Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:22 PM
Litoris is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 2,445

it's hanged, goddamn it


People are hanged, clothes are hung. Fuck. How hard is that to grasp? Fuckity fuckity fuckity fuck. And while we're on the topic, it's sneaked, not snuck. Fucking morons. Oh yeh, and dragged, not drug. Fuck.
  #2  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:23 PM
casdave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,453
...and its "lend me your lawnmower", not "borrow me your lawnmower" --f'ing knuckle dragging dolt.
  #3  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:24 PM
Hogwash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 433
I'd like to take this opportunity to announce that I am hanged like a black man.
  #4  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:25 PM
Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 18,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hogwash
I'd like to take this opportunity to announce that I am hanged like a black man.
By guys wearing white sheets?
  #5  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:26 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,246
[Blazing Saddles] Bart! Bart! They told us you was hung!

And they was right. [/Blazing Saddles]
  #6  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:26 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litoris
People are hanged, clothes are hung. Fuck. How hard is that to grasp? Fuckity fuckity fuckity fuck. And while we're on the topic, it's sneaked, not snuck. Fucking morons. Oh yeh, and dragged, not drug. Fuck.
Despite the compelling repetition of the word "fuck", I'm not convinced. Why are people not hung? If I hang you by your back collar from a coat hook, are you hung then?
  #7  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:29 PM
samarm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Evergreen Terrace
Posts: 2,479
Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!
  #8  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:30 PM
EddyTeddyFreddy's Avatar
EddyTeddyFreddy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Exurbia, No'thuh Bawst'n
Posts: 13,179
THANK YOU!!!

That "hanged/hung" thing drives me quietly berserk every time. People who use "hung" for "hanged" should be hanged by the neck until dead, dead, dead.
  #9  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:32 PM
bannerrefugee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: TaaRiga!! QLD
Posts: 950
This seems like a pretty trivial thing to have such a hang up over.
  #10  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:41 PM
Indistinguishable is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,554
For me, it's definitely "snuck", not "sneaked". Your usage may vary.

Echoing begbert2, it seems perfectly logical to use the same word "hung" in both cases. Apparently, for many people, that is the natural way to speak, as evidenced by your frequently having come across (and been annoyed by) such speech. Your assertions about what "it is" therefore do not seem to accurately describe the situation.

Prescriptivism is odd; sometimes, it's all about adherence to tradition ("use
'sneaked', not 'snuck'"), and sometimes, it's bullheadedly not ("do not use 'hanged' and 'hung' interchangeably, or even one form exclusively"). There's no real rhyme or reason to any of it.

ETA: I didn't notice Dr. Drake's post below me when I added the above paragraph, but it fits well.

Last edited by Indistinguishable; 07-25-2008 at 04:45 PM.
  #11  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:41 PM
Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,444
...especially since there's no historical justification for it. The distinction was an attempt to reconcile two competing paradigms, hang / hung / hung and hang / hanged / hanged. A lot of verbs in English have shifted from weak to strong or strong to weak. Compared American dive / dove / dived with British dive / dived / dived.

My father is convinced that "sit" and "set" have the same distinction as hanged / hung --- people sit, while objects "set" (as in "the book sets on the table").
  #12  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:46 PM
The Hamster King is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,138
That thing you're standing behind? It's not the podium. The podium is the thing you're standing ON. The thing you're standing behind is the lectern.

Drives me frickin' nuts.
  #13  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:49 PM
Litoris is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 2,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indistinguishable
For me, it's definitely "snuck", not "sneaked". Your usage may vary.

Echoing begbert2, it seems perfectly logical to use the same word "hung" in both cases. Apparently, for many people, that is the natural way to speak, as evidenced by your frequently having come across (and been annoyed by) such speech. Your assertions about what "it is" therefore do not seem to accurately describe the situation.

Prescriptivism is odd; sometimes, it's all about adherence to tradition ("use
'sneaked', not 'snuck'"), and sometimes, it's bullheadedly not ("do not use 'hanged' and 'hung' interchangeably"). There's no real rhyme or reason to any of it.

ETA: I didn't notice the post below me when I added the above paragraph, but it fits well.
Just because you can't be arsed to speak English correctly does not negate the reality of what is and is not correct.

hang

As for "sneaked" vs "snuck" -- as "snuck" is an idiot-yet-accepted by the dictionary past tense, feel free to sound stupid to my ears every time you use it. Do not expect me to think your IQ is above that of a retarded hammer, though.

bannerrefugee -- hee hee. Thanks for the giggle.
  #14  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:49 PM
Indistinguishable is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pochacco
That thing you're standing behind? It's not the podium. The podium is the thing you're standing ON. The thing you're standing behind is the lectern.

Drives me frickin' nuts.
Interesting. Definition #2 of the American Heritage Dictionary for "podium" is "A stand for holding the notes of a public speaker; a lectern". Similarly with Merriam-Webster. (Other dictionaries following similarly...)

Last edited by Indistinguishable; 07-25-2008 at 04:51 PM.
  #15  
Old 07-25-2008, 04:56 PM
Indistinguishable is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,554
Quote:
As for "sneaked" vs "snuck" -- as "snuck" is an idiot-yet-accepted by the dictionary past tense, feel free to sound stupid to my ears every time you use it. Do not expect me to think your IQ is above that of a retarded hammer, though.
Well, do what you want, if you're so committed to making unjustified inferences; the best I can point out is that stubborn adherence to such an inference would give markedly inaccurate conclusions about the general population of "snuck"-users. But I doubt you actually think my IQ fails to be above that of a retarded hammer.

Last edited by Indistinguishable; 07-25-2008 at 05:00 PM.
  #16  
Old 07-25-2008, 05:04 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litoris
Just because you can't be arsed to speak English correctly does not negate the reality of what is and is not correct.

hang

As for "sneaked" vs "snuck" -- as "snuck" is an idiot-yet-accepted by the dictionary past tense, feel free to sound stupid to my ears every time you use it. Do not expect me to think your IQ is above that of a retarded hammer, though.

bannerrefugee -- hee hee. Thanks for the giggle.
The way I read it, the dictionary you linked to says they can be used interchangeably, but that the always-legal alternative "hanged" is 'especially' common for the "killed by rope around neck" sense (despite 'hung' also being legal).

Hmm, I wonder how much reading comprehension skill a retarded hammer has?
  #17  
Old 07-25-2008, 05:15 PM
Cisco is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 17,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litoris
Just because you can't be arsed to speak English correctly does not negate the reality of what is and is not correct.

hang
That's hardly authoritative, and the reality of what is and is not correct in English is ambiguous at best. Ten out of 10 for smugness, though. I bet you're a blast at dinner parties.
  #18  
Old 07-25-2008, 05:15 PM
Baldwin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,376
"Hung" and "hanged"; either is correct as the past tense of "hang". You're getting upset about nothing.
  #19  
Old 07-25-2008, 05:35 PM
descamisado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: At a Candlelight Supper
Posts: 6,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hogwash
I'd like to take this opportunity to announce that I am hanged like a black man.
He is -- I peaked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pochacco
That thing you're standing behind? It's not the podium. The podium is the thing you're standing ON. The thing you're standing behind is the lectern.
This has bothered me for most of my dais.

Last edited by descamisado; 07-25-2008 at 05:38 PM.
  #20  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:11 PM
Aholibah is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: First door on the left
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litoris
People are hanged, clothes are hung. <snip> Fucking morons.
Allow me to introduce some fucking morons, courtesy of Merriam-Webster 's Dictionary of English Usage:

"for these rogues that burned this house to be hung, in some conspicuous place in town." -- Samuel Pepys

"should not escape unpunished. I hope he hung himself." -- Jane Austen

"These men were...at last brought to the scaffold and hung." --Percy Bysshe Shelley

"I have not the least objection to a rogue being hung." -- W. M. Thackeray

"The negro murderer was to be hung on a Saturday without pomp." -- William Faulkner

"a thirteen-year-old evangelist, who hung himself because his mother spanked him for sassing her." -- Flannery O'Connor

Now, I personally find the distinction between 'hung' and 'hanged' to be a useful (and an elegant) one, and I observe it in my own speech and writing on the rare occasions when the opportunity presents itself. But I've learned (with the help of Language Log and the aforementioned MWDEU) to forswear the seductive self-righteous pleasure that accompanies linguistic prescriptivism in favor of the intellectual pleasure of discovering the reality of language use.

Incidentally, in case you're curious, according to MWDEU, 'snuck' started showing up in published writings at least as early as 1887, has been used by Ring Lardner, and has appeared in straightforward use in the pages of the NY Herald Tribune Book Review, the LA Examiner, the New Yorker, and the Wall Street Journal, to name a few. You may not like it, but with 130 years of use, 'snuck' looks to be here to stay.
  #21  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:18 PM
Polycarp is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A better place to be
Posts: 26,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2
The way I read it, the dictionary you linked to says they can be used interchangeably, but that the always-legal alternative "hanged" is 'especially' common for the "killed by rope around neck" sense (despite 'hung' also being legal).
This was precisely my understanding -- while both strong and weak pasts are acceptable in all uses, "hanged" is the customary usage, including in law, for "executed by noose and gallows" and "hung" the more common usage in other contexts. (Note that the slang usage of "having a large penis" is always "hung."

The mnemonic I learned back in eighth grade is: "Few men wish to be hanged but most men wish to be hung."
  #22  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:26 PM
Genghis Bob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: No where. Now here.
Posts: 1,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litoris
People are hanged, clothes are hung. Fuck. How hard is that to grasp? Fuckity fuckity fuckity fuck. And while we're on the topic, it's sneaked, not snuck. Fucking morons. Oh yeh, and dragged, not drug. Fuck.
This is a post that simply must be read out loud, with feeling. Gold, pure gold - I'm cryin' here.
  #23  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:29 PM
Algher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,586
My personal issue (for this I must pit my wife who taught it to me):

Nauseous: You make others sick
Nauseated: You feel sick

I don't give a shit that various sources will allow the usage of Nauseated for Nauseous - it is wrong! The primary definition of nauseous is causing illness, not being ill dammit.

People who misuse it ARE nauseous in their abuse of the bastardized English language.
  #24  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:34 PM
Scuba_Ben is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Below the thermocline
Posts: 5,702
My pet peeve, as revealed earlier this week in GQ, is verbing nouns.

My preferred example is from parliamentary procedure: "I motion to...." Vowels flow smoother than verbed nouns. It's "I move to...."

And another example, as an obligatory Jewish point late on Friday afternoon: Reform Jews sometimes verb the coming of age ceremony, as JMS wrote in an episode of B5 (and I have heard a few too many times in real life): "I was bat-mitzvahed...."

I get hanged up every time I come across stuff like that.
__________________
The Diver's Toast:
If you lie, LIE to save the honor of a friend.
If you cheat, CHEAT death on a daily basis.
If you steal, STEAL time to get out and dive!
  #25  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:36 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algher
My personal issue (for this I must pit my wife who taught it to me):

Nauseous: You make others sick
Nauseated: You feel sick

I don't give a shit that various sources will allow the usage of Nauseated for Nauseous - it is wrong! The primary definition of nauseous is causing illness, not being ill dammit.

People who misuse it ARE nauseous in their abuse of the bastardized English language.
Mirriam-Webster's take on the matter.

Comedy gold!
  #26  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:37 PM
Indistinguishable is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algher
I don't give a shit that various sources will allow the usage of Nauseated for Nauseous - it is wrong! The primary definition of nauseous is causing illness, not being ill dammit.
Ah. So both the overwhelming majority of English speakers and various sources from the usual ostensibly authoritative bunch are all wrong. What exactly, then, is the criterion by which we are to determine what is right?
  #27  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:37 PM
Algher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2
Bah. Webster can suck my (not so) hung throbbing cock. Just because the ignorant masses have destroyed the language does not make them right.

It is fucking nauseating.
  #28  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:38 PM
tnetennba is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,339
I don't give a shit that various sources will allow the usage of Nauseated for Nauseous - it is wrong!

I'm not one of those relative linguistics people, but I do wonder how people can genuinely be upset over a usage that's been common their entire lifetime. Since it's been used to mean "sick" since the 1800s, I think it's safe to say that you've always heard it used that way, and only learned in a book that it ought to be otherwise.
  #29  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:40 PM
Algher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indistinguishable
Ah. So both the overwhelming majority of English speakers and various sources from the usual ostensibly authoritative bunch are all wrong. What exactly, then, is the criterion by which we are to determine what is right?
The definition folks reflect the masses. The masses are not always right. Irregardless is another word that is slowly being accepted. That acceptance and reflection does not make it correct.

Now get off of my lawn.
  #30  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:41 PM
Indistinguishable is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algher
Bah. Webster can suck my (not so) hung throbbing cock. Just because the ignorant masses have destroyed the language does not make them right.
What a pity the English language has been destroyed. What shall become of all those native speakers now?

Incidentally, Gaudere's law has struck: you've made a grammatical error in your post. One is not allowed to follow a two-syllable word with a word whose first and last sounds coincide, as you did at the end of your first sentence. Granted, many English speakers do this frequently, and a large number of sources will allow it, but it is an abomination nonetheless.

Last edited by Indistinguishable; 07-25-2008 at 06:46 PM.
  #31  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:42 PM
tnetennba is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algher
Bah. Webster can suck my (not so) hung throbbing cock. Just because the ignorant masses have destroyed the language does not make them right.

It is fucking nauseating.
The OED lists "sick to the stomach" as a meaning of nauseous. At some point you have to enter into a reflection on what it means for a word to have a "right" meaning if it is neither how people use it OR what the most respected reference books list as its meanings.
  #32  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:45 PM
descamisado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: At a Candlelight Supper
Posts: 6,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algher
Bah. Webster can suck my (not so) hung throbbing cock.
I thought it was you, if you have a big dick, who is hung, not the biggus dickus itself. Am I wrong.
  #33  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:46 PM
Algher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by cricetus
The OED lists "sick to the stomach" as a meaning of nauseous. At some point you have to enter into a reflection on what it means for a word to have a "right" meaning if it is neither how people use it OR what the most respected reference books list as its meanings.
I am fully fucking aware of what various references state. I noted that in my original post. You are providing Zero Additional Knowledge, though I do respect your desire to fight ignorance. This is not ignorance, it is opinion. It is an opinion shared by many others, though we are in a distinct minority.

Yes, both uses have been around since the early 1600s. Yes, all modern sources state that both are fine. Finally, most modern sources mention that traditionalists would prefer that you use nauseated if you feel sick, and either nauseous or nauseating for something that makes you feel sick.

Using the same work for two different yet related uses confuses your audience. It is also nauseating.

Humbug.
  #34  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:48 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algher
Bah. Webster can suck my (not so) hung throbbing cock. Just because the ignorant masses have destroyed the language does not make them right.

It is fucking nauseating.
Quite - damn those ignorant masses! If not for them we'd...only have scientific and medical terms to work with. Yes. Good plan.

Did you say that your wife told you this 'rule' of course? If so it's so sweet how you take her word over all the rest of reality. So sweet it makes me naseated, by which I mean nauseous, which doesn't mean nauseating in any instance I have ever heard or read in my entire life. And I've read a fair bit.


By the way Indistinguishable, what the hell are you talking about?
  #35  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:48 PM
Algher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5-4-Fighting
I thought it was you, if you have a big dick, who is hung, not the biggus dickus itself. Am I wrong.
Take it up with the hanged hung ones. I am too nauseated to discuss it further or farther or more or whatthefuckever.
  #36  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:49 PM
Indistinguishable is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,554
Alright, it's settled then. We'll use "nauseous" to mean "sick to the stomach" and "nauseating" to mean "makes people sick to the stomach", and all confusion will be averted. What's that? People already do this? Interesting...
  #37  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:49 PM
Rack-a-Bones is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: See-AT-ull
Posts: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pochacco
That thing you're standing behind? It's not the podium. The podium is the thing you're standing ON. The thing you're standing behind is the lectern.

Drives me frickin' nuts.
This has always cracked me up. It is just like the word "forte" which should (according to some) is pronounced 'fort' not 'fortay.' Cite from Merriam-Webster I very much like this part of the usage explanation: So you can take your choice, knowing that someone somewhere will dislike whichever variant you choose. All are standard, however.
  #38  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:50 PM
Indistinguishable is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2
By the way Indistinguishable, what the hell are you talking about?
I'm hopefully illustrating the silliness of rules that don't correspond to any facts about actual speech.
  #39  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:52 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indistinguishable
I'm hopefully illustrating the silliness of rules that don't correspond to any facts about actual speech.
Do you mean there actually is a rule that I can't say "I'm going jogging?" (If so: cite?)

(On reflection somebody's going to tell me that "jogging" doesn't start and end with the same sound - "sorting socks", then.)

Last edited by begbert2; 07-25-2008 at 06:55 PM.
  #40  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:54 PM
Algher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2
Quite - damn those ignorant masses! If not for them we'd...only have scientific and medical terms to work with. Yes. Good plan.

Did you say that your wife told you this 'rule' of course? If so it's so sweet how you take her word over all the rest of reality. So sweet it makes me naseated, by which I mean nauseous, which doesn't mean nauseating in any instance I have ever heard or read in my entire life. And I've read a fair bit.


By the way Indistinguishable, what the hell are you talking about?
My wife told me, I looked it up, and it is the FIRST MOTHERFUCKING DEFINITION.

You should read something more than pop up books.
  #41  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:55 PM
Indistinguishable is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,554
"jogging" doesn't begin and end with the same sound, but I fear my playfulness is being misinterpreted... I am claiming that, were I to posit such a rule, it would have just as much validity as "You cannot use 'nauseous' to mean 'nauseated', even though English speakers overwhelmingly do". Which is to say, none; the problem with both "rules" is exactly the same: they don't correspond to the actual facts of how people speak. I was trying to show off the silliness of clinging to such nonsense in the face of this kind of counter-evidence. I'm saddened that it apparently didn't work.

ETA: Yeah, you caught the "jogging" thing. We must be talking past each other or something, though, because I saw myself as basically on your side.

Last edited by Indistinguishable; 07-25-2008 at 06:57 PM.
  #42  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:56 PM
Algher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indistinguishable
I'm hopefully illustrating the silliness of rules that don't correspond to any facts about actual speech.
Then it ain't gonna matter if you iz hung, hanged, or hawt. Irregardless of that, you can dee-liver yr speach from the lectern or the podium without fear.
  #43  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:57 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algher
My wife told me, I looked it up, and it is the FIRST MOTHERFUCKING DEFINITION.
Oh, right, only the first definition in dictionaries are right; the other definitions are included as irrelevent and incorrect commentary.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Algher
You should read something more than pop up books.
Only I know how truly stupid this makes you sound.
  #44  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:58 PM
Indistinguishable is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,554
One fact about actual speech is that, as far as I'm aware, English speakers never use "hawt" as the past tense of "hang".
  #45  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:58 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indistinguishable
"jogging" doesn't begin and end with the same sound, but I fear my playfulness is being misinterpreted... I am claiming that, were I to posit such a rule, it would have just as much validity as "You cannot use 'nauseous' to mean 'nauseated', even though English speakers overwhelmingly do". Which is to say, none; the problem with both "rules" is exactly the same: they don't correspond to the actual facts of how people speak. I was trying to show off the silliness of clinging to such nonsense in the face of this kind of counter-evidence. I'm saddened that it apparently didn't work.

ETA: Yeah, you caught the "jogging" thing. We must be talking past each other or something, though, because I saw myself as basically on your side.
Oh, we are - I just wooshed that your example was hypothetical and was then floored by the magnanimous stupidity of the rule you presented.
  #46  
Old 07-25-2008, 07:03 PM
Indistinguishable is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,554
Ah. Gotcha.
  #47  
Old 07-25-2008, 07:03 PM
tnetennba is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,339
I usually take the side of the purists in these things, but this one strikes me as especially quixotic and a little pretentious, like still insisting that "kids" refer to goats and human young should only be called "children." The meanings of words are in how they are used. There is no celestial source for meanings.
  #48  
Old 07-25-2008, 07:05 PM
Algher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2
Oh, right, only the first definition in dictionaries are right; the other definitions are included as irrelevent and incorrect commentary.



Only I know how truly stupid this makes you sound.
Claiming that you have NEVER heard nor read nauseous to mean feeling nauseated causes me to question your subtle claim of great literacy.
  #49  
Old 07-25-2008, 07:05 PM
Indistinguishable is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,554
begbert2 never made any such claim. I don't even see why you think he did.

Last edited by Indistinguishable; 07-25-2008 at 07:06 PM.
  #50  
Old 07-25-2008, 07:07 PM
Algher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by cricetus
I usually take the side of the purists in these things, but this one strikes me as especially quixotic and a little pretentious, like still insisting that "kids" refer to goats and human young should only be called "children." The meanings of words are in how they are used. There is no celestial source for meanings.
True - it is just the pit.

If this were GD I would be much more forgiving. Hell, little terms like this is more of a simple poll than anything else.


(Do not judge me on this - I was simply trying to burn off some energy on the pit. Then someone appeared to take a swipe at my wife and the internet gloves had to come off)

Last edited by Algher; 07-25-2008 at 07:07 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017