So, I responded to a post in the forum piece-meal, and one of my responses was:
Not usually, no.
Pair of old magnets my mother had. Always bothered me, even as a wee tike. However, more casual uses of the language, like the one previously exemplified, doesn't bother me at all.
..and I probably just used the word "exemplified" wrong. Heck, I probably spelt it wrong, too. Still, as long as someone's point gets across, right?
Still, as long as someone's point gets across, right?
"...and nothing else matters."
Ok, it helps if the thing is readable.
"Not usually, no." is not a double negation, it's a negation underlined. "We don't need no more Canada threads" would be a double negation. I speak a language in which double negation is the correct way, so you can trust me that I had to learn how to use English grammar properly. ;P
I don't always worry that a post I submit would make it past an editor though (simply not worth the effort).
You might occasionally see that one of my posts has been edited though. I hate spelling errors.
But so many of the community of an average forum don't have English as their mother tongue, and people need to remember that.
I find the worst offenders are really just kids that think their l33t frigging crap speak is cool, or that short form words actually cut it with anyone.
I don't care if your posts might not pass muster with an 8th grade teacher grammatically.
I only get upset when it's clear the poster is an English speaking person, and they are just worthless at communicating in a text only environment.
I get mostly upset with classic turns of phrase used incorrectly.
The proof of the pudding is in the taste. There is no proof IN the pudding.
I couldn't care less, not I could care less.
That list could go on.
Remember, when trying to be clever, it's best to be smart as well
My English skills are university graduate level.
I don't always worry that a post I submit would make it past an editor though (simply not worth the effort).
You might occasionally see that one of my posts has been edited though. I hate spelling errors.
But so many of the community of an average forum don't have English as their mother tongue, and people need to remember that.
I find the worst offenders are really just kids that think their l33t frigging crap speak is cool, or that short form words actually cut it with anyone.
I don't care if your posts might not pass muster with an 8th grade teacher grammatically.
I only get upset when it's clear the poster is an English speaking person, and they are just worthless at communicating in a text only environment.
I get mostly upset with classic turns of phrase used incorrectly.
The proof of the pudding is in the taste. There is no proof IN the pudding.
I couldn't care less, not I could care less.
That list could go on.
Remember, when trying to be clever, it's best to be smart as well
I kid you not, that's the first time I've ever heard (or rather, read) the "pudding" phrase used that way. I don't doubt you, in fact I believe you; I'm just shocked this is the first time I've seen it used correctly. I had no idea how the phrase was originally used. Wow, it's really been murdered, hasn't it?
I'll add to your list.
Per se, not "persay."
I wouldn't bother to harras someone over their grammar - it's the height of arrogance to correct someone in their native tongue. Although in the case of someone who was being a grammar Nazi I would certainly hammer their hypocritical arse for their poor grasp of grammar.
But I guess since I teach English as a foreign language correcting people's grammar is too much like work...
Following his logic, saying something like "No, I don't" would also be a double negative, which is just absurd.
Following his logic, saying something like "No, I don't" would also be a double negative, which is just absurd.
No, it isn't. ;)
It doesn't contract anything I can identify.
What precisely is assumed to be the point of the word "ain't".
It doesn't contract anything I can identify.
Are you asking about the etymology, or just the way it's used today?
Originally it was supposed to be a contraction of "am not," but "am't" doesn't roll off the tongue very well. It evolved as an alternative to other contractions unfortunately, which is what has given the word such a bad "image" (figuratively speaking).
Are you asking about the etymology, or just the way it's used today?
Originally it was supposed to be a contraction of "am not," but "am't" doesn't roll off the tongue very well. It evolved as an alternative to other contractions unfortunately, which is what has given the word such a bad "image" (figuratively speaking).
I'd heard that it's a pidgeon word, actually. It's a functional contraction of the old gaelic word for "is" (singular 'to be') and "not."
That's part of the reason it was so reviled in some places here in the states; the people using it were Irish, and they had a rough time integrating in some portions of the country.
You know it to be true.
I'd heard that it's a pidgeon word, actually. It's a functional contraction of the old gaelic word for "is" (singular 'to be') and "not."
That's part of the reason it was so reviled in some places here in the states; the people using it were Irish, and they had a rough time integrating in some portions of the country.
Hmm, that's interesting. This is what http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=ain%27t&searchmode=none had to say:
ain't Look up ain't at Dictionary.com
1706, originally a contraction of am not, and in proper use with that sense until it began to be used as a generic contraction for are not, is not, etc., in early 19c. Cockney dialect of London, popularized by representations of this in Dickens, etc., which led to the word being banished from correct English.
Also, wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain%27t
Looks like the truth is somewhere in the middle. Was interesting looking it up, though.
I am harped by nightmarish epiphanies where people understand that double negatives do not work in a sentence
Harp: to dwell on or recur to a subject tiresomely or monotonously —usually used with on (emphasis mine)
because you are never harped by. The word, by definition, means you are actively doing the act of harping.
Epiphany: a (1): a usually sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature or meaning of something (2): an intuitive grasp of reality through something (as an event) usually simple and striking (3): an illuminating discovery, realization, or disclosure b: a revealing scene or moment
So, smart guy, you are continually subjected to re-realizing that double negatives don't work (when they actually do, so you are just subjecting youself repeatedly to how stupid you are) and recurringly killing your brain cells? Congratulations, you tried to sound smart and your whole sentence became a big pile of stupid.
Its not uncommon for people to make mistakes.
WHOA... WAIT!!
Not? Uncommon? I just used a double negative and it worked!!!
Similarly, saying "No, its not." is not a double negative. "No" is a reinforcing word in squarecircle's case, not contradicting his statement (which is the general idea behind why double negatives are invalid, ie: "I don't owe nobody!"). Way to go grammar nazi. Go to schoo'.
Flaming somebody for using a double negative when it isn't actually a double negative?
I'm sure he's very impressed with himself. I'm happy for him that someone finds him impressive, lol.
I consider myself a Spelling and Grammar Nazi - there are correct ways to use certain words, and correct ways to say things in the English language. Not because there are these arcane and inviolable rules that must be followed or else a nun will smack your knuckles with a ruler, but because words have meanings...
In a written medium, successful communication depends on you writing in ways that your audience will understand. Any professional writing course will tell you, "write for your target audience."
If I'm writing a term paper for a professor, I wouldn't use the same language as I would if I was writing a post here on the forum. For a term paper, I would almost never end a sentence with "..." or "y'know?", y'know?
The rules for grammar and syntax are a bit more relaxed here on the forums. Informal, or even somewhat stylized grammar/syntax/spelling are acceptable on a forum such as this. (Though that l33tsP33k crap is pushing it...)
But... There is still a need for rules concerning such things. Sentences take on completely different meanings when you move a comma from one place to another, and "you're" and "your" aren't interchangeable because they mean completely different things.
I think that the thing most people forget is moderation - some folks grab torches and pitchforks every time someone accidentally forgets some obscure or highly arcane point of grammar (even if they've no idea themselves what the correct form actually is), and others scream persecution if they're not allowed to spell "cat" with two "d"s, and use the word "meat" instead of "car" because they think it sounds cooler.
This is the benchmark by which posts in an informal forum such as this should be judged -
- Was the post clearly readable and easy to understand? Did it say what the original poster meant it to say?
If so, then I personally am not about to harp
on someone for using a relatively obscure or little-used word or phrase in the wrong manner.I will, however, politely point out the error if I feel that the person posting would appreciate others' efforts to help them communicate more clearly in the future. Usually accompanied by some mention of the line, "I do not think that word means what you think it means..."
I'm usually glad when someone points out an error I've made so that I can refrain from making it again in the future. Some people aren't.
(I think, however, that people who can't tell the difference between gentle correction and being drawn and quartered for a minor infraction have larger issues to worry about than their grammar.)
On the other hand, if the post requires actual effort to interpret despite being written in the primary language of both the original poster and myself, then I will politely and tactfully suggest to the poster that they need to work on their written communication skills.
If they scream persecution or give me attitude, I simply reason that, since they obviously don't think that their post is important enough to convey clearly, it's really not important enough for me to spend my time attempting to make sense of it. I shrug and move on.
Just on a general philosophical note, although I can intellectually understand why some people feel a need to point out their "superiority" (in what whatever aspect), whether or not it exists, I've just never quite gotten exactly what it is that these people derive from it - I'd rather just put the same amount of effort into actually becoming superior, which eventually becomes self-evident, lol.
