EPTOn September 17 2010 00:43 Gene wrote:
next he's going to tell us Google isnt a verb
next he's going to tell us Google isnt a verb
Best post of the thread :D
Manner is not an adjective - Page 5
| Blogs > chrisSquire |
|
Zapperkhan
United States436 Posts
Best post of the thread :D | ||
|
Xyik
Canada728 Posts
| ||
|
Durak
Canada3684 Posts
On September 17 2010 01:01 Daigomi wrote: It's more a case of the word already existing in the proper form, and then an incorrect form being used. People create new meanings and uses for words all the time, and that's fine. In this case though, the word already has the correct forms and tenses, and people are incorrectly using one form in place of another. It's like deciding that from now on the word "kick" will be past tense as well, when the form "kicked" already exists. "Yesterday I kick the ball," and then when someone points out the mistake you say that language is evolving. Off-topic, but what are your thoughts about the common usage of "is" instead of the plural "are". Now, I don't care too much about English "evolution" but that bothers me because it sounds retarded. On September 17 2010 00:49 Metalwing wrote: Just 4 words: Who gives a fuck. I don't know, but I'll take two. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On September 17 2010 01:01 Daigomi wrote: It's more a case of the word already existing in the proper form, and then an incorrect form being used. People create new meanings and uses for words all the time, and that's fine. In this case though, the word already has the correct forms and tenses, and people are incorrectly using one form in place of another. It's like deciding that from now on the word "kick" will be past tense as well, when the form "kicked" already exists. "Yesterday I kick the ball," and then when someone points out the mistake you say that language is evolving. People say "snuck" even though the word "sneaked" already exists, but only really anal-retentive people get worked up over it. | ||
Daigomi
South Africa4316 Posts
On September 17 2010 01:06 mucker wrote: So you don't think using words in new ways constitutes language change? I'm not quite sure what you are asking. If you are referring to my last sentence, then it is language change of course, but if you look at my previous comment I pointed out that not all language change is good change. It's just difficult to believe that people would actively want to change one completely reasonable word "mannered" to one that's outside of the normal rules of grammar "manner" for no reason. That's why I dislike this change, because it changes the rules of grammar (to directly contradict the previous rules of grammar regarding the word) for no benefit, while increasing the complexity. It really is like deciding that the past tense word "kicked" will now be "kick" for no reason, even though using kick as past tense is clearly incorrect according to the current rules of grammar. It can be done, but when the word already has a past tense form that is commonly used ("kicked"), why change it to make it more complex? On September 17 2010 01:16 azndsh wrote: "thusly" isn't a real word, OP why are you so terrible at english? let me go whine about how annoying you are. Thusly is a word, it's just not used very commonly. It means therefore. Also, what does the OP's English have to do with the validity of his argument? It's so annoying, whenever anyone makes a post about anything grammatical, the whole forum thinks the easiest way to refute the argument is by finding other mistakes in the post, no matter how miniscule. He makes a valid point, so what's the problem? If you disagree with it, how about articulating your reasons for disagreeing? On September 17 2010 01:17 hazelynut wrote: Fifty years ago, "access" was only a noun. It's pretty common for denominative verbs to develop over time, although I'm not sure if people use "manner" as a verb (manner, yo). That's the point. I have no problem with denominative verbs developing, unless the word already has a verb form. That's, for example, why I have no problem with the word manner as a verb, such as "manner up." There is no current verb for the word "manner" that means becoming more mannered, so creating one is fine. However, if the word "mannerized", for example, already existed and it was a verb meaning to become more well mannered, then I would have complained with that usage. Even that wouldn't be so much a problem though, and I'll touch on why now: On September 17 2010 01:35 HunterX11 wrote: People say "snuck" even though the word "sneaked" already exists, but only really anal-retentive people get worked up over it. It's a good point, but both take the grammatically correct forms and neither complexifies the language. Manner, on the other hand, contradicts existing grammar rules while taking on an unusual word form. On September 17 2010 01:27 Durak wrote: Off-topic, but what are your thoughts about the common usage of "is" instead of the plural "are". Now, I don't care too much about English "evolution" but that bothers me because it sounds retarded. I hope people don't do that on purpose? I occasionally make that mistake, simply because it's not always clear whether something is singular or plural: "Eggs and bacon is my favourite meal" vs "Eggs and bacon are wonderful together". As long as people don't knowingly do it it's fine I guess. | ||
|
Daigomi
South Africa4316 Posts
 On September 17 2010 01:25 Xyik wrote: I'm going to manner pylon you until you manner up and start using proper manners. Ironically, not a single incorrect use of the word manner in that sentence :p On September 17 2010 01:49 Liquid`Tyler wrote: The phrase "mind your manners" evokes the quality of politeness. This phrase works perfectly fine as a threat. If I'm cleaning a plate and I miss a spot, and then someone tells me to clean the spot, and I say "I could care less" it means that I could not be washing the plate at all. It isn't "I could care less about that spot" because I already don't care about that spot. It is "I could care less about washing this plate" so it works as a threat... it is kinda just saying "be satisfied with my current level of care because if you criticize me about it then I won't be willing to care at all" The problem is that the phrase depends on the listener knowing what you omitted, and the typical form is that you "couldn't care less" about whatever they are saying. "You are fat" "I couldn't care less [about being fat]." Because you do not complete the sentence, people will assume you use this form, and because of that "I could care less" doesn't work. | ||
NonY
8748 Posts
On September 16 2010 21:52 chrisSquire wrote: N.B. The word itself does not carry any qualities of its own (e.g. well mannered or bad mannered). The phrase "mind your manners" evokes the quality of politeness. On September 16 2010 22:42 Purind wrote: Abolish "I could care less." This phrase works perfectly fine as a threat. If I'm cleaning a plate and I miss a spot, and then someone tells me to clean the spot, and I say "I could care less" it means that I could not be washing the plate at all. It isn't "I could care less about that spot" because I already don't care about that spot. It is "I could care less about washing this plate" so it works as a threat... it is kinda just saying "be satisfied with my current level of care because if you criticize me about it then I won't be willing to care at all" | ||
|
EsX_Raptor
United States2801 Posts
The issue is that many people are using I could care less the same way they use I couldn't care less. Not to sound racist by saying this, but many black people also say things such as: Gal, you ain't going nowhere! I hope English doesn't become like Chinese! | ||
|
LuckyFool
United States9015 Posts
 | ||
|
BlasiuS
United States2405 Posts
On September 17 2010 01:49 Liquid`Tyler wrote: This phrase works perfectly fine as a threat. If I'm cleaning a plate and I miss a spot, and then someone tells me to clean the spot, and I say "I could care less" it means that I could not be washing the plate at all. It isn't "I could care less about that spot" because I already don't care about that spot. It is "I could care less about washing this plate" so it works as a threat... it is kinda just saying "be satisfied with my current level of care because if you criticize me about it then I won't be willing to care at all" I don't think he means to remove the phrase from everyone's vocabulary entirely, but rather abolish the mistake that people make, where they say "I could care less" when they really mean "I couldn't care less". It's a mistake that happens A LOT; people want to convey the idea that "hey I care so little about X that it's literally impossible for me to care any less", but they say "I could care less", which doesn't make sense. You are essentially admitting "yeah I guess I still care a little about X", which is the opposite of what you wanted to convey. It's almost like if people suddenly started making the mistake of saying "I give a shit!" instead of saying "I don't give a shit!" wouldn't make much sense  | ||
|
Rotodyne
United States2263 Posts
On September 16 2010 22:43 chrisSquire wrote:. Noun + Preposition hanger on manner up | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On September 16 2010 22:42 Purind wrote: Abolish "I could care less." Try correcting someone who uses that to mean "I couldn't care less". They'll think, and often say, "I could care less." And the worst part is that you'll know exactly what they mean. | ||
|
Najda
United States3765 Posts
On September 16 2010 22:03 Yizuo wrote: I strongly agree with the OP, the way "manner" is used nowadays sound so stupid... Who cares? We are speaking a language, and languages change. In 1998 if you told someone to "Google" something, they wouldn't have a clue as to what your talking about. Manner has taken on a new meaning, at least for most Starcraft players. Does it matter that it's not the same meaning as "manner" 10 years ago? Not at all, because when you say it, people know what you mean. Edit: I just looked through other posts and noticed this point has already been said a bunch of times. Feel free to ignore my post. | ||
|
Piste
6179 Posts
| ||
|
gameguard
Korea (South)2132 Posts
After a while it caught on and bacame a sc lingo. Seriously who uses manner up or something other than players in this community? | ||
|
mucker
United States1120 Posts
On September 17 2010 01:48 Daigomi wrote: I'm not quite sure what you are asking. If you are referring to my last sentence, then it is language change of course, but if you look at my previous comment I pointed out that not all language change is good change. It's just difficult to believe that people would actively want to change one completely reasonable word "mannered" to one that's outside of the normal rules of grammar "manner" for no reason. That's why I dislike this change, because it changes the rules of grammar (to directly contradict the previous rules of grammar regarding the word) for no benefit, while increasing the complexity. It really is like deciding that the past tense word "kicked" will now be "kick" for no reason, even though using kick as past tense is clearly incorrect according to the current rules of grammar. It can be done, but when the word already has a past tense form that is commonly used ("kicked"), why change it to make it more complex? . So language change has to be "good change"? You know that languages can undergo incredibly drastic changes with regards to syntax and morphology, right? What do you think those changes look like while they are happening? Do you think language change happens with no overlap between old and new? Your kick example doesn't hold up anyways. That is a tense marking on a verb, conveying information and reducing ambiguity. When you're using "mannered" as an adjective it isn't strictly past tense, as in the sentence Nony is such a manner player. Isn't dropping the -ed a reduction in complexity there? What additional necessary information does the -ed contain in Nony is such a mannered player? That doesn't even sound right to me, needs well before mannered. If Nony is such a well mannered player can be reduced to Nony is such a manner player with no loss of meaning and no introduction of ambiguity is that not a "good change"? | ||
|
Craton
United States17250 Posts
On September 16 2010 22:12 Carnac wrote: language evolves you know? that's really all that needs to be said. There's actually a specific language term that's used for when a word takes on a new meaning after being used enough incorrectly, but damned if I've been able to remember what that term is. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
| ||
|
Oddysay
Canada597 Posts
| ||
|
Daigomi
South Africa4316 Posts
On September 17 2010 02:47 mucker wrote: So language change has to be "good change"? You know that languages can undergo incredibly drastic changes with regards to syntax and morphology, right? What do you think those changes look like while they are happening? Do you think language change happens with no overlap between old and new? Your kick example doesn't hold up anyways. That is a tense marking on a verb, conveying information and reducing ambiguity. When you're using "mannered" as an adjective it isn't strictly past tense, as in the sentence Nony is such a manner player. Isn't dropping the -ed a reduction in complexity there? What additional necessary information does the -ed contain in Nony is such a mannered player? That doesn't even sound right to me, needs well before mannered. If Nony is such a well mannered player can be reduced to Nony is such a manner player with no loss of meaning and no introduction of ambiguity is that not a "good change"? Language change doesn't have to be good change (although obviously it's better if changes in language simplify the language), but if we're actively choosing to change the language, then it's retarded to make the language more complex for no actual gain. Not quite sure what your point is with sentences 2-4, and how it relates to the current situation. It seems like you are arguing for language evolution as a whole, which isn't really relevant here. We're not making an argument against some large scale trend which leads to overlap, this is a single case where the incorrect word was actively chosen. Rather than leading to a new set of rules which simplify language, this change will lead to an exception that needs to be made. The kick example didn't have to do with the specific morphology, it had to do with the fact that a form of the word already exists, and that an incorrect form of the word is then used to replace the correct form. So, with regards to my example, the ed doesn't indicate tense, but it is part of a specific language rule which governs that situation: "Nony is such an educated/prepared/disciplined/mannered player." Someone specialising in linguistics can point out exactly what the rule is. The reason this is not a good is because, as I mentioned earlier, this is not some large scale simplification of the language but rather an exception completely unrelated to the current state of the language. Notice that I do not mind the change from well mannered to mannered (I mention this in my first post on the topic). Omission is fine if the omission is generally understood. The problem is with the change in the grammar of this specific word, when established grammar rules for this class of word (and this word itself) already exists. | ||
| ||
