[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2016-December-16, 10:52, said:

Ah, now I get it - I was wondering how a rodent owned a donkey!!!

Am lucky to live in a country where they are spelt differently.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-January-03, 08:35, said:

The recent one is much more annoying. Nearly 2 years ago, I'd lost nearly 60 pounds, I enrolled at a gym feeling good and wanting to lose a little more. At the group induction, one of the people there turned up with a horrendous cold. They gave it to me and basically since then I've had ME/CFS (which is why some people that might have expected to see me at things like the Tolly haven't for the last 2).

Most of my quibbles in this thread have been with prett low bars for pet peeves -- this may be the first one where I think you have a fairly high bar. I don't think most people would just be "peeved" by something that gave them a debilitating condition. It's like saying that drunk drivers are a pet peeve after one of them hits you.

[cherdano]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-January-03, 08:35, said:

The recent one is much more annoying. Nearly 2 years ago, I'd lost nearly 60 pounds, I enrolled at a gym feeling good and wanting to lose a little more. At the group induction, one of the people there turned up with a horrendous cold. They gave it to me and basically since then I've had ME/CFS (which is why some people that might have expected to see me at things like the Tolly haven't for the last 2).

I hope you are getting better - I know it can take a long time.

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2017-January-03, 14:08, said:

Most of my quibbles in this thread have been with prett low bars for pet peeves -- this may be the first one where I think you have a fairly high bar. I don't think most people would just be "peeved" by something that gave them a debilitating condition. It's like saying that drunk drivers are a pet peeve after one of them hits you.

No, the drunk driver has done someting where he should know the consequences could be dire, the person who gave me a cold wasn't likely to know what it would do, the peeve is more about a seemingly trivial action rather than the consequences, and it's one a lot of people do.

(for Cherdano)

It took the NHS a long time to take it seriously, I've only just got a formal diagnosis and have the follow up appointment in a week or so, but not getting any better yet.

[1eyedjack]

Zelandakh, on 2016-December-15, 07:21, said:

Dwarves. Outside of fantasy literature, primarily because of Tolkien, the plural of dwarf is dwarfs. This is one of 3 primary exceptions to the f->ves rule (dwarf, roof, chief (including hankerchief)). Because of the vast influence of JRRT in the world of fantasy, it is accepted practice to use dwarves in that context. It is not ok in an everyday context! And today I saw on BBF a post containing dwarve for the singular form. No, just no!

This is a pet peef, yes?

[gwnn]

Threads that won't die even after their creator has, long ago (for all intents and purposes).

[Winstonm]

gwnn, on 2017-January-07, 11:13, said:

Threads that won't die even after their creator has, long ago (for all intents and purposes).

Is there a ghost of threads past?

[Cyberyeti]

Sorry to necro a thread that has seen no action for a while, but I have a further update to a topic that I've posted about here:

I lamented the demise of the MMO I used to play (City of Heroes) in late 2012 (Post 301 in this thread)

Then I told you about the group of players getting together and kickstarting a potential replacement game in late 2013 (Post 721 in this thread)

Well the kickstarter raised nearly $700K and the release of City of Titans is scheduled for fall 2018

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-August-09, 17:19, said:

Well the kickstarter raised nearly $700K and the release of City of Titans is scheduled for fall 2018

Thatnk you for the update CY. Will CoV also be included in the release?

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2017-August-09, 23:57, said:

Thatnk you for the update CY. Will CoV also be included in the release?

It's not the same game, all new IP, new system and engine (runs on UE4) but yes you can play both sides. NCSoft have shown no inclination to sell the IP, and indeed reaffirmed their ownership of it by allowing one of the signature heroes as a playable character in one of their other games.

[gwnn]

gwnn, on 2015-July-03, 10:01, said:

We had this discussion already in this thread*. In practice, everything is unique except identical quantum particles or various stuff fully described by integers (two chess games or bridge sequences can be identical, two cars cannot). So yes, I am unique in my class for being 179.53 cm, a height shared by no one else, but my classmate could be more unique (unique by a more compelling criterion) if she has won an Olympic gold. It's always relative.

*Not this thread but: http://www.bridgebas...815#entry663815

Steven Pinker kinda agrees with me on "very unique", although he is better at making non-gibberish arguments.

https://www.theguard...mar-rules-break

[kenberg]

gwnn, on 2017-September-28, 05:57, said:

Steven Pinker kinda agrees with me on "very unique", although he is better at making non-gibberish arguments.

https://www.theguard...mar-rules-break

I read some of this reference, after some coffee I will read more. I am not sure I agree with all that he says, but I appreciate his effort. I remember the "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should" controversy. I had no idea what was wrong with the ad so I asked a friend. His father was a newspaper editor so maybe he would know. My friend explained it in erudite terms that left me no wider. I have come to think that "as a cigarette should' and "like a cigarette should" are subtly different, at least as I would use the phrases. "like a cigarette should" suggests that it is what I would like, while "as a cigarette should" suggests dome sort of obligation. "He regrets his choice of words, as [not like] he should". I doubt that this distinction exists in any dictionary, but it seems to me to often be how the words are often used.

Certainly "very unique" is ubiquitous. Here is how I see it: We already have the words "unusual" and "rare", neither of which suggests "the only one of its kind", in fact these words suggest not one of a kind, just rare. We can modify them, for example "extremely rare". This leaves a slot open for a word that means "this is the only one".

My view of grammar is, roughly, that a person's grammar should be good enough so that s/he doesn't sound like an idiot. This is for both aesthetic and practical reasons. If I go into an office and the receptionist is saying "Him and me went to the movies last night" I might not turn and walk out, but I would be concerned about how the office is being run. "The movie's ending was very unique" would not create the same concern but I would wonder if "unusual", "surprising, or "unexpected" wouldn't be a better choice.

From the movie Gigi "Bad table manners, my dear Gigi, have broken up more households than infidelity." The same could be said of grammar, I suppose. We all have our priorities.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2017-September-29, 07:58, said:

I read some of this reference, after some coffee I will read more. I am not sure I agree with all that he says, but I appreciate his effort.

I think some of what he writes is clearly wrong but the majority is a reasonable account of modern English. The problem is that many parts of modern English grate terribly - "He did his work good" might be perfectly acceptable under the new rules but to me it marks the speaker as either uneducated or a non-native. I am somewhat surprised that he did not include this one in his article but perhaps he considers it so clearly correct that it is not required. Or then again perhaps it grates for him too and he could not bring himself to recommend it.

And (since he says it is ok, let's try 2 sentences in a row plus a paragraph starting with prepositions ) that is the thing about language, there is something personal about it. I dislike the construction "very unique" and have done ever since it was pointed out to me by my English tutor. Csaba thinks it is perfectly ok. Steven Pinker thinks it is grammatically correct but should be avoided anyway. In the end what matters is that you have a style of writing and speaking that is appealing and appropriate for the intended audience. Language is about communication, so rules matter less than that you are understood and that the speech/discussion flows. There are few rules in English that can truly never be broken. That is for me the strength of the language, not something to complain about. (but I still hate "very unique" so )

[gwnn]

Csaba does not think it is perfectly OK. I don't personally use it, because there are enough people who don't like it (so my position is the same as his). But I realize that not every claim to uniqueness is equal, so it makes sense to have a gradation. Nobody even tried to address this in this thread. If you dislike the argument, send your emails to Pinker as clearly you didn't understand it when I made it. Nor when he made it, BTW. His argument is not about "grammatically correct" but about logic. He brought examples from the real world, not dictionaries.

edit: sorry for the tone. Csaba hadn't had his morning coffee when he wrote this.

This post has been edited by gwnn: 2017-October-06, 03:11

[The_Badger]

Pet peeve is the ridiculous lengths some (usually amateur) chefs will go to create a new nomenclature to describe their mediocre food.

All gravy seems to be always called 'jus' these days, which made the French way can be absolutely delicious, but made the British way with meat juices and gravy granules is still just gravy.

But worst than that is the silly descriptions of some of the food. Here's three that I have seen recently:-

Smashed Avocado, not Mashed but Smashed. (presumably hit with a sledgehammer?)

Bubble and Squeak Cake Cake? A mashed potato, onion, greens and Brussel sprout cake doesn't sound particularly appetising to me.

Micro coriander Herbs go techsavvy?

And there are plenty more out there waiting to be discovered...

[barmar]

I've never heard anyone suggest that "He did his work good" is perfectly acceptable, I think it's still considered a mark of poor English skills. There are places where "good" and "well" are interchangeable in proper English, this isn't one of them AFAIK. It could change in the future -- acceptable use of language is a popularity contest.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2017-October-06, 09:03, said:

I've never heard anyone suggest that "He did his work good" is perfectly acceptable, I think it's still considered a mark of poor English skills. There are places where "good" and "well" are interchangeable in proper English, this isn't one of them AFAIK. It could change in the future -- acceptable use of language is a popularity contest.

And yet it is the type of example I have seen given by highly reputable authorities as acceptable. The more common example is something like "He was driving slow", slow having been considered a correct adverb form for around 500 years. Basically there is a trend over time for adverbs to lose their -ly forms, which even carries over to irregular adjective/adverb pairs. To me (and I suspect also to you) most of these cases simply sound wrong; but they are not regarded as grammatically incorrect under modern English rules, only less formal. Give it another few hundred years and it might be that "he did his work good" and "He was driving slow" are the standard forms and well/slowly seen as archaic, treated muchas "whom" is now. But who knows? Maybe we will have blown ourselves up before then in a huge mushroom cloud. Until then, eat good, think positive, live happy.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2017-October-06, 09:58, said:

Until then, eat good, think positive, live happy.

"eat good" seems to be a good example of why this is acceptable. If you switch to the adverb, "eat well", it could be interpreted as describing the process of eating, e.g. chewing properly. For some reason, it feels to me like this ambiguity is less likely with the adjective.

And both "think positive" and "live happy" seem like rewordings of "be positive in your thinking" and "be happy in your life". Again, they're not qualifying the processes that the verbs refer to, but the person carrying out those processes.

But I admit that this doesn't explain why "drive slow" is acceptable. Maybe because "slow" describes the car, not the process of driving (you don't move your foot slowly from the brake to the accelerator)?

[Vampyr]

BBO is responsible for a crime against the English language. The use of "lead" when "led" is intended has been leaked from BBO to the wider world. I am seeing it all the time now. Perhaps it can be attributed to lead poisoning?

[Al_U_Card]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-06, 11:05, said:

BBO is responsible for a crime against the English language. The use of "lead" when "led" is intended has been leaked from BBO to the wider world. I am seeing it all the time now. Perhaps it can be attributed to lead poisoning?

Possibly cross contamination from what has been "read"?