2008: Dec 15-16

[fluffy]

... "in-" which sometimes serves as an intensifier (e.g. "inflammable," "irradiated")...

If I lived close enough to you, I'd come over and "bludgeon yer eye" for that one.

Uh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation

[Billy's Little Trip]

Except for bread putting, which is sometimes made with rum.

No more bread pudding for you, Mr.

Certain words that people pronounce with extra letters or not enough letters always bugs me. I don't care how smart a person is, but when they tell me they're going out to buy a new worshing machine, I will forever think they're an idiot.

As for phrases, I think I use some of the above on occasion.

....and I'm still not 100% what the fuck "jump the shark" means. The Fonz jumped a shark once.

[melvin]

I don't like when people use the plural "criteria" to refer to a single criterion.

[signboy]

Fluf, irradiation is a completely different word from radiation. It is not an intensified version. You wikipedia link even says so.

[JonPorobil]

I think Fluffy was indicating that he gets upset when he sees it used as an intensifier, then linking to Wikipedia to prove that it's not an intensifier.

[Spud]

Those extra letters do the same for me too, BLT.

I have a friend who puts extra letters in a lot of words.
I can only think of a few right now, but go pee before you read these:

select to view:
Eric Clampton
Morter, as in a Morter Vehicle, or even worse, a Mortercycle.


Oh, and good catch on the putting.

[JonPorobil]

Oooh, and down in here in Texas, every time I hear someone talk about Whataburger, it comes out "Waterburger."

[Spud]

I just got this email:

Attached are two Email newsletters for you. One provides safety tips in light of the cold winter weather. The other is a reprint of safety and security tips during the holiday season. We hope you find newsletters useful.

Can a pdf really be a reprint? I mean, it was never printed in the first place, and the copy I got was never printed either.

[Billy's Little Trip]

Too much emphasis on the H while saying words that start with WH always makes me nucking futz. Like this!

[fluffy]

Fluf, irradiation is a completely different word from radiation. It is not an intensified version. You wikipedia link even says so.

Where does it say that? It says repeatedly that it's food which has been treated with radiation.

I think Fluffy was indicating that he gets upset when he sees it used as an intensifier, then linking to Wikipedia to prove that it's not an intensifier.

No, I just chose a bad example, since it's the first word which popped into mind which used "ir" as something vaguely related to (rather than against) something.

encyclopedia.com simply states that 'ir-' is the form of 'in' used before words beginning with the letter 'r'. 'in,' as previously discussed, can be both a negatory and an intensifier (although I'm having trouble finding other words which use it in such a way - various etymology resources simply state that in "can be an intensifier, such as in 'inflammable'").

Still, language is always evolving etc. etc. and the truly cumbersome parts usually end up dying. "Irregardless" is one of those which will hopefully die more quickly than others.

[Märk]

...but "regardless" means "without regard" already.. "irregardless" is a double negative, a made up, incorrect word, and pretty compelling evidence of the user's mental retardation.

[fluffy]

My point is just that 'in' (and by proxy 'ir') are not always the same thing as 'not.' I'm not defending the use of that word by any means.

[signboy]

Yeah, I get you. I was just bored and having fun trying to get you riled up.

[roymond]

Can a pdf really be a reprint? I mean, it was never printed in the first place, and the copy I got was never printed either.

Well, if the original article was extracted from the original publication, and re-set as a one-pager then one often calls it a reprint, regardless of the method of distribution. And I sort of like how language has those things happening. Just as we say we're "typing" a letter on our computer

On of my favorites is "trifecta of retardation". This gets tossed around more than Bristle Palin.

Another: B.C. = before Christ (to compliment A.D., of course)

[Spud]

No, the original is a pdf newsletter. Design for pdf. Distributed as a pdf. This reprint is just another (exact) copy of the original file. We need a new word. I know...spam.

[Niveous]

....and I'm still not 100% what the fuck "jump the shark" means. The Fonz jumped a shark once.

Exactly. Many believe that the episode where Fonzie jumped the shark was the last good episode of the show. "Jumping the Shark" is when a TV show reaches it's creative peak and begins to go downhill.

[fluffy]

And others believe that the shark-jumping scene was proof that the show had run out of creative ideas and was just running on fumes, and thus the other usage to mean "the show has already peaked" is also accurate.

[Märk]

....and I'm still not 100% what the fuck "jump the shark" means. The Fonz jumped a shark once.

What "Jump the shark" means

8)

[Billy's Little Trip]

Funny, I was just saying that the Fonz jumped a shark, I didn't know that the meaning had anything to do with it.

QOTD: Oh, I just thought of one! When someone tells you to Google "it" anytime you ask a question on the interwebz.

I'd like a good comeback link for that.
....and I'm not going to google, I'm going to wait for one of you to do it for me. That's how I roll.

[Ross]

Here.

Irregardless...

Anyways...

And now, a man who needs no introduction...

[Billy's Little Trip]

And now, a man who needs no introduction...

Never really thought about that one.

[Steve Durand]

Probably "the exception that proves the rule". People use it whenever a rule has an exception. Gah.

Well, that isn't exactly misused, just poorly-thought-out in the first place. The thinking goes, because anyone for whom English is a first language knows that grammar can be extraordinarily steadfast - except when it's not - that every rule must have an exception. Thus, if you make a broad, sweeping generality, and then someone provides a counterexample, then that counterexample is "the exception that proves the rule." Which is to say that if there weren't that one exception, then the broad generality you just erroneously cited wouldn't hold.

Basically, unlike most of the other turns of phrase in this thread, "the exception that proves the rule" isn't bad grammar; it's bad logic.

I think that in this context the word "prove" means the same as "test". Exceptions are the test of whether a rule really is a rule.