I get incredibly overwhelmed when people ask me to write more "English 101" blogs, because I am consistently, on an every-goddamned-day basis furious about people's mispronunciations, misspellings, misuse of grammatical forms, misuse of diction and general misapplication of all things language. So when there is such a multitude of vexations, it's difficult to be exhaustive in enumating them. But alas, here we go...
1. "Vehemently" is not pronounced "vehemenently." It's just not. Like... why would you make that word longer? If you're bright enough to be using that word, why would you commit that travesty?
2. There is no such thing as being at someone's "beck and call." It's "beckon call."
3. I'm all for using slang, even ones which aren't typically recognized, usually in the form of a contraction, e.g. "'though," or "should'nt've." I acknowledge that these are, according to strict standards, not considered proper. However, they do indeed follow normal rules of contracting, especially that of using an apostrophe. However, I cannot, cannot, cannot stand when people go out of their ways to be "slang" and end up making the words more difficult. The best two examples of which I can think for this is "ph" v. "f," as in "phat" v. "fat" (and this extends itself; I swear to God I've seen "phreaky" [gag]), and using initialisms (not acronyms [acronyms and initialisms are the same except that you can say an acronym and for an initialism you speak the letters - AIDS is an acronym; C.I.A. is an initialism) that are just as long as the word itself. And example of this idiocy: G.T.H. (Go To Hell). It takes just as many syllables to say "G.T.H" as it does to say "Go To Hell." So seriously... go to hell.
4. It's "skimmed" milk. Not "skim." And certainly not "skin."
5. Please someone... SOMEONE... learn the differences between "though," "thought," "tough" and "tho'." I can't even explain this because it's so fucking stupid.
6. "Accept" and "except" are not the same thing. "Accept" is a verb which means to receive something (loosely). "Except" is an adverb (or preposition, contingent upon how it's used) meaning EXCLUDING. They're NOT EVEN CLOSE TO IN THE SAME REALM OF PARTS OF SPEECH!!!!!!!
6. (Continued). NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!!!
7. Stop spelling things the way they sound. Look them up. If you want to be taken seriously as an adult, you need to know how to speak your native language.
8. D-E-F-I-N-I-T-E-L-Y. NO "A" ANYWHERE IN THERE. I'm assuming that y'all know how to spell "definite." Add a goddamned "ly." End of story.
9. The world "jewelry" is spelled "jewelry." Oh. Wait. You all seem to know how to spell it. I never see anyone misspell it. So why does everyone insist on pronouncing it "jewlery"? For that matter, "February"? Also pronounced the way it's written. FEB-RU-ARY.
10. "Pronunciate" and "orientated" are not words. Ugh!
11. When there is a conjunction noun, such as "head of state" or "mother in law," you have to pluralize the first part of it, not the second, like so: "heads of state" and "mothers in law," not "head of states" and "mother in laws." Think about it.
12. Holy HELL! Why doesn't anyone know how to spell "ridiculous"?!?!?!? No "e." Cute without the E.
13. "Could of" is nothing. I understand that "of" kind of sounds like "have" when spoken quickly. But let me tell your asses: it's "could have."
14. Please stop using "irregardless." It's another one of these things that people have begun to deem acceptable because people are too stupid to just be told something is wrong and not acknowledge and change their behavior. If you do this, that means that you are combining the words "irrespective" and "regardless." "Ir" MEANS "not" or "void of." If you have "less" at the end of the word AND "ir" at the beginning of it, it essentially means WITH. Negative X negative = positive. Next time you say "irregardless," I will strangle you; you're essentially saying something entirely antithetical to that which you're trying to.
15. "The fact of the matter is... is..."!!!!!!! Holy shit!!!
16. A TRUNCATED AND (HOPEFULLY) EASY GUIDE TO USING "WHOM"
I've had a lot of very educated people with whom I am friends (look ma! I used it right!) tell me in quiet confidence that despite the fact that they try to speak properly and have listened to my (requested) explanations of how to correctly use "whom," they still don't get it, so here, I am going to create a little map in the form of a questionnaire. I'm feeling sassy.
1. Have you ever taken Latin?
No: Proceed to number 2.
Yes: Proceed to number 6.
2. Do you know anything about the parts of speech in English?
No: Proceed to number 3.
Yes: Proceed to number 7.
3. Whenever you are speaking and you use the word "who," try to replace it (in your head) with the proper use of "he"/"him" or "she"/"her". Do you understand what I'm talking about?
No: Proceed to number 4.
Yes: Proceed to 7.
4. The word "he" (let's stick with just "he"; sorry feminists) has several ways of being manifested in English. It is a layover from the way things used to be in Latin, called cases. In Latin, all nouns and adjectives had a case. A "case" is essentially an ending that you'd adhere to a word based on the role the word was playing in the sentence. If it was the subject, it would end a certain way. If it was the direct object (the thing the verb is being done TO, e.g. in "The dog bit the cat," the direct object is the cat), it would have a different ending, and in most cases, it would either be or involved the letter "m" - makes sense for the whole "who"/"whom" bit. Are you following me so far?
No: Proceed to HELL.
Yes: Proceed to number 5.
5. Now that you understand that the ending of the word "who" changes based on its function in the sentence, I can let you know which "functions" necessitate the adding of an "m." "M" is added to "who" in these instances: when it is the direct object, the object of the preposition ("with whom," "to whom," "from whom," "against whom,"), the ("Katie threw whom the ball?" "Whom is Katie talking to?") and... well... any other time of which you could think wherein the "who" does not function as either the subject or the predicative nominative. The predicate nominative is the name of the role which is played by "Katie" in the sentence "That is Katie." "That" is the subject but the linking verb "is" makes "Katie" the predicate nominative. It essentially renames or reattributes to the subject. So, the "cheat" to figure out which case you're is just to take the "who" out and put "he" or "him" in. "He" is the equivalent of "who" and "him" is the equivalent of "whom." So if you take any of my examples, you'd easily be able to tell that it would be "with him" (not "with he"), "from him" (not "from he"), "against him" (not "against he"), "Katie threw him the ball?" (not "Katie threw he the ball?"), etc. The only difficult thing is that when you are using "who" or "whom," it is likely that there is a question involved. The easy way around this is to reverse a question into sentence form like so: "Whom is Katie talking to?" --> "Katie is talking to whom" (... to extrapolate: "Katie is talking to him" (not "Katie is talking to he.") Makes perfect sense to me. I hope this helps. Did it?
Yes: Hooray!
No: Proceed to SECOND GRADE.
6. Any time something is in the nominative case, use "who." Any time it's in any other case ([vocative would be silly here] dative, genitive, accusative or ablative), it's "whom." P.S. you're an asshole for needing an explanation of this if you've taken Latin.
7. Any time "who" is used as the subject, it's" who." If you're using it as an indirect object, direct object, or object of the preposition, it's "whom."
C'est tout.
-moon
17. Don't try to use words in foreign languages if you don't know how to use/spell/pronounce them.
Showing posts with label language. Show all posts
Showing posts with label language. Show all posts
4.07.2009
3.15.2009
grievance: subtitles
I just got into the show Lost. And it's a major, major problem in my life. Especially because I'd just started a new job when I started watching the show. So I basically have no life whatsoever because when I'm not doing work or at work, I'm watching Lost. Oh well. I guess there are worse things than a TV show to which I could be addicted. And let me tell you: it really has become an addiction. (I started watching on Saturday, March 7th and today, on Sunday, March 15th, I'm in the middle of season 2. Kind of problematic.)
With that said, this is not "Grievance: My Inability to Stop Watching Lost." It is, as is titularly expressed, a grievance for subtitles, grammatically speaking. And I'm so upset that it had to be brought to my attention via my new favorite show, but so it has.
Today watching an episode, an entire portion of the dialogue was spoken in Korean and subtitled into English. And not once, but TWICE, did the subtitlers (?) make a grammatical mistake. And the same one. Hey, I guess they're at least consistently stupid.
Of course, I got up on my high horse and decided to not only take a screen-freeze of both (which may get me in trouble for some kind of copyright replication violation or something - oh well) but to also take a veritable "red pen" to this "paper." Ugh...
I've laid this point out in excruciating detail in "grievance: abuse of the english language part deux (english 102)." ("5. Commas ALWAYS go inside quotation marks. As do periods. It doesn't make sense. But you HAVE to do it that way. Tough shit.") And I am, as Tommy would say, "comfortable with" the fact that no one acknowledges or cares about grammar. But the thing "with" which I am not "comfortable" is that this is, like, the most expensive television show EVER. And they don't have ONE single person on staff who understands the rules of grammar? Especially the people who are DOING the subtitles? I would assume that if you're going to pour THAT much money into a television show that you wouldn't want to embarrass yourself with something as easily-caught as this.
And it's kind of insulting to the American people that no one over at Lost cared enough to hire someone who was, I don't know, able to write properly? That no one there thought it salient enough an issue? That no one thought "hey, tons of people are watching this. Let's not further sully the utter conflagration that is the English language?"
That's all.
-moon
With that said, this is not "Grievance: My Inability to Stop Watching Lost." It is, as is titularly expressed, a grievance for subtitles, grammatically speaking. And I'm so upset that it had to be brought to my attention via my new favorite show, but so it has.
Today watching an episode, an entire portion of the dialogue was spoken in Korean and subtitled into English. And not once, but TWICE, did the subtitlers (?) make a grammatical mistake. And the same one. Hey, I guess they're at least consistently stupid.
Of course, I got up on my high horse and decided to not only take a screen-freeze of both (which may get me in trouble for some kind of copyright replication violation or something - oh well) but to also take a veritable "red pen" to this "paper." Ugh...
I've laid this point out in excruciating detail in "grievance: abuse of the english language part deux (english 102)." ("5. Commas ALWAYS go inside quotation marks. As do periods. It doesn't make sense. But you HAVE to do it that way. Tough shit.") And I am, as Tommy would say, "comfortable with" the fact that no one acknowledges or cares about grammar. But the thing "with" which I am not "comfortable" is that this is, like, the most expensive television show EVER. And they don't have ONE single person on staff who understands the rules of grammar? Especially the people who are DOING the subtitles? I would assume that if you're going to pour THAT much money into a television show that you wouldn't want to embarrass yourself with something as easily-caught as this.
And it's kind of insulting to the American people that no one over at Lost cared enough to hire someone who was, I don't know, able to write properly? That no one there thought it salient enough an issue? That no one thought "hey, tons of people are watching this. Let's not further sully the utter conflagration that is the English language?"
That's all.
-moon
2.11.2009
grievance: facebook statuses' grammar
I am shocked to my very core that Facebook actually took down the "is" as part of its status template and now leaves it there for optional use.By what I am even more shocked is that despite this, people continually use it... and use it WRONG. And what I mean by this is the statuses' predication upon a particular kind of sentence format, namely a person speaking about him or herself in the third person.
Now I'm not knocking people who outwardly go against this sentence structure by either eliminating the "is" after their names or writing something after the "is" which is clearly supposed to go against the structure, like a song lyric or simply a noun, e.g. "Jenn DOUGHNUTS!" or "Jenn is Barack Obama is the shit." I am okay with this kind of erratic grammar solely because it is purposely crafted to be so.
My problem is with people who are too dumb to realize that when they start a sentence about themselves in the third person, they must continue to do so throughout the sentence. The following hypothetical statuses do NOT make sense:
"Jenn is so tired I think I'm going to take a bubble bath and go to bed."
Should be: "Jenn is so tired she thinks she's going to take a bubble bath and go to bed."
"Jenn is studying for a PoliSci exam. OMG I'm soooo gonna fail."
Should be: "Jenn is studying for a PoliSci exam and is sooo gonna fail."
I'm assuming that this makes sense and needs not more examples. All I'm saying is that it's ABOVE infuriating to see this kind of crap on my status update page because it is a blatant offense on the structure of modern English. I understand that my rules for speaking are far more stringent than those for others... but casualisms and slangitudes are really what deteriorate language... and our language already sounds like untrained colloquial drivel.
I'm all about technology, but before Facebook... at least people could maintain the same pronoun and subsequent verb form. At least 'til the next SENTENCE began! Pish posh.
-moon
7.15.2008
grievance: lottery tickets
I'm not even that pissed at the lottery.
If someone is going to throw money away in the hopes of some fantastical amount of cash coming his or her way, by all means, Lottery (or anyone else for that matter), take that shit. (Indeed, I just apostrophized "the Lottery," because surely the blatant scarcity of poetic devices à la John Donne on this blog is utterly blasphemous. O Fortuna! O Romeo! O Lottery! I am clearly among the genius ranks of Carl Orff and William Shakespeare. Actually... I don't even really like Carl Orff.)
Ok, so now that I've apparently and inadvertantly set the stage for a play... the plot of which consists of a poor peasant buying lottery tickets, losing and thus, in desperation, evoking the great dieties:
O Nickel, you loathsome God of Scratch-Off Tickets!
O Ping-Pong-Looking-Ball, you are filled with avarice, you God of Pick-10!
O Giant Machine Which Takes Up A Large Portion of Counters At Newspaper Stores, you shall rue the day you... you... umm... did something, God of Weird Vending Machines at Bars!
Somewhere along the way... it's pretty clear that my hatred for lottery tickets has spun me into another plane of rage. But it's not even the lottery tickets themselves (as I've made blatantly clear). It's that every SINGLE time, every goddamned SINGLE time I'm in a rush, there is always an asshole in front of me buying LOTTO tickets. And it's hardly even a contest... there is a disparity as widely gaping as a temporal Grand Canyon between how much time I need to hand the kind gentleman my money and receive change and goods in return, and how long it takes YOU, yes YOU MOTHERFUCKER, to pick out what kinds of crappy, shiney, bullshit pipe-dream you're going to gamble on today. Just hurry it up.
I'm just saying, have some etiquette about it. If you know I'm gonna be in and out of there, there's no reason to give me dirty looks when I start to look like a child who is going to pee in her pants. I'm not allowed to smoke anywhere anymore. And now you're ruining the process of purchasing cigarettes for me too? Your vice is allowed to annoy me and I have to curtail my "vice" around you LOTTO-fiends? You know what? New rule: if I can't smoke, you can't buy LOTTO tickets.
And what's with the stupid grey stuff on scratch-offs? What the hell is that stuff made out of?
-moon
If someone is going to throw money away in the hopes of some fantastical amount of cash coming his or her way, by all means, Lottery (or anyone else for that matter), take that shit. (Indeed, I just apostrophized "the Lottery," because surely the blatant scarcity of poetic devices à la John Donne on this blog is utterly blasphemous. O Fortuna! O Romeo! O Lottery! I am clearly among the genius ranks of Carl Orff and William Shakespeare. Actually... I don't even really like Carl Orff.)
Ok, so now that I've apparently and inadvertantly set the stage for a play... the plot of which consists of a poor peasant buying lottery tickets, losing and thus, in desperation, evoking the great dieties:
O Nickel, you loathsome God of Scratch-Off Tickets!
O Ping-Pong-Looking-Ball, you are filled with avarice, you God of Pick-10!
O Giant Machine Which Takes Up A Large Portion of Counters At Newspaper Stores, you shall rue the day you... you... umm... did something, God of Weird Vending Machines at Bars!
Somewhere along the way... it's pretty clear that my hatred for lottery tickets has spun me into another plane of rage. But it's not even the lottery tickets themselves (as I've made blatantly clear). It's that every SINGLE time, every goddamned SINGLE time I'm in a rush, there is always an asshole in front of me buying LOTTO tickets. And it's hardly even a contest... there is a disparity as widely gaping as a temporal Grand Canyon between how much time I need to hand the kind gentleman my money and receive change and goods in return, and how long it takes YOU, yes YOU MOTHERFUCKER, to pick out what kinds of crappy, shiney, bullshit pipe-dream you're going to gamble on today. Just hurry it up.
I'm just saying, have some etiquette about it. If you know I'm gonna be in and out of there, there's no reason to give me dirty looks when I start to look like a child who is going to pee in her pants. I'm not allowed to smoke anywhere anymore. And now you're ruining the process of purchasing cigarettes for me too? Your vice is allowed to annoy me and I have to curtail my "vice" around you LOTTO-fiends? You know what? New rule: if I can't smoke, you can't buy LOTTO tickets.
And what's with the stupid grey stuff on scratch-offs? What the hell is that stuff made out of?
-moon
2.10.2008
grievance: fucking shoegasm
Okay. Enough is enough. I saw ANOTHER Shoegasm in downtown Manhattan (see "grievance: attempts at clever plays on words"). And apparently there is a third. Stop this folderol. Fuck you, Shoegasm. I've HAD it with your douchebaggery.
(Crowd "boo"-gasms.)
-moon
(Crowd "boo"-gasms.)
-moon
2.09.2008
grievance: native english speakers attacking foreigners' english
Let me first say that this is not an act of repentance for having (possibly) offended anyone with either my "English 101" blogs: those blogs are intended to castigate native English speakers because IT IS YOUR FIRST (AND/OR ONLY) TOOL FOR COMMUNICATION, and there is no excuse to not use it well and be proud of your written and spoken word.
It is furthermore not repentance for having offended anyone in my "Foreigners Speaking Too Loudly" blog. Foreigners DO speak too loudly and my theory about this fluoresced as I walked out of class yesterday (furious about this new "rageout target") and joined people screaming in Spanish. Don't get it. I really don't. And I digress.
I was in class yesterday... Oceanography class. Life lesson: don't leave core requirements to your last semester. Bleh.
In any event, the professor's first language is clearly not English. And I actually don't know what her first language is. However... HOW-EV-ER... her English is pretty damned near impeccable. And I just got out of an Astronomy lab taught by an adjunct who A. didn't give a shit about the class and B. LEGITIMATELY did not speak English. (That was fun.) Again: do not leave core requirements to your last semester.
In any event, this BITCH in the class decides she will take it upon herself to CORRECT the professor's English. CORRECT THE PROFESSOR'S ENGLISH?! I don't even do that when English is his or her first language. That's a respect issue. My question to this bitch in the class is "have you ever stood in front of a hundred people and posited that you INDUBITABLY KNEW the answers to all questions on some particular discipline? My guess is no. And if you have, you certainly haven't done it in a language that is NOT YOUR FIRST!" Seriously. The task of being comfortable enough in another language to speak as an authority comes with a lot of pressure. And to bust this nice woman's balls about her having said "most thin" instead of "thinnest" is pretty much complete and utter garbage. (Yes, that actually happened; yes, I've been writing this stuff down; yes, I understand that is not conducive to actually learning.)
The only time speech correction really works (from one person to another) is if there is a systematic error in the speaker's understanding of a language's functional pattern (perhaps a good correction would have been "thinnest" if the professor had in fact said "thinner," but had meant "thinnest"; that is a systematic mistake in which the speaker does not acknowledge the differences between superlative ("-est") and comparative ("-er") constructions. And furthermore, an explanation is necessary. And it should have been done in private, you fucking bitch.
Also, I spent time writing down constructions that the professor did make correctly which are proof of mastery of a language and/or are misused by native English speakers all the time (which leads to my point that most English as a Second Language (ESL) speakers/learners speak far better English than the idiots who are raised speaking it.)
She used "farther" instead of "further" to speak about geographical space. (6 points)
She properly used metaphorical/idiomatic language: "soupy." (8 points)
Formal sentence syntax in a spoken statement: "density of the material in which you're trying to float." Who the hell speaks like that?! Well. I do. And I get flack for it all the time. Oh well. (15 points)
Use of the word "lexicon" (of course, in response to this BITCH FACE correcting her - she did handle it very gracefully though). Use of this word shows several things:
1. That's KIND OF a "hard" word, in the sense that not all native English speakers would know what it means. (Allow me to vouchsafe - it simply means "vocabulary.") (3 points)
2. It shows that she has spoken about lexicology and philology enough to use that word. (4 points)
3. SHE APPARENTLY CARES ABOUT THE WORDS SHE USES!!!!!!! (287356229.44 points)
She gets that many points for the last part because that's a lot more than I can say for a lot of people. So I was actually quite impressed.
So why the FUCK would you, a stupid idiot undergraduate student, feel so pious to flash about your faux-erudite-douchebag-ness to try and destroy power levels in a classroom that are necessary for KNOWLEDGE-TRANSMISSION? And embarrassing a perfectly lovely woman. Ugh. Go to hell.
So, folks... don't FUCKING correct foreigners' speech like this. Soooooo fucked up I can't even deal with it. Plus, you're probably teaching them something wrong. Most foreigners who move to the United States see a decrease in the fluency of their proper English skills because idiot Americans teach them slangs that allow them to be lazy. 'Though I am a big proponent and enjoyer of slangs, I would never sacrifice them for actual language.
Girl in Oceanography class, I hope you read this. And I hope you peed your pants in 2nd grade or something embarrassing that would exonerate you from this. Shame on you.
-moon
It is furthermore not repentance for having offended anyone in my "Foreigners Speaking Too Loudly" blog. Foreigners DO speak too loudly and my theory about this fluoresced as I walked out of class yesterday (furious about this new "rageout target") and joined people screaming in Spanish. Don't get it. I really don't. And I digress.
I was in class yesterday... Oceanography class. Life lesson: don't leave core requirements to your last semester. Bleh.
In any event, the professor's first language is clearly not English. And I actually don't know what her first language is. However... HOW-EV-ER... her English is pretty damned near impeccable. And I just got out of an Astronomy lab taught by an adjunct who A. didn't give a shit about the class and B. LEGITIMATELY did not speak English. (That was fun.) Again: do not leave core requirements to your last semester.
In any event, this BITCH in the class decides she will take it upon herself to CORRECT the professor's English. CORRECT THE PROFESSOR'S ENGLISH?! I don't even do that when English is his or her first language. That's a respect issue. My question to this bitch in the class is "have you ever stood in front of a hundred people and posited that you INDUBITABLY KNEW the answers to all questions on some particular discipline? My guess is no. And if you have, you certainly haven't done it in a language that is NOT YOUR FIRST!" Seriously. The task of being comfortable enough in another language to speak as an authority comes with a lot of pressure. And to bust this nice woman's balls about her having said "most thin" instead of "thinnest" is pretty much complete and utter garbage. (Yes, that actually happened; yes, I've been writing this stuff down; yes, I understand that is not conducive to actually learning.)
The only time speech correction really works (from one person to another) is if there is a systematic error in the speaker's understanding of a language's functional pattern (perhaps a good correction would have been "thinnest" if the professor had in fact said "thinner," but had meant "thinnest"; that is a systematic mistake in which the speaker does not acknowledge the differences between superlative ("-est") and comparative ("-er") constructions. And furthermore, an explanation is necessary. And it should have been done in private, you fucking bitch.
Also, I spent time writing down constructions that the professor did make correctly which are proof of mastery of a language and/or are misused by native English speakers all the time (which leads to my point that most English as a Second Language (ESL) speakers/learners speak far better English than the idiots who are raised speaking it.)
She used "farther" instead of "further" to speak about geographical space. (6 points)
She properly used metaphorical/idiomatic language: "soupy." (8 points)
Formal sentence syntax in a spoken statement: "density of the material in which you're trying to float." Who the hell speaks like that?! Well. I do. And I get flack for it all the time. Oh well. (15 points)
Use of the word "lexicon" (of course, in response to this BITCH FACE correcting her - she did handle it very gracefully though). Use of this word shows several things:
1. That's KIND OF a "hard" word, in the sense that not all native English speakers would know what it means. (Allow me to vouchsafe - it simply means "vocabulary.") (3 points)
2. It shows that she has spoken about lexicology and philology enough to use that word. (4 points)
3. SHE APPARENTLY CARES ABOUT THE WORDS SHE USES!!!!!!! (287356229.44 points)
She gets that many points for the last part because that's a lot more than I can say for a lot of people. So I was actually quite impressed.
So why the FUCK would you, a stupid idiot undergraduate student, feel so pious to flash about your faux-erudite-douchebag-ness to try and destroy power levels in a classroom that are necessary for KNOWLEDGE-TRANSMISSION? And embarrassing a perfectly lovely woman. Ugh. Go to hell.
So, folks... don't FUCKING correct foreigners' speech like this. Soooooo fucked up I can't even deal with it. Plus, you're probably teaching them something wrong. Most foreigners who move to the United States see a decrease in the fluency of their proper English skills because idiot Americans teach them slangs that allow them to be lazy. 'Though I am a big proponent and enjoyer of slangs, I would never sacrifice them for actual language.
Girl in Oceanography class, I hope you read this. And I hope you peed your pants in 2nd grade or something embarrassing that would exonerate you from this. Shame on you.
-moon
1.12.2008
grievance: silly idioms
Why must our society call people with orange-hued red hair "carrot tops"?
The top of a carrot is not in fact orange. It is green. In attempting to reconcile this, I can understand that the phrase "carrot top" may not be so precise an analogy that it compares the top of the carrot to the top of the human (which is weird anyway).
However, I aver that all alleged to be "carrot tops" dye the tips of their hair green.
Stupid idioms.
-moon
The top of a carrot is not in fact orange. It is green. In attempting to reconcile this, I can understand that the phrase "carrot top" may not be so precise an analogy that it compares the top of the carrot to the top of the human (which is weird anyway).
However, I aver that all alleged to be "carrot tops" dye the tips of their hair green.
Stupid idioms.
-moon
1.04.2008
grievance: inconsiderate retailers and pharmacists
Do I think my own schedule is more important than anyone else'? Obviously.
No. Scratch that. I do however think that people should generally respect others' schedules. I feel I can make a considerable contribution to the (made-up) study of Serviceology, having worked in jobs that require me to hike my voice up several octaves to a level saccharinely offensive to all living beings excluding the canine variety and render my face wrought with (faux-)smile lines.
Wednesday Afternoon
During my lunch break, I went to Cosi to grab a salad. The lines for food during midday times on weekdays in midtown east are an exercise in starvation. I waited to order my Bombay Chicken Salad, ironically sans chicken, for fifteen minutes.
10 more minutes on a separate line to pay... broken computer system... angry asshole manager yelling at register-employees... me eating through the entire slab of bread which is supposed to accompany my salad... "we just opened the front register; you can go there." 10 more minutes in this line. Right before I pay, the women at the register LEAVES. I was going to walk out with a free salad. Sadly, I needed to get a fork and they hold them hostage behind the register.
Next journey: dropping off my father's prescriptions at Duane Reade. Lovely girl helped me. Asked if I'd like to wait for it for 20 minutes to which I responded that I had to run back to work but would pick it up at 4:15 on my way from work to class. (... you can see where this is headed.)
Wednesday Evening
RUNNING from my office to class is hard enough during rush hour. And of course the prescription was not ready. But they didn't simply TELL me this. They disappeared into the back for ten minutes. And I had to send another person back there. She spoke with the original Inconsiderate Pharmacist, and then on her way back, stopped to check for another person's prescription before telling me that it wasn't ready. Sure. Take your time, lady.
"What time do you close?" asked I.
"7."
Rushing through my one-credit Astronomy winter-session lab, I ran huffing and puffing in stilettos from 41st and Lexington to 43rd and 3rd.
6:58 P.M.
"What time do you close?"
"7:30."
... And then I blew up a Duane Reade.
Thursday Morning
Dunkin Donuts man ignores me and continues texting on his cell phone. Looks up at me. Then cleans off a coffee machine. Then gives me an attitude when I order something. Soorrrrryyyy for bothering you while you're getting paid.
Thursday Evening
Bookstore to pick up stupid Astronomy lab book. Guy ignores me for so long that after saying "Excuse me?" several times, I end up having to hit the BELL to get his attention. Was I at a hotel concierge desk in the 1980s?
Friday Morning
At this point, I was already brewing from social interactions of this variety. I decided to treat myself to a Frappuccino Lite. My request was met by "Ah... we OUT of 'Lite' today."
And then a little angel dressed in a green Starbucks smock (the Official Away Uniform of Team Heaven) appeared from a cloud made of real fairy dust and offered to look in the back.
Ta-da! The first time someone goes out of her way to do her job, customer satisfaction (and in this case, restoration of faith in the merits serviceology) is achieved.
And then I tried a sampling of a new lemon/cherry/cake extravaganza, which complemented my Frappuccino Lite beautifully.
Parable: Wait. There is none. This is just me being cranky.
Also currently cranky about: "Doughnuts" being spelled "Donuts" and "Light" being spelled "Lite," and the fact that their having been "published" as such compels me to reproduce them in their stupid forms.
-moon
No. Scratch that. I do however think that people should generally respect others' schedules. I feel I can make a considerable contribution to the (made-up) study of Serviceology, having worked in jobs that require me to hike my voice up several octaves to a level saccharinely offensive to all living beings excluding the canine variety and render my face wrought with (faux-)smile lines.
Wednesday Afternoon
During my lunch break, I went to Cosi to grab a salad. The lines for food during midday times on weekdays in midtown east are an exercise in starvation. I waited to order my Bombay Chicken Salad, ironically sans chicken, for fifteen minutes.
10 more minutes on a separate line to pay... broken computer system... angry asshole manager yelling at register-employees... me eating through the entire slab of bread which is supposed to accompany my salad... "we just opened the front register; you can go there." 10 more minutes in this line. Right before I pay, the women at the register LEAVES. I was going to walk out with a free salad. Sadly, I needed to get a fork and they hold them hostage behind the register.
Next journey: dropping off my father's prescriptions at Duane Reade. Lovely girl helped me. Asked if I'd like to wait for it for 20 minutes to which I responded that I had to run back to work but would pick it up at 4:15 on my way from work to class. (... you can see where this is headed.)
Wednesday Evening
RUNNING from my office to class is hard enough during rush hour. And of course the prescription was not ready. But they didn't simply TELL me this. They disappeared into the back for ten minutes. And I had to send another person back there. She spoke with the original Inconsiderate Pharmacist, and then on her way back, stopped to check for another person's prescription before telling me that it wasn't ready. Sure. Take your time, lady.
"What time do you close?" asked I.
"7."
Rushing through my one-credit Astronomy winter-session lab, I ran huffing and puffing in stilettos from 41st and Lexington to 43rd and 3rd.
6:58 P.M.
"What time do you close?"
"7:30."
... And then I blew up a Duane Reade.
Thursday Morning
Dunkin Donuts man ignores me and continues texting on his cell phone. Looks up at me. Then cleans off a coffee machine. Then gives me an attitude when I order something. Soorrrrryyyy for bothering you while you're getting paid.
Thursday Evening
Bookstore to pick up stupid Astronomy lab book. Guy ignores me for so long that after saying "Excuse me?" several times, I end up having to hit the BELL to get his attention. Was I at a hotel concierge desk in the 1980s?
Friday Morning
At this point, I was already brewing from social interactions of this variety. I decided to treat myself to a Frappuccino Lite. My request was met by "Ah... we OUT of 'Lite' today."
And then a little angel dressed in a green Starbucks smock (the Official Away Uniform of Team Heaven) appeared from a cloud made of real fairy dust and offered to look in the back.
Ta-da! The first time someone goes out of her way to do her job, customer satisfaction (and in this case, restoration of faith in the merits serviceology) is achieved.
And then I tried a sampling of a new lemon/cherry/cake extravaganza, which complemented my Frappuccino Lite beautifully.
Parable: Wait. There is none. This is just me being cranky.
Also currently cranky about: "Doughnuts" being spelled "Donuts" and "Light" being spelled "Lite," and the fact that their having been "published" as such compels me to reproduce them in their stupid forms.
-moon
1.01.2008
grievance: people speaking too loudly in foreign languages
I grew up in New York City, so I'm obviously okay with loudness, generally speaking. Why, then, would I find it necessary to buy in-ear headphones for my iPod? Screaming foreigners.
Moving about the city by foot and public transportation is already a harrowing experience. Simply put, New York is filled with annoying people. Typical offenses include (but are of course not limited to):
- GENERAL WALKING ACTS OF OBLIVIOUSNESS, i.e. walking too damn slowly for no reason (the most vexing variant of which being the slow saunter-down-the-stairs-to-a-subway-platform-with-a-train-pulling-
into-the-"station"-because-he-or-she-needs-a-different-train-line so you end up standing on the platform watching the train leave you behind)
- GENERAL STANDING ACTS OF OBLIVIOUSNESS, such as stopping short in the middle of Times Square to take a picture of an entirely uninspiring fire hydrant (the most vexing variant of which being the standing-with-another-member-of-your-party-on-the-escalator-so-
that-no-one-can-pass, and then copping an attitude with people who politely ask to pass)
- OBLIVIOUS SPATIAL ACTS OF INDECENCY (Please don't touch me or violate my personal space.)
- INTENDED SPATIAL ACTS OF INDECENCY (Don't fucking touch me. I'll cut your face.)
This brings me to the last category...
- GENERAL ASSAULTS ON APPROPRIATE VOLUME LEVELS
See Also: "Why the fuck are you screaming?"
See Also: "Why do you insist on keeping the volume on your phone while playing a game?"
See Also: "Can you not wait until you get home to decide on an obnoxious ringtone for your new phone? ("No"? Oh. Well it is an important decision: the horrifying version of the Fourth Movement of Mozart's Fortieth Symphony in G minor "orchestrated" for a MIDI ringtone most likely in C major versus some crappy pseudo-jazz bullshit. And it is also certainly essential that you make this decision by playing them back and forth in public.)
Alas, we come to the main point of this outline of offenses against social propriety. Why must people (in America, at least) who are speaking a foreign language YELL? I will safely err on the side of this being a behavior that only takes place in public... not only to avoid a sweeping over-generalization. But also because if people spoke at that decibel in their homes, they would all be evicted and no longer live in New York.
Is there something inherent to the structure of EVERY other language in the world that REQUIRES that absurd kind of volume? Other theories: a strange disease that deteriorates hearing, to which only Americans are immune? All non-native English speakers were forced by their parents all their lives to use their "inside voices" and have developed deep-seated psychological damage to which they are responding by lashing out against... well... me?
I suppose I'll have to start hanging out in libraries.
Or travel abroad. And when asked to moved aside on the escalator, whisper "no."
-moon
Moving about the city by foot and public transportation is already a harrowing experience. Simply put, New York is filled with annoying people. Typical offenses include (but are of course not limited to):
- GENERAL WALKING ACTS OF OBLIVIOUSNESS, i.e. walking too damn slowly for no reason (the most vexing variant of which being the slow saunter-down-the-stairs-to-a-subway-platform-with-a-train-pulling-
into-the-"station"-because-he-or-she-needs-a-different-train-line so you end up standing on the platform watching the train leave you behind)
- GENERAL STANDING ACTS OF OBLIVIOUSNESS, such as stopping short in the middle of Times Square to take a picture of an entirely uninspiring fire hydrant (the most vexing variant of which being the standing-with-another-member-of-your-party-on-the-escalator-so-
that-no-one-can-pass, and then copping an attitude with people who politely ask to pass)
- OBLIVIOUS SPATIAL ACTS OF INDECENCY (Please don't touch me or violate my personal space.)
- INTENDED SPATIAL ACTS OF INDECENCY (Don't fucking touch me. I'll cut your face.)
This brings me to the last category...
- GENERAL ASSAULTS ON APPROPRIATE VOLUME LEVELS
See Also: "Why the fuck are you screaming?"
See Also: "Why do you insist on keeping the volume on your phone while playing a game?"
See Also: "Can you not wait until you get home to decide on an obnoxious ringtone for your new phone? ("No"? Oh. Well it is an important decision: the horrifying version of the Fourth Movement of Mozart's Fortieth Symphony in G minor "orchestrated" for a MIDI ringtone most likely in C major versus some crappy pseudo-jazz bullshit. And it is also certainly essential that you make this decision by playing them back and forth in public.)
Alas, we come to the main point of this outline of offenses against social propriety. Why must people (in America, at least) who are speaking a foreign language YELL? I will safely err on the side of this being a behavior that only takes place in public... not only to avoid a sweeping over-generalization. But also because if people spoke at that decibel in their homes, they would all be evicted and no longer live in New York.
Is there something inherent to the structure of EVERY other language in the world that REQUIRES that absurd kind of volume? Other theories: a strange disease that deteriorates hearing, to which only Americans are immune? All non-native English speakers were forced by their parents all their lives to use their "inside voices" and have developed deep-seated psychological damage to which they are responding by lashing out against... well... me?
I suppose I'll have to start hanging out in libraries.
Or travel abroad. And when asked to moved aside on the escalator, whisper "no."
-moon
12.07.2007
grievance: attempts at clever plays on words
There is a store on 14th and 8th. A shoe store. It is called "Shoegasm."
Shoe doesn't sound like "or."
If it did, "Shoegasm" would be clever.
Dane Cook called his comedy tour "Tourgasm." Not "Showgasm." Because that's not funny. Nor is it clever.
Apparently the genius minds behind this shoe store are hanging out with Geoffrey Chaucer in 14th Century London...
"Rede in his almageste, and take it there.
Dame, I wolde praye yow, if youre wyl it were,"(The Wife of Bath's Prologue [the meaning of which I have NO idea])
... because while they seem to think "shoe" rhymes with "or," Mr. Chaucer has rhymed "there" and "were." Thank you Great Vowel Shift. (1200 to 1600 A.D. must have been a WILD time for miscommunication.)
The "ooh" (like "moon") sound in Modern English sounds very much like how it would have in Middle English. The "oh" sound in "orgasm," however, is traced back to having sounded like "ehw" (as in "new"). I find it senseless to use IPA here; this blog is already technical and gratuitously erudite enough. Thus "shoe" and "or" would have rhymed as well as "there" and "were" did.
That said, Shoegasm owners: if you were alluding (VERY backhandedly) to pre-Great Vowel Shift pronunciations of English, I laud you. I will begin buying "shores" at "Shore"-gasm immediately.
What's my point? If you're trying to be clever, appropriating 14th Century pronunciation for the name of your West Village shoe store ain't gonna fly.
Sub-point: I'm going to name my shoe store (that I now have to open solely for the purpose of PROPERLY effectuating cleverness) "Chaucer." His last name comes from the French word "chaussier." What does it mean?
Shoemaker.
-moon
Shoe doesn't sound like "or."
If it did, "Shoegasm" would be clever.
Dane Cook called his comedy tour "Tourgasm." Not "Showgasm." Because that's not funny. Nor is it clever.
Apparently the genius minds behind this shoe store are hanging out with Geoffrey Chaucer in 14th Century London...
"Rede in his almageste, and take it there.
Dame, I wolde praye yow, if youre wyl it were,"(The Wife of Bath's Prologue [the meaning of which I have NO idea])
... because while they seem to think "shoe" rhymes with "or," Mr. Chaucer has rhymed "there" and "were." Thank you Great Vowel Shift. (1200 to 1600 A.D. must have been a WILD time for miscommunication.)
The "ooh" (like "moon") sound in Modern English sounds very much like how it would have in Middle English. The "oh" sound in "orgasm," however, is traced back to having sounded like "ehw" (as in "new"). I find it senseless to use IPA here; this blog is already technical and gratuitously erudite enough. Thus "shoe" and "or" would have rhymed as well as "there" and "were" did.
That said, Shoegasm owners: if you were alluding (VERY backhandedly) to pre-Great Vowel Shift pronunciations of English, I laud you. I will begin buying "shores" at "Shore"-gasm immediately.
What's my point? If you're trying to be clever, appropriating 14th Century pronunciation for the name of your West Village shoe store ain't gonna fly.
Sub-point: I'm going to name my shoe store (that I now have to open solely for the purpose of PROPERLY effectuating cleverness) "Chaucer." His last name comes from the French word "chaussier." What does it mean?
Shoemaker.
-moon
11.29.2007
grievance: abuse of the english language part deux (english 102)
I've gotten tons of responses about my "English 101" blog. However, most were simply of amusement. The rules I outlined then are still repeatedly offended by people who have read it. With that said... I don't care. You're all getting a D and barely passing. So now onto English 102....
1. This rule is near and dear to my heart and offending it makes me so wildly and insanely angry that you really should heed the warning. In a written, yet informal conversation, à la AOL Instant Messenger or e-mail, actually READ the words that your fellow interlocutor has written. I've made it absurdly clear (in other ways other than this series of blogs, incidentally) that while I may make typos, I pay a great deal of attention to spelling things correctly and formulating grammatical functions as they are intended to be formed. So, instead of CORRECTING people when they offend these rules, I simply say it or write it back to them, correctly. And yet, people ignore what I've said or written and continue to say or write what they please. I am SO personally offended by this irreverence for language that I have named this my CARDINAL SIN. Especially when the word in question is the name of a friend of me (note rule 8) or my name. The first time someone speaks to me and calls me "Jen," I'm okay with that. When I say "Jenn" back to him or her regarding myself, and then am then called "Jen" again, I'm liable to break the darling's face. Just PAY ATTENTION.
2. While "better than me" can be used correctly, it's seldom the case. Used correctly: "he hit her harder than me," as in "he hit her harder than he hit me." But this goes back, in some ways to the "who"/"whom" bit with using the correct cases of words: "she's smarter than me" is COMPLETE AND UTTER GARBAGE. Constructed correctly: "She's smarter than I." I do understand that this sounds austerely stuffy. An easy way around it? "She's smarter than I am." And that flushing out tells you EXACTLY why it ain't "me": "she's smarter than me is"? The holy gods of grammar frown upon you, young word-abuser.
3. "A whole nother." Really? REALLLLYYYYY? The reason there is an "n" between "a" and "other" when contracting to "another" is because "a other" sounds like garbage. Know what else sounds like garbage? Your face. No. I kid. "Nother" sounds like damned garbage. The "l" at the end of "whole" functions as the "n" does. It's just unnecessary and... (let's hear it, everybody, for my favorite word) gratuitous.
4. Stop using "that" because you're too lazy to put together a construction like "which" (I know, real hard that one) or "who." You sound like a five year old.
5. Commas ALWAYS go inside quotation marks. As do periods. It doesn't make sense. But you HAVE to do it that way. Tough shit.
6. "Quote" is not a noun. It's a verb. "Quotation" is its noun form. "I was reading some of her quotes"? That sentence makes me want to hurl. On your face. Which, according to rule number three, also sounds like garbage. Yes I just used a quotation of my own.
7. "CD's from the 1980's." = my worst nightmare. Apostrophes never ever ever ever ever denote pluralization. They have two jobs: contractions (like "it's") and possession ("Mary's" ). What the holy hell made people start doing this? I'm actually curious as to what spawned this sheer idiocy.
8. "S"s (not "S's") and apostrophes have a complicated relationship. For that matter, possession in English is a little complicated. So allow me to indulge myself in a full explanation of some things you may not know about this strange system:
Rule 1: When making something possessive that ends in an "s," you have two choices. You can either add an apostrophe AND an "s," like so: "Marcus's." Or you can simply add an apostrophe: "Marcus'." IMPORTANT NOTE: if you decide to use "Marcus's," you must, when speaking, say "Marcus-iz." If you decide to go with "Marcus'," you must simply say "Marcus." No "iz." Either is totally acceptable as long as you maintain some kind of consistency between the written word and spoken.
Rule 2: The add-an-apostrophe-but-no-"s" rule also applies to words or names that end in "s"-sounds, such "Maurice," or "Liz," or even "instance," becoming "Maurice'," "Liz'," and "instance'." Or you are welcome to put those "s"s in if you'd like and get "Maurice's," "Liz's," and "instance's" (which is DEFINITELY different than (not "then") "instances." However, you must maintain the way you speak these words based on rule 1.
Rule 3: Making nouns that end in "s" plural: ALWAYS add an "es." As simple as that. The family of Mr. Jones is "the Joneses." If you want to make THAT plural, as in, belonging to the Jones family, you can go with "the Joneses's," or the "Joneses'." And this is why I ALWAYS go with NOT adding "s"s after apostrophes. "Joneses's" must be pronounced "Jones-iz-iz." WHAT! No, no, no... (just like Destiny's Child said).
Rule 4: Alternate ways to manifest possession: the "of _____" construction. An easy way to avoid this "Joneses's"/"Joneses'" nightmare is to simply say "of the Joneses." However it is not "of the Joneses's" or "of the Joneses'." That is just silly. You're essentially doing possession TWICE. So if THAT's the rule, why would you say "a friend of mine"? "A friend of me" or "a friend of myself" is what should be there instead. Same goes for "a friend of Katie." N.B. I understand that saying "a friend of myself" sounds like a vouchsafeing tactic, so I don't actually expect anyone to SAY that in informal talk. But if you're writing, you'd better watch it, bitches.
9. "He"/"she"/"they" and "his"/"her"/"their" are making me want to throw things. Let's get this straight for the last damned time: if you are talking about a single human being, "he or she" CANNOT be referred to as "they." He or she must be referred to as "he or she" or "he" or "she." "They" is used to describe a collective group. "People are stupid. They don't know how to speak proper English." (Low blow, I know.) "There is a person reading this blog who is an idiot. He or she does not know how to speak proper English." 'Nuff said.
Can someone, just ONE person, who reads this at least pretend to try?
-moon
1. This rule is near and dear to my heart and offending it makes me so wildly and insanely angry that you really should heed the warning. In a written, yet informal conversation, à la AOL Instant Messenger or e-mail, actually READ the words that your fellow interlocutor has written. I've made it absurdly clear (in other ways other than this series of blogs, incidentally) that while I may make typos, I pay a great deal of attention to spelling things correctly and formulating grammatical functions as they are intended to be formed. So, instead of CORRECTING people when they offend these rules, I simply say it or write it back to them, correctly. And yet, people ignore what I've said or written and continue to say or write what they please. I am SO personally offended by this irreverence for language that I have named this my CARDINAL SIN. Especially when the word in question is the name of a friend of me (note rule 8) or my name. The first time someone speaks to me and calls me "Jen," I'm okay with that. When I say "Jenn" back to him or her regarding myself, and then am then called "Jen" again, I'm liable to break the darling's face. Just PAY ATTENTION.
2. While "better than me" can be used correctly, it's seldom the case. Used correctly: "he hit her harder than me," as in "he hit her harder than he hit me." But this goes back, in some ways to the "who"/"whom" bit with using the correct cases of words: "she's smarter than me" is COMPLETE AND UTTER GARBAGE. Constructed correctly: "She's smarter than I." I do understand that this sounds austerely stuffy. An easy way around it? "She's smarter than I am." And that flushing out tells you EXACTLY why it ain't "me": "she's smarter than me is"? The holy gods of grammar frown upon you, young word-abuser.
3. "A whole nother." Really? REALLLLYYYYY? The reason there is an "n" between "a" and "other" when contracting to "another" is because "a other" sounds like garbage. Know what else sounds like garbage? Your face. No. I kid. "Nother" sounds like damned garbage. The "l" at the end of "whole" functions as the "n" does. It's just unnecessary and... (let's hear it, everybody, for my favorite word) gratuitous.
4. Stop using "that" because you're too lazy to put together a construction like "which" (I know, real hard that one) or "who." You sound like a five year old.
5. Commas ALWAYS go inside quotation marks. As do periods. It doesn't make sense. But you HAVE to do it that way. Tough shit.
6. "Quote" is not a noun. It's a verb. "Quotation" is its noun form. "I was reading some of her quotes"? That sentence makes me want to hurl. On your face. Which, according to rule number three, also sounds like garbage. Yes I just used a quotation of my own.
7. "CD's from the 1980's." = my worst nightmare. Apostrophes never ever ever ever ever denote pluralization. They have two jobs: contractions (like "it's") and possession ("Mary's" ). What the holy hell made people start doing this? I'm actually curious as to what spawned this sheer idiocy.
8. "S"s (not "S's") and apostrophes have a complicated relationship. For that matter, possession in English is a little complicated. So allow me to indulge myself in a full explanation of some things you may not know about this strange system:
Rule 1: When making something possessive that ends in an "s," you have two choices. You can either add an apostrophe AND an "s," like so: "Marcus's." Or you can simply add an apostrophe: "Marcus'." IMPORTANT NOTE: if you decide to use "Marcus's," you must, when speaking, say "Marcus-iz." If you decide to go with "Marcus'," you must simply say "Marcus." No "iz." Either is totally acceptable as long as you maintain some kind of consistency between the written word and spoken.
Rule 2: The add-an-apostrophe-but-no-"s" rule also applies to words or names that end in "s"-sounds, such "Maurice," or "Liz," or even "instance," becoming "Maurice'," "Liz'," and "instance'." Or you are welcome to put those "s"s in if you'd like and get "Maurice's," "Liz's," and "instance's" (which is DEFINITELY different than (not "then") "instances." However, you must maintain the way you speak these words based on rule 1.
Rule 3: Making nouns that end in "s" plural: ALWAYS add an "es." As simple as that. The family of Mr. Jones is "the Joneses." If you want to make THAT plural, as in, belonging to the Jones family, you can go with "the Joneses's," or the "Joneses'." And this is why I ALWAYS go with NOT adding "s"s after apostrophes. "Joneses's" must be pronounced "Jones-iz-iz." WHAT! No, no, no... (just like Destiny's Child said).
Rule 4: Alternate ways to manifest possession: the "of _____" construction. An easy way to avoid this "Joneses's"/"Joneses'" nightmare is to simply say "of the Joneses." However it is not "of the Joneses's" or "of the Joneses'." That is just silly. You're essentially doing possession TWICE. So if THAT's the rule, why would you say "a friend of mine"? "A friend of me" or "a friend of myself" is what should be there instead. Same goes for "a friend of Katie." N.B. I understand that saying "a friend of myself" sounds like a vouchsafeing tactic, so I don't actually expect anyone to SAY that in informal talk. But if you're writing, you'd better watch it, bitches.
9. "He"/"she"/"they" and "his"/"her"/"their" are making me want to throw things. Let's get this straight for the last damned time: if you are talking about a single human being, "he or she" CANNOT be referred to as "they." He or she must be referred to as "he or she" or "he" or "she." "They" is used to describe a collective group. "People are stupid. They don't know how to speak proper English." (Low blow, I know.) "There is a person reading this blog who is an idiot. He or she does not know how to speak proper English." 'Nuff said.
Can someone, just ONE person, who reads this at least pretend to try?
-moon
shit that sucks - vending machines
An incorrect haiku.
I have no cash in my wallet.
I'm a debit card kind of guy.
I'm really thirsty.
There's a vending machine outside.
Why don't you take debit cards?
Why vending machine?
Why?
-orion's belt buckle
-orion's belt buckle
2.14.2007
grievance: valentine's day wishes
There is no M in the word "Valentine's"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People say "Valentimes."
It makes me angry inside.
-moon
People say "Valentimes."
It makes me angry inside.
-moon
10.24.2006
grievance: abuse of the english language (english 101)
Here are some rules upon which the English language was developed. Apparently some of you don't think they apply to you. But they do. Sorry.
1. It's "for all intents and purposes" not "INTENSIVE PURPOSES"... what would you conjecture that to even mean?
2. You can't be or feel "nauseous." That word means something (or someone, apparently, considering how oft it's misused) that CAUSES nausea. Next time you say "I'm nauseous," you're saying that you're causing people around you to throw up. Try "I'm nauseated"... past participle of "to nauseate" acting adjectivally.
3. You feel "good." You feel "bad." You don't feel either of the following: "badly" or "well." Unless, of course, you are a very skilled in the field of FEELING things (as an action verb) such as tables, clothes, faces, etc. Then you feel well. "Feel," in this manner, is a linking verb, so it deserves a predicate adjective, not an adverb.
4. "To whom are you talking to?" is the worst thing that has ever happened to English. Don't try to sound smart if you don't understand why you're saying something. Please.
5. Furthermore, don't use "whom" unless you really know how to use it and understand SOMETHING about the accusative case in Latin declensions. Hearing "to whom it may concern" doesn't make you erudite on the topic.
6. (A personal note): My (nick-)name, Jenn, has two Ns in it. (Note I've not used an apostrophe after the N in making this case, because there is NOOOOOO possessing involved here.) I'll give you an explanation (about which you may not care): there are two Ns in Jennifer. Same goes for Matthew, Jessica, and Jeffrey (par example)... and their shortened names are Matt, Jess and Jeff (respectively). They do not omit the double consonant in their names... why the hell would I? Unless I decided to call myself Jen-Nifer. Okay then.
7. There is a HUGE difference between "its" and "it's." "It's" = it + is and "its" means "belonging to IT." Not that difficult, people.
8. "Person X and I" is not always correct. In fact, it's only appropriate when that is the beginning (i.e. subject [i.e. in the nominative case]) of a sentence. So when I say "call Person X and me later," I mean it. You wouldn't say "call I later," now would you?
9. "Further" is figurative (as in a discussion) and "farther" means ACTUAL, measurable distance.
10. If I'm tired, I'm going to "lie" down. If my bag is heavy, I'm going to "lay" my bag down. You LIE down on a bed; you LAY other things down. Or if you're really risky, and Sophie B. Hawkins (an alumna of my grade school), you "lay [you] down to sleep."
11. "Alumni" means a PLURAL group of either MEN who have graduated from somewhere, or men and women, as long as there is one man in the group. (Sexist? I know. I don't care. I'm not a feminist. Just a grammar nazi.) If you are a MALE graduate, just ONE person, you are an "alumnus." A singular woman graduate? "Alumna." A group of women? "Alumnae." Come on. Haven't ANY of you taken a foreign language for at least... 36 seconds, to understand gender in agreeing adjectives? Incidentally, "alumnae" is the only one that is pronounced the way "alumni" is said commonly said. "Alumni" is pronounced "alum-nee."
12. It's SUPP-OHS-ID-LY. Not supposibly, or any other variation of which you can think. SUPPOSEDLY.
13. "All right" is two words. Not one. And why in the world would you, in contracting, omit one L? Pshhh...
14. There are SOME words which do not follow the (overly simplified) rule of adding an S to the end of a word to create a plural. It's really not that hard. Yes, they come from Greek and Latin (and I'm aware I semi-addressed this with alumnus/a/i/ae) and I'm aware that sounds scary. The words DATA and MEDIA are PLURAL. Their singular forms are datum and medium. It works the other way as well: the plural of "hypothesis" is "hypotheses"; "thesis", "theses." There is no reason for anyone to be saying "thesises." Ever. See. There's a rule. Learn it. Love it. Use it. Or I'll be mad.
15. "Loose" does not equal "lose." Think about it. Legitimately, think about it.
16. "You're" and "your." Oh my goodness. Again. Like "its" and "it's." "You're" = you are. "Your" = belonging to you! Wow....
17. In the same spirit... "than" and "then." One is for comparing, e.g. "better than..." One is an adverb denoting time, e.g. "and then he ran away."
18. "E.g." and "i.e." are two different things. "E.g." (exempli gratia) expresses an EXAMPLE of a whole (which is not necessarily indicative of an aforementioned statement, but illustrates it well. "I.e." (id est) further clarifies a statement. In Latin, it literally means "it is." This makes sense. You are QUANTIFYING something... zeroing in. Not giving a POSSIBLE exemplification.
19. "Etc." is etched in stone. You cannot change it to be what it is that your fingers throw onto the keyboard. "Ect." is really, just, unacceptable. It STANDS for something. Remember when words MEANT something? "Et ceteris," in Latin = "and the others." Again. Makes simple sense.
20. Stop overusing "one" in the anonymous sense. Come on. Are you in 9th grade English? Yeah....
Hope I offended... everyone. You all went through to... at least... 5th grade, no ? Get it together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
