Four Words: Use Other Words Please

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
(I *think* this may already have come up somewhere, anyway...)

Non-musical version of an old favourite, brought to mind by Nicole's (sorry Nicole) use of vile construction "Two words:" in another thread, trumped only in annoyance by "Can you say..."

i. Where do these horrors come from, originally?

ii. Your most loathed written tics (especially in 'Internet debate')

Tom, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Hey, Tom - do you mean "written tics" outside of obvious grammatical errors and poor spelling? (I loved those 3rd-grade-level e-mails I used to get asking if I was selling Dave Matthews Band tickets. I felt like I was in a hi-tech version of Fast Times - "No, I DON'T have any Blue Oyster Cult!")

I've always chafed against constant use of those damn emoticons. You know - ;), :), :P, %). Once in a while, okey dokey. Fifteen times in the same "conversation", I'm about to go alkdjfalkj.

Origin of such things (i.e. "Two words:", "Can you say...") - television. Bane of our existance. Glass tit. Sweet oblivion.

David Raposa, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Actually Tom, I think it was the other two words I used that struck a nerve rather than the first two. ;-) So I take no offense.

The "two words:" contruction probably does come from tv, but I don't recall it as such. It's just one of those phrases you begin hearing a lot, and it seeps into the conciousness.

My most loathed written tics: most (if I'm honest probably all) internet and marketing phrases raise my hackles, but other than that I'm hard put to think of any. I am morely likely to loathe a writer's style in general than one particular phrase or tic.

Nicole, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Well only kind of, because the "two words" construction assumes that whatever's being referenced with those two words is so obvious it needs no elaboration. So it's double-triple annoying when (as in this case) what's being referenced is someone you've never heard of!

Marketingspeak is bad - the worst thing is you build up a tolerance.

Tom, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

I hope I never build up a tolerance to marketingspeak. Otoh it would probably make my life a lot easier.

Anyhow, here is a link to who I was talking about. He's been in so much crap over the years I incorrectly assumed there would be reruns of them floating throughout the galaxy. I've not checked but hopefully there's some disgustingly beardy pics somewhere on the site.

Nicole, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Nicole: Tom is wrong and you are right. Evigan has been on UK television (gravity forced me to watch even more epsodes of My Two Dads than We've got It Made). He's even been MOCKED on UK TV, as a regular feature in a skit series — but I can't remember what it was. ( I *think* something Vic and Bob did: they of course would love him...)

Remember: man who owns no TV cannot grumble when out of loop

mark s, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Wasn't it some awful Lee & Herring thing?

Tim, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Lee & Herring? Vindication is mine.

Tom, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

How can that be, when you're still stuck with the beard?

Nicole, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Is Tom's beard as bad as that Greg guy's? It'd be kind of cool if it was.

Richard Tunnicliffe, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

I just imagine so. He does have the sense not to post any pictures of his bearded visage.

Nicole, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Your most loathed written tics (especially in 'Internet debate')

Someone already said emoticons? Me & Maryann were just arguing about who should start the 'Emoticons - classic or dud' thread, we were both going No you do it...both thought it'd be taken as insulting by just about everyone that posts to this board, y'know, 'cause are we the only people that don't use the little buggers? what about that "tongue hanging out" one, does that even mean anything?

duane zarakov, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

What I said about emoticons on Blue Lines, ages ago (this now reads a little strong, probably I was annoyed by something):

"I don't approve of people who don't approve of emoticons (my apologies if this topic is as done-to-death as I think it might be). Those people tend to be what Momus calls "independent content creators", poets and art workers who like the idea of the net as a place to Think and Write and Express Themsleves. Their objections to emoticons tend to involve the little mood-signifiers' 'crassness' and 'coyness' and 'tweeness', and they carry the sniffy implication that emoticons are somehow common, for people who can't express themselves properly in English - and, worse, that the unrestrained use of emoticons will somehow annihilate nuanced expression.

Of course there are plenty of examples of net discourse where emoticons are inappropriate or coarsening - I can't stand Epinions' habit of encouraging literate reviews and then reducing them to a little face, for example, and in a considered, essay-style piece, they are indeed the sign of a writer not doing the job properly. And yes, some people use them excessively, like a nervous tic, or use pointlessly baroque variations on the simple :-) theme. But the anti- squad's objections betray not just snobbery, but also I think a misunderstanding about what emoticons are for. The internet is a communications medium as well as a writerly one, and at its frequent best it can be both. But a lot of these communications - particularly in chatrooms and on message boards, the breeding grounds of the smiley - are neccessarily fast and immediate. Emoticons speed stuff up, bring the internet a little closer to the instancy of spoken communication. That alone wouldn't justify them, but they're more useful than that - with a smiley or a frowney or whatever you don't have to concentrate so hard on nuance and tone, and that's a good thing - in fast, info-rich communication, things like tone and writing style are noise, not signal.

The other thing that offends the red-blooded anti-smiley brigade is that emoticons are by definition defensive, things to hide behind. The most personal or repugnant comment can be defused by having an arch little semicolon-dash-bracket stuck on the end. Except it can't: I've called people on things said behind the smiley veil before, and dismissed the emoticon. Emoticons aren't prophylactics, they're only as protective as the recipient, not the user, wants them to be. What they symbolise as much as anything else is a willingness to debate, to accept cultural differences, to keep an open mind - they symbolise a desire to come to terms with ambiguity. Ambiguity is as hateful an idea to new media blowhards as it is to old media blowhards, and it's easy to see why the more combatative netizens find emoticons repugnant: they're the gentle lubricant to internet conversation, the solvent that breaks down the old Little Internetter divide between 'newbies' and the rest of us."

Tom, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Seeing as Duane has clearly never noticed I also never use them, I shall now — with a sense of naughty relief — start.

Sticks tongue out at Duane :P

As prophylactics: well, yes, I think I don't use them mainly as a kind of net-chat barebacking — the risk of being taken ill and thought rude is quite exciting, when actually I'm not particularly rude "in person". The wink one irritates mainly for the reason that winking itself irritates me: an offline communication device I have never dared attemt, let alone master. }:—£>

mark s, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

I agree about "hiding" behind emoticons - often they're used to have cake and eat it too. I've always held that people have had to find ways to convey their ironic intentions in writing well before the Internet and it would be a shame if that art were lost. But I ain't abolute about it. :| There, what does that one mean??

"Can you say..." is I believe from Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, a children's show on Public Broadcasting that ran from the 70s thru the 80s (and 90s? I just looked at the home page and he looks old). "Two words:" reminds me of "Two hits: me hittin you, you hittin the ground."

Does anyone else agree that internet acronyms like OTOH, FWIW, IMHO and the like are better dispensed with, as examples of the kind of "pre-made" phrases that George Orwell believed led to lazy thinking and bad writing?

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

One reason I use emoticons: seems when I don't, I invariably get "Are you serious?!" types of responses. I've even received a couple of very angry and offended emails from people who had taken something I had written at face value. Hence the use of emoticons...

If you are writing a review or critical essay it's a lot easier for the reader to suss out irony or satire, but I have found in these type of forums where postings can be limited to a sentence or two, it's a lot more difficult for some people to detect irony. I would really rather throw in the occaisonal emoticon instead of having people continually take things the wrong way.

Nicole, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Does anyone else agree that internet acronyms like OTOH, FWIW, IMHO and the like are better dispensed with, as examples of the kind of "pre-made" phrases that George Orwell believed led to lazy thinking and bad writing?

As evidenced by ILM today, there should be some sort of academic standard set up before anyone is allowed to post any sort of opinion. Expansive references to Derrida and John Cage are appreciated, but not necessary. If unfamiliar with semiotics, one should (to use one of those terrible pre-made phrases) "hit the road".

Nicole, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Does anyone else agree that internet acronyms like OTOH, FWIW, IMHO and the like are better dispensed with, as examples of the kind of "pre-made" phrases that George Orwell believed led to lazy thinking and bad writing?

What's any big deal about OTOH or FWIW? those're OK things to say in real life, i mean in their full length form...IMHO is kind of a wankerish thing to say in real life tho so = also strictly from wanksville in its abbrev. form. Internet- type writing - it's just about tring to write how you speak. Actually I make much use of bizarre facial expressions in my infrequent "real- time" conversations, so my emoticonphobia is RANK HYPOCRISY.

duane, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

tring to write how you speak - i also say the word trying as "tring"

duane, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

They're the OPPOSITE of what Orwell's talking abt (IMAO): how's it "lazy thinking" if I have to stop and ponder them for five mins before I recall what they mean. (Which is, incidentally, my main objection to them: they speed the writer up but slow ME down.)

Fuck Orwell anyway. I hate him. :—§

Who's talking abt Derrida? I'm on the wrong forum, kids! Later!!

mark s, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

I hate smiley faces, but I use them online occasionally because otherwise no one gets it. If I don't use them, I get told I'm "systematically destroying " people or I get flamed or I get told to calm down, as if, hello, a forum can work you up? Duh. I still refuse to use them; if you don't get it, you're an idiot is my opinion. However they still slide in when I'm making an obvious joke from time to time.

I would just like to see the death of them. It represents all that the internet has done wrong to people - they can't even get sarcasm or irony or even just obvious humor without a BIG HAPPY FACE next to it? Hello, what is that about? How does anyone read books anymore? That's a good question - who wants to take bets on how long it is before we get a novel peppered with emoticons.

For some reason my computer is very slow right now.

My favorite smiley faces: [:O) - Ringo Starr {:0 - a mommoni

Ally, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

What's IMAO, mark?

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

In My Arrogant Opinion, at a guess. I had to drop the H in IMHO because of a sudden epiphany: I'm a self-confident bastard who couldn't be humble if someone gave me a million dollars. (Go on, I dare you; give me a million dollars and see how humble I am.)

Dan Perry, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Dan = correct

mark s, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Oh! You're making the arrogant tone explicit, yet in doing so acknowledging it, and so blunting some possible offense. Really the same as IMHO is it not? Mmm.. the politics Of Grammatology.

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

I find the construction of, say, "1980's" rather than "1980s" irrationally, overtly annoying. But not to the extent where I am arsed enough to tell newspaper readers of the fact.

Robin Carmody, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Not irrational, Robin: 1980's is overtly WRONG. 1980s = correct. Use of the apostrophe is totally fucked in the English language however: my solution — complete extermination.

mark s, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

IMNO

mark s, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Well I know 1980s is CORRECT. But I'm worried about who I'd be aligning myself with.

Robin Carmody, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Carmody in alignment with FORCES OF CONSERVATISM shocker!

Richard Tunnicliffe, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Well, exactly. The Telegraph have printed a letter a day complaining about "inappropriate" use of apostrophes for weeks now. Hence why I'm rather embarrassed with myself for giving a shit.

Robin Carmody, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

It's nothing to do with conservatism or the Telegraph, it's to do with being wrong.

Radical solution: no more apostrophes anywhere.

mark s, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

I find the construction of, say, "1980's" rather than "1980s" irrationally, overtly annoying.

Oh dear I always put apostrophes with decades...I had this idea in the back of my mind that because it's a number it required an apostrophe but clearly I was wrong.

David, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Well, exactly. Blame me for being embarrassed to admit that they can sometimes be, gasp, *right*.

Robin Carmody, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

David, you were the one I had in mind :). I think I used to put apostrophes for decades as a child until I was told it was wrong, and have since come to be profoundly irritated by it.

I think it used to be more common - maybe even more widely approved of - than it is today, though.

Robin Carmody, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

I think the apostophes for decades thing came about because of improper understanding of the rules of using apostrophes for contractions. 1980s would become '80s because the "19" has been omitted. It is not a huge jump to go from '80s (which is correct) to 80's (which is less correct). Unless people actually mean 1980's meaning "belonging to the year 1980".

That said, I never fully understood the rules of punctuation, because as soon as I seemed to grasp them, they'd change all over again. Or mybe I'd just move to another country.

masonic boom, Thursday, 14 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

A veteran sub-editor writes: the rules of punctuation aren't that scary - apostrophes either stand in for absent letters, or possession. It's only when you get both at once (it's/its) that anything gets scary. Fear of getting it wrong is what causes the outbreaks of incorrect apostrophes. My big punctuation crisis was learning how to use long dashes instead of commas or brackets to indicate a clause inserted into a wider point. I hate all internet/email and text message devices.

Incidentally, in case no one has mentioned it further up, 'Two words' was Denis Leary's catchphrase, wasn't it?

Mark Morris, Thursday, 14 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Fowler has a whole section on actually existing (but never used) punctuation devices involving the dash: ie the dash-comma, viz. —,

I have never dared try any of these.

mark s, Thursday, 14 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

ps Denis Leary is the genital warts of alt.com stand-up

mark s, Thursday, 14 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

...and will rot in hell for stealing just Bill Hick's anger and none of his moral outrage.

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 14 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

From today's Charles Moore Hunt Ball Newsletter:

"SIR - The apostrophe is a catastrophe."

Andrew Atkins, Dorking, Surrey.

Robin Carmody, Thursday, 14 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

"It's not rocket science": used too often and lamely. And how complex is rocket science anyways? Read a few books on propulsion systems and you're halfways there, I figure.

Worst word ever: on good-then-tedious TV series Red Dwarf, "smeg" used as "fuck" substitute. That caught on with NO ONE. "Feck" from Father Ted caught on - I use that (along with fark, fug, frig, etc.) but smeg? BLAH!

"1980's": this abomination irks me, too. Esp. on big commercial corporate advertising copy. Given their seven figure budgets, you'd think they'd hire someone who could actually frickin spell. Feckers!

AP, Thursday, 14 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

I once stopped talking to a cute net girl because she asked me do you go to skewl or do you werk? That just makes me cringe.

bnw, Thursday, 14 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

i came late to the internet so i don't know where lots of that stuff came from...what's the deal with those spellings kewl & all that shit? i wish there was a Fowler-type guide for internet language (& that not following its suggestions became really unkewl)

duane z., Friday, 15 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Not that "Fowler's Guide to CB Radio Usage" hasn't served me well, it'd just be good to have something more up-to-date.

duane z., Friday, 15 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Man. Snobs. I tell you.

Listen, let it occur to you that perhaps people might slip in their grammar, or make use of a tired/annoying cathchphrases, or not know who Derrida is, for a thousand legitimate reasons.

I'm restraining my ire in a big way right now, but I can tell you firsthand, that sometimes these things have nothing to do with intelligence or creativity or laziness. It means nothing to anyone except myself now, but when I was young I was "officially" the smartest kid in my school and used to read anywhere from fourteen to twenty books a week. I was also touted as an artistic genius by many of my teachers. But right NOW I could easily be one of these annoying people that is getting the message to "hit the road" or whatever it was that Nicole said - not meaning to single you out Nicole, because I'm getting that same vibe from others too.

Life can take a toll on anyone. If you're someone who had to fend for themsleves, and if you had a lot of "distractions" going on during the crucial years of your secondary school life, and if by circumstance had to work exhaustingly long hours at shit minimum wage jobs for years afterward just to eat and support yourself, finally clawing your way upward to a respectable and well paying position without the aid of a degree, the truth is that these things *are* going to suffer in at least some small way.

This is a discussion board after all - it's not work, somewhere that I *would* do grammar and spell checks - I come to these things to escape all that and speak in a more relaxed way. I'm usually totally wiped out from my day. Is that lazy to you? Who says all good discussion is "formal" discussion anyway? eh... don't know what else to say.

Kim, Friday, 15 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

I could easily be one of these annoying people that is getting the message to "hit the road" or whatever it was that Nicole said - not meaning to single you out Nicole, because I'm getting that same vibe from others too.
hey i think Nicole said that ironically, in support of much the same thing you're saying. Gee, I guess she should've used a few more emoticons there or something.
Hey man, don't worry about it, I smoke pot too.

duane, Friday, 15 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Arguments in favour of emoticons (and internet slang):

1. They are amusing
The humour is weak - why? - because they were invented by 12 YEAR OLDS. Once kids reach 12 they stop being funny.

2. They are innocent. You're a killjoy.
This is based on their having been invented by 12 year olds. Are they, in fact, innocent? a) They were not invented by the Japanese. Strike one against their guilelessness. b) They reek of just pre-pubescent boys who've been shut in a small room for half an afternoon playing dungeons and dragons. NOT INNOCENT.
That's all.

maryann, Friday, 15 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

ILM/E should (hopefully) focus on the quality of *ideas*. This question started from my beef with certain shortenings/phrases as lazy stylistic signifiers of 'attitude' - I have no problem with spelling/grammar slips really and as said above I like emoticons and abbreviations (except abbreviations + attitude eg RTFM. Er, no, FO.)

The "hit the road" I took as ironic and rather stingingly so. While there's nothing to be ashamed of about introducing some theoretics into things, it shouldn't be used as some kind of look-at-my-brain showoff move. Being inured to this (or guilty of it) I've not noticed that, but sorry if you have.

And yeah, keep posting!

Tom, Friday, 15 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

By "distractions" I meant a seriously messed up homelife that I didn't feel like elaborating on, not smoking pot. Like THAT would be an excuse! heh.

Ok. I'm placated. I guess I did misread Nicole. Going to the office now - I have one of those unfortunate jobs where I'm around computers all day but have zero time to do any of *this* stuff. Good thing I keep this laptop on my coffetable at home.

Kim, Friday, 15 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

New bete noire:

"Your mileage may vary"

N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 17 November 2003 11:30 (fifteen years ago) link

that is a bete rouge at worst

mark s (mark s), Monday, 17 November 2003 11:34 (fifteen years ago) link

what does it mean? i don't drive.

enrique (Enrique), Monday, 17 November 2003 11:37 (fifteen years ago) link

red beast

mark s (mark s), Monday, 17 November 2003 11:37 (fifteen years ago) link

I reject your zoology.

N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 17 November 2003 11:38 (fifteen years ago) link

And barely drive.

N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 17 November 2003 11:38 (fifteen years ago) link

you guys kill me.
the mileage thing -- what does that mean?

enrique (Enrique), Monday, 17 November 2003 11:45 (fifteen years ago) link

Two Words: is only funny if the phrase is very ostensibly NOT two words.

Citizen Kate (kate), Monday, 17 November 2003 11:47 (fifteen years ago) link

Two words: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Sam (chirombo), Monday, 17 November 2003 11:50 (fifteen years ago) link

Nah, doesn't work.

Sam (chirombo), Monday, 17 November 2003 11:51 (fifteen years ago) link

See, that is funny.

Citizen Kate (kate), Monday, 17 November 2003 11:51 (fifteen years ago) link

Enrique, I am assuming the mileage thing means 'you may disagree'. A kind of 'IMHO' variant that is equally vague and redundant and somehow even more smug and shit.

N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 17 November 2003 12:03 (fifteen years ago) link

i don't think it works, as a metaphor.

enrique (Enrique), Monday, 17 November 2003 12:05 (fifteen years ago) link

No, it is rubbish.

N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 17 November 2003 12:09 (fifteen years ago) link

Is it (the mileage thing) in adverts or something? I mean I suppose it is but I've never seen it.

Sam (chirombo), Monday, 17 November 2003 12:10 (fifteen years ago) link

This is a nasty little thread.

(Nick, curly Jackie asked after you yesterday. She sends her love)

Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 17 November 2003 12:11 (fifteen years ago) link

Hurray for curly Jackie. I send my love back. She's a cracker.

You're right - this thread is nasty.

N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 17 November 2003 12:13 (fifteen years ago) link

nasty like janet

i've seen nastier

enrique (Enrique), Monday, 17 November 2003 12:14 (fifteen years ago) link

I don't think it's that bad: it's generaly used as an acknowledgment of the fact that different people like different things. Its use is mildly ironic, since the original use (car commercials) was about how things are objectively rather than subjectively different (oh, my sides etc.)

N: have you been seeing a sudden upsurge in this recently? I've been seeing YMMV for about 10 years, on and off.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 17 November 2003 12:15 (fifteen years ago) link

Research indicates that N. now hates every single US ILXer.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 17 November 2003 12:15 (fifteen years ago) link

(and Pashmina)

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 17 November 2003 12:16 (fifteen years ago) link

I've only just noticed it.

N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 17 November 2003 12:16 (fifteen years ago) link

I don't hate people for saying things. That would be ridiculous.

N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 17 November 2003 12:20 (fifteen years ago) link

so you like enoch powell?

enrique (Enrique), Monday, 17 November 2003 12:23 (fifteen years ago) link

I don't think he likes people for saying things.

RJG (RJG), Monday, 17 November 2003 12:33 (fifteen years ago) link

his mileage varies

athos magnani (Cozen), Monday, 17 November 2003 12:36 (fifteen years ago) link

I don't hate Enoch Powell. Anyway, he's dead.

N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 17 November 2003 12:47 (fifteen years ago) link

--I have no problem with that
--We'll make it happen
--End of story
\
(that's three different ones, by the way)

Skottie, Monday, 17 November 2003 21:14 (fifteen years ago) link

one year passes...
ILXors use "creepy" way too damn much and much more than the rest of the population. Is this a throwback to the 50s?

Creepy Weirdo, Thursday, 13 October 2005 16:30 (thirteen years ago) link

five years pass...

why does every goddamn description of a southern (US) accent call it a "drawl"?? USE OTHER WORDS, PLEASE

40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Monday, 11 July 2011 16:54 (eight years ago) link

Drawing your vowels out = drawl

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawl

They use it because it's a readily recognizable feature of a dialect and it's quick and easy to say compared to "dialect" or "way of speaking" or "he drags out his vowels"; and "southern accent" sounds weird to some people because they associate accents with other languages.

bamcquern, Monday, 11 July 2011 20:44 (eight years ago) link

my point is that some - many? most? - southern accents are not drawls

40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Friday, 15 July 2011 16:51 (eight years ago) link

people who call their computer a "'puter"

40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Friday, 15 July 2011 16:51 (eight years ago) link

or a pooter

kkvgz, Friday, 15 July 2011 19:28 (eight years ago) link

meta
ad hominem

kkvgz, Wednesday, 20 July 2011 12:00 (eight years ago) link

(not singling out the latest post by kdt, btw. I've been tired of these two for a long while)

grit of ad hominem (kkvgz), Wednesday, 20 July 2011 12:01 (eight years ago) link

three years pass...

Today I learned on Twitter that some people call sunglasses "sunnies"

ffs why

the farakhan of gg (DJP), Monday, 24 November 2014 18:34 (four years ago) link

sunglasses successor will be along shortly to explain it all.

estela, Monday, 24 November 2014 19:09 (four years ago) link

ha

the farakhan of gg (DJP), Monday, 24 November 2014 19:13 (four years ago) link

four months pass...

"You do you"???? I've never heard anyone say this and would at least briefly contemplate hitting someone who did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/magazine/how-you-do-you-perfectly-captures-our-narcissistic-culture.html

the increasing costive borborygmi (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 31 March 2015 16:20 (four years ago) link

three years pass...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DyF8FiUWkAYZDdI.jpg

mookieproof, Tuesday, 29 January 2019 16:44 (seven months ago) link

ugh

Right column Leftist (sunny successor), Tuesday, 29 January 2019 20:33 (seven months ago) link

instantiation

like, is "instance" not good enough for you

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 29 January 2019 20:39 (seven months ago) link

The term was originally coined by Coca-Cola as "throat share",[2] in order to measure how much of the world's beverages were theirs, but is now more commonly referred to as share of throat.[3]

mick signals, Tuesday, 29 January 2019 20:49 (seven months ago) link

Today I learned on Twitter that some people call sunglasses "sunnies"

ffs why

Those same people call sandwiches "sammies". I can't help but hear that in a widdle kid voice.

the body of a spider... (scampering alpaca), Tuesday, 29 January 2019 21:06 (seven months ago) link

I'll allow both if you're Australian, otherwise no.

"Share of throat" is a nightmare.

emil.y, Tuesday, 29 January 2019 21:08 (seven months ago) link

I was about to say. FFS why? Because Australia.

Right column Leftist (sunny successor), Tuesday, 29 January 2019 21:46 (seven months ago) link

instantiation

like, is "instance" not good enough for you

― Οὖτις

i kind of enjoy this from a descriptivist perspective. first it gets established with the meaning "process of instantiating", then once that's happened somebody forgets what the product of instantiating is and the word "instantiation" pops into their head. i find it endearingly silly.

The Elvis of Nationalism and Amoral Patriotism (rushomancy), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 18:00 (seven months ago) link

"Share of throat" is clearly a vampire term

jmm, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 18:03 (seven months ago) link

sammies for sandwiches is American, not Australian; FP'd emily.

sans lep (sic), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 20:05 (seven months ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.