Disciple of Marduk
- Aug 24, 2001
- Reaction score
- HM The Tower of London
I do concede, the other two (tweets) are maybe a bit too propitious.
Which maybe brings me to the little matter of 'maybe'. To me, there is more than a nuanced difference between the word "maybe", and the phrase "may be". But a substantial contingent of Anglophonians seem determined to ensure that the wrong variation is used wherever and whenever possible.
I assume (with a high degree of depressed confidence) that the Venn diagram ring of suspects charged with the above crime would also be complicit in the constant conflict between using (correctly) the word "everyday" and the phrase "every day".
Citizens and copywriters alike just seem totally-oblivious to the difference, and it bugs me to beyond the point of distraction. Surely this isn't hard? Am I in a parallel universe? Pinch me, and I'll wake-up from this ungrammatical hell....
(@Mungoman I totally get it that language evolves (and that English is far too widespread a tongue to control or constrain).... but there are some basic rules, which deserve defending....'sayin?)
- 'everyday' means commonplace, routine, predictable, ordinary, unremitting. It can clearly connote drudgery.
- 'every day' means consecutively, sequential, a simple neutral statement of predicted instancy. It does not imply predictability- it states seriality.
- Lose and loose. Nobody in the world apart from me hears or sees any difference (or, indeed, as I've been corrected in the past, 'diffrance') between these two meanings. Which to me is weird (as opposed to wierd)
I feel I'm definitely right about this, so I defiantly-define what I'm writing about. Defa-netly.
And that's whether the weather is fare or fowl.
I dont make the ruse in this gain. If peepole jus won two suite thenself then weer al doom
I think many of the mistakes people make nowadays in speaking/writing and general use of the language, stem from exactly this. Change tack is an excellent example. Nobody knows that is a sailing term for turning the boat, usually so you didn't run into something, (like land), or so you didn't go way off course. People (the vast majority, it seems) these days, are so far removed from the days of sail, they have no idea the root meaning of the phrase. Hell, the vast majority can't read a paper map anymore!Maybe, just maybe, if they had an insight into where the word has been, and its travels to this present day and time, they would show it its due respect.
And is anyone going to mention the awful 'you've got another thinG coming'?
Sorry but I have to disagree with this point. Many many of the authors I know (and I think we can agree that being an author requires a fair to middling, at worst, knowledge of vocab) have episodes of quite poor mental health.An interesting study I read somewhere, which I can't find again, that found a correlation between vocabulary and mental health. The conclusion was that people with a poor grasp of language struggle to express themselves, but also may have a more difficult time actually discerning and defining reality. It seems some of our deep cognitive abilities may be strongly linked with our ability to "put it into words", and thus define to ourselves what is "real".
Coming in some days late on this one (and maybe, having time on my hands) -- I find that " ' I couldn't ', versus ' I could '... care less", has been debated much on the Net in recent years, with a considerable assortment of opinions on it, being aired. There are those like you, whom it infuriates; and there is the view that "it's counter to strict logical sense, but it is kind of expressive"; and the different view that in fact it does convey in its way, very much the same intent as the "couldn't version" -- i.e. "I suppose I could care less about this matter -- but only a very tiny little bit less than I actually do care about it, i.e. just fractionally more than nothing at all".If a Yank wishes to push me beyond vein-throbbing, and witness wisps of steam emanating from my shell-likes, he could use a phrase that USAnians have corrupted into meaning the exact opposite of its true intent: “l could care less [about X].”
*Yith steps forward bearing a silver tray upon which lies a double brandy and a loaded revolver*Being British and having heard, and said, "couldn't care less", -- and nothing else -- for the great majority of my life: I'm not now about to start using the "could" variant, other than very occasionally if trying, humorously, to sound American. I however admit to finding myself entertaining the feeling, that this is an Americanism which I rather like.
The phrase 'another think coming' is actually older than both our ages combined.The full expression goes 'If you think THAt you've got another think coming!'
It was already current when I was a child 50-odd years ago.
SOURCE: http://grammarist.com/usage/another-think-coming/The exact origins of another think coming are mysterious, but it appears to be an Americanism, and it does predate another thing coming in the sense expressing disagreement. It goes back at least a century. Here are a few old examples:
- Having elected him republicans think they have some voice in the distribution of the spoils and there is where they have another think coming to them. [The Daily Argus (1897)]
- Those who thought taxes high in the past will have another think coming in the future. [Clinton Mirror (1907)]
- If this Good Will Campaign is not a close race then you have another think coming. [Steuben Farmers’ Advocate (1925)]
Nah, the point is to trivialise the other person's grasp of logic by pretending they perform individual childish 'thinks' instead of proper adult thoughts.Escargot,
...The full expression goes 'If you think THAt you've got another think coming!'...
Maybe it's a regional thing, but here we would say The full expression goes 'If you think That you've got another thought coming!'
I totally agree with you on the distinction between 'think-as-an-act' (of deliberation; consideration) versus 'think-as-a-thing' (a thought; opinion; conclusion).A 'think' here is not synonymous with 'a thought'.
It means a session of thinking/thought, as in 'Let's have a think about it.' or 'You give it a think.'
Now that I've had another think come on the subject of another think coming, it strikes me that I've heard (and used) the phrase to connote two distinguishable spins on why and when such additional consideration is due.The retranslation is something like "If you actually believe that is right, you have another period of consideration due."
However, one of my own favourite phrases is 'I'll have a think about that!' which means I'm going to come up with some serious ideas.I totally agree with you on the distinction between 'think-as-an-act' (of deliberation; consideration) versus 'think-as-a-thing' (a thought; opinion; conclusion).
Now that I've had another think come on the subject of another think coming, it strikes me that I've heard (and used) the phrase to connote two distinguishable spins on why and when such additional consideration is due.
This was triggered by a perceived difference between the earliest documented examples I cited in a prior post and the Oxford Dictionaries site's emphasis on 'disagreement' in its treatment of the phrase (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/think).
The earliest examples don't necessarily insinuate the believer is wrong / mistaken, but merely submit that the given conclusion / opinion will inevitably be revisited in light of eventual circumstances. To illustrate based on Yith's rephrasing ...
"If you actually believe that to be the case, you will be unavoidably confronted by a need to reconsider that belief in the future."
It's more common nowadays for the phrase to insinuate the believer is already wrong / mistaken, and it would be wise to double-check the conclusion / opinion. In this sense, the phrase carries the same implicit challenge as popular use of the game show catchphrase "Is that your final answer?" - especially in the extended sense of including an implied threat of being made to look unintelligent or foolish.