Beerball Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 I lost a bet this past summer, so while out at the bars for a weekend I had to introduce myself to every woman with "Please allow me to introduce myself. I'm a man of wealth and taste." I'd like to say it worked. It didn't. You should have offered the yenta a lentil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 (edited) Just kidding as I have no idea if the ladies would deem you to be closer to Brad Pitt or John C Reilly. Let's say...Keanu Reeves. Some have called me good looking, but really I just look like a jackass. Edited December 31, 2010 by SageAgainstTheMachine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 It's just semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 It was mentioned earlier, but what happened about 15 years ago, when hung became hanged and a bunch of other similar ones like that came on board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 It was mentioned earlier, but what happened about 15 years ago, when hung became hanged and a bunch of other similar ones like that came on board? Why do you say 15 year sago? My english teacher taught me hanged/hung over 20 years ago... And I don't think it was new back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Why do you say 15 year sago? My english teacher taught me hanged/hung over 20 years ago... And I don't think it was new back then. No, I believe he's correct. Hanged was discovered by theoretical grammatacists in 1996. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Are you guys telling me there was no change in this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Are you guys telling me there was no change in this? Actually, I have no idea, but these kinds of things don't tend to change overnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 (edited) A little googling found me this, so the last paragraph agrees it wasn't overnight, but it did happen. And, somebody who is going to college now is not going to have any idea about it, and I guess I shouldn't have offended fez by saying 15 years ago. It was longer than that, I guess. I was taught otherwise back in the Stones Age: I hope that was amusing; my main point being, however, that words get added to the dictionary or words get different meaning or words get left out of modern dictionaries because of WHAT WE SAY. So, language changes, and it follows us. How do we usually make a verb past tense? we add -ed. Danced, travelled, tried, squeaked, lived, washed, etc. If we made up a new verb we would create its past tense with -ed. But this wasn't always true. Think of words like ate, gave, came, 'hung'! These don't use -ed. That rule didn't even used to exist! However, the rule came to be true as more and more of out past tenses were -ed, which was like an avalanche: Like I said, now any new verb you could find or make up would end in -ed. But it's not like people woke up one day and said, I think there is a new rule: I will from now on say 'striked' instead of 'struck'. What happened is, the verbs that were used most often never changed, because people were using them every day and a change would have been strange. But all the other, nondaily words started to change to -ed. Edit - PS Having said all that, there was a day or a time when all of a sudden newspapers, magazines, etc. made the editorial decision to change the word they would use in that tense. Edited January 2, 2011 by bbb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Now that we're talking grammar what I really hate is the way people use myself, yourself etc. Drives me !@#$ing nuts. Nosce te ipsum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 The editorial decisions I speak of definitely happened with hanged/hung and dived/dove. So, 20 years ago, or five years ago, or whenever you learned about tenses, was their no word dove? "He dived into the pool" sounds so awkward to me still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOBILLS78 Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 The editorial decisions I speak of definitely happened with hanged/hung and dived/dove. So, 20 years ago, or five years ago, or whenever you learned about tenses, was their no word dove? "He dived into the pool" sounds so awkward to me still. I can tell you this -- "hanged" in regards to suicides, lynchings, etc., has been around for many, many years. A search on the New York Times website will show results back to mid-1800s of men "hanged." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I can tell you this -- "hanged" in regards to suicides, lynchings, etc., has been around for many, many years. A search on the New York Times website will show results back to mid-1800s of men "hanged." Yeah, but I went to school before the mid-1800s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Mine is the difference between hanged and hung. Pictures are hung, people are hanged. Unless they're hung, I suppose... Hung people have been hanged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopsGuy Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I couldn't find the video, but there was a scene on the Office a couple of years ago that addressed this subject: RYAN: What I really want, honestly Michael, is for you to know it. So you can communicate it to the people here, to your clients, to whomever. MICHAEL: (scoffs) Oh, okay. RYAN: What? MICHAEL: It’s whoever, not whomever. RYAN: No, it’s whomever. MICHAEL: No, whomever is never actually right. JIM: Well, sometimes it’s right. CREED: Michael’s right. It’s a made up word used to trick students. ANDY: No. Actually, whomever is the formal version of the word. OSCAR: Obviously it’s a real word. But, I don’t know when to use it correctly. MICHAEL: (to the camera) Not a native speaker. KEVIN: I know what’s right, but I’m not gonna say because you’re all jerks who didn’t come see my band last night. RYAN: Do you really know which one is correct? KEVIN: I don’t know. PAM: It’s ‘whom’ when it’s the object of the sentence and ‘who’ when it’s the subject. PHYLLIS: That sounds right. MICHAEL: Well, it sounds right. But is it? STANLEY: How did Ryan use it? As an object? RYAN: As an object. KELLY: Ryan used me as an object. PAM: How did he use it again? TOBY: It was, Ryan wanted Michael, the subject, to uh explain the computer system, the object… MICHAEL: Thank you! (points to Toby) TOBY:…to whomever, meaning us, the indirect object, which is the correct usage of the word. MICHAEL: No one, uh, asked you anything ever. So, whomever’s name is Toby, why don’t you take a letter opener and stick it into your skull? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts