|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
 Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 11:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| rockstarsmooth wrote: |
looser.
my personal pet peeve.
84 matches.
people, it's loser.
rss 
 right now i'm listening to: adem - human beings gather 'round |
I remember when I was about 14 I was in a basketball tournament. I was looking at the bulletin board that explaine the order of games. Games were labeled as "winner" and "looser" and I started at it for five minutes trying to figure out what it meant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rockstarsmooth
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Location: anyang, baybee!
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
| rockstarsmooth wrote: |
looser.
my personal pet peeve.
84 matches.
people, it's loser.
rss
right now i'm listening to: adem - human beings gather 'round |
I remember when I was about 14 I was in a basketball tournament. I was looking at the bulletin board that explaine the order of games. Games were labeled as "winner" and "looser" and I started at it for five minutes trying to figure out what it meant. |
obviously one is a winner or one is a slut.
one can't be both?
rss
right now i'm listening to: janis joplin - ball and chain
Last edited by rockstarsmooth on Thu May 10, 2007 11:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
merkurix
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Location: Not far from the deep end.
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Very enlightening post. It made me more conscious of my everyday usage of the word "everyday" and how it should be used every day.
Umm . . . I will just avoid future embarassment and use "daily" instead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JongnoGuru
Joined: 25 May 2004
Location: peeing on your doorstep
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Corporal wrote: |
And how many people spell Qinella Quinella?  |
About as many as call me "Jongo" or "Jogno".
| rockstarsmooth wrote: |
looser.
my personal pet peeve.
84 matches.
people, it's loser.
rss |
84 matches? I assume not all of those are actual misspellings of the opposite of "winner"; surely some must be the correct spelling of the comparative of "loose". But of the genuine misspellings, I think you'll find that I am responsible for a good many. Some time ago, after seeing so many posters misspell that word, I decided I would henceforth also (though intentionally) misspell it on Dave's. Not because I seriously wish to promote that twerpy alternative wrong spelling, but simply because I find it pleasingly irksome. And because I consider the use of the word "loser" as an all-purpose put-down, as well as those who use it as such, to be childish and dim. If I ever do spell it correctly on this board, it will only be because I've forgotten my rule.
My spelling pet peeve: then when they mean than
Last edited by JongnoGuru on Fri May 11, 2007 1:13 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| merkurix wrote: |
Very enlightening post. It made me more conscious of my everyday usage of the word "everyday" and how it should be used every day.
Umm . . . I will just avoid future embarassment and use "daily" instead. |
If we can get through to just one person, this thread was worth it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rockstarsmooth
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Location: anyang, baybee!
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
another thing that bugs me is "should of" instead of "should have." it's becoming much more commonplace, not just here but in general usage. erg!
jogno (hehe), i found 27 matches for "loosers." clearly not the comparative adjective form.
rss
right now i'm listening to: the clash - rudie can't fail |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JongnoGuru
Joined: 25 May 2004
Location: peeing on your doorstep
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rockstarsmooth wrote: |
| another thing that bugs me is "should of" instead of "should have." it's becoming much more commonplace, not just here but in general usage. erg! |
I know. It's the same with "then" for "than". grrr!
| Quote: |
jogno (hehe), i found 27 matches for "loosers." clearly not the comparative adjective form.
rss |
Oh cool! I'm sure I'm in there. I bet you've checked.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kimchi story
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
| merkurix wrote: |
Very enlightening post. It made me more conscious of my everyday usage of the word "everyday" and how it should be used every day.
Umm . . . I will just avoid future embarassment and use "daily" instead. |
If we can get through to just one person, this thread was worth it. |
Fair 'nuff - and true. I'm still waiting for my report on the abuse of 'referencing'. I found a coupla hundred. It's a transitive verb - you gotta go beyond dictionary.com to see how it has been abused.
Honestly? I think this kinda rant just ain't far from a healthy trolling. Personally, I don't edit my posts, and being called to task on it is - for lack of a better word - cheap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jajdude
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Misused apostrophes are very common. Business signs have them, in America and elsewhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wo buxihuan hanguoren
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Location: Suyuskis
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
| rockstarsmooth wrote: |
looser.
my personal pet peeve.
84 matches.
people, it's loser.
rss
right now i'm listening to: adem - human beings gather 'round |
I remember when I was about 14 I was in a basketball tournament. I was looking at the bulletin board that explaine the order of games. Games were labeled as "winner" and "looser" and I started at it for five minutes trying to figure out what it meant. |
RT, you started at it? Looser! Go back to Guro pal, no one else in Seoul wants your kind of riff-raff! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
According to Stephen Pinker (in 'The Language Instinct') there were no prescriptive grammar rules for English until the 18th century when an unprecendented social mobility created a desire for people to master the 'best version of english'. Self-appointed experts began to write grammar books basing the rules on Latin grammar! This of corse is completely illogical. These 'mavens', as Stephen Pinker calls them, are the antecedents of our present day grammar nazis.
He also points out that grammar is biologically determined and that most people who complain about 'common grammar mistakes' only do so because they are ignorant of this fact. |
I'm sorry, am I supposed to recognize Stephen Pinker's name? Oh, I'm sure he's an actual name in "linguistic theory," but does anyone outside of someone studying for a linguistics theory major read him?
Since "English" had only been around for something like less than a thousand years or so by the time people decided to codify it, the timing of its codification seems about right to me. I'll lay odds that Latin grammar wasn't codified until about that much time had passed since its first native speakers started thinking of it as being "Latin." Or for Greeks speaking Greek, for that matter. Or any language, for that matter.
My point is that English isn't the first language to have decided for itself that there's a proper way to speak and write it. Most likely the grunts and whistles of cavemen came with a set of gruntage rules.
The need to codify things is also biologically determined. We are a species given to the ordering of things, however poorly we manage that urge.
I will grant that basing rules of English Grammar on rules of Latin grammar was a dim tack to take, which is why the rules of English grammar have evolved away from such proscriptions as not splitting infinitives (which could not be split in Latin) and not ending sentences in prepositions. English grammar has evolved since the 18th century, as it had evolved in the centuries before the mavens thought to write down the generally accepted rules of usage.
If a mature language has no generally accepted grammar, it has no literature worth designating as "literature," because the lack of codification leads to too much ambiguity.
It may be that the mavens didn't get together until the 18th century, but the reason they got together was that certain trends had clearly been in evidence for some centuries prior to that time.
I wonder why people who have disdain for the concept of grammar don't also piss on the idea of dictionaries. What is the salient differnce between an accepted idea of what a word means, at any given moment in its lifespan, and an accepted rule of grammar? My supposition is that there is no difference, except that grammar requires more thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swetepete
Joined: 01 Nov 2006
Location: a limp little burg
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| daskalos wrote: |
My point is that English isn't the first language to have decided for itself that there's a proper way to speak and write it. Most likely the grunts and whistles of cavemen came with a set of gruntage rules.
The need to codify things is also biologically determined. We are a species given to the ordering of things, however poorly we manage that urge.
|
I totally agree with your point. I wanna add a sidepoint, tho: humans also are biologically compelled to reject the rules imposed on them by other humans. If we make too much of a big deal out of grammar, people might rebel and insist that written English is a perversity, totally unreflective of how we talk, and start writing it exactly as we speak it. Next thing you know, we'll be a phonetic language, and who wants that? What are we, Irvine Welsh?
I like grammar and spelling rules to the extent that they allow fluid communication between people who otherwise couldn't or wouldn't understand each other--across physical space, and across time as well. If we all stick more or less to the accepted norms, we can read stuff our great great great great grandfolks wrote, and understand it; likewise the same for the descendants we'll hopefully have, even three or four hundred years down the line.
But I don't mind if somebody spells it 'donut' or 'color' or makes a compound word out of two hyphenated ones. 'Donit' or 'kuller' might rankle though...
Anyway, I don't mind if people bytch each other out over incorrect spellings and bad grammar, either. I don't personally care about it as much as some do, but whatevs. S'all good, yo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimchi Cowboy
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
2 Ds in Goddamn, Quinella. 2 Ds.
Continue... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kimchi Cowboy wrote: |
| 2 Ds in Goddamn, Quinella. 2 Ds. |
You're the second person to point this out, so I guess I'll take time now to address the matter: the spelling was not unintentional. If you do a search, you'll see that I have used both spellings, though recently I have been leaning more toward the one-d variant. It's more aesthetically pleasing to me.
Now, let me address the grammar nazi issue, which has inevitably been raised here and there in this thread. Truth be told, yes, I am very bothered by the terrible grammar and spelling on this site, but that was not the point of this thread. As I demonstrated in the OP, it's obvious that most of you were not previously aware of the fact that everyday is not an adverb. (As an aside, eachother--334 matches found--is also wrong, always.)
This thread is an awareness campaign. It's my hope that you will all become more attentive to the difference between everyday and every day. The reason I quoted guilty posters was to shame you into repentance! 
Side note to Kimchi Story: thefreedictionary.com > dictionary.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daskalos wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
According to Stephen Pinker (in 'The Language Instinct') there were no prescriptive grammar rules for English until the 18th century when an unprecendented social mobility created a desire for people to master the 'best version of english'. Self-appointed experts began to write grammar books basing the rules on Latin grammar! This of corse is completely illogical. These 'mavens', as Stephen Pinker calls them, are the antecedents of our present day grammar nazis.
He also points out that grammar is biologically determined and that most people who complain about 'common grammar mistakes' only do so because they are ignorant of this fact. |
I'm sorry, am I supposed to recognize Stephen Pinker's name? Oh, I'm sure he's an actual name in "linguistic theory," but does anyone outside of someone studying for a linguistics theory major read him? |
I think it would be a shame if only people studying for a linguistic theory major read him. Fortunately I don't believe that's the case. I am a science major, the book was recommended to me by an english major, a co-worker, and to my knowledge has been read by at least two other of my co-workers, one of whom is a law major and the other who, while I'm not exactly sure what his major is I know it's some sort of business major. I would strongly recommend it to anyone who has an interest in how the human mind works.....it's a very easy read and not in the least bit 'dry'.
| Quote: |
Since "English" had only been around for something like less than a thousand years or so by the time people decided to codify it, the timing of its codification seems about right to me. I'll lay odds that Latin grammar wasn't codified until about that much time had passed since its first native speakers started thinking of it as being "Latin." Or for Greeks speaking Greek, for that matter. Or any language, for that matter. |
Stephen Pinker also points out in the book that the self- appointed grammar experts who decided the rules arbitrarily chose the London dialect to base them on. This dialect of course had no more validity than any other dialect.
| Quote: |
| My point is that English isn't the first language to have decided for itself that there's a proper way to speak and write it. Most likely the grunts and whistles of cavemen came with a set of gruntage rules. |
If it was up to the grammar nazis we would still be grunting at each other and even still they'd be complaining that some people's methods of grunting was getting a bit lax. Thay cannot accept that language naturally evolves but would rather see it petrified in time like an insect trapped in amber.
Again...grammar is biologically determined. Insisting on prescriptive grammar rules is like insisting that 5'10'' is the standard height for adult human males and anyone who is not that height is breaking the rules and ought to get their act together!
The belief in presciptive grammar rules is going to go the same way as the belief in a flat earth.
Oops... gotta go. Will address the rest of your points later! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
