|
Post by Dave on Apr 20, 2019 6:27:46 GMT
New York minute: I've heard it, but I don't use the term.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Apr 20, 2019 6:38:51 GMT
Note to self: Do NOT place things on roof of car!Sorry about your loss. The roof is so natural! ( Why?) I've managed to train myself to place my 'load' on the hood (bonnet) in front of the steering wheel area of the windshield (windscreen) while opening the car door. That way I stand a better chance of seeing the item before driving off. Of course, when backing out of a parking space, I may still miss it!
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Apr 23, 2019 0:23:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Apr 23, 2019 8:28:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Apr 23, 2019 17:46:22 GMT
I always recall being told at school about “misrelated participles” and the example offered was, “Walking down the road, the street lamps were shrouded in a halo of haze created by the mist” but I am afraid that, over the last sixty years, I have been known to stumble. Sometimes, re-reading what I have written, the mistake has embarrassed me‼️
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Apr 26, 2019 22:29:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Apr 27, 2019 5:55:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Apr 27, 2019 22:32:24 GMT
Do I growl, roll or trill? I have no idea.
The article says, “The French uvular ‘r’, for instance, is what we consider the classic French ‘r’– think of how Hercule Poirot says his own name. The German version of the uvular ‘r’ is a little different because it drops off completely after vowels – think of how Arnold Schwarzenegger says his own name or the classic line from Kindergarten Cop, “It’s not a tumour!” (“It’s not a tumah!”)”.
I have no idea how Hercule Poirot says his name though I frequently watch re-runs of the series and I think I have never heard Arnold Schwarzenegger speak. I have a (fairly) keen interest in word usage and pronunciation and often Google such matters but I usually give up in complete frustration because of the plethora of linguistic babble — Fricatives: Rhotics; Uvular; Palatal; Exo-labial; Endo-labial; Dental; Alveolar; Post-alveolar; Pre-palatal; Velar; Uvular; Pharyngeal; Glottal; Epiglottal; Radical; Postero-dorsal; Antero-dorsal; Laminal; Apical; Sub-apical; sub-laminal — just some I have recently encountered with no explanation.
I know that specialists need specialist vocabulary but linguistics seems especially prone to such language which is at least unkind to ordinary Google users.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Apr 27, 2019 22:49:31 GMT
As far as …
It’s been an observation of mine for some years that there’s a difference between AU and US English versions of a certain phrase:
In Oz we say, “As far as [e.g. the weather] goes …” or, “As far as [e.g. the weather] is concerned …”. When I hear US English speakers use the term it’s, “As far as [e.g. the weather] …” – no goes, no concerned; it just trails off.
Does anyone else have a take on this?
(My personal preference is to use, “As for [e.g. the weather] …”, thereby eliminating a syllable or three and being perhaps a tad more "international".)
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Apr 27, 2019 22:53:04 GMT
Do I growl, roll or trill? I have no idea. […] tumah [...] Definitely the majority AU pronunciation there. We descendants of convicts aren't [aunt] a very rhotic culture [kultcha] here.
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Apr 29, 2019 22:58:17 GMT
As far as...
I think I would say, “As far as the weather is concerned....” when referring to a future possibility but ”As for the weather...” when referring to a past event. On the other hand, neither turn of phrase would come naturally to me.
Imthinki (why does my spell checker offer that suggestion if I mistype “I think” with an ‘m’ inserted between the I and the T ? Imthinki doesn’t seem to mean anything? And, if I accept its suggestion, it still underlines it as wrong). As I was saying, I think I would normally say (for the future event) “depending on the weather” or (for a past event) “because of the weather”. I think I need more context to be sure.
I have no idea what Americans say.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Apr 30, 2019 5:12:05 GMT
Don't ditch the adverb (from The Guardian – Australian edition) Something that frequently annoys my inner editor (and the one I take to work at the newspaper, too) is the sloppy practice of using an adjective where an adverb is required. He came quick (ly) when summoned. Think global (ly), act local (ly). She ran quick (ly). The car was being driven too quick (ly). Think different (ly). (Thanks – not! – Steve Jobs!) This is a disease that appears particularly rampant in US English (though well-educated American writers / speakers still know the difference and employ the adverb). Adjectives substituting for adverbs is increasingly the case also in AU English. Are people lazy, or are they just ignorant of the adverb?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Apr 30, 2019 13:20:14 GMT
I agree with much of what you say about adverbs, Vv, but there are idiomatic forms in which the adjective (or noun) takes the adverb’s place and the resultant meaning is not quite the same.
For example, in response to many accidents in which motorcyclists have simply not been seen by a car driver pulling into a road, the UK now has signs at many such accident spots saying “Think Bike!”. You can’t think bikely, and the structure is about having “bike” to the forefront of your thinking.
I read ”think different” in much the same vein: to me, it doesn’t mean “think in a different way”, it means “think of something that is different”. I also feel that “think global” falls into this pattern. After all, I can only “think globally” by doing one hell of a lot of travel while I think!
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Apr 30, 2019 22:34:51 GMT
I agree with both the previous comments about adverbs but I am afraid the war has been lost and I am not sure I care very much — surely it is just an example of the evolution of language which we deplore or celebrate in equal degrees depending on the mood of the moment.
It provides me with the opportunity to ask about another example of adjective/adverb usage. Why do I deplore “I am good” in response to the question “How are you?”? Why is it worse than “I am tall/hungry/thirsty/happy etc. in response to other questions?
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on May 1, 2019 8:33:03 GMT
Why do I deplore “I am good” in response to the question “How are you?”? Why is it worse than “I am tall/hungry/thirsty/happy etc. in response to other questions? I deplore it too, LJH, and I believe the reason is that "good", when referring to people, describes their moral status, not their physical wellbeing. When I hear, "I'm good", in response to the question, "How are you?", I'm sorely tempted to reply, "That's for others to judge, but I was enquiring about your health".
|
|