This entire post is a joke; it is being written in observation of April Fools' Day. Do not believe anything contained within.
Today is April 1, the day of merry pranks and jokes. To that end, I am posting this in the hopes of catching some of you unawares. A portion of you will read this and know that it is all a prank; you will have likely also read pranks and jokes on other websites. But chances are high that a majority of you will read through this entire post and not realize the irony or humor contained within, and you may even tell a few friends about it before you realize the error of your ways. At that point, you may feel slightly embarrassed. Don't worry, it's all in the nature of the joke.
I can't take all the credit for catching you unawares. I had ample help preparing for this deception. Several of my closest friends were indispensable in the labyrinthine planning stages of this elaborate spoof. We spent hours going over the details, and now that you have been sufficiently taken for a ride, I can safely admit their involvement. If some of you feel cheated or deceived, please take your frustrations out on me and not them, as they were kept mostly in the dark about the eventual purpose of their machinations.
To those who may suppose that posting such a farcical tale of whimsy as this would perhaps discredit future writings of a more serious nature, you need not worry. I assure you that this preposterous and comedic anecdote is the only one of its kind.
Showing posts with label grammar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label grammar. Show all posts
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Shock and awwww!
I've been trying. Really. I've been trying so hard to sit idly by and whistle nonchalantly while the English language is heinously misused. Please, if you make these mistakes, do yourself and everyone else a very small favor and just don't anymore. It's that easy. I'm going to post this, and some people will think I'm a pretentious ass for daring to insinuate that they aren't intelligent. So be it. With the ubiquitous proliferation of the internet, someone has to take the blame for trying to keep some semblance of sanity in written communication.
1. Awe versus aw
This one is simple. Awe is a noun that describes a feeling of reverence. Reverence! Like the fear of God! You use this word when you talk about that feeling you get when you look up at the towering majesty of a skyscraper or when you think of the beauty of a Beethoven symphony. This word should almost never come up in casual conversation between friends or on Facebook status comments. Use sparingly.
Aw (also spelled aww, or awww, or awwww, etc.) is an interjection¹ that expresses sympathy or disbelief. It's what you say when your friend tells you his cat died. You can smile and/or laugh when you say aw, often when the situation is comical and has only a mildly negative outcome, like when someone tries to buy you a can of pop and the vending machine eats his dollar. In fact, the more severe the outcome, the less appropriate aw becomes.
Try this on for size: "My grandparents were killed yesterday in a horrible plane crash." "Awwww." ← Not appropriate. The outcome is way too severe. You need to choose other words and convey some genuine sympathy.
Also not appropriate: "My laptop got a virus and I lost all the progress I made on my research paper last night." "Awe." ← Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Another common usage of aw is as a sign of affection for something endearing or sentimental, like a new baby kitten. It's often followed by "that's so sweet" or "how adorable".
"I knitted you this scarf."
"Aw, how sweet of you!"
Hint: 9 times out of 10, guys, you really want aw, not awe.
2. 've versus of
This one is a little more tricky. We're all familiar with contractions, like do not becomes don't, are not becomes aren't, and so on. When you add have to another verb like should or could or would, and then add another verb like seemed or tasted or been afterward, you get familiar phrases like "should have seemed happy" or "could have tasted better" or "would have been wonderful". These should all make sense because we've been saying these things all our lives. When these are shortened to contractions, they become would've and should've and could've.
"You should've been there!"
"I could've stopped by, I suppose."
"It would've been great!"
That's right. It's not should of and could of and would of. Why is it not shuld of and could of and would of? Because, not only does it not make much sense, it doesn't actually mean anything! Of is a preposition that indicates derivation or inclusion. It is always followed immediately by a noun (or perhaps an adjective that describes the forthcoming noun).
I'm quite certain that the confusion arises from the existence of the colloquial phrases kind of and sort of. These are adverbial phrases that don't do much except set up a condition, be it a verb or an adjective, that is of uncertain accuracy. It's the easily discernible difference between hungry and kind of hungry.
"I'm kind of excited about the party."
"It would've been nice to get an invitation."
"You're sort of bitter about that, huh?"
"She should've known better."
It doesn't help that Cormac McCarthy writes entire novels that gleefully break this one. You should know that he's deliberately using it to illustrate dialectal speech patterns of less educated persons, not correct usage. Perhaps he should of known better.
3. Definitely versus ???
Now this one is ridiculously easy. It's definitely. Not definately, or definataly, or difinatly, or jesus I don't even know how many variations there are. I've seen this word misspelled more often than any other word, ever. I'm not exaggerating, either. The occasional misspelled word or typo is completely fine, I do it frequently enough myself. We all do; it's inevitable. But this one is a like a plague or flu that has spread beyond control into the dark, vast reaches of the internet.
Listen, if you've been spelling this wrong, just look it up, acknowledge to yourself that you spelled it wrong all those years on Facebook and MySpace and Twitter, accept it, and then spell it right. Suddenly you look much more intelligent and people care what you have to say! Except for people who swear it's definately, who will just be confused. Let them.
¹ Interjection is a fancy word for "nothing at all really". It's an isolated word that generally conveys emotion and has no grammatical function.
1. Awe versus aw
This one is simple. Awe is a noun that describes a feeling of reverence. Reverence! Like the fear of God! You use this word when you talk about that feeling you get when you look up at the towering majesty of a skyscraper or when you think of the beauty of a Beethoven symphony. This word should almost never come up in casual conversation between friends or on Facebook status comments. Use sparingly.
Aw (also spelled aww, or awww, or awwww, etc.) is an interjection¹ that expresses sympathy or disbelief. It's what you say when your friend tells you his cat died. You can smile and/or laugh when you say aw, often when the situation is comical and has only a mildly negative outcome, like when someone tries to buy you a can of pop and the vending machine eats his dollar. In fact, the more severe the outcome, the less appropriate aw becomes.
Try this on for size: "My grandparents were killed yesterday in a horrible plane crash." "Awwww." ← Not appropriate. The outcome is way too severe. You need to choose other words and convey some genuine sympathy.
Also not appropriate: "My laptop got a virus and I lost all the progress I made on my research paper last night." "Awe." ← Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Another common usage of aw is as a sign of affection for something endearing or sentimental, like a new baby kitten. It's often followed by "that's so sweet" or "how adorable".
"I knitted you this scarf."
"Aw, how sweet of you!"
Hint: 9 times out of 10, guys, you really want aw, not awe.
2. 've versus of
This one is a little more tricky. We're all familiar with contractions, like do not becomes don't, are not becomes aren't, and so on. When you add have to another verb like should or could or would, and then add another verb like seemed or tasted or been afterward, you get familiar phrases like "should have seemed happy" or "could have tasted better" or "would have been wonderful". These should all make sense because we've been saying these things all our lives. When these are shortened to contractions, they become would've and should've and could've.
"You should've been there!"
"I could've stopped by, I suppose."
"It would've been great!"
That's right. It's not should of and could of and would of. Why is it not shuld of and could of and would of? Because, not only does it not make much sense, it doesn't actually mean anything! Of is a preposition that indicates derivation or inclusion. It is always followed immediately by a noun (or perhaps an adjective that describes the forthcoming noun).
I'm quite certain that the confusion arises from the existence of the colloquial phrases kind of and sort of. These are adverbial phrases that don't do much except set up a condition, be it a verb or an adjective, that is of uncertain accuracy. It's the easily discernible difference between hungry and kind of hungry.
"I'm kind of excited about the party."
"It would've been nice to get an invitation."
"You're sort of bitter about that, huh?"
"She should've known better."
It doesn't help that Cormac McCarthy writes entire novels that gleefully break this one. You should know that he's deliberately using it to illustrate dialectal speech patterns of less educated persons, not correct usage. Perhaps he should of known better.
3. Definitely versus ???
Now this one is ridiculously easy. It's definitely. Not definately, or definataly, or difinatly, or jesus I don't even know how many variations there are. I've seen this word misspelled more often than any other word, ever. I'm not exaggerating, either. The occasional misspelled word or typo is completely fine, I do it frequently enough myself. We all do; it's inevitable. But this one is a like a plague or flu that has spread beyond control into the dark, vast reaches of the internet.
Listen, if you've been spelling this wrong, just look it up, acknowledge to yourself that you spelled it wrong all those years on Facebook and MySpace and Twitter, accept it, and then spell it right. Suddenly you look much more intelligent and people care what you have to say! Except for people who swear it's definately, who will just be confused. Let them.
¹ Interjection is a fancy word for "nothing at all really". It's an isolated word that generally conveys emotion and has no grammatical function.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
On the correct use of 'literally'
Let's talk for a bit about the word 'literally'. It's an adverbial form of the adjective 'literal'. Before we delve into literally, let's talk about literal. Forgoing the cliched inlusion of a textbook definition copy/pasted from any number of dictionary-esque websites, suffice it to say that literal means 'true to the meaning of words'. The opposite would be figurative, in which words have secondary meanings that may or may not be easily understood. From this definition of literal, we can then define literally as 'being used in a strict sense without exaggeration'.
The use of literally, however, has evolved in modern times with a sense of adding great intensity to a statement. I would like to narrow it down and say that literally, when used in such a way, means precisely the following: the statement, though seemingly exaggerated, is completely true. The problem recently is that two incorrect uses have begun to crop up, one of which directly contradicts the meaning of the word; the other is merely redundant and unnecessary.
Problem #1: Directly contradicts the meaning of the word.
"I'm so hungry, my stomach is literally eating itself." "She broke his heart. He was literally crushed." Today is hot; it's literally a thousand degrees outside."
The problem with using literally in this way is that none of it is literal at all. Literal would mean that the stomach has, in fact, eaten itself and no longer remains, or that the body was actually demolished, or that the thermometer reads one thousand degrees. None of these is true. They are not literal, they are figurative.
Problem #2: Redundant, unnecessary.
"In 1492 Columbus literally sailed across the ocean."
Obviously the problem here is that the statement is clearly fact and there has been absolutely no exaggeration. It is not important to remind the reader/listener of the truth of the statement. If we would find it difficult to believe that someone could sail across the ocean, or if we were led to believe that the entire ocean was not sailed, then literally would perhaps be used as a reminder of the validity of the statement, or against claims of exaggeration. As it is, it's just completely useless.
Words evolve and change, it's true. But using a word that is still in common usage in a completely opposite manner is debilitating to language. If you ask me how I feel and I say "terrible" would you be concerned? But what if I meant 'great' when I said 'terrible'? Would you be confused? How about the next time you ask me and I say "great"? Does that now mean 'terrible' or does it still mean 'great'? We should probably agree on what the words mean and then stick to it, so we are able to understand each other better next time.
Thanks for reading. Have an awful day.
The use of literally, however, has evolved in modern times with a sense of adding great intensity to a statement. I would like to narrow it down and say that literally, when used in such a way, means precisely the following: the statement, though seemingly exaggerated, is completely true. The problem recently is that two incorrect uses have begun to crop up, one of which directly contradicts the meaning of the word; the other is merely redundant and unnecessary.
Problem #1: Directly contradicts the meaning of the word.
"I'm so hungry, my stomach is literally eating itself." "She broke his heart. He was literally crushed." Today is hot; it's literally a thousand degrees outside."
The problem with using literally in this way is that none of it is literal at all. Literal would mean that the stomach has, in fact, eaten itself and no longer remains, or that the body was actually demolished, or that the thermometer reads one thousand degrees. None of these is true. They are not literal, they are figurative.
Problem #2: Redundant, unnecessary.
"In 1492 Columbus literally sailed across the ocean."
Obviously the problem here is that the statement is clearly fact and there has been absolutely no exaggeration. It is not important to remind the reader/listener of the truth of the statement. If we would find it difficult to believe that someone could sail across the ocean, or if we were led to believe that the entire ocean was not sailed, then literally would perhaps be used as a reminder of the validity of the statement, or against claims of exaggeration. As it is, it's just completely useless.
Words evolve and change, it's true. But using a word that is still in common usage in a completely opposite manner is debilitating to language. If you ask me how I feel and I say "terrible" would you be concerned? But what if I meant 'great' when I said 'terrible'? Would you be confused? How about the next time you ask me and I say "great"? Does that now mean 'terrible' or does it still mean 'great'? We should probably agree on what the words mean and then stick to it, so we are able to understand each other better next time.
Thanks for reading. Have an awful day.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
No pun intended
Use of the phrase 'no pun intended' is typically reserved for specific instances in which a pun has been made, whether intentionally or unintentionally. It is quite clear to the listener (or reader) that the pun is there and any sort of comical results are, by this point, unavoidable. It is hereby encouraged that orators and writers begin use of the phrase 'no pun intended' at specific times when no pun has been made whatsoever. A few good examples of this updated manner of use in everyday conversation might be:
"Did you hear about the rabbi who bought a used Mercedes Benz? He got leather upholstered seats. No pun intended."
"I don't know why Sarah took her dog back to the pet store; it was a perfectly good terrier. No pun intended."
"What great weather we have today, it didn't snow or rain. No pun intended."
This will be a welcome assurance for the audience, who can easily be confused by the presence of both the pun itself and the words 'no pun intended.' Immediate and thorough adoption of this new method is suggested for all communicators, both of word and voice. A streamlined and easily understandable conversation is a good conversation, no pun intended.
"Did you hear about the rabbi who bought a used Mercedes Benz? He got leather upholstered seats. No pun intended."
"I don't know why Sarah took her dog back to the pet store; it was a perfectly good terrier. No pun intended."
"What great weather we have today, it didn't snow or rain. No pun intended."
This will be a welcome assurance for the audience, who can easily be confused by the presence of both the pun itself and the words 'no pun intended.' Immediate and thorough adoption of this new method is suggested for all communicators, both of word and voice. A streamlined and easily understandable conversation is a good conversation, no pun intended.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
How not to use the English language
The following was found on the floor of my chorus room in senior year of high school (so that would be either 2001 or 2002, I'm not really sure). I don't really know who wrote it or what class it was for, but I do know one thing: it is hilarious. It is presented here in full, word for word (verbatim), from the original (including spelling, grammatical, and other errors). It's been sitting in the same red folder for three years, but now it's time for the official public offering of...
Luke Skywalker- a true epic hero
Have you ever believed in real heroes? believe there are still some true heroes out there today. for example, i think Luke Skywalker from the movie Star Wars, a movie set in space and other strange planets, is a real hero. The movies are about the journey of Luke Skywalker, a young jedi that is looking for clues about his past and information about his father. During his journey he runs into all sorts of trouble. He has to fight monsters , robots and even his own father. He has to decide between right and wrong decisions, fight against the evil. Different people and monsters help Luke skywalker become and learn about being a true jedi master.
I believe that LukeSkywalker is a true epic hero. He has all the traits that other epic heroes have. Luke Skywalker is a wandering hero. He has been searching for his father and who he really is, he has never met him before. He is also searching for his past, where he was born, who was his father, what was he like and all his other childhood memories, Luke Skywalker also have many other friends that help him get through the journey ,this shows that he is loyal to his friends and partners. That is another trait of an epic hero.
Another trait for an epic hero is courage,and Luke Skywalker has a lot of that.He battles monsters in space, he has to go to the Death Star and save the princess, named Princess Leah. Luke also has to fights robots many times the size of him, not one, but a whole arm of them. He has to beat big fat monsters in order to continue his journey. He even has to fight his own father. At one point Luke Skywalker gets his arm cut off from a light saber and has to hand on this ledge, if not he will die, this shows great strength and determination. Another example of courage is when Luke Skywalker helped save the forest with the little furball animals. The furballs lived in the forest, and the enemies tried to take it over. Luke Skywalker was helped by hans solo, r2 d2, and 3 cpo, r2 d2 helps Luke Skywalker and Hans Solo with opening doors which are locked by tight security. The other robot always complains about getting caught and getting killed, he never helps out. Luke Skywalker and his friends get chases through the forest by the other enemy, they race through the forest and the little furball monsters set up traps to help Luke and his friends. They shoot lasers and bullets at the other planes and by time the chase is over most of the enemy army is dead or they lost Luke Skywalker and his other friends.
So I think these are the reasons that Luke Skywalker is a true epic hero. He has courage, determination, he is looking for something and in some cases he is larger then life. That is way i believe Luke Skywalker is a great epic hero
Luke Skywalker- a true epic hero
Have you ever believed in real heroes? believe there are still some true heroes out there today. for example, i think Luke Skywalker from the movie Star Wars, a movie set in space and other strange planets, is a real hero. The movies are about the journey of Luke Skywalker, a young jedi that is looking for clues about his past and information about his father. During his journey he runs into all sorts of trouble. He has to fight monsters , robots and even his own father. He has to decide between right and wrong decisions, fight against the evil. Different people and monsters help Luke skywalker become and learn about being a true jedi master.
I believe that LukeSkywalker is a true epic hero. He has all the traits that other epic heroes have. Luke Skywalker is a wandering hero. He has been searching for his father and who he really is, he has never met him before. He is also searching for his past, where he was born, who was his father, what was he like and all his other childhood memories, Luke Skywalker also have many other friends that help him get through the journey ,this shows that he is loyal to his friends and partners. That is another trait of an epic hero.
Another trait for an epic hero is courage,and Luke Skywalker has a lot of that.He battles monsters in space, he has to go to the Death Star and save the princess, named Princess Leah. Luke also has to fights robots many times the size of him, not one, but a whole arm of them. He has to beat big fat monsters in order to continue his journey. He even has to fight his own father. At one point Luke Skywalker gets his arm cut off from a light saber and has to hand on this ledge, if not he will die, this shows great strength and determination. Another example of courage is when Luke Skywalker helped save the forest with the little furball animals. The furballs lived in the forest, and the enemies tried to take it over. Luke Skywalker was helped by hans solo, r2 d2, and 3 cpo, r2 d2 helps Luke Skywalker and Hans Solo with opening doors which are locked by tight security. The other robot always complains about getting caught and getting killed, he never helps out. Luke Skywalker and his friends get chases through the forest by the other enemy, they race through the forest and the little furball monsters set up traps to help Luke and his friends. They shoot lasers and bullets at the other planes and by time the chase is over most of the enemy army is dead or they lost Luke Skywalker and his other friends.
So I think these are the reasons that Luke Skywalker is a true epic hero. He has courage, determination, he is looking for something and in some cases he is larger then life. That is way i believe Luke Skywalker is a great epic hero
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
