Well there is of course the David Tua “O” for “Oarsum” incident, so perhaps the Omelettes folks are just trying to be facetious?
I have no dog in this fight, but it sounds to me rather like he said “O for Olsen”.
Actually I dunnop, this episode is totally infamous in New Zealand, and this is the first time I have ever heard it suggested that he said anything other than Awesome.
In anycase, I have appropriated it for myself when I am feeling silly, hence the O for Oarsum.
http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=1600
a friend of mine loaned me this, its pretty damn incredible and after watching I may very well never give a crap about so called “mistakes” again in my life. its really cool
I don’t really get wound up by things like this anymore, I used to but i’ve mellowed I guess.
In my opinion languages are dynamic and resisting change is completely futile, the (commonly spoken) English of today differs significantly to the English of 50, 100 or 150 years ago and the changes didn’t happen in one fell swoop overnight. Languages just evolve over time and what is ‘right’ can’t really be defined in strict terms because what is ‘right’ is merely that which is most commonly used. Once a different spelling becomes more common than the previous then it is fair to say that the new spelling is now correct and no amount of stamping your feet or pointing at dusty tomes is going to change a damn thing.
My peeve: a sign on a retail establishment that says “We have low prices everyday.”
No, you don’t. You may have everyday low prices, but you have low prices every day.
I trained as a linguist, but I don’t do any teaching or research.
This phenomenon is called “t-tapping”. It’s nearly universal (and thus, standard) in American English, and is becoming more and more common in international dialects of English.
Actually, both words exist, and are accepted.
My Bachelors and Masters are in Spanish linguistics, of all things. 
/MEKsicko/ is a perfectly appropriate Anglicism of a foreign word. 
Heh, I’m not sure which of us is being whooshed here, Cyningablod…
Just for you: Poll: time perception
Appointments don’t experience the passage of time like people do, so we can’t apply our perception of time to them.
It’s all relative. You’re looking at time relative to the whole, whereas most people look at it relative to themselves. If you think of time as a line and dates are fixed, people are “moving forward” along the line. So to you, moving a date forward means to move it further along the time line, while moving it back means to move it backward on the time line.
Most people, and I do believe this is vastly more common than your internal visualization, see the timeline from their personal vantage point, and as such they think of themselves as stationary, and thus dates in the future appear to move toward them. From that perspective, “back” and “forward” get their current meanings. If the appointment is seen as approaching you, moving it forward moves it closer to you. Moving it back moves it further from you.
I personally would see that as the more natural intuition, with your intuition arising from artificial means. If you set an appointment for the 20th on the 14th, most folk would agree that they’ve moved forward a day closer to the appointment if you pointed at a calendar on the 15th. But without a calendar, most people default to the idea that the 20th has gotten one day closer instead.
Well, since language evolves, when are we going to start evolving some truly useful words? I am talking about the gender-neutral singular possessive. It is incorrect to say, “Each student must take their place,” but saying it correctly (“Each student must take his or her place”) is just too convoluted, especially when it occurs multiple times in a paragraph.
Could one of you language gurus please coin a new word, mmm? That would be great. Thanks.
The evolution that is furthest along is towards it not being incorrect to say “Each student must take their place”. Singular “they” has by now a long and respectable history, particularly in contexts of nonspecific gender.
Yeah, I don’t know why there is so much hostility to singular “they” here.
No doubt it’s me. As a newbie I am hopelessly adrift in a sea of more Board-sophisticated Dopers. 
Heh, no problem. It’s not a question of Board-sophistication, I think; it’s just that possibly you missed the general tone of the rest of my posts in this thread. The post you were responding to was made with full knowledge of the points you raised, because I am in agreement with them; it was deliberately an attempt to show how silly and irrational language peeves so often are. None of those things actually strike me as improper language worthy of scorn (I am myself an American, alveolar flapping and all), but they’re exactly the same sort of thing as so many of the other complaints raised in threads like these.
While I’m on your side in matters linguistic, Indistinguishable, I kinda think it’s bordering on thread-shitting. No matter how right you might be, nobody’s going to thank you for telling them why they shouldn’t be peeved in a thread about peeves.
Well, I’ve tried to emphasize that people are certainly free to be annoyed by whatever annoys them, and my only concern is with when people make the move to then furthermore describing this as erroneous language where this seems unsupported. However, I take your point to heart.
I’m fifty. Started reading the great philosophers when I was around eight. I can say that at least for forty years or so I’ve been conscious of the English language and it’s usage. In that time I haven’t seen any words become obsolete. I haven’t seen any words change in spelling. I haven’t seen any change in grammar rules.
I bet I could say the same in another fifty years if I make it that far. The language has stabilized. Slang terms and spellings exist but they do not replace the original sources they derive from. We do not live in the previous centuries when all languages were developing. It’s the here and now. And it’s perfectly fine to respect standard usage of a language right here and now.
You could stress all you want that in the future coyotes will evolve into a much more warm and fuzzy creature. But it’s perfectly fine to shoo them out of the yard right now.
indistinguishable, you never addressed my post #14.
What say you?
Partially my fault. I let myself get sucked in even after stating that debate was not on the agenda.