were splattered all over the street?

Would you ever say that someone's bloods were splattered all over the street?

Would you ever say that someone's heads were splattered all over the street?

People say "brains" through ignorance. They hear someone else say it and they repeat it without thinking about it. It's like people who say "I could care less" when they couldn't care less.

You only have one brain. If anything a person's brain was splattered all over the street.

It's as simple as that. It's called proper English.

No, it's called prescriptive grammar and I am, as all good linguists are, a descriptivist.  

It's been fun, but I really need to learn how to use my new laptop before I leave, and I've already put off my departure.  Later!  

Nonny

[G1223]

Could the grammer cops go start their own thread?

[Anastashia]

But that was a nice war too G.

[G1223]

No it was an off topic conversation. It needed to end and not take over a thread.

[Broph]

G1223, on Mar 22 2006, 10:17 PM, said:

Could the grammer cops go start their own thread?

When I'm faced with looney statements like "proper English isn't proper", I know that it's a thread I won't be in, LOL!