Author Topic: Grammar quirks  (Read 39027 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

bansidhe

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1991
    • The Menagerie
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #345 on: October 07, 2012, 01:16:36 AM »
Saw another one.

The short slangy form of "yes is "yeah." "Yeah" rhymes with "meh."

It is *not* "ya." "Ya" rhymes with "ha."

Yeah doesn't rhyme with meh.  Yeah has a short "a" sound and meh has a short "e" sound.  That's how I've always heard those words pronounced, anyway.

Until I came to this thread, I had no idea anyone pronounced "yeah" any way other than rhyming with "meh." This must be a regional difference. Never heard anyone in my neck of the woods pronounce it with a short "a" sound.
Esan ozenki!

Arizona

Mental Magpie

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4830
  • ...for the dark side looks back.
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #346 on: October 07, 2012, 01:19:54 AM »
Saw another one.

The short slangy form of "yes is "yeah." "Yeah" rhymes with "meh."

It is *not* "ya." "Ya" rhymes with "ha."

Yeah doesn't rhyme with meh.  Yeah has a short "a" sound and meh has a short "e" sound.  That's how I've always heard those words pronounced, anyway.

Until I came to this thread, I had no idea anyone pronounced "yeah" any way other than rhyming with "meh." This must be a regional difference. Never heard anyone in my neck of the woods pronounce it with a short "a" sound.

I had no idea anyone pronounced it rhyming with "meh".  That is so weird! (totally smiling and surprised that it is pronounced any other way).
The problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that you're still choosing evil.

bansidhe

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1991
    • The Menagerie
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #347 on: October 07, 2012, 01:42:36 AM »
I'm going to be paying close attention to the way people say it from now on. I want to catch someone in the act.  :D
Esan ozenki!

Arizona

Diane AKA Traska

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4412
  • Or you can just call me Diane. (NE USA EHellion)
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #348 on: October 07, 2012, 01:52:36 AM »
The funny thing is, I've never heard either!  What I hear (and say) is a single syllable word that other wise sounds like "yeh-ah".
Location:
Philadelphia, PA

Oh Joy

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1225
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #349 on: October 07, 2012, 09:18:02 AM »
Decimate. It's misused all the time. Ie the town was decimated in the bushfire. Means it was reduced by 1/10th. What they really mean was that the town was razed. Decimate does not mean destroyed.

Decimated means, according to Merriam Webster:
   
1- Kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage of.
2- Drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something): "plant viruses that can decimate yields".

Its origins is, as you said, to reduce by 10%. Or, better yet, to punish an army by killing 1 out of 10 men, drawn by lot. However, over the centuries, it has developed new meanings. Insisting that it can only have the original meaning is a little pedantic, in my view. Or else we need to admit that forging should only be used to describe something shaped by hammering or compression (so no deal can be forged), that glass can only refer to the material and not to items made of it (drinking glass, eye glasses), that a snowflake is only something that falls from the sky and not a very special person, etc.

Decimate irks me, too.  It's one thing to create new meanings and nuances for a word, and another thing to have a word misused until the misuse becomes accepted as an official definition. 

Sure, it happens to plenty of words, and I'm lucky if it's the biggest irritation in my day, but I do cringe when I hear it come out of a newscaster's mouth!   ;)

starry diadem

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 377
  • διάδημα: The Glass Hat
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #350 on: October 07, 2012, 11:15:40 AM »
~quote tree snipped~

Decimate irks me, too.  It's one thing to create new meanings and nuances for a word, and another thing to have a word misused until the misuse becomes accepted as an official definition. 

Sure, it happens to plenty of words, and I'm lucky if it's the biggest irritation in my day, but I do cringe when I hear it come out of a newscaster's mouth!   ;)

This reflects a major change in how we view language. 

Dictionaries are not prescriptive.  They were once, when they were the the repository of standard usage, standard spelling and grammatical rules: a tool to try and fix language, give words an absolute definition and usage that was considered the 'pure' and 'correct' use.  But language isn't something that can be fixed.  It's constantly evolving and changing, and now dictionaries seek to be descriptive instead - they show language as it's being used.  Definitions are slipping and changing.  Usage is slipping and changing.  Dictionaries reflect that.  Don't look to a dictionary for a definitive "this is right" ruling.  It will describe all the different usages for you, instead.

That's probably been the case for the last century, but we're all still hung up on a fixed definition, fixed spelling and fixed rules.  We like order and structure.  Language, being the slippery beast it is, doesn't much care for either as long as it gets the meaning across.

Like you, I prefer to use 'decimate' in the old, fixed way, but I acknowledge that the meaning has morphed and changed.  Other, similar, changes in words and usage will gradually take on the same level of 'rightness' as the old standard  - the misuse of 'lay' where 'lie' should be used ("Come and lay down beside me," coaxed John is a sentence that makes me shudder) is so widespread, that I don't believe there's a hope of reversing that trend.  It will still make me shudder, but eventually it will become the norm and language will have moved on another step in its evolution.  Whether that's a forwards or backwards step depends on your point of view.
Mysterious ravens go after local farmer's potatoes


Barb3000

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 231
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #351 on: October 07, 2012, 05:32:56 PM »
I don't believe this has been mentioned yet -

She called me out of my name -- meaning

She called me a name.

First one makes NO sense, second one says it exactly. Can't figure it out.

Shoo

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 16393
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #352 on: October 07, 2012, 05:59:14 PM »
I don't believe this has been mentioned yet -

She called me out of my name -- meaning

She called me a name.

First one makes NO sense, second one says it exactly. Can't figure it out.

Is it just one person you've heard say this, or many people?  I have never heard it before.  Honestly, it is so utterly bizarre I can't even imagine someone saying it.  It makes absolutely NO sense.

demarco

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4060
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #353 on: October 07, 2012, 10:40:31 PM »
I don't believe this has been mentioned yet -

She called me out of my name -- meaning

She called me a name.

First one makes NO sense, second one says it exactly. Can't figure it out.

Is it just one person you've heard say this, or many people?  I have never heard it before.  Honestly, it is so utterly bizarre I can't even imagine someone saying it.  It makes absolutely NO sense.

I have come across this phrase a few times starting maybe thirty or more years ago.  I agree, it makes no sense.  I had the hardest time figuring out what it meant, even in context.

squeakers

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1684
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #354 on: October 08, 2012, 09:07:27 AM »
I don't believe this has been mentioned yet -

She called me out of my name -- meaning

She called me a name.

First one makes NO sense, second one says it exactly. Can't figure it out.

I kind of "get" the first one.

"She called me John".  John is my name.

"She called me a stupid git." Stupid git is not my name. By calling me stupid git she has taken away my name.  "Calling out" means to say/to speak.. so.. still convoluted but makes a little sense.

Sort of reminds me of the tribes who believed taking a photo of them would take their souls away from them. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-559163.html
"I feel sarcasm is the lowest form of wit." "It is so low, in fact, that Miss Manners feels sure you would not want to resort to it yourself, even in your own defense. We do not believe in retaliatory rudeness." Judith Martin

scotcat60

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 375
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #355 on: October 08, 2012, 11:47:33 AM »
For awhile, I'm not sure why, when referring to a king-making ceremony, the trend was to refer to the process as "coronating

"Edward Eighth soon abdicated/So George the sixth was coronated"

A line from a poem helping you to remember the order of the Kings of England/GB beginning "Willy, Willy, Harry,Ste, Harry, wingadingdingy, John, Harry three...."etc.

As for the use of Might and May: it's not regional as far as I know

Giggity

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8622
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #356 on: October 08, 2012, 12:03:29 PM »
Why not use "crowning" instead of "coronating"? It's shorter, and it's less pretentious. (I do tend toward the Anglo-Saxon word over the Romance one, in almost every word-choice situation. I'm not sure why.)

I also would strike "foundational" in favor of "fundamental."
Words mean things.

Barb3000

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 231
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #357 on: October 08, 2012, 12:45:52 PM »
I don't believe this has been mentioned yet -

She called me out of my name -- meaning

She called me a name.

First one makes NO sense, second one says it exactly. Can't figure it out.

Is it just one person you've heard say this, or many people?  I have never heard it before.  Honestly, it is so utterly bizarre I can't even imagine someone saying it.  It makes absolutely NO sense.

I have heard it many times on television. No one I know says it.

Oh Joy

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1225
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #358 on: October 08, 2012, 12:46:49 PM »
Why not use "crowning" instead of "coronating"? It's shorter, and it's less pretentious.
...

I don't know...I gave birth to our second child six days ago, and can't quite associate that word with a dignified royal event!   ;)  But I do think a pretentious word is totally appropriate for that momentous of an occasion.

In general I am a big fan of the plain language movement.  I've been following this thread, but don't recall anyone pointing to this website: http://www.plainlanguage.gov/whatisPL/index.cfm

Slartibartfast

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 11463
    • Nerdy Necklaces - my Etsy shop!
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #359 on: October 08, 2012, 01:19:42 PM »
My brain is breaking over the word "contracepting," which has been showing up in the political sphere recently.  On the one hand, it's not a word!  On the other hand, there's no quick and snappy verb meaning "using contraception," so I can understand why.  There's no good way to say "We're contracepting ourselves out of existence!" unless you make up the word "contracepting."