Language Geekery

User avatar
raicha
Posts: 6971
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

Language Geekery

Postby raicha » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:28 pm

Since Miz raicha reminded us that we have a language geek thread, and we're on the topic of furrin languages, I'll post something I started to write in another thread a little while ago. Back when we were talking about Dummett pronouncing his name in a rather hoity-toity way and the conversation devolved into a TV show that did the same, raicha commented about bucket rhyming with Phuket. I assume she was thinking that the "ph" part of the word is pronounced like an "f" and the "u" is a short u like in "fun." Frat parties and the island's reputation for sex tourism aside, that's not how the word is pronounced.The Thai spelling for the provence is ภูเก็ต. The first syllable is ภู and the second is เก็ต. The consonant ภ is pronounced as a aspirated or exhaled "p." Think of it as a "p" followed by an "h," rather than "ph" together. The transliteration to "ph" probably comes from the SE Asian way of saying "h," which is "haitch" (yes, it drives me crazy). The vowel ูis pronounced as a long "u," so the first syllable is pronounced as "puu" with a constant middle tone. The initial consonant of the second syllable is "ก," which is pronounced like a hard "g" or a "soft k." The vowels เ and ็ together are pronounced like the "e" in "get" but with a falling tone, and the final consonant ต is pronounced as a "t." So the normal transliteration for ภูเก็ต is puu-kèt, although puu-gèt is also technically correct (but I've only seen it this way in a couple of dictionaries).

Actually, Mr. Language Geek, I was thinking of Dummett just the way you described it, making Dummett rhyme with phuket: duu-mètI said nothing about buckets.

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 9247
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Language Geekery

Postby esseff44 » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:00 am

That reminds me of a pronunciation issue with a new favorite American soup since the opening of many Vietnamese restaurants around the country. So, if you can help it, do not call it 'foe'. As you can see from the wikipedia page, Vietnamese and many diacritical markings that change the sounds . One set of marks is for vowels. Another set is for the tone. The whisker on the 'o' in this word gives it the sound 'uh' as if someone is stammering. The little hook above the word gives it a slight dip and then a rising tone as we would hear in an emphatic 'DUH!' You can hear the correct pronunciation at the beginning of the wiki article. [/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/Pho]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhoAnd I really doubt the word came from 'pot de feu' as some people claim. Vietnam has many styles of noodle soups and they are called by the name of the particular noodle. This style was used in Vietnam before the French came and is very close to a soup in Canton. It is a version of the Chinese name for the noodle in the dialect of the folks who brought it to VN. A fragrant bowl of Phở is a wonderful dish early in the morning or late at night. But make sure you get a recommendation of a Vietnamese. Some restaurants have substituted ingredients or don't have the right kind of fresh herbs to garnish with. Also, the stock has to have the right amount of star anise fragrance. And you can impress you server with the correct pronunciation.

Somerset
Posts: 2623
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: The Little Red Dot

Language Geekery

Postby Somerset » Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:29 am

Actually, Mr. Language Geek, I was thinking of Dummett just the way you described it, making Dummett rhyme with phuket: duu-mètI said nothing about buckets.

Oops. The name "Bucket" was in the previous post :oops: But some Pho does sound good about now ;)

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 8308
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am

Language Geekery

Postby Whatever4 » Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:33 am

So the normal transliteration for ภูเก็ต is puu-kèt, although puu-gèt is also technically correct (but I've only seen it this way in a couple of dictionaries).

Actually, Mr. Language Geek, I was thinking of Dummett just the way you described it, making Dummett rhyme with phuket: duu-mètI said nothing about buckets.

Buckets like in a bunch of flowers? buu-kèt?

Paul Pieniezny
Posts: 1484
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:42 am

Language Geekery

Postby Paul Pieniezny » Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:46 am

So the normal transliteration for ภูเก็ต is puu-kèt, although puu-gèt is also technically correct (but I've only seen it this way in a couple of dictionaries).

Actually, Mr. Language Geek, I was thinking of Dummett just the way you described it, making Dummett rhyme with phuket: duu-mètI said nothing about buckets.

Buckets like in a bunch of flowers? buu-kèt?

Your problem may be that you know some French and you did not see the [link]TV show,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_Up_Appearances[/link]. For some reason, in British English the French final -et is usually pronounced not as [link]indicated here,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouquet_garni[/link] but like the final -ay in "May". So, in that TV show, Hyacinth Bucket pronounced her surname (actually the one of her husband, who always pronounces it in the ordinary way when his wife is not around, though he warns friends that "some are known to insist it must be pronounced bouquet") as if it were the Britification of the French word "bouquet", but of course pronounced a la british: bookay. To understand the inside joke fully, you need to know that Hyacinth's sisters are called Daisy, Rose (the two poor relatives) and Violet (who has married even more up-markety than Hyacinth and seems to live in a British version of Rublyovka).The British pronunciation of French -et may be due to the fact that in Northern France, after all closest to London, the é and è have become very close, to the point of many people actually pronouncing words like bouquet as bouqué. The é is of course much closer to British -ay. I am somewhat at a disadvantage here, because I learned French at Liège, where the inhabitants typically switch é to è and vice versa. Yes, they really pronounce their town as Liége and themselves, the Liégeois in Standard French, as Liègeois. Liègeois also tend to "darken"a final "a" sound, so that the difference between the articles "le" and "la" disappears (remember [link]"J'aime le vie",http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%27aime_la_vie[/link]).Another aspect where the French of Belgium and of Northern France differs from Parisian French: we still distinguish between the nasal sounds "un" and "in". The British are not the only ones who drop the French è as irrelevant. On a Dutch keyboard, there are provisions for the ç and the é In loan words from French, but there is none for the è. I need a special programme to type it on my Dutch-Russian keyboard. I use a Dutch-Russian keyboard, rather than a French-Russian one, because it is easier to type Polish on it :mrgreen:.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31087
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

Language Geekery

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:28 am

:shock: Crap. Time to junk my Australian-New Zealand English keyboard.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Language Geekery

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:25 am

Minor threadjack diverted from the Fuddy thread before it becomes a major threadjack:

As an editor, I can confirm that attorneys general is correct, as is deputy attorneys general, which would be abbreviated as DAsG. :

I'm going to have to disagree, at least with the implication that the alternate pluralization of "attorney generals," with or without the hyphen, is incorrect. Further, I believe the latter is currently preferred. While the title arose as an apparent attempt to make the previous construction, in which the king's general counsel was simply called the kings "general attorney," the fact that "general" was an adjective modifying "attorney" is essentially a lost distinction. Instead, with or without a hyphen, it operates as a single semantic unit as a compound word does.

2.2 spec. Attorney-General, {Attorney General}: a legal officer of the state empowered to act in all cases in which the state is a party. In England, Isle of Man, many Commonwealth countries, and in the United States, (formerly also in Ireland), the title of the first ministerial law-officer of the government, also of his or her Majesty's attorney in the duchy of Lancaster and, historically, in the duchy of Cornwall and the county palatine of Durham (now also applied to the attorney to the Prince of Wales). Plural (better): Attorney-Generals.   The designation began in England, where this officer was at first merely the king's attorney (see above 6), called from the reign of Edward IV, ‘the king's general attorney,’ to distinguish him from those appointed to act on special occasions, or in particular courts. The descriptive designation seems to have grown into a title during the 16th c. The A.G. is now a member of the Ministry (but not of the Cabinet), and usually has a seat in the House of Commons.

The OED does also list the "attorneys-general" pluralization as part of the uncapitalized first definition of the word, which is now obsolete:

†1.1 gen. A legal representative or deputy acting under a general commission or ‘power’ of attorney, and representing his principal in all legal matters: opposed to attorney special or attorney particular. Plural: attorneys general. Obs.    [1292 Britton vi. x. §2 Touz attournez generals purrount lever fins et cirographer. (Nichols transl., All general attorneys may levy fines and make chirographs.)]    1593 Shakes. Rich. II, ii. i. 203 Call in his Letters Patents that he hath By his Atturneyes generall to sue His Liuerie. [Further examples snipped.]

The examples of use of the formal, often capitalized title for a King's or state's lead legal officer include both pluralizations as well.I would generally defer, in this order, to 1) any style manual that made a definitive statement on it used by wherever I was writing; 2) what the highest court in the jurisdiction usually uses; or 3) whatever the attorney general's office itself uses. If authority were roughly split and it were up to me, I think I would go with deputy attorneys general, but not DAsG, which is ugly and atrocious.

Somerset
Posts: 2623
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: The Little Red Dot

Language Geekery

Postby Somerset » Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:18 pm


User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6322
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Language Geekery

Postby Piffle » Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:35 pm

[**youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEBZkWkkdZA[/youtube**]

:-bd I'm like sooo sending this to a few of my friends, know what I mean?

User avatar
ducktape
Posts: 5314
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:09 pm

Language Geekery

Postby ducktape » Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:38 pm

I never heard of him, but I really like this. Just sent the link to my partner in IM and he's sending "I love this. I'm not familiar with Taylor Mali. Love him"Thanks!

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Language Geekery

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:40 am

Could one of you take over policing "it's-its" for me? Ever since the New York Times made the error, I've had little hope of rescuing this aberration in the English language.

It's (contraction) worse than that, Tolland. I often use my iPad, and its (possessive) auto-correct keeps inserting apostrophes whenever I type "i t s" without regard (or knowledge) of its (possessive) context.





It's very frustrating! Especially because my mama was a card-carrying member of the grammar and spelling police, descended from her mother and grandmother who also were, and the fruit hasn't fallen far from the tree.

The fact is, the "it's" spelling for the possessive neuter singular pronoun was the original spelling, and its spelling that way continued, at least for some writers, well into the 19th Century. In fact, for quite some time, the possessive "his" was used indiscriminately in a variety of ways including the possessive neuter singular pronoun. When "it's" emerged, it was not widely recognized, and perhaps that lack of recognition led to its extremely weird treatment in the English language.





Even the extremely thorough analysis of the logomachy given in the Oxford English Dictionary, unusually lengthy even for the OED, leaves me confused as to why exactly we are left with this stupid mess. It seems that, perhaps, the contraction of "it's" for "it is" was less disfavored than the possessive form of "it" and prescriptivists made up a rule to distinguish the two. I can't say that's definitely the reason, and I may just be blaming prescriptivists out of dislike of them in general. After all, contractions have tended to be disfavored in formal writing.





In any event, when typing, the brain wants to apply the rule that applies nearly everywhere else in English, that is, that the possessive ends in an apostrophe-S. Even if you know the rule, your brain wants to do it the "wrong" way, which would be the correct way if English weren't so filled with utterly stupid rules. The fact is that the "its/it's" logomachy is just plain dumb and even unnatural, and goes against every instinct any sensible person has.





It is, however, so thoroughly accepted as a rule of the language that, like so much else in English, it serves as an identifier of social class. It is a faux pas to get it wrong. The person who routinely messes it up is thereby identified as a person of a lower intellectual class, who has not had the benefit of the kind of education where you get your knuckles rapped roughly for getting these dumb little things wrong.





The fact is, though, that everyone gets this wrong from time to time, because it is an illogical rule that goes against the basic grammatical rules of the language. There's nothing whatsoever of any intrinsic worth about this ridiculous rule, and I imagine it will go the way of the diæresis (outside of Noël Coward's name) in a couple centuries. (See what I did there?)





I think this is hijacky enough that I'll move it to the language geekery thread.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 15691
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Language Geekery

Postby TollandRCR » Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:25 am

Loh, it's not only your iPad that makes that mistake. Word's spelling and grammar checker sometimes recommends using the wrong form when the correct form has been used. It may be that the New York Times was led astray by some such software.





MLA-adherent teachers of English writing call such things "conventions" and consider them to be transient and arbitrary, which is what you are implying. I think that the distinction affect-effect is on its way out, with "effect" likely to prevail. That is a distinction that made some sense, and it's not illogical. The words are even pronounced differently.





There is a wonderful [link]series of tests,http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/notorious.htm[/link] at Capital Community College in Hartford. It was put together by a teacher who knew very well that his students would not get good jobs if they presented themselves to employers as they were prone to do in their writing.





About the only category of students who uniformly seem to have learned the old "conventions" are the graduates of prep schools. Other high schools may have teachers who do not themselves know the differences among their-there-they're.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Language Geekery

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:49 am

Loh, it's not only your iPad that makes that mistake. Word's spelling and grammar checker sometimes recommends using the wrong form when the correct form has been used. It may be that the New York Times was led astray by some such software.





MLA-adherent teachers of English writing call such things "conventions" and consider them to be transient and arbitrary, which is what you are implying. I think that the distinction affect-effect is on its way out, with "effect" likely to prevail. That is a distinction that made some sense, and it's not illogical. The words are even pronounced differently.





There is a wonderful [link]series of tests,http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/notorious.htm[/link] at Capital Community College in Hartford. It was put together by a teacher who knew very well that his students would not get good jobs if they presented themselves to employers as they were prone to do in their writing.





About the only category of students who uniformly seem to have learned the old "conventions" are the graduates of prep schools. Other high schools may have teachers who do not themselves know the differences among their-there-they're.

I'll have to distinguish what I said completely from what you just said. I was not implying that the "its/it's" distinction is arbitrary and artificial. I explicitly stated that it was, and elaborated on that point by explaining that it is not only arbitrary and artificial, but is contrary to the very origin of one of the words in question and actually violates a grammatical rule itself. The reason that it is difficult to "get" this rule is that it is itself a violation of a more general rule.





"Affect" and "effect," by comparison, are actually two different words. While they have the same Latin origin, one of them took a detour through Old French before landing in English, and despite some incorrect mixing of the two spellings since their origin, they have generally been considered separate words.





"Their/there/they're" is similarly a set of three different words, and the contraction in that trilogy follows the normal rule of contractions. Failing to distinguish between "its/it's," unless systemic, generally shows the writer or speaker actually understands the underlying rule of contractions, but momentarily screwed up on the stupid exception to the rule that has no logical reason I can determine. Using "they're" for anything other than its proper purpose shows, at best, an incomplete grasp of the rule of contractions.





I'm also not underestimating the actual importance of people learning the "proper" way to speak, because of its relation to getting jobs and otherwise succeeding in society. However, I assume you're not mistaking that importance for actual correctness. There is nothing inferior or "illogical" about disfavored dialects. If the speakers of those dialects were to become the upper class tomorrow, suddenly, those manners of speech would be "proper" and would have always been so.





However, there is still a distinction between rules with at least some logical basis in the underlying language, like distinguishing between "affect" and "effect," and pure inventions and novelties like the "rule" against split infinitives and, even less of a rule, the insult against logic that led to the "its/it's" rule.





[edit]Went and checked the affect/effect thing. They actually also have separate Latin origins. I'd still bet they ultimately have the same origin, but they'd separated as early as Latin.[/edit]

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31087
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

Language Geekery

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:09 pm

Principal/principle is another one (which some so-called lawyer we recently mocked repeatedly got wrong).During settlement conferences I always tell the mediator that it's unlikely the other side is insisting on the latter when the former is at issue.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 15691
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Language Geekery

Postby TollandRCR » Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:30 pm

The problem with its-it's is obviously that two rules collide. I suppose that those who arbitrarily decreed that the contraction would get the apostrophe thought that they had a problem to solve. As in so many other cases, the intended word is ordinarily quite clear from context no matter how it is spelled. And most of us do not pronounce apostrophes as we speak. I am curious, however, whether American Sign Language makes a distinction and am not even sure that such words exist in ASL. They can often be omitted without losing meaning (or, as some students would write, loosing meaning).English suffers from having too many roots. (English suffers from having two many routes.) Or from not having a Royal Spanish Academy or L'Académie française. Or from the fact that it is spoken and written differently all over the world. That happens when a language becomes the lingua franca for the world (sorry, Thierry Meyssan). It is for good reason that it was said

England and America are two countries separated by a common language. (attributed to George Bernard Shaw)

I persist in correcting students in "writing-intensive" courses when they confuse its and it's. I consider that confusion to be an error. One reason is that I hate seeing the error in their résumés. However, I am quite confident that they will resume confusing the two when nobody is looking. That Capital Community College series of quizzes likely includes some words that I confuse.I love this compilation of errors made by Microsoft's spelling and grammar checker:[link]A Demonstration of the Futility of Using Microsoft Word’s Spelling and Grammar Check,http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/check/[/link]. Try checking the following in Word (reset the checker in Options under Proofing):

Letter to ESL students in South Australia
Deer stew dentsTo questions four you. Do you know how too use the spell checker on the computer?Can you sea sum spelling mistakes inn this?The spellchecker on my computer could knot fine any problems - awl my words were correct. The grammar checker all so said my grandma was perfect.CheeseKaren

The checker in Word 2010 found two errors of diction and objected to the use of first person. It found no grammar errors.

Paul Pieniezny
Posts: 1484
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:42 am

Language Geekery

Postby Paul Pieniezny » Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:43 pm

From Maryland Challenge

Ka-poot.

Now that is an interesting word[/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaputt]http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaputt[/break1]google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKaputt&act=url]http://translate.google.com/translate?s ... tt&act=urlPaging our Belgian friend !

Because the word only exists in German and Dutch? Sorry, cannot add much to the German wikipedia article. Though I would think that the chances of it being a "Bargoens" word (coded jargon of thieves, smugglers and errant salesman, formerly spoken in Holland, Northern Germany and the Rhineland, containing lots of Yiddish and Hebrew words) are probably better than the article says. It is a word with purely negative connotations, after all. Though in recent years, in Dutch it tends to be used mainly of persons - you can be "kapot" because you are physically exhausted, or because you are emotionally down. Sounds like Orly, both ways.I like the idea of kapoot rhyming with moot, actually.And the fact that at Wikipedia people can write "with a straight face" that is perhaps of French origin. without alluding to a [link]capote anglaise,http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/capote_anglaise[/link]. Because when a capote anglaise gets kapoot, the "issue" that Shirley begets, is definitely not moot. :-

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 8885
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Language Geekery

Postby Plutodog » Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:36 pm

Well, this thread needs a little love...[imgwidth=400]http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/555405_404774619565330_2000405515_n.jpg[/imgwidth]
We are not sinners. We are not abominations. We were not born broken, and we do not need salvation. We have embraced our right to think beyond the boundaries of religion. We are living and loving our lives free from faith. -- Sarah Morehead

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6322
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Language Geekery

Postby Piffle » Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:40 pm

Has anyone here heard Boontling spoken? [link]Ling link here,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boontling[/link].





It's a language that is spoken only in the small town of Boonville in Mendocino County, CA. I'd been hoping to overhear a conversation some time and finally -- about two weeks ago -- I lucked out when I stopped at the local farmer's market.





Because Boontling was based on English, the sounds, structure and flow all seem familiar to an untrained American ear, but the number of unusual words makes comprehension all but impossible. I could tell that the woman who was shopping for fruits and veggies was haggling with the farm stand operator and I inferred that they were also exchanging some gossip or talk about the weather. Beyond that? I have no idea.





What great fun!

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 8308
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am

Language Geekery

Postby Whatever4 » Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:28 pm

[BBvideo 425,350:rrcvl1bb]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP33LwonyXM[/BBvideo]That's weird.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 15691
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Language Geekery

Postby TollandRCR » Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:21 pm

As everybody would have expected, there is a dissertation [link]"Boontling: limited language of Boonville, California, and its environs",http://www.worldcat.org/title/boontling-limited-language-of-boonville-california-and-its-environs/oclc/433672148[/link] by Charles Clinton Adams, University of Washington. This produced a book Boontling: An American Lingo; With a Dictionary of Boontling, published by the University of Texas Press, and [link]an article in Petaluma 360,http://traveler.blogs.petaluma360.com/10486/harpin%E2%80%99-boont-the-lingo-of-boonville/[/link].





H. Lynch, a reviewer for Goodreads, [link]says,http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/104919050[/link]


Boontling is one of the very few post-colonial American lingos to develop. It's heyday was the early part of the 20th century and was confined to a tiny isogloss in and around California's Anderson Valley. Few people speak it any more, but vestiges of it exist on old signs and among the oldest living inhabitants of the region. This book is a joy if you are a geek about linguistics, local history, the investigative research process, and learning about a colorful group of frontiersmen, their families, and the conditions that allowed their lingo to flourish for a few short decades.


A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Language Geekery

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:08 pm

Moved [/break1]thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=409877#p409877]from here.





Poor word choice by Assistant U.S. Attorneys West and DeJute. Plaintiff’s motion is the latest iteration.

Last does mean "latest."





3. a.A.I.3.a Occurring or presenting itself next before a point of time expressed or implied in the sentence; the present time, or next before; most recent, latest. †the last age: recent times.


   With a cardinal numeral the order is now always the last two (three, etc.).

For example, if I say "last night," it is clear from the context that I don't mean the last night in existence, just the night most recent as of the time of speaking.





The difference in senses of this word was used to strong effect in the Replacements song "The Last."





So you have another drink


And get down on your knees


You been swearing to God


Now maybe if you'd ask


That this one be your last


'Cause this one child is killing you





This one's your last chance


To make this last one really the last



User avatar
ObjectiveDoubter
Posts: 3057
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:19 pm
Location: Hollywood (more or less)

Language Geekery

Postby ObjectiveDoubter » Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:16 pm

Moved [/break1]thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=409877#p409877]from here.





Poor word choice by Assistant U.S. Attorneys West and DeJute. Plaintiff’s motion is the latest iteration.

Last does mean "latest."





3. a.A.I.3.a Occurring or presenting itself next before a point of time expressed or implied in the sentence; the present time, or next before; most recent, latest. †the last age: recent times.


   With a cardinal numeral the order is now always the last two (three, etc.).

For example, if I say "last night," it is clear from the context that I don't mean the last night in existence, just the night most recent as of the time of speaking.





The difference in senses of this word was used to strong effect in the Replacements song "The Last."





So you have another drink


And get down on your knees


You been swearing to God


Now maybe if you'd ask


That this one be your last


'Cause this one child is killing you





This one's your last chance


To make this last one really the last


you are probably one of the few people who uses fewer and less correctly, not interchanging them. Impressive! http://www.presstheshutter.net/images/smilies/SmileyBowing.gif

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Language Geekery

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:56 am

I'm performing CPR on this thread again, just because I can. Plus, I think it's about to get another screen. Too. Also.Do you have editing tasks you almost always do with everything you write? I have one I call "which hunting." I have a bad habit of using "that" and "which" interchangeably, or misusing commas right before "that." Obsessively correcting this is the main rule of English I learned from my judge, as it was one of her pet peeves. I now can't stand to see it.I usually cut language I write for web fora a lot of slack, but this is one rule I try to enforce on myself, and cringe any time I see old things I once wrote that violate it flagrantly.Another rule that is more a style thing is simply going through a post and deleting any commas that I can justify deleting because I hate commas but nevertheless use them often.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Language Geekery

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:57 am

See? It just did get another screen. Like I said!

I'm performing CPR on this thread again, just because I can. Plus, I think it's about to get another screen. Too. Also.Do you have editing tasks you almost always do with everything you write? I have one I call "which hunting." I have a bad habit of using "that" and "which" interchangeably, or misusing commas right before "that." Obsessively correcting this is the main rule of English I learned from my judge, as it was one of her pet peeves. I now can't stand to see it.I usually cut language I write for web fora a lot of slack, but this is one rule I try to enforce on myself, and cringe any time I see old things I once wrote that violate it flagrantly.Another rule that is more a style thing is simply going through a post and deleting any commas that I can justify deleting because I hate commas but nevertheless use them often.


User avatar
kate520
Posts: 10593
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm

Language Geekery

Postby kate520 » Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:29 pm

OMG, Loh, what happens when you see a sentence containing "...that which..."? ;;)


Return to “The Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests