RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police!

RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

HannahLynn -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/21/2011 3:39:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer FR May I recommend WordWeb to everybody? It's a dictionary/thesaurus that sits in your systems tray. You've only to double-click a word you're not sure of, and it'll come with 'not found' if it's not spelt correctly, and give suggestions. If it is spelt correctly, it'll give a definition as well as synonyms. Dead handy. Freebie version here. That is All. i installed that brilliant little fucker the last time you brought it up. there was some thread about freeware a while back.

PeonForHer -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/21/2011 3:55:32 PM)
You know it'll give you audible pronunciations, too? You just have to have your sound turned on, and click the audio symbol next to the word. You get the Microsoft 'Sam' voice by default, in a North American accent. I have a friend (a Canadian, actually) whose written English is way better than his spoken English. This is because he's very, very bright and well-read, but has always worked in situations where he's been surrounded by people who, well, aren't. He uses a lot of relatively obscure words correctly, but pronounces them wrongly. That's an embarrassment for him. This program has helped him a lot.

tazzygirl -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/21/2011 3:59:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Ahem.... I was fighting Indians? OK, grizzly bears, then. I know that you colonials have a rich variety of challenges in your struggle to survive out there. Assumptions, dear heart. Tsk tsk.

MistressDarkArt -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/21/2011 4:18:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail grammaticus-spelticus [sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif] Sounds like one of the nicknames I give my cats! Carry on!

LanceHughes -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/21/2011 4:36:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer <snipped> He uses a lot of relatively obscure words correctly, but pronounces them wrongly. That's an embarrassment for him. This program has helped him a lot. You're kidding, right? "but pronounces them wrongly."? I would hope for "but pronounces them incorrectly."

TheFireWithinMe -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/21/2011 4:40:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LanceHughes quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer <snipped> He uses a lot of relatively obscure words correctly, but pronounces them wrongly. That's an embarrassment for him. This program has helped him a lot. You're kidding, right? "but pronounces them wrongly."? I would hope for "but pronounces them incorectly." I would hope for incorrectly to be spelled properly <grins>

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/21/2011 5:12:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Yes. I've seen changes in the dictionary over the years such that when a word gets mis-used often enough it gradually becomes allowed as a second or third meaning. Far be it from me to try to stanch the flow of newspaper reporters and 'news anchors' using the term "staunch the flow of" instead the proper word. I will always be a stanch supporter of their using the word "staunch" however they damn well please. Or something like that. They are always "chomping at the bit" (ahem ... it's actually "champing at the bit," dear fellows) to use the word "impact" as a verb as often as possible anyway. It makes me think of a bad tooth or something. The horses I grew up around didn't "champ"; not even on the pears that fell from my cousins tree to the ground on the pasture side of the fence.

HannahLynn -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/21/2011 5:15:06 PM)
champing, to the best of my knowledge, is the nervous gnawing thing they do to their bit when fucking excited, it has nothing to do with eating.

PeonForHer -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/21/2011 5:20:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster The horses I grew up around [snip] God, things still are pretty harsh out there in the New World, aren't they? I hope you weren't teased at school because of your lack of hooves, HK.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/21/2011 5:29:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LanceHughes Thus, we see an attempt to be "fancy." As in this sentence? "I never stated that use of the aforementioned words in that manner was actually 'wrong' or incorrect, just that such usage indicated less than stellar use or understanding of the language."

PeonForHer -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/21/2011 5:31:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LanceHughes I would hope for "but pronounces them incorrectly." Why? My WordWeb has it that 'wrongly', in this context, means 'in an inaccurate manner'. Why on earth would my use of that word in the way I used it be wrong (or indeed, incorrect)?

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/21/2011 5:46:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynn champing, to the best of my knowledge, is the nervous gnawing thing they do to their bit when fucking excited, it has nothing to do with eating. Seems "champ" means "chomp". We always said "chomp" in the herd I grew up in. I am both right and wrong, but more wrong it would seem. Eds usage is correct. Es tut mir Lied. It's always a good thing to learn something new.

HannahLynn -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/21/2011 5:50:24 PM)
quote: As in this sentence? yea, that one, or anything else he posts.

Epytropos -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/21/2011 5:57:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer My brother did history at uni - they'd have heated debates about 'an historical' versus 'a historical'. I'd go with the latter as a matter of taste and an unwillingness to sound (even more) pompous. I'm a senior military history major and we've never once had that discussion lol. By and large you'll hear older professors (60+) use an and younger ones use a, but neither will correct your choice. Personally I use a hard H in history so I use a.

PeonForHer -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/21/2011 6:07:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Epytropos quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer My brother did history at uni - they'd have heated debates about 'an historical' versus 'a historical'. I'd go with the latter as a matter of taste and an unwillingness to sound (even more) pompous. I'm a senior military history major and we've never once had that discussion lol. By and large you'll hear older professors (60+) use an and younger ones use a, but neither will correct your choice. Personally I use a hard H in history so I use a. I probably should have said that my bro is a bit of an anal windbag, Epy. No doubt he initiated the heated debates that took place.

Edwynn -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/21/2011 6:24:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynn yea, well that plus the fact that effectacious doesn't seem to even be a real fucking word. i googled it just to be sure and didn't get a single fucking hit, so i think its just ed making up fancy sounding words again. Er . . . I assumed Ed was joking . . . . You assumed correctly, as indicated by your initial response previously. Merely switching the places of affect and effect might not have made it plain the toungue-in-cheek nature of the excercise, so I intentionally used the bogus word 'effectacious' to start it off, thinking that would surely be the tip-off to most readers. I could say that I am somewhat disappointed with the unexpectedly low percentage of those who got it, but actually I shouldn't be surprised.

Awareness -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/21/2011 6:33:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness So, for me it would be "an historical oddity" because the h is subdued - almost silent. However I could in the same breath refer to "a history lesson" because the h - at least in my pronunciation - is significantly harder. Eh? You'd pronounce the 'h' in 'history' harder than you'd pronounce the 'h' in 'historical'? Why? Probably because the emphasis in "history" is on the first syllable. Phonetically "HIStree", a virtual reduction from 3 syllables to two, although it's fairly borderline and the "o" can sneak back in. Whereas "historical" has the emphasis on the second syllable "hisTORical" and thus the first syllable is de-emphasised leading to a softer aitch. I suspect partially it comes back to information theory. Words with more syllables provide more phonemes and consequently are more unique and less amenable to being misheard. Whereas shorter words may require more emphasis up front and so there's an adaption there to ensure their articulation is more distinct. Without a full emphasis on the aitch, "history" has a good chance of being misheard as "mystery". Thus, the adapted emphasis. Of course, all of these adaptions are simply a form of lexical evolution in action. People who use a particularly successful variant tend to communicate better and their communication strategies are often adopted unconsciously by other people. I think of them as lexical memes which survive or die depending upon the environment in which they find themselves and their effectiveness at communication in that environment.

PeonForHer -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/21/2011 6:48:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness Probably because the emphasis in "history" is on the first syllable. Yep, that makes sense.

Edwynn -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/21/2011 6:50:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: LanceHughes I would hope for "but pronounces them incorrectly." Why? My WordWeb has it that 'wrongly', in this context, means 'in an inaccurate manner'. Why on earth would my use of that word in the way I used it be wrong (or indeed, incorrect)? Indeed, it appears as though you have been incorrectly accused.

Edwynn -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/21/2011 7:34:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster quote: ORIGINAL: LanceHughes Thus, we see an attempt to be "fancy." As in this sentence? "I never stated that use of the aforementioned words in that manner was actually 'wrong' or incorrect, just that such usage indicated less than stellar use or understanding of the language." Are you implicating that I was being pompously pedantic? Accusatorily ascribening some ostentatiously overbearingness on my part? Well ... OK, maybe so. It might have been better stated that "we need to get out more," linguistically speaking. The intended object of that comment was to the 'news speak' that I am not fond of. Aha, and therein lies another bugaboo for some, which you will not find me being rabidly foaming about at all: the supposed 'rule' against using a preposition to end a sentence, as was done in the previous. Is there any demolition of culture to be had wherefore? None that I am aware of. So, restate the sentence as within that 'rule'; "The intended object of that comment was to the news speak of which I am not fond." But Churchill was funnier (why he got 'the big bucks') in his response to a newspaper editor that 'corrected' one of his sentences for that transgression; "This is the kind of nonsense up with which I shall not put."

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625