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!

02-04-2015 , 09:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcticKnight
Hope it is ok to post a pronouncation question in this thread.

On the radio there is this Chuck Woolery guy who narrates an ad for Australian Dream cream. He says the cream "isn't greasy," but he pronounces "greasy" as GREE-zee instead of GREE-see

My question: Is there anywhere in the US or Canada where people pronounce greasy as greezy??
You just offended me
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-04-2015 , 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcticKnight
Hope it is ok to post a pronouncation question in this thread.

On the radio there is this Chuck Woolery guy who narrates an ad for Australian Dream cream. He says the cream "isn't greasy," but he pronounces "greasy" as GREE-zee instead of GREE-see

My question: Is there anywhere in the US or Canada where people pronounce greasy as greezy??
Please tell me you know how iconic Chuck Woolery is.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-04-2015 , 10:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcticKnight
My question: Is there anywhere in the US or Canada where people pronounce greasy as greezy??
The "zee" pronunciation is very common in the southern U.S. regardless of education level.

Checking some dictionaries, both forms appear in Merriam Webster, dictionary.com, Oxford, and Cambridge. The only one I found that only shows the "s" pronunciation is Macmillan.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-04-2015 , 11:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1238
Please tell me you know how iconic Chuck Woolery is.
He'll be back in two and two while he goes and uses his google machine.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-05-2015 , 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1238
Please tell me you know how iconic Chuck Woolery is.
His wiki is underwhelming. Other than the epic feat of hosting Wheel of Fortune before Pat Sajak, am I missing something extraordinary he has done?
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-05-2015 , 12:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcticKnight
His wiki is underwhelming. Other than the epic feat of hosting Wheel of Fortune before Pat Sajak, am I missing something extraordinary he has done?
.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-05-2015 , 03:19 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcticKnight
Hope it is ok to post a pronouncation question in this thread.

On the radio there is this Chuck Woolery guy who narrates an ad for Australian Dream cream. He says the cream "isn't greasy," but he pronounces "greasy" as GREE-zee instead of GREE-see

My question: Is there anywhere in the US or Canada where people pronounce greasy as greezy??
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewOldGuy
The "zee" pronunciation is very common in the southern U.S. regardless of education level.

Checking some dictionaries, both forms appear in Merriam Webster, dictionary.com, Oxford, and Cambridge. The only one I found that only shows the "s" pronunciation is Macmillan.
I'm in Texas. It's always been GREE-zee. I ain't never heard of the GREE-see pronunciation until now.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-05-2015 , 03:25 AM
Do you also pronounce "grease" as "greeze"?
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-05-2015 , 07:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcticKnight
His wiki is underwhelming. Other than the epic feat of hosting Wheel of Fortune before Pat Sajak, am I missing something extraordinary he has done?
Love Connection
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-05-2015 , 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clear Quality
Do you also pronounce "grease" as "greeze"?
The verb form , yes. Not the noun. The noun always takes the "s" sound.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-05-2015 , 09:51 AM
After watching this video, I almost feel like including Chuck Woolery in the greatest badasses thread.

"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-06-2015 , 03:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaseNutley26
After watching this video, I almost feel like including Chuck Woolery in the greatest badasses thread.

Did he get kicked out if a hospital for eating a toddler? The bar in that thread has been set high.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-18-2015 , 08:22 AM
I have a feeling this has been touched on already...

An English teacher told us the word 'that' is overused and often redundant. He used to draw a slash through every 'that' used in our papers. He's sort-of right, I think, but omitting it entirely from essay writing seems wasteful. What do you think about this?
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-18-2015 , 08:55 AM
****ing terrible -- you have to factor in rhythm and style. I agree with lagdonk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lagdonk
No, no, no, no. Style and rhythm and voice and metrical balance and deliberate movements away from clarity (for deliberate reasons) must be factored in, even in expository prose, unless you're writing ticker-tape copy.

This would be a meaningful pivot if Strunk and White weren't total arsefaces. With all due respect to Arseface.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagdonk
Tautological definitions of "extraneous" are tautological.

Or here's another angle: there's no such thing as "extraneous words" in the sense you're suggesting: words always add "something"--it is impossible for them not to, being physically present and all--the question is how one judges this ineluctable "something."

In the example under discussion, choosing to include "have" alters the metrical design and/or rhythm of the sentence, how it rolls off the tongue, and (to a slighter extent) what type of voice it possesses--you then judge the fitness of these added effects on a situational basis.

As for Elements: if it has helped, provided comfort, firmed up the nebulous, made straight the crooked, then more power to it, but I'm pompous enough to add this: retire the lovely old crutch if you want to grow.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-18-2015 , 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcticKnight
His wiki is underwhelming. Other than the epic feat of hosting Wheel of Fortune before Pat Sajak, am I missing something extraordinary he has done?
Scrabble (game show)
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-18-2015 , 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuma
I have a feeling this has been touched on already...

An English teacher told us the word 'that' is overused and often redundant. He used to draw a slash through every 'that' used in our papers. He's sort-of right, I think, but omitting it entirely from essay writing seems wasteful. What do you think about this?
His statement is correct, but his solution is boneheaded. That's something you might do with third graders, kind of like telling them to never begin a sentence with a conjunction. Obviously both cases have valid uses and there is no "never" in writing. And sometimes "that" is absolutely necessary in a sentence regardless of style considerations.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-18-2015 , 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuma
I have a feeling this has been touched on already...

An English teacher told us the word 'that' is overused and often redundant. He used to draw a slash through every 'that' used in our papers. He's sort-of right, I think, but omitting it entirely from essay writing seems wasteful. What do you think about that?
FYP
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-18-2015 , 09:48 PM
If you are part of a group of triplets, how do you refer to a single one of them?

(I'm looking for the equivalent of 'twin', which wouldn't work with 3.)
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-18-2015 , 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kvitlekh
If you are part of a group of triplets, how do you refer to a single one of them?

(I'm looking for the equivalent of 'twin', which wouldn't work with 3.)
They just refer to each other as "my brother" or "my sister" and further explanation requires a sentence. There isn't a word.

Similarly, if you mean other sets of three things that are collectively called a triplet when observed three together (or three consecutive instances) then any one of them is simply referred to by whatever it is. There isn't a word to indicate that this is one member of a set of three (not in English anyway).

Last edited by NewOldGuy; 02-18-2015 at 10:27 PM.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-19-2015 , 01:29 AM
A twin is one in a set of twins.
A triplet is one in a set of triplets.

Am I way off?
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-19-2015 , 06:15 AM
That's correct but "triplet" can also be used to refer to a set of three. If it's not contextually clear which you mean, it can sound odd sometimes.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-19-2015 , 06:18 AM
While I think of it, a piece of language trivia that I can't help but think of every time someone uses it:

"Lucked out" is the only expression I am aware of that has two meanings which are the complete opposite of each other. It is it's own antonym. The two meanings are US and UK, but thanks to being in lolstralia, you will hear both used here and simply have to derive from context which is meant.

Wiktionary defines it like this:

Quote:
(colloquial, idiomatic, US) To experience great luck; to be extremely fortunate or lucky.
I lucked out and got the last two tickets to the big show.
(colloquial, idiomatic, UK) To run out of luck.
I lucked out and failed to get the tickets.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-19-2015 , 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baumer
A twin is one in a set of twins.
A triplet is one in a set of triplets.

Am I way off?
This is fine when referring to people born together. But more generally, a triplet is the word for a set of three like things and is not used to refer to the individual thing. The parallel word for two is a pair or a doublet, not a twin, as twin implies that the things are identical or a matched set (except for people).
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-19-2015 , 10:11 AM
One that bugs me is the term untracked.

People use on track instead of untracked, but on track actually makes more sense, even though it isn't proper (AFAIK -- though it's probably one of those misuses that's so common it's accepted).

Usage: Our team has performed badly lately, but we're turning it around and getting ourselves untracked / on track.

It's irritating because when I think untracked, I think a trainwreck; when I think on track, I think get the train a-rollin'.

What makes it even worse is that on track would be proper if used like so: Our team has performed badly lately, but we're turning it around and getting ourselves back on track.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
02-19-2015 , 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaseNutley26
One that bugs me is the term untracked.

People use on track instead of untracked, but on track actually makes more sense, even though it isn't proper (AFAIK -- though it's probably one of those misuses that's so common it's accepted).

Usage: Our team has performed badly lately, but we're turning it around and getting ourselves untracked / on track.

It's irritating because when I think untracked, I think a trainwreck; when I think on track, I think get the train a-rollin'.

What makes it even worse is that on track would be proper if used like so: Our team has performed badly lately, but we're turning it around and getting ourselves back on track.
I have never heard the word "untracked" in my life.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote

      
m