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!

12-10-2008 , 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by private joker
Bendru -- awesome.

horn -- Momentarily means "for a moment," not "in a moment." But I guess the whole 'common usage' argument gets used a lot here, so people will defend themselves by saying that these days it's acceptable to have both connotations.
Both the OED and Websters recognize the "in a moment" definition of momentarily, although "for a moment" is still the principal definition.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 06:20 PM
Quote:
*If we both had Quiznos and both ordered the regular Mesquite chicken with bacon, no tomatoes, with Nacho Cheese Doritos and a diet Pepsi, then we both failed miserably at the game of lunch.
.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 06:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowden719
I agree it's stretching it, which is why we don't use it in every day conversation. The less related something is to everything else, the more unique it is.
i suppose i can agree to this, but the point is that modifying it with 'more unique', 'most unique', and 'very unique' seems silly. obviously describing something as utterly without compare is just as nonsensical - but to say someone is 'very unique' is merely a rhetorical flourish, it just sounds good, but it also sounds stupid when you stop to consider just what was said.

george carlin had a twenty page rant about usage in his first book - almost all of these are covered there (momentarily, unique, etc.).
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 06:23 PM
This thread has been severely bad for my original goal of fiddling with small electronic doodads today. Good job OOT!
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by private joker
Can't say I'm with you here, Slim. Either you're just being too nitty or misunderstanding how the phrase is applied.

* If I had Quiznos and you had Chipotle, then we had different lunches today.

*If we both had Quiznos, then we had the same lunch today.

*If we both had Quiznos and both ordered the regular Mesquite chicken with bacon, no tomatoes, with Nacho Cheese Doritos and a diet Pepsi, then we had the exact same lunch today.

It's all about the degree of similarity. "Exact same" implies more accuracy than "same."
No you didn't. Therein lies the problem.

Main Entry:
same Listen to the pronunciation of 1same
Pronunciation:
\ˈsām\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old Norse samr; akin to Old High German sama same, Latin simulis like, simul together, at the same time, similis like, sem- one, Greek ***** same, hama together, hen-, heis one
Date:
13th century

1 a: resembling in every relevant respect
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 06:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gusmahler
I don't think anyone thinks or talks like that, though. If I were talking to my wife at the end of the day, I'd say something like this:

Me: What'd you do for lunch?
Wife: I had a honey bacon club at Quiznos.
Me: I went to Quiznos also, but had the Classic Italian.

Your way:

You: What'd you do for lunch?
GF: I had a honey bacon club at Quiznos.
You: I had the same thing, a Classic Italian at Quiznos.
GF: WTF, I said honey bacon club, not classic italian. I hate that sub. I hate you. <hangs up phone>
Nonsense, it's all about context.

Amanda: Where is everyone?
Tracy: They're all outside eating lunch.
Amanda: Did they get it from Pizza Hut?
Tracy: Yeah, everyone's having Pizza Hut except Gabriel. He's a health nut, and lactose intolerant too, so he went next door to that vegan joint. Weirdo.
Amanda: Wait, are you saying Oscar finally got a different lunch than Gabriel?
Tracy: Oh sorry, no, they got the same lunch again. Oscar followed Gabriel into the vegan place.

<Amanda goes outside, sees 12 people eating pizza, then sees Oscar and Gabriel on another bench, both eating vegan sandwiches. Goes back inside>

Amanda: WTF you lying bitch, you said Oscar and Gabriel got the same lunch, and it turns out Oscar's sandwich is a grilled portobello mushroom sandwich and Gabriel's is tofu. You're fired.

(In other words, the focus of the communication is a shorthand way of saying they went to the same place but ordered different items. For the purposes of comparing them to the other 12 people, they got the same lunch. To identify their lunches between each other, they did not get the exact same lunch.)

EDIT:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinola

1 a: resembling in every relevant respect
Which is my point -- for Tracy, the only relevant aspects were the location of the lunch orders. For 12 people, they all got the same thing: Pizza Hut. For the other 2 guys, they got vegan. For Amanda, the particular items were just as relevant.

Last edited by private joker; 12-10-2008 at 06:33 PM.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 06:29 PM
I saw one of mine in the paper today:

"16 teams comprise one of the strongest fields..."

NONONONONONONO! The whole comprises the parts. The parts compose a whole.


Plus...don't even get me started about when sports teams finally begin to gel. It's 'jell'.

Or, when referring to the Oilers people say "Edmonton are 4-2-1 on the road this season.". No "Edmonton IS 4-2-1 on the road this season." You're talking about a team, not a bunch of individuals.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 06:30 PM
Thank you so very much. I feel someone understands me.

I am posting a few paragraphs from a story I wrote some time ago. It's called "Apostrophe Now." Enjoy.

I sit here on the sunny windowsill of my ground floor Geary St. apartment, the varied San Francisco foot traffic shuffling, stumbling, and scurrying by. I am smoking another Newport, and I am considering the apostrophe that taunts me from the fruit stand directly across the street. The cardboard sign above the crate of oranges reads Orange’s $1.99. I am nonplussed by the orphaned apostrophe. In spite of having had 34 long years to adapt and reconcile and understand things, I still manage to find myself somehow dismayed by this forlornly parasitic possessive.

Here's another:

Recently, I had what is commonly and I suppose accurately referred to as a “health scare.” I made reference to it earlier when I mentioned my whore wife. I had developed an odd condition which entailed headaches of impressively sadistic quality coupled with a nearly narcoleptic lust for sleep. The doctor had ordered a battery of tests from bloodwork to a CAT scan to more bloodwork. Words like tumor and malignancy and cancer were not mentioned, but it was understood they existed in theory, in the limitless realm of possibility made not quite probable, but clearly more abstractly present than previously acknowledged.
At the blood-letting center, there was a sign on the wall at the welcome desk. This sign was not written on cardboard and was not scrawled in blue crayon like the sign across Geary. This sign was written on a computer using an elegant font, it had a logo for the blood-letting company at the top, and it was printed on heavy-bond paper. It was lovingly framed. It read:

“All Phlebotomist’s are helping other patients right now. Please be seated.”

My first reaction was to wonder why the word phlebotomists should warrant the bastard apostrophe, but not patients. Is there some word hierarchy about which I was never made aware? Do the lower, less ornate words get short-shrift in this perverse and unjust lexicon? And who could be so presumptive as to assign such status?
Having wasted enough time considering this inane question, I shifted gears a bit and directly addressed my concern with the woman behind the counter. Her name, if the tiny tag on her enormous left breast had any basis in reality, was Sharma. She was a sizeable African-American lady in pink and purple flowered scrubs. She did not look up when I said “excuse me,” but I continued unscathed.
“I just thought you might like to know that there is an error on this little sign. You have used an apostrophe—“
“Please have a seat and one of the phlebotomist's will be right with you.”


One more:

A few weeks prior to the earning of her moniker of whore wife, we were driving back from dinner in North Beach. She asked me if she could stop at “an ATM machine.” I chuckled a little, and said OK. She asked why I had chuckled, so I reluctantly but smilingly explained to her that her request had contained a slight redundancy, and that hey, no big deal—everyone makes the same mistake.
This was met with stony silence, and an awkward moment before I realized she didn’t really know which aspect of her query was redundant. I felt things sliding into potentially unpleasant territory, so I said, “As I said, it’s nothing, really. The M in ATM actually stands for machine. So what you said was “Automatic Teller Machine Machine,” which is a redundancy. As I said, everyone does it. Did you enjoy your fra diavlo?”
Then it began: “Everyone says ATM Machine, so that’s what it’s called. Have you considered the possibility that YOU’RE the one who’s wrong? Maybe YOU’RE wrong!”
Asked the Lord above for mercy, save me if you please.
The crossroads.
“Look, I don’t want to argue about it. I didn’t mean anything by it. It’s just, just…never mind. Yes, you’re right. If everyone says it, then it’s probably right, and I am probably wrong. No problem. It’s colloquial, a matter of a phrase coming into usage…let’s just move on. I think there’s an ATM just up ahead on Divisidero—“
I knew immediately that I had just made a fatal error.
“You did that on purpose! You’re just trying to make me feel stupid! I get it; everyone ELSE says ATM machine, but you do not because you’re smarter than me and smarter than everyone else. I get it.” She was getting beside herself; there was no denying it.
I wished I could get back to the crossroads, but they were way back in my rearview, barely visible. I pulled the car over next to the Bank of America on Divisadero, and said “Ok, here’s your ATM machine. Don’t forget your PIN number.”
I don’t know why she took this particular moment to fully grasp what I was saying, but she did. She turned to me, and there was genuine revulsion. She looked as if she had found a giant bug cocoon in her mouth after a big bite of a peach. I immediately wondered if loathing of this strain could be dealt with, concluding without hesitation that it could not, and so I ceased to try.


Just thought I'd share.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 06:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by private joker
Can't say I'm with you here, Slim. Either you're just being too nitty or misunderstanding how the phrase is applied.

* If I had Quiznos and you had Chipotle, then we had different lunches today.

*If we both had Quiznos, then we had the same lunch today.

*If we both had Quiznos and both ordered the regular Mesquite chicken with bacon, no tomatoes, with Nacho Cheese Doritos and a diet Pepsi, then we had the exact same lunch today.

It's all about the degree of similarity. "Exact same" implies more accuracy than "same."
agree 100%, using exact tightens the scope of same.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 06:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gusmahler
Surprised their are "no" mention's of:

ensure/insure
This one is so damned simple, yet even otherwise intelligent people seem to make this mistake all the time.

Here's another:

My accountant is always saying that something is a "mute point."

Arg.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 06:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triumph36
i suppose i can agree to this, but the point is that modifying it with 'more unique', 'most unique', and 'very unique' seems silly. obviously describing something as utterly without compare is just as nonsensical - but to say someone is 'very unique' is merely a rhetorical flourish, it just sounds good, but it also sounds stupid when you stop to consider just what was said.

george carlin had a twenty page rant about usage in his first book - almost all of these are covered there (momentarily, unique, etc.).

if there can be different degrees of uniqueness, what modifier should people use?
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WWJfergusonD

Or, when referring to the Oilers people say "Edmonton are 4-2-1 on the road this season.". No "Edmonton IS 4-2-1 on the road this season." You're talking about a team, not a bunch of individuals.
What if they say "The Oilers are 4-2-1 on the road?" Same team. By your logic they should say "The Oilers is 4-2-1 on the road." The team didn't change by virtue of your referring to them by the mascot as opposed to the city. (By the way, referring to them by the city is a nice little synecdoche).

Similarly, I don't know how to use band names in this regard. I tend to say:

"R.E.M. is a great band."
and
"The Killers are a good band."

It's inconsistent, but I find that it reads better when the verb agrees with either a plural or singular band name.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 06:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by private joker
What if they say "The Oilers are 4-2-1 on the road?" Same team. By your logic they should say "The Oilers is 4-2-1 on the road." The team didn't change by virtue of your referring to them by the mascot as opposed to the city.
I'm not sold on this reasoning. Suppose that a married couple is approaching but I can't yet discern who they are. I would say "Hark, a married couple is approaching." Then when they get close I can tell it's Amy and Steve. "I revise my earlier statement; Amy and Steve are approaching." Amy and Steve and the married couple both have the same referent but in one case I'd use the plural and in the other case I wouldn't. I think this team business might be the same.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
If the "catch" in "fair catch" is going to be used as a verb, then it should be "Number 85 caught the ball fairly on the 40 yard line," or at least "fairly caught the ball." You can use "fairly" as the last word in the sentence, too.
It reminds me, if the past tense of "catch" is "caught", I could never figure ou why the past tense of "pitch" wasn't "paught".

Quote:
Originally Posted by bendru
<on phone>
Me: Are you coming over to watch the movie?
Him: I'm just around the corner. I'll be there momentarily.
Me: You don't want to watch the movie?
Not sure where you're going with this unless you're referring to the "momentarily" bit. Which reminds me, a great term to use if you're looking to buy time is the redneck word "fixin'". As in you're fixin' to do something. It's ideal because it doesn't mean you've actually started doing it, just that you're fixin' to do it. So you're at a bar and the old lady calls. Just tell her you're fixin' to leave. This will buy you some time.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 06:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gumpzilla
I think this team business might be the same.
Yeah me too. That's why I followed up with the rock band example. I think it sounds better when the verb agrees with whether the band (or team or whatever) is a singular or plural name. Like, "The Miami Heat is 10-9 this season" vs. "The Los Angeles Lakers are 16-3 this season." In both cases it's the team name, but the verb is different.

I'm just saying it uses a different logic than the poster was saying -- his argument was that it should be singular because you're talking about a team, not a group of individuals. That has nothing to do with it imo.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
On the sports front, the one that gets me regards "fair catch." "Number 85 calls for a fair catch on the 40 yard line." Fine. "Number 85 fair caught the ball on the 40 yard line." Sonnuvagoddambitchahachchchchchchchchdch!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triumph36
sorry i don't see the problem here. i guess 'caught' works? i mean it's an awkward thing to describe in the past tense.
This begs the question (!), when is it ok to make verbs out of nouns?*

I'm not a fan of vacation as a verb and I agree with wookie on fair catch. However, I think pen is fine.

Maybe the rule should just be that if you have a noun phrase (if that's what it's called) such as fair catch then it can't be made into a verb. That leaves vacation, but I'm not sure what to do about that without getting rid of pen and the like.



* What is the correct punctuation for the above sentence? When the sentence is a statement that finishes in a question I'm never sure what do.

Examples:
A question I just thought of is what kind of punctuation should I use at the end?.

Maybe:
A question I just thought of is "what kind of punctuation should I use at the end?".

That, however, seems to be a violation of the American English Punctuation Inside Quotation Marks Act of 1835 which was pointed out above.

"Rarely has the question been asked "is our children learning?"." ???
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by private joker
What if they say "The Oilers are 4-2-1 on the road?" Same team. By your logic they should say "The Oilers is 4-2-1 on the road." The team didn't change by virtue of your referring to them by the mascot as opposed to the city. (By the way, referring to them by the city is a nice little synecdoche).

Similarly, I don't know how to use band names in this regard. I tend to say:

"R.E.M. is a great band."
and
"The Killers are a good band."

It's inconsistent, but I find that it reads better when the verb agrees with either a plural or singular band name.
For me, if you're referring to them as a singular name singular (Lightning, Chelsea, Jazz) I use "is". If it's plural (Oilers, Baggies, Celtics) I use 'are' for the reason you mention...it sounds better.

In journalism school they taught us that when it's acting as a unit, it's described as singular. When it's acting as individuals within a group, it's plural.

"The jury is deliberating."
"The jury are arguing about what to have for lunch."
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 06:53 PM
I would definitely say "The Miami Heat are 10-9 this season." Same with the Utah Jazz.

But for bands I agree. "The Beatles are..." "Led Zeppelin is..." (though "are" is used pretty frequently there).
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 06:54 PM
Anyone else really annoyed by TV people constantly using the present tense of verbs when they should be using the past tense?
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 06:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowden719
if there can be different degrees of uniqueness, what modifier should people use?
unique is enough in itself. that's my point - when you describe a person as 'unique', the meaning is conveyed there. obviously that person is not unique - not utterly without compare - but when a person is 'unique', it means they're often quirky or odd.

it's not unique in the sense that a square is a unique rectangle or a circle is a unique ellipse (or something similar, that might be an incorrect usage of unique in that context). but still, just 'unique' is enough. people say 'very unique' because they are used to saying things like 'very tall', etc.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 06:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triumph36
claunchy: i use 'times out' ironically.
lol you are quite the hipster

Quote:
i can't think of the other sports one - although i've always wondered what the plural of spin-o-rama is - "spins-o-rama" was my guess.
I'm thinking it's probably spin-o-ramas, but I'm not too sure, and lol hockey.

Quote:
i also say 'forwent' as the past tense of forgo. when the fascists take over, i will be the first to go.
I think this is right, isn't it? I would probably say 'forwent' also. I'm sure as **** not saying 'forgoed'.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by private joker
"...referring to them by the city is a nice little synecdoche"
Haven't heard this word in probably 15 years. Bless you private joker.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 07:22 PM
hopefully some people in this thread recognize the line between clarity and pedantry.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 07:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by econophile
hopefully some people in this thread recognize the line between clarity and pedantry.
I, too, find attorney generals horribly unclear.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
12-10-2008 , 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gumpzilla
I, too, find attorney generals horribly unclear.
mental image is something like this:

&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote

      
m