Pedants' Paradise

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • amateur51

    Originally posted by Pabmusic View Post
    Here's a new word - to glom onto each other. Try the third paragraph of this interesting article:

    http://www.livescience.com/10288-kin...akthrough.html
    Gosh Pabs!

    The content is pretty boggling too - and they did it with mirrors

    Comment

    • amateur51

      Originally posted by Pabmusic View Post
      I really don't know, but I think I rather like the word.
      "Ladies and gents, could I ask you to glom together by the Swiss Cheese plant to make room for other passengers while we await the arrival of the coach"

      It has a certain something, wouldn't you say?

      Comment

      • Eine Alpensinfonie
        Host
        • Nov 2010
        • 20572

        Originally posted by french frank View Post
        I would understand "How are you doing?" to mean "How are things going with you (generally)?" rather than the more personal "How are you?"

        [And of course "I'm doing good" would not be for me to say, but for others ]
        It all comes back to Sparky's Magic Piano, when our young hopeful says to Miss Spear, "When will I be able to play real good?"
        Miss Spear puts on a record to inspire Sparky, who says, "Mr Badowski can sure sure play real good".

        I once had a version of this with a middle class English Sparky, but with the same grammatical nightmare script. It sounded laughable, whereas the American version sounds just about plausible, for reasons I shall not elaborate on.

        Comment

        • mercia
          Full Member
          • Nov 2010
          • 8920

          can we allow the word "caveated" as used just now on R4 news ?

          ........ after the Prime Minister's statement on energy prices, the energy minister's words were "more caveated" [i.e. more cautious]
          Last edited by mercia; 18-10-12, 12:40.

          Comment

          • vinteuil
            Full Member
            • Nov 2010
            • 12936

            Originally posted by mercia View Post
            can we allow the word "caveated" as used just now on R4 news ?
            ... where's the :wince: emoticon when you need it.

            An ancient second cousin of mine ( a Dean of Llandaff, no less... ) was notorious for regularly inserting into his sentences, all in the most querulous of voices, ".. erm, and, erm, erm, and, erm, let a, erm, caveat, here be, erm, made, erm, erm ... "

            Comment

            • Finzi4ever
              Full Member
              • Nov 2010
              • 601

              delightful misuse of language on BBC Oxford this morning: in a discussion about bringing electric tricycles into the city for tourists, a spokesman for the firm who makes them hoped the city council would not be "too prurient and say they're not for Oxford as we're just about history, as all cities need to move with the times"... Now which adjective that sounds like prurient did he mean to say? On the positive side, the breakfast presenter, within minutes of this corrected a contributor's 'less' to 'fewer'. Well done Phil Gayle!

              Comment

              • Serial_Apologist
                Full Member
                • Dec 2010
                • 37814

                Originally posted by Finzi4ever View Post
                Now which adjective that sounds like prurient did he mean to say?
                Prudence discourages me from making a guess...


                (You'll have to ask Prudence )

                Comment

                • jean
                  Late member
                  • Nov 2010
                  • 7100

                  Originally posted by mercia View Post
                  can we allow the word "caveated" as used just now on R4 news ?
                  We can't really complain, if we've been using a third person singular as a noun all this time, that it finally seeks to return to its verbal origins.

                  A bit like exit...

                  Comment

                  • french frank
                    Administrator/Moderator
                    • Feb 2007
                    • 30456

                    Originally posted by jean View Post
                    We can't really complain, if we've been using a third person singular as a noun all this time, that it finally seeks to return to its verbal origins.[/I]
                    Then let it be the correct form. Cavit? Caverit? Cavebat? Caveret?
                    It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

                    Comment

                    • jean
                      Late member
                      • Nov 2010
                      • 7100

                      It would have to be both plural and passive, I think.

                      Comment

                      • handsomefortune

                        with the cavebat that i don't have to use it french frank!

                        Comment

                        • mangerton
                          Full Member
                          • Nov 2010
                          • 3346

                          Originally posted by jean View Post
                          It would have to be both plural and passive, I think.
                          And subjunctive, like "caveat"? That would give us "caveantur".

                          I think to re-verbify ( a dreadful word in itself!) "caveat" is a shocking idea. If "more cautious" was meant, there's the perfectly good Latin form "cautior".

                          None of this is of any use to our august PM, however. Did it not recently come to light that he did not know the meaning of "magna carta"?

                          Comment

                          • french frank
                            Administrator/Moderator
                            • Feb 2007
                            • 30456

                            Originally posted by jean View Post
                            It would have to be both plural and passive, I think.
                            In that particular case, yes (the energy prices were 'more caveated'), though the presumed verb 'to caveat' doesn't mean quite the same as 'cavēre' anyway ...
                            It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

                            Comment

                            • jean
                              Late member
                              • Nov 2010
                              • 7100

                              No, it means something like to hedge about with caveats.

                              And as the original verb form has become an English noun, it can only reclaim its verbal status through the medium of English.

                              Which is what it has successfully achieved in the example cited: were caveated.

                              (I rather like it.)

                              Comment

                              • french frank
                                Administrator/Moderator
                                • Feb 2007
                                • 30456

                                Originally posted by jean View Post
                                (I rather like it.)
                                Not sure. It could be misheard:

                                It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X