| Author |
Message |
Jordan Abel
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 3:39 am
Post subject: Re: Peace proposal [was: Re: "email" vs "e-mail" revisited [ |
|
|
On 2005-10-25, Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I'd agree that it's a recognised counterforce; its legitimacy,
however, is debatable, and depends very much on which sense of
"legitimate" you're choosing to use.
|
The fact that it does exist, and that it does influence language
evolution, and has since Time Immemorial [tm]. If one claims that
it's not legitimate how do you define what is legitimate? Is sound
change illegitimate? Is folk etymology [eggcorns and such]?
| Quote: | and second, that 'irregardless' is a perfectly cromulent word.
I've no idea what you mean.
|
Simpsons reference. google "perfectly cromulent word"
| Quote: | Incidentally, "solecism" is IMO a prescriptivist term.
That's why I kept placing "error" in quotation marks. (You did notice
those, I hope; they're weren't inserted for decoration.)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 3:47 am
Post subject: Re: Peace proposal [was: Re: "email" vs "e-mail" revisited [ |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| Quote: |
On 25 Oct 2005, Jordan Abel wrote
|
[ ... ]
| Quote: | and second, that 'irregardless' is a perfectly cromulent word.
I've no idea what you mean.
|
"Cromulent" comes from *The Simpsons*. You can Google it.
--
Bob Lieblich
Embiggened |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:02 am
Post subject: Re: Peace proposal [was: Re: "email" vs "e-mail" revisited [ |
|
|
On 25 Oct 2005, Robert Lieblich wrote
| Quote: | Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 25 Oct 2005, Jordan Abel wrote
[ ... ]
and second, that 'irregardless' is a perfectly cromulent word.
I've no idea what you mean.
"Cromulent" comes from *The Simpsons*. You can Google it.
|
Good on the Simpsons.
I suppose I *could* google it, but frankly I can't be faffed searching
the web to try and figure out every half-baked bit of cult-speak that
crops up in here.
("Cromulent" hasn't made it to M-W online or Collins, so its use
remains a tedious bit of fashionable bandwaggonry. IMHO,
y'unnerstan'.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:06 am
Post subject: Re: Peace proposal [was: Re: "email" vs "e-mail" revisited [ |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:47:06 -0400, Robert Lieblich
<robert.lieblich@verizon.net> said:
| Quote: | Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 25 Oct 2005, Jordan Abel wrote
[ ... ]
and second, that 'irregardless' is a perfectly cromulent word.
I've no idea what you mean.
"Cromulent" comes from *The Simpsons*. You can Google it.
|
You can also find it defined in three dictionaries at
http://www.onelook.com/ .
Turns out there's an original meaning and a later modified
meaning. And it seems even from the gitgo there has been
some doubt about its true meaning.
There's a fairly expansive discussion of "cromulent" and
"embiggen" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwyjibo#C . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:10 am
Post subject: Re: Peace proposal [was: Re: "email" vs "e-mail" revisited [ |
|
|
On 25 Oct 2005, Bob Cunningham wrote
| Quote: | On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:47:06 -0400, Robert Lieblich
robert.lieblich@verizon.net> said:
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 25 Oct 2005, Jordan Abel wrote
[ ... ]
and second, that 'irregardless' is a perfectly cromulent word.
I've no idea what you mean.
"Cromulent" comes from *The Simpsons*. You can Google it.
You can also find it defined in three dictionaries at
http://www.onelook.com/ .
|
It's not in M-W online; nor in Collins. And there's no obvious root.
Strikes me as a nonce word -- unique to the Simpsons -- and not
particularly worth exploring unless it gains more of a foot-hold.
(As one of those sites -- the "Worthless Words for the Day" one --
says, it assumes common knowledge of Simpsons references, and I find
that sort of in-joke neologism fairly tedious.)
| Quote: | Turns out there's an original meaning and a later modified
meaning. And it seems even from the gitgo there has been
some doubt about its true meaning.
There's a fairly expansive discussion of "cromulent" and
"embiggen" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwyjibo#C .
|
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:44 am
Post subject: Re: Peace proposal [was: Re: "email" vs "e-mail" revisited [ |
|
|
Iain <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I think you are making Written English out to be more natural than it
is. Remember that writing is more designed than speech. Publishers will
continue to publish "ad nauseam", ensuring that it will remain the most
durable of spellings, even if it is a minority spelling.
|
That's an interesting slant on it, but don't bet the farm. "Google News"
may not be limited to prestigious publishing firms only, but it does
provide articles from a wide range of newspapers, magazines, and news
sites. When I check there, I find:
nauseam 282
nauseum 97 Ratio 3:1
So, yes, those in the publishing industry do use "nauseam" more often
than not (the Web as a whole shows a ratio of 9:10, that is, the other
direction). Yet, still, 3:1 a very low ratio for a spelling error, and
that's still 97 hits for "nauseum." Who used it? Looking for names of
sizeable publications that should have known better, I see:
SportingNews
Variety
Minneapolis Star Tribune
Seattle Times
National Review Online
The Decatur Daily
Economic Times, India
Mobile Register, AL
Oklahoma Daily, OK
The more common "nauseum" becomes, the more the writers, typists,
proofreaders and editors, even at major publications, will believe it is
the right spelling -- it's all they see.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:50 am
Post subject: Re: Peace proposal [was: Re: "email" vs "e-mail" revisited [ |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On 25 Oct 2005, Robert Lieblich wrote
"Cromulent" comes from *The Simpsons*. You can Google it.
Good on the Simpsons.
I suppose I *could* google it, but frankly I can't be faffed searching
the web to try and figure out every half-baked bit of cult-speak that
crops up in here.
("Cromulent" hasn't made it to M-W online or Collins, so its use
remains a tedious bit of fashionable bandwaggonry. IMHO,
y'unnerstan'.)
|
You aren't supposed to look it up, Harvey, you're supposed to glork it
from context. Honest.
--
Best - Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:01 am
Post subject: Re: Peace proposal [was: Re: "email" vs "e-mail" revisited [ |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| Quote: | On 25 Oct 2005, Bob Cunningham wrote
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:47:06 -0400, Robert Lieblich
robert.lieblich@verizon.net> said:
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 25 Oct 2005, Jordan Abel wrote
[ ... ]
and second, that 'irregardless' is a perfectly cromulent word.
I've no idea what you mean.
"Cromulent" comes from *The Simpsons*. You can Google it.
You can also find it defined in three dictionaries at
http://www.onelook.com/ .
It's not in M-W online; nor in Collins. And there's no obvious
root.
Strikes me as a nonce word -- unique to the Simpsons -- and not
particularly worth exploring unless it gains more of a foot-hold.
(As one of those sites -- the "Worthless Words for the Day" one --
says, it assumes common knowledge of Simpsons references, and I
find
that sort of in-joke neologism fairly tedious.)
Turns out there's an original meaning and a later modified
meaning. And it seems even from the gitgo there has been
some doubt about its true meaning.
There's a fairly expansive discussion of "cromulent" and
"embiggen" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwyjibo#C .
|
It doesn't do to get embrangled with these requestionate usements at
our age, Harvey -- we're just too barkled.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:32 am
Post subject: Re: Peace proposal |
|
|
trio@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) writes:
| Quote: | You aren't supposed to look it up, Harvey, you're supposed to glork
it from context. Honest.
|
It would be amusing if that use of "glork" becomes common enough that
it found its way into dictionaries.
For those not familiar with it, it was coined (if that's the right
word) by David Moser and published in Douglas Hofstadter's "On
Self-Referential Sentences" (collected in _Metamagical Themas_). It
appeared in the example sentence:
This glubblick contains many nonsklarkish English flutzpahs, but
the overall pluggandisp can be glorked from context.
which, surprisingly, appears to be a true statement. Doing a Google
search and eliminating matches with either name or any of the other
nonce words turns up about a hundred hits for "glorked from context"
and another bunch with other forms of "glork". (And another bunch for
"glarked from context".)
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |I need to get a new collander. My
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |old one has holes in it.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Bannister
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:36 am
Post subject: Re: Peace proposal [was: Re: "email" vs "e-mail" revisited [ |
|
|
R H Draney wrote:
| Quote: | Robert Bannister filted:
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
Alan Jones wrote:
Who inserted the -c-, I wonder? The same pesky Latinist, perhaps,
who added the -b- to doubt and debt, and the -d- to admiral.
Insisting upon adding a letter which wasn't previously there in the
400-odd years that a word has been used -- purely on the basis that,
well, it really *ought* to be there, old chap -- looks to me more like
"arrogantly pissing about with" the language, rather than "tidying".
Don't you think it's nice to be able to see a clear relationship between
"debt" and "debit"?
Not if it also leads you to see one between "isle" and "island"....r
And Iceland. |
--
Rob Bannister |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Bannister
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:41 am
Post subject: Re: Peace proposal [was: Re: "email" vs "e-mail" revisited [ |
|
|
Iain wrote:
| Quote: | The relevance is, "cosign" already exists, giving credibility to
"cosignature".
|
I can never remember: is that adjacent over hypotenuse?
--
Rob Bannister |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Bannister
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:45 am
Post subject: Re: Peace proposal [was: Re: "email" vs "e-mail" revisited [ |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| Quote: | The merits of that approach don't, to me, outbalance the value of
letting the language develop as it decides to develop (rather than
shoe-horning additional elements into existing words).
|
Which brings us full circle: "alot" is OK if it's natural(?).
--
Rob Bannister |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iain
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:45 am
Post subject: Re: Peace proposal [was: Re: "email" vs "e-mail" revisited [ |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| Quote: | On 25 Oct 2005, Robert Lieblich wrote
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 25 Oct 2005, Jordan Abel wrote
[ ... ]
and second, that 'irregardless' is a perfectly cromulent word.
I've no idea what you mean.
"Cromulent" comes from *The Simpsons*. You can Google it.
Good on the Simpsons.
|
Interphrasistically is my favourite fictional word(Blackadder).
"I shall return interphrasistically." (between phrases?)
~Iain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:15 am
Post subject: "cromulent" and such [was: Re: Peace proposal [was: Re: "ema |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:10:02 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
<harvey.news@ntlworld.com> said:
| Quote: | On 25 Oct 2005, Bob Cunningham wrote
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:47:06 -0400, Robert Lieblich
robert.lieblich@verizon.net> said:
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 25 Oct 2005, Jordan Abel wrote
[ ... ]
and second, that 'irregardless' is a perfectly cromulent word.
I've no idea what you mean.
"Cromulent" comes from *The Simpsons*. You can Google it.
You can also find it defined in three dictionaries at
http://www.onelook.com/ .
It's not in M-W online; nor in Collins. And there's no obvious root.
Strikes me as a nonce word -- unique to the Simpsons -- and not
particularly worth exploring unless it gains more of a foot-hold.
|
I wouldn't be surprised to see it gain more of a foothold.
It slips off the tongue easily and it sounds as though it
could easily be a valid word.
I wonder, though, if it isn't already a skunked word. I
gather some people think it means genuinely okay while
others think it means ironically okay but not truly okay.
(I never thought I would ever use "ironically" with that
meaning, but there it is, so I guess I might as well leave
it there.)
Two words that have unknown origin, may originally have been
nonce words, and have become well-established are
"copacetic" (1919) and "grungy" (1965). There are probably
lots of others, but those are the ones that come to mind at
the moment.
A word that sounds like nonsense but has a reasonably sound
etymology is "absquatulate". I doubt that anyone would use
it these days unless they were trying for a humorous effect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:58 am
Post subject: Re: Peace proposal [was: Re: "email" vs "e-mail" revisited [ |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:09:16 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:46:03 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
I guess I'm still having trouble viewing this as a resource contention
problem in any way that doesn't imply mutual exclusion (in which case,
of course, all of the policies are equivalent). I realize that it's
theoretically possible, but it never seemed as though it would be
particularly comfortable from the point of view of the resource being
allocated.
When dealing with expendable resources, it may be preferable to
eliminate comfort from contention. There is a short-term period where
the resources are expandable before they are expended, and one needs
to take advantage of the brief window.
I don't think I'd consider this an expendable resource. Most women
seem to get a lifetime's use out of it. It does, however, tend to be
allocated with an "at most one occupant at a time" policy.
|
I depends on how you classify resources. An empty storefront is a
resource, but a tenant is an expendable resource.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in