RE: Grammatical annoyances

RE: Grammatical annoyances (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

Roselaure -> RE: Grammatical annoyances (8/2/2008 9:22:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BlueSpirit Does an artist have to use paint the same way as another? Wouldn’t we consider that a kind of tedium? Strict rules stifle innovation. That's a valid argument, but a different one. You said originally "The point of language is to get an idea across, the rest is just fluff." I was responding to that. I have no objection to a skilled writer stretching or even breaking the rules for the sake of creativity. He knows the rules and breaks them for the sake of art. Creativity is no excuse however for ignorance of your chosen medium, IMO.

sunshinemiss -> RE: Grammatical annoyances (8/2/2008 9:23:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyRainfire quote: ORIGINAL: Shadow-tiger I have been recently reminded of another annoyance. When people use lol in sentences in such a way that it takes on a form akin to the word stop in telegrams. Ship has hit an iceberg lol Not enough life boats for everybody lol Send help fast lol I hardly ever see the other forms such as rofl and fdl either. Kids on the internet these days, no sense of what acronyms are good for! I read this post and then shortly afterwards saw a post on another thread where "LOL" was used in this exact manner. I lost it, I couldn't stop laughing for 5 minutes. [sm=lol.gif] And still giggle when I think about it. That's just mean LRF.... saying that and not sharing the giggle with us grammar geeks. Come on!!!!!! what thread? Hmmm? I'll give you a cookie if you tell.

sirsholly -> RE: Grammatical annoyances (8/2/2008 9:25:50 AM)
let's not forget those who end every sentence with hehe. [sm=gaah.gif]

sunshinemiss -> RE: Grammatical annoyances (8/2/2008 9:26:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Roselaure quote: ORIGINAL: BlueSpirit Does an artist have to use paint the same way as another? Wouldn’t we consider that a kind of tedium? Strict rules stifle innovation. That's a valid argument, but a different one. You said originally "The point of language is to get an idea across, the rest is just fluff." I was responding to that. I have no objection to a skilled writer stretching or even breaking the rules for the sake of creativity. He knows the rules and breaks them for the sake of art. Creativity is no excuse however for ignorance of your chosen medium, IMO. amen. *hands you a cookie

Lordandmaster -> RE: Grammatical annoyances (8/2/2008 9:31:39 AM)
Well, unless you deny that the sentences "We proactively invaded Iraq" and "We actively invaded Iraq" mean two very different things, you can't say that "proactive" is redundant. The opposite of "active" is "passive." The opposite of "proactive" would be "reactive" or "retroactive." quote: ORIGINAL: Roselaure "Rather than just REacting". Right. Acting. "Proactive" is not necessary. I'm just geeky enough to love talking about this sort of thing.

Roselaure -> RE: Grammatical annoyances (8/2/2008 12:42:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Well, unless you deny that the sentences "We proactively invaded Iraq" and "We actively invaded Iraq" mean two very different things, you can't say that "proactive" is redundant. The opposite of "active" is "passive." The opposite of "proactive" would be "reactive" or "retroactive." quote: ORIGINAL: Roselaure "Rather than just REacting". Right. Acting. "Proactive" is not necessary. I'm just geeky enough to love talking about this sort of thing. I do deny that those two sentences mean very different things. The opposite of "active" is both "passive" and "reactive". It's just that when presented with a dilemma one can do three different things, act, react or do nothing. Are you saying that before the coinage of the word "proactive" that "reactive" had no opposite? I fear that I'm becoming the "grammatical annoyance" referred to in the OP!

Shadow-tiger -> RE: Grammatical annoyances (8/2/2008 12:51:46 PM)
Gah! Why is it that proactive automatically translates to preemptive in my mind when used by governments? I do not think that word means what they think it means.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Grammatical annoyances (8/2/2008 3:34:54 PM)
"We proactively invaded Iraq" means that we invaded before they had a chance to do anything about it. "We actively invaded Iraq" means that we invaded with our own troops carrying out our own war strategy (such as it was); in other words, we did not merely support an invasion or fight a war by proxy.

Emperor1956 -> RE: Grammatical annoyances (8/2/2008 8:46:33 PM)
quote: There is a saying: Those that like to show themselves to be an authority on grammar and spelling often do so because they are an authority on nothing else. The point of language is to get an idea across, the rest is just fluff. Ahhh, how true. That is why I have garnered innumerable submissives with the catchy call phrase: F U CN RD THS I WLL WHP YR AZ! --E

seababy -> RE: Grammatical annoyances (8/2/2008 9:46:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shadow-tiger This being the internet and people being what they are I often see a great number of gramatical mistakes that make me wince. But this isn't about those people, oh no. This is all about me Me ME!!! Personally I have this habit of reuising the same word multiple times in the same sentence. Or reusing similar sentence constructs. Repeating, and things like that. About half the time I catch myself at it, and the rest of the time I simply groan and get on with life. Yet it's a niggling little detail that drives me crazy for no good reason. Stupid perfectionist! So anyone else have a niggling habit like that? John Norman?

sunshinemiss -> RE: Grammatical annoyances (8/3/2008 12:45:20 AM)
ooooooooo seababy, That is funny! peace and passion, sunshine

X656X -> RE: Grammatical annoyances (8/3/2008 1:10:35 AM)
What are you going to do tonight? or What are you doing tonight? - Please explain?

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.198242E-02