|
Post by Vadim on Jan 28, 2009 8:55:30 GMT
That's very nit-picking, Tone.[...] This may be "very nit-picking" from me also, Bertie, but what you just wrote doesn't sit well with me. I don't (in my head) get the "very - doing something" connection. As in -> - this is very bullying;
- this is very building;
- this is very acting.
Maybe it's just me! I dunno!
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 28, 2009 9:53:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jan 28, 2009 11:26:25 GMT
But nem con is not the same as unanimous. They mean different things and abstention can itself be used as a way of sending a message. Consider the way countries vote at the UN, for example.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jan 28, 2009 11:27:23 GMT
But nem con is not the same as unanimous. They mean different things and abstention can itself be used as a way of sending a message. Consider the way countries vote at the UN, for example. Of course, Sam Goldwyn once said, "If you want to send a message, use a telegram!". Nowadays, I guess that would be an email.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 28, 2009 11:30:54 GMT
[...] Of course, Sam Goldwyn once said, "If you want to send a message, use a telegram!". Nowadays, I guess that would be an email. When I was in primary school, there was a saying: "How to spread news: telephone, telegram, and tell a woman". The latter is perhaps not so acceptable today, and I'm sure the interweb serves better as a gossipmonger than any previous technology (including "woman").
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jan 28, 2009 12:34:13 GMT
How to spread news: telephone, telegram, and tell a woman Is there a name for this form of wordplay, other than alliteration? It reminds me of the story of a long-winded politico winding up a tedious speech: "In short, we need tax reform, we need social reform, we need - " "Chloroform!", shouted a voice from the floor.
|
|
|
Post by Vadim on Jan 28, 2009 13:41:25 GMT
I've read the example, Vv, and I still don't get it. Sorry . I would say "it was a smashin party". I wouldn't, however, say "it was a very smashing party". I must be going mad.
|
|
|
Post by Sue M-V on Jan 28, 2009 17:48:01 GMT
I agree, Vadim, that "a very smashing party" doesn't sound right. In theory, though, it ought to, since adverbs (e.g. very) can be used to qualify adjectives. We say "very interesting" and "very boring" so why not "very smashing". Still, it's not anything I'd say either. I wouldn't say "a very smiling child" or "a very darkening sky", but I would say "a very hard-working person".
I might say "really smashing" or use some adverb other than "very". I didn't react to Bertie's "very nit-picking", other than to think that one of the main reasons we come here is to pick nits. Tone just happens to be very good at it. Would you say "rather nit-picking", Vadim?
I feel I'm missing something here - will one of our expert grammarians be so kind as to explain further?
Sue
|
|
|
Post by rickcarpenter on Jan 28, 2009 18:10:36 GMT
If I see a "foreign" word frequently in ordinary English, I'm inclined to consider it naturalised. Some foreign terms I see a lot of, but they are in specialised subsets of English - e.g. academic - so I don't regard those as naturalised because their context is not "ordinary English". Yes, I suppose it's a commonsense judgment call. Are these naturalized words and their usages then OK with you, and others on this list? I seem to recall in a past post some expressing alarm at Americanisms creeping into OzE and UKE. Here in this post we are discussing Latin, French, and German words, among others, creeping into English. ...but wait a minute, isn't that the very history of English?
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jan 28, 2009 18:55:16 GMT
Out with these foreign words, I say!! Purity is the sine qua non of proper English!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jan 28, 2009 19:44:13 GMT
Rick: "I seem to recall in a past post some expressing alarm at Americanisms creeping into OzE and UKE"
"Creeping in" isn't too bad. "Taking over" and "Subjugating" are different matters entirely!
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jan 28, 2009 19:48:56 GMT
Vadim and Sue, On the subject of "smashing", it's an import from Scottish Gaelic; " 's math sin", (almost the same pronunciation as "smashing") means "that's good". Should I italicise it?
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jan 28, 2009 21:02:40 GMT
>That's very nit-picking, Tone.<
Sorry, Bertie, if you think my pointing out (and explaining in detail) a blatant inaccuracy is "nit-picking".
For a vote result, "unanimous" and "nem con" are mutually exclusive.
My own view is that, as a few here do occasionally learn "new words" I would prefer that they don't learn them with the wrong meaning.
Sorry if it discommodes you, but that view of mine is a bit "core" to a retired teacher. And I hope as many others as can will continue to correct factual inaccuracies, even if those inaccuracies are made in haste and not essential to the particular theme of a discussion.
Tone (Minute-taker for over 30 years)
|
|
|
Post by SusanB on Jan 28, 2009 21:28:05 GMT
Vadim, Back to your 'et al'. (I'm a bit behind.) Some publishers require it to be written one way, and some the other. And some don't seem to mind. That probably explains why you've seen it both ways. (I write it with the full stop, unless I'm instructed to use it otherly.)
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jan 28, 2009 22:58:58 GMT
Slightly off topic, I write a lot of legal technical analysis. I was always taught thst case should be named ijn italics. Thus BMBF v Mawson. Does anyone know why this is?
Also, if we are talking about it, why do we say "BMBF and Mawson"?
|
|