The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed!

[Rick Johnson]

I am sincerely sorry if my English offends some purists, but I
am making efforts to write correctly, and making mistakes to learn. To
learn this and many other things...

Hello Jugurtha,

You English does not offend me. i want you to realize that i am not
directing my complaints towards anyone who speaks English as a second
language. The many problems with the English language are manifesting
themselves internally. We are drilling holes in the bottom our own
wooden ships and then becoming confused when they fill with water. The
lemmings are full speed towards the precipice.

Given your rich knowledge of so many languages, I would very much like
you to weigh in on the superfluous usage of words like "pretty", the
bogus transformations of contextual meaning, and the other perversions
you have burdened you whist learning this language.

 

[Ian Kelly]

My writing skills are not in question here, however your reading and
comprehension skills should be. How could you possibly know for sure,
beyond any reasonable doubt, that the writer was suggesting the final
exam was "easy"? In fact, the writer never even mentioned the word
"easy" at all! The writer only stated that the test was NOT
*difficult*. How does "not difficult" extrapolate to "easy".

That may be the literal meaning, but English composition does not
always follow the rules of predicate logic. To me, the emphatic use
of "to my surprise" in the construction "I expected X, but to my
surprise I found it was not" implies not merely the literal "not X"
but actually the opposite of X; and the opposite of "difficult" is
"easy".

Feel free to call my reading comprehension skills into question all
you like, but remember that it is the writer, not the reader, who
chooses the words he uses to convey his ideas, and so it is a poor
writer indeed who blames his audience for a failure to communicate.

Oh i see, NOW it's a qualifier!

I don't recall ever saying otherwise.

So what is "easy" qualified for?

 1. A zero interest loan?
 2. A sweepstakes?

or maybe you meant "qualified as"

 1. a traffic cop?
 2. a clumsy ship captain?

or maybe you meant "has authority to qualify",

Or more likely I meant:

2.
Grammar .
b. an adverb that modifies adjectives or other adverbs and typically
expresses degree or intensity, as very, somewhat, or quite.

(dictionary.com)

But I think that you knew that and are being deliberately obtuse as a
means of evasion.

*[Thought Exercise]*
Take a word like "applause". Let's say we want to quantify the level
of applause to some variable degree of precision. We could say:
"roaring applause", even though the base definition of "roaring" is a
sound an animal creates. You see "roaring" can make the transformation
whilst "pretty" cannot. Why? Because the base definition of roaring
refers to "magnitude of sound". In that sense, an applause can roar.
But the applause can never be "pretty loud" because pretty is 1) not a
quantifier 2) cannot make the transformation to quantify sound.
"Pretty" is not a quantifier, it's an observation, or an opinion if
you like.

I will agree that "roaring applause", while a bit cliche, is more
expressive than "pretty loud applause". That does not invalidate
"pretty loud applause" as a meaningful phrase, any more than it
invalidates "very loud applause" or "slightly loud applause". I'm not
interested in continuing a pointless back-and-forth over whether
"pretty" is a real adverb, though, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Rick Johnson]

That may be the literal meaning, but English composition does not
always follow the rules of predicate logic.  To me, the emphatic use
of "to my surprise" in the construction "I expected X, but to my
surprise I found it was not" implies not merely the literal "not X"
but actually the opposite of X; and the opposite of "difficult" is
"easy".

I am not arguing that the exam was not easy, maybe it was easy, i
dunno? But from the lack of detail given, we can never be absolutely
sure. The possible subjective "range of difficulty" lies somewhere
between easy and anything up to, BUT NOT INCLUDING, difficult. In that
sense the exam could have been easy, slightly easy, moderately easy,
or slightly difficult. Difficulty and difficult are not
interchangeable. Anyway, the point is we can never be sure of the
precision in this case, and using "pretty" offers the same level of
ambiguity as not using a quantifier -- even though pretty IS NOT a
quantifier . That is the connection i wanted you to understand.

*[Thought Exercise]*
Take a word like "applause". Let's say we want to quantify the level
of applause to some variable degree of precision. We could say:
"roaring applause", even though the base definition of "roaring" is a
sound an animal creates. You see "roaring" can make the transformation
whilst "pretty" cannot. Why? Because the base definition of roaring
refers to "magnitude of sound". In that sense, an applause can roar.
But the applause can never be "pretty loud" because pretty is 1) not a
quantifier 2) cannot make the transformation to quantify sound.
"Pretty" is not a quantifier, it's an observation, or an opinion if
you like.

I will agree that "roaring applause", while a bit cliche, is more
expressive than "pretty loud applause".

The phrase is not just more expressive, "roaring" IS a legit
"quantifier", with the power to inject magnitude and make the
transformation all WITHOUT perverting its base definition.

 That does not invalidate
"pretty loud applause" as a meaningful phrase, any more than it
invalidates "very loud applause" or "slightly loud applause".  I'm not
interested in continuing a pointless back-and-forth over whether
"pretty" is a real adverb, though, so I'll leave it at that.

I believe we'll just have to "agree to disagree" on the issue of
pretty. However, let's take a step back and view this issue from a
global perspective. Ask yourself:

Q: "Am i choosing my words carefully, or just blindly imitating others
to the detriment of my own thought patterns"?

 

[Chris Angelico]

I believe we'll just have to "agree to disagree" on the issue of
pretty. However, let's take a step back and view this issue from a
global perspective. Ask yourself:

Q: "Am i choosing my words carefully, or just blindly imitating others
to the detriment of my own thought patterns"?

I'm choosing my words carefully:

Rick, you are a troll, and at the moment, you are being eclipsed in
intelligence by 88888.

ChrisA

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

Let's see what intelligent words we can find here...

"""
doohickey
a name for something one doesn't know the name of, 1914, Amer.Eng.,
arbitrary formation.

thing·a·ma·jig
a gadget or other thing for which the speaker does not know or has
forgotten the name.
"""

Wow, this dictionary has high standards. i stand humbled!

If only you did. You might learn something.

Rick, you mock what you do not understand. Shame on you.

"Doohickey" and "thing-a-ma-jig" (or "thingumajig") are metasyntactic
variables like "foo/bar/baz" or "spam/ham/eggs". They are real words used
by real people, not just in speech but in writing, and it is the job of
the dictionary compiler to document actual words used by people, not to
make arbitrary rules that some words aren't good enough.

Dictionaries should be descriptive, not prescriptive. We do not need or
want an "Académie Française" for English, especially not one that would
impoverish the English language and reduce it to a poor shadow of itself
by taking away fine distinctions of meaning.

Being able to distinguish between widget, gadget, doohickey, thingy,
whatsit, wossname, etc. is a feature, not a bug. It is part of the
richness of English that we aren't limited to just a single word,
"thing", to describe multiple things. In a single sentence, we can easily
use "thing" to refer to generic, abstract objects or concepts, and
"doohickey", "whatsit", etc. to refer to *specific*, concrete objects
whether or not they have a name.

These words are as rich and powerful as older words like "organ", "part",
"stuff", "bits", all of which have subtle differences of meaning. In the
same way that a native English speaker would never make the mistake of
using "organ" to refer to an unnamed mechanical device, so she would
never use "gadget" to refer to an unnamed body part.

 

[Chris Angelico]

In the
same way that a native English speaker would never make the mistake of
using "organ" to refer to an unnamed mechanical device, so she would
never use "gadget" to refer to an unnamed body part.

I dunno... every Sunday I press keys on a keyboard at church, and I'm
pretty sure that's a mechanical device. Well, electrical and
mechanical, but not living.

But that's another specific meaning, and it would be equally incorrect
to call that a gadget as to call my lung one.

ChrisA

 

[rusi]

The contents of this thread ostensibly argues about the word 'pretty'
Actually it seems to be arguing about the word 'troll'

Every other post calls the OP a troll and then outdoes his post in
length.
This does not match any meaning I can make of trolling.

Can someone please explain what 'troll' means?

 

[Ian Kelly]

The contents of this thread ostensibly argues about the word 'pretty'
Actually it seems to be arguing about the word 'troll'

Every other post calls the OP a troll and then outdoes his post in
length.

I just grepped, and it's hardly "every other post". Prior to your own
post that word had been used three times in this thread. Thus, by
using the word four times in your own message, you have more than
doubled the number of times it has been used in this thread.

This does not match any meaning I can make of trolling.

Can someone please explain what 'troll' means?

From Wikipedia: "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts

inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online
community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog,
with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional
response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

If the responses Rick is getting on his off-topic thread are longer
than his own posts in it (which I seriously doubt, considering the
enormity of his first two posts), that means that he is not just a
troll, but a successful troll.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[alex23]

The Oxford Dictionary lists the first definition of "pretty" as

    Orig. cunning, crafty. Later (of a person) clever, skillful;
   (of a thing) cleverly made or done, ingenious, artful.

and states that it is derived from Old English praettig, "capricious,
overbearing".

Whereas the Dutch term prettig means "agreeable, gratifying,
pleasant"; I strongly suspect the meaning of the English term evolved
as a result of the commonality.

 

[Emile van Sebille]

On 1/25/2012 9:14 PM Steven D'Aprano said...

In the
same way that a native English speaker would never make the mistake of
using "organ" to refer to an unnamed mechanical device, so she would
never use "gadget" to refer to an unnamed body part.

My wife introduced me to the term "picnic gadget" as the means by which
males avoid restroom lines...

Emile

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

On 1/25/2012 9:14 PM Steven D'Aprano said...

My wife introduced me to the term "picnic gadget" as the means by which
males avoid restroom lines...

Well, that's hardly an *unnamed* organ, is it?