- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 13,103
- Reaction score
- 3,052
- Country
Like "set" or "run"
Sponsored Links
Set, set set set set.
S
sodthisforfun
Yes, if it happens.
Kids use 'sick' as in it's a good thing now. It's widely used. So should we just ignore that, or learn so we can understand them?! As I said, language is communication. It changes. Should we also not use those new words that have come about with new inventions? Such as Internet, cyberspace, website? I mean, they're all relatively new words - should we not use them ever because it's not how it always was...?
Then there's words that have several meanings. I guess this came about because people did change it as the years go by. Such as Troll.. originally to do with fishing, then a small, ugly creature in folklore and now used more as someone on the internet who just want's to provoke a reaction. Should we only use the word when talking about fishing? Because that's it's origin afaik.
Of course new words can be accepted.
Kids using a word to mean something else, e.g. sick, (or wicked to mean good) should be regarded as slang (or code) and dictionaries could note it as such.
However, sick does not mean well or a good thing, does it?
Do you envisage a dictionary entry to read:
"Wicked: evil, good."
Anyway this is not what started the discussion. That was words being used incorrectly because people don't know what they mean.
There is no better example than the "would of". Does any one think that in a dictionary 'of' should be described as meaning 'have'?
Do you of brown hair? I want to of a cup have tea.
It's nonsense. We cannot be ruled nor have things decided by the stupid.
Kids using a word to mean something else, e.g. sick, (or wicked to mean good) should be regarded as slang (or code) and dictionaries could note it as such.
However, sick does not mean well or a good thing, does it?
Do you envisage a dictionary entry to read:
"Wicked: evil, good."
Anyway this is not what started the discussion. That was words being used incorrectly because people don't know what they mean.
There is no better example than the "would of". Does any one think that in a dictionary 'of' should be described as meaning 'have'?
Do you of brown hair? I want to of a cup have tea.
It's nonsense. We cannot be ruled nor have things decided by the stupid.
Sponsored Links
Without checking, I thought these were different.
Editorialise - someone from the editorial staff offers their opinion, in a written piece.
Edit - someone from the editorial staff cuts out from / adds to / rewords a piece or article, mainly for clarity, brevity, or presentational reasons.
Possibly.
The Japanese do something similar with technical documents. It's common to see English words in the middle of a series of Japanese squiggles.
Except we already have plenty of other examples of the same idiocy in common accepted use now. In some contexts words mean something.
'Make fast' means to tie a line(rope) on a boat. Would you make fast your shoelace?
E
EddieM
the would of could of, just comes from the fact would've could've should've sound like would of etc when spoken.
When they change the tenses of certain words it can sound a bit strange. I remember hearing an American recount how he saved a drowning man - "I dove in and drug him out".
(Dove pronounced as Dover without the 'r', not like the bird.)
Obviously it is too late for those examples. Perhaps someone should have corrected it at the time.
I don't know when 'fast' came to mean 'hard to move'.
Well, actually it doesn't. Depends where you live I suppose.
To be pedantic that spelling does not apply, is not correct and is not a pronounceable abbreviation - 'would've'. If someone is going to drop the aitch then it would still be 'would ave'.
E
EddieM
That's not right isn't isn't is'ot h is a vowel in so much that correctly it is an hotel and an hospital.
D
Deleted member 18243
Some strange uses of "have" have occurred in recent years (yes they have!)
At one time, if you asked "Do you have any bananas?", the reply would be "Yes, I have". Now people say "Yes, I do". I suppose the latter is correct, but it sounds odd as I'm not used to it. Habits of a lifetime.
Some cash machines, when you first insert your card, say "We will have checked your card in a few moments". Who writes this stuff? What tense is that? Future past perfect? Why doesn't it just say "Reading card..."
In police language (which has always been peculiar), reports now say things like: "At 20:15 offenders have entered the property but were disturbed and have left empty handed".
Story tellers in pubs "So, I've gone up to this bloke and said blah blah blah".
At one time, if you asked "Do you have any bananas?", the reply would be "Yes, I have". Now people say "Yes, I do". I suppose the latter is correct, but it sounds odd as I'm not used to it. Habits of a lifetime.
Some cash machines, when you first insert your card, say "We will have checked your card in a few moments". Who writes this stuff? What tense is that? Future past perfect? Why doesn't it just say "Reading card..."
In police language (which has always been peculiar), reports now say things like: "At 20:15 offenders have entered the property but were disturbed and have left empty handed".
Story tellers in pubs "So, I've gone up to this bloke and said blah blah blah".
In "would've" it's not just the H that has been dropped, it's "ha" that has been dropped.
Re: hospital and hotel, in both Spanish and Italian the first H is silent, it's ospital and otel. I think it's the same in French. That might explain why it's an hotel.
Re: hospital and hotel, in both Spanish and Italian the first H is silent, it's ospital and otel. I think it's the same in French. That might explain why it's an hotel.
Not the way I say it.
Anyway, I can't believe anyone is defending 'would of' etc.
Whether you pronounce it like that or not is neither here nor there; that's not how it is spelt.
The fact that in some accents 'town' is pronounced as if has two 'o's does not alter how it is spelt.
Ok?
Sponsored Links
