Yes, matt_mcl, you explain it better than I did. lissener seems to recognize only spatial deixis, ignoring the other uses of deixis: temporal, discourse, person, social and affective (this wiki article fails to note affective).
Take, for example, this and that. With spatial deixis, this is something closer, and that something relatively farther away. But we also chose which one to use depending upon how we feel about someone. If you’re talking on the phone about a person you don’t like, who is not present, most people will say, “I don’t like that man,” choosing that over this to express negative feeling (affect).
You’re absolutely correct. From the Latin : valens = strength or merit, and ambi- = two or both (as in ambidextrous : two right hands). Literally : both (ideas) have the same merit (to me). Doesn’t mean the merit has to be high, nor low.
It displeases me that penultimate and decimate are so often misunderstood. They are exacting definitions which could frequently describe specific, interesting situations, but when so many people misinterpret them, it’s actually safer not to use them.
Also, I’m irritated at the fact that acronyms (as well as initialisms) are not standardized. There’s a current thread regarding Chris Hansen / Perverted Justice wherein people keep referring to LEOs (i.e., Low Earth Orbits) as if they were law enforcment officers or something. Same with the INS. Why and how did Inertial Navigation Systems get pulled into “Homeland Security”? This slows my reading, as I frequently have to figure out which usage they intended.
Regarding the word “random,” in college, my nerdly cohorts and I used it all the time as slang to describe situations and actions that were, well, random. Then I got out into the real world and stopped hearing people use the term. In some sort of reality TV show a few years ago, Rachel Hunter (the former model) described a situation as being “just so random,” and it made me feel happy inside, because it conclusively proved that all supermodels are secretly nerds.
Not that this is conclusive beyond further discussion, but googling “grammar take bring,” the first 5 references were, 5 for 5, in agreement with me, not matt. Again, I recognize that this is more anecdotal than anything else, but I’d like to see a cite to the contrary. Thanks.
(ETA: checking further, 10 out of the first 10 google links agree with me.)
RickJay quoted the American Heritage Dictionary above.
But seriously, are you really arguing that one should say “I brought this from Jimmy” when one means “I took this from Jimmy,” simply because the confiscated object is now in the same location as the speaker? That’s “outright barbarous,” in Orwell’s sense.
I had a fast look at some of the search results you mention. Several of them do not address the subject in enough detail to deal with the questions I raised. Grammargirl refers to your interpretation as “the quick and dirty rule” and discusses the existence of what she refers to as “exceptions,” which I would just argue are the use of other forms of deixis according to the same underlying rule. The point is, the difference between “bring” and “take” are indeed deictic, but you can use deixis with respect to something other than the speaker.
ETA: and re:Grammar Girl, she acknowledges there are usage exceptions. I’m not sure how you can interpret what I said as denying the possibility of isolated exceptions. Nonetheless, she agrees with my usage as primarily correct.
The piano/forte distinction aside, the use of “forte” to describe a strength or aptitude appears to have two acceptable pronounciations, including “fawr-TEY”.
Ignorant/ignant in that context isn’t being used to mean lacking in knowledge or training, it’s slang for not knowing how to act/acting stupid. I guess I wouldn’t call it people not knowing what ignorant means, but using it as slang (see: cool, sick, groovy).
In the same vein, apocalypse. It means “revelation”, people. Either telling secrets or providing someone with arcane information he did not know before. Here on the Dope, we have apocalypses every day :). The word you’re looking for is eschaton.
Well, my dictionary says “Apocalypse” also means “catastrophic destruction.” Looks like all the other dictionaries say that too. It’s been used that way since before we were born. I know it meant “revelation” in Greek, but we aren’t speaking Greek.
Definition 1: "To cause to come along with oneself; to fetch. It includes ‘lead’ or ‘conduct’ (F. amener) as well as ‘carry’ (F. apporter); it implies motion towards the place where the speaker or auditor is, or is supposed to be, being in sense the causal of come; motion in the opposite direction is expressed by take (Fr. emmener, emporter). [Bolding mine]
Note “or is supposed to be.” The “supposed to be” is the subjective projection of the speaker.
Connotation b. “by leading, conducting, propelling, etc.”
Example: “1885 H. O. FORBES Nat. Wand. III. viii. 258 At length a bend of the river brought me in sight of the European…quarter of the city.”
Without reading the rest of the thread to see if this has been addressed, “presently” has been more or less synonymous with “currently” since the 15th century, so it’s hard to see why you object to it.