-TH-
Well-Known Member
I don't know the context but I thought strategical is a word in the dictionary.
Love Mike & Mike by the way.
Rhetorical Disfluencies that I Hate
- Thread starter Fletch78
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
I don't know the context but I thought strategical is a word in the dictionary.
Love Mike & Mike by the way.
Hang Glider
Beer Drinker
online dictionaries don't necessarily count. It's a Bush-ism.
Strategic or Strategically fit in any context that you can imagine Strategical.
sadly, prevalent here...
even if this were a joke, "your/you're" is so misused that the joke would be lost, and it would continue to reinforce the error.
This reminds me of the way my iphone automatically corrects when I type "its" to insert the apostrophe, even when I am referring to the possessive pronoun.
-TH-
Well-Known Member
Ah. I thought he said "strategery" but that was probably the SNL version.
Hang Glider
Beer Drinker
EoinMag
Well-Known Member
I guess Webster got it wrong:
1: causing nausea or disgust : nauseating
2: affected with nausea or disgust
nau·seous·ly adverb
nau·seous·ness noun
See nauseous defined for English-language learners »
See nauseous defined for kids »
Usage Discussion of NAUSEOUS
Those who insist that nauseous can properly be used only in sense 1 and that in sense 2 it is an error for nauseated are mistaken. Current evidence shows these facts: nauseous is most frequently used to mean physically affected with nausea, usually after a linking verb such as feel or become; figurative use is quite a bit less frequent. Use of nauseous in sense 1 is much more often figurative than literal, and this use appears to be losing ground to nauseating. Nauseated is used more widely than nauseous in sense 2.
Hang Glider
Beer Drinker
from this site - excerpted from Readers Digest, Wed, Aug 8, 2010
You never mean: Could care less
You always mean: Couldn't care less
Why: You want to say you care so little already that you couldn't possibly care any less. When the Boston Celtics' Ray Allen said, "God could care less whether I can shoot a jump shot," we know he meant exactly the opposite because 1) God has other things on his mind, and 2) God is a Knicks fan.
You might say: Mano a mano
You might mean: Man-to-man
Why: You don't speak Spanish by adding vowels to the end of English words, as a columnist describing father–teenage son relationships seemed to think when he wrote, "Don't expect long, mano a mano talks." Mano a mano (literally, "hand to hand") originated with bullfighting and usually refers to a knock-down, drag-out direct confrontation.
You might say: Less
You might mean: Fewer
Why: In general, use fewer when you're specifying a number of countable things ("200 words or fewer"); reserve less for a mass ("less than half"). So when you're composing a tweet, do it in 140 characters or fewer, not less.
You never mean: Hone in
You always mean: Home in
Why: Like homing pigeons, we can be single-minded about finding our way to a point: "Scientists are homing in on the causes of cancer." Hone means "to sharpen": "The rookie spent the last three seasons honing his skills in the minor leagues." But it's easy to mishear m's and n's, which is probably what happened to the Virginia senator who said, "We've got to hone in on cost containment." If you're unsure, say "zero in" instead.
You might say: Bring
You might mean: Take
Why: The choice depends on your point of view. Use bring when you want to show motion toward you ("Bring the dog treats over here, please"). Use take to show motion in the opposite direction ("I have to take Rufus to the vet"). The rule gets confusing when the movement has nothing to do with you. In those cases, you can use either verb, depending on the context: "The assistant brought the shot to the vet" (the vet's point of view); "the assistant took the shot to the doctor" (the assistant's).
You might say: Who
You might mean: Whom
Why: It all depends. Do you need a subject or an object? A subject (who) is the actor of the sentence: "Who left the roller skates on the sidewalk?" An object (whom) is the acted-upon: "Whom are you calling?" Parents, hit the Mute button when Dora the Explorer shouts, "Who do we ask for help when we don't know which way to go?"
You almost never mean: Brother-in-laws, runner-ups, hole in ones, etc.
You almost always mean: Brothers-in-law, runners-up, holes in one, etc.
Why: Plurals of these compound nouns are formed by adding an s to the thing there's more than one of (brothers, not laws). Some exceptions: words ending in ful (mouthfuls) and phrases like cul-de-sacs.
You almost never mean: Try and
You almost always mean: Try to
Why: Try and try again, yes, but if you're planning to do something, use the infinitive form: "I'm going to try to run a marathon." Commenting on an online story about breakups, one woman wrote, "A guy I dated used to try and impress me with the choice of books he was reading." It's no surprise that the relationship didn't last.
You almost never mean: Different than
You almost always mean: Different from
Why: This isn't the biggest offense, but if you can easily substitute from for than (My mother's tomato sauce is different from my mother-in-law's), do it. Use than for comparisons: My mother's tomato sauce is better than my mother-in-law's.
You almost never mean: Beg the question
You almost always mean: Raise the question
Why: Correctly used, "begging the question" is like making a circular argument (I don't like you because you're so unlikable). But unless you're a philosophy professor, you shouldn't ever need this phrase. Stick to "raise the question."
You might say: More than
You can also say: Over
Why: The two are interchangeable when the sense is "Over 6,000 hats were sold." We like grammarian Bryan Garner's take on it: "The charge that over is inferior to more than is a baseless crotchet."
You almost never mean: Supposably
You almost always mean: Supposedly
Why: Supposably is, in fact, a word—it means "conceivably"—but not the one you want if you're trying to say "it's assumed," and certainly not the one you want if you're on a first date with an English major or a job interview with an English speaker.
You might say: All of
You probably mean: All
Why: Drop the of whenever you can, as Julia Roberts recently did, correctly: "Every little moment is amazing if you let yourself access it. I learn that all the time from my kids." But you need all of before a pronoun ("all of them") and before a possessive noun ("all of Julia's kids").
You might say: That
You might mean: Which
Why: "The money that is on the table is for you" is different from "the money, which is on the table, is for you." That pinpoints the subject: The money that is on the table is yours; the money in my pocket is mine. Which introduces an aside, a bit of extra information. If you remove "which is on the table," you won't change the meaning: The money is for you (oh, and unless you don't want it, it's on the table). If the clause is necessary to your meaning, use that; if it could safely be omitted, say which.
You never mean: Outside of
You always mean: Outside
Why: These two prepositions weren't meant for each other. Perfectly acceptable: "Wearing a cheese-head hat outside Wisconsin will likely earn you some stares and glares (unless you're surrounded by Green Bay Packers fans, that is)."
You might say: Each other
You might mean: One another
Why: Tradition says that each other should be used with two people or things, and one another with more than two, and careful speakers should follow suit: "The three presenters argued with one another over who should announce the award, but Ann and Barbara gave each other flowers after the ceremony." (By the way, if you need the possessive form of either one when writing that business letter, it's always each other's and one another's; never end with s'.)
8 Confusing Pairs
leery, wary: suspicious
weary: tired
farther: for physical distance
further: for metaphorical distance or time
principle: rule
principal: of your school
compliment: nice thing to say
complement: match
continual: ongoing but intermittent
continuous: without interruption
stationary: stands still
stationery: paper
imply: to suggest a meaning
infer: to draw meaning from something
affect: typically a verb, meaning "to act upon or cause an effect"; as a noun, it's "an emotional response"
effect: typically a noun, meaning "something produced," like a special effect; as a verb, "to bring about," as in "to effect change"
You never mean: Could care less
You always mean: Couldn't care less
Why: You want to say you care so little already that you couldn't possibly care any less. When the Boston Celtics' Ray Allen said, "God could care less whether I can shoot a jump shot," we know he meant exactly the opposite because 1) God has other things on his mind, and 2) God is a Knicks fan.
You might say: Mano a mano
You might mean: Man-to-man
Why: You don't speak Spanish by adding vowels to the end of English words, as a columnist describing father–teenage son relationships seemed to think when he wrote, "Don't expect long, mano a mano talks." Mano a mano (literally, "hand to hand") originated with bullfighting and usually refers to a knock-down, drag-out direct confrontation.
You might say: Less
You might mean: Fewer
Why: In general, use fewer when you're specifying a number of countable things ("200 words or fewer"); reserve less for a mass ("less than half"). So when you're composing a tweet, do it in 140 characters or fewer, not less.
You never mean: Hone in
You always mean: Home in
Why: Like homing pigeons, we can be single-minded about finding our way to a point: "Scientists are homing in on the causes of cancer." Hone means "to sharpen": "The rookie spent the last three seasons honing his skills in the minor leagues." But it's easy to mishear m's and n's, which is probably what happened to the Virginia senator who said, "We've got to hone in on cost containment." If you're unsure, say "zero in" instead.
You might say: Bring
You might mean: Take
Why: The choice depends on your point of view. Use bring when you want to show motion toward you ("Bring the dog treats over here, please"). Use take to show motion in the opposite direction ("I have to take Rufus to the vet"). The rule gets confusing when the movement has nothing to do with you. In those cases, you can use either verb, depending on the context: "The assistant brought the shot to the vet" (the vet's point of view); "the assistant took the shot to the doctor" (the assistant's).
You might say: Who
You might mean: Whom
Why: It all depends. Do you need a subject or an object? A subject (who) is the actor of the sentence: "Who left the roller skates on the sidewalk?" An object (whom) is the acted-upon: "Whom are you calling?" Parents, hit the Mute button when Dora the Explorer shouts, "Who do we ask for help when we don't know which way to go?"
You almost never mean: Brother-in-laws, runner-ups, hole in ones, etc.
You almost always mean: Brothers-in-law, runners-up, holes in one, etc.
Why: Plurals of these compound nouns are formed by adding an s to the thing there's more than one of (brothers, not laws). Some exceptions: words ending in ful (mouthfuls) and phrases like cul-de-sacs.
You almost never mean: Try and
You almost always mean: Try to
Why: Try and try again, yes, but if you're planning to do something, use the infinitive form: "I'm going to try to run a marathon." Commenting on an online story about breakups, one woman wrote, "A guy I dated used to try and impress me with the choice of books he was reading." It's no surprise that the relationship didn't last.
You almost never mean: Different than
You almost always mean: Different from
Why: This isn't the biggest offense, but if you can easily substitute from for than (My mother's tomato sauce is different from my mother-in-law's), do it. Use than for comparisons: My mother's tomato sauce is better than my mother-in-law's.
You almost never mean: Beg the question
You almost always mean: Raise the question
Why: Correctly used, "begging the question" is like making a circular argument (I don't like you because you're so unlikable). But unless you're a philosophy professor, you shouldn't ever need this phrase. Stick to "raise the question."
You might say: More than
You can also say: Over
Why: The two are interchangeable when the sense is "Over 6,000 hats were sold." We like grammarian Bryan Garner's take on it: "The charge that over is inferior to more than is a baseless crotchet."
You almost never mean: Supposably
You almost always mean: Supposedly
Why: Supposably is, in fact, a word—it means "conceivably"—but not the one you want if you're trying to say "it's assumed," and certainly not the one you want if you're on a first date with an English major or a job interview with an English speaker.
You might say: All of
You probably mean: All
Why: Drop the of whenever you can, as Julia Roberts recently did, correctly: "Every little moment is amazing if you let yourself access it. I learn that all the time from my kids." But you need all of before a pronoun ("all of them") and before a possessive noun ("all of Julia's kids").
You might say: That
You might mean: Which
Why: "The money that is on the table is for you" is different from "the money, which is on the table, is for you." That pinpoints the subject: The money that is on the table is yours; the money in my pocket is mine. Which introduces an aside, a bit of extra information. If you remove "which is on the table," you won't change the meaning: The money is for you (oh, and unless you don't want it, it's on the table). If the clause is necessary to your meaning, use that; if it could safely be omitted, say which.
You never mean: Outside of
You always mean: Outside
Why: These two prepositions weren't meant for each other. Perfectly acceptable: "Wearing a cheese-head hat outside Wisconsin will likely earn you some stares and glares (unless you're surrounded by Green Bay Packers fans, that is)."
You might say: Each other
You might mean: One another
Why: Tradition says that each other should be used with two people or things, and one another with more than two, and careful speakers should follow suit: "The three presenters argued with one another over who should announce the award, but Ann and Barbara gave each other flowers after the ceremony." (By the way, if you need the possessive form of either one when writing that business letter, it's always each other's and one another's; never end with s'.)
8 Confusing Pairs
leery, wary: suspicious
weary: tired
farther: for physical distance
further: for metaphorical distance or time
principle: rule
principal: of your school
compliment: nice thing to say
complement: match
continual: ongoing but intermittent
continuous: without interruption
stationary: stands still
stationery: paper
imply: to suggest a meaning
infer: to draw meaning from something
affect: typically a verb, meaning "to act upon or cause an effect"; as a noun, it's "an emotional response"
effect: typically a noun, meaning "something produced," like a special effect; as a verb, "to bring about," as in "to effect change"
HokieBrewer
Well-Known Member
I'm proud to be from the South, but the phrase "used to could" makes me cringe. Usually it's pronounced more like useda could.
"He used to could do that but now he cain't."
"He used to could do that but now he cain't."
cheezydemon3
Well-Known Member
Dear GOD Hangglider!!!!
No response, just sheer, dumbfounded adoration my friend!
You got all of the ones that have been fleeting thoughts over the years that NEVER would have come to me.
No response, just sheer, dumbfounded adoration my friend!
You got all of the ones that have been fleeting thoughts over the years that NEVER would have come to me.
BobTheAverage
Well-Known Member
One linguistic disfluency that bugs me is people prescribing how words should be used only to describe how words used to be used or how a set of "rules" say they should be used. Language evolves and pronunciation and spelling evolve with it. Rules are broken so often that they are only useful guides. What is and isn't correct isn't decided by a govening body of English professors somewhere. It is decided by common usage. Examples:
The idea that "irregardless" should be the antonym to regardless. The rules would suggest that but there are exceptions to the rules and this is one of them. Irregardless has entered standard English as a synonym to regardless.
Yeah there are rules but these aren't examples of people breaking them. If everyone does it, it isn't wrong.
That being said, using vernacular in a formal setting is wrong. In casual conversation I could give a crap how nonstandard you sound. But HOLY FSM ON A STICK don't go into a job interview talking like that.
Conversate is a word in general use. Therefore it is correct. However depending on how he used it, conversating could be used wrong.
The idea that "irregardless" should be the antonym to regardless. The rules would suggest that but there are exceptions to the rules and this is one of them. Irregardless has entered standard English as a synonym to regardless.
Sorry but those are all standard usage and therefore correct.
Yeah there are rules but these aren't examples of people breaking them. If everyone does it, it isn't wrong.
That being said, using vernacular in a formal setting is wrong. In casual conversation I could give a crap how nonstandard you sound. But HOLY FSM ON A STICK don't go into a job interview talking like that.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2011
- Messages
- 3,834
- Reaction score
- 364
If everyone is looting during a riot or hurricane...
bottlebomber
Well-Known Member
BobTheAverage said:
Infallible line of reasoning.
Obviously a proponent of Ebonics...
They all be doin' it.
They all be doin' it.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2011
- Messages
- 3,834
- Reaction score
- 364
Fixed that for you.
cheezydemon3
Well-Known Member
BUTT OUT BOB.
Ever seen Idiocracy?
There is a reason the semi retarded masses don't get to decide everything.
Why have schools? Just do what you see the other idiots doing.
Ever seen Idiocracy?
There is a reason the semi retarded masses don't get to decide everything.
Why have schools? Just do what you see the other idiots doing.
Hang Glider
Beer Drinker
BUTT OUT BOB.
Ever seen Idiocracy?
There is a reason the semi retarded masses don't get to decide everything.
Why have schools? Just do what you see the other idiots doing.
Now, now...Bob is only expressing his opinion, which he's entitled to.. even though he thinks he's right and we know he's not...
cheezydemon3
Well-Known Member
Agreed! Sorry if my joking tone didn't come through..........
BobTheAverage
Well-Known Member
Why have schools? Just do what you see the other idiots doing.
To teach what the other idiots are doing.
I'm not gonna claim that there isn't right and wrong in language. Just argue on how right and wrong are defined.
cheezydemon3
Well-Known Member
One can decipher the name of some unfamiliar words, by breaking them down into the presumed root word, and definable prefixes and suffixes.
"Irregardless" is the epitomy of deuchebaggery for me. The WRONG prefix (irre) added to the word (in my past experiences) purely so more emphasis can be added by LEANING on the "irre" as one more syllable to enunciate with feeling.......however incorrectly.
Take the root and the prefix and suffix, and the word is not only a double negative (and therefore not a word) but it's meaning is THE POLAR OPPOSITE of what said deuchebag means.
PHUCK EM.
They are wrong, and I appreciate them parading their igorance so obviously, so that I may avoid wasting any further time on discussion with them.
*"Where the HELL is my linguistical snob membership card?"*
"Irregardless" is the epitomy of deuchebaggery for me. The WRONG prefix (irre) added to the word (in my past experiences) purely so more emphasis can be added by LEANING on the "irre" as one more syllable to enunciate with feeling.......however incorrectly.
Take the root and the prefix and suffix, and the word is not only a double negative (and therefore not a word) but it's meaning is THE POLAR OPPOSITE of what said deuchebag means.
PHUCK EM.
They are wrong, and I appreciate them parading their igorance so obviously, so that I may avoid wasting any further time on discussion with them.
*"Where the HELL is my linguistical snob membership card?"*
cheezydemon3
Well-Known Member
Oh, you sensed it?
cheezydemon3
Well-Known Member
OHHH!!! HELL!!!
(fortunately this isn't the spelling rant thread)
(fortunately this isn't the spelling rant thread
)
OHHH!!! HELL!!!
(fortunately this isn't the spelling rant thread
Alas, you can't rail against abuses of the language without including spelling.
cheezydemon3
Well-Known Member
Alas, someone can speak quite eloquently and properly and not be able to spell a word.
To the OP:
Rhetorical Disfluencies that I Hate.
This sentence construction implies that there are rhetorical disfluencies that you associate with other emotions otherwise you would have said, "I hate rhetorical disfluencies."
It may be indifference, or perhaps even love that you feel for rhetorical disfluencies. So which ones do you love? Or are you guilty of a rhetorical disfluency?
Rhetorical Disfluencies that I Hate.
This sentence construction implies that there are rhetorical disfluencies that you associate with other emotions otherwise you would have said, "I hate rhetorical disfluencies."
It may be indifference, or perhaps even love that you feel for rhetorical disfluencies. So which ones do you love? Or are you guilty of a rhetorical disfluency?
cheezydemon3
Well-Known Member
Zing!!!!!!!!!
Direct HIT!!!!
Unless......I love to hear some RDs so that I can begin a rant on linguistical correctness....so do I LOVE them?
Would my life be less interesting without them???
Alas, I am NOT the OP.
Direct HIT!!!!
Unless......I love to hear some RDs so that I can begin a rant on linguistical correctness....so do I LOVE them?
Would my life be less interesting without them???
Alas, I am NOT the OP.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 64,951
- Reaction score
- 16,516
Ah, I see what you did there...
Kind of like all jeeps are vehicles, but not all vehicles are jeeps?
bigbeergeek
Well-Known Member
That's lame.
cheezydemon3
Well-Known Member
"LAME" is a little harsh.
The title of the thread implied to me that there were particular RDs that the OP disliked in particular, while others were bad, but not hated.
olllllllo was nonetheless clever in his spotting a chink in the armor, however small.
It was good for a laugh, which is more than can be said of most posts.
The title of the thread implied to me that there were particular RDs that the OP disliked in particular, while others were bad, but not hated.
olllllllo was nonetheless clever in his spotting a chink in the armor, however small.
It was good for a laugh, which is more than can be said of most posts.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2011
- Messages
- 3,834
- Reaction score
- 364
used ta did.
"Did he have a set of balls before getting married?"
"Yeah, he used ta did"
"Did he have a set of balls before getting married?"
"Yeah, he used ta did"
gingerdawg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
- Messages
- 432
- Reaction score
- 157
Bare with me........
Sounds like it could be fun?!?!
Sounds like it could be fun?!?!
bigbeergeek
Well-Known Member
The more I think about it, the more I think the OP's title makes better sense than olllllllo's revised version. The world (and internet) around us is awash in grammatical errors, most slide off our backs unnoticed, some we are guilty of ourselves -- but a few drive each of us ape-$hit. That is framed pretty well in the OP's wording.
DeadFartWino
Active Member
"I feel nauseous," instead of "I feel nauseated."
Yeah. You make me feel like vomiting, too.
Yeah. You make me feel like vomiting, too.
