Now I have an insane curiosity to know whether in German it should be “Der Google” or “die” or “das”. Does anyone happen to know?
Consider these two pairs of illuminating sentences, which incidentally show cases in which I’m very judgmental about language:
1a) For all intents and purposes, American politics is a team sport.
1b) For all intents and purposes, American football is a team sport.
The first sentence is perfect (although you might disagree with the sentiment–we’re talking about whether it conveys meaning). The second sentence is terrible.
I offer this pair to show the idiomatic nature of the expression: if you use “for all intents and purposes” to describe a statement that is literally true, you’re using it wrong. The phrase communicates the meaning “in effect but not really.” Using it where “really” would be appropriate is going to be very confusing to anyone who knows what the phrase means. The literal meaning of the phrase is actually the opposite of its idiomatic meaning.
Look at these two sentences:
2a) For all intensive purposes, American politics is a team sport.
2b) Fraulein Ten’s amber pisses, American politics is a team sport.
In this case, both phrases originate from a misunderstanding of “for all intents and purposes.” The first, however, communicates the meaning adequately. It originally may not have, but at this point the misunderstanding is so common that virtually every reader knows the meaning intended (“in effect, but not really”).
The second phrase, encountered in the wild, would be completely mystifying. Is the writer using an epithet from a florid Steampunk alt-history novel? Is the writer quoting iLemming? What’s going on?
wolfpup incorrectly described “for all intensive purposes” as meaningless gibberish. It ain’t. People know what meaning it’s intended to convey. It may be an irritating and unbeautiful use; I agree. But it’s not gibberish. “Fraulein Ten’s amber pisses” is what meaningless gibberish actually looks like.
Fraulein Ten should probably see a nephrologist.
That’s a little better than “your a idiot”, but not much.
You’ve digressed, and sunk into the depths, from the following fundamental point, which I repeat (though I’ve reversed “Jane and me” to “me and Jane” to avoid the proximity of the verb with the objective pronoun):
In the much discussed “Me and Jane went to the store” example, or “you and I” used in the objective case, there are a handful of linguists who argue that both can be considered correct for about as many different reasons, although a common theme is that there’s no real reason that the case of the pronouns within a conjunction should necessarily have to agree with the case of the conjunction itself. Likewise one might argue that “I don’t have no money” isn’t necessarily ungrammatical, at least in certain informal registers, and that it reflects our instinct for interpreting double negatives as reinforcing rather than neutralizing the negation, as is the case in many languages. And so on and so forth.
You see where this is going. “For all intensive purposes” doesn’t come from that sense of language or creativity that one might argue should be given primacy over the prescriptively-bound establishment. It’s certainly in a different class than those other examples; at the very least, it’s a malapropism, a mistake arising from ignorance. It’s not even an eggcorn. There’s no other way to look at it, and the sheer irrationality of it obfuscates the language. That makes it qualitatively undesirable. Some things, like most malapropisms, are just stupid and should be stamped out with hammers.
I have yet to see a substantive response to this. Do you understand what “substantive” means? Sorry, but “You mamma …” doesn’t cut it. At the risk of more “name-dropping”, let me quote the OED: “Language matters.”
I’d no idea that was a thing. Ew.
Quoting yourself? Nice. No, the point I’m primarily addressing is your spurious claim that “for all intensive purposes” is “meaningless gibberish.” Your pursed-lip Church-Lady scolding of other folks’ idiomatic writing is pretty uninteresting to me; it’s your incorrect claims about linguistics that get up my nose. You do for linguistic discussions what ZPG Zealot does for discussions of adoption.
Brickerize is not a word.
(:D)
I contend that a sense of propriety is intrinsic to the English language and I’m guessing most or all written languages. So it’s meaningful to distinguish between correct and incorrect usage, while acknowledging gray areas of course. To ignore propriety implies a less than perfect description of the language.
But I happily concede that propriety is dependent upon context. Also, it’s a sociological phenomenon, as I understand attempts to derive an objective grammar have mostly failed.
Change it to “intrinsic to people,” and I’ll probably agree. But I want precision in language use. If someone says, “That’s not proper usage for a sea chanty!” that’s fine with me. If someone says, “That’s meaningless gibberish!” when it ain’t, that’s something entirely different.
Now let’s see some meaningful gibberish. That’s the good stuff.
Is now.
Yes, it’s a regularly formed English word. The suffix “-ise” (which the OP likes) or “-ize” (which the OP detests) can be added to pretty well any English noun (like “Bricker”) to make a verb.
I’m not “quoting myself”, I’m repeating a statement that you never acknowedged and never responded to. Just like the lashing out and lack of any good-faith interest you exhibit in any conversation when you don’t have a leg to stand on (that’s an actual idiom, BTW; I’m pretty sure that you actually have two legs). I may indeed be making some implicit assumptions about context, but “For all intensive purposes” is meaningless gibberish in any context I can think of, and if it survives, which I doubt, it would be a disservice to the language. I know that, you know that, we all know that.
What really irks me is that, out of either ignorance or stubborn clinging to some fantasy, you pretend that there’s no difference between the innate sense of language that drives its long-term evolution and the simple ignorance that creates some of its day-to-day abuses. The former is no excuse for the latter, and you seem unable to distinguish between the two. They are as different as the societal evolution of a millennium from the camaraderie of a weekend house party. Both do indeed create new language, but they are not of equal standing, nor do they produce equally beneficient results. Language cannot be directed by edict, but it can certainly be guided by education. I quote again the OED: Language matters.
Most of my purposes are somewhat casual, even laissez-faire.
“Laissez-faire” is, of course, derived from a French term meaning “attractive lesbian.”
I’ve seen some pretty ballsy moves on this board, but wolfpup accusing someone else of not arguing in good faith is a topper. Have you ever engaged in a deviate where your primary rhetorical device was not blatant misrepresentation?
Hang on, I was somehow under the impression the OP was a joke post. And now we’re all feuding again? And people don’t like wolfpup? Maybe I’m just not around often enough, but wolfpup’s pretty damn cool and typically on point in discussions. Maybe I’m missing something, I dunno, but this kind of oubfuscation seems kind of ooud to me.
Ballsy? Topper? Who’s the deviate now?
Sounds like a classier way of referring to Irish confetti.
Just search for threads I started.
I find him harmless-to-mildly-annoying in discussions other than linguistics, but he’s super ignorant about linguistics and refuses to educate himself. So yeah, he’s not my fave.
It is, like the rest of your post here, a mix of banal truisms (tell me language matters again. Tell me!) and non sequiturs (how charming this new habit of yours, identifying every idiom you use! Do you want a gold star?). It’s bizarre that you think there’s anything substantive in it.
This too is lovely. Immediately after accusing me of arguing in bad faith, of not responding to something substantive, you repeat your “meaningless gibberish” claim, ignoring the multiple ways I’ve shown you it’s wrong. Then you go further to suggest that your claim is so self-evident that we must all know it’s right.
What I refuse to acknowledge is that language can be abused. People can be abused. Dogs can be abused. Language can’t be abused. If you want some meaningless gibberish, that comes pretty close.