BS: English grammar question

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Airymouse
Date: 03 Apr 13 - 06:22 PM

J. Swift railed against the strong verb form -t, but he lost. "Slink" is a curiosity: as a transitive verb it's regular (e.g.,the cow slinked her calf and after she had slinked her calf, we called the vet); it's slink, slank, slunk as an intransitive verb. Lucky I, all this stuff comes naturally to me, but I am startled to find "au" in "rice pilau" pronounced "off".

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Apr 13 - 02:57 PM

I have contended for some time that instead of writing 'man' as the default we should use 'woman'. After all, man is clearly included in the word. If desired, it could be written as (wo)man.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,NICKNAME
Date: 03 Apr 13 - 02:30 PM

Stop hack the program!!!

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 04 Jul 12 - 08:22 AM

Two superstitions based on no factual evidence whatever:

1. "They" cannot be used as a singular.

2. "He" refers to men exclusively.

The first comes from the idea that a singular "they" is "illogical." Tell that to the Germans, whose "sie" means both "they" and "she." (Capitalized it means formal "you" as well. That didn't keep Luther, Nieztsche, or Einstein from communicating effectively.)

The second comes from the claim that there's bad juju about "he" that magically keeps women down. Tell that to every female author in English before 1970, including Elizabeth I, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Emily Dickinson. Women are discriminated against, but not because of "he." Chill out.

"He or she" is useful in situations where confusion is possible or emphasis is desired. "S/he" is unpronounceable except as "she."

Language is inconsistent and illogical by nature. No word carries a single meaning for eternity.

Even though I heard Michael Wood on PBS last night assuring us that we "still speak Old English, with a few foreign words more or less."

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jul 12 - 07:42 AM

No - disagree, Doug. We tend to use the passive if we don't want to use "they", as in "There is said to be important news"; or to generalise "they" to something slightly more specific ~ "People say that ..."   But "One says that ..." just is not English to my ears.

I should be interested if you can find a quote from PGW anywhere in which Bertie Wooster says anything of the sort you suggest. I am sure Jeeves would have given him one of his looks: or Aunt Dahlia.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 04 Jul 12 - 07:26 AM

No, I don't agree. The only reason that the phrase is translated in one's mind as "They say that …" rather than "One says that …" is that the former is more is more familiar than the latter to man in the street. I would suggest, ~M~, that if you heard Bertie Wooster using "one" instead of "they", your ears would accept it without question.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jul 12 - 07:02 AM

'One' is not used in quite the same way, though. "On dit qu'il-y-a des nouvelles importants", would not be idiomatically translated as "One says that there is important news", but as "They say that ...". Do you not agree?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 04 Jul 12 - 06:57 AM

English does not lack the equivalent of the French 'on' or German 'Mann'. It's just that one rarely uses it.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jul 12 - 06:32 AM

What we lack is the equivalent of French 'on' ('on dit') or German 'Mann' ('mann sagt) as the indefinite pronoun. So we fall back on 'they' + the plural ('they say'), which is perhaps a bit clumsy but generally works clearly enough for everyday communication.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: IanC
Date: 04 Jul 12 - 06:16 AM

Saying that the singular use of "they" is ungrammatical ought, I think, to be construed as incorrect.

Grammar is not a set of rules by which one should speak or write but a description of how this is done. If the grammar says "they" is wrong, then clearly the grammar is wrong and needs rewriting.

After all, "the use of the plural "you" for the singular "thou" was once thought to be ungrammaticla.

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Jul 12 - 06:00 AM

For 'somethich' read 'something'!

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Jul 12 - 05:59 AM

Or, to simplify, you could write:
"The comment 'break a leg' means ..."

There are few percieved problems with written english which cannot be resolved by restating.

(Attributed to) Churchill: Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put!"
This, to avoid ending a sentence with "I will not put up with"
He clearly used this just to make a point about tortuous use of language.
He could have easily said: "Ending a sentence with a preposition is somethich which I will not tolerate."
But this would not have emphasised the point nearly so well.

Subject: LagvSYKxpxhhEHFi
From: GUEST,Eng
Date: 04 Jul 12 - 04:27 AM

break a leg!' he or she means    or If someone says break a leg!' s/he means    This often looks unitdy when written, and feels awkward when reading it.2. If someone says break a leg!' the person means    This feels awkward to me as a native English speaker.Another solution is to write examples using a pronoun with a specific gender. Often it is considered acceptable by academic institutions to alternate between using he and she in examples, whereas in the past the default was always to the masculine form (he).So you could write either:a) If a man says break a leg!' he means    ; or b) If a woman says break a leg!' she means    .What you choose will be determined by requirements of your writing. For a general audience, such as in an online forum, using the grammatically incorrect, but often used, they' as a singular pronoun is acceptable. For business or academic writing you will need to find out what style of writing is required and considered acceptable.Unfortunately English has some defects in certain areas. The other similar one is the lack of a plural pronoun for you ( yous being grammatically incorrect, but used by many people in everyday conversational speech).

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Jun 12 - 11:24 PM

Q: "Often a redundant initialism, essentialy emphasizing the original unsupported statement."

Often a redundant initialism, essentialy emphasizing the original unsupported suppository.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Jun 12 - 03:18 PM

IIRC seems to mean *"if I recall correctly" or "if it really counts" or "if I really cared" or "it is really cool" or ...

*In plain language, "I am guessing."

Often a redundant initialism, essentialy emphasizing the original unsupported statement.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Jun 12 - 06:24 AM

NO!

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 12 - 06:00 AM

We know.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Jun 12 - 11:27 PM

"Ambiguity" is not the same as "synonym" or "homonym". Context will generally make clear which usage/meaning is intended in the cases eg of

where ware wear were we're weir
there their they're
not knot knot[grass] knot[nautical speed]

Likewise IIRC.

IMO which is far from H.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jun 12 - 05:50 PM

IIRC

Is it really clear?

"What does IIRC stand for? Your abbreviation search returned 21 meanings"

Ambiguity does not really save time.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Jun 12 - 01:41 PM

Going back to the question asked by the original poster, is it now OK to say 'Jesus weeped'?

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Jun 12 - 01:00 PM

"At my age" none of these initialisms/acronyms translate into meaningful language/lingo.

My bank started to use an acronym some time ago. I threw out a couple of statements before I found out what they were. I still have the same reaction to these abominations.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,999
Date: 16 Jun 12 - 12:06 PM

"3 Fatal Guitar Mistakeswww.GuitarScaleSystem.com
If you do either of these three things, you will never play well."

The above is an ad that appeared when I was looking for some chords on the 'net. Houston, we have a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Jun 12 - 06:34 AM

That is not necessarily the case at my age, IMO BTW! Evry 2nd cts!

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 12 - 06:01 AM

It's just more polite to write out words fully, thx. What's a few seconds in an eternity?

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 11:58 PM

Why, Steve? IMO, IIRC, BTW are very useful, timesaving abbrevs IMO; tho the H in IMHO is IMO creepy. LoL would be useful if not ambiguous.

LoL.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 08:16 PM

I agree with that. I never use IMO or IMHO. That H signifies, to me, the very opposite of "humble". Other nasty wee things that irritate me are IIRC and BTW. I won't use 'em. I'm cool with lol ever since that Rebekah Brooks email (or was it call-me-Dave's). Since then, my mum and I have used lol instead of xxx in our text messages to each other. I think she thinks it means what call-me-Dave thought it meant. Lol.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 07:15 PM

It's the "humble" bit in IMHO that is annoying, because it's so clearly insincere. At least when you say something like "It seems to me" or "My personal view is..." you leave open the possibility that you actually do accept that you might be wrong.

As with "smileys", these internet acronyms are presented as a way of avoiding giving offence by making communication less likely to give rise to misunderstanding. But in fact I would suggest that they have the reverse effect, and that taking time to write what we mean is still a better way of achieving those ends.

(The solution to the problem of misunderstood irony might best be solved by the typeface Mencken once suggested, "ironics", with the letters sloping the opposite way to italics. Unfortunately it doesn't appear to be available to us.)

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 01:07 PM

IMHO, "in my humble opinion," "in my honest opinion," "in my holy opinion," "in my highest opinion," "in my hesitant opinion," are the most common definitions; others listed in acronymfinder.com.
Also "International Medical Health Organization."

Listed and defined, an initialism, Richard A. Spears, 2007, Dictionary of Anmerican Slang and Colloquial Expressions 4th ed., McGraw Hill.

When I see it appended to a message or comment, I read it as "MY BELIEF (YOURS IS WRONG !).
In other words, the comment can be ignored as ninnyhammer.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Bert
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 11:11 PM

Or gaelic or whatever ya call it and however you spell it.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 09:09 PM

"Celtic"??

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Bert
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 08:29 PM

One problem is that English is not 'A' language. It is a mixture of many languages.

Way back, Britons spoke a Celtic language. then the Romans came and gave that a dose of Latin, Then the Saxons came and so on.

So roughly English has its origins in Celtic, Latin, German, Danish, Norwegian and French languages.

Then came the Empire which gave it doses of Hindi, Spanish, Malay and Gawd knows what else.

Also some individuals like Lewis Carroll and Edward Lear started mucking about making up their own words.

So don't start looking for consistency or regularity of you'll go crazy.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 11:29 AM

I avoid it in order to not confuse people; in fact, it's never really occurred to me to say "imhoe". Language is best used in a way that helps the recipient to do as little mental processing as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 07:16 AM

Agree too with danger of this last example, Steve; but isn't one of the saddest examples of the kind of damaging over-definition we join here in deploring the fate of that fine, happy old word "gay"? One dictionary I came across [Collins?] gave "homosexual" as the primary meaning and glossed "bright and cheerful" as 'obsolete', which I think appalling. I agree that 'imhoe' is not a elegant usage, nor yet a readily comprehensible one; but my point is that these are reasonable objections to its usage, whereas I think your avoidance of it on grounds of putative moralistic objectionability a trifle finicky.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 06:05 AM

I doubt whether most of my friends would have the faintest idea what I was on about were I to preface an assertion with "imhoe". It's a practical thing. Generally, though, I haven't avoided using terms that might have a dubious double meaning, and I've been like that ever since I was a "bachelor gay".

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 05:56 AM

Entirely agree there, Steve. It is always a shame when the precise meaning of a word becomes obscured and less specific in its application thru widespread misuse or misapprehension, which there is much danger of happening to 'acronym, liable to degenerate to meaning just any old abbreviation, rather than one than can be, and generally is, pronounced as a word.

Disagree, however, with your objection to such a pronunciation of IMHO. Object to any word which happens to have a homonym (or in this case the merest hint of a sort of creole one) of dubious or disobliging meaning, and where will be the end of it? We shall have to abolish all our rape fields for a start, and what would that do for our agriculture!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 05:37 AM

Certainly the definitions of them are getting confused, which is a pity. I don't think we should let nuance slip too easily. In nearly every case you see, the mistaken use of "acronym" is pretentious. It's become something of a vogue word.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 05:27 AM

Abbreviations/initialisms/acronyms are slowly becoming confused.
Text speak seems to be moving into realspeak. I've heard a sardonic 'Lol' following a not very funny joke.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 08:31 PM

No I don't. In a certain accent, it would sound short for "he's a whore."

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Joe_F
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 08:20 PM

Steve Shaw: You mean you don't say "IMHO" in two syllables? Spelling it out in letters takes away most of its charm.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 09:59 AM

Thanks for that, Steve. I make that point a lot.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 09:53 AM

IMHO is not an acronym: it is an initialism. Acronyms are said as words, NATO or AIDS, for example. I think it's useful to maintain the distinction.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 08:10 AM

Its all an

Annoying
Concept of
Recycling
Old
Names with
Your own
Meanings

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: CapriUni
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 06:28 PM

Actually, abbreviating words by eliminating individual letters, creating acronyms (IMHO -- or my favorite IMNSHO [in my (not so) humble opinion]) occurs any time in a culture where the "bandwidth" (how much space a message takes up) is expensive.

So, for example, Thomas Jefferson (who was writing in a time when mail was taxed according to how many sheets of paper were used -- and the recipient was expected to pay the postage) would often abbreviate "your" as "ur" -- just like the 'feckless' and 'sallow' youth of this generation (when cellphone users have to pay to receive calls and text messages -- sound familiar?). And you certainly wouldn't accuse Thomas Jefferson of being sloppy or careless with language, would you?

But I don't know, ymmv (your mileage may vary).

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Aug 11 - 06:40 PM

Their 'main compulsive activity'- As in the birdie looking for a nest?

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Aug 11 - 02:43 AM

I think, Q, the answer to that is that they relate to the grammar of Textese, a language invented by young people to facilitate the expression of their main compulsive activity ~~ which is what grammar does vis-à-vis all languages.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Aug 11 - 03:36 PM

IS IMHO a type of Eno salts? What do these initialate forms have to do with grammar?

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Aug 11 - 04:28 AM

Thank you, Sally. But is not IMHO the more usual abbreviation for this?

Oh well ~ probably vain to try to keep up with the next generation's developments...

In that connection,IANSAA, either. {Do we think that one might catch on, then?}

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,Sally
Date: 20 Aug 11 - 04:15 AM

My Humble Opinion
Standard internet-ese lernt from my kids.
I am never sure about anything

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Aug 11 - 03:59 AM

Sally ~~ MHOP ???

All that Google free online Dict gives are Mali Health Organising Project & Milton House Of Pizza.

Which of these did you mean ~~ & why?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 19 Aug 11 - 09:10 AM

Nigel is right, except that the alternative Middle English form was spelled "ageyn."