Do I need to chill out in this GQ thread?

[magellan01]

I’m not sure it ever got to the point to be concerned, but if it did get inflamed I think it was due to Excalibre’s change in tone rather early on.

Still, you handles yourself well and tried to focus the debate. You have nothing to regret. Sometimes because of the topic stuff just doesn’t go as well as you’d hope.

[Frylock]

Excalibre

All’s I’m saying is this:

–I find I would hesitate to say “didn’t use to” when I’m being careful.
–It would be surpising if I were the only one.
–At first, I assumed my hesitation was one shared by most English speakers
–Later in the thread, I realized there may be at least two “subcommunites” of English speakers differentiated by this attitude towards this usage.
–I still think it would be very strange if there is not a substantial subcommunity (rather than just me, and a couple other guys) who share my intuition about the usage.
–I know there are others (for example you) who do not share my intuition. But I do not see the relevance of this fact. I do not see how this fact is supposed to contradict anything I’ve said.
–Now I see you, too, would hesitate (or think you ought to hesitate) to say “didn’t use to” when you are being careful in certain contexts. (This is how I understand you when you say you think “used to” and “didn’t use to” are casual usages.)
–So I’m even more confused–I can’t figure out how we disagree.
–You and I talking about these issues does not do anything at all to prevent you and I and others talking about those issues you mentioned as being ones you find more interesting.

-Kris

[Frylock]

@magellan01

I’m not sure it ever got to the point to be concerned, but if it did get inflamed I think it was due to Excalibre’s change in tone rather early on.

Still, you handles yourself well and tried to focus the debate. You have nothing to regret. Sometimes because of the topic stuff just doesn’t go as well as you’d hope.

Well, I’m pretty sure Excalibre is also trying to focus the debate… its just our focusses seem to be out of alignment with each other!

-Kris

[magellan01]

@Frylock

Well, I’m pretty sure Excalibre is also trying to focus the debate… its just our focusses seem to be out of alignment with each other!

-Kris

Like I said, I didn’t see the big deal. Go take a gander at some of the GD and Pit threads. :eek:

[Excalibre]

@Frylock

Excalibre

All’s I’m saying is this:

–I find I would hesitate to say “didn’t use to” when I’m being careful.
–It would be surpising if I were the only one.
–At first, I assumed my hesitation was one shared by most English speakers

And I merely tried to point out that that was not likely to be true. Examine my first post - I questioned your suggestion that it was a trait of standard English in general.

–Later in the thread, I realized there may be at least two “subcommunites” of English speakers differentiated by this attitude towards this usage.

Excellent. Then there is nothing more to discuss.

–I still think it would be very strange if there is not a substantial subcommunity (rather than just me, and a couple other guys) who share my intuition about the usage.

I didn’t say there wasn’t. I did not claim my own usage was universal.

–I know there are others (for example you) who do not share my intuition. But I do not see the relevance of this fact. I do not see how this fact is supposed to contradict anything I’ve said.

It contradicts the implication that you made in your posts that you were describing some particular feature of standard English. I don’t doubt that some people feel as you do. However, not all standard English speakers do; that was the only point I argued with you about. I’m not sure why you’re now trying to claim that the entire point of disagreement is somehow irrelevant. If you examine my first post, you can tell that I didn’t think it was a particularly important matter at that point; it was only with your much longer reply and your misbegotten attempts to “summarize” my posts that an argument began.

–Now I see you, too, would hesitate (or think you ought to hesitate) to say “didn’t use to” when you are being careful in certain contexts. (This is how I understand you when you say you think “used to” and “didn’t use to” are casual usages.)
–So I’m even more confused–I can’t figure out how we disagree.

Dear me, you must have forgotten your own argument. You claimed that “didn’t use to” is confined to even more informal uses than “used to” in standard English; I pointed out that I would use them in precisely the same environments in my speech. I don’t have any distinction in between the two phrases in their formality. Clearly you do. I posted in order to point out that your formulation is not universal. Clearly there is at least one exception; I suspect I’m not entirely alone.

–You and I talking about these issues does not do anything at all to prevent you and I and others talking about those issues you mentioned as being ones you find more interesting.

Given how thoroughly the thread has been diverted into irreleventia, I would say that it probably does.

[Frylock]

“–Later in the thread, I realized there may be at least two “subcommunites” of English speakers differentiated by this attitude towards this usage”
Excellent. Then there is nothing more to discuss.

Well shit man, then shut up then! :smack:

LOL

You’ve shown me my initial intuition wasn’t universal. I’ve (already) agreed with you. We (should have already) parted as friends. That’s (as you’ve said) the end of it!

Holy cow! :dubious: :smack:

-Kris

[Bryan_Ekers]

Even without reading the thread, I’d say a policy of chilling in GQ is a good idea.
I used to feel different.

[Daithi_Lacha]

@Pullet

Of course, in my head, you all have pixie voices too.

Just to let you know, this has changed my life for the better.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Excalibre

If you examine my first post, you can tell that I didn’t think it was a particularly important matter at that point; it was only with your much longer reply and your misbegotten attempts to “summarize” my posts that an argument began.

[emphasis added].

Excalibre, if you like drama, this sort of thing works well. But if you’re interested in furthering the conversation, when someone misrepresents your post, it may be well to give them the benefit of the doubt and politely correct their misrepresentation, assuming that they simply misunderstood what you were trying to say.

You originally wrote:

I can’t imagine any situation where I’d use “used to” but not “didn’t use to”.

Frylock interpreted that as your meaning that:

“didn’t use to” is considered to be perfectly okay usage in all contexts in standard English

Yes, he missed the part where you said that “used to” and “didn’t use to” were “a bit casual,” but I think you could have clarified that with a simple note, and thereby avoided all the fighting and derailment in that thread and the starting of this one. If you like this sort of thing, awesome. If not, give folks the benefit of the doubt when correcting misapprehensions of your posts.

Daniel

[Excalibre]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Yes, he missed the part where you said that “used to” and “didn’t use to” were “a bit casual,”

As well as the part where I said that “didn’t use to” could be used in every context that “used to” could be, which carries the obvious implication that this context is limited. So I explicitly said, as you acknowledge, that they could not be used in all contexts. I also implicitly said it. On the other hand, nothing I said that I can see supported his interpretation of my words.

While giving the benefit of the doubt is a wonderful thing, it rather boggles the mind for me to try to imagine how that could be anything other than a deliberate strawman.

but I think you could have clarified that with a simple note, and thereby avoided all the fighting and derailment in that thread and the starting of this one. If you like this sort of thing, awesome. If not, give folks the benefit of the doubt when correcting misapprehensions of your posts.

You can only give the benefit of the doubt if some doubt exists. Frankly, I don’t see any, because I can see no honest interpretation of my words that could lead to what Frylock said. Now that you’ve called my attention to it again and I’ve considered it afresh, I’m more convinced that I was right. I’m glad Frylock desisted in that particular argument tactic.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Excalibre

While giving the benefit of the doubt is a wonderful thing, it rather boggles the mind for me to try to imagine how that could be anything other than a deliberate strawman.

That, I think, shows a failure of imagination on your part, more than any failure on the part of Frylock’s honesty. Of course the meaning is obvious to you: you wrote the words, and you just went back and perused them carefully. You need to try to put yourself in the position of someone who didn’t write the words and who read them carefully, making a mistake in interpretation. It happens to the best of us, that we misinterpret someone else’s words.

I think you’re too quick to read dishonesty into other folks, and that’s really insulting to them, and it starts arguments where none need exist.

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

and who read them carefully

Curse you Gaudere’s second cousin! This should be didn’t read them carefully. Blame Frylock for reading too quickly, sure. But not for deliberate dishonesty.

Daniel

[Zoe]

It is the nature of communication that the message sent is not always the message received.. That principle doesn’t assign blame and neither should we when we are trying (unsuccessfully) to get a point across. Sometimes it is difficult to judge our own liabilities.

Did anyone else find this post funny:

Excalibre:

Originally Posted by dnooman:
Maybe he meant “chill out” to mean "I think you’re putting way too much time and energy into this trivial issue". (Bold type added) That’s the way I read it. YMMV

That would be precisely what I meant. (Bold type added) I merely popped up to say that what he perceived as “standard English” is not something I have ever noticed. Thus, I was questioning his proposed notion of standard English using precisely the same mechanism with which he came to it - my own intuitions about the way I talk.

His original statement suggested that most people don’t find the phrase “didn’t use to” very felicitous; I stated (and still maintain) that it sounds precisely as natural and felicitous as the positive version of it. That only describes my usage, of course - but I think the fact that some standard English speakers disagree with Frylock is enough reason to think it’s not a particular rule of standard English but rather of only his own variety. Incidentally, my experience suggests that “used to” and “didn’t use to” are both confined to informal usage, something I expressed quite clearly, and thus Frylock’s ‘interpretation’ of my statement to read that I find both of them acceptable in all contexts is quite clearly incorrect. He said this: “Could you please provide me with a cite confirming the truth of your view that ‘didn’t use to’ is considered to be perfectly okay usage in all contexts in standard English?” This declaration about what I said is clearly completely incompatible with what I actually did say - which is that both the positive and negative forms are distinctly casual. The only point in which I discussed which contexts either phrase might be used in was to say that I find “didn’t use to” acceptable in every context in which I find “used to” acceptable - which means I find both of very limited acceptability in formal usage.

His attempt to clarify that he wasn’t describing usage at all but rather people’s attitudes towards language doesn’t help, as it still doesn’t describe my attitude, nor that of some others who posted in that thread. Further, it conveniently slides the discussion into the realm of something far less measurable and thus something that can’t really be discussed empirically (my faith in native-speaker grammaticality judgments is limited at best, and in this case I simply can’t imagine how one might gauge the very fine distinction Frylock proposes.)

Frylock, if you thought I meant you were throwing a fit or getting angry then I apologize; I don’t think you were. It’s possible that I implied it; I don’t really care enough to go reread the thread and examine whether my words were precise enough. So if I did imply such a thing, my apologies. But I still think your post in response to mine was simply more than the situation warranted.

My main point remains that his statement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frylock
But I think it’s non-standard in the sense that someone who is in a situation where it is appropriate to watch his/her own phraseology with an eye toward giving an impression of literacy and eloquence will avoid the usage.
does not describe all speakers; there was no hedging in his post to indicate that he was only describing his own usage and references to standard English suggest that it’s something present in the prestige variety of American English. While no doubt other standard English speakers agree with him, I see no evidence that I am in a small-enough minority that my use of the phrase or my “attitude” towards it is “non-standard”.

The trouble with Frylock’s derailment into shaping his original statement into ever-finer distinctions and his subsequent discussion of styles of argument is that we’re missing the most interesting points about the phrase entirely - for instance, whether it’s an auxiliary verb (one poster in the original thread reported usages of it that seem quite parallel to other auxiliary verbs). Or the interesting fact about its pronunciation that even though it’s obviously related to the more common usage of use, that the S is voiceless (at least for me), which I might argue is evidence of certain auxiliary-like qualities in its standard English use. Or the fact that people more frequently write “didn’t used to” rather than “didn’t use to” - particularly interesting, as the context definitely calls for the plain form of the verb, but in actuality the word is pronounced identically in those two contexts (for me, /'jus t@/, “yoosta”), creating confusion over the proper spelling (and suggesting that the two forms are uncommon in formal writing, as people seem confused about their spelling.)

But Frylock’s continual attempts to convince me simultaneously that his original posts in the thread were correct and that he agrees with me completely made the thread so tiresome that I’m afraid we won’t be able to discuss those interesting phenomena.

Gee, Excalibre, glad to know that you’re not putting so much “time and energy” into this “trivial issue” and “tiresome” thread.

[Excalibre]

@Zoe

It is the nature of communication that the message sent is not always the message received.. That principle doesn’t assign blame and neither should we when we are trying (unsuccessfully) to get a point across. Sometimes it is difficult to judge our own liabilities.

Did anyone else find this post funny:

Gee, Excalibre, glad to know that you’re not putting so much “time and energy” into this “trivial issue” and “tiresome” thread.

Gee, Zoe, that might make sense had Frylock not started an entirely different thread to discuss the matter in the interim.

[duffer]

Based on the quoted OP for this OP, it just jumped in my head:
“I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too.”

- Mitch Hedberg