Sonik3000 Posted May 3, 2002 Share Posted May 3, 2002 I refuse to be corrected on matters of grammatical minutiae by a person who hasn't figured out the its/it's thing yet. Don't get into a pissing contest with a skunk, foo'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colour Posted May 3, 2002 Share Posted May 3, 2002 regardless im right youre wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonik3000 Posted May 3, 2002 Share Posted May 3, 2002 If so, punk, I challenge you or Cracked Ass to find an authoritative source - not yourselves - that says so. I'll happily concede if you can actually back up your yap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Are2 Posted May 3, 2002 Share Posted May 3, 2002 i guess things got heated while i was gone..;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonik3000 Posted May 3, 2002 Share Posted May 3, 2002 yah dood... nothing gets the blood up like grammar. keep your hands up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodice_ripper Posted May 4, 2002 Share Posted May 4, 2002 Originally posted by Sonik3000 yah dood... nothing gets the blood up like grammar. keep your hands up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted May 4, 2002 Share Posted May 4, 2002 from one skunk to another Somethine unique is in a class by itself, being the only one of its kind or without equal. In careful usage, the adjective is construed as an absolute; the quality it expresses cannot be said to vary in degree or intensity, and is consequently incapable of comparison. Therefore expressions such as more unique and most unique, indicating comparison, should be avoided, as shout rather (or somewhat) unique and very unique. Each of these modifiers may be used with adjectives such as unusual, remarkable, rare, or exceptional, which are not absolute. Unique may be modified by terms that do not imply degree in the sense noted; each of these is acceptable: really (or quite, meaning truly) unique; almost (or nearly) unique; more (or most) nearly unique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracked Ass Posted May 4, 2002 Share Posted May 4, 2002 Got a source there tough guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted May 4, 2002 Share Posted May 4, 2002 Originally posted by Cracked Ass Got a source there tough guy? haha, that was mostly freestyle w/ a little help from The American Heritage Dictionary, but very little. I was inspired by you, and, as always, I paraphrase my memories of Fowler. I can, however, provide sourced material if it MUST come to that. Seriously though, I would take it as a HUGE personal affront if our pal Sonik wants to raise himself to some level of literary expertise greater than my own. I certainly consider you to be on "our" level" as well, so I feel as if has insulted you. You spend much more time with him though, and I say things to my best freinds I would never say to others, so it's good, but... Sonik's snobbery will not make him smarter than me, conversely, I think he's stunting himself. That said, let me qualify: I only disagree with 2 of Sonik's usages, "completely unique" and "utterly unique", both are clearly redundant. It seems a bit obvious, like an elephant in the room. *further qualification: I don't say any of this to provoke Sonik in any way. I am confident in my position but I don't mean him to take umbrage. I also will not stand idly by as he foists his grammatical quirks on 10,000 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonik3000 Posted May 4, 2002 Share Posted May 4, 2002 No problems here with Smart's reply. The snippiness of my previous posts was directed at Colour, who doesn't bother to explain himself. Now - "utterly" and "completely" are not comparatives in the same sense of "more" and "most." The latter two are not to be paired with unique. The former two aren't great, stylistically, but I don't feel there's anything wrong with them. My original reply took issue with Cracked's post which gave the impression that unique was never to be paired with any modifier whatsoever, which as we've fleshed out, isn't the case. There is nothing wrong with being - for instance - textually unique. Selective redundancy is also a fine literary tool when used well. And remember, only beef will ever make this shit interesting to others, so let's fling it. Snobbersonik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest THE LAW Posted May 4, 2002 Share Posted May 4, 2002 you were probably up at 6 this morning huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted May 4, 2002 Share Posted May 4, 2002 Originally posted by Sonik3000 Selective redundancy is also a fine literary tool when used well. And remember, only beef will ever make this shit interesting to others, so let's fling it. Snobbersonik Well, I agree that redundancy has its applications. However, as with hyperbole, one must exercise taste to avoid sounding trite. I'm also pleased to see we're on the same page with the 'shit flinging' but there were a few instances when Seeking boiled over so now I like to flesh these things out before hand. Also, I guess we're all snobs, or we would be here arguing about this. How do you catch a unique rabbit? Unique up on it! har har How do you catch a tame rabbit? Tame way, unique up on it! WHEW! I slay myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonik3000 Posted May 5, 2002 Share Posted May 5, 2002 I get up at six am, I like tight pussy, loose shoes, and a warm place to shit. God bless you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suburbian bum Posted May 5, 2002 Share Posted May 5, 2002 Ifn you fellers is wantin a dictionary reken urself on down to www.dictionary.com it works pretty durn well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suburbian bum Posted May 5, 2002 Share Posted May 5, 2002 Originally posted by Smart How do you catch a unique rabbit? Unique up on it! har har How do you catch a tame rabbit? Tame way, unique up on it! WHEW! I slay myself. HAHAHAHA, i seriously read that 5 times before i got it. Very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodice_ripper Posted May 5, 2002 Share Posted May 5, 2002 Originally posted by suburbian bum Ifn you fellers is wantin a dictionary reken urself on down to www.dictionary.com it works pretty durn well. And it even has a thesaurus - for the Vocabularyily (te hee) Challenged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracked Ass Posted May 6, 2002 Share Posted May 6, 2002 MACINTOSH COMPUTERS SUCK. This one made my long reply vanish for no fucking reason, so I'll have to give the short version. Grammar beef is sublime. Witness the edition of the American Heritage Dictionary which pits William F. Buckley Jr. against some other dude in a pro/con essay battle over whether usage should be the chief determinant of acceptability. That said, I'm sticking to my original stance: that "unique", though not technically a superlative, functions as one for the purpose of modifiers, and takes none save for things like Sonik's "textually unique", which describes the sphere in which the subject is unique and does not try to imply a hierarchy of things unique. However, "utterly" and "completely" do attempt to drag "unique" down to a level where it can be quantified and therefore improved upon. I don't buy these meddlers. "Unique" is a qualitative word, not a quantitative one. Its etymology is based on the root meaning "one" - it stands alone. I suppose one could stand utterly alone, but even if it's correct grammatically you won't find me using it stylistically. Our next word is one a lot of people have trouble understanding, but I would think graffiti writers would have an easy time with UBIQUITOUS, since it's what we all strive to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HAL Posted May 6, 2002 Share Posted May 6, 2002 dood this gramer shit is lik hot yo!!! u foolz broke a nigga off alot!!! i wan2 com 2 u giys wen i nead help wit my anglish homeworks!!! ill get a A+ in it when your helping me with it!!!! shout out 2 my homys upstate- lil rock,g blaz,EZ nice,kool Q!!!!!! u no u still my niggaz evin tho im out!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cultural me Posted May 6, 2002 Share Posted May 6, 2002 this could actully help, like what if your out painting and shit and you wanna paint a quote or verse or soemting like that next to it and you go to spell something like "you're" but you spell it "your" and people think you dumb.....i dono, im eleveated so i know what im talkin about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted May 7, 2002 Share Posted May 7, 2002 So... what's the issue with ubiquitous? I would call it the state of being, or seeming to be, everywhere at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanedigital Posted May 7, 2002 Share Posted May 7, 2002 hey... I haven't taken the time to read all eleven pages of these shenannigans, but my oh my... Will you PLEASE clarify for all of these lovely English professors to be... Would HAVE... not would OF... damn that pisses me off... bahhhhhh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted May 7, 2002 Share Posted May 7, 2002 'would of' makes no sense... basically, the problem arises from poor diction. Would of is a bastardization of the contraction of would have i.e. would've Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonik3000 Posted May 7, 2002 Share Posted May 7, 2002 Ubiquitous... Ubi (where, in Latin) + Qui (who, in Latin) + Tous = "the who that is where!" ubi nihil est ibi nihil vales where there is nothing there you should want nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Are2 Posted May 7, 2002 Share Posted May 7, 2002 Originally posted by Smart So... what's the issue with ubiquitous? I would call it the state of being, or seeming to be, everywhere at once. naw, that's omniscient ...and when are we gonna get to that vs. which ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonik3000 Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 Whoop - ya wrong, Are2. Omniscient means all knowing. Omni (all) + sciens (knowing) = knows-it-all! That's me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracked Ass Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 I believe Are2 was thinking of omnipresent, a synonym of ubiquitous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracked Ass Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 I might ask, what situations involving "that" and "which" does anyone find confusing? I can't think of any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 Originally posted by Sonik3000 Whoop - ya wrong, Are2. Omniscient means all knowing. Omni (all) + sciens (knowing) = knows-it-all! That's me! HAHAHAHA, you ain't the only one. You, Cracked and me, we form the classic triumvirate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intangible Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 I swear I can learn more here then I can from my english teacher..............hooked on 12oz worked for me...is that what you all wanted to hear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Are2 Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 Originally posted by Cracked Ass I believe Are2 was thinking of omnipresent, a synonym of ubiquitous. of course.. i guess i smoke to much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.