Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! "Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode!

01-17-2012 , 01:42 PM
And I should say my memory confused greavesy's catchphrase, which was, in fact, 'it's a funny old game'.

At the end of the day, though, it is indeed a funny old game.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
01-17-2012 , 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiegoArmando

At the end of the day, though, it is indeed a funny old game.
Yes, but only after 5 P.M.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
01-17-2012 , 05:57 PM
Do you prefer:

John Doe Jr. or John Doe, Jr.

I know that the comma is the more traditional way and according to some style book in the 90's, removing the comma is now ok.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
01-17-2012 , 07:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiegoArmando
Sorry mate but I'm afraid you are well behind the times. Your examples are not currently fashionable in my world. They've been used, as I said, for as long as I can remember.
What examples — my proposed rewritings of the posts I quoted? You're actually arguing that it is "behind the times" not to use "that being said" as those posters did? If yes, then you're inadvertently supporting my point, which is that the reason the phrase is used there is not that anyone affirmatively thinks it's better, but that it's fashionable. Give it a few more decades and if the winds haven't shifted, then you can sensibly argue that I'm behind the times.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DiegoArmando
I could also say the same about your use of 'spots'. Clearly, you used it 'in that spot' because you heard some poker player use it or read it on here and started to apply it to 'certain spots' where, imo, 'example' is better and much less 'tilting'.
The idea that I used the word "spots" because I got it on this board or from poker players is pretty amusing. I wanted a one-syllable word; there may be a better one available but none came to mind. It may not have been best but it certainly didn't result from adherence to convention.

My writing, and speech, is about as non-idiomatic and as little subject to fashion as that of anyone you'll see posting here, so it's an odd charge to level.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
01-17-2012 , 08:46 PM
wow man there's one thing being a nit about errors in one's grammar but this is a whole new level. I am saying those phrases have been used in my world for as long as I can remember and to say there is something wrong with them or that they are used as a matter of fashion is absolutely laughable to be honest.

I stand by my opinion that you are, in fact, anti English.

English is a language developed and evolved through all of its users; not through nitty committees sitting rubbing each other's gonads in their high brow mansions talking to each other in Latin, just because they can.

non idiomatic = grey and dull to me. there's a time and a place, for sure, but to come out with a statement like that really is astonishing.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
01-17-2012 , 09:14 PM
What's the joke in the MLK brunch poster?
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
01-17-2012 , 09:49 PM
It is "Prix Fixe", not "Pre Fixe". Although "Prix Fixe" is pronounced "Pre Fix". Ha ha!
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
01-18-2012 , 12:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiegoArmando
wow man there's one thing being a nit about errors in one's grammar but this is a whole new level. I am saying those phrases have been used in my world for as long as I can remember and to say there is something wrong with them or that they are used as a matter of fashion is absolutely laughable to be honest.
"Those phrases" = one phrase that I've been talking about, but let's ignore that for a second. If "that being said" has been standard for as long as you can remember, then you cannot remember very far back.


Quote:
I stand by my opinion that you are, in fact, anti English.
Note, please, that I am not against nuanced phrasing; in fact, I am in favor of it. My objection to "that being said" is that, in my opinion, it carries no nuance at all. It is a fashionable version of "still". That's all.


Quote:
English is a language developed and evolved through all of its users; not through nitty committees sitting rubbing each other's gonads in their high brow mansions talking to each other in Latin, just because they can.

non idiomatic = grey and dull to me. there's a time and a place, for sure, but to come out with a statement like that really is astonishing.
At what point in this discussion have I said I am against idiomatic usages, or against any other aspect of English's subtly variable diction and structures? The answer: I have not done so. I said that my own phrasing is relatively non-idiomatic, and I said so only in opposition to your unsupported claim that I had used the word "spots" as a result of its being common on this poker-oriented board.

Your view on the phrase has been made clear, and your reasons for it are sensible even if I happen to disagree with their application to the instant phrase. But your reading comprehension seems to be sorely lacking.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
01-18-2012 , 01:59 AM
From The American Heritage Dictionary entry on "that having been said / that being said / that said"

Quote:
Certain absolute constructions, notably that having been said, that being said, and that said function as adverbial connectors similar to however, never theless, and in spite of that. They imply that the speaker or writer is conceding the truth about what was just said, while recognizing that the present statement is in some way at variance with it. These constructions are perfectly acceptable, though they are somewhat unusual among absolute constructions in that they occur mainly in informal or conversational settings. ... In more formal writing, conjunctive adverbs like however and nonetheless are more common in these situations.
HTML Code:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=xb6ie6PqYhwC&pg=PA461&dq=%22that+being+said%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yVwWT86iO-Pm0QGdgdGDAw&ved=0CDIQuwUwADgK#v=onepage&q=%22that%20being%20said%22&f=false
Notice that these phrases are not being treated as equivalent to "still" or "but." They do more work than either.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
01-18-2012 , 02:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atakdog
But that there is a reason does not mean it is a good one, particularly because subconscious choices may often be made without consideration of the alternatives. I believe that in many cases speakers choose a currently fashionable word or phrase — as, for example, "that being said" — not to convey any nuance relative to the more obvious choice, nor to accomplish some goal with respect to rhythm, delivery, or the like, but simply because they didn't think about it. Why did the posters I quoted above use the longer phrase instead of "still" or "but", even in spots where the shorter word would clearly have been better? I think it was because it never occurred to them that they could use a single word for it. Everyone says "that being said," so they did too.
I agree with you, as I've been an abuser of buzz words and phrases. However, that's on the speaker though. Even though it's not pleasing to your ears, it at least makes the speaker happy. And at the end of the day, the fact that we have choices makes me happy, even if sometimes it's not the best choice. As long as the grammar is correct, conciseness is always a speaker's choice.

A correlation is food; when places such as McDonalds started taking out trans fats, I hated it. I'm strict with my diet, and when I choose to break it, I want full flavor. Now I don't eat Mickey D's french fries because there's no trans fat. <sigh>.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
01-18-2012 , 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atakdog
The idea that I used the word "spots" because I got it on this board or from poker players is pretty amusing. I wanted a one-syllable word; there may be a better one available but none came to mind. It may not have been best but it certainly didn't result from adherence to convention.

My writing, and speech, is about as non-idiomatic and as little subject to fashion as that of anyone you'll see posting here, so it's an odd charge to level.
See? Obviously 2+2 is influencing all your word choices.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
01-18-2012 , 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chendawg
A correlation is food; when places such as McDonalds started taking out trans fats, I hated it. I'm strict with my diet, and when I choose to break it, I want full flavor. Now I don't eat Mickey D's french fries because there's no trans fat. <sigh>.
Wait, it's the shift away from trans fats that has made the fries less tasty? Damn health nuts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GMan42
See? Obviously 2+2 is influencing all your word choices.
lol

Last edited by atakdog; 01-18-2012 at 11:51 AM. Reason: see what I did there?
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
01-18-2012 , 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atakdog
[...] At what point in this discussion have I said I am against idiomatic usages, or against any other aspect of English's subtly variable diction and structures? The answer: I have not done so. I said that my own phrasing is relatively non-idiomatic, and I said so only in opposition to your unsupported claim that I had used the word "spots" as a result of its being common on this poker-oriented board. [...].
And the post that started this discussion:
Quote:
Originally Posted by atakdog
My recent tilt phrase is "that being said".
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
01-18-2012 , 01:15 PM
True 'nuff. But that was an echo of someone else who had used that phrasing — I was picking up an extant thread in the conversation. (zomg he said thread, on an internet message board!) (zomg he said zomg!)
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
01-18-2012 , 03:33 PM
You wouldn't be 'going to do something' in Shakespearean times. Would you agree that the fact we use this construction probably evolved through some kind of misuse developing into a meme?

And serious question. What social class would you consider yourself?
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
01-18-2012 , 03:36 PM
I'm not at all unhappy about having "that being said" called to my attention. I had accepted it into my own idiomatic use to such an extent that I didn't realize it was a vogue phrase. But that is, indeed, the case. A search on Google books shows no uses of the phrase before 1992 and most of the occurrences coming after 2000. (I actually used, in the post that started this discussion--and prefer--the shorter form of "that said," but there are so many ways those two words get put together that I couldn't search for that phrase.)

My search also turned up William Safire's interesting discussion (in his book The Right Word in the Right Place at the Right Time) of what he calls this "voguism". Safire sees it as a rhetorical device similar to the to-be-sure gesture (as in "Yes, to be sure, there's another point of view but ..."). He suggests its use as a substitute for "however" is what most object to, but that it is effective when used in its stronger use, where it means "contrariwise."

HTML Code:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=tAvrsubxdZkC&pg=PA363&dq=%22that+having+been+said%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mmIWT67aNKjv0gHKn_zFAg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22that%20having%20been%20said%22&f=false
I agree with the general principle of avoiding faddish words (especially neologisms) and phrases. They are often empty and substitute for real thought. Or they put the listener's or reader's mind into an empty space. But they were effective when they entered the discourse or they would never have become faddish.

Last edited by RussellinToronto; 01-18-2012 at 03:43 PM.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
01-18-2012 , 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussellinToronto

HTML Code:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=tAvrsubxdZkC&pg=PA363&dq=%22that+having+been+said%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mmIWT67aNKjv0gHKn_zFAg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22that%20having%20been%20said%22&f=false
[ ] reliable research method
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
01-18-2012 , 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussellinToronto
I agree with the general principle of avoiding faddish words (especially neologisms) and phrases. They are often empty and substitute for real thought. Or they put the listener's or reader's mind into an empty space. But they were effective when they entered the discourse or they would never have become faddish.
At the end of the day, this is advice you can hang your hat on.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
01-18-2012 , 04:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussellinToronto
I agree with the general principle of avoiding faddish words (especially neologisms) and phrases. They are often empty and substitute for real thought. Or they put the listener's or reader's mind into an empty space. But they were effective when they entered the discourse or they would never have become faddish.
I think the above is a deplorable overcorrection driven by fear or foppishness or some species of misguided traditionalism and that master practitioners of the language should be leading the charge by vigorously welcoming "the new" and running it through its paces and mixing it in with "the established" and exploring interesting new phrasing in speech and prose.

Also, I deeply loathe 80% of this thread. But that's fodder for my therapist.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
01-18-2012 , 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didace
At the end of the day, this is advice you can hang your hat on.
For all intensive purposes, yeah. That being said, we'll see if anyone actually takes that advice...the proof is in the pudding, ya know.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
01-18-2012 , 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagdonk
I think the above is a deplorable overcorrection driven by fear or foppishness or some species of misguided traditionalism and that master practitioners of the language should be leading the charge by vigorously welcoming "the new" and running it through its paces and mixing it in with "the established" and exploring interesting new phrasing in speech and prose.
And I think you've misunderstood me. The repeated use of "At the end of the day" is a good example of empty speech. It once was effective. Many new phrases and words are, and, yes, those add to the vigour of a living language. But some become trite, stale, and exhausted through overuse and those need to be given a rest -- or used with care.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
01-18-2012 , 04:37 PM
RT,

Sorry. My post was unwarranted claptrap. I don't think I'm capable of posting responsibly in this thread sans medication.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
01-18-2012 , 04:50 PM
Those on medication perceive the probable reality of what happens in a distorted way.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
01-18-2012 , 06:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToTheInternet
Those on medication perceive the probable reality of what happens in a distorted way.
You don't mean to imply that those who aren't don't, I hope.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
01-18-2012 , 06:26 PM
No, I'm just referencing lagdonk's most famous sentence.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote

      
m