Sorry, but it needs saying

Greg T

Attica wrote:

...and where does the phrase, "can't be ar$ed", come from? What does that actually mean?

Fecked if I know.

always_tyred

Littigator wrote:

Sorry BD, I don't have much familiarity with games played by the proletariat

All sports have a goal. The goal in association football is to put the ball in the net, for example.

singlespeedexplosif

...and where does the phrase, "can't be ar$ed", come from? What does that actually mean?

origins unknown. Means 'can't be bothered'

Interestingly, a friend of ours from Germany came to the UK for a year to work as a teaching assistant. Heard a lot of the kids saying this and thought it was 'can't be ASKED' as in 'please don't ask me, I'm too busy'. Slightly bizarre perhaps but these things will happen if foreign types keep on believing we all add unnecessary 'R' sounds to words such as ask, grass, castle etc, as southern types bizarrely do.

Anyway, the headmistress asked her to do something, and she replied with this phrase. Needless to say, it didn't go down well.


Please may I add the following to the list:

'Nevermind'
This is an album by popular youth beat combo Nirvana. In all circumstances where one is not referring to said LP, 'never' and 'mind' are two separate words.

always_tyred

Attica wrote:

calendar.

It all depends on the context. Personally, I sometimes spell it "Callander"

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en ... =UTF8&z=14

Littigator

Always Tyred wrote:

Littigator wrote:

Sorry BD, I don't have much familiarity with games played by the proletariat

All sports have a goal. The goal in association football is to put the ball in the net, for example.

Really, are you actually trying to tell me there is a point to 5 day test cricket...now come on there's no need to tease me like that just cos I'm a bit stupid

singlespeedexplosif

Really, are you actually trying to tell me there is a point to 5 day test cricket

How very dare you. Philistine..

attica

Always Tyred wrote:

Attica wrote:

calendar.

It all depends on the context. Personally, I sometimes spell it "Callander"

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en ... =UTF8&z=14

Have you been to the Trossachs lately?
Perhaps you were thinking of Collander

<Edit> Just seen the url in your message, D'Oh!<Edit>

KitsuneAndy

Littigator wrote:

KitsuneAndy wrote:

biondino wrote:

Not sure why the latter. After the event, a miss is a miss, so I suppose it's semantically a tautology, but Match of the Day would have a hell of a lot less to show if saves and crossbar-hitting shots and the like were disregarded as mere non-goals. And an asteroid which misses us by 30,000km instead of wiping out humanity may not actually matter once it's gone past but you can be damn certain it does when they haven't yet figured out it's not going to hit us...

But what I mean is that a near miss (as in, nearly a miss) is a hit. So something that just misses would be a 'near hit'.

As we are being pedantic here, there is a difference Kitsune Andy between 'near' and 'nearly'.

Nearly means something almost happened, so yes the 'miss' almost happened and therefore is a hit.

The use of 'near' and 'miss' can properly constitute the intended description on being a close miss and it does not automatically assume that the use of 'near' means the object was 'near' to a 'miss' and so a hit, but that the 'miss' was 'near' to the object on the description. The object in the football context being to achieve a hit.

d'U SEE?

So a near goal would be a goal?

attica

KitsuneAndy wrote:

So a near goal would be a goal?

No that would only be near the goal, not in the goal, therefore it'd be a near miss.

A near miss is a miss that's near to the goal by implication.

Littigator

Thank you Attica, I'm glad someone gets it

NorwegianBlue

It's all well and good complaining about poor grammar, but one shouldn't criticize the poster. We should remember that it's a very long time since anything but the most basic grammar was taught in British state schools. It is twenty five years since I sat my O levels and I was taught virtually no grammar. Don't blame the national curriculum either, that didn't arrive until after I left school.

passout

Shakespeare couldn't spell consistently like we do. Communication is the objective, NOT obeying laws which evolve in the long term anyway and basically don't matter much.

NorwegianBlue

Passout,

Language evolves to deal with new experiences, new situations and new objects, and all of that is a good thing. It also evolves gradually through small changes in common usage. What we are seeing at the moment is wholesale butchery of the language.

Poor teaching of the English language have lead to the general populous failing to understand to importance of grammar in communication. As a result the standards of spoken and especially written english in this country are worse than those found in many countries where english is a second language. Many sentences you see written and hear spoken today are all but meaningless and often, as has already been pointed out, have exactly to oposite meaning to that intended. English as it is used by many of it's native speakers is becoming an impediment to communication.

I believe that this attitude to our own language is the major reason why the British as a whole perform so badly when attempting to communicate in other languages. As an example I will quote somebody who was being taught to conjugate french verbs. "Why do we have to do this? We don't have any of this crap in our language."

Nuff said?

NorwegianBlue

Oh and by the way, as a dyslexic, my spelling is attrocious at times and my proof reading worse. However I take the time to go back over my writing several times to correct my mistakes. Consider that Shakespeare had to write out everything longhand and had no access to correcting fluid. To use his inconsistent spelling as an example of why we should allow downright sloppy language is, frankly, ridiculous.

attica

NorwegianBlue wrote:

It's all well and good complaining about poor grammar, but one shouldn't criticize the poster. We should remember that it's a very long time since anything but the most basic grammar was taught in British state schools. It is twenty five years since I sat my O levels and I was taught virtually no grammar. Don't blame the national curriculum either, that didn't arrive until after I left school.

You've just hit on one of my biggest bug bears.
A few years ago, I had to write a document about synchronisation, Microsoft Word kept bl00dy correcting, replacing 's' with 'z', as in synchronise/synchronize, that is until I discovered that spell check defaults to the US dictionary.

It's one step away from "catalog" or worse still "center".

Two peoples separated by a common language.

teagar

If I'm not mistaken, language rules fit around the existing language - not the other way around. The language comes first, then the rules.

If most people say "should of" instead of "should have", then inevitably "should of" will, or at least should,eventually become accepted. Just because once upon a time someone decided to work out all the rules and teach them to everyone else, doesn't necessarily mean that they are set in stone!

Just thought I'd throw that in .

attica

I'm all for change Teagar, but "should of" is just wrong.

And for goodness sake, where's your pride, spell your name with a capital letter.

NorwegianBlue

Attica wrote:

You've just hit on one of my biggest bug bears.
A few years ago, I had to write a document about synchronisation, Microsoft Word kept bl00dy correcting, replacing 's' with 'z', as in synchronise/synchronize, that is until I discovered that spell check defaults to the US dictionary.

Oh dear.

While American English spelling allows only "ize", British English allows both "ize" and "ise". Most authoritative sources agree that "ize" is the original and correct spelling, and that "ise" is a more modern variation. So it appears to me that you are in fact arguing in favour of changes to the language, not against them.

Word should not default to the Merkin dictionary. If installed correctly it should default to the language settings of the underlying OS, it would only select the "wrong" laguage if instructed to do so or if the underlying settings were wrong. Hardly the fault of the software, more the fault of the user.

Kieran_Burns

NorwegianBlue wrote:

Attica wrote:

You've just hit on one of my biggest bug bears.
A few years ago, I had to write a document about synchronisation, Microsoft Word kept bl00dy correcting, replacing 's' with 'z', as in synchronise/synchronize, that is until I discovered that spell check defaults to the US dictionary.

Oh dear.

While American English spelling allows only "ize", British English allows both "ize" and "ise". Most authoritative sources agree that "ize" is the original and correct spelling, and that "ise" is a more modern variation. So it appears to me that you are in fact arguing in favour of changes to the language, not against them.

Word should not default to the Merkin dictionary. If installed correctly it should default to the language settings of the underlying OS, it would only select the "wrong" laguage if instructed to do so or if the underlying settings were wrong. Hardly the fault of the software, more the fault of the user.

Quite correct. Except with blasted Office 2007 which decides it will be American whatever you tell it otherwise.

(20 years in IT Support so's I nose I nose )

NorwegianBlue

Funny. We haven't got one Office 2007 that's gone on anything other than British English.

There's nothing clever about working in IT support for twenty years. I've been in IT for 22 years and I consider it to be a pretty good indication that I must be pretty stupid.

teagar

Attica wrote:

I'm all for change Teagar, but "should of" is just wrong.

And for goodness sake, where's your pride, spell your name with a capital letter.

Shouldn't it be:

"And for goodness sake, where's your pride? Spell your name with a capital letter" ? :twisted:

Who says it's wrong?

attica

teagar wrote:

Attica wrote:

I'm all for change Teagar, but "should of" is just wrong.

And for goodness sake, where's your pride, spell your name with a capital letter.

Shouldn't it be:

"And for goodness sake, where's your pride? Spell your name with a capital letter" ? :twisted:

Who says it's wrong?

Actually it should bee

Four goodness sake, wears you're pride?

CiB

Advise is the action - please advise me.

Advice is the noun - thank you for that advice.

Please don't mix them as if the two are interchangeable - they really aren't.

Applies equally to practise / practice, license / licence - as in this TV licence means that I am now licensed to own and install television receiving equipment.

Back to work.

biondino

NorwegianBlue wrote:

While American English spelling allows only "ize", British English allows both "ize" and "ise". Most authoritative sources agree that "ize" is the original and correct spelling, and that "ise" is a more modern variation. So it appears to me that you are in fact arguing in favour of changes to the language, not against them.

Jane Austen used "-ize". However, I think "-ise" looks classier and anything that differentiates us from the seppos is a good thing

attica

biondino wrote:

Jane Austen used "-ize". However, I think "-ise" looks classier and anything that differentiates us from the seppos is a good thing

+1 for that

hang on Biondino, isn't your other half from the other side of the pond?

DavidTQ

I'm not all taht bhothered by bad gmmraar or sepellnig as lnog as a psot is rdebael it rlelay denost anony me. Of cusore smoe eorrrs mkae it hrad to udnretsand waht the oigrianl ptesor alulacty idnenetd to say.

I do heovwer fnid dtlebiraae mis-slpginles and wrod anbrtevtboiias most annoying...

Pasele at lesat aptmtet to wtire in Esilgnh. If I can get the gsit of a psot Im mroe lllieky to rnopesd falrbavuoy.

PS Pdtneas be dnemad

biondino

Attica, my ex is American, my current is Australian. Which makes her even more fair game

NorwegianBlue

biondino wrote:

NorwegianBlue wrote:

While American English spelling allows only "ize", British English allows both "ize" and "ise". Most authoritative sources agree that "ize" is the original and correct spelling, and that "ise" is a more modern variation. So it appears to me that you are in fact arguing in favour of changes to the language, not against them.

Jane Austen used "-ize". However, I think "-ise" looks classier and anything that differentiates us from the seppos is a good thing

The suffix -ize has it's roots in ancient Greece, if I recall correctly. The use of -ise comes from French and is much more recent. Quite how the distinction of being "classier" comes into it I don't know.

I for one am with the Oxford English Dictionary and prefer the use of the spelling -ize. If an arbiter on the English language exists then surely it must be the OED. The OED is, however, an interesting reference because it records both correct usage and common usage, unlike many other dictionaries which give not a chuff for common usage. As such the less refined use -ise is recorded by the OED, but they still advise us that -ize is the correct spelling. In other words the OED consider -ize to be correct and accept -ise as an alternative, albeit a second rate and uneducated one.

People tend to miss this about the OED and you will regularly hear people bemoaning the fact that slang words have entered the OED. The most recent uproar I can recall was the press bemoaning the inclusion of the word "chav" in the hallowed pages. There is nothing to complain about, the OED does not record them as part of what you might refer to as formal English, but clearly maks them as slang. It merely records their usage, it does not recommend their usage.

(Note to self: must look up "classier" in the OED)

STEFANOS4784

God what a bunch of snobcycles
As long as you know what's being said, does it matter....really :?: 8)

moconnor01

or one of my favourites ....... is the past tentse led or lead .....?????? :?