quote:Originally posted by Loren: Seriously, though, why use "from whence," anyway? Why the extra word?
Because the shortest way to say something isn't always the best. And anyway, if whence really carried the notion of "fromness" as well as everyone claims, then we wouldn't feel the need to add a "from." I think the fact that it's been preceded by an allegedly redundant "from" for most of its existence is a big clue that maybe it's not as redundant as people like to think.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because the shortest way to say something isn't always the best. And anyway, if whence really carried the notion of "fromness" as well as everyone claims, then we wouldn't feel the need to add a "from."
Or if everyone knew their language, they would know that "whence" means "from where," and they wouldn't feel the need to add a "from." I'm actually not arguing from a position of strict correctness; I'm arguing from a position of pure utility and strict correctness.
Okay, and partially because I've always enjoyed yanking Jon Boy's chain about grammar and usage.
Posts: 100 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which brings me back to my previous point: do you believe that Shakespeare didn't know his English?
Also, "to yank someone's chain" means "to tell someone a lie," so I'm really not sure what you mean regarding yanking my chain about grammar and usage. How's that for strict correctness?
(I don't even know who you are, either, so I don't know why you would say that you've "always enjoyed" yanking my chain.)
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got a question: when engaging in a pissing contest, is it more correct to ask "you getting up in all's," or "you gonna get up in all's," if the getting up has not yet occurred but seems imminent?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, "to yank someone's chain" means "to tell someone a lie," so I'm really not sure what you mean regarding yanking my chain about grammar and usage. How's that for strict correctness?
posted
I was about to say, I thought "yanking your chain" was roughly equivalent to "pushing your buttons" or "just trying to get a rise out of you". I was worried.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Oxford English Dictionary says "to tease or trick a person, usually by telling a lie; to antagonize or annoy a person."
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fairness to Dante, Jon Boy, you DO have a big-ass red key stuck in your back labeled "To wind up, challenge my knowledge of English usage."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to point out that until Jon Boy entered the fray, there was nary an instance of 'fricative' or 'vocative' to be found in this thread. It was just a good ole-fashioned pissing contest.
I personally love a good grammar rodeo.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I personally love a good grammar rodeo.
Do not DARE to remonstrance contumelious euphuism; in lieu we should rightly be of your censorious, obloquious vitiate, apropos to my cantish nonce vernacular.
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I'd like to point out that until Jon Boy entered the fray, there was nary an instance of 'fricative' or 'vocative' to be found in this thread. It was just a good ole-fashioned pissing contest.
I personally love a good grammar rodeo.
Thanks, JT. That raises the question, though: am I a rider or a bull? If the latter, perhaps it's neither a chain nor a wind-up key, but an uncomfortably tight leather strap.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Thanks, JT. That raises the question, though: am I a rider or a bull? If the latter, perhaps it's neither a chain nor a wind-up key, but an uncomfortably tight leather strap.
I'm so thankful that I don't know what you look like, thus sparing myself the visuals. Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: erm, VC is neither the smaller city in the world nor the smallest nation.
I believe that honor belongs to another country located in Rome- The republic of Malta. Unless there is some smaller one, like the "country" on the quad of the Berkley Campus.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: erm, VC is neither the smaller city in the world nor the smallest nation.
I believe that honor belongs to another country located in Rome- The republic of Malta. Unless there is some smaller one, like the "country" on the quad of the Berkley Campus.
Vatican City is the smallest country in the world.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I may be getting confused- But I thought there were TWO maltas. What is the "country" which consists of only one street, in Rome; essentially one set of buildings and a courtyard? I thought it was something like the Maltese Dominion, or the independent republic of Malta... Any bells?
I am not just imagining this, I saw something about it years ago on the discovery channel! Common folks, help me out here?
Edit: Ok I did a little googling and some wikiing...
The "Sovereign Military Order of Malta" is a complicated issue. It might be considered a country if you called its territory an embassy. It is located in Rome and is a subject of international law, it is also considered "extra-territorial" to Italy, whatever that means.
Also one search turned up a -possible- country which is a sort of independent territory in India. However, it has no population at all... so how can it be a country?
Anyway, I see that most sources site Vatican city as the smallest country in the world. The truthiness of this claim is also in question for me, because a number of the "smallest countries" in alot of the lists I saw are only -sorta- countries, or countries not recognized by everyone, or which have no embassies, or populations, or governments of their own.
posted
I'm sure it's already been mentioned, but I find it amusing that this is the opposite problem of Blayne's.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I had always assumed that the primary advantage of internet fora was that one could communicate in writing, rather than in speech and thus be able to more effectively express nuanced ideas. In the past few days, however, I have come under intense criticism for writing in a manner which was not felt to be sufficiently conversational.
This is how I always write, this is how my friends write (and, to a large extent, speak), this is how my teachers write and this is how the newspapers and books I read are written. So what, I may ask, is the problem which some feel to be so pressing?
(sorry if this has already been said) It's perfectly acceptable to me. I'm 16, and whenever I'm talking online with my friends it's always 'lol' 'rofl' 'how r u' and whenever they start conversations they say: 'sup'and I reply and aske them back and they say: 'not much' and that's the whole dialogue. I wish I were an adult, then people would try and have intelligent interactions with me, because, most of the time, that's how the real life conversations are, too.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
::seconds JennaDean:: You strike me as someone who will fit in beautifully here, Ereneth.
I know that it's a bit late to be throwing my hat into the ring on this one, but on the subject of Pelegius's posting style, I suspect that if I'd been here when I was 17 I'd have adopted something very similar. I used intellect as armor for a long time, and radiating erudite distain was a defensive tool I used so frequently and reflexively I didn't even realize I was using it. If someone back then had suggested to me that that was what I was doing I would have been kind of bewildered by the assertion, but in retrospect it's fairly obvious.
Some applications of the technique are more grating than others; I don't find Pelegius' so bad, and I definitely prefer it to the kind of barely literate approach that some of our younger members occasionally take.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mind "how r u?" from my teenaged kids, but when my mom types in chatspeak, I grit my teeth and want to cover my eyes to stop the hurting.
This doesn't add anything to the conversation, but I feel better having said it. So thanks!
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had to read Pelegius's post twice to realize what the actual complaints against him were. While the register was academic, it read rather naturally. Or I'm just a geek. I've been told not to use large words in the past, but with "how r u" and "ur", I find it refreshing to see the other extreme. In some ways, it's being rebellious.
I also remember this kid I worked with at the high school writing center a couple years back. He tried to write his papers by making waaaay too much of an effort to sound smart. He wasn't smart, was trying to be, but didn't know that what he needed to do was write what he wanted to say, not think of a fancy way to phrase it.
People who write like they swallowed the encylopedia do it naturally. I've also found that I write very much in the style of the authors I've recently read. I remember a very interesting angsty post I made on a Harry Potter forum about book 5 not being out yet. It was in the style of John Steinbeck- I'd just finished the Grapes of Wrath and couldn't help but oak up the rythmn that book had.
So long as Pelegius is as articulate as he is wordy, there is no harm done. :-)
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone's writing reads like they swallowed an encycopedia, then they are NOT writing naturally. Its perfectly natural to use whatever words best describe whatever you're talking about, but usually, if you notice the "5-dollar words" lying a little too thickly, the person really can't use them correctly or judiciously. If a writer sounds like he suffers from thesaurus syndrome, its quite likely that he or she has a poor concept of the audience involved.
This, by the way, is a debate that's been going on for thousands of years (literary criticism summer session student here ). Aristotle's "Rhetoric" has some pretty insightful things to say about public speaking, including identification of the relevant parts of a speach: the speaker, the subject and the audience. It may seem like common sense, but I very often find myself wondering if a person I am listening to has a concept of who they are adressing, what they are talking about and who they are to be talking about whatever it is. Having all that in mind, I find it changes the way I think about speaking in general; as well as tone, pacing, vocabulary, everything.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: I've also found that I write very much in the style of the authors I've recently read. I remember a very interesting angsty post I made on a Harry Potter forum about book 5 not being out yet. It was in the style of John Steinbeck- I'd just finished the Grapes of Wrath and couldn't help but oak up the rythmn that book had.
I do this too. I've found it's especially bad after reading Jane Austin, for some reason.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
As have said before, have just finished "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" so am writing and thinking in clipped half-English like Manuel.]
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: I've also found that I write very much in the style of the authors I've recently read. I remember a very interesting angsty post I made on a Harry Potter forum about book 5 not being out yet. It was in the style of John Steinbeck- I'd just finished the Grapes of Wrath and couldn't help but oak up the rythmn that book had.
I do this too. I've found it's especially bad after reading Jane Austin, for some reason.
I do this too. I think that my two favorite examples are my writing immediately after finishing Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, and the time 5 or 6 years ago when I was going through books that had been rescued from my parents' house after it had been struck by lightning, and took a little while to read all of the Dr. Seuss books. I had to exert conscious effort to avoid speaking in Seussian patterns for the better part of a day.
It's fascinating, isn't it, what highly imitative creatures we are?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't write very often, but sometimes I find that when I read certain authors I end up thinking in their writing styles. It can be kinda irritating, but the world always looks cleaner somehow after reading Ray Bradbury.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think everyone mimics writing styles to a certain degree, my own doubtlessly owes much to Michael Grant and Kenneth Clark. When writing poetry, I have noticed the fact that my rhythms are influenced by music I heard recently, particularly certain songs like "Suzanne" by Leonard Cohen.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
heh. I tend to mimic as well, especially if I enjoy the usage. And I have been indulging in marathon sessions of watching Deadwood.Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: This, by the way, is a debate that's been going on for thousands of years (literary criticism summer session student here ). Aristotle's "Rhetoric" has some pretty insightful things to say about public speaking, including identification of the relevant parts of a speach: the speaker, the subject and the audience. It may seem like common sense, but I very often find myself wondering if a person I am listening to has a concept of who they are adressing, what they are talking about and who they are to be talking about whatever it is. Having all that in mind, I find it changes the way I think about speaking in general; as well as tone, pacing, vocabulary, everything.
Or read Plato's "The apology of Socrates". I think Pel is definetly a sophist (well at least in the way Plato thought of them).
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would disagree, I am like Socrates, not a gifted orator but one who has the advantage of speaking the truth.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm afraid not Pel. Socrates never claimed to know the truth (well beyond the truth that he didn't know the truth... I'm dizzy).
More than anything, he was humble, and didn't like to decorate his oration with "flowery" language, like the sophists were taught and practiced. You are undoubtably a sophist, you have flowery language coming straight out of your .... mouth.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps, remember that Socrates's speech was cleaned up after the fact by Plato. Socrates was, in fact, something of a Sophist, he certainly used their techniques, but he did so in order to challange assumptions, rather than to make money. Like Socrates, I charge no money, but then neither do I "make the worse appear better and the better worse" the crime of bothe Socrates and the Sophists.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you of course know what socrates's speak actually was? I'm sorry, were you there? Or is there another source I'm not aware of? Enlighten me Pel.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I don't know how Socrates spoke, but I can presume that it was cleaned up by Plato, given that Plato wrote several years later. I would say the same for any such text, particularly an ancient one and particularly one writen by a man with a philosophical agenda.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Socrates was, in fact, something of a Sophist, he certainly used their techniques,
No, no, no. Sophists were merely rhetoriticians who didn't care particularly what they argued about, but promoted argument as a path to knowledge/wisdom,
To "use their techniques," means to argue well, and use effective rhetorical strategy. Its only sophistry if you're mercenary about what you argue for, or if you believe that winning an argument is the same as proving your point. You can't say he did believe that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thus said Socrates and I am inclined to agree; however, I cannot be a Sophist as it is alleged I am.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: When Socrates said he was not a gifted orator, he was engaging in false modesty. Are you?
Good point. Saying, "I am like Socrates," in the same breath as "I am not gifted," draws the reader's attention to the inherent implied contradiction, and the flamboyant display of modesty. False modesty.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As Socrates is most famous for tying his opponents in fairly dishonest rhetorical knots, it would be a stretch to say that he wasn't a good speaker. At worst, he was not a flowery or charismatic speaker.
The jury's still out on whether he actually intended to sway, well, the jury at his trial; I personally suspect he'd already decided to go out with a bang.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: They're hardly "French" measurements, Tom. The US is one of the only nations still using the so-called Standard System. (And don't get me started on the idiocy of that!)
The British still use it. I was really surprised to see signs for miles when I went there in 2005. I had grown up with that rhetroic. Also, inches are used to measure wand lenghts in the British original Harry Potters as well as the American ones.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The British only sort of still use it (and still refer to it as the "imperial system" -- a name which should encourage Americans to discard it forthwith! ).
posted
It's common for kids who are picked on for being smart (and socially awkward) to believe that their intelligence is both their most important attribute and something that makes them superior to other people. To me, Pel, that's how you come across.
There's nothing wrong with being smart. I don't think there is anything wrong with writing smart, either (although, as I've mentioned, people have taken excaption to what they've seen as pedantry in my writing as well). But it's good to realize that being - or more importantly, sounding - smart is not equivilent to saying interesting or important things. It also generally doesn't help convince people hwne used overtly, like a club. "You should listen to me because I can use big words and make references to a bunch of books." doesn't work anywhere near as well as giving a clear, coherent explanation of the arguments contained in these books.
Also, a really important life lession that many people (often especially the smart ones) miss is that going through life with feeling superior to other people as a central concern is a recipe for a pretty crappy life.
Pel, you do make me want to beat you with a wedgie stick, but I've mostly got your best interests at heart. If you tone down the self-importance, self-centeredness, need to sound smart, and focus on how superior you are, I think you're going to be much better off.
---
So often on Hatrack, we get people - kids mostly - who have many of these same problems. I so want to take you out with a bunch of my friends from different walks of life, get you drunk, get you laid, and then see how things look in the morning. The world is a more varied and friendly place than it often looks, especially to smart teenagers and you lot need to stop taking yourselves so seriously or you miss it.
Unfortunately, with this medium, the best I can do is alternate between being mean and giving advice.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
You'll fit in just fine.
