Pedantry vs. Humpty-Dumptyism

2456712

Comments

  • mousethief wrote: »
    But I don't like bad usage from people who are condescending to me, especially when they are "Educators" with a capital E (I am not an "Educator," but just a humble teacher - a title that, after all, was good enough for Socrates and Jesus but apparently not for graduates from ed schools).

    Yes, how humble to compare oneself to Jesus and Socrates! :killingme:

    Wait, you are being intentionally humorous, right?

    Socrates liked to humble-brag if I recall correctly.

    "Are you philosophising and irritating people with your stupid questions, Socrates?"

    "Who me? I'm not a philosopher and Nobody could Possibly accuse me of doing any such thing. I'm just a guy wandering around trying to find someone who can answer my little questions without the usual bullshit.."
  • Context and situation is everything. Some of the stories of pedantic authoritarian grammar rigidity deserve the response "if you don't like people, please stay at home with your <choose one: cats/plants/pornography/language manual/haemorrhoids>"

    Like many other human activities, the first commandment human discourse is "don't be a jerk". A story to make the point:

    When I was in grade 4, one morning I asked "can I go to the bathroom", because I had to pee. The teacher said "you may not", and I peed in my clothes somewhere between being instructed about the difference between "can" and "may", and being told to sit down and wait. And I left the classroom before she was finished and walked home, in the winter, with pee freezing down my legs. This was the start of my career as a serial killer.

  • In speech, I think the intonation would be different, and slight pause maybe after chicken.
  • In speech, I think the intonation would be different, and slight pause maybe after chicken.
    That implies the listener would think that one fried the brownies or that one made a dish containing fried chicken mixed with brownies. Generally speaking, this would not be the case.
  • The intonation would be different, I think, with pause after chicken.
    Famous example, she went home in a taxi and a flood of tears. But this is deliberately comic.
  • In speech, I think the intonation would be different, and slight pause maybe after chicken.

    I think these are really problems with written English. Some of which would be clearer with a semi-colon.
  • Actually, I think I'm wrong, as "fried chicken and brownies" would not require a pause, as generally we would separate fried from brownies, because of factual knowledge.
  • Context and situation is everything. Some of the stories of pedantic authoritarian grammar rigidity deserve the response "if you don't like people, please stay at home with your <choose one: cats/plants/pornography/language manual/haemorrhoids>"

    Like many other human activities, the first commandment human discourse is "don't be a jerk". A story to make the point:

    When I was in grade 4, one morning I asked "can I go to the bathroom", because I had to pee. The teacher said "you may not", and I peed in my clothes somewhere between being instructed about the difference between "can" and "may", and being told to sit down and wait. And I left the classroom before she was finished and walked home, in the winter, with pee freezing down my legs. This was the start of my career as a serial killer.

    Yes, the old pedants used to say, "of course, you can pee, but your question is whether you may". But can can mean may.
  • Blahblah wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    But I don't like bad usage from people who are condescending to me, especially when they are "Educators" with a capital E (I am not an "Educator," but just a humble teacher - a title that, after all, was good enough for Socrates and Jesus but apparently not for graduates from ed schools).

    Yes, how humble to compare oneself to Jesus and Socrates! :killingme:

    Wait, you are being intentionally humorous, right?

    Socrates liked to humble-brag if I recall correctly.

    "Are you philosophising and irritating people with your stupid questions, Socrates?"

    "Who me? I'm not a philosopher and Nobody could Possibly accuse me of doing any such thing. I'm just a guy wandering around trying to find someone who can answer my little questions without the usual bullshit.."

    All covered in the comic.
  • Blahblah wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    But I don't like bad usage from people who are condescending to me, especially when they are "Educators" with a capital E (I am not an "Educator," but just a humble teacher - a title that, after all, was good enough for Socrates and Jesus but apparently not for graduates from ed schools).

    Yes, how humble to compare oneself to Jesus and Socrates! :killingme:

    Wait, you are being intentionally humorous, right?

    Socrates liked to humble-brag if I recall correctly.

    "Are you philosophising and irritating people with your stupid questions, Socrates?"

    "Who me? I'm not a philosopher and Nobody could Possibly accuse me of doing any such thing. I'm just a guy wandering around trying to find someone who can answer my little questions without the usual bullshit.."

    All covered in the comic.

    "Socrates was a dick who could never just have a normal conversation, and instead would try to get you to do philosophy when you are just trying to have a few drinks and enjoy the party."
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    Actually I have a feeling I might have even seen "Jesu's feet"..

    I'd say that's either pedantry of a rare and high form, or showing off.
    As one whose RL surname ends in s, and who all too often has seen the possessive of my surname formed by putting the apostrophe before the s of my name, I would have to caution that ignorance or carelessness not be discounted.
    mousethief wrote: »
    That's interesting. "alright" in the States, at least in my experience, means "right on!" or "let's go!"
    Or “okay.”
    Blahblah wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    That's interesting. "alright" in the States, at least in my experience, means "right on!" or "let's go!"

    People here frequently greet each other with "alright mate" and "alright then buddy?".
    As some of us learned when Hagrid would say “Alright there, Harry?”

  • Blahblah wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    But I don't like bad usage from people who are condescending to me, especially when they are "Educators" with a capital E (I am not an "Educator," but just a humble teacher - a title that, after all, was good enough for Socrates and Jesus but apparently not for graduates from ed schools).

    Yes, how humble to compare oneself to Jesus and Socrates! :killingme:

    Wait, you are being intentionally humorous, right?

    Socrates liked to humble-brag if I recall correctly.

    "Are you philosophising and irritating people with your stupid questions, Socrates?"

    "Who me? I'm not a philosopher and Nobody could Possibly accuse me of doing any such thing. I'm just a guy wandering around trying to find someone who can answer my little questions without the usual bullshit.."

    Yes but Socrates, as painted by Plato, was a liar and a raging asshole.
  • Re "whence", etc.:

    Some people just like to play with words. Doesn't have to be showing off; but, IME, it works better either with others who play with words; or with someone who knows that *you* do, likes you, and understands you when you say "whence" with a wink and a smile.

    "Course, it helps if you don't say it every other word! That may occasion the throwing of pillows, or the expression of much frustration.
    ;)
  • A hockey commentator in Canada was interviewed some years ago about his long and colourful career. The producer decided to keep the following exchange intact when it was shown on television:

    "Where's the bathroom at?"
    "you can't end a sentence in a preposition"
    "oh. So where's the bathroom at asshole?"

    There's a time and a place for everything, including precision with language. As in my prior post to this topic, when someone has to pee or poop is not the time for that. There are other times also. To further the point generally, I think that people who like language more than people are bad.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    I also have a very vague memory of being told when I was very small that "Jesus is a special name so the normal rules don't apply". I think they might have been trying to justify the spelling in the hymnbook, but I don't know for certain.

    It was a shock to learn that Jesus is not a word/spelling used in many languages.

    Virtually none of our ecclesial/religious words are. And precious few of them are even halfway-decent representations of the original Hebrew/Greek/Latin/Aramaic/Syriac/Whatevs.

    For what it's worth, Jesus is classed with Xerxes and Moses by at least one major English language stylebook as not taking the apostrophe-s, just the apostrophe. I believe this decision was based not on who he is (after all, who's Xerxes to us?) but on long habit by students and scholars obliged to write about all three. Other less common names (Epimenides etc.) were condemned to take apostrophe-s.

    These are really not matters of right and wrong even in the prescriptivist sense, so much as they are matters of house style. Both my old publisher and my current (media workplace) have style guides to take over in doubtful cases, simply because we don't want to do it one way in one paragraph and then turn around and do the other in the next. It just looks weird.

    Other cases of house style include how many ellipsis dots you use, and under which circumstances (some say three, some four, some vary depending on circumstances); whether you do or do not preserve original case (cap or lower) on text in quotation; and whether you preserve original typos, mistakes, and / or variant spellings on text in quotation (possibly marking the errors with a (sic))--or simply correct them silently.

    As you can see, house style is for the pedants of all pedantry--the ones who want to nail every last scrap of jelly to the wall.
  • Blahblah wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    That's interesting. "alright" in the States, at least in my experience, means "right on!" or "let's go!"

    People here frequently greet each other with "alright mate" and "alright then buddy?".

    But I have heard people ironically saying "alright-y then" when responding to something daft. Even unironically people sometimes say "alright then" for example when they've finished doing something and need to start something else.

    Here's MY pet pedantry--

    I dearly wish all these people would write it "all right" and "all righty, then". "Alright" sounds like they've lost an l, possibly in imitation of Madeleine.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    One could make cases for instances where the Oxford coma is actually useful beyond preference and pedantry, but IME those are far fewer than the cases where it isn't. And many times where it is helpful, a rewording could easily bring clarity.

    But why reword when just sticking in a comma does the trick? Sheer laziness alone would favor the Oxford comma over twisting something into a "kind of nonsense up with which I shall not put" workaround. The only reason, as I understand it, that the Oxford comma dropped out of use was to save typesetting and printing costs. Which is why it is forbidden int he AP stylebook (used by newspapers and magazines) and not the Chicago manual (used by book publishers). The former are in a hurry, the latter are not.

    Actually IMHO it has to do with saving space, a particular concern for printed column newspapers, but not such an issue for book publishers.
  • NP - Who was the hockey commentator? The usual suspect?

    It put me in mind of the Dave Hodge story before he made the show.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    ... But I have to say that I'm beyond tired of a senior colleague prattling on about how good she is a getting students to write "thesises." I've checked, and no English dictionary recognizes that as a valid form of "theses." ...
    @Columba_in_a_Currach I've been quite busy all day, and haven't had a chance to check until now. I was fairly sure she was wrong without the option, and she is. Fowler is clear that 'theses' is the correct plural.

    If she wants to insist on her own idiosyncratic usage for her, that's up to her. But she's not entitled to insist anyone else follows her rather than Fowler.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Then there's that great (apocryphal?) line from Flaubert, "I spent the morning putting in a comma, and the afternoon taking it out."

    Apropos of none of the above, and addressing a different brand of pedantry, I suspect Flaubert may well have written something like this in his native French. In English, however, this jibe is more commonly attributed to Oscar Wilde.

    Arguments over who may have stolen and then translated it from whom may now commence (their respective careers overlapped a bit).
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    "Where you're at" is just colloquial here for "where you are." So much so that I don't even think about it. It's just how we talk. Although certainly "whence ... from" drives me batty. But then "whence" is already dead, so people using it (nowadays) are showing off. Not that I haven't been known to use it from time to time (looks up and whistles).

    On a NZ board I have come across the construction "hence why" which I think was used by people who were bending over backwards to sound correct.

    The street term "sweet" is usually "sweet as."
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Here's MY pet pedantry--

    I dearly wish all these people would write it "all right" and "all righty, then". "Alright" sounds like they've lost an l, possibly in imitation of Madeleine.
    YES! YES! YES!

    We have some people aboard the Ship who seem to believe that any usage they personally patronize is just fine, whereas those of us who believe that there are in fact correct ways to write are pedants, or worse. My personal preference is for clarity, and for the best ways in which to achieve it.

    For me, that means Oxford commas (forever and ever, world without end, amen), making sure that words mean what they really mean to the vast majority of Anglophones, and declining to adopt every novel usage as soon as it pops up until it's clear that it's going to stick - and, sometimes, not even then. (No surrender when it comes to "symphony" to mean an actual orchestra! It doesn't!)

    My primary concern is with the written word: If a usage causes the reader to stop and wonder what is actually meant, it has failed. No surrender there, either.

    And I'm just fine with "Jesus's," too, although the Tudor specialist part of me likes "Jesu." As for my friend surnamed Reynolds, who year after year sends out Christmas cards from "The Reynold's," well, bless her heart.


  • Ohher wrote: »
    Then there's that great (apocryphal?) line from Flaubert, "I spent the morning putting in a comma, and the afternoon taking it out."

    Apropos of none of the above, and addressing a different brand of pedantry, I suspect Flaubert may well have written something like this in his native French. In English, however, this jibe is more commonly attributed to Oscar Wilde.

    Arguments over who may have stolen and then translated it from whom may now commence (their respective careers overlapped a bit).

    I'm voting for Flaubert because he didn't have to steal, and Wilde was a thief. A thief, I tell you! His moral turpitude as a somdomite is notorious!

    Given that Flaubert wrote Madame Bovary before Wilde was born, finished Sentimental Education when Wilde was in his teens, and Wilde didn't become a widely known public figure until after Flaubert's death, Flaubert, I think, would have no reason or opportunity to commit theft.
  • For what it's worth, Jesus is classed with Xerxes and Moses by at least one major English language stylebook as not taking the apostrophe-s, just the apostrophe. I believe this decision was based not on who he is (after all, who's Xerxes to us?) but on long habit by students and scholars obliged to write about all three. Other less common names (Epimenides etc.) were condemned to take apostrophe-s.

    I always figured it just had to do with words that already end with two s's. (Where z and x are roughly equivalent, mouthwise.) Adding an additional s is just too much.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Here's MY pet pedantry--

    I dearly wish all these people would write it "all right" and "all righty, then". "Alright" sounds like they've lost an l, possibly in imitation of Madeleine.
    YES! YES! YES!

    We have some people aboard the Ship who seem to believe that any usage they personally patronize is just fine, whereas those of us who believe that there are in fact correct ways to write are pedants, or worse. My personal preference is for clarity, and for the best ways in which to achieve it.

    For me, that means Oxford commas (forever and ever, world without end, amen), making sure that words mean what they really mean to the vast majority of Anglophones, and declining to adopt every novel usage as soon as it pops up until it's clear that it's going to stick - and, sometimes, not even then. (No surrender when it comes to "symphony" to mean an actual orchestra! It doesn't!)

    My primary concern is with the written word: If a usage causes the reader to stop and wonder what is actually meant, it has failed. No surrender there, either.

    And I'm just fine with "Jesus's," too, although the Tudor specialist part of me likes "Jesu." As for my friend surnamed Reynolds, who year after year sends out Christmas cards from "The Reynold's," well, bless her heart.


    I understand your pain, but I don't really agree with your conclusions. Generally speaking, I doubt people typically write in ways that are deliberately opaque to other readers here. I imagine that they just write their thoughts in the way that they usually speak or write to other people around them.
    .
    Hence I doubt anyone is really thinking "oh wait, Person A is an Indian and in Indian English this phrase is indeciferible.. so I'd better type some other form of words.."
  • Re "Jesus'", Elements Of Style, etc.

    Here's one early version of Elements (Crockford). (There are many editions of the book, some revised. I wanted one online, and in HTML format. Finally found this.)

    "1. Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's" in section 2 is the pertinent rule, with "Jesus'", etc.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Re "Jesus'", Elements Of Style, etc.

    Here's one early version of Elements (Crockford). (There are many editions of the book, some revised. I wanted one online, and in HTML format. Finally found this.)

    "1. Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's" in section 2 is the pertinent rule, with "Jesus'", etc.

    But it doesn't really say why, just a list of prescriptions.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Re "Jesus'", Elements Of Style, etc.

    Here's one early version of Elements (Crockford). (There are many editions of the book, some revised. I wanted one online, and in HTML format. Finally found this.)

    "1. Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's" in section 2 is the pertinent rule, with "Jesus'", etc.

    But it doesn't really say why, just a list of prescriptions.

    I don't think there is much reasoning behind it. It appears to be about usage. It appears that the accepted "correct" usage is not consistent.
  • Well, "reasoning" is probably too much to ask, but there can be reasons for things that weren't reasoned.
  • mt--

    Hmmm. If you go to that page and click on the link to rule 1 in section 2, there are *some* explanations.

    OTOH, Elements is known for being very prescriptive. The Wikipedia article about it quotes some scathing criticism.

    I'm not pushing the book. I mentioned it because it was pertinent to something posted.
  • Rossweisse, I don't think it's about "any usage they personally patronize is just fine". Well, I suppose we tend to favour our own dialect. But in descriptive mode, one records all usages without fear or favour. Also I enjoy the variety. If local kids use "bare" to mean an intensifier, I am interested in it as reverse slang, c.f., verlan in French.
  • I'd never thought that the name Jesus was a special case. Personally I'd treat all names ending in "s" in the same way: James' feet etc.
  • Having talked about slang "bare", apparently some London schools have banned it. Eh?
  • mousethief wrote: »
    It's also easier to say. Jesus's sounds like you've swallowed a snake.

    Among the various different rules I've seen, the one that makes most sense to me -- and that I try and follow -- is that for modern names ending in -s you add the -'s, such as James's and Jones's, but for classical names you don't. Therefore Socrates', not Socrates's, Julius', not Julius's, and Jesus', not Jesus's.

    That is in writing, though I'm not so sure it's a good rule in spoken English. I know I normally say "Jesus's" with three syllables. If I were to say, for instance, "Jesus' parables" without any audible indication of the possessive, I suspect that would sound both ambiguous and pedantic at the same time.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    We have some people aboard the Ship who seem to believe that any usage they personally patronize is just fine, whereas those of us who believe that there are in fact correct ways to write are pedants, or worse. My personal preference is for clarity, and for the best ways in which to achieve it.
    Clarity isn't always "proper". Whilst teaching a standardised version of language helps to maintain a level of cohesion, insisting on that as a common usage does just the opposite. Those enamoured with the "correct" forms of language like to imagine it flowing from the spring of perfect communication down the mountain to the populace. In reality, language is a lake formed from the influx of a myriad of sources. Some foreign, some cultural, some temporal and some socio-economic.
    Insistence on "proper" usage is classist.
    I heard an American comedian say that if Einstein had been born in the South, we would not know the Theory of Relativity because no one would have taken him seriously. Whilst he was addressing accent, the same discrimination often exists with language usage. We grow up in organic linguistic environments and there will always be language variations. Insisting on "proper" usage increases the gaps between communities and increases the disparity of resource distribution.

    tl;dr In school; teach a standard. In life; deal with it.
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    My primary concern is with the written word: If a usage causes the reader to stop and wonder what is actually meant, it has failed. No surrender there, either.
    As a child, I read at a level well beyond my age group. Because of this, I often came across words that caused me to wonder as that vocabulary had not yet been taught. I picked up the meaning from the context. This is still a habit that serves me well, especially when reading English written from a different cultural groups and across different levels of education. Context is part of reading, even in "properly" written works.
    Whilst I agree that there might have been a failure, I don't necessarily agree with on whom it falls.
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    And I'm just fine with "Jesus's," too, although the Tudor specialist part of me likes "Jesu." As for my friend surnamed Reynolds, who year after year sends out Christmas cards from "The Reynold's," well, bless her heart.
    Whilst I am quite willing to give you the credit of not thinking the grammar was more important than the card itself, it certainly comes across as you caring more about the misplaced apostrophe.

    BTW, insisting on proper usage and/or correcting usage is the very definition of being a pedant. "or worse" is situational to intent. However, as I have mentioned, the effect is often "or worse" despite intent.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    Then there's that great (apocryphal?) line from Flaubert, "I spent the morning putting in a comma, and the afternoon taking it out."

    Apropos of none of the above, and addressing a different brand of pedantry, I suspect Flaubert may well have written something like this in his native French. In English, however, this jibe is more commonly attributed to Oscar Wilde.

    Arguments over who may have stolen and then translated it from whom may now commence (their respective careers overlapped a bit).

    I'm voting for Flaubert because he didn't have to steal, and Wilde was a thief. A thief, I tell you! His moral turpitude as a somdomite is notorious!

    Given that Flaubert wrote Madame Bovary before Wilde was born, finished Sentimental Education when Wilde was in his teens, and Wilde didn't become a widely known public figure until after Flaubert's death, Flaubert, I think, would have no reason or opportunity to commit theft.

    A nice bit of irrelevant homophobic nastiness in the middle of all that.

    Long live moral turpitude!
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    I think that may have been a reference to the Marquess of Queensberry.
  • edited December 2019
    Firenze wrote: »
    I think that may have been a reference to the Marquess of Queensberry.

    I assumed that was the excuse for the sodomite comment, although Queensberry spelt it "Somdomite".

    Edited to add:

    As, of course did @Pangolin Guerre
  • Pangolin GuerrePangolin Guerre Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    It was a deliberate reference to the Marquess.

    And it was deliberate mocking of homophobes, who frequently impute all manner of moral failing to someone which has nothing to do with sexuality, which is exactly what I was doing, satirically, by saying that since Wilde was queer, he must have been guilty of grand theft bon mot.

    Sorry for pitching high.

    BTW, for your future reference, I identify as queer.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    And I identify as a fan of Oscar Wilde. Did you read Madame Bovary in French?

  • The reason for 's:

    Back to the apostrophe-s question, part of the reason that I write "s's" is that that some classes masculine and neuter nouns in Old English took -es in the singular genitive. As the cases and genders started to fall together (for some nouns, the accusative, dative, and instrumental looked the same), the nominative and genitive kept their forms. The apostrophe stands in for the unwritten e and the -s got lobbed on to feminine nouns which hadn't previously took a different genitive form.

    Note that "reason" here means an explanation for how it happened; nothing prescriptive, although it does guide my style.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Clarity isn't always "proper". Whilst teaching a standardised version of language helps to maintain a level of cohesion, insisting on that as a common usage does just the opposite. ...
    Insistence on "proper" usage is classist. ...
    Oh, what tripe.

    I'm addressing the written word here, and clarity is of utmost importance in written communication.

    I'm not talking about spoken accents; indeed, I agree with you to an extent there. I remember the time my mother was reciting the Nicene Creed with the rest of the congregation, and the woman in front of her turned around and remarked, "Every time I hear someone speaking with a Southern accent, I think of how stupid that person must be." Nope.
    As a child, I read at a level well beyond my age group. Because of this, I often came across words that caused me to wonder as that vocabulary had not yet been taught. I picked up the meaning from the context. This is still a habit that serves me well, especially when reading English written from a different cultural groups and across different levels of education. Context is part of reading, even in "properly" written works.
    So did I. If I couldn't figure out a word from context, I asked my mother. If my mother wasn't available, I used a dictionary. I'm not sure of your point there.
    ...Whilst I am quite willing to give you the credit of not thinking the grammar was more important than the card itself, it certainly comes across as you caring more about the misplaced apostrophe. ...
    Well, bless your heart. Whatever you do, don't consider my example in the context of what I was saying.
    BTW, insisting on proper usage and/or correcting usage is the very definition of being a pedant. "or worse" is situational to intent. However, as I have mentioned, the effect is often "or worse" despite intent.
    When I have been an editor or a professor, or the mother of at-home children, it has been my job to insist on proper usage and correct same. When writing or speaking professionally, it is still my job. I don't go around correcting strangers (although I may be silently judging them), but you're still free to disdain my standards. I won't change them for you.
  • Rossweisse--

    You said:
    I'm not talking about spoken accents; indeed, I agree with you to an extent there. I remember the time my mother was reciting the Nicene Creed with the rest of the congregation, and the woman in front of her turned around and remarked, "Every time I hear someone speaking with a Southern accent, I think of how stupid that person must be." Nope.

    Good grief!!! You didn't say how your mother responded (if she did); but I hope it was something like "Well, God understands me well enough, and how stupid do *you* have to be to interrupt the Creed with bullying?"



  • The link between a southern accent and uneducatedness (sic) is in the air and water. I think there are probably movies and tv shows to blame in part. I was in my late 30s before I had it knocked out of me, basically by meeting people with advanced degrees who had thick southern accents. The cognitive dissonance finally broke when I accepted that the prejudice was inaccurate and foolish.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Rossweisse--

    You said:
    I'm not talking about spoken accents; indeed, I agree with you to an extent there. I remember the time my mother was reciting the Nicene Creed with the rest of the congregation, and the woman in front of her turned around and remarked, "Every time I hear someone speaking with a Southern accent, I think of how stupid that person must be." Nope.

    Good grief!!! You didn't say how your mother responded (if she did); but I hope it was something like "Well, God understands me well enough, and how stupid do *you* have to be to interrupt the Creed with bullying?"

    That's what the phrase "Bless your heart" is for!


  • The thing about clarity and standardized usage is particularly important to most writers. These things are the tools of our calling. It is natural for us to care about them, and ridiculous to accuse us of "classism" for doing so. You might as well accuse a cello player of classism for insisting on producing the notes distinctly and at the proper volume and tempo.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Karl Kraus, Austrian satirist on the debasement of public life in the run up to the First World War: The public do not understand German and I cannot tell them in journalese.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Good grief!!! You didn't say how your mother responded (if she did); but I hope it was something like "Well, God understands me well enough, and how stupid do *you* have to be to interrupt the Creed with bullying?"
    Oh, the bully waited until the Creed was ended. Then the Mater simply fixed her with a silent Withering Stare (which she learned from her mother-in-law, my paternal grandmother). But it hurt her deeply.

    And her accent was Charlestonian, which is closer to its educated British forebears than to the Alabama/Mizsippi of popular stereotype.
    The thing about clarity and standardized usage is particularly important to most writers. These things are the tools of our calling. It is natural for us to care about them, and ridiculous to accuse us of "classism" for doing so. You might as well accuse a cello player of classism for insisting on producing the notes distinctly and at the proper volume and tempo.
    As usual, you have nailed it.


  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    Ohher wrote: »
    And I identify as a fan of Oscar Wilde. Did you read Madame Bovary in French?

    I read Madame Bovary in French. It was the longest, most tedious work of fiction I have ever wasted my time on.
  • I'm someone else who has been working out meaning from context all my reading life. One of the unexpected joys of having a Kindle is being able to look up words, and discover what they mean precisely.
This discussion has been closed.