Thanks for the story.
See, you get the point of kvetching about word use. The humorless dolts who always chime in with “but it was used that way in 1563!” or “but language evolves and there are no rules!” don’t. They are the ones trying to impose rules (on the discussion) and so they forget to have fun using the language.
Is the phrase “Go service yourself” banned in The Pit? Need answer fast.
What a wonderfully ironic dilemma - if you did use that phrase directed at me, you’d be admitting I’m right.
Language, um, sticklers are so cute when they get angry. (I’m sort-of on board with the dislike of “service,” but “gift” is perfectly fine, if not necessarily preferred in most contexts.) ETA: Actually, now that I think about it more, I wouldn’t find the train servicing a station example particularly problematic. And, of course, “service” as a verb is unambiguously fine, IMHO, in cases like “a garage is servicing your car.” I really can’t see any reasonable objection to that.
I think its cute you think that was directed at you. I was just making a joke.
But I’m not sure what you think would be ironic. Service is a noun and a verb. And several ways of being a verb one of which has sexual connotations. If you don’t like using it as a verb, don’t.
Now you’re cute.
Sorry, I wasn’t sure. I was attacked by others here, as usual, so it was hard to tell. It is the pit, after all.
It would be ironic if you were saying that it’s fine to use service as a verb and not induce giggles by the likes of me, that’s all.
But, seriously, do you have an issue with “service” as in the mechanic example? I’m just wondering how far your proscription against that word goes. The OP makes it sound like it’s a blanket condemnation of the word.
It makes sense for a mechanic, because it’s providing service to a thing. One doesn’t “serve” a car in the first place.
A train, however, does serve a station and those in it. I suppose a train could also fuck those people at the station too, but only by not serving the station for a long long time.
I prefer the verb “serve” for a train, but “service” doesn’t sound bad to my ears. And it’s a bit odd to think of the sexual meaning there, I would say. When my mechanic is servicing my car, I don’t really think he’s in sexual congress with it, nor does that possibility even pop into my head. Or in the sense of “servicing a loan.” Same with a train servicing a station. Never would occur to me to think of the sexual meaning, much like I don’t think of the sexual meaning of the verb “to come” every time I hear it. Now, a waitress “servicing” a patron, yeah, that one I can see the sexual double entendre.
Well, now it will.
You’re welcome.
Yes, we do, until people stop making threads like this where the OP says something like
and is shown to be wrong by any conceivable standard, yet still will not admit it.
I confess, I have often played the role of language cop, but I have reformed. I thank the Straight Dope Message Board for most of that. I was humiliated, both as “embarrassed” and “made humble.”
In some cases, I learned that I was simply wrong about the accepted usage. In other cases, I learned that usage had changed since I learned the rules so long ago (high school Class of 1967.)
I also learned that being right and/or superior is not as important as getting along with people. Often, being right/superior is the same as being a jerk.
Wrong?
You aren’t one of those prescriptivist who thinks there is right and wrong in language and it can never change, are you?
If somebody 500 years ago declared service was now a verb, I can say it’s not any more. Whatever.
Thanks for servicing this thread.
I don’t have any kids but as far as language acquisition goes, it’s pretty much automatic. Kids learn the english their parents speak and once they’re old enough to talk and socialize, their vocabulary and grammar are defined a lot by their peers. But it’s all pretty much passive. A child whose speech is never corrected by a parent learns ‘correct’ english at the same rate as a child whose speech is constantly corrected.
Writing is an entirely different skill and has its own particular set of challenges. But I think the fact that every child manages to learn to speak a language on their own but few if any learn to write a language by themselves should give one pause about the relative ease of the two.
I happen to think that a working knowledge of SE in both speech and writing is a worthwhile pursuit not because there’s anything special about SE but because if you can demonstrate mastery of it, it’s one less thing the lance armstrongs of the world can mark you down for.
Well, I do have kids, and I can tell you that you’re wrong.
It’s true that it’s mostly passive. But not entirely. Kids often learn the “wrong” way to say things, by hearing it from other kids, or adults (their parents are not the only ones speaking around them) or TV, etc. And you have to correct them, often. And kids even start to ask you all kinds of questions themselves - how to use a word, what it means, how to spell it, etc. And you don’t go on a long rant about how language is dynamic and all that - you just tell them. They learn that language is flexible and has not central authority later, when they’re ready for that.
And then, of course, they go to many many years of school to learn all this stuff, and it’s not at all passive - it involves lots of instruction and testing and all that.
No, it is extremely useful, perhaps even vital, to have a strong knowledge of SE to function in the English-speaking world. I shouldn’t even have to explain why. And it’s perfectly fine to include in this knowledge the fact that SE is not prescriptive and can change and is based on common use, etc. A good education in SE will include that awareness.
As for getting marked down by the likes of me, well, it’s the BBQ Pit. Lighten up, Francis.
That is not an opinion borne out by the evidence. There are many examples in the various corpora of a child saying something like “eated”, being corrected and continuing to go on saying “eated”.
edit: television and other media have not been demonstrated to have a marked influence on a person’s speech. It’s consistently parents and peers that influence speech patterns.
What strange things sit in the Straight Dope Pit
From posters young and old;
And some folks have a conniption fit
That would make your blood run cold;
The BBQ Pit has sights that disturb,
But the queerest one, I know it,
Was an argument whether “service” is noun or verb,
When he’s actually a poet.
–* with apologies to Robert W. Service*
Was that what you meant in the OP? When you said
you were not merely making a simple easily-made mistake about current established usage, one that a normal person would have simply said “oops” about and moved on, but were declaring by imagined fiat that an established and common usage shall now be considered wrong? Well, then my apologies for misunderstanding you.