 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Lonesome EJ Date: 26 Sep 00 - 01:51 AM I saw an interview recently with George W Bush,in which he said we shouldn't be worried about "subliminable" ads,because the danger of "subliminable" ads was being exaggerated.It was funny to see the reaction of his staff.At first use they kind of smiled,but he repeated it several times,and you could just watch that far-away look coming into their eyes as they thought "please God make him stop." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Sep 00 - 07:21 PM Social piranha. I really like that. It's the kind of a mistake that builds up a meaning around it. A pearl of a mistake.
A social piranha would be the kind of pushy sharp-elbowed character that everyone hates, but seems to do quite well. The nastiest kind of yuppie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Sep 00 - 05:51 PM Och, lad, ye're ane uncouth couf! Get ye tae a nunnery, and gi' the lassies some'at tae complain aboot! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Jim Dixon Date: 22 Sep 00 - 04:19 PM GLOSS McCord, David (1897-) I know a little man both ept and ert. An intro-? extro-? No, he's just a vert. Sheveled and couth and kempt, pecunious, ane, His image trudes upon the ceptive brain. When life turns sipid and the mind is traught, The spirit soars as I would sist it ought. Chalantly then, like any gainly goof, My digent self is sertive, choate, loof. [The Oxford Book of American Light Verse (Harmon)] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: mousethief Date: 22 Sep 00 - 03:16 PM I know lots of people with no couth.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Bert Date: 22 Sep 00 - 03:13 PM And we have warmth but no coolth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: L R Mole Date: 22 Sep 00 - 03:08 PM I think "gruntled" does exist: pigs especially but dogs too, when one finally pays them attention and scratches them between the ears, grunt like all get-out (or, really, like the character Billy Bob Thornton played in "Sling Blade". mmmmMMMMum'.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: hesperis Date: 22 Sep 00 - 02:41 PM We have "disgruntled", so why don't we have "gruntled" anymore? I am so gruntled to know that you all care! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Penny S. Date: 21 Sep 00 - 06:12 PM burglurisation |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Liz the Squeak Date: 21 Sep 00 - 04:38 PM Elephant in elephants graveyard - did you come here to die? Brummy elephant - noo, Oy coom eer yisterdie! Sorry. Will that be a spectacliar nucular burglery then? LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: GUEST,JohnB Date: 21 Sep 00 - 04:35 PM Please insure that you have enough house ensurance, or you may be out of luck if mangle your spelling as well as your pronunciation. Just one pet peeve of mine witch I sees constantly. JohnB |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: GUEST, Banjo Johnny Date: 21 Sep 00 - 03:11 PM Old joke: He: I say, do you like Kipling? She: I don't know -- I've never kippled. Here in the Sooner State, "Miss" and "Mizz" are polite. "Madam" is reserved for brothel managers. Do you remember in -The Producers- ... "Thank you, madam." ---- "I ain't a madam! I'm a con-see-oydge!" === Johnny in Oklahoma City
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Jim Dixon Date: 21 Sep 00 - 01:49 PM It is a peculiarity of the English language that we do not distinguish in the second person between singular and plural or between nominative and objective case. A long time ago, we did: "Thou" and "thee" were singular and "you" and "ye" were plural. You can still see this in the King James Bible and in Shakespeare. In modern times, in standard diction, we use "you" for everything, but this sometimes leads to ambiguity. Have you ever been invited to a party and then wondered, "Did she mean to invite me and my wife, or just me?" Some people avoid the ambiguity by using special expressions for you-plural such as "y'all" (you-all), "you-uns" or "y'uns" (you-ones) "yous" (pronounced "yooz" or "yez" - That vowel should probably be a schwa, but I don't think my font contains one.) Probably the most common informal expression is "you guys". "You people" can also be used this way, but, for some reason, some people consider it offensive. Remember Ross Perot at the NAACP (or maybe it was the Urban League)? While grammarians (dare I say grammar-Nazis?) have tried for years to stamp out such expressions, people persist in using them because they are so darned USEFUL. They really do convey a meaning that is missing from "you" alone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Rich(bodhránai gan ciall) Date: 21 Sep 00 - 12:40 PM We have "nonchalant" but we don't seem to have chalant. What does the "non-" prefix refer to if there is nothing for it to not be? Here in Pittsburgh we have amongst a lot of other stupid words, "yins" or "yuns" (The latter being pronounced as a short oo sound like book) . Thet are both plural versions of "you". A friend of mine has speculated that it may be due to the Irish population that emigrated here, and believes it may come from the Irish "sibh" (you, plural). I think he's reaching a bit, but we've been using that in Irish class. For example, when asked what "agaibh" means we answer "at yins" This is the only time I use it. It didn't take more than one or two trips away from here to realize that our lingo sounds pretty stupid. Rich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Steve Parkes Date: 21 Sep 00 - 03:46 AM Oh honestly, Roger!! Noddy Holder used to live round the corner from me - literally: I lived in Newton Road and he lived in Stephenson Avenue on the Beechdale (his mom still lives there). There is no way even a Brummie loike yo' could turn "tay" into "tie"! It might have worked with one of them southern bands ... Any road, pronuncation, when it's the product of accent, is not mangling the language; if it was good enough for Chaucer and it was good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for Parkes! Steve (Parkes, just in case you were wondering!) That goes for double negatives, too - Will didn't hesitate to use 'em, and neither shall I. The French do it all the time: "je ne sais pas". Not that that's any recommendation!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Brakn Date: 20 Sep 00 - 06:51 PM Something (Eastenders), How are you? (How be is thee?) and the last one I heard on Jerry Springer or Oprah. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Brakn Date: 20 Sep 00 - 06:47 PM Three words/phrases. Saaink, Ow b'ist thee, Conversationalization. One from London, one Wiltshire, one US. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 20 Sep 00 - 06:34 PM NO. NOT "irregardless". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: mousethief Date: 20 Sep 00 - 06:30 PM My wife tells me that in the part of the American South(east) she hails from, you say "Miss" with a first name and "Miz" with a last name, regardless (irregardless?) of marital status.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Penny S. Date: 20 Sep 00 - 06:26 PM I know both Miss and Mrs are short for mistress, but it is still taught that Miss does not require a full stop as it is not an abbreviation. By diminutive, I intended to refer to the meaning that it was the form used for the immature, rather than a short form of the word. In the time of Shakespeare, Mistress was used for all women, married or not, with subtle variations to indicate marital status. This then changed to Miss for the young, and Mrs for the older (like Master and Mister) before being attached to marital status only as at present. Except, apparently, for domestic cooks. I've just had to go through the irritating business of form filling in a shop. Assistant writes Mrs, glances at me, asks if it is Mrs. I say that I don't use a title. She says the computer needs one. I say "Well, Miss, actually," like Dick Emery. Why can't I be addressed the way I want? Penny (whose full name is enough for formal purposes, surely) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 20 Sep 00 - 04:27 AM My mother in law seems to have taken lessons from Hilda Baker in humorous un-intentional mangling (reference probably lost on non brits and under 30's). She recently bought an ornament to be a 'vocal point' in the living room and told us that her other son-in-law, Bryan, was taking anti-inflammables for his arthritis (Is that how you spell it?) Earlier point about 'Miss' being diminutive is not stricly true BTW - both Miss and Mrs are short for Mistress. Ma'am is Madam - funny how both full length terms have now been mangled to mean something else isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Jim Dixon Date: 19 Sep 00 - 05:55 PM There is a Minnesota institution whose official name is (or was until recently) the Iron Range Interpretative [sic] Center. Honest. However, I see that the web site now says "Interpretive Center". But if you look closely at the page title - at the very top of your screen if you use Netscape - you will see "Interpretative". Also, the tourism page for the city of Chisholm refers to it as "the Iron Range Interpretative Center" and so do several other web sites. Even the Minnesota Session Laws! That's not the goofiest thing that ever appeared in the Minnesota statutes. When I first got a fishing license, turtles were officially classified as "rough fish." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Bill D Date: 19 Sep 00 - 02:39 PM oh..YES, Scotsbard!...I have been tearing my hair over that one for years...along with "IMPORTATING" seems to be a theory that if 2 or 3 syllables are good, 3 or 4 must be better... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Scotsbard Date: 19 Sep 00 - 12:20 PM The unnecessary misconcatenation of "ORIENTATE" and its bastard offspring "ORIENTATED" drive me bananas. The proper words are "ORIENT" and "ORIENTED" unless by some remote possibility the speaker is referring to alignment with the eastern direction or perhaps far-eastern regions. Aargh! ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Mbo Date: 19 Sep 00 - 11:49 AM Ha ha! Kipper tie! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler Date: 19 Sep 00 - 11:47 AM Has anyone done the Noddy Holder joke? ( tenuous musical connection) He went into a clothes shop, say Zissman's in Brum (used to do a neat line in gold lame drape jackets in my day), in the 1970s. Bought a pair of red velvet flares,a horrible paisley pattern big collar shirt. The assistant thinks the outfit isn't complete. "How about a kipper tie ,sir" he suggests. "Foin,"says Noddy " two sugars, please." (get Steve or Rana to explain it!) RtS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Mbo Date: 19 Sep 00 - 11:33 AM Down here in Eastern NC, when you want to talk to someone, you say "I need to get up with you." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: mousethief Date: 19 Sep 00 - 11:25 AM I'll bet "past history" is a mangling of "ancient history." Perhaps "future plans" are plans you haven't made yet. Just a thought. Actually just two thoughts.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Jim Dixon Date: 18 Sep 00 - 07:48 PM How about "future plans" or "past history"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Bill D Date: 18 Sep 00 - 07:24 PM nope...but I have 'pre-recorded' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: oggie Date: 18 Sep 00 - 05:40 PM Surely there is a difference between pronunciation and mangling? Where a word is correctly used but said diferently is surely different to the incorrect use of a word where the meaning has been lost or it's pronunciation is so far out as to suggest that the speaker really does not know how the word should be said (or even means). For example, I'm sure I heard Bush the Younger say 'subliminable' the other night on TV - that is mangling! In the part of Lincolnshire I lived in extra syllables were often inserted into double vowel sounds - so 'beans' becomes 'be-hans' (5 miles down the road on the 'Marsh' it became 'be-yans'). That I would descibe as an accent and in these days of estuary english something to be treasured not scorned! All the best Steve PS Anyone for some 'forward planning'? Have you ever planned backwards? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Jim Dixon Date: 18 Sep 00 - 05:22 PM Bulletin: Why do so many commentators think the plural of "process" is pronounced "process-ease"? I just heard an announcer on National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" say, "Fujimori never had much respect for democratic process-ease." I have heard this many times before. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Bert Date: 18 Sep 00 - 12:56 PM equalrice, you said "By the by, Shits Creek would not be the correct way to refer to a number of said objects the same way lunches boxes would not be correct. Nouns used as adjectives take the singular form. Winter coat. Field day." Actually 'correct' in any language is determined by the inhabitants of the Capital City of the Country and not by some snotty nosed grammar professor;-) Bert. - Now maybe it's because I'm a Londoner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: mousethief Date: 18 Sep 00 - 11:54 AM I suppose a racial epitaph would be attached to a gravestone, so having one hurled at you might not be a very nice thing! LOL.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Sep 00 - 01:29 AM It's "crick" in New York State. It's "creek" in Ontario (like a door hinge that needs oil). It's "ruff" in New York State (sounds like a dog barking). It's "roof" in Ontario. It's "warsh" in some places in the USA. It's "wash" here. It's "owwwt" in the USA, "out" in Ontario, and "oot" in Aberdeen...but it's "goslibovitzka" in Brutopia. Dubya, Dubya, Dubya...hey, nonny, nonny, ho, and ho, noony, nonny, hey. I've got a suggestion. Let's take all the assorted manglings of the English language that have been posted in both this thread and its predecessor...and combine them into a single horrendous document...and then email it to Dubya! He needs a new speechwriter anyway... Make it a speech on NU-CU-LAR energy, "so's" he can say NU-CU-LAR as many times as possible before it's done. Hee! Hee! Hee! (fiendish laughter) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: GUEST,equalrice Date: 16 Sep 00 - 07:40 PM A lot of the this so-called mangling is really just the same old usage gripes from nitpickers. Now that that gripe is off my chest: my nominations. On a 20/20 segment one of the reporters said this of a surly crowd: They started hurling racial epitaphs at each other. And one of my all time favorites: at the Anita Hill hearings (anybody remember Anita Hill?), one of the senior senators (was it Orin Hatch?) spoke about the aligations and the aligaTORS. By the by, Shits Creek would not be the correct way to refer to a number of said objects the same way lunches boxes would not be correct. Nouns used as adjectives take the singular form. Winter coat. Field day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: The Beanster Date: 16 Sep 00 - 05:13 PM This thread has become so interesting. When I put my two cents in at the beginning, I thought some funny posts would appear and we'd all get a chuckle and that would be that but I've really learned a lot here! (why am I surprised?)! As far as the gender debate goes, when I'm writing, even in formal stuff, I now use "s/he" as an alternative to "he/she" or "they." It looks a little odd, I know, but it's the best I have found so far... Heard a lady on the subway just the other day say, I swear to God--"The doctor told her she was obeast." What planet am I on?! lolol
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Jon Freeman Date: 16 Sep 00 - 04:26 PM Ah but if you are talking about gills as in the liquid measure, it is pronounced "jill". Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Ely Date: 16 Sep 00 - 04:12 PM We always used "Ma'am" for female teachers. But some of my southern-born friends insisted on calling my mother "Miss Bette" when she said they could call her by her first name. She hated that. "Reason why" always bugs the Hell out of me. If you have "reason", you don't need "why". You might as well say either of them twice. My boyfriend insisted for the longest time that "germ" (as in "wheat germ") should be pronounced with a hard "g", as in "gills" or "green". It didn't take me long to figure out that he often doesn't know what he's talking about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Sula Date: 16 Sep 00 - 06:23 AM Domineco, thanks I think that was what I was trying to say, language has to change to survive. Bill D that was a good summary of the discussion. I've heard of a system of communicating by learning 100 key words in loads of languages, but it has its limitations...blood, sweat and tears become blood, body water and eye water! Cheers Sula |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Penny S. Date: 16 Sep 00 - 06:23 AM Banjo Johnny, I do not go round looking for masculinisation of the language, but a lot can be told from context, and very frequently, it is apparent from the rest of the sentence that he does not include women, that the base state of humanity is seen as men. I once saw a presentation of "best practice" in computer teaching in a very impressive primary school with a really keen teacher. Full of photographs of little people sitting around keyboards busily working. The first one was all boys, captioned "children". No probs, though with equal access to the keyboard an issue on ever so many questionnaires, not the best choice to open with. Next one also boys, also captioned "children". Eventually a picture of girls, captioned "girls", and later one mixed, captioned "boys and girls". About twenty boys, five girls, and the girls never captioned "children". what is the subtext? Granted, the word man originally was the equivalent of Latin "homo", not "vir", and was inclusive, with "wifman" and "wereman" the subgroups ("were" being cognate with "vir"), but there have been many years of change, and the influence of such thinkers as the Greek philosophers and Augustine, and the churchmen who held that women had no souls. "Man" is not used inclusively, nor is "he". Once you start noticing that you're left out, it becomes very obvious. Have a look at the tenth commandment, for example. You aren't supposed to covet a wife, but no banning of coveting a husband. Natural usage seems to result in the use of "they" in a singular meaning, anyway, when the gender is unknown, and in spoken English it doesn't seem to sound wrong, as it does in writing. One I find irritating is the use of "sir" for male teachers and "miss", without the surname, for females. Not equivalent. "Sir" is honorific, "miss" is diminutive, originally used for children. Many schools teach that both are polite, and do not notice that the roots go back to times when men were graduates and women not able to attend university, and compelled to leave teaching when they married (or were seen with a man). It is part of the failure to see women as included, and goes unnoticed, especially by men, some of whom with the best of intentions believe that the language is inclusive. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Sula Date: 16 Sep 00 - 06:15 AM Back to Worcestershire and other difficult pronunciations. I have a friend who was once enjoying a pint outside a Yorkshire village pub. A helicopter descended and landed on the cricket pitch!!! Sacred Soil!!! A man got out and demanded to know where "Harogatty" was. My friend taken aback as you may expect, denied all knowledge until the man showed him a map pointing to Harrogate, (pronounced "Harragut")by locals and "Harrow-gate" by more run of the mill tourists. He managed an inarticulate, yokel-like wave in the direction required and the helicopter and man departed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Ebbie Date: 15 Sep 00 - 10:54 PM A couple of things that bug me: 'There were approximately 189 people present.' What? My least favorite, however: 'I work hard-I always give 110 %, or, he always gives 200%.' You mean you give more than you can? Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Ebbie Date: 15 Sep 00 - 10:06 PM Banjo Johnny- in a quick aside- in my opinion we should be saying 'womankind' and using its attendent pronouns. The reason is that 'woman' has 'man' in it so there is nothing exclusionary about it. Then when a newscaster said something like "Today was another great day in the annals of womankind," men need only remind themselves that they are included. Of course, you would be included- wouldn't the name itself be evidence enough? Here's to womankind! Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: GUEST, Banjo Johnny Date: 15 Sep 00 - 09:55 PM Why can't "he" and its forms continue to include "she", as it has in hundreds of years of literature? It was never intended as an insult to women. Tired of hearing people say ee-legal. Are they afraid I don't understand the word illegal? == Johnny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 15 Sep 00 - 09:52 PM A large part of the glory of the English language is its EXTREME flexibility, its easy acceptance of neologisms and foreign imports. The shifts of balance and bumps that result tend to be uncomfortable to those of us who love language and communication, but the meaning or the spelling or the pronunciation your junior high school teacher taught you was not handed down from Mt. Olympus; it was developed from something else in the rough and tumble of daily communication, and probably seemed unconventional, controversial and--"hey"--ludicrous to our predecessors. When, on occasion, I indulge in a nonstandard but (to me) justified usage and someone calls me on it, I like to tell the questioner (with a straight face): "I have the high privilege of serving on the committee that makes all the decisions on what's acceptable and what's not in the English language." After they get through gasping and sputtering at this, I add: "It's called the Comittee of the Whole of All Users of the English Language! Some members' opinions are much more influential than others, but everyone gets to vote." Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Bill D Date: 15 Sep 00 - 09:30 PM seems to me there's several classes of 'mangling' we are talking about here. One is simple local/cultural variations in spelling and pronunciation.."aluminium" and "kilometer" and long & short vowel sounds, etc...interesting, but hardly significant except for games of guessing where someone is from... Then there is the artificial warping in order to try to sound special...'verbing' of nouns and bureaucratic hyperbole...frustrating, but sometimes conveys meaning for local groups... But then we have the 'funny' ones...the careless, stupid uses by people who try to use words they simply have made no attempt to look up, and often use similar sounding words or totally off-the-wall pronunciation...with grotesque results..."social Piranha" 'coop' for coup...etc. Then there is the general 'bad grammar' category, which is often just a result of limited education, but which CAN be an obstinate resolve to not 'do it their way'.... I do try, when laughing at the wonderful posts here, to remember that there is a big difference between laughing at the words, and laughing at the perpetrator. But I also feel very strongly that some of these mistakes tell me a LOT about who I'd trust and respect in important aspects of life..... "subliminable"???....*sigh* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: kendall Date: 15 Sep 00 - 07:11 PM What about "Well"? the Actor used to say that before anything else.And, forMIDable? Question..why do we care? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: Mbo Date: 15 Sep 00 - 06:58 PM What about in the old movies, where sentences always start with "why". As in "Why, I'll wake up and this will all have been a dream." What's that "why" fer, anyways? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mangling the English Language, Vol. II From: domenico Date: 15 Sep 00 - 06:42 PM Wow, Sula, you should have seen my post in the "Nazi" thread (due to peoples' apparent disgust at the "casual" use of an inflammatory word). Here was my two cents on the "living language" concept: "...please do not feel personally attacked by individuals who use this term in their vernacular, as this word is doing what every word does eventually in a language, it evolves and gets incororated into the vocabulary. While you may feel it is losing its particular meaning, it is being used to explain the idea of intolerence. If you wnat to make sure it conveys the same sense of horror, feel free to remind people exactly what images it does convey. If anything, you either help them more correctly convey an idea, or perhaps you now learned that they feel just as passionately about an injustice as you..." "Language is our only way of precisely conveying our thoughts, and English is a "living language", and with it, we all learn to express ourselves in an infinitely growing way. Two such examples of this concept, and its limitations are the Hopi and Korean languages. I may be reciting Urban Legend here, so if anyone knows the details, please clue me in, but in a nutshell, at different times, these languages prevented a very simple task from being carried out due to the limitations of words. In both cases, someone was trying to translate the Bible, so that they could be taught in the native tongue. In the Hopi tongue, there was no word to convey the concept of a savior, and/or single omnipotent God. Their pantheon did just not apply in a collective sense, and they couldn't find the words to convey it. In Korean, it was a similar situation, but it revolved around the concept of Brotherly love. Their literally was no word as "love" in that context, and their project suffered."
I think what I am trying get to is that while I do wish to have a better grasp of the English language, sometimes words mutate into a different thought, but still allow the speaker/writer to convey their ideas, and I hope that my fellow English speakers can appreciate my expression, regardless of a small faux-pas on my part. To wit, I was once referring to my hesitation in an action that was being asked of me, and I referred to my "reticence", at which point I was rudely told I couldn't have been reticent, as I was not "speaking", I was "doing". After crawling home and devouring my dictionary, I met with the classic dilemma of "The Letter of the Law vs. the Spirit of the Law". To the interrupter, I concede to entry #1: "inclined to be silent or uncommunicative in speech" But as the interruptee, I will beg to differ, citing entry #2, "restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance", as "restraining" my "expression" of doing the obviously odious, yet completely forgotten, task at hand... I hope that I can at least make a tale more interesting by adding to the imagery with interesting words. If perhaps I screw them up a bit, I would love to know, and to learn, but sometimes, you just need to let it go. Eventually the word will change, leaving you with the challenge of inventing your own words... :) Domenico |