Author Topic: Grammar quirks  (Read 44415 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Giggity

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8622
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #390 on: October 17, 2012, 11:22:51 AM »
I don't think these are professionals. Most of them are commercials for local businesses, and generally the "talent" tends to be the owner's daughter.
Words mean things.

Diane AKA Traska

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4521
  • Or you can just call me Diane. (NE USA EHellion)
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #391 on: October 17, 2012, 11:59:39 AM »
Along with submissive Ss, dominant Ts always get under my skin.  Ts in the middle of words like "important" being spat out are distracting.  It also invariably slows the speaker down.
Location:
Philadelphia, PA

Giggity

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8622
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #392 on: October 17, 2012, 12:08:43 PM »
I used to work with a woman who enunciated every single consonant. It was pretty distracting.
Words mean things.

starry diadem

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 438
  • διάδημα: The Glass Hat
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #393 on: October 17, 2012, 06:02:17 PM »
S is an underappreciated consonant. For some reason, lots of people think it's weak and can't live on its own without an H next to it. Once you notice it, you will never stop noticing it. Many radio commercials in my area have this problem: shtrong, shtraight, shtand.

Sean Connory works at your local radio station?  Brilliant!
Mysterious ravens go after local farmer's potatoes


cabbageweevil

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1079
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #394 on: October 17, 2012, 06:04:23 PM »
...totally OT - Richard I may have had a sense of humour but definitely didn't have a sense of self-preservation.

He was mortally injured while laying siege to a castle in France because he saw one of the defenders aiming a crossbow at him, and stopped to applaud the man's bravery before ducking. Result, one crossbow bolt to the shoulder and a nice infected puncture wound...  ::)

I've read, further to this, that: between Richard's wounding and his consequent death a couple of days later, the besieged castle fell.  The crossbowman concerned was brought before the dying king; who, in a spirit of fairness and continuing respect for the guy's skill and courage, ordered that no harm should come to him.  The general who was Richard's second-in-command, was a hard case who set no store by this "chivalry" nonsense.  After the king had breathed his last, the general disobeyed his late monarch's command, and saw to it that the crossbowman died also, slowly and nastily.
 

bansidhe

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2064
    • The Menagerie
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #395 on: October 17, 2012, 06:54:17 PM »
I hear it, or the substitute 'th' here in Maryland, and on professionally recorded music.  I believe that singers and other people who are recorded are taught that 's' comes across the microphone as a very sharp hiss, so they soften it to 'sh' or 'th'.

Which brings me to something that has driven me bonkers for a long, long time: singers using deliberate mispronunciations and fake accents. Why? I don't get it and it's annoying and distracting. Two really big offenders:
- the word "baby" being pronounced bay-bay, and
- the word "want" being pronounced like "won't," apparently in an attempt to mimic a southern US accent. The Rolling Stones sing You Can't Always Get What You Won't, for example.

It's just so fake and affected.

ETA: Awwww, nuts. I though this was the Little Things that Drive You Up the Wall thread. My complaint isn't really grammar-related. (Still drives me batty, though.)
Esan ozenki!

Arizona

mmswm

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2177
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #396 on: October 17, 2012, 07:08:44 PM »
My grammar pet peeve is the word "nauseous".  The relationship of the words nauseous and nauseated is analogous to the words boring and bored. When a person says "I feel nauseous", he or she is really saying "I feel I have a quality that makes others sick to their stomachs."  Instead the speaker should say "I feel nauseated," which means that he or she is feeling sick to the stomach.
Some people lift weights.  I lift measures.  It's a far more esoteric workout. - (Quoted from a personal friend)

Mental Magpie

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5273
  • ...for the dark side looks back.
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #397 on: October 17, 2012, 07:18:39 PM »
My grammar pet peeve is the word "nauseous".  The relationship of the words nauseous and nauseated is analogous to the words boring and bored. When a person says "I feel nauseous", he or she is really saying "I feel I have a quality that makes others sick to their stomachs."  Instead the speaker should say "I feel nauseated," which means that he or she is feeling sick to the stomach.

Nauseous also means affected by nausea, though, so I don't see why it is incorrect.  Could you please explain?
The problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that you're still choosing evil.

mmswm

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2177
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #398 on: October 17, 2012, 08:02:58 PM »
My grammar pet peeve is the word "nauseous".  The relationship of the words nauseous and nauseated is analogous to the words boring and bored. When a person says "I feel nauseous", he or she is really saying "I feel I have a quality that makes others sick to their stomachs."  Instead the speaker should say "I feel nauseated," which means that he or she is feeling sick to the stomach.

Nauseous also means affected by nausea, though, so I don't see why it is incorrect.  Could you please explain?

Actually, no, but the common usage of the word has become so commonplace that most of us who shudder at the use of the word have given up on trying to correct it.  If you look at the words boring and bored, "boring" is the cause and "bored" is the effect.  This is a perfect analogy to nauseous and nauseated.  Nauseous is the cause and nauseated is the effect.

For an example:

The patient's gangrene toe was nauseous and I nearly threw up when I saw it.

The gangrene toe was the cause of the speaker's nausea.

Alternatively:

When looking at the patient's gangrene toe, I became nauseated and nearly threw up.

In this case "nauseated" is the effect.
Some people lift weights.  I lift measures.  It's a far more esoteric workout. - (Quoted from a personal friend)

Giggity

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8622
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #399 on: October 17, 2012, 08:15:09 PM »
S is an underappreciated consonant. For some reason, lots of people think it's weak and can't live on its own without an H next to it. Once you notice it, you will never stop noticing it. Many radio commercials in my area have this problem: shtrong, shtraight, shtand.

Sean Connory works at your local radio station?  Brilliant!

Heh heh. That will make it considerably more bearable, imagining Sean doing all those voiceovers.
Words mean things.

Giggity

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8622
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #400 on: October 17, 2012, 08:16:22 PM »
Which brings me to something that has driven me bonkers for a long, long time: singers using deliberate mispronunciations and fake accents. Why? I don't get it and it's annoying and distracting. Two really big offenders:
- the word "baby" being pronounced bay-bay, and
- the word "want" being pronounced like "won't," apparently in an attempt to mimic a southern US accent. The Rolling Stones sing You Can't Always Get What You Won't, for example.

It's just so fake and affected.

American singers who drop their Rs to sound British just make me nuts.

Also, Jeri Hall. I don't EVEN know what that accent is supposed to be.

Oh yeah, and anyone remember when Kathleen Turner went temporarily insane and had a German accent?
Words mean things.

Mental Magpie

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5273
  • ...for the dark side looks back.
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #401 on: October 17, 2012, 08:23:37 PM »
My grammar pet peeve is the word "nauseous".  The relationship of the words nauseous and nauseated is analogous to the words boring and bored. When a person says "I feel nauseous", he or she is really saying "I feel I have a quality that makes others sick to their stomachs."  Instead the speaker should say "I feel nauseated," which means that he or she is feeling sick to the stomach.

Nauseous also means affected by nausea, though, so I don't see why it is incorrect.  Could you please explain?

Actually, no, but the common usage of the word has become so commonplace that most of us who shudder at the use of the word have given up on trying to correct it.  If you look at the words boring and bored, "boring" is the cause and "bored" is the effect.  This is a perfect analogy to nauseous and nauseated.  Nauseous is the cause and nauseated is the effect.

For an example:

The patient's gangrene toe was nauseous and I nearly threw up when I saw it.

The gangrene toe was the cause of the speaker's nausea.

Alternatively:

When looking at the patient's gangrene toe, I became nauseated and nearly threw up.

In this case "nauseated" is the effect.

"Boring" isn't a cause, though.  Uninteresting subject matter is the cause, it is what is boring, and boredom, and thus being bored, is the effect.  In your example, the gangrene toe is the cause and the nausea is the effect.

I also don't know what you mean by your very first words, "Actually, no...".  What do you mean by it?

*Please not that I'm not arguing, I'm trying to understand; it isn't making sense to me.
The problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that you're still choosing evil.

mmswm

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2177
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #402 on: October 17, 2012, 08:29:05 PM »
My grammar pet peeve is the word "nauseous".  The relationship of the words nauseous and nauseated is analogous to the words boring and bored. When a person says "I feel nauseous", he or she is really saying "I feel I have a quality that makes others sick to their stomachs."  Instead the speaker should say "I feel nauseated," which means that he or she is feeling sick to the stomach.

Nauseous also means affected by nausea, though, so I don't see why it is incorrect.  Could you please explain?

Actually, no, but the common usage of the word has become so commonplace that most of us who shudder at the use of the word have given up on trying to correct it.  If you look at the words boring and bored, "boring" is the cause and "bored" is the effect.  This is a perfect analogy to nauseous and nauseated.  Nauseous is the cause and nauseated is the effect.

For an example:

The patient's gangrene toe was nauseous and I nearly threw up when I saw it.

The gangrene toe was the cause of the speaker's nausea.

Alternatively:

When looking at the patient's gangrene toe, I became nauseated and nearly threw up.

In this case "nauseated" is the effect.

"Boring" isn't a cause, though.  Uninteresting subject matter is the cause, it is what is boring, and boredom, and thus being bored, is the effect.  In your example, the gangrene toe is the cause and the nausea is the effect.

I also don't know what you mean by your very first words, "Actually, no...".  What do you mean by it?

*Please not that I'm not arguing, I'm trying to understand; it isn't making sense to me.

I didn't think you were arguing at all.  And, please forgive me, as I'm a math teacher (and a darned good one at that), but explaining the nuances of grammar sort of gets me sometimes.  If you'll give me a little bit of time, I can impose upon a good friend who's a linguistic expert and will be quite happy to help me formulate a better explanation. I've emailed her, so she'll likely respond before the end of the evening.
Some people lift weights.  I lift measures.  It's a far more esoteric workout. - (Quoted from a personal friend)

Mental Magpie

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5273
  • ...for the dark side looks back.
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #403 on: October 17, 2012, 08:46:20 PM »
Take your time  :D  I love learning new things!
The problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that you're still choosing evil.

TZ

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 600
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #404 on: October 17, 2012, 09:46:26 PM »
I hear it, or the substitute 'th' here in Maryland, and on professionally recorded music.  I believe that singers and other people who are recorded are taught that 's' comes across the microphone as a very sharp hiss, so they soften it to 'sh' or 'th'.

Which brings me to something that has driven me bonkers for a long, long time: singers using deliberate mispronunciations and fake accents. Why? I don't get it and it's annoying and distracting. Two really big offenders:
- the word "baby" being pronounced bay-bay, and
- the word "want" being pronounced like "won't," apparently in an attempt to mimic a southern US accent. The Rolling Stones sing You Can't Always Get What You Won't, for example.

It's just so fake and affected.

ETA: Awwww, nuts. I though this was the Little Things that Drive You Up the Wall thread. My complaint isn't really grammar-related. (Still drives me batty, though.)
I cannot sing a Beatles song without a fake Liverpudlian accent. I've tried, but I just can't. It's a physical impossibility. :)