The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Achewood => Achewood => Topic started by: DanSC on October 13, 2006, 09:49:20 am
-
http://achewood.com/index.php?date=10132006
Everyone be careful on this Judas Priest Friday...the 13th.
-
The idea is that the cat bought some shoes at a thrift store with a small side pocket and they happened to contain a review of his life by Anthony Lane, which he was not ready for
-
ugh, after getting snow for the past 16+ hours I think the flames of Hell are exactly what I need right now. BRING ON THE JUDAS PRIEST!
-
This one made me laugh. Come to think of it, it was probably the high point of my week. I guess I am also not ready for a review of my life by Anthony Lane. Or even someone less frightening.
-
Am I the only one who had never heard of this guy?
-
The stumps glow, like logs on a fire
-
Am I the only one who had never heard of this guy?
No. Even though I have a passing familiarity with JP, I don't have any of the band members on a first, last, firstname lastname, or lastname firstname basis.
-
I had to Google him, and then I found a really pretentious review he wrote about Star Wars Episode III. He's a real tool - the kind of guy who thinks that what is popular must be wrong. From what little I've read of him, he sounds like a poor man's William F. Buckley.
-
I registered so I could reply to this.
Anthony Lane is the film critic for the New Yorker. He is one of the funniest and snarkiest reviewers out there. Basically if he thinks a movie sucks he'll say it sucks, and spend most of the review making fun of it. This is why Roast Beef is not ready for that: he knows his life sucks and he's about the spend the rest of it getting made fun of by Anthony Lane.
From Anthony Lane's review of Star Wars III:
The general opinion of “Revenge of the Sith” seems to be that it marks a distinct improvement on the last two episodes, “The Phantom Menace” and “Attack of the Clones.” True, but only in the same way that dying from natural causes is preferable to crucifixion.
This is pretention? I'd just call it snark.
-
I repeat: The stumps glow, like logs on a fire
-
The phrase "diatomaceous offal" brightens my day.
Also, full points for Onstad for reminding me of the best shoe concept ever. I want a pair of KangaRoos right now! Where else will I put my coins, or perhaps a note from a dude?
-
A few years ago Anthony Lane mentioned something in a review that made it clear that he was just about exactly my age. I was floored by this because I had always assumed he was an 80 year old curmudgeon. Maybe because I thought it would take that long to arrive at that exquisite refinement of snideness.
In my recollection, he can be just as mean to things that are not popular. Don't assume you'd get off easy in a review of your life just because you are not a blockbuster.
-
Judas Priest Friday is a great idea, but each return seems to lessen it somewhat.
Lessen it? This one buried it.
-
The idea is that the cat bought some shoes at a thrift store with a small side pocket and they happened to contain a review of his life by Anthony Lane, which he was not ready for
You guys should do this "oversimplification of strip in text" thing for EVERY strip, it just gets better every time I read it! Keep up the good work!
-
You guys should do this "oversimplification of strip in text" thing for EVERY strip, it just gets better every time I read it! Keep up the good work!
The unpopular Brazilian attempts to use sarcasm to indicate his discontent.
-
The idea is that the cat bought some shoes at a thrift store with a small side pocket and they happened to contain a review of his life by Anthony Lane, which he was not ready for
/grammar nazi on
...for which he was not ready.
/grammar nazi off
(Churchill be damned) ;)
-
actually, that is correct english. don't impose rules of Latin grammar onto english. I just don't know what that's good for.
my latin teacher who is an Utter Grammar Nazi said this, so it has to be true.
-
Alas, it's true. It's on of my major pet peeves, as well, but it seems the academic community has collectively decided that they no longer give a flyin' flip about ending a sentence with a preposition.
I've been assured of this by both my "Historical Writing" professor at NC State and the AP Stylebook Guru in the Journalism department of UNC-CH, so it has to be true.
-
The copy editor at the Post said the same thing. And don't even get me (or him) started on the split infinitive myth.
What I want to know is, why are Americans who say/write "an historic" not immediately beaten?
-
actually, that is correct english. don't impose rules of Latin grammar onto english. I just don't know what that's good for.
my latin teacher who is an Utter Grammar Nazi said this, so it has to be true.
Wow. Really? You have no idea how happy this makes me.
-
The unpopular Brazilian attempts to use sarcasm to indicate his discontent.
Also, something about Onstad drinking alcohol
-
I totally don't hate all of you
-
But imposing the rules of Latin grammar onto English is fun!
I enjoy contorting the crap out of a sentence just to avoid ending in a preposition.
-
contorting the crap out of
Useful phrase.
-
the weird part is, he's a complete grammar AND latin freak. But he gets all bent out of shape about the whole preposition thing.
-
I think there are times when ending with a preposition can just sound extremely vague and weak, and in such cases some rearrangement should be made. But when you have to sound like a librarian and pull out three or four "whom"s, then you need to just led them dangle.
-
But when you have to sound like a librarian and pull out three or four "whom"s, then you need to just led them dangle.
Bingo. The beauty of the English language is in her adaptability. For all her potential formalities and overcomplications, if any one or all of them become needlessly overwrought to even her proper speakers, they can be murdered in their sleep over half a generation's time and the larger organism will thrive all the better.
A can for you, Drastic Action, even if your name does sound like an afternoon programming block on SpikeTV.
-
I think there are times when ending with a preposition can just sound extremely vague and weak, and in such cases some rearrangement should be made. But when you have to sound like a librarian and pull out three or four "whom"s, then you need to just led them dangle.
Can for dangling whoms
-
Whom, that is a word that everyone should just agree, 'fuck that.' If you asked ten thousand high school kids, "what are the rules of who vs. whom," I'd bet not one of them would know.
Also, using "they" instead of "him or her." Fuck that shit.
-
Whom, that is a word that everyone should just agree, 'fuck that.' If you asked ten thousand high school kids, "what are the rules of who vs. whom," I'd bet not one of them would know.
Also, using "they" instead of "him or her." Fuck that shit.
When I was in HS my English teacher informed us that the then-newest MLA handbook listed whom as optional. Ditto for the serial comma.
-
I'm just gonna come out and say it. I love the Oxford comma. Suck it, haters.
-
Also, using "they" instead of "him or her." Fuck that shit.
"him or her" sounds more snobby than just "they". "they" is kind of what i naturally say, even though it always sounds completely ungrammatical.
-
It was called the "Harvard comma" when I learned of it. Maybe the comma is always greener on the opposite side of the pond?
-
I remember actually hearing someone say that replacing gender-inspecific singular pronouns with 'they' or 'them' was basically acceptable in informal discussions, because everyone was doing it regardless. And that seems to be how language works anyway; you fit the language to the people rather than the other way around. It really just depends on the audience and medium I guess.
Heh, and thanks for the cans. I could use some real dr. pepper, as this town doesn't believe in selling it in 2-liter bottles. WTF HOBOKEN. And my name here stems from a volleyball tournament in which everyone adopted action hero names. My actual name is less exciting: Doug.
-
The illustrious history of singular 'their' in English. (http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html)
Singular "their" etc., was an accepted part of the English language before the 18th-century grammarians started making arbitrary judgements as to what is "good English" and "bad English", based on a kind of pseudo-"logic" deduced from the Latin language, that has nothing whatever to do with English.
I could find more references on this but I am not in the business anymore, dammit.
-
Choop, I am a huge fan of the Oxford comma. It makes a sentence look and sound so much more rhythmic. In my experience, everyone uses the Oxford comma in speech most of the time anyhow.
Also, usage of 'they/their' etc. to identify an individual is very much supported for it's handy use of getting out of tricky situations involving androgynous boys you don't want to offend.
-
I remember actually hearing someone say that replacing gender-inspecific singular pronouns with 'they' or 'them' was basically acceptable in informal discussions, because everyone was doing it regardless. And that seems to be how language works anyway; you fit the language to the people rather than the other way around. It really just depends on the audience and medium I guess.
It's a big push amoung descriptivists. The arguement being that when something sounds awdward or wrong to well-educated smart people then it's time to just change the rule. Suck it s/he!
-
WTF HOBOKEN.
[bugsbunny]HOBOKEN???!!![/bb]
-
It's a big push amoung descriptivists. The arguement being that when something sounds awdward or wrong to well-educated smart people then it's time to just change the rule. Suck it s/he!
People have always used 'their' this way in English (including the well educated and respected authors cited in my link above). It was part of the language long before anyone thought to make a rule against it. It's the ones who decided it was wrong who 'changed the rule.'
Note that there are plenty of languages where certain pronouns do double duty as singular and plural. Just because 'their' is singular in some contexts doesn't mean it always is. You can think of it as a homophone if it makes you feel better.
It is best to know your history before you decide that some feature of the language is a modern degeneration, lest you find yourself ranting about These Kids Today using a construction that has actually been around since the middle ages.
-
People have always used 'their' this way in English (including the well educated and respected authors cited in my link above). It was part of the language long before anyone thought to make a rule against it. It's the ones who decided it was wrong who 'changed the rule.'
Note that there are plenty of languages where certain pronouns do double duty as singular and plural. Just because 'their' is singular in some contexts doesn't mean it always is. You can think of it as a homophone if it makes you feel better.
It is best to know your history before you decide that some feature of the language is a modern degeneration, lest you find yourself ranting about These Kids Today using a construction that has actually been around since the middle ages.
Damn straight. It's time to devolve this particular contruction back to its intended usage. But I vote that we leave "a lot" as is. No matter how many times Good Eats writes it as one word.
-
the oxford comma is my favorite.
-
I apparently already use the oxford comma (had to look it up to see what it even referred to). You're already putting commas and pauses after every other word in the series, so why stop on the second to last one? Also, you'd distinguish pairs within a series by not having commas between them (e.g., apples, chips, cats and dogs, flan, and monkeys), so omitting that last comma just would be ambiguous.
Yes, Hoboken!!1
Edit: Apparently wikipedia already made note of that explicity, but with a much better example:
Notably, The Times once published a description of a Peter Ustinov documentary: "highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector."
-
IIRC, AP style says to not use the serial comma unless it creates an ambiguous list item. And the easiest way to create one of those is to have a list item with "and" already in it.
-
Flan and Monkeys!
The 'alot' spelling has always been mysterious to me. It seems like it's not a mere spelling mistake but a fundamental misunderstanding of the structure of the phrase. And I don't understand how a native speaker of English could come by this misunderstanding. But it's so common that it must make sense in some way that I can't figure out.
-
womb-- I really get off on those things. I have an ongoing (mental) list of sentences which can mean multiple things. Also, of words which I now realize don't mean what I once thought they did. An example would be the former version of myself who thought that "A Lot" was one word. Sometimes we just don't think about these things.
-
when I read "alot", I hear it pronounced in my head like the word "shallot". Or maybe "aloe".
-
Wombat, you've quaked my grammar earth just now.
I've always been a prescriptivist. The tale you related has me damning the prescriptivists to hell. To HELL!
Oh. Oh... oh shit. I think I've got something.
Yeah: Those 18-th century grammarians weren't prescriptive at all - they were scriptive. Except, no, that doesn't fit, they were scriptivving what had never been scriptivved before. So they were subtracting -- subtractive? Ooh- subscriptive!
Okay, I can still be prescriptive -- whew -- just not toward patterns that predate someone writing down the patterns.
-
Macro-linguistically, I'm a descriptivist. Micro-linguistically, I'm a prescriptivist.
Does that make any sense?
I think that languages, lexicons and grammars change over time. However at any one given time I think we can take a snapshot (OK, a blurry, approximate snapshot) of the state of our language. I think it's important to try to use our language well. Doing so require compliance with recieved language rules, such as they are.
Yes, language is constantly evolving and changing. Good for it. But the long-term growth and evolution of language should not excuse lazy or sloppy erudition.
-
for real. I mean, isn't it cool to be able to use language precisely? there is nothing cool about being sloppy.
ironically, I am misappropriating the word Cool, which is far overused in our English today.
-
Yes, language is constantly evolving and changing. Good for it. But the long-term growth and evolution of language should not excuse lazy or sloppy erudition.
Next you're going to claim the evolution of species doesn't somehow justify my walking up to people and kicking them in the grill. This is a slippery philosophical slope and I've seen it before.
-
Sure, we should try to use language clearly, precisely, and beautifully. But if you think you get there via a handful of arbitrary rules that only apply to a tiny percentage of sentences anyway, well, good luck with that, you know?
-
01010100 01001000 01000101 00100000 01010101 01001110 01001001 01010110 01000101 01010010
01010011 01000001 01001100 00100000 01001100 01000001 01001110 01000111 01010101 01000001
01000111 01000101 00100000 01001001 01010011 00100000 01001100 01001111 01010110 01000101
00100000 00101000 01000001 01001110 01000100 00100000 01000001 01001100 01010011 01001111
00100000 01000010 01001001 01001110 01000001 01010010 01011001 00101001
-
Sure, we should try to use language clearly, precisely, and beautifully. But if you think you get there via a handful of arbitrary rules that only apply to a tiny percentage of sentences anyway, well, good luck with that, you know?
S' all good, babe.
-
oh, bobby, you are such a cutie.
-
001100000011000100110000001100010011000 000110000001100010011000000110000001100 010011000000110000001100010011000100110 001001100010011000000110001001100000011 000000110000001100010011000100110000001 100000011000100110000001100000011000100 1100010011000000110000