How does my objection to snobbery make me “of little learning”?
And just how does “a little learning is a dangerous thing” express this any better than “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”? If someone mentions that a bird in the hand is worth two in the shrubbery, would you lecture this person on the “correct” expression, and what its “POINT” is?
I have never heard it quoted in an anti-intellectual way, and I don’t see how changing “learning” to “knowledge” makes it any more anit-intellectual. If you’re talking about context, that’s something completely different. Every time I’ve heard it, it has basically meant something along the lines of “We should be careful about having people have a little bit of knowledge, but not enough knowledge to use that knowledge responsibly” or “Once someone knows one thing, they think they know it all”. These meaning seem, if anything, anti-plebeian rather than anti-intellectual.
No, the conversation would have been made less clear by the resulting semantic debate which usually ensues when anyone uses a word the listener hasn’t heard.
Yes, the conversation was fictitious - a composite of conversations I have every day. Call me a liar if you want. Pull out a calculator? Do you really think it’s that simple? Let me ask you this: does the 10% Network Service Fee apply to the Account Activation Fee? How about the 0.4% Universal Service Fund? And does the NSF apply to the USF, or vice versa, or neither? And when making arbitrary decisions about how to calculate these things in advance, is that a guess or an estimate? If you haven’t worked in customer service in a high-tech industry, count yourself lucky.
An exercise in misusing both words? Clarify. How is my usage of “estimate” different from yours?
Burning your bridges behind you prevents your pursuers from following. It also shares a quality with burning your boats behind you. It proclaims to you and your soldiers that they’d better fight fiercely, because there’s no going back.
Lissener, the confusion on Stein’s quote could come from the fact that there is not an initial “A” in the statement. The line is taken from her poem, Sacred Emily, 1913, and goes:
Regarding bobwire: barbed wire had become “bobwire” in common parlance in many areas of the mid-west and west within 10 years of its introduction. Like varmint (for vermin) passel (for parcel) and several other words, “bobwire” is pretty much a part of the language, now. (Although it remains marginalized for formal usage.)
Presently used for currently: I remember my dad coming back from a presentation by one of the corporate officers, horrified that the man said “We are presently building. . . .” He had to explain his objections because I had always heard presently used to mean currently. This was 35-38 years ago, so this cause has been lost.
My strength is my forte (pronounced fort–forts are strong), but I am surrounded by hundreds of people who say FOR tay or even for TAY. I don’t fight this one. There are probably fewer than 1,000 people in the U.S. who use the older pronunciation.
Yeah, and the Bangles never ripped us off for a $450 million stadium, built with tax money, with a city-guaranteed sellout every game for the first five years.
An interesting point about ‘ask’ vs. ‘aks’: both pronunciations were of equal pedigree in Middle English (ascin and acsin were interchangeable verbs). The only reason we consider ‘ask’ to be standard today is that it was standard in London in the 17th century, when the English language was being codified by the introduction of widespread printing and literacy. On strictly utilitarian considerations, they really ought to have picked the other: ‘aksed’ is much easier to pronounce than ‘asked,’ which usually comes out as ‘ast’ instead. But when did English ever do anything the easy way?
What about one’s that are correct when spoken, but ask the person to spell it and they get it wrong. Specifically I am thinking of “Let’s get down to brass tacks”. I had a friend who of course would say it fine, but in an email told me he wanted “to get down to brass tax.”
Their response to that is: “Yeah, we sold out. Every show.”
Back on topic, every single one of my friends says “periphial” for “peripheral.” One of them always writes “congradulations.” Another says “versing” instead of “versus.”
How about "the point is mute instead of the correct “the point is moot?”
I figure these people think it derives from the sense that the point carries no weight, as if it had no voice. But I don’t really know what they’re thinking. Probably they’re not.
I’m looking at a copy of her 1939 children’s book, “The World Is Round” (Barefoot Books, 1993) where we have the following:
first chapter title as in table of contents: “Rose Is a Rose”
chapter titled “Rose Does Something”:
“…she would carve on the tree Rose is a Rose is a Rose is a Rose is a Rose until it went all the way round…”
“…the corners of the Os and Rs and Ss and Es in a Rose is a Rose is a Rose is a Rose.”
chapter titled “There”:
“…she began to sing. …I am Rose and while I am Rose
Well well Rose is Rose.”
And I’ve seen the word “Rose” so many times in writing this reply that it looks weird.
No, in all the usage I’ve ever heard, “come to grips” means EXACTLY the same thing as “come to terms.” As in the metaphorical sense that you’re trying to grasp the situation, not that you’re “coming to grips” with another PERSON–grappling or wrestling with them.
I think you’re thinking of “come to blows” (fighting)–as in, “Their discussion of misquoted expressions became so heated that the two individuals nearly came to blows.”
My dictionary lists two meanings for the adjective: 1. open to question, debatable, and 2. deprived of practical significance, made abstract or purely academic.
In my experience the second meaning is usually intended when someone refers to a “moot point”. If it’s moot, it’s already been decided by some other means, so let’s not argue about it. (Not that this has ever actually occurred on the SDMB. I’ve seen arguments go on for days concerning “moot” points.)
I’m guessing that this usage derives from the moot courts that law students engage in. They argue cases that are either hypothetical or have already been decided, just for practice. So, although they are debating furiously, the arguments ultimately have no practical significance. Obviously the moot courts are intended to be places where people moot, but because of the lack of real application, a “moot” case becomes one that doesn’t mean anything.
Did anybody notice when, early in the primary season during a debate, George W. was asked to comment on the Microsoft anti-trust case? He downplayed it, saying that viable competitors were beginning to appear, such as “Loonix”!
I thought the Pacifica Radio morning talk show would have
a field day with that but they missed it completely.
A lot of people use the second way of saying it. It took me
a while to realize that “I miss not having you around” is
a sentimental expression of affection, rather than a sarcastic twist.