|
FAO: Swamper (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
| It's not a matter of encouragement. If, and only if the language is really changing, it's just a matter of time before flawless becomes unflawless, faithless becomes defaithless and lossless turns into a monster! |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaw
The subject in that phrase is 'none.' 'Words' is the subject of the first phrase, and 'them' is the object of a preposition.
That one is among the most common grammatical mistakes made by otherwise literate people. |
I disagree, I think the subject of the sentence is 'them'. In this case 'none' isn't a pronoun; it's a determiner. Hence using the plural, 'are'.
Take this example: 'none of them is fast runners.' Changing the 'none' to 'two' would result in 'two of them is fast runners', which is clearly incorrect. On the other hand: 'none of them are fast runners' / 'two of them are fast runners.'
| quote: | Originally posted by Jarvmeister
It is a double negative. Using it makes you look like a bone head. The word, in itself, is illogical. |
Then how did the word 'inflammable' come to mean the complete opposite of what it should? As Lira said, language doesn't act like mathematics. Over the course of the past 500 years there are many words which have completely reversed their meanings to become opposite, or just changed to something different. It's still happening today, too.
Just the other day I was discussing how the word 'steal' in Australia has come more so to mean borrowing something, or using something that you know the owner would be happy for you to. i.e "I stole his mug to make a cup of tea" doesn't always literally mean that you took it for good, rather that you just used it with the intention of returning it. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
I disagree, I think the subject of the sentence is 'them'. In this case 'none' isn't a pronoun; it's a determiner. Hence using the plural, 'are'.
Take this example: 'none of them is fast runners.' Changing the 'none' to 'two' would result in 'two of them is fast runners', which is clearly incorrect. On the other hand: 'none of them are fast runners' / 'two of them are fast runners.' |
Maybe.
I think the reasoning for the other side is that "none" is a contraction of "not one," and "not one of them is the point" sounds much better to me than "not one of them are the point." Perhaps a matter of taste.
| quote: | | Then how did the word 'inflammable' come to mean the complete opposite of what it should? |
It doesn't mean the opposite of what it should. "Inflammable" comes from "inflame," meaning to catch on fire, and is actually older than the word "flammable." The real problem is that the prefix "in" can mean stuff other than just "not," so it confuses people.
:p |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Just the other day I was discussing how the word 'steal' in Australia has come more so to mean borrowing something, or using something that you know the owner would be happy for you to. i.e "I stole his mug to make a cup of tea" doesn't always literally mean that you took it for good, rather that you just used it with the intention of returning it. |
This has happened in the U.S., too. For example, in school people ask each other if they can "steal" a sheet of paper. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Maybe.
I think the reasoning for the other side is that "none" is a contraction of "not one," and "not one of them is the point" sounds much better to me than "not one of them are the point." Perhaps a matter of taste. |
I never knew it was a contraction. I looked it up to see if you were right, and you were correct about one thing: singular vs plural is just a matter of taste.
"—Usage note
Since none has the meanings “not one” and “not any,” some insist that it always be treated as a singular and be followed by a singular verb: The rescue party searched for survivors, but none was found. However, none has been used with both singular and plural verbs since the 9th century. When the sense is “not any persons or things” (as in the example above), the plural is more common: … none were found. Only when none is clearly intended to mean “not one” or “not any” is it followed by a singular verb: Of all my articles, none has received more acclaim than my latest one."
Have you ever considered that 'news' is probably just the plural of new?
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
It doesn't mean the opposite of what it should. "Inflammable" comes from "inflame," meaning to catch on fire, and is actually older than the word "flammable." The real problem is that the prefix "in" can mean stuff other than just "not," so it confuses people.
:p |
Exactly, you just proved my point. Language doesn't always develop in logical, linear ways, and your example is a perfect one. However, you know full well 'inflammable' does mean the opposite of what it 'should' logically, in the modern context. Inoperable, intractable, incalculable, inconsequential, incorruptible, et cetera. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Just the other day I was discussing how the word 'steal' in Australia has come more so to mean borrowing something, or using something that you know the owner would be happy for you to. i.e "I stole his mug to make a cup of tea" doesn't always literally mean that you took it for good, rather that you just used it with the intention of returning it. |
Yeah, meaning is known to be rather dynamic (and pronunciation even more so in some languages, reason why the English language is full of words that look nothing like they sound). If, in the long run, "steal" becomes something like "borrow without someone's consent", another verb is inevitably going to take its original place. Something like "to nick", "to subtract" or "to bogan". Whichever you Aussies prefer :D
I don't understand why purists don't seem to have a problem with expressions like "starve to death". Steorfan actually meant "to die" in Old English, and the meaning became more specialised a couple of centuries before the colonisation of the US, reason why this word retains this meaning both sides of the pond. However, if you deny the fact that language changes, you need to come to grips with the fact that someone who claims to be "starving to death" is saying nothing more than "I'm dying to death".
Some words have even more entertaining backgrounds, such as silly. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
English can be so ing annoying with all its ambiguities.
All the news readers in Australia say 'at the weekend', rather than 'on the weekend'. It sounds totally retarded to me but I've never bothered to check out whether I'm right or not. |
|
|
| Lira |
I officially gave up on learning the proper prepositions in English: The difference between "at" and "on" is pretty straightforward to me because it exists in my language as well with minor differences. The difference between "on" and "in", however, is trickier than it sounds.
For example, in Portuguese I'm quite happy to say "Na Fila" ("na" is the word in/on + the feminine definite article). I can't be arsed to look on a grammar book whether it's "correct" to say "on the queue" or "in the queue" when both searches yield roughly the same amount of results on Google. Unless, of course, there's some weird distinction here I don't know about ("on the queue" meaning you're standing on top of the poor fellows who are standing "in the queue"). |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
However, you know full well 'inflammable' does mean the opposite of what it 'should' logically, in the modern context. Inoperable, intractable, incalculable, inconsequential, incorruptible, et cetera. |
Yes, I suppose this is true if we're talking only about modern word formation. I doubt many new words use the "in" prefix for anything other than negation.
I wonder what is the most common way to negate new words: "in" or "un?" I suspect "un" would be. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I officially gave up on learning the proper prepositions in English: The difference between "at" and "on" is pretty straightforward to me because it exists in my language as well with minor differences. The difference between "on" and "in", however, is trickier than it sounds.
For example, in Portuguese I'm quite happy to say "Na Fila" ("na" is the word in/on + the feminine definite article). I can't be arsed to look on a grammar book whether it's "correct" to say "on the queue" or "in the queue" when both searches yield roughly the same amount of results on Google. Unless, of course, there's some weird distinction here I don't know about ("on the queue" meaning you're standing on top of the poor fellows who are standing "in the queue"). |
Yes, I think this is pretty common in most Indo-European languages, but you'd know better than I. In German you say 'auf Deutsch', which means 'on German', but which in context is actually '[say it] in German'. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| I wish I could find the video for that South Park episode with the bikers in the library looking up the history of the word 'faggot'. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I can't be arsed to look on a grammar book whether it's "correct" to say "on the queue" or "in the queue" when both searches yield roughly the same amount of results on Google. Unless, of course, there's some weird distinction here I don't know about ("on the queue" meaning you're standing on top of the poor fellows who are standing "in the queue"). |
"On the queue" sounds to me like something you would say about non-living things, like the items of a to-do list. But maybe that is just the American in me talking. |
|
|
|
|
