[OT, grammar and punctuation] Use of commas in US and British style?

[RobNJ]

How about "irregardless"?

ANYWAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Anyways" drives me bugf*ck. I actually ended a date early one time because a girl said, "anyways."

And I am also ashamed for our nation when the president talks about nuCUlar weapons.

The Daily Show had a great bit about that. "And that's just nucular weapons. Imagine what would happen if he got nuclear weapons!"

 

[barsoomcore]

The Daily Show had a great bit about that. "And that's just nucular weapons. Imagine what would happen if he got nuclear weapons!"

If there's anything funnier than Jon Stewart's smirk, I don't know what it is. That man makes me laugh so hard. He doesn't have to do anything, either, it's just that look on his face that makes me giggle.

 

[Mistwell]

Third page.

This discussion is now on its third page!

How am I supposed to convince people that D&D players do actually have lives, if this discussion is already on its third page?

 

[Pielorinho]

Well, dictionary.com defines the prefix "in-" as meaning "not, in, into, within." In front of certain consonants the "n" changes.

Thus, for words beginning in "r", "in-" becomes "ir-."

Thus, "irregardless" means "not regardless," which means you're taking whatever it is into consideration. So, regardless of whichever form you use, I will pursue my agenda to wipe "irregardless" off the face of the earth if it is within my power.
Just my two cents.

TWK

The thing is, meaning isn't determined by history -- it's determined by usage.

An example:

Properly, in old English, the plural of "child" was "childer." However, language changed, so that the word "childer" no longer looked like a plural to folks -- it looked like a singular word to them. So they pluralized it as was appropriate to them: "children" became the plural.

Is "children" a correct word, even though it was incorrectly pluralized?

Now you'll find folks, especially in the southern US, who don't think "children" sounds like a plural noun. They say "childrens." Are they correct?

It's hard to defend the word "children" while condemning the word "childrens." So I just don't condemn either.

For the same reason, I don't condemn "irregardless."

Daniel

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

The thing is, meaning isn't determined by history -- it's determined by usage.

An example:

Properly, in old English, the plural of "child" was "childer." However, language changed, so that the word "childer" no longer looked like a plural to folks -- it looked like a singular word to them. So they pluralized it as was appropriate to them: "children" became the plural.

Is "children" a correct word, even though it was incorrectly pluralized?

Now you'll find folks, especially in the southern US, who don't think "children" sounds like a plural noun. They say "childrens." Are they correct?

It's hard to defend the word "children" while condemning the word "childrens." So I just don't condemn either.

For the same reason, I don't condemn "irregardless."

Daniel

Aren't we supposed to be a bit more educated now though? I guess I just don't see why it's so hard to learn how to do something like that correctly.
I prefer that someone correct me when I'm wrong, rather than let me walk around looking like an ass.

Note: Your zipper is down.

 

[Morrus]

The thing is, meaning isn't determined by history -- it's determined by usage.

An example:

Properly, in old English, the plural of "child" was "childer." However, language changed, so that the word "childer" no longer looked like a plural to folks -- it looked like a singular word to them. So they pluralized it as was appropriate to them: "children" became the plural.

Is "children" a correct word, even though it was incorrectly pluralized?

Now you'll find folks, especially in the southern US, who don't think "children" sounds like a plural noun. They say "childrens." Are they correct?

It's hard to defend the word "children" while condemning the word "childrens." So I just don't condemn either.

For the same reason, I don't condemn "irregardless."

Daniel

Sure - but if you extend that principle, you don't have a language any more.

I could just type giurkjhfd and claim that it was English because that's how I use it. But it's not, and never should be.

There are reasons for rules of language and grammar - very good reasons. They help us communicate. If dialects start deviating too much, they'll be different languages. We won't understand each other (in fact, that's actually already happened!)

 

[Pielorinho]

Aren't we supposed to be a bit more educated now though? I guess I just don't see why it's so hard to learn how to do something like that correctly.

Bran, you didn't answer my question. Are we all a bunch of childer, a bunch of children, or a bunch of childrens, to be sniping at one another over such trivial matters? Please defend your answer .

The great beauty of language is its malleability. It changes; it is invented; it is destroyed. The word "chortle" used to be incorrect. Once upon a time (pre-sixteenth-century), "they" was the gender-neutral third-person-singular pronoun. The second-person-singular is no longer "thee"; someday, Southerners willing, the second-person-plural will be "y'all."

Morrus, you said:

I have to disagree with that. "I could care less" is an incorrect version of the common phrase "I couldn't care less".

Incidentally, your logic doesn't work. "As if I could care less", by your rationale, therefore means the same as "As if I cared" (which is sarcastic). It doesn't - it's the opposite.

but you perplexed me when you said that.

Personally, I could give two figs whether you catch the sarcasm in this statement (with acknowledgement to Eric's grandmother: the "I could give two XXXX" expression is usually swearier). But I'll go ahead and explain how I see it:

Sarcasm often involves saying the opposite of what you mean. "Yes. I came to your liquor store on a Friday night looking for a bear cake, you imbecile. BEER KEG!" "Seeing my evil ex-girlfriend sliming all over my evil ex-best-friend -- oh, it just fills me with a warm glowy love for humanity, let me tell you what."

When you say, "I couldn't care less," you're not being sarcastic in that sense. You really couldn't care less, because you don't care at all, and it's impossible to anticare.

When you say, "I could care less," you are being sarcastic. What you mean is, "I couldn't care less."

The expression is very similar to the expression, "I could give two figs what he thinks of me." Obviously, this expression means, "What he thinks of me isn't worth two figs to me." Does this expression cheese you off? If not, why not?

And Bran, my sweet kinder, don't forget to answer my question!

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

Sure - but if you extend that principle, you don't have a language any more.

I could just type giurkjhfd and claim that it was English because that's how I use it. But it's not, and never should be.

Not at all. If you type "giurkjhfd," and I don't know what you mean by it, then you've failed to communicate anything to me, just as surely as you would if you typed in a different language.

However, if I know what you mean by "giurkjhfd," then you've communicated perfectly well with me. And if most English-speakers know what "giurkjhfd" means, then the word will eventually make it into the dictionary and become a part of standard English.

That's what happened to the word Internet within the past couple of decades. Does it drive you crazy when people use that made-up word?

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

Incidentally, your logic doesn't work. "As if I could care less", by your rationale, therefore means the same as "As if I cared" (which is sarcastic). It doesn't - it's the opposite.

Let me address this head-on, and then I gotta go. The only way you can care less about something is if you care about it. Therefore, "as if I could care less" and "as if I care" do mean essentially the same thing.

To rephrase: if I nonsarcastically said, "I could care less about how language changes," that would mean, "I care about how language changes." Saying either of them sarcastically means that I don't care about how language changes.

Daniel

 

[Morrus]

Personally, I could give two figs whether you catch the sarcasm in this statement

Well, by your own standard of "if it communicates OK, it's language", that fails to be language. I've never heard the expression, and without your explanation I honestly don't know what it means.

I'm not saying that to be awkward or pedantic. That put me through mental paroxysms of trying to spot double negatives, whether you were implying the words "as if" beforehand (as in a previous rationale) and numerous other things. And I don't consider myself to be stupid - I have to guess at what you mean from the context (your explanation helped, of course).

It certainly doesn't mean "I don't care as much as two figs whether...." which would make sense to me (although it is clumsy). "Could" and "Don't care as much as" are opposites to me.

Maybe it's just a dialect thing - you take the phrase for granted, knowing intuitively what it means, and therefore find it easy to explain. Whereas I don't take it for granted (I have never in my life heard that structure said aloud) and have to actually try and figure out what it means because it's not intuitive to me.