Huh? But what if you want to say that someone IS different than someone else? Like “He’s different than her”.
But really, the worst is “walla” instead have “viola!”.
not when they mean “specifically”.
My nature isn’t quite that forgiving. The point being that 99.99% of people who use that construction don’t mean it that way. They mean specifically and say pacifically. Saying, “Oh, well…it’s a real word anyway” doesn’t help anybody in this case. They mean “that particular thing,” not “that peaceful thing.”
You get into Humpty-Dumpty territory when you go out of your way to make excuses for people’s ignorance or laziness in language. Words don’t mean what one wants them to mean. They mean what they mean. That meaning may shift over time, but individual ignorant usage doesn’t instantly make the shifting meanings standard or acceptable. Otherwise I could write “The watch is fulvous tonight” and mean “My head hurts this morning” and expect people not to look at me like I’ve taken a hit to my Broca’s Area…
jayjay - you rat bastid* - you took the exact same amount of time to make the same point but far more eloquantly.
I must hate you now.
(*intentional spelling to connote friendly use of the term)
Wow. I wrote all that in less than a minute? Color me as surprised as you, wring.
On a slightly related note-- it bugs me when people say, “Have your cake and eat it too.” When the correct saying is, “Eat your cake and have it to.”
“…have it TOO.” I mean.
I Love Me, Vol. 1, it still makes sense, as long as you don’t assume that first in sequence equals first in time. The “corrected” version is, indeed, plainer in meaning. But the original isn’t incorrect.
Now, the old joke about “have your cake and Edith, too”…that, we’ll leave alone.
Another one…
It’s “lose” not “loose”
Loose a ballgame… is incorrect.
Wasn’t there an episode of Seinfeld where two of the characters, training to be auto mechanics, failed to make that assumption when given the instruction “twist and pull” in the context of changing spark plugs? They tried twisting and pulling simultaneously. Eventually the instructor realized their misunderstanding and clarified: “Twist, then pull.”
Fair enough. The point of my post was to illustrate that a sentence can be syntactically correct without conveying the intended meaning. After all, this thread is about grammar Nazis rather than definition Nazis. If you want to start a pit thread about people corrupting the meanings of words, go right ahead. I might join you there and submit my own pet peeves.
I always assumed the intention of that one was humorous. At least, I always hear it in Bugs Bunny’s voice. Do people really think “walla” is a word? Or the correct way to spell voilà?
While I appreciate your link, I’m quite certain that my co-workers aren’t savvy enough to understand sarcasm, much less use it. I work with them 40 hours a week. 
Everyone else, YMMV I suppose. I still think it sounds ridiculous, as does “irregardless”.
PS - I had a Senior Manager who would use “pacifically” when he indeed meant “specifically” - it was difficult not to convulse with laughter when he was trying to be authoritative in meetings and then threw in a “pacifically”.
Actually it’s, “You can’t have your Kate and Edith, too.” Sorry, I couldn’t help it.
It depends, bnorton. The one I know casts darling Edith as a health nut who won’t let her boyfriend, the object of the joke, have sweets. But I think I’ve heard your version, too.
I agree. Were the expression: “You can’t have your cake and then eat it”, then the order would make a difference. But it’s: "You can’t have your cake and eat it too. In this context, “too” means “also”, implying that both states exist together, which is a physical impossibility. “Simultaneously” would be a better word from* “too”, but then it wouldn’t sound very folksy.
Of course, that’s ignoring the fact that if you eat the cake, you do still have it; it’s just in your stomach all chewed up.
- it’s a joke
You mean “voila,” right? Unless “walla” is meant to sound like purple.
Wasn’t there an episode of Seinfeld where two of the characters, training to be auto mechanics, failed to make that assumption when given the instruction “twist and pull” in the context of changing spark plugs? They tried twisting and pulling simultaneously. Eventually the instructor realized their misunderstanding and clarified: “Twist, then pull.”
Fair enough. The point of my post was to illustrate that a sentence can be syntactically correct without conveying the intended meaning. After all, this thread is about grammar Nazis rather than definition Nazis. If you want to start a pit thread about people corrupting the meanings of words, go right ahead. I might join you there and submit my own pet peeves.
But grammar is essentially useless without meaning. Even with meaning, grammar is nonsensical if it doesn’t conform to the thought that it’s supposed to be expressing. My example above: “My watch is fulvous tonight”. This actually has a meaning, assuming that my portable time-keeping device is a rusty-reddish color at this post-sunset time of the day. But if, as above, I say that and mean, “My head is hurting this morning,” then it’s nonsense. As far as that goes, something like “My floogle is gorchik this krashtet” is grammatically correct. But it doesn’t mean anything. And language that doesn’t mean anything is either not language or promulgated by the government…