quote: The common Internet abbreviation “lol” (for “laughing out loud”) began as an expression of amusement or satirical contempt: “My brother-in-law thought the hollandaise sauce was gravy and poured it all over his mashed potatoes (lol).” It has become much overused, often to indicate mere surprise or emphasis with no suggestion of humor: “The boss just told us we have to redo the budget this afternoon (lol).” And some people drop it into their prose almost at random, like a verbal hiccup. It is no longer considered hip or sophisticated, and you won’t impress or entertain anyone by using it.
Well, just today, I commented about how I wanted to remove my ovaries for all the heck they were causing me. He said to go ahead and do what I needed to do.
Oh. Not quite what you were thinking of, huh?
Hmmm.
Oh, how about this. He...
No, I don't have any really good stories right now. I guess nothing dramatic has happened lately (that I can think of, at any rate - have had huge headaches lately, and that always wipes my short term memory), but still, he loves me, and I love him, and he treats me well, so not dramatic, but still so very very nice. I like being treated well. Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got a chuckle out of this one for anxious/eager (bolding mine):
quote: Most people use “anxious” interchangeably with “eager,” but its original meaning had to do with worrying, being full of anxiety. Perfectly correct phrases like, “anxious to please” obscure the nervous tension implicit in this word and lead people to say less correct things like “I’m anxious for Christmas morning to come so I can open my presents.” Traditionalists frown on anxiety-free anxiousness. Say instead you are eager for or looking forward to a happy event.
quote:Both agnostics and atheists are regularly criticized as illogical by people who don’t understand the meaning of these terms. An agnostic is a person who believes that the existence of a god or gods cannot be proven or known. Agnosticism is a statement about the limits of human knowledge. It is an error to suppose that agnostics perpetually hesitate between faith and doubt: they are confident they cannot know the ultimate truth. Similarly, atheists believe there are no gods. Atheists need not be able to disprove the existence of gods to be consistent just as believers do not need to be able prove that gods do exist in order to be regarded as religious. Both attitudes have to do with beliefs, not knowledge.
So the site uses the "strong" definition of Agnostic, and the "weak" definition of Atheist. Big deal. It doesn't change the fact that there are at least two defintions of both words, and that both definitions are used for each during religious arguments. I don't see how that site coming down with pretend authority changes anything.
quote: It has become much overused, often to indicate mere surprise or emphasis with no suggestion of humor: “The boss just told us we have to redo the budget this afternoon (lol).”
That statement could very well imply humor. A "lol" indicates that you would be laughing if you were saying it out loud. I could see myself laughing at the end of that statement, to perhaps laugh at my own misfortune, or at my boss having unrealistic expectations.
Color me unimpressed with that site.
<-- Being a Curmudgeon.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xavier, it was this bit that did it for me.
quote: And some people drop it into their prose almost at random, like a verbal hiccup. It is no longer considered hip or sophisticated, and you won’t impress or entertain anyone by using it.
posted
I'm a writer, and a stickler for using complete sentences and no using stupid abbreviations 4 other wrds, but a lot of that stuff is just silly.
If my Websters and Oxford dictionaries both tell me that alright is a perfectly correct spelling, I'm altogether more likely to take them at their word, as it were.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
They don't have my pet peeve: "random/randomly." "She was just totally off the wall, acting all random." "And then I just randomly came up with this thought..."
(By the by, this atrocity is often dropped into conversation by people who also say "supposably" instead of "supposedly.")
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xavier, what's the "weak" definition of agnostic, then? I know many people think of agnostics as those who haven't made up their minds or are confused, but I was always under the impression that this was a misconception on their part.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:a)One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b)One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
From dictionary.com.
What's worse are those who argue for the strong defintion of both terms, who leave no term for those like myself, who generally uses the "weak" version of atheist to describe myself.
Namely, that non-belief is my default position in the absense of evidence. Whether it be in God, fairies, or what have you.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, so Hatrack grammar gurus, what is the difference between "shall" and "will"? All I got when I looked at imogen's site was that
quote:"Will” has almost entirely replaced “shall” in American English except in legal documents and in questions like “Shall we have red wine with the duck?"
But what's the difference? When should I use "shall"? Anyone know?
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that people who complain about things like "ATM machine" or "LCD Display" should just let it go.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Ok, so Hatrack grammar gurus, what is the difference between "shall" and "will"? All I got when I looked at imogen's site was that
quote:"Will” has almost entirely replaced “shall” in American English except in legal documents and in questions like “Shall we have red wine with the duck?"
But what's the difference? When should I use "shall"? Anyone know?
Use it when it sounds right, and don't use it when it sounds wrong. That's as much guidance as you need.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I think that people who complain about things like "ATM machine" or "LCD Display" should just let it go.
I agree to some extent. I think the problem is not that people are stupid and don't realize that it's redundant, but rather that the initialism by itself seems insufficient in some way.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my biggest pet peeves that I don't think was mentioned was "them/those". One of my friends who I hang out with a lot constantly says "I want some of them candies" or "Them guys are cool" or ... well, you get the picture. It ticks me off so bad. Once she was annoyed at me so she said it over and over and over again ... it was bad.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought that the shall/will distinction turned on the number and the intent, and most consistently, power. The person in control asserts control using shall.
Macarther asserting, "I shall return," signifies that Macarther is the one in charge of whether he is returning or not, and he intends to return. If I'm reporting Macarther's speech, I'd say, "Macarther will return." I, as the reporter of the event, don't have the power over Macarther, so when I refer to his intentions, I use "will." If I say, "Macarther shall return." I'm issuing an order. I, the speaker, am assuming power over Macarther.
I think that's the best way to think about it.
Other ways include memorizing the uses without thinking about power, but I think that is what gets people conflating the distinction between shall and will.
If someone intends to do something: I shall accompany you to the store, You and he/she/it will accompany Jim to the store. We shall accompany you to the store. You/they will accompany Jim to the store.
If it's a oath or a legally binding agreement, or an order, then it's switched: I will, you/he/she shall, We will, you/they shall.
____
The reason that most uses collapse to will is because it's not often, in this free society, that the speaker has the authority to control someone elses intention, so in practical application, unless you are a king or a contract lawyer, the only time you will use Shall is when you are talking about something you that you intend to do.
The interesting bit about this distinction is that I believe it's primarily matter of power relationships. When the speaker has the power, "shall" is used, and when the person spoken about or to has control, "will" is used. If you've studied Greek, "shall" feels like a subjunctive(Jussive), and "will" feels like an optative(wish).
It stays consistent through the oath/legally binding document cases because the oath or the agreement has the power. There is a tacit, "According to the oath..." or "It is ordered that" before each declaration. It's a neat distinction.
quote:Originally posted by Little_Doctor: Like how people say Mac & Cheese, when the "Mac" could stand for Macaroni and Cheese anyway.
Macaroni And Cheese and Cheese.
Not really. While it could be used that way, I imagine that most people saying "Mac and Cheese" intend Mac to be a short version of macaroni rather than an acronym. In the case of an ATM, ATM machine pretty much always = automatic teller machine machine.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Little_Doctor: Like how people say Mac & Cheese, when the "Mac" could stand for Macaroni and Cheese anyway.
Macaroni And Cheese and Cheese.
Not really. While it could be used that way, I imagine that most people saying "Mac and Cheese" intend Mac to be a short version of macaroni rather than an acronym. In the case of an ATM, ATM machine pretty much always = automatic teller machine machine.
Oh, I know...I was just throwing another example out there.
Posts: 1401 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
LD, that's the first time I've ever heard of Mac & Cheese being thought of in that way. I never thought of "Mac" as an acronym, just an abbreviation.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard this man being interviewed on the radio about some new book he wrote about grammar. He was beginning to explain that "about" and "approximately " are not interchangeable and that "fewer" and "less than" also are a little different. But then I had to get out of the car so I didn't get to find out more.
About 8 people are coming to my party. Approximately 8 people are coming to my party.
Sounds the same to me...
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you mean approximately. Approximately comes from ad(to, towards) + proximare (to near), to go near to. I get the feeling that all conjectures concerning some future state of affairs are going to call for approximately.
"About" has the sense of concerning or regarding. I'm writing this post about "about." You wouldn't say that you are writing this post approximately "about." About is neither Latin nor Greek, and I don't have access to an OED. I think-- and don't hold me strongly to this-- "about" carries the sense of near, but outside. Similiar, but as strong as, abut. ___________
It's kind of like the "ob" prefix we get from Latin. It's by far my favorite prefix. It signifies something that is in your way, and close to you, but not connected to you. I think that's really interesting, especially when you consider words like office and object and obvious.
_______
Fewer is a measure of individualized quantitaties; less than signifies an measureable amount of sludge.
I spent a spell working in the express lane in a grocery store: 10 items or fewer.
quote:Originally posted by Little_Doctor: Like how people say Mac & Cheese, when the "Mac" could stand for Macaroni and Cheese anyway.
Macaroni And Cheese and Cheese.
The most egregious case of this phenomenon being, of course, the movie title "E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial."
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Should is the past tense of shall, would is the past tense of will, and could is the past tense of can. The clearest explanation I've found is that shall/should are things one ought to do, like "Thou shalt not", whereas will/would are things one wants to do (wills to do, get it?). But people often used "shall" for a first-person will--we shall go to the store, I shall go to the store, if he had tried to kiss me I should have screamed. Using shall for other people, though, makes it seem like a command or a judgment (just like "should" does: you should have called me last night, for instance). Which is why it works in legal documents, because they are laying out the rules for how the people mentioned in them should act (see, "should"). So, in general: I shall, we shall works for I will, we will, just as I should, we should works for I would, we would (although the latter tends to sound old-fashioned, as my "I should have screamed" example illustrates); you shall, she shall, they shall, he shall works when should works, which is when you're saying ought to. Phew.
I got a kick out of this, though: "“Sci-fi,” the widely used abbreviation for “science fiction,” is objectionable to most professional science fiction writers, scholars, and many fans." Hello! The plural of "fan" when talking about science fiction and other geeky topics is "fen"!Duh!
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And I would have commented with my own sappy story about Fahim. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
"And then I just randomly came up with this thought..." ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
"Shall we go?" "There shall be ice cream after dinner."
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
