Search Results
February 2, 2011 @ 8:57 am
· Filed under Variation
As my friends and acquaintances know, I'm a rather unreliable correspondent. I write a lot of messages, and I make a lot of phone calls, but the list of messages and calls that I ought to make always grows larger. In fact, there seems to be a sort of positive feedback principle at work, whereby […]
Permalink
December 29, 2010 @ 8:26 pm
· Filed under Language and culture
It isn't linguistically true, at least. David Fried writes: What’s with the movie convention of representing 19th century American speech as lacking contractions? I was just enjoying the new version of “True Grit” by the Coen brothers—in fact it’s been a long time since I had so much fun at a movie. As I figure […]
Permalink
September 27, 2010 @ 4:53 am
· Filed under Linguistics in the comics, Style and register, Words words words
In the latest xkcd cartoon you can see a graph on which the frequency of intensificatory adverbs (fucking ____ in red, and ____ as shit in blue) accompanying a selection of adjectives, from annoying and pissed down through broadly decreasing frequencies to fungible and peristeronic. (The latter really does exist, and really does mean "of or pertaining to […]
Permalink
September 18, 2010 @ 9:40 am
· Filed under Linguistic history
Prescriptive rules are often the result of someone's idiosyncratic attempt to apply logic to a half-understood question of linguistic analysis. In promoting his new book Strictly English, Simon Heffer recently provided us with two examples ("English grammar: Not for debate", 9/11/2010, and "Mr. Heffer huffs again", 9/12/2010). Such exercises are sometimes motivated by a genuine […]
Permalink
September 14, 2010 @ 1:20 pm
· Filed under Language and culture
Yesterday, prompted by a note from Geoff Nunberg, I cited a passage from Heejin Lee and Jonathan Liebenau's essay "Time and the internet" (published in Hassan and Thomas, Eds., The New Media Theory Reader). Their idea seems to be that "speed is contagious", and so the increased speed of modern life — faster cars, planes, […]
Permalink
July 31, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
· Filed under Psychology of language
My note this morning on "Most" stirred up some discussion: Geoff Nunberg: I think 'most' licenses a default generalization, relative to a bunch of pragmatic factors, … MattF: I think 'most' has a normative or qualitative sense in addition to a quantitative sense. John Cowan: For me too, "most" has a defeasible implicature of "much […]
Permalink
November 13, 2009 @ 8:53 am
· Filed under Computational linguistics, Linguistic history
This morning, I appealed the somebody-vs.-someone story to the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision came quickly — details are below.
Permalink
November 11, 2009 @ 7:14 am
· Filed under Linguistic history
Answering a reader's question about somebody vs. someone, Arnold Zwicky speculated yesterday that "you'd find all sorts of interesting variation according to the location / age / sex / class etc. of the speaker, genre, formality of the context, date when the corpora were collected, and so on". In the comments, Jerry Friedman suggested that […]
Permalink
November 9, 2009 @ 7:05 am
· Filed under Humor, Linguistic history, Prescriptivist poppycock
In the comments on yesterday's post, Ran Ari-Gur raised the possibility that sentence-initial conjunctions are verbally and plenarily inspired of God, just as singular they is. Ran's evidence came from a sample consisting of the first 80 verses of Genesis in the original Hebrew and in the King James translation. I decided to check more […]
Permalink
October 20, 2009 @ 7:58 am
· Filed under Language and culture
In an earlier post, I observed that the phrase "the United States" — regardless of whether it is treated as singular or plural — seems to have become more likely, over time, to occur in subject position ("The United States as a subject", 10/6/2009). My (admittedly slim) evidence for this hypothesis came from some searches […]
Permalink
October 5, 2009 @ 4:57 am
· Filed under adjectives, Ignorance of linguistics, Language and politics, Prescriptivist poppycock, Syntax, Writing
The Reverend Angela Tilby ended her scandalously unresearched little "Thought for the Day" talk of 1 October 2009 (part of which I have already discussed in this recent post) by suggesting that during the British political party conference season (i.e., right about now) we should try taking a blue pencil and editing out all the […]
Permalink
October 4, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
· Filed under adjectives, Prescriptivist poppycock, Syntax, The language of science, Usage advice, Writing
"Thought for the Day" is a four-minute reflective sermon delivered each morning on BBC Radio 4 at about ten to eight by some representative of one of the country's many religious faiths. On the first day of October the speaker was the Reverend Angela Tilby, Vicar of St Bene't's in Cambridge, England. (Bene't is an […]
Permalink
October 2, 2009 @ 7:38 am
· Filed under Changing times
Rick Rubenstein wrote: Is the usage "I can't speak to the Iranian situation" as opposed to "I can't speak [about/regarding] the Iranian situation" relatively recent (or at least recently accelerating), as I perceive it to be? I feel as though I first noticed it about a decade ago, and found it very strange. I'm now […]
Permalink