Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Random Rants _ Right; that's it. I've just about had enough of you
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 6 2016, 08:20 AM
With people insisting on posting-off topic or simply indulging in what seems like petty vendettas and other squabbles, I thought I might start this thread. You could even use it as a place to refute someone's point of view too! After all, we all know how hard it is to sleep when someone is wrong on the Internet! 
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 7 2016, 02:02 AM
Neither would I AC.
But two mistakes? firstly loose/lose and then child/children. Carelessness twice? or a failing of 1960's education?
I see it on many public forums. The misuse of loose and lose are consistent. Why else would I make it the content of my signature?
I would also add another observation. Many of those in academia, when interviewed, start their answer with the the word 'so'. It may well be an example of the influence of the group of which you are a part, or not.
It doesn't stop it from being carelessness.
Verbiage like 'so' is often employed to enable the speaker to compose their thoughts.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 7 2016, 02:25 AM
Neither would I AC.
But two mistakes? firstly loose/lose and then child/children. Carelessness twice? or a failing of 1960's education?
I see it on many public forums. The misuse of loose and lose are consistent. Why else would I make it the content of my signature?
I would also add another observation. Many of those in academia, when interviewed, start their answer with the the word 'so'. It may well be an example of the influence of the group of which you are a part, or not.
It doesn't stop it from being carelessness.
Verbiage like 'so' is often employed to enable the speaker to compose their thoughts.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 7 2016, 02:26 AM
OK. We are slowly getting there, so what exactly is your point as your post was not only out of left field, but it doesn't make sense to me? I also have to wonder why you went to the trouble of raising this point. That is to say, what is it that you are trying to prove or achieve? I have posted what I believe are the main posts that pertain to your ire, this is simply so it is for easy reference. I have reviewed what I said, and I am not sure I said anything particularly unreasonable.
I see from a cursory search that the topic is hot amongst the pedants.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2011/11/its-so-annoying/
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-everyone-is-starting-sentences-with-the-word-so-2014-5?IR=T
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/26/so-sentence-starter-artifice-manipulation
I still stand by what I wrote, but I will add, depending on the context of usage, 'so' has several uses. It is grammatically misplaced at a start of a sentence, but it does give impact at the start of a sentence, rather like the use of 'look' and it draws you into question.
Take this example: "So! Who wants to hear about what I did today?"
So, being meaningless in this sentence, acts as a precursor to the question: it doesn't matter if you hear the word or not, it simply allows you to focus attention. It also has the effect of making the question friendlier.
English isn't my best subject (I was poor at school), but I think the articles above do a better job of explaining its usage.
(Anyway, I have said more than enough guff) so please let me hear your argument?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 7 2016, 07:00 AM
I have no great problem with idiomatic expression, what does irk me is the intolerance of people who sneer at it.
I see no difference between preceeding an explanation with "so" and for example preceeding some other conversation with "excuse me".
Posted by: On the edge Sep 7 2016, 09:06 AM
Well, Andy Capp, you must wish that I'd been a contemporary of yours at school; you'd have been considered a genius!
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 7 2016, 09:56 AM
I see no difference between preceeding an explanation with "so" and for example preceeding some other conversation with "excuse me".
I must admit there are some expressions I find anoying too; phrases like: "Can I get", but at the end of the day it is just snobbery.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 7 2016, 09:59 AM
I think we would have to go quite some way back before I could be considered one of those!
Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 7 2016, 10:34 AM
D*mned Americanisms!
Certainly in Britain CAN I GET would be interpreted CAN I FETCH FOR MYSELF, which in a restaurant would seem a rather odd request to English ears.
Another is turning a noun into a verb by adding -ise to the end.
Only Americans prioritise, in the UK, we set priorities
Posted by: JeffG Sep 7 2016, 11:00 AM
Why?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 7 2016, 11:36 AM
Certainly in Britain CAN I GET would be interpreted CAN I FETCH FOR MYSELF, which in a restaurant would seem a rather odd request to English ears.
Another is turning a noun into a verb by adding -ise to the end.
Only Americans prioritise, in the UK, we set priorities
"Prioritise" is objectionable, but "Americanism" is fine?
Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 7 2016, 02:37 PM
Well it's better than communism...
Posted by: On the edge Sep 7 2016, 04:49 PM
Or indeed antidisestablishmentarianism.
Posted by: JeffG Sep 7 2016, 05:51 PM
But are you in favour of it?
Posted by: Biker1 Sep 7 2016, 06:45 PM
Is it a "railway station or a "train station"........?
Soon some one will come out with the "language evolves" argument which I suppose is valid.
Whatever.
Just have to grit ones teeth and "get over it"!....................LIKE 
Posted by: On the edge Sep 7 2016, 09:00 PM
Certainly.
Posted by: JeffG Sep 8 2016, 08:40 AM
So you believe the Church of England should be the official state religion?
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 8 2016, 09:10 AM
I was surprised by his comment too.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 8 2016, 08:06 PM
It IS the official state religion! The big question is what you'd replace it with. Arguably, there are rather a lot of things that would change as a consequence in the other elements of the establishment. Including the judiciary, monarchy, and armed forces. Sure, it could be done, but it would change our national character.
However, for me, the biggest thing having a state religion does is formally say there is something higher than monarchs, leaders or politicians. Rather like the monarch.
Just to illustrate, some years back, Tony Blair floated the idea that the PM should have his own aircraft. Copying the US 'Airforce 1' used by the President. I wrote in and suggested that we already had this, in the 'Queens Flight' - which, at a very small cost, could also be made available to the PM. It then went very quiet, I'm sure he took no notice of my letter.
Posted by: motormad Sep 14 2016, 11:58 AM
Everyone needs popcorn for this thread!
Posted by: On the edge Sep 14 2016, 12:32 PM
Yeah, it could be great; and I want a giant Coke whilst you are at it!
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)