Welcome to Newburytoday.co.uk’s message boards where you can have your say and share your views on any number of issues.
Anyone can read messages, but only registered users can post messages, reply to messages or create new topics. As part of the free and simple registration, you will be asked to read and conform to the house rules.
To register, click here ……Enjoy the debate. Newbury Today Forum > Categories > Random Rants
Right; that's it. I've just about had enough of you, vent your spleen at another forum user here! |
|
|
|
Sep 7 2016, 02:02 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317
|
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jun 13 2016, 01:11 PM) QUOTE (x2lls @ Jun 13 2016, 12:54 AM) QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jun 13 2016, 12:32 AM) I wouldn't confuse carelessness with a lack of education. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2016, 02:25 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317
|
QUOTE (x2lls @ Sep 6 2016, 12:41 AM) OH, and btw Andy, I recently mentioned those being interviewed on radio, that had an academic input would usually start an explanation/response to a question, with 'So'. You said it was to consider the response before offering it. I have since listened to many such interviews, and not once was there a pause. QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 6 2016, 12:49 AM) Eh??? QUOTE (x2lls @ Sep 6 2016, 02:10 AM) Retrace your comment history. QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 6 2016, 08:14 AM) I would if I had any idea what you are on about and I knew what it had to do with the price of chips. QUOTE (x2lls @ Sep 7 2016, 01:06 AM) QUOTE (x2lls @ Jun 13 2016, 12:54 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2016, 02:26 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317
|
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-e...-so-2014-5?IR=Thttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2...ce-manipulationI 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?
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2016, 09:56 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317
|
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 7 2016, 08:00 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". 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2016, 10:34 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 810
Joined: 13-August 09
Member No.: 271
|
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 7 2016, 10:56 AM) 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. 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
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2016, 11:00 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56
|
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 7 2016, 10:56 AM) 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. Why?
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2016, 11:36 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011
|
QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ Sep 7 2016, 11:34 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 "Prioritise" is objectionable, but "Americanism" is fine?
--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2016, 05:51 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56
|
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 7 2016, 05:49 PM) Or indeed antidisestablishmentarianism. But are you in favour of it?
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2016, 06:45 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2016, 09:00 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98
|
QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 7 2016, 06:51 PM) But are you in favour of it? Certainly.
--------------------
Know your place!
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 8 2016, 08:40 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56
|
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 7 2016, 10:00 PM) Certainly. So you believe the Church of England should be the official state religion?
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 8 2016, 09:10 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317
|
QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 8 2016, 09:40 AM) So you believe the Church of England should be the official state religion? I was surprised by his comment too.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 8 2016, 08:06 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98
|
QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 8 2016, 09:40 AM) So you believe the Church of England should be the official state religion? 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.
--------------------
Know your place!
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|