a fun collection of anti-anti-isms :-)

ChrisL

So is over/more than over?

And have we given up on begs the question as a logical fallacy in favor of the more common usage?

These are mostly correct, but I object to the elevation of "irregardless". Comparing it to "ain't" is nonsense. "Ain't" is practically as old as the English language; in strict usage it is a contraction of "am not". The illogically constructed "irregardless" is born of ignorance, and no more deserving of validation through repetition than "nukular" or "asterick".

I for one am from this day forward, going to write way more better irregardless. (Irregardless is in my spell checker so it must be a word,eh?)

One of the people who installs signs for me is wont to say things like "Stay where you're at 'til I comes where you're to."

-=®=-

Ginormous is more than cromulent. It is!

"Me? Fail English? That's unpossible!"
--Ralph Wiggum

As someone who has just written a looong book on the disastrous consequences of not being clear about when one is referring to a linguistic item and when one is referring to a thing --- ie on the non-use of quotation marks --- I second Nick's complaint. The letter 'a' in the initial post, and various other references to words and letters, need quotation marks. If they should be there, put them in.

«You shouldn’t end a sentence with a preposition. Wrong! You shouldn’t end a sentence with a preposition when the sentence would mean the same thing if you left off the preposition. That means “Where are you at?” is wrong because “Where are you?” means the same thing. But there are many sentences where the final preposition is part of a phrasal verb or is necessary to keep from making stuffy, stilted sentences: I’m going to throw up, let’s kiss and make up, and what are you waiting for are just a few examples. (See episode 69 for more details.)»

What the bloody hell?!? WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! [There’s a run-on sentence for ya!]

I thought this guy was supposed to be breaking myths, not empowering and continuing them!

The reason the myth that “ending a sentence in a preposition is bad” even exists is that purists in the 14th to 16th centuries all thought Latin was the greatest thing ever and French should be used as an ideal role model at all times; and in Romance languages, it is wrong to end a sentence in a preposition.

But English is a Germanic language, and there is never anything wrong with ending a sentence in a preposition in any Germanic language (assuming it makes logical and grammatical sense to do so, of course), it’s a perfectly natural result of the rather complex patterns of word inversion that appear in all Germanic languages when fronting a sentential topic (some more complex than others, of course).

And when it comes to ‘throw up’ and ‘make up’ … well, that just goes to show that the [excuse the harsh language] idiot who wrote this list doesn’t know a thing about language or grammar. ‘Up’ in these two phrasal verbs are not prepositions, they’re bloody adverbs! A preposition requires the possibility of adding an object, which neither of these two have. If an object is added, it’s the object of the verb, not the preposition (which is an adverb).

«Wrong. Arkansas’s is the only correct form for the possessive of Arkansas, as decreed by the Arkansas State Legislature (note that also it is against the law to mispronounce the name of the state whilst in Arkansas).»

But he was talking about Kansas, not Arkansas. ;-)

(I have to admit, I don’t know if a similar situation exists for Kansas)

Also, he completely neglects to mention here that where personal names taken from antiquity are concerned, there is in fact no choice: an apostrophe without an s is the only choice.

«I had an English teacher who used to go ballistic if anybody used the word “got”.
“BOY!” he would thunder, “Excise that word from your vocabulary!”
That’s why I tend to get (sorry) a bit sesquipedalian at times.»

Ugh, I hate people (teachers) who do that. Get is a good Ol’ Norse (that was a pun) word that’s been frequently used and has formed part of the basic core of English verbs and auxiliaries for at least seven or eight centuries. There is absolutely no reason to excise it.

(And surely there is nothing wrong with sesquipedalianism, as long as it’s not outright hippopotomonstrosesquipedalianism)

There is absolutely no reason to excise it [get].

His reason: that "get" is an all-purpose word which lazy pupils will use when they can't be bothered to think of anything more precise or interesting, and such bad habits will stunt the growth of their vocabulary, impoverishing their means of expression (and exam results). So:

I got up this morning: I arose
I got angry: I became angry
I've got to go: I must go
I get the point: I understand
...and so on

But you have a point, perhaps he would have been better to allow us a few legitimate uses, explaining when it's appropriate to be terse and vernacular, rather than long-winded and pretentious. That was earlier in my school career though, and we got (ah-ha!) a dose of Pinter and Beckett later on.

Conjunction Junction, what's your function?
Hooking up words and phrases and clauses.

«El futuro es una línea tan fina que apenas nos damos cuenta de pintarla nosotros mismos».
[La Luz Oscura, por Javier Guerrero]

That is far my understanding can go. My head is a big salad of languages. Is there a Tipófilo (Tipophilo) románico?

As to add wood to the fire of discussion, a word:

Gorgeosity

Is fascinating that folks can talk among themselves in italian spanish and catalan, not knowing the other ones language and parlar.
Sorry no apóstrofes.

A line for a specimen:

IMAGINARIUM LANGUAE

I don't even know if it exists, catalogued. But authought uncertain its meaning

IT IS A GREAT LINE

for my coming románica type face. Nothing fancy. A exercise, the rummering the curve.

Supposedly, an editor had clumsily rearranged one of Winston Churchill’s sentences to avoid ending it in a preposition.

The British Prime Minister, very proud of his style, reportedly scribbled this note in reply:

“This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put.”

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/churchill.html

David Thometz

"3. It’s incorrect to answer the question “How are you?” with the statement “I’m good.” Wrong! Am is a linking verb and linking verbs should be modified by adjectives such as good. Because well can also act as an adjective, it’s also fine to answer “I’m well,” but some grammarians believe “I’m well” should be used to talk about your health and not your general disposition. (See episode 51 for more details.)"

Hm... isn't "to be" polysemic? Both a linking word (a _copula_), but also a regular verb?
While it's correct, that copulae bind adjectives to nouns, when it's used as a verb, it is modified with an adverb.

Such, "I'm good" means "I am a good person", "I'm well" means "I'm feeling well".

To answer the question "How are you?" with "I'm good" is either misunderstanding the question, or being the opposite of modest... :-)

Well, that for the theory. In practice, a lot of people "say" I'm good. So from a descriptive point of view, it's correct. One ought not write it though. "You bloody don't write everything that leaves your dirty mouth". ;-)

«Hm... isn’t “to be” polysemic? Both a linking word (a _copula_), but also a regular verb?
While it’s correct, that copulae bind adjectives to nouns, when it’s used as a verb, it is modified with an adverb.»

I can’t think of any (normal) instances where ‘to be’ is not a copula. A copula is not merely a verb that binds an adjective to a noun; rather, it’s any verb that connects the subject of a sentence with the subject complement. As such, it is a verb that connects to equal sentential units, and they must both be nominal ( = either a noun, a nominal phrase, or an adjective). It cannot connect a nominal unit with a verbal or adverbial unit (using ‘adverbial’ in the non-systemic sense of ‘anything that’s neither nominal nor verbal’). The verb ‘to be’ is never modified; rather, is used as a ‘dummy placeholder’ in the required verbal position in the sentence when the subject itself is what’s being modified.

Whether you say, “I am good” or “I am well”, ‘good’ and ‘well’ are both adjectives. ‘Good’ means what you say it means, dealing with inherent qualities (being a good person, &c.), but it is also, albeit informally so, used as a subsitute for the adjective (not adverb!) ‘well’, which means ‘healthy, free of illness’. So, “I am good” can mean both things, depending on context.

Consider that substituting a different adjective for ‘good/well’, but the sentence ceases to make sense if you substitute an adverb in their stead: “I am angry” works fine, but “I am angrily” does not. The only case where the latter might be said to work is if you take ‘to be’ in its meaning of ‘to exist’: “He exists angrily” would then imply the way in which he carries out his existence. It’s a bit far-fetched, but it’s the only way ‘to be’ can be used with an adverb that I can think of.

Chris, everyone who respects the English language and good spelling is glad I didn't.

-=®=-

I've got no problem with "irregardless", as long as it ain't used to mean "regardless".

man, dis ’ish is off da mugga fuggin chain!!!

meaning roughly- “requisite collection of grammatical dictums”

Mikey :-)

when I was a kid in Back of Beyond, British Columbia, we were driving along behind a big truck that had the word INFLAMMABLE in big bold red letters across the back and along the sides. I asked my dad if that meant that whatever it was carrying would or wouldn't burn. It was confusing. If it won't burn, then why the warning signs? He said, it means it won't burn, it'll just explode. I never knew if he just made that up or not, but he was a miner at the time, so I figured he knew what he was talking about. :-)

-=®=-

"INFLAMMABLE" means that it can burn. The trick is that the in- in inflammable is not the same as in e.g. "inable".
Both are Latin verbal prefixes, but one relates to English "in-", the uther to English "un-".

The one in "inable", "inadvertable" means (related to "un-") means "not": not able, not advertable, it's also the "ir-" in irrelevant (not relevant), but there the "n" turned into an "r" due to phonological processes in Latin.

The one in "inflammable" (related to "in-") means the same as the preposition "in", it signifies direction, movement (in an abstract sense as well), or the following in time (metaphoric usage of "movement" used instead of space for "movement" in time). Here inflammable inflamm- (from inflammare) means to start burning (where the "start" semantic component comes from "in", the "burning" from flamm(are); flamm(are) is kin to "flame"), so inflammable means: it can start burning, it's burnable.

Flammable is a neologism which is derived from the original inflammable (probably also through contamination with the English word "flame".
"inflame" (of which inflammable is derived with -able) is attested as of 1340. "flammalbe" is first attested 1813.

aszszelp, not saying you're wrong, but wouldn't that sense of "in" more commonly be rendered "en," so inflammable would be enflammable?

Gus, en- would be usually used if the word was taken via Norman-French (or later from French). Not however, if it was taken directly from Latin via "scholarly" knowledge/introduction etc. Remember: in 1340 those who could write were 99.5% monks and would know (and use) latin all the time!

Well, English had to endure a lot of "mixing"...
to sum up, verbal prefixes with the meaning "in" can be (at least): in-, en-
verbal prefixes with the meaning "not" can be (at least): in-, un-, a-, an-, non-, etc.

«Gus, en- would be usually used if the word was taken via Norman-French (or later from French).»

Or from Greek (in which case it means ‘inside’, i.e., in a locative sense, rather than ‘into’ in an accusative sense).

«verbal prefixes with the meaning “not” can be (at least): in-, un-, a-, an-, non-, etc.»

And all but the last come from the exact same word, logically enough simply n̥ (wonder how that will look in Georgia). Edit. Apparently none too good. That was supposed to be a syllabic n, an n with a ring under it.

We should have just stuck with PIE while it was still a more or less homogeneous and manageable can of worms. Would have been much easier.

The n-ringbelow does not look that bad... but at that leading the bottom half of the ring is cut off / not rendered (at least in FF).

Hi there good folks. I am back. I have a little gift that everyone will love:

I posted here earlier, some "stuff" and, although some of you may consider this coming out of some crazy book or cinematographic animation; "Am I dreaming" you would say that, but it is pure and simple right out of own head.
I posted something in this blog because I have a feeling that my English skills (?) are kind of amusing, and I hope you will like the entertainment, "this is only the beginning". If that is your case, you are welcome.
I did not post here my comments as to inmiscuate myself in somebody else's business nor to illustrate myself as a "Total Informal" entity. I do that sometimes... I am still trying to figure out why, huuummm; why do I do (...) that?

**

Para aquellos de Ustedes qué hablan Español, todo sería más fácil si pudieramos simplemente olvidar la Lengua Inglesa.
En mayúsculas.

**

Pour ceux de vous qui parlez le français, j'étends mon grand respect et admiration, parce qu'un monde sans France serait inconcevable — Salud.

**

For sometime, right after coming to upstate New York from Lisbon, I attended English classes. The students were from all places, Japan, Chinese-Canadians, Italians and so many other good folks. The teacher, Ms. Proust was german. She spoke clean beautiful English. The first day of class, she wrote her name and asked to the students to pronounce it. Out of a dozen students I was the only one who spelled it correctly. She also said some time later that she was happy that the German language wasn't poluted by Latin. I pronounced her name correctly by a series of guessings (!) right out of my own round head.
Few months down the road I simply stop attending classes, because the thick accent of most of the students were actually poluting my mind, in a way that I would dislearn(?) what I already knew.

I actually learned some English talking to Germans, good folks. I was lucky to have so good teachers. I did also studied English as a kid, but the course of English in a public school was more a curiosity of the teachers then actually education.

I love the diccionary in the Mac OS X. I found this in there (hehe):

I highlighted a definition that, for my EYES has to do with what we are talking here.

My first posting in the Tipophile was "AGL Grand Opening" A Letterpress Shop.
It is dreamy, though, but it is my vision. It seems informal, but THIS IS AN ARTIST'S VENUE and therefore appropriate.

**

P.S.: I come here a couple of days after my second comment and the blog was no longer on top of the "hottest" list. Then I thought:

OooPsss....

Cheers

The Small Printer