Stuff that People Say

[Sean]

Their their BSG...

[BoSoxGal]

[The Hen]

~Heh, Hen you're not disappointed? Then why are you projecting so?

Where and how? (She asks fruitlessly. Knowing that Lo cannot supply a coherent reasonable answer to the question.)

Why must you attempt to cause Board disharmony every time I post here?

Is it your innate jealousy again?

[Gob]

Please do not allow the shitty little Locatroll to bring thread back to her and her fucked up psyche. Please let her simmer in her own bile and self hate.

[The Hen]

Fair doos. I doubt I would have received anything but a trolling response in any case.

Perhaps one day she will find peace?

[dales]

The proof is in the pudding...

[loCAtek]

...and Happy New Year!

[Joe Guy]

No problem.

Can I respond to the next person in line?

[Rick]

Shirley you may, I'm next...

[Joe Guy]

Shirley you may, I'm next...

Okay, I've responded.

But don't call me Shirley!

[Sean]

That's the only response I would be willing to except.

[Joe Guy]

That's the only response I would be willing to except.

What you except depends on the nature of your acceptations.

[BoSoxGal]

My head just exploded.

[The Hen]

They're, they're BSG.

[Lord Jim]

I am a proper grammar Nazi.

Then you must spend alot of time upset....

[Andrew D]

Fucking Yanks fucking with our fucking language again.

The correct expression is; "the proof of the pudding is in the EATING!" The word "proof" there used having the same intent as the expression; "it's the exception which proves the rule." The word "proves" being used to denote "tests".

Exactly. "It is the claim of an exception which puts the asserted rule to the test," not "it is the existence of an exception which demonstrates the existence of the rule".

Anyone care for a free gift?

[alice]

Go into a fast food joint. The guy behind the counter asks, "Can I help who's next?

WTF?

It seems to me that if the person behind the counter can see the customer who is next in line, it is appropriate for him to ask, "Can I help you?" If he can't tell who is next because people are milling around, it might be appropriate for him to ask, "Who is next?" Followed by, "Can I help you?"

But, "Can I help who's next?" is nonsense.

It is also common for the person to look you in the eye and ask, "Is this for the dining room?"

The question in my mind is always, what does "this" refer to? Me? Something in my hand? In his hand? I don't get it.

Would it be too challenging to ask, "Will you be eating your meal in our dining room, or taking it out?"

When a waitress deposits my food on the table in a restaurant, the usual sign off is, "Enjoy."

Enjoy is what is referred to as a "transitive verb," meaning that it must have a direct object. It is grammatically bizarre to say simply, "Enjoy," without indicating what it is that she would like me to enjoy.

Would it be too much trouble to say, "Enjoy your meal"? Too pressed for time?

It has become routine to respond to "Thank you," with "No problem."

Who said that it WAS a problem?

The customary response to "Thank you," is "You are welcome." Why is "No problem," better or preferred? It usually makes no sense; it's no easier to say than "You're welcome," and it sounds almost argumentative. ("You got a problem wit' dat?")

I noted on another thread that the expression, "The proof of the pudding is in the tasting," has been bizarrely truncated to, "The proof is in the pudding," which makes no sense at all. It sounds like the person ought to be careful when eating "the pudding," because it might have a foreign substance or object in it.

And in most cases when "The proof is in the pudding" is used, it would be better simply to say, "We'll have to wait and see (how it works out)."

It is obvious that most Americans never actually look in a mirror to see what they look like, and neither do they listen to what they are saying to see if it makes any sense.

A lot of your opening post has flawed grammar according to way I was taught in school. I don't mind, because it has a nice easy reading style just the way it is, but it really does detract from your point.

As an example, you don't like the waitress saying 'enjoy' and leaving you to infer her intent, instead spelling the intent out in a full sentence as 'I hope you enjoy your meal'. however your opening sentence in your post is just as vague and incorrect. You begin with a sentence which states, in full, 'Go into a fast food joint'. Are you directing me to go into a 'fast food' establishment (as in, 'you must go into a fast food 'joint'), or are you trying to relate an incident where you visited a 'fast food' establishment (as in, 'I went into a ...', or 'I recently visited a ...'). Your opening sentence leaves the reader with as much, if not more, guesswork than a poor waitress simply saying 'enjoy' when she provides you with the meal..

I use slang terms and poor grammar all the time - usually sarcastically or ironically. I use terms like, "onliest" (only) "aks" (ask), and "Picksburg" (Pittsburgh). I also use the vulgar term for copulation regularly.

But the fact is that when you say things that make no sense you sound like a moron, and often this is not the case. It is no more challenging to speak clearly and with proper grammar.

What passes through your mind when you hear half a phone conversation that includes, "Where are you at?"

It is similar to one's dress of one's grooming. The way you speak sends messages about yourself to the outside world - especially people who don't know you. It can brand you as uneducated, careless, a snob, or intelligent. Take your pick.

Another expression that drives me up the wall - and it is UBIQUITOUS - "X got screwed," or "X got the shaft."

Is this really how we want to express the thought that someone was cheated or taken advantage of?

Do people think before they use that grotesque expression? When I hear it on the radio it makes my brain pucker.

In your opening post you used the slang term 'guy' instead of a more correct term such as 'the young male', or 'the person', and responded to your opening remark with the 'sentence' stating 'WTF?'. Personally I don't care, and it helps to keep the writing style friendly, informal and conversational (rather than stuffy and 'proper'). However, you seem to think that's acceptable, whereas someone in a casual conversation with their friend saying 'where are you at' is somehow not acceptable. What passes through my mind is that this is comparable with your 'WTF' and speaking about the 'guy' at the counter - it makes you no better, or worse, than the person having that phone conversation with terminology that seemed to annoy you.

If, as you say 'it is no more challenging to speak clearly and with proper grammar', then why do you say 'aks' instead of 'ask'. Why are you stating that you use slang terms and incorrect pronunciation of words and then generalising that other people will be judged if they don't speak in proper terms that are acceptable to you?
I would probably understand the point you were attempting to make if you believed that you were totally correct in your own use of the language, but you admit to human imperfections in your own usage and then berate and judge others for also having human imperfections. I'm not understanding why 'what's good for the goose' is not 'good for the gander'.

Where I am from, when you thank someone for their actions, or ask them to do something for you, you are likely to receive the reply "No worries" or "Not a problem".

I like both expressions, I use them myself.

Language, like most things in life, is fluid. Txt-speak is now also commonplace and gaining acceptance in dictionaries.

You are likely to be irritated and increasingly disappointed with society if you rail against common word usage.

I usually say 'no worries' , or 'no problem', or 'no worries. any time' or something similar when someone thanks me.
I don't think it's something grammatically terrible. It's all just abbreviated conversation, as in 'Thank you for your help' 'That is okay. It was not a problem to assist you'; 'Thank you for taking time out of your day for me. I am really grateful.' 'Do not worry about thanking me for it; I was happy to help'.
In everyday conversation the person doing the thanking does not spell out their entire intent - it's usually mutually understood what they're thanking you for and why. So in equal manner the response doesn't have to spell out the entire intent. The thanking and the responding both convey the full meaning and the entire exchange would be fully comprehended by both parties with no further addition needed. It's an economy of words without detracting from the meaning.

sorry re long post. ... blame Christmas overindulgence and Boxing Day mellowness. Apologies

[dales]

We need more " Boxing Day mellowness" whatever the h#ll that is around here.

[Sean]

Great post Alice, consider my cap doffed!

[dales]

here, here