When one can buy "gourmet" hot dogs or "gourmet" dog food, has the word "gourmet" lost all meaning?
The Love Child of the Return of The Thread on Word Usage that Grates like Blackboard Fingernails...
Wed, 2010-02-03 10:36
#1
The Love Child of the Return of The Thread on Word Usage that Grates like Blackboard Fingernails...
Depends on what you thought its meaning was before:
Given its etymology, I think "gourmet hot dogs" may be appropriate.
I don't think so. Gourmand has a different meaning.
Since you mentioned it, gourmand is used more frequently in France than gourmet. I move in rather provincial circles in France, but nevertheless have rarely come across any use of gourmet there.
What does the gourmet dog food taste like??
Yesterday, on the previous incarnation of this thread, I mentioned the egregious substitution of "issue" for "problem." There's another, burgeoning substitution for "problem" that is starting to replace "issue" and that's "challenge."
This is like déja vu all over again. I think unionist mentioned "challenge" as a substitute for "issue" when we talked about this before.
Where is that thread?
"i-Anything"...especially when it's the publicly-funded CBC crowing about Apple's latest locked-up gadget.
"Preventable deaths" (as currently seen in this resurrected thread). X, Y or Z as the cause of death may be prevented or avoided, but death itself is not preventable. Period.
Only if you think death is the "end result" of life.
If one goes along with your argument, when someone is credited with "saving lives," we're really just saying "delaying the inevitable."
Speaking of the philosophy of Albert Camus, whatever happened to that swell babbler named sisyphus?
Yes that is true, it the logical extension of my argument.
What I was talking about, though, was that the phrase "preventable death" grates on my nerves like the sound of fingernails on a blackboard, I am happy to report that I don't find the phrase "saving lives" the least bit annoying, probably because it is much less presumptuous. There is no suggesting that a "saved" life will never end, just that the current threat to it has been stopped, diverted or avoided. I am all in favour of that, as much stoppage, diversion and avoidance as I can get please - delay, delay, delay - and, in the meantime, a round of delay and avoidance for everyone else at the same time. CHEERS.
I'm pretty sure I heard someone on the radio this morning say "without further adieu." I kind of love the poeticism of that line.
What about the hostage who was tied up and experienced undo hardship trying to free herself?
Hee, Unionist.
This reminds me of Tobias Wolff's short story "Bullet in the Brain," where a cynical, jaded book critic gets shot in the head by a bank robber who too-closely resembles his constitutive cliches, and in a protracted moment, recalls his one pure, genuine childhood moment:
It's beautiful, Catchfire, but the rest of the story is somewhat on the dark side...
I just read about someone engaged in the act of "reigning in."
Is this what that would look like?
Re: the meaning of "gourmet": as far as I can tell it means "not actually lethal if consumed in moderation."
Sometimes an error is almost better than correct usage...
Check the "Comments" section.
"Ask" is used in that manner in fund-raising campaigns as well.
Using "ask" as a noun is a common Britishism. As in, "we've got to win the final three games to have a shot at the league. It's a big ask for the boys, but I think we can pull it out."
I don't suppose they can blame that one on Guillaume le Bâtard.
What the...? I haven't seen this one before:
I believe the word that our lobbyist really wants to use is "request."
Could this "ask" abomination be related to the current gambling craze, in which "tells" play so important a role?
I wonder who edits Time magazine. No wonder so many USians prefer visual media. Right after the above passage we find this howler:
The reason for the devolution of our language and culture cannot be put much more succinctly than that.
That's a wonderful short story. Thanks for linking to it.
I recently read a student paper about the War Measures Act that talked about "Marshall Law."
In the more brutish colonies, we would pull it off.
The "news" presenter on AM640, Tina Trigiani, just said "passer-bys."
Couldn't you just pass 'er by?
Let me guess, the devolution of language and culture only started within past hundred years. Or perhaps it's been on going since the peak of the Greek, Roman, Chinese, Indian, Mayan etcetera golden ages. Yet some how society manages to go on. Funny how culture 100(0) years ago always seems so much more elegant.
P-sto, I'm just starting to tolerate "et cetera" instead of the more pompous "et cætera". Don't ask me to devolve all the way down to "etcetera". Please.
Ouch I think I've been called pompous and uncouth in the same statement. Bravo Unionist.
I thought I was calling myself pompous - and trying to be funny - but have it your way if you like.
Haha, I understood the comment to say that I was being pompous by spelling the word out in full but failing because I did so in the least elegant way possible. The rather ironic thing is if I were writing for a more formal purpose, say an academic paper I'd use etc. because that's the convention.
Despite frequent use of web shorthands based on my mood I have an inclination to write things out in full. Bit of a reaction to the frequent unnecessary shorting of words which annoys the hell out of me. For example when some one in conversation abbreviates computer to comp, can't stand it.
P-sto, sorry to belabour this tiny point, but my post was intended to be a pompous jab at you for joining two separate Latin words into a single word.
I'm aware that they are two separate words. If was wrong to think that it was acceptable to present them as one then thank you for correcting me.
Your single-word usage is acceptable according to many dictionaries. I was simply trying to be pompous.
You succeeded.
I know, it comes naturally to me.
Well my inability to get jokes aside. The use of devolution seems to imply that efforts to formalise a language elevate it, while accepting common useage into proper useage degrades it. I can't say I accept that view.
It's the difference between prescripive and descriptive grammar.
Do you have a preference?
No, I don't suppose that anyone who writes "useage" would.
Blimey.
Better proof reading or spell check and I would have caught that. Arbitrary rules are best enforced with flexibility.
Flexible, shmexible, but on the other hand, some folks can be a tad too rigid:
Name change stirs Pakistan protest
I rather like Caissa's distinction between prescriptive and descriptive grammar. In my opinion making the study of language more of an exercise in understanding common usage seems like it would better facilitate common understanding in communication. This is not to say that we can do without prescriptive grammar but one wonders if making the art strictly so unnecessarily impedes communication as some are attempting to adhere to a set of rules that others may be largely unaware of.
"We can assist retail establishments to enhance profitability by demonstrating methodologies for optimal utilization of personnel resources."
Hmmm I think I reduce my previous statement to, "I think that grammar would help more if it studied what people do instead of what they should do." May I have a rebuttal now?
The University of Regina currently has a billboard campaign with the slogan:
"Realize. UR going places guaranteed!"
I don't think further comment is necessary.
Can someone please clarify for me the use of "fast" and "quickly". In most contexts other than for example, colour fast, fast asleep, and "not to eat" the word fast is an adjective...I think.. The fast car. Quickly is an adverb. The fast car goes quickly. I don't think " the car goes fast" or "he can run fast" are correct. This was the subject of a debate between me and the wife recently...I know...get a life. Does any of yous word miesters that talks good no the answer.
Actually, "fast" developed in the adverbial form first: as in, "to hold fast" to something--the verb "to fast" has the same root. This developed into "to run fast" which means to run while sticking close to your prey--similar in construction to "run hard." Someone said to "run fast" became "fast" (adj.).
Fast must be one of those Old Norse words. I don't have the OED with me right now.
My Granny, whose first language is Icelandic, once said to me, "We say 'fast,' but it doesn't mean the same thing in English," meaning "fast" in Icelandic has a similar meaning to "tight" or "close" in English.
I brought this up in a similar thread but didn't get a response. I'll try again.
Am I so old and/or out of touch that rules of grammar have changed without me noticing? Correct me if I'm wrong but is there an "issue" with this quote and similar quotes which we hear every day.... "last month's meeting which was chaired by myself....."
Is "myself" not a reflexive personal pronoun which should refer back to the subject of the sentence and be used to add emphasis. "Now that I'm a big boy, I chaired last month's meeting myself." "I may have chaired last month's meeting myself but last month's meeting was chaired by ME". This of course brings us to ...now we're using "chair" as a verb.
You're correect; "myself" is an intensifier. I think pompous folk like to use "myself" instead of "me" because "myself" has way more letters and twice the syllabalic power.
As for "fast," Catchfire's correct - the OED also says it started as an adverb. Here's a wee sample of the OED on "fast":
I gave up reading after this, and that's a fact, Jack.
Pages