Regarding "Forté"/"Forte"/"Fort": it's all a mess anyway.
http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19971114
http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19971114
Words, Phrases, and Misspellings We Hate
- Thread starter Tequila Sunrise
- Start date
sabrinathecat
Explorer
I'd rather have a new pronoun specifically for indeterminate than to incorrectly use plural. If the Language institutions can agree on one, fine, I'll use it. Until then, you may not like the 18th century rules, but they are the rules. If you don't like it, try Esperanto or Japanese, or a language which doesn't really use possessives or gender or personal pronouns.
I can't help but notice that the first few of the articles I read from the links are just as obnoxious and condescending as the people they target. Funny that. And of course, many of the sources sited are from times that either predate any attempt to standardize (Chaucer) or poet playwrights (Shakespeare) for whom some latitude must be allowed (also for the fact that both of them were frickin' brilliant). And then there's the King James bible, which can be dismissed out of hand as a source for anything, seeing as how there are gross mistranslations rife in it because James wanted to use the Bible as a political weapon (most infamous being "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", because King James wanted to wipe out any non-catholic practice, so "Witch" was used instead of "Poisoner of the Blood"--aka Court Assassin).
Oh, technically, the plural of Octopus should be Octopodes, because otherwise you'd be mixing greek and latin, which you aren't supposed to do, but then we have words like "macadamize" which combines Scottish with Hebrew with... oh, never mind.
I can't help but notice that the first few of the articles I read from the links are just as obnoxious and condescending as the people they target. Funny that. And of course, many of the sources sited are from times that either predate any attempt to standardize (Chaucer) or poet playwrights (Shakespeare) for whom some latitude must be allowed (also for the fact that both of them were frickin' brilliant). And then there's the King James bible, which can be dismissed out of hand as a source for anything, seeing as how there are gross mistranslations rife in it because James wanted to use the Bible as a political weapon (most infamous being "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", because King James wanted to wipe out any non-catholic practice, so "Witch" was used instead of "Poisoner of the Blood"--aka Court Assassin).
Oh, technically, the plural of Octopus should be Octopodes, because otherwise you'd be mixing greek and latin, which you aren't supposed to do, but then we have words like "macadamize" which combines Scottish with Hebrew with... oh, never mind.
Last edited:
Since English doesn't have a language regulator or institution like the French to undisputedly determine the rules and define incorrectness, are self-appointed style guides that have found wide acceptance all we have to guide us? (They're what made the rules in the 1800s, right?)
So what happens when Strunk and White, APA, MLA, Chicago Manual of Style, or AP disagree? ("carry-over" or "carryover", "the duchess' style" or "the duchess's style", final comma or not in a series, etc...).
How many style guides need to change sides on something before it flips from correct to incorrect or vice versa? Is it now ok to split infinitives? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive#Current_views
Chicago currently says, "good writers" would make the subjects plural to avoid use of gender neutral he and go to "he or she" when that can't be done. http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Pronouns.html?page=1 and for one edition said singular they was fine (and then backed off). Down the road, if enough style guides say singular they is the way to go... will that make the he-holdouts incorrect?
Oh, technically, the plural of Octopus should be Octopodes, because otherwise you'd be mixing greek and latin, which you aren't supposed to do, but then we have words like "macadamize" which combines Scottish with Hebrew with... oh, never mind.
Made me go google both and I stumbled across http://boingboing.net/2010/07/27/octopuses-octopi-oct.html , the word hypercorrection , and all kinds of things I didn't know about the history of road building along the way - that seems like too many new things learned for a Saturday! (The Merriam-Webster video folks don't seem to like a lot of the 18th century language police).
Last edited:
tuxgeo
Adventurer
"Teh" is sometimes intentional. The main character of the Webcomic "Questionable Content" (Martin) often wears a "TEH" T-shirt (still available from topatoco through their Merchandise section). Is it ironic that he's doing it intentionally? Is he intentionally doing it ironically? Is it great that he's free to grate by doing it?
All these questions, and more, answered -- never.
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
This debate reminds me of one M:tG topic a while back, about the practice of certain players to call their cards "him" regardless of the gender of the character in the artwork. As in, "I tap him [Serra Angel] to deal you 4 damage."
(I know it's not really the same thing; I'm just saying.)
I honestly didn't even know there was a debate about using plurals for unspecified gender. And I have a BA in English, and was raised by a grammar-sensitive English teacher.
'Sneaked' sounds 100% wrong to me, but 'sneaked' is another word that I like from a 'this makes sense' point of view. Amusingly, my auto-checker isn't offended by either.
Is that ou pronounced like the ou in 'south,' or like the oo in 'too'? Or perhaps even like the ou in 'would'?
Or just pronouncing foreign words in ways that would sound perfectly normal in their native country, but sound weird here. Like omitting the S in 'Paris,' and giving it that French...whatever that almost-R sound is.
Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
I don't like the singular they, and I avoid it in formal writing. But I also know it's a losing battle, and I don't have a problem with it in casual speech.
Usually, if the gender isn't known because it was never assigned, I assign one and stick with it for the example. I'll often give my example person a name, which generally makes for a more concrete example.
If the gender is unknown because it is supposed to be a mystery, then I use he or she.
Usually, if the gender isn't known because it was never assigned, I assign one and stick with it for the example. I'll often give my example person a name, which generally makes for a more concrete example.
If the gender is unknown because it is supposed to be a mystery, then I use he or she.
sabrinathecat
Explorer
Language is one of those funny things.
If someone were to take all of the history books (except one kept safely hidden away) and destroy them, then publish a new version that convinced everyone that the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria set sail in 1245, and everyone came to believe that for 100 years, would it change the actual date when Columbus stumbled onto American shores? Well, no. And the reaction when the last original history book with the correct information might puzzle scholars, but it does not alter time.
Likewise, if you convince children that 2+2=5, and teach that in math for 100 years until everyone believes it, it doesn't change actual math (but would lead to some pretty funny physics papers!).
With Language, however, the main argument seems to be whatever the most people believe to be correct is in fact correct. And this is a science? No, most colleges I know refer to it as Linguistic Arts.
But I'm also one of those obscene people that believes in pronouncing both R's in February, and frequently wince at news announcers who don't.
If someone were to take all of the history books (except one kept safely hidden away) and destroy them, then publish a new version that convinced everyone that the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria set sail in 1245, and everyone came to believe that for 100 years, would it change the actual date when Columbus stumbled onto American shores? Well, no. And the reaction when the last original history book with the correct information might puzzle scholars, but it does not alter time.
Likewise, if you convince children that 2+2=5, and teach that in math for 100 years until everyone believes it, it doesn't change actual math (but would lead to some pretty funny physics papers!).
With Language, however, the main argument seems to be whatever the most people believe to be correct is in fact correct. And this is a science? No, most colleges I know refer to it as Linguistic Arts.
But I'm also one of those obscene people that believes in pronouncing both R's in February, and frequently wince at news announcers who don't.
Scrivener of Doom
Adventurer
It's always a pleasure to read about parents who are raising their children properly.
Lego all over the floor meets the basic test of "properly".
I'm looking forward to when my son is a bit older and he can do the same.
Last edited:
sabrinathecat
Explorer
What about adults who still have lego everywhere without children involved?
Similar Threads
