Why Grammar Matters: A Place To Discuss Matters Of Grammar

[ABay]

Maybe it's UNI, University of Northern Illinois.

[supposebly]

Well normally, you put the pronoun in the object form after prepositions, so

between you and me

is correct.

of you and me

after me, for me,

never

after I , for I.

 

It's funny how people do it mainly with I/me but not with he/him, she/her. Although I seem to recall someone saying between you and she. Tell me I misheard.

 

When people assume that me is almost always wrong, and start saying between you and I, this is the wrong one.

 

Me and my husband went out last night is completely normal in spoken language these days, even in my age bracket (late forties). At least up here in Canada.

 

As long as you don't write in formal circumstances or give a formal speech/talk/presentation.

The only thing that still has a difference in object and subject form are the pronouns I/me and he/him, she/her, we/us, they/them.

 

I guess, now it's time for I or me to disappear. ;-)

[StatisticalOutlier]

I had an epiphany last night.

 

Who cares if people get the pronoun wrong?  Language is always evolving, blah blah blah, right?  At least with pronouns, you still know without any hesitation what the person means.  If somebody says, "He gave it to Bob and I," there's no doubt that the object was given to Bob and the speaker, whether the speaker uses "I" or "me." 

 

Even in the case of this gem from the Bachelor, where one of the combatants wondered whether her "feelings for [ben] are the same as his feelings for mine."  A total howler, but it's obvious right off the bat what she meant.

 

Compare that to word definitions, like "literally" coming to also mean "figuratively," or "disinterest" morphing to mean lack of interest.  It really does matter whether an umpire is disinterested or uninterested, or whether Nancy Grace's head literally or figuratively exploded, so those words should not be synonyms, but we're letting them become just that.

 

Discomfit has lost its original meaning of "vanquish" to become a synonym of "discomfort."  There was no doubt a period of uncertainty as the new meaning was taking hold, but we let it happen anyway. 

 

So if we let this happen even in cases where uncertainty reigns for a while, why not let it happen to pronouns, too?  At least with those, you don't have that period of uncertainty. 

 

Yeah, it hurts our ears, but I don't think the English language is all that concerned about that.

[legaleagle53]

StatisticalOutlier, on 31 Mar 2016 - 4:30 PM, said:

I had an epiphany last night.

 

Who cares if people get the pronoun wrong?  Language is always evolving, blah blah blah, right?  At least with pronouns, you still know without any hesitation what the person means.  If somebody says, "He gave it to Bob and I," there's no doubt that the object was given to Bob and the speaker, whether the speaker uses "I" or "me." 

 

Even in the case of this gem from the Bachelor, where one of the combatants wondered whether her "feelings for [ben] are the same as his feelings for mine."  A total howler, but it's obvious right off the bat what she meant.

 

Compare that to word definitions, like "literally" coming to also mean "figuratively," or "disinterest" morphing to mean lack of interest.  It really does matter whether an umpire is disinterested or uninterested, or whether Nancy Grace's head literally or figuratively exploded, so those words should not be synonyms, but we're letting them become just that.

 

Discomfit has lost its original meaning of "vanquish" to become a synonym of "discomfort."  There was no doubt a period of uncertainty as the new meaning was taking hold, but we let it happen anyway. 

 

So if we let this happen even in cases where uncertainty reigns for a while, why not let it happen to pronouns, too?  At least with those, you don't have that period of uncertainty. 

 

Yeah, it hurts our ears, but I don't think the English language is all that concerned about that.

 

Because as you yourself noted, anarchy and laziness when it comes to using grammar and vocabulary correctly leads to miscommunication and misunderstanding, which rather defeats the purpose of having a standard language at all.  And the kind of evolution that you're championing takes decades, if not centuries to accomplish, and was more likely to happen in the days when we didn't have instantaneous communication means at our disposal.  It's how Latin eventually degenerated and fractured into the Romance languages, which, as lovely as they are and as much fun as they are to study (I happen to speak all five of the major ones, in fact), are really not what you want when it comes to trying to communicate clearly and foster understanding and unity.

 

So no, I'm not going to throw up my hands and say "Who cares?"  I care, because it's not enough for me that people may understand me regardless of what I say or how I say it -- I want to eliminate any possibility of my being misunderstood.  That's why I'm a Grammar Nazi and will be one until the day I die.

[Quof]

Thank you, legaleagle. 

 

When a child says "pasketti", we all know what the child means, but it is still incorrect, and the child should be (gently) corrected so they learn to speak properly. 

[legaleagle53]

Thank you, legaleagle. 

 

When a child says "pasketti", we all know what the child means, but it is still incorrect, and the child should be (gently) corrected so they learn to speak properly. 

 

Exactly.  As a wise man said some 2,000 years ago:  "When I was I child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

Edited April 1, 2016 by legaleagle53

[backformore]

Maybe it's UNI, University of Northern Illinois.

But that would also be incorrect, as its NIU, northern Illinois university. ; )

[ABay]

I was just making up a name that fit the initials. Shouldn't that N be capitalized? ^

[proserpina65]

I think it was about the vowel sound. In German, the letter combination 'ei' is pronounced like 'I' in 'ice', not like 'e' in 'he'. I might be misremembering though.

Huh, admittedly I don't say her name very often, but I've always mentally pronounced it as if there was a long i in place of the ei.

[proserpina65]

You know where I hear the most grammar errors? In music!  Drives me crazy to the point that if I'm singing along, I usually correct it......The most misused phrase is "you and I/me", although, when Paul sings "If this ever changing world in which we live in" in Live and Let Die, it makes me cringe. Every. Single. Time.  I simply can't sing it that way.

 

I've always thought that was what he was singing, but I've recently decided that he's actually singing "If this ever changing world in which we're living" instead.  Now, I don't have a copy of the album with a lyrics sheet, or do I know Sir Paul, but I find it less cringe inducing to hear it this way.

[Sandman87]

Local news:

 

"Tensions between the two camps are becoming frayed." I'm a-frayed I don't know what this means.

 

"Customers are going to see an increase in our price go up." An increase in the increase? An increasing rate of increase? A decrease in ability to speak?

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Is it possible that they mean "tempers" instead, Sandman87? Because I've heard of fraying tempers, but frayed tensions makes no sense.

[Shannon L.]

 

I've always thought that was what he was singing, but I've recently decided that he's actually singing "If this ever changing world in which we're living" instead.  Now, I don't have a copy of the album with a lyrics sheet, or do I know Sir Paul, but I find it less cringe inducing to hear it this way.

Oh man.....I just googled it and you're right--it is "in which we're living".  I always thought I heard "in which we live in" and apparently others have as well because I've heard other people remark on how it bugs them, too. 

[MaryPatShelby]

Oh man.....I just googled it and you're right--it is "in which we're living".  I always thought I heard "in which we live in" and apparently others have as well because I've heard other people remark on how it bugs them, too. 

Put me in the "world in which we live in" camp.  It never occurred to me that it was anything else!

[StatisticalOutlier]

Because as you yourself noted, anarchy and laziness when it comes to using grammar and vocabulary correctly leads to miscommunication and misunderstanding, which rather defeats the purpose of having a standard language at all.  And the kind of evolution that you're championing takes decades, if not centuries to accomplish, and was more likely to happen in the days when we didn't have instantaneous communication means at our disposal.  It's how Latin eventually degenerated and fractured into the Romance languages, which, as lovely as they are and as much fun as they are to study (I happen to speak all five of the major ones, in fact), are really not what you want when it comes to trying to communicate clearly and foster understanding and unity.

 

So no, I'm not going to throw up my hands and say "Who cares?"  I care, because it's not enough for me that people may understand me regardless of what I say or how I say it -- I want to eliminate any possibility of my being misunderstood.  That's why I'm a Grammar Nazi and will be one until the day I die.

 

I'm not championing the evolution of language; I've been a hard-ass around here about "literally" not becoming a synonym for "figuratively."  But experts respond that language always evolves, so just get used to it.  And if words can evolve, then why can't pronouns?

 

I'm not one of those experts, and all my experience with language is personal (not academic), but it seems like this evolution is taking place faster than ever before, but you seem to be claiming the opposite.  I really do think this misuse of pronouns with prepositions has been a very recent development, at least on such a large scale.  I didn't see it on TV, but I did hear none other than David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker (the New Yorker!) say in an interview, "for my wife and I." 

 

I flinched, but there is absolutely no possibility of misunderstanding what he meant.

 

Maybe I should rephrase my question from "Who cares?" to "Why should we care?"  Because I do care (legaleagle53, are you a lawyer? I am.), and I thought I cared because I'm all about clarity in communication.  But it's a lonely sport and if the keepers of our language let word definitions shift to mean the opposite of what they originally meant, why not let pronouns shift, especially if it doesn't even involve an underlying shift in meaning?

[Quof]

I'm another lawyer weighing in.  I'm a fan of clarity in both written and spoken communication, although ambiguity does keep me in business. 

[shapeshifter]

This morning on NPR's "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" one of the news quiz answers claimed that a scientific study has shown that people who feel the need to point out grammatical errors have sociopathic tendencies. A quick Internet search didn't find anything relating to that claim, but I thought I'd share--partly in hopes that someone here might find the article so I might debunk the conclusions as presented on the show.

ETA: I don't think I'm a "sociopath" if it just made me very sad to hear on a rerun of an Elementary episode, Jonny Lee Miller use "her" as a subject of a sentence. I still love the hear him speak in the character of Sherlock.

Edited April 2, 2016 by shapeshifter

[legaleagle53]

I'm not championing the evolution of language; I've been a hard-ass around here about "literally" not becoming a synonym for "figuratively."  But experts respond that language always evolves, so just get used to it.  And if words can evolve, then why can't pronouns?

 

I'm not one of those experts, and all my experience with language is personal (not academic), but it seems like this evolution is taking place faster than ever before, but you seem to be claiming the opposite.  I really do think this misuse of pronouns with prepositions has been a very recent development, at least on such a large scale.  I didn't see it on TV, but I did hear none other than David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker (the New Yorker!) say in an interview, "for my wife and I." 

 

I flinched, but there is absolutely no possibility of misunderstanding what he meant.

 

Maybe I should rephrase my question from "Who cares?" to "Why should we care?"  Because I do care (legaleagle53, are you a lawyer? I am.), and I thought I cared because I'm all about clarity in communication.  But it's a lonely sport and if the keepers of our language let word definitions shift to mean the opposite of what they originally meant, why not let pronouns shift, especially if it doesn't even involve an underlying shift in meaning?

 

Legal assistant, actually.  I've been one off and on for almost 27 years.

 

And a shift in case usage is different from a shift in denotation and connotation (i.e., the actual meaning of a word).  Case exists to show the precise grammatical function of a word in a sentence, and each case has a different role to play.  They are simply NOT interchangeable, as students of German, Latin, Russian, and Greek will readily attest (and I am an avid student of all four of those languages).  

 

The Romance languages lost the case endings of the original Latin because they were too similar to one another, and they were easily conflated as a result, with prepositions taking over much of the function of the original case endings.  This also happened in English from about the 14th Century on; prior to that time, nouns, adjectives, and pronouns were all highly inflected for gender, number, and case, but the case endings were so similar that they were easily conflated.  What remain in Modern English are cases and case endings that are sufficiently distinctive enough that there is simply no reason to conflate them, ever).  

 

It's not evolution of the language, it's pure laziness on the part of native speakers and students of English that is the cause of the conflation of cases that are by nature distinct from one another -- the same sort of laziness that has all but led to the elimination of cursive writing as a required element of primary education.  That's to be lamented and fought against, not received with a passive shrug of the shoulders.

Edited April 2, 2016 by legaleagle53

[supposebly]

......They are simply NOT interchangeable, as students of German, Latin, Russian, and Greek will readily attest (and I am an avid student of all four of those languages).  

 

.....

That's actually not true, the accusative and nominative forms of articles and demonstratives are identical in almost all the Indo-European languages for neuter gender (if they have neuter gender).

German has lost the case system on nouns as well (with the exception of one noun class in rudimentary form) but kept it on the articles. French has lost the "third neuter gender" which is nothing but a class of nouns that are inflected differently. It lost the inflections, therefore it lost the noun class. They are still there, just  inflected like masculine nouns.

The reasons why inflectional morphology in some of the Indo-European languages disappeared are varied. The reason why they became similar in English is partially because final syllables became unstressed during the Great Vowel Shift (during the change from Middle to Modern English around 1500) which means that they all ended up with the same vowel schwa (it's a short vowel that barely requires opening once's mouth, most languages have them).

The remnants of the final unstressed vowels can be seen in the writing of all the words with "silent e" which used to be pronounced. Since endings are, well, at the end, they disappeared.

Since in English, unstressed syllables are not only less stressed but turn the vowel into schwa and are shorter than all others, they become even less prominent.

Compare the second vowel in Canada vs. in Canadian. It's unstressed in 'Canada' (schwa) but stressed in 'Canadian' (ej).

Stress in other Germanic languages is different. For example, in German, an unstressed syllable is quieter, somewhat shorter but retains vowel quality.

The word pronounced in German: Kanada (all vowels are identical but the second is shorter. Kanadisch. The first two vowels are identical but the second is now longer and the first is shorter.

That's not what happened in the Romance languages. Again, different changes, different changes, different systems.

While grammatical systems and rules tend to change at a much slower rate than word meanings, they do change. Word order becomes stricter as a result of losing noun inflection. If you can't mark a subject with nominative case, you have to identify it in a different way, hence you get English strict SVO (subject-verb-object) order which isn't as strict in other Germanic languages or some of the Romance languages where you can put verbs or objects at the beginning if you have a good reason for it.

So, all the English speaking generations who went through the loss of inflection developed a new system of strict word order to distinguish between subjects and objects. The only elements that still have somewhat distinct forms for subject and object are a few pronouns. We can't tell with nouns, neither with 'you' nor with 'it'. That's hardly a system. So, generations of English speakers before us were very "lazy" when losing all those forms.

Just to put this in perspective: Inuktitut (Eskimo) has about 500 verbal endings, possibly about 80 case endings

 

There are numerous languages that have no case system (all the Chinese languages for example), and they work just fine with their strict work order. And frankly, English has about 8-9 inflectional endings left. That's hardly a system. More like fossil remnants of times past. There is nothing "natural" about a case system, otherwise hundreds of languages would be unnatural. Losing the distinction for one or two more pronouns is hardly a tragedy since we've long made up for it in having only one position for subjects. Otherwise, how could you tell who kissed whom in Peter kissed Mary.?

 

The only thing that is natural is the change of a language because it is used. What you may call unnatural is every language that dies every 2 weeks because speakers shift to a major language for myriads of reasons and stop speaking their first language(s). Every one talks about species death but every 2 weeks, a language dies because its last speaker dies, a fountain of knowledge about a culture and a language. That is something to lament about.

 

Cursive writing has mostly been replaced with typing but people write tons more every day than they used to when they were restricted to paper and pen, or a type writer. I tell my students to write their notes by hand because it aids in retention but if they use a table and stencil or whatever those things are called, it's just fine.

 

Ok, I think it's time to step off my soap box. Sorry for getting of a tangent here but as a linguist, the topic bugs me. If language change weren't natural, we would all be speaking like Chaucer, of more likely, whatever the Proto-Indo-European was, or Proto-Sino-Tibetan, Proto-Austronesian, or whatever language family your language(s) hail(s) from.

[shapeshifter]

What do we think of this?

Starting June 1, 2016, Associated Press writers will be instructed to lowercase both internet and web - See more at: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/ap-will-no-longer-capitalize-internet-and-web#sthash.Gz3luFGP.mW3Fa3wj.dpuf

[AuntiePam]

What do we think of this?

 

Lowercase for "internet" and "web"?  I'm trying to remember the last time I saw those words in uppercase, so I'm fine with it.

 

Now if we could just get TV announcers to stop with the "double-u double-u double-u".  Are there any websites that require the "www"?  I haven't used "www" for years.

[shapeshifter]

Lowercase for "internet" and "web"?  I'm trying to remember the last time I saw those words in uppercase, so I'm fine with it.

 

Now if we could just get TV announcers to stop with the "double-u double-u double-u".  Are there any websites that require the "www"?  I haven't used "www" for years.

Even worse is "back slash" for "forward slash," but I don't hear that much anymore--I think they just say "slash" now?

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Even worse is "back slash" for "forward slash," but I don't hear that much anymore--I think they just say "slash" now?

 

They use 'slash' other than in fandom? Because there it means something else.

[shapeshifter]

They use 'slash' other than in fandom? Because there it means something else.

Indeed it does now have a different meaning in reference to fan fiction and shipper relationships. Back in the old days "slasher" films were gore-filled horror flicks.

Anyway, I was refering to the punctuation marks made by striking keys on the right side of the keyboard, used in coding, hence in URLs. But you probably knew that. ;>)

On a related note and germain to this thread, my daughter watched Scorpion for the first time with me during a recent visit. She is a hard core, self-proclaimed grammar Nazi, and couldn't resist pointing out that the logo for the show that is flashed accross the screen throughout the episode would literally read "end of Scorpion." It is:

</Scorpion>

I suspect they put the forward slash (not back slash!!) in there to make it look more like geeky code, rather than to indicate the end of the show is nigh.

[topanga]

You know where I hear the most grammar errors? In music!

 

True.  However, at this point in my life, although I know it is wrong, "me and Julio down by the schoolyard" just sounds more natural than "Julio and I down by the schoolyard."

 

"Me and Julio" is not grammatically incorrect, it is simply impolite to put yourself first.   At most, it should be "Julio and me", not "Julio and I" because the line is "see you, me and Julio down by the schoolyard."   One sees "me", not "I'.    

 

And you should have heard me yelling at the tv during the Vancouver Olympics (my god, was that 6 years ago) over the stupid lyric "I believe I can fly, because of the power of you and I."   It's ME, you morons, not I.  

Thanks for the info on "Me and Julio." I'd always thought the song was saying that Julio and I are down by the schoolyard.

 

Music is one area where I tend to forgive grammatical errors, although hearing things like "between you and I" or "You and me was fine before that other dude showed up" still makes my blood boil. 

 

In fact, one of my favorite song lyrics ever comes from the legendary rap duo Eric B. and Rakim, and it includes a made-up word: "You like to exaggerate, dream, and imaginate." I usually hate made-up words ('stick-to-itiveness'--Ahhhh!), but the word 'imaginate' sounds so great in this line, and Rakim makes it sound like a real word. I love that dude.

[Qoass]

 

Now if we could just get TV announcers to stop with the "double-u double-u double-u".

 

 

Actually, I'd be thrilled to hear TV announcers say "double-you".  Too often it's "dubba-you" or "dub-ya", both of which make me cringe.

[backformore]

Help me out here.   On two separate news shows, I have been told that women soccer players make FOUR TIMES LESS than men.  I don't know what that means.  TIMES = multiplication, LESS means subtraction.  On one show, it was explained that means for every $100 men earn, women earn $25. If  the intent is to say women players earn one-fourth what men earn, why not say that?   

 

Similarly, a toilet paper commercial tells me that I'll use TWO TIMES LESS with their brand.  I guess that means half as much?  Why not say that? 

[Quof]

Because people are as bad at math as they are at grammar?

[shapeshifter]

Help me out here.   On two separate news shows, I have been told that women soccer players make FOUR TIMES LESS than men.  I don't know what that means.  TIMES = multiplication, LESS means subtraction.  On one show, it was explained that means for every $100 men earn, women earn $25. If  the intent is to say women players earn one-fourth what men earn, why not say that?   

 

Similarly, a toilet paper commercial tells me that I'll use TWO TIMES LESS with their brand.  I guess that means half as much?  Why not say that?

I'm guessing the news writers and the marketing team decided FOUR TIMES and TWO TIMES sound more impressive than 25% or 50% and, like Quof pointed out, they aren't very good at math.

[backformore]

Yeah, I guess to me four times less translates to -   If I have a dollar,  multiply it by 4 -  $4,then subtract that from the original amount, so 4 times less than $1 is   equal to negative $3.    In the example I gave, if men soccer players make 4 times what women make, ($100 vs $25)  OK.  They don't make 4 times MORE, that would be $125.  But if you reverse it, it's "women make a fourth of what men make" - because the reverse of multiplication is division (or fraction). 

 

Maybe there's another way to figure it, but I can't figure out what "X times less"  is supposed to mean.  It's the LESS that gets me.

[Sandman87]

Help me out here.   On two separate news shows, I have been told that women soccer players make FOUR TIMES LESS than men.  I don't know what that means.  TIMES = multiplication, LESS means subtraction.  On one show, it was explained that means for every $100 men earn, women earn $25. If  the intent is to say women players earn one-fourth what men earn, why not say that?   

 

Similarly, a toilet paper commercial tells me that I'll use TWO TIMES LESS with their brand.  I guess that means half as much?  Why not say that? 

 

 

Yeah, I complained about the "X times less" phenomenon quite a while ago here. I guess it must be magical toilet paper, so that two new rolls suddenly appear for every one that gets used.

[StatisticalOutlier]

Black-ish continues to bring, it and not in a good way: 

 

In a voiceover:  "After wasting me and my colleagues' entire day at work..."

 

I love that show but I don't know how much of this I can take. 

Edited April 8, 2016 by StatisticalOutlier

[AimingforYoko]

After reading this thread about all the trouble with people differentiating between the nominative and objective cases, my thought is this:

[topanga]

Because as you yourself noted, anarchy and laziness when it comes to using grammar and vocabulary correctly leads to miscommunication and misunderstanding, which rather defeats the purpose of having a standard language at all.  And the kind of evolution that you're championing takes decades, if not centuries to accomplish, and was more likely to happen in the days when we didn't have instantaneous communication means at our disposal.  

I'm a huge grammar snob, but there are some incorrect phrases I can't stop saying. A big one is "A whole 'nother level." I know exactly what someone means when they say it, I know what I mean when I say it, and saying "Another level" or "Entirely different level" instead just doesn't have the same emotional impact. I would never use this phrase in a formal (or business) setting, and I would certainly never write it--except in an email or a text, maybe--but does it have to be wrong????

Edited April 9, 2016 by topanga

[FormerMod-a1]

I'm a huge grammar snob, but there are some incorrect phrases I can't stop saying. A big one is "A whole 'nother level." I know exactly what someone means when they say it, I know what I mean when I say it, and saying "Another level" or "Entirely different level" instead just doesn't have the same emotional impact. I would never use this phrase in a formal (or business) setting, and I would certainly never write it--except in an email or a text, maybe--but does it have to be wrong????

 

If I were to replace it (since I agree, this one is no big deal to me), I would say "A whole other level" rather than the 2 options you listed.

[shapeshifter]

I'm a huge grammar snob, but there are some incorrect phrases I can't stop saying. A big one is "A whole 'nother level." I know exactly what someone means when they say it, I know what I mean when I say it, and saying "Another level" or "Entirely different level" instead just doesn't have the same emotional impact. I would never use this phrase in a formal (or business) setting, and I would certainly never write it--except in an email or a text, maybe--but does it have to be wrong????

If I were to replace it (since I agree, this one is no big deal to me), I would say "A whole other level" rather than the 2 options you listed.

I usually use something like "A whole other level," but I think the 2 bolded examples, if said with a little emphasis, would have more impact because they are original.

[supposebly]

I'm a huge grammar snob, but there are some incorrect phrases I can't stop saying. A big one is "A whole 'nother level." I know exactly what someone means when they say it, I know what I mean when I say it, and saying "Another level" or "Entirely different level" instead just doesn't have the same emotional impact. I would never use this phrase in a formal (or business) setting, and I would certainly never write it--except in an email or a text, maybe--but does it have to be wrong????

Considering that "another" used to be written "an other" and was considered two words, I adore this odd, albeit uncommon formation.

 

Etymological dictionary:

another (adj.)

    early 13c., merger of an other. Old English used simply oþer. Originally "a second of two." Compound reciprocal pronoun one another is recorded from 1520s.

nother

    word formed from misdivision of another as a nother (see N for other examples), c. 1300. From 14c.-16c. no nother is sometimes encountered as a misdivision of none other or perhaps as an emphatic negative; Old English had noðer as a contraction of ne oðer "no other."

[proserpina65]

Yeah, I complained about the "X times less" phenomenon quite a while ago here. I guess it must be magical toilet paper, so that two new rolls suddenly appear for every one that gets used.

If it did, that toilet paper would be worth whatever they wanted to charge, at my house anyway.

[AuntiePam]

Reading a report on the Clinton-Sanders debate tonight, on the NPR website, of all places  Sanders launched his usual "fuselage" of attacks against Hillary. 

[riley702]

LOL. I do not think that word means what they think it means. [/Princess Bride] Fusillade, perhaps?

[Moose135]

Sanders launched his usual "fuselage" of attacks against Hillary. 

Maybe he has a whole airplane full of stuff...

[Sandman87]

The local news always delivers:

I learned that today local police arrested a man and charged him with "lewd and lefidious behavior." What a perfectly cromulent thing to report.

According to our weatherman, chances for thunderstorms tomorrow are "much more better."

[legaleagle53]

On ‎5‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 6:08 PM, Sandman87 said:

The local news always delivers:

I learned that today local police arrested a man and charged him with "lewd and lefidious behavior." What a perfectly cromulent thing to report.

I see what you did there (I think!).

[MaryPatShelby]

What is the deal with dropping the H sound at the beginning of words that always used to have the H sound?  It seems to be a new thing, and I can't decide why or how it started.  I notice particularly whenever I hear the spoken word "huge", which is now apparently supposed to be pronounced "youj"" (I don't know the correct phonetic markings).  I am listening to a whole podcast which features some people with the last name Hughes, which the narrator pronounces "youz". I really thought it was the Yu family until I looked it up.  Who decides when we're all going to pronounce words differently than we have for the last hundred years?

[Cobalt Stargazer]

"What in the world is a yute?"

[Ohwell]

38 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

"What in the world is a yute?"

Well, according to Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny, it's a "youth."

[Shannon L.]

Quote

What is the deal with dropping the H sound at the beginning of words that always used to have the H sound?  It seems to be a new thing, and I can't decide why or how it started.  I notice particularly whenever I hear the spoken word "huge", which is now apparently supposed to be pronounced "youj"" (I don't know the correct phonetic markings).  I am listening to a whole podcast which features some people with the last name Hughes, which the narrator pronounces "youz". I really thought it was the Yu family until I looked it up.  Who decides when we're all going to pronounce words differently than we have for the last hundred years?

Isn't it Bernie Sanders who pronounces "huge" that way because of his thick accent?  I've only started hearing it recently and that could be why.

[backformore]

No, Donald Trump has always said huge as YOUGE.  He did this years ago on celebrity apprentice.  When Bernie Sanders does it, he's imitating  Trump.

[Shannon L.]

Quote

No, Donald Trump has always said huge as YOUGE.  He did this years ago on celebrity apprentice.  When Bernie Sanders does it, he's imitating  Trump.

Ok, thanks.  I knew it was one of them.

[Sandman87]

Everyone is doing it now. I guess "youge" has become YOUGE!