The all-in-one Consolidated Grammar Thread Page 6

Quote: Kenneth @ April 27 2010, 11:17 AM BST

From the sleeve notes:
Sting lives in a £2 million Elizabethan mansion. Its 41 rooms are panelled with Queen Anne oak; in its 54 acres of lawn and woodland there are two cottages, stables, a tennis court and a boathouse. A quick glance between the covers of Hello! magazine will reveal that, despite its decadent grandeur, Sting's shebang is decorated with a style befitting a sad old rocker millionaire who, like so many other rich twerps, imagines himself lord of a tudor manor.

View original

Cor.

(Tudor*)

For the increasingly dull record: The Oxford English Dictionary does not have any record of the expression 'urgh' though it does have an entry for 'ew'. It does however have a record of 'ugh' describing the word as a "proprietary name for a type of sheepskin boots". It probably doesn't have a record for either 'urgh' or 'ugh' because those are in fact guttural sounds rather than complete words.

Yes 'ew' has American roots but I don't see how that is any different to all the words you are using which have Latin, French, Teutonic, Hispanic, Arabic or German roots. In fact it's almost exactly the same thing. In fact it is exactly the same thing.

You tell 'em, PhQnix!

He always says what I mean, but clever.

Ell-i-ot! Ell-i-ot! Ell-i-ot! Ell-i-ot!

Ha! In your FACE!

etc.

If a word is good it's good. If it's bad, even though it's right, it's bad. This is my thinking. And I share it with you.

To me, 'ew' is different to 'urgh'. 'Ew' is typically what girls say when they see something perhaps sexually offensive. 'Urgh' is for when you discover you've got boiled tripe for dinner.

[Please now reply with a witty comment combining the two.]

Quote: PhQnix @ April 27 2010, 1:11 PM BST

It does however have a record of 'ugh' describing the word as a "proprietary name for a type of sheepskin boots".

View original

Ugg.

The problem is there's a real possibility that the replacing of British words and spellings with Americanisms will result in homogenisation, rather than enrichment. Of course language evolves, but we're at risk of losing more words and phrases than we'll gain.

Hm. This ew/urgh is replacing a word (well, not a word, but a spelling/sound). Were the old Latin, French, etc, terms replacing words or brand new? I suspect that at most they were replacing and shortening convoluted terms/phrases?

Quote: Aaron @ April 27 2010, 1:42 PM BST

Hm. This ew/urgh is replacing a word (well, not a word, but a spelling/sound). Were the old Latin, French, etc, terms replacing words or brand new? I suspect that at most they were replacing and shortening convoluted terms/phrases?

View original

You don't really know. Any words they have replaced will have, of course, died out before record.

Quote: Dolly Dagger @ April 27 2010, 1:39 PM BST

Ugg.

View original

I guess so. Apparently they were once Ugh boots.

Quote: Dolly Dagger @ April 27 2010, 1:39 PM BST

The problem is there's a real possibility that the replacing of British words and spellings with Americanisms will result in homogenisation, rather than enrichment. Of course language evolves, but we're at risk of losing more words and phrases than we'll gain.

View original

I don't really see that as being the case though. Dialects still exist at a local level and they are not being wiped out by Americanisations. Language is such a complex and ever-changing thing - it can't possibly be homogenised in the way people think it is at risk of.

If you walk along a street in London you're bound to come across so many different dialects and words that you could not possibly think there is such a risk. There is a complete difference in the way that people from East London and West London talk, there's a massive difference in the way I talk in comparison with the way some people my age on my road talk. At the end of the day by worrying about Americanisation you're just passing a judgement on an entire culture by saying that you'll take words from some places but not others.

I deliberately put Americanisms in my novels and it annoys some proof readers. But they are good ones so I don't mind.

Hell yeah!

Quote: Marc P @ April 27 2010, 2:11 PM BST

I deliberately put Americanisms in my novels and it annoys some proof readers. But they are good ones so I don't mind.

View original

Which onnnes?

Things like - 'who caught the squeal? -' which maybe I made up lol. And Johns instead of punters, that kind of thing.