OT: 'Advise' Advice

JustineCaseyFeldown

it's not a very groundbreaking view.
 
pretty common

GATraveller

GrateEggspectations said:

nolaegghead

Well, you guys won the electoral college fair and square. 

fishlessman

wait til we start rounding up the libs and putting them in camps

nolaegghead

fishlessman said:

wait til we start rounding up the libs and putting them in camps

That was promised starting with Hillary.

fishlessman

nolaegghead said:

fishlessman said:

wait til we start rounding up the libs and putting them in camps

That was promised starting with Hillary.

the  clock is ticking down.....RUN

SciAggie

How long will it be before @SGH comes along and tells us how to spell sphincter? 

Foghorn

Spinkturd?

bgebrent

Foghorn said:

Spinkturd?

It's sfinktur you idiot. 

Foghorn

It's idjit you idjit.

JustineCaseyFeldown

all this talk has me thinkin i should be drinkin.  maybe a somethin made with tincture of sphincter.

Foghorn

JustineCaseyFeldown said:

all this talk has me thinkin i should be drinkin.  maybe a somethin made with tincture of sphincter.

That doesn't sound very refreshing.

sumoconnell

Fun with linguistics!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher

Two students, James and John, are required by an English test to describe a man who, in the past, had suffered from a cold. John writes "The man had a cold," which the teacher marks as being incorrect, while James writes the correct "The man had had a cold." Since James' answer was right, it had had a better effect on the teacher.

The sentence can be understood more clearly by adding punctuation and emphasis:

James, while John had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.

lousubcap

@sumoconnell -  I get the "cold" deal here but any remedy for SWMBO and constant headaches

HofstraJet

sumoconnell said:

Fun with linguistics!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher

I'm just going to leave this here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo

Foghorn

HofstraJet said:

sumoconnell said:

Fun with linguistics!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher

I'm just going to leave this here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo

How apropos.

MaC122

Their seems to be a problem of when to use there. Theyre, their, there. I might need some advice?

DoubleEgger

MaC122 said:

Their seems to be a problem of when to use there. Theyre, their, there. I might need some advice?

Here you go. 

JustineCaseyFeldown

Foghorn said:

How apropos.

"apropos" is an interesting word.

originally used to mean (and still does carry this meaning) "with reference to" or "concerning".   

but now too, because it so similar phonetically to "appropriate", it pretty much means "appropriate". probably listed as one of its definitions i'd bet.

just another case of where usage usually wins the contest (the one between grammarians and the people).  whether something is 'correct' or not is ultimately (eventually, I mean) irrelevant.  how the people use the language is what determines where the language does, rather than rules.

it's pretty much the same way the word "comprised" has been made a synonym (by 'incorrect' usage) of "composed"

people now say "it was comprised/composed of..." interchangeably.  but "comprise" technically isn't used that way.


but WGAF, ultimately

Foghorn

JustineCaseyFeldown said:

Foghorn said:

How apropos.

"apropos" is an interesting word.

originally used to mean (and still does carry this meaning) "with reference to" or "concerning".   

but now too, because it so similar phonetically to "appropriate", it pretty much means "appropriate". probably listed as one of its definitions i'd bet.

just another case of where usage usually wins the contest (the one between grammarians and the people).  whether something is 'correct' or not is ultimately (eventually, I mean) irrelevant.  how the people use the language is what determines where the language does, rather than rules.

it's pretty much the same way the word "comprised" has been made a synonym (by 'incorrect' usage) of "composed"

people now say "it was comprised/composed of..." interchangeably.  but "comprise" technically isn't used that way.


but WGAF, ultimately

Yes.  I'm aware of the use/meaning of apropos.  I felt like in this case my use of it fell somewhere between "appropriate" and "with reference to" just because of the buffalo reference.  If it had just been a language usage reference I would have thought it generally appropriate, but the use of the word buffalo in all its forms, given how we use it here seemed particularly apropos.  I may not always achieve it, but I do strive for precision with verbiage/language/grammar/spelling.  Much like that jackwagon Stike who used to post here.  That was his only redeeming quality.  Well, that and his pumpkin carving.

JustineCaseyFeldown

Foghorn said:

JustineCaseyFeldown said:

Foghorn said:

How apropos.

"apropos" is an interesting word.

originally used to mean (and still does carry this meaning) "with reference to" or "concerning".   

but now too, because it so similar phonetically to "appropriate", it pretty much means "appropriate". probably listed as one of its definitions i'd bet.

just another case of where usage usually wins the contest (the one between grammarians and the people).  whether something is 'correct' or not is ultimately (eventually, I mean) irrelevant.  how the people use the language is what determines where the language does, rather than rules.

it's pretty much the same way the word "comprised" has been made a synonym (by 'incorrect' usage) of "composed"

people now say "it was comprised/composed of..." interchangeably.  but "comprise" technically isn't used that way.


but WGAF, ultimately

Yes.  I'm aware of the use/meaning of apropos.  I felt like in this case my use of it fell somewhere between "appropriate" and "with reference to" just because of the buffalo reference.  If it had just been a language usage reference I would have thought it generally appropriate, but the use of the word buffalo in all its forms, given how we use it here seemed particularly apropos.  I may not always achieve it, but I do strive for precision with verbiage/language/grammar/spelling.  Much like that jackwagon Stike who used to post here.  That was his only redeeming quality.  Well, that and his pumpkin carving.

i wasn't correcting you, for what it is worth.  said exactly what you did.

apropos of your use of apropos, to use 'apropos' as a synonym for 'appropriate' is appropriate.

nolaegghead

What did "comprised" used to mean?

JustineCaseyFeldown

not meaning.  use.

"comprised of" is not the original use.

"a list comprises many items"  vs "a list is comprised of many items"

but the horse is out of the barn on that one too. 

Foghorn

JustineCaseyFeldown said:

Foghorn said:

JustineCaseyFeldown said:

Foghorn said:

How apropos.

"apropos" is an interesting word.

originally used to mean (and still does carry this meaning) "with reference to" or "concerning".   

but now too, because it so similar phonetically to "appropriate", it pretty much means "appropriate". probably listed as one of its definitions i'd bet.

just another case of where usage usually wins the contest (the one between grammarians and the people).  whether something is 'correct' or not is ultimately (eventually, I mean) irrelevant.  how the people use the language is what determines where the language does, rather than rules.

it's pretty much the same way the word "comprised" has been made a synonym (by 'incorrect' usage) of "composed"

people now say "it was comprised/composed of..." interchangeably.  but "comprise" technically isn't used that way.


but WGAF, ultimately

Yes.  I'm aware of the use/meaning of apropos.  I felt like in this case my use of it fell somewhere between "appropriate" and "with reference to" just because of the buffalo reference.  If it had just been a language usage reference I would have thought it generally appropriate, but the use of the word buffalo in all its forms, given how we use it here seemed particularly apropos.  I may not always achieve it, but I do strive for precision with verbiage/language/grammar/spelling.  Much like that jackwagon Stike who used to post here.  That was his only redeeming quality.  Well, that and his pumpkin carving.

i wasn't correcting you, for what it is worth.  said exactly what you did.

apropos of your use of apropos, to use 'apropos' as a synonym for 'appropriate' is appropriate.

Understood. 

JohnInCarolina

How about "a$$hat" ?  Origins of that one?  Misuse?  

JustineCaseyFeldown

who's being an asshat?

DMW

JustineCaseyFeldown said:

who's being an asshat?

I think he might be genuinely interested in the etymology of the word.

Legume

DMW said:

JustineCaseyFeldown said:

who's being an asshat?

I think he might be genuinely interested in the etymology of the word.

Why bring bugs into it @DMW ?

nolaegghead

JohnInCarolina said:

How about "a$$hat" ?  Origins of that one?  Misuse?  

Since you asked, you asshat:

From the slang expression have one's head up one's ass, thus, wearing the ass as a hat. The term is extended to people who are clueless or bumbling, who don't understand what is going on.

Legume

http://www.greatbigstory.com/stories/quite-literally-enforcing-poetic-justice?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool

funny story, graffiti grammar police