“Now there abide these three: phonemes, syntax and semantics; but the greatest of these is semantics.”
Still, phonemes and syntax are important. So this lil mini-rant touches on all three…
Drive-by Rant: ON
Not that these are gripping gripes for most folks, but does the constant pejoration of English get to anyone else the way it does me?
For example, can anyone explain to me why folks use the word “terror” (“intense, sharp, overmastering fear”) instead of “terrorism” (“the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.”) when talking about the acts of Izlamic savages, nowadays? When (and how) did that lil piece of stupidity get started? And who started it? I’d like to know, because Dr. Tarr and Mr. Fether are awaiting an introduction to that particular troglodyte.
Or how about a simpler, less blatant (to most) example of linguistic stupidity?
“There’s reasons why Osama bin Laden is still at large.”
Every time I hear some Mass Media Podperson—supposed to be professional wordsmiths, conversant in the English language—or any other person for that matter, use that fav construction of subliterate morons I want to get out a hemp necktie and get ’em measured for their tree party.
Dumbasses. “Reasons” in that sentence is plural. “There are reasons…” so it’d be “There’re reasons… ” A tongue twister, you say? Suck it up. People who’d say “there’s” when “there’re is appropriate would probably say “Feb-YOU-ary” for “February”… another inexcusable mallocution.
Heck, why get all bent outa shape about illegal aliens (or even legal ones) not learning to speak English when it seems 90% of Americans born here can’t speak—or write or read, let alone understand—the language, either?
Rant: OFF
…mostly
N.B. Is my use of the English language always grammatically perfect? No. But there’s a “but” there (note the proper use of “there’s”). Fracturing the English language ought only to be done by those who know what they’re doing (note the proper use of “they’re” instead of the common written dumbass usages, “their” and “there”–those who don’t know the differences between common homophones, are illiterate). *heh* Arrrrgggg! Just another reason why 99% of the Mass Media Podpeople, Academia Nut Fruitcakes and politicians *spit* should simply STFU.
NOW the rant is off… But have no fear; there’re (there ARE) more rants to come.
Rant on my friend!
That is (those are) one (some) of my pet peeves about many of the newspaper articles I read. Then the writers/editors get upset when it is called to their attention.
Then there are the comments to blog entries, discussion forums, etc., where people have already identified themselves as college graduates who do the same things.
The one that bugs me the most is a discussion group with which we are both familiar, wherein virtually every member has a minimum of a BA/BS, most have advanced degrees — some with a whole string of alphabet soup following their names. Much of the discussion deals with a specific area of communnications. Yet, they still don’t know how to write.
A quote I read a few days ago:
“Ever wonder if illiterate people get the full effect of alphabet soup?”
–John Mendoza
I’m glad I only have a tenth grade education David. That fact should cut me some slack when you’re reading my blog. 😉
Shortly after my previous comment I heard “another” pet peeve. It’s not exactly the same, but it does have to do with word usage.
Usually when surfing, I have either Fox News, an old movie, or an old situation comedy on in the background. I just perk up when I hear a scene of interest coming.
Anyway, one of the reporterettes was talking about whoever the “slut of the day’s” actions had been. She kept saying “this ‘lady’ this & this ‘lady’ that.”
Heck she was calling the reportee slut a “lady.” A WHAT? Says I.
Re: the word “lady”
I’m not writing about the aristocracy here. Some of those aristocratic “ladies” are/have been the most un-ladylike of all.
When I think of a lady, I think of things like morality, modesty, etc. I think of the type women Louis L’Amour championed — strong in character and moral values; one who walks beside an equally strong man, each complementary to the other, walking side by side (neither in front nor behind) facing life together (both the challenges and the joys).
Yet, today our society has degraded the word “lady” to mean “any” member of the female persuasion.
There was a time 20 years ago when I still considered all women to be “ladies” until such time as they proved to be other than a lady.
ALAS, no longer. Today when I meet a new one(s), they are just another female until they either prove to be a lady or a slut. There are too few of the former; too many of the latter.
Oh, I understand certain euphemisms, such as a “lady of the evening,” and have no direct opposition to such usage. But, I do abhor using the word in reference to the current “slut(s) of the day” — some of the Hollywood starlets, etc.
Perhaps it’s just this ol’ southern mountain boy’s take. Somehow, I tend to think “real” ladies & gentlemen would agree.
Why have WE allowed the word “lady” to become so degraded?
“Why have WE allowed the word ‘lady’ to become so degraded?”
It’s not so much “allow” as much as being impotent to prevent idiots from doing so. A lesson from legend: King Canute, tide.
*sigh*