Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cap'n Squeakers]

Which begs the question....why is there no "Which Achewood character are you?" type quiz?

That is not what "beg the question" means.  It does not mean "to raise the question," but rather "to assume the thing that you are setting out to prove."  Like, "brown nut bean paste is gross because it tastes yucky."

Do you think it is rad to not use English properly?

[V-Adore]

I believe that "beg the question" can be used both in the vernacular to mean "a question becomes necessary" and in formal rhetorical use to mean "assuming your conclusion." Can't we all just get along? Don't make me pull out the Onion Offense cards, people.

[CortJstr]

I believe that "beg the question" can be used both in the vernacular to mean "a question becomes necessary" and in formal rhetorical use to mean "assuming your conclusion." Can't we all just get along? Don't make me pull out the Onion Offense cards, people.

I believe he's technically correct but it's one of those things, like "hopefully", that gets used incorrectly so incredibly often that pretty soon we'll just have to accept it.

[Cap'n Squeakers]

Can't we all just get along? Don't make me pull out the Onion Offense cards, people.

I apologize. It is just a pet peeve of mine.  It grips my brain like some kind of terrible.. gripping thing and compels me to correct you. It is like when you drink coffee and suddenly have to poop. IT IS EXACTLY LIKE THAT.

[V-Adore]

Can't we all just get along? Don't make me pull out the Onion Offense cards, people.

I apologize. It is just a pet peeve of mine.  It grips my brain like some kind of terrible.. gripping thing and compels me to correct you. It is like when you drink coffee and suddenly have to poop. IT IS EXACTLY LIKE THAT.

Apology and overshare accepted. And hey, it's no big deal; you're all good.

[jough]

Yeah, I'm always annoyed when people misuse "ballistic" to mean "going crazy" (ballistic means to lose energy, fall asleep, etc.) or "literally" when they really mean "figuratively" like "they literally tore the quarterback's head off!"

[CortJstr]

"literally" when they really mean "figuratively" like "they literally tore the quarterback's head off!"

That makes me want to start gouging eyes and kicking throats. And practically every sports announcer does this.

Also, "alot" and Americans who say "an historic" which is especially popular with the news right now.

And while I'm at it, newscasters who say "GOP" and articles that refer to marketing stats as if they were real. Like a review of the 60GB iPod. There is no 60GB iPod but there is a 55.8 GB iPod.

I had a friend who would flip out about nauseous until we showed him this.

[V-Adore]

Also, "alot" and Americans who say "an historic" which is especially popular with the news right now.

Yeah, "alot" drives me up the wall. As for "an historic," my father (a military historian) insists it's correct, or at least acceptable. I think he may in fact be all split on green about this, though.

[robot_roll_call]

and articles that refer to marketing stats as if they were real. Like a review of the 60GB iPod. There is no 60GB iPod but there is a 55.8 GB iPod.

Actually, someone calling it a 55.8 GB iPod would bug me more.

[andalucia]

or "literally" when they really mean "figuratively" like "they literally tore the quarterback's head off!"

That is truly the worst thing, but then again, I think less of people I've heard misusing the subjunctive mood, so I should probably just go back to grammar world with my grammar friends and leave the real world to misuse "hopefully" and define usage descriptively not prescriptively and so on.

[Ben-San]

Like a review of the 60GB iPod. There is no 60GB iPod but there is a 55.8 GB iPod.

I sort of figured that "60GB iPod" was its official title or whatever. It is a device named "60GB iPod" and not an iPod which has 60GB, in the same sense that a George Foreman Grill is not a grill on which you cook George Foreman (usually).

[CortJstr]

Also, "alot" and Americans who say "an historic" which is especially popular with the news right now.

Yeah, "alot" drives me up the wall. As for "an historic," my father (a military historian) insists it's correct, or at least acceptable. I think he may in fact be all split on green about this, though.

"An historic" is only correct if you don't pronounce the h. So if you say "an 'istoric" that's fine but nobody actually says it this way.

I don't mean people should say "55.8GB iPod" or "186GB HD" in daily life but I think a news story or Wired article should at least mention the actual capacity. Frankly the box and every ad should have to list the actual size instead of that tiny "assuming 1GB = 1 billion bytes" disclaimer that means nothing to most people.

[miles]

I believe he's technically correct but it's one of those things, like "hopefully", that gets used incorrectly so incredibly often that pretty soon we'll just have to accept it.

Whoa, you mean there are people besides John Simon who are annoyed by this?

The 'beg the question' error annoys me, but I never point it out, because, you know, it makes more sense to use it incorrectly.  I see why people make the mistake.  I assumed that only grad students and professors actually pointed it out, and only in papers.

[AlohaDawg]

I believe he's technically correct but it's one of those things, like "hopefully", that gets used incorrectly so incredibly often that pretty soon we'll just have to accept it.

Whoa, you mean there are people besides John Simon who are annoyed by this?

The 'beg the question' error annoys me, but I never point it out, because, you know, it makes more sense to use it incorrectly.  I see why people make the mistake.  I assumed that only grad students and professors actually pointed it out, and only in papers.

Also pretentious pseudo-intellectual grammar-cop-wannabes.

[miles]

or "literally" when they really mean "figuratively" like "they literally tore the quarterback's head off!"

That is truly the worst thing, but then again, I think less of people I've heard misusing the subjunctive mood, so I should probably just go back to grammar world with my grammar friends and leave the real world to misuse "hopefully" and define usage descriptively not prescriptively and so on.

Are you behind this site, by any chance?

I'm generally OK with prescriptivists, but what I don't understand is why some think that there is some kind of moral imperative to follow a strict set of usage rules.  I can see advantages in having a presribed set of guidelines that people should try to follow, but it seems that some linguists think that people who don't follow them are somehow deficient as human beings.  And I can't help thinking that descriptivists are getting something that prescriptivists aren't.  Then again, maybe my hangup is that I just suck at grammar.  I think it's a skill that can be cultivated, and something of an art.  But if someone sucks at other skills or arts, you don't think less of them, right?  You just give them poor marks for whatever they suck at.

However, there is something beautiful about the masterly use of language.

Once I pointed out to someone that she had spelled 'a lot' incorrectly in a note she was leaving for a friend and she responded with "it's not even a real word."  I think she had a point.  What's the use of correcting something as informal and coversation as 'a lot' in print?  I knew what she meant.  If it's a quote in a paper or an article (because 'a lot' is probably too informal to include otherwise), then sure, follow the standard guidelines, but in an informal setting it's just kind of silly.