  Mashugruskie Member Username: Mashugruskie Post Number: 175 Registered: 09-2006 |
Giant shrimp Free gift | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3592 Registered: 07-2004 |
Armed gunmen  | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8068 Registered: 02-2007 |
balderdash! i love it, although the image of dashing one of the gods is kinda disturbing | ||
Larryinflorida Member Username: Larryinflorida Post Number: 3329 Registered: 02-2007 |
We're not alone: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new s/newstopics/debates/3394545/O xford-compiles-list-of-top-ten -irritating-phrases.html | ||
Eriedearie Member Username: Eriedearie Post Number: 3907 Registered: 08-2007 |
Something that is "unreal." "You know what I mean?" Spoken at the end of almost every sentence. I once had an office manager who used that expression every time she opened her mouth. I wanted to say, "No, I don't know what you mean." | ||
Ravine Member Username: Ravine Post Number: 2886 Registered: 01-2006 |
Eriedearie, your "unreal" goes with my "surreal," both of them, interestingly, being favorites of the age-group currently between 20 and 30, who (largely) grew up playing lots of video games, games which became increasingly more "real" looking. I think it is noteworthy that the age-group whose members grew up playing those increasingly-more-real-looking games, when faced with aspects of actual genuine non-artificial real life and real world, describes so many of those aspects as "surreal" or "unreal." It would seem that one of the requisites of "real" is: I saw it on a screen. Of course, then there is the MTV show, "The Real World," which is such a hilarious title, as the show features young folks with cameras & mics all around them. One can hardly expect really young folks to act in a truly genuine way even when there are NOT cameras & mics all over the area. Irony on irony, that show is probably a place where one would hear "unreal" & "surreal" a lot. | ||
65memories Member Username: 65memories Post Number: 642 Registered: 10-2003 |
"My Friends..." | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 4842 Registered: 11-2005 |
Price point. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3612 Registered: 07-2004 |
currently What's wrong with "now"? | ||
Jonesy Member Username: Jonesy Post Number: 603 Registered: 07-2005 |
interesting enough and interestingly enough | ||
Lostlegumes Member Username: Lostlegumes Post Number: 74 Registered: 09-2007 |
Today saw a revival of: "black ice" | ||
Newport1128 Member Username: Newport1128 Post Number: 238 Registered: 05-2007 |
"Going forward", "roll out", "at the end of the day", "top of mind" and any other meaningless gobbledygook spoken by junior and senior executives, trying to sound "hip". | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 2851 Registered: 02-2007 |
"Outside the box" So cheesy and cliche' | ||
Lodgedodger Member Username: Lodgedodger Post Number: 871 Registered: 05-2008 |
bailout | ||
Ravine Member Username: Ravine Post Number: 2890 Registered: 01-2006 |
Detroitnerd, I now object to your scorning of a word which, currently, has some merit. "Now" suggests a static moment. This moment, exactly here; not one minute ago, not one minute later. "Currently" is more open-ended, sort of like saying, "nowadays." (Although, from a poetic standpoint, it would not have sounded very elegant for Buffalo Springfield to have sung, "Currently Clancy Can't Even Sing.") You want stupid? I'll give ya stupid, even though I must confess that I have used this term: "right now." That little bit of foolishness implies that there are degrees of "now," like there is "right now" and "five minutes from now now." You see, Detroitnerd, I used "currently" in my post two spots ahead of yours, so I could not allow your challenge to go unanswered. Honestly, though, this isn't merely about firing off a retort. You posed a legitimate question, and I believe my answer to be equally legit. You may now return to whatever activities in which you are currently engaged. (Message edited by ravine on November 11, 2008) | ||
Mauser765 Member Username: Mauser765 Post Number: 3425 Registered: 01-2004 |
"fintastic" Used endlessly on reality shows and by Martha Stewart types. A variation on the English word "fantastic". | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 2862 Registered: 02-2007 |
Fintastic? Never heard it, of course I avoid any televised consumption of Martha Stewart et al like the plague. What's the hook with that word? Regard to fish? I probably don't want to know. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3617 Registered: 07-2004 |
Ravine, I think one source of my objection is that now has several meanings, one of which is "as current conditions obtain," which really ain't that different from saying "currently" to my mind. Also, I object because it's a term favored by the military or police or government, or any other field where people try to sound more educated by supplanting a perfectly sound three-letter, one-syllable word with a nine-letter, three-syllable word. What's more, it's often not even necessary, as it's used to jazz up a passive construction. Here are a few examples, using your sentence (just for example; not trying to snark on ya): ... both of them, interestingly, being favorites of the age-group currently between 20 and 30 ... Now, how is that much different from this? ... both of them, interestingly, being favorites of the age-group now between 20 and 30 ... Or this? ... both of them, interestingly, being favorites of the age-group between 20 and 30 ... A lot of people currently intersperse their speech with the word, though it's often unnecessary. ;) Anyway, my two cents. | ||
Ravine Member Username: Ravine Post Number: 2893 Registered: 01-2006 |
Detroitnerd, your "two cents" are entirely valid *ahem* currency. "Now" would have worked, but not as well, for me, because I tend to assign a sense of motion to "currently," and the group of folks who are guilty of over-using those words is a group which is, just like the rest of us, "moving" along the aging process and will, later on, be between 25 and 35, then 30/40, etc. until they eventually become annoying old grizzled curmudgeons like me. All of that may sound a bit over-the-top, but I'm completely serious. I never choose a word, or phrase, lightly. If I was to re-write that sentence, now (har!), I would still use "currently." You mentioned that certain official agencies have a tendency to really sling the linguistic manure. I quite strongly agree. No group is guiltier than the military, which further muddies the waters by assigning Form Numbers to everything. "Hey, my nose is running; anybody got a 3781?" Folks who try to sound intelligent by using a pile of unnecessary big words are, while amusing, a pain in the ass. It is never long before they expose their dumbness by repeatedly mis-using words which they had to stand on one of the kitchen chairs in order to reach, or by using those words correctly but in sentences which are so badly structured that the sentences, while sounding just fuckin' lovely, make no sense whatsoever. Also, they put folks like me, who actually half-way know what the hell they're doing, in a bad light. As for my ramblings, just think of them as an alternative to fossil fuels. | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 6861 Registered: 12-2005 |
We could eliminate the phrase "lowest common denominator" when describing the inferior (lower) consequences of one-size-fits-all rules. From the context in which this phrase is most often used, "greatest common factor" would be more correct. The lowest common denominator (or least common multiple) of a set of numbers is never smaller than the largest of the set. It describes something as great or greater than the greatest. The greatest common factor of a set of numbers is never larger than the smallest of the set. It describes something equal to or less than the least. From Wikipedia on the figurative uses of "lowest common denominator": quote: | ||
Ravine Member Username: Ravine Post Number: 2898 Registered: 01-2006 |
Jimaz, I am relieved; it was good of you to pop in and keep language-geek Ravine from feeling too isolated and alone. Cripes, man, I think you may have the bug even worse (better!) than I have it. | ||
Flanders_field Member Username: Flanders_field Post Number: 1299 Registered: 01-2008 |
quote{Bring back "Zounds", I say. Also poppycock and balderdash.} Harrumph!! pipsqueak, criminy, By George, Great Scott, Great Caesar's Ghost, cobbed (stolen), copped (got) ninny, shoot (talk frankly) scalawag, carpetbagger, dope, dork, twerp, whippersnapper, galoshes, wraps/garments (coats) babushka, parasol, bumbershoot, lad, ted (nerd) dweeb, cheese it, scram, split, a crock, crackpot, half-cocked, the fuzz, wuss or wussy. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3623 Registered: 07-2004 |
Ravine: Thanks for the feedback. Maybe the difference is that so much in English rests upon inference. Whenever I'm talking about something, if I don't give a time frame, I feel there's a presumption that I'm talking about the here and now. Of course, in other languages, they have different verb forms of "to be." For instance, in Spanish, there's "ser," which means "is constantly," and "estar," which means "is right now." (My apologies if I'm not getting this quite right; been a while since high school Spanish.) But since I'm speaking in English, we sort of have to infer what the speaker means. There's a big difference between saying "I am sick" to mean we're ill, or "I am sick" to mean we're a sicko. Often, you don't have to say "currently" or "now," because you can often simply use the specific time. "I feel ill today." But, I also think we're both looking at the problem from different angles. If we're talking about using "to be," I generally presume that we're talking about what's happening at the moment. You seem to be looking at it the other way, that "to be" means in perpetuity. But that's a problem particular to English: inference, though it usually works just fine. So I see your point, even though I dislike the word intensely, and root it out whenever I edit, even if the sentence is longer as a result. I'd always take "I am sick this morning" over "I am currently sick." Anyway, I understand why you're inserting currently, to avoid people inferring the wrong temporal use of the verb "to be." But I do believe that a lot of these insertions of "currently" can be avoided by recasting the sentence, and that "currently" can be replaced by the completely serviceable "now." My antipathy to the word "currently" is that it's shopworn and it's jargon. You have to admit, when the bureaucrats get their ink-stained fingers all over a word, and a shorter one is at hand, it may be best to leave that jargonized word on the shelf, tempting though it is to use it. In any event, at least I now feel satisfied about why you are a user of "currently." | ||
Wanderinglady Member Username: Wanderinglady Post Number: 183 Registered: 10-2007 |
Did anyone listen to NPR's "Talk of the Nation" yesterday? One of the topics was "Goodbye and Good Riddance to Campaign Slogans", featuring phrases from the presidential campaign no one ever wants to hear again. These included "Joe Six-Pack", "Drill Baby Drill" and "red state versus blue state". I don't want to hear anything about anyone being "thrown under the bus" again. I'm sure someone has mentioned it, but it wouldn't hurt to suggest it again. | ||
Chuckjav Member Username: Chuckjav Post Number: 1096 Registered: 09-2007 |
""half-cocked""" - Viagra is the sure cure! | ||
Ravine Member Username: Ravine Post Number: 2901 Registered: 01-2006 |
Detroitnerd, I enjoyed your response. I believe you may be over-interpreting my reasons for occasionally choosing "currently" over "now," but that's O.K.... The important thing is that we both care enough, about language, to be driven crazy by that which we judge to be bad usage or form. Truly, all that is really going on, here, is the two of us are geeking out about a matter of small import. The bottom line is that if your language successfully communicates your thought, your language is good. And oh yeah, that phrase, "I am currently sick," that is awful. Makes it sound like you are good & f'ed up, bad enough that taking a day off from work is not going to do the trick. But anyway... As I am currently working a 7:00 AM-3:30 PM shift, I must now sign off and prepare to retire for the night. (Message edited by ravine on November 12, 2008) | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3625 Registered: 07-2004 |
Yeah, we're total nerds. But I dispute that language is of small import. Here's a quote from Confucius that sums it up: "If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything." Also, if language interests you, check out the Underground Grammarian. Richard Mitchell made great hay out of bad writing in his (mostly) anonymous newsletter. http://www.sourcetext.com/gram marian | ||
Ravine Member Username: Ravine Post Number: 2902 Registered: 01-2006 |
Detroitnerd: Good GOD, you cannot POSSIBLY believe that I meant to imply, or state, that language is of small import! I was saying that the "now vs. currently" issue is of small import. Language, of small import! I should do myself in, as punishment for even accidentally leading anyone to think I believe that! Your quote from Confucius shows agreement with what I said about that which qualifies as good language. Thanks for the reply. I would now apologize for thread-jacking, but I believe our debate is currently on-point. Yes, I am playfully trying to irritate you. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3650 Registered: 07-2004 |
Haha. Touche. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 9124 Registered: 10-2003 |
wat ur tlkng bout? l8r |
