tue skinny Posted February 19, 2002 Share Posted February 19, 2002 sweet. its good to have you back . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jah Posted February 19, 2002 Share Posted February 19, 2002 if ur gonna carry on this topic, u should start a new thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest THE LAW Posted February 21, 2002 Share Posted February 21, 2002 if you're gonna peep this thread, you should shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iCEBERG Posted February 21, 2002 Share Posted February 21, 2002 whats a matter sunshine? need a hug? i got some hugs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motha Fuka Posted February 22, 2002 Share Posted February 22, 2002 spelling sux i dont spell i write and i do know how to spell well and whatever i type up is not spelling words its typin em and ill type anythin to shortn a fukn word too but i wont rite it so fuck whatever moral is: im a fukn moron whos got sumtin to prove so i'll akt lik a retard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Posted February 23, 2002 Share Posted February 23, 2002 Question for THE LAW: Why do you refer to yourself in the third person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iCEBERG Posted February 23, 2002 Share Posted February 23, 2002 heh that guy spelt character wrong. http://www.klcafe.com/imimg/saojeong.jpg'> sorry bout the picture, its for the law, so he cheers up. gettin all emotional an shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rivers Cuomo Posted February 26, 2002 Share Posted February 26, 2002 "Although Douglass’ autobiography was assumed to have been written for slaves,....." How do I make this sentence non-passive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Are2 Posted February 26, 2002 Share Posted February 26, 2002 " It was assumed that Douglass' autobio was written for slaves.." ..i'm not sure if this works as non-passive..i don't think it does how about.. "At the time it was published, popular opinion was that the book was written for slaves..." "Many assumed that the book was written for slaves.." "People generally assumed the book was written for slaves.." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 I wonder how much the general ignorance displayed around here (by some) is related to the waning popularity of breast feeding... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracked Ass Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 Originally posted by Are2 " It was assumed that Douglass' autobio was written for slaves.." ..i'm not sure if this works as non-passive..i don't think it does how about.. "At the time it was published, popular opinion was that the book was written for slaves..." "Many assumed that the book was written for slaves.." "People generally assumed the book was written for slaves.." The first two don't work. They are in the passive voice. The second two are in the active voice. -It was assumed by people.- passive voice. -People assumed.- active voice. Passive voice is popular these days because it takes the spotlight off of WHO. "We made mistakes"-active "Mistakes were made"-passive Which phrasing would you choose when faced with a lawsuit? In trying to get rid of the passive voice, just find out WHO did the verb. Your sentence uses the passive voice TWICE - "It was assumed" and "book was written". Find out WHO assumed and WHO wrote and name them. "People assumed that Douglass wrote the book for slaves." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracked Ass Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 OK, here it is, Orwell's essay on language, written in 1946 but unfortunately very, very relevant today. http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html Read and absorb. Now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Are2 Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 i am assimilated resistance was futile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Mang Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 the misuse fo the word 'your' kills me . . . "your stupid!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Tesseract Posted February 28, 2002 Share Posted February 28, 2002 1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. 2. Never us a long word where a short one will do. 3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. 4. Never use the passive where you can use the active. 5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. 6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Tesseract Posted February 28, 2002 Share Posted February 28, 2002 However, language snobs get on my nerves and rules do to. The whole essey is kinda sovinistic, to british and one sided. I dont think that this applies(sp?) in the states or any other country that has its own history. The whole globe is 'forced' to speak english in a way. This fact makes english a language that is constantly transformed and modified not always in a bad way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracked Ass Posted March 1, 2002 Share Posted March 1, 2002 Tesseract, I think you overreacted there. I also don't get your snob comments. It almost seems like you didn't read the essay. Orwell isn't being a snob. He even says "It has nothing to do with correct grammar and syntax, which are of no importance so long as one makes one's meaning clear." Perhaps you could elaborate, because your reactions puzzle me. You're coming at me (and Are2) from left field somewhere. The main reason the essay resonates with me is how he mentions the decadence of the language making it easier to have "foolish thoughts". He's dead on with that. Same goes for the bland megasyllabic mush politicians use to disguise their intent. Americans think it's OK these days to pass laws to "send a message", whatever the fuck that means. When Americans are interviewed on the street by news people I notice them parroting whatever ready-made phrase was used by the speaker whose speech they were asked about, and when asked to elaborate they become lost and all but confess that they don't understand what they're talking about. Straight-up doublespeak is on the rise, the biggest perpetrators being corporations. Take the phone company for example. They have made their billing statements much harder to read or understand in order to sneak bogus charges past the unobservant customer. At the top, they say precisely the opposite: "This is our new billing format which makes it easier to understand your bill." I'm too tired to give more examples, but Orwell is on point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest THE LAW Posted March 1, 2002 Share Posted March 1, 2002 these cats have claws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Tesseract Posted March 1, 2002 Share Posted March 1, 2002 "Language is an instrument which we shape for our own purposes" I just read Orwell's essay again and although language is always a barrier for me, i think i have a clear picture of what he's talking about. Influenced by his ideas, which i totally approve, i feel the need to apologise for the poor form my original post had and to clarify that my comments where opossing to the fact that the particular essay is a utopia, where i'd like to live but unfortunately i never will. To begin with i want to say that my argument is based on the fact that today the whole western world is forced to speak english in order to survive. To avoid further confusion on what 'Western world' is i'll say that the 'west' i'm talking about consists from all the countries that have at least one McDonalds restaurant. The invasion of english language in our lives is the result of two things, the expansiveness of capitalistic economy and one's need to educate him self and be exposed to the things that happen in the rest of the world, especially if living in a small country. A political force on one side and and a simple need on the other. Imagine that on a daily basis i communicate and think using two languages and that i use terms, idioms and words that very often can be translated and if they do they still hold a different and more precise meaning in their original form. The primary cause of that situation as a whole is strictly political, it has to do with the nature of capitalism. However i dont feel the need to blame anyone either adopt a chauvinistic attitude. On a personal level all this works in a good way for me (communicating with writers all over the globe through this site for example). On a national level and as citizen of a country i have a fair amount of arguments expressed by a political view, but thats a different story. When it comes to language and english usage, i feel the need to support and claim my history through the way i express my self, speak proper and clear english(try at least!) but still hold my identity. A very lousy and extreme example is thisspeech, i dont approve that but i thing it serves something here. The point of all that is that when i say phenomenon or even Achilles' heel i know exaclty what i'm talking about, its part of my history and its very precise in meaning. In my opinion english dont belong to anyone anymore, America has a lot to do with that and although i'm not in favor of chaos and confusion, i choose to shape language for my own purposes by showing you were i come from with my accent and vocabulary while respecting grammar. If my $$$ are respected so should my history. To end this i concider that anyone who takes this essay literaly and seeks pureness in english is a snob in a way. Dont get me wrong, i agree with everything Orwell said in his entire body of work but 1946 isnt 2002, especially after '1984'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Tesseract Posted March 1, 2002 Share Posted March 1, 2002 Are2, since you deleted your posts, i deleted mine also cause it was pointless. I tried to contact you via mail about this but your address isnt available. So, i'll post in here. I read the replies today with a better mood, shit was ugly and although i still dont like the form, if it was a joke...i apologise for bad mood. The internet gets really wacky sometimes. No hard feelings i hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Are2 Posted March 1, 2002 Share Posted March 1, 2002 cool absolutely no hard feelings.. i didn't mean to seem ignorant to your multilingualism (i don't know if that's a word, but fuggit) and i also didn't want to smap back and start drama ... as an addendum, in certain parts of the u.s., it is getting tougher to get by without spanish..i know in parts of the south, people who work in public health and other community organizations are much better off bilingual. ... i can also understand the frustration with the americanization of the globe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted March 1, 2002 Share Posted March 1, 2002 I swear, I just mention tits and all hell breaks loose! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dee Snyder Posted March 2, 2002 Share Posted March 2, 2002 http://www.deeischristina.com/image014.jpg'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abstract Rationality Posted March 2, 2002 Share Posted March 2, 2002 This is the funniest thread in this fucking web site. Every time I read through this thread I crack the fuck up. The Law's the shieeeeet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodice_ripper Posted March 6, 2002 Share Posted March 6, 2002 Originally posted by Tesseract 1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. 2. Never us a long word where a short one will do. 3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. 5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. 6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. I don't like rules in language. The best part about english is the sheer number of words available, so I find it is best to try for the most accurate and effective word possible to convey a thought. I agree wholeheartedly with number 6! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest unoprimero Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 DEFINITELY, definitely definitely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASER1NE Posted March 9, 2002 Share Posted March 9, 2002 i dont like them rules either , i hate ppl who are vauge and cant express themselves accurately , i like to use big and or scientific words in order to be more articulate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iCEBERG Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 you see, you got it all discomboblutated. the misundamacommunimications on this intermanet mesagamy boards are due to the sheer lack of unedumacated users who find it proverbalonamly in its acquired hilarousness because of the ramamamafacations of another person or persons actions, they fail to realize the comsiquentisentials of what their doing. see for every action there is an equality force known as a ractin, and its this ractin the steers me to the consamaclusion that people tend to "jump the gun" and now untill you realize it or not, you are ignorant other wise :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teister Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 Why did I never bother to look at this thread before? It's really very funny. I've always had a problem with people who couldn't spell. Don't people read? I mean, it's not that hard really, to just spell the right way. And just because you happen to be a thug doesn't mean you can't speak properly. A thug is just tough. Look it up. Just someone who happens to be violent and so forth. There's no need to prove your thugitude by spelling things like an idiot. (Thugitude is a new word that I just made up so I don't think there's a correct spelling for it yet.) Anyways, if writers were more literate, maybe we wouldn't be looked at as such criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HAL Posted March 12, 2002 Share Posted March 12, 2002 separate or seperate? "You need a knife to separate the two pieces." "That's a seperate part from the whole." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.