|
Post by the light works on Oct 2, 2016 0:31:07 GMT
it flows well. it also has the quirk that it sounds vaguely like spitting, which seems appropriate. Didn't notice that until you pointed it out, but now that you mention it, yeah it does bare a vague resemblance to the noise someone might make while spitting and yes, that does seem very appropriate. Also, there's the added bonus that we could easily fit in a "super" or "hyper" prefix if we ever came across anyone who was even more pretusional than this one Side note: I'm thinking of editing my second post in this thread to provide a dictionary-like list of all the words we come up with. You know, so we won't have to go through pages and pages of posts to find the one we're looking for if we need it. sounds like a fair bit of work. it would make it convenient, though.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 2, 2016 12:23:30 GMT
Didn't notice that until you pointed it out, but now that you mention it, yeah it does bare a vague resemblance to the noise someone might make while spitting and yes, that does seem very appropriate. Also, there's the added bonus that we could easily fit in a "super" or "hyper" prefix if we ever came across anyone who was even more pretusional than this one Side note: I'm thinking of editing my second post in this thread to provide a dictionary-like list of all the words we come up with. You know, so we won't have to go through pages and pages of posts to find the one we're looking for if we need it. sounds like a fair bit of work. it would make it convenient, though. We haven't gotten all that far with this thread. I think we're up to three or four words, so there isn't that much work in it as of right now. When I'm done with it, if anyone has suggestions for changes to definitions and whatnot, just say so and I'll go back and change them to whatever we end up agreeing on.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 2, 2016 19:19:55 GMT
Okay, so it was more than three or four words. We're actually up to nine. I'm glad I got this done now, instead of waiting until we'd crossed the 20 mark
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 2, 2016 21:00:53 GMT
Okay, so it was more than three or four words. We're actually up to nine. I'm glad I got this done now, instead of waiting until we'd crossed the 20 mark you missed hypertentious which is an extreme state of assuming status you don't actually have.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 2, 2016 21:13:05 GMT
Okay, so it was more than three or four words. We're actually up to nine. I'm glad I got this done now, instead of waiting until we'd crossed the 20 mark you missed hypertentious which is an extreme state of assuming status you don't actually have. I thought we agreed that would be covered by "pretusional" and we'd just throw in the "super" or "hyper" prefix if we ever found a worse case than Girlfriend's English teacher...? I don't see a reason to have two separate words with the same definition. We could throw it in as an alternative/synonym, though.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 2, 2016 21:49:36 GMT
you missed hypertentious which is an extreme state of assuming status you don't actually have. I thought we agreed that would be covered by "pretusional" and we'd just throw in the "super" or "hyper" prefix if we ever found a worse case than Girlfriend's English teacher...? I don't see a reason to have two separate words with the same definition. We could throw it in as an alternative/synonym, though. I think it is a nuanced enough concept it can have two words.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 2, 2016 22:35:48 GMT
I thought we agreed that would be covered by "pretusional" and we'd just throw in the "super" or "hyper" prefix if we ever found a worse case than Girlfriend's English teacher...? I don't see a reason to have two separate words with the same definition. We could throw it in as an alternative/synonym, though. I think it is a nuanced enough concept it can have two words. It now has three
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 15, 2016 18:18:11 GMT
I stole this from an interwebz denizen who goes by "fumes"
Ostrass: (n) a journalist who has his head in the sand and distributes opinions out of the other end.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 16, 2016 9:21:59 GMT
I stole this from an interwebz denizen who goes by "fumes" Ostrass: (n) a journalist who has his head in the sand and distributes opinions out of the other end. I like it We could make it our own by taking the same concept and changing the word to "asstrich".
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 16, 2016 14:10:03 GMT
I stole this from an interwebz denizen who goes by "fumes" Ostrass: (n) a journalist who has his head in the sand and distributes opinions out of the other end. I like it We could make it our own by taking the same concept and changing the word to "asstrich". we could be really politically incorrect and use both, but make them gender specific.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 19, 2016 8:01:59 GMT
I like it We could make it our own by taking the same concept and changing the word to "asstrich". we could be really politically incorrect and use both, but make them gender specific. Love it! Let's do that! I propose "asstrich" as the female version. The "ich" at the end makes it sound a lot like another well known epithet for annoying/stupid/obnoxious women
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 19, 2016 14:05:11 GMT
we could be really politically incorrect and use both, but make them gender specific. Love it! Let's do that! I propose "asstrich" as the female version. The "ich" at the end makes it sound a lot like another well known epithet for annoying/stupid/obnoxious women I'd been thinking the other way around. having ass at the end sounds close to having ess at the end, which matched many gender specific terms. it's a tricky call. your way does have two epithets for the price of one, that way.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 20, 2016 5:41:48 GMT
I would suggest not making the definition of which is what. Whilst the serially offended are wasting time trying to define which is which, they are leaving some poor bugger who doesnt deserve it alone?...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 24, 2016 16:28:14 GMT
Reactivist (re-activist): a person who takes the notion of non-discrimination to such an extreme that they allow the "discriminated party" to ignore laws which apply to the rest of society.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 3, 2016 8:01:13 GMT
From the wonderful world of the ESM....
Snowflakeist.
As in, I am loud-and-proud, snowflakist, I am against all they protagonist for or against, I despise their very being, even to a state of being definitively "racist" against their very type.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 6, 2016 12:04:35 GMT
Backpfeifengesicht
I need to invoke C64 on this, or anyone else who knows the Germanic language, better than my basic knowledge. I am reliably informed that this is the German compound word for "Face badly in need of a slap" [or fist or crowbar or just removing with extreme prejudice..] It seems to exist in many online dictionaries, even in the second page of results past the first page of loads of site that promise to define the word if you can just sign up for a lifetimes subscription to the site kind of site that you know are just a scam...
If you want to know who has that Backpfeifengesicht, then just think of the person that even though you are using an internet search engine of your own choosing, has decided that they can do it better for you, and why didnt you ask them first, and you really need to put them as you default search engine anyway, even though we know they are just a badly skinned "gooogoole" replacement, you are going to be foolish to "Sign up" to them, because they say so.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Nov 22, 2016 12:41:23 GMT
I have an English grammar question and I thought this would be the best place to put it, since this is already a thread about language.
Boy brought home his English book from school yesterday and I'm sad to say that I had to correct a few things, because apparently the author of the book, the editor, the publisher, the people at the Ministry of Education who okay these things and his English teacher all missed it. There were a few spelling mistakes that could just be typos, but there were also a couple of grammatical errors. However, there's one I initially told Boy was a mistake that I now have my doubts about.
On one page, the kids were asked a series of yes or no questions about a text they'd read. Some of the questions stood out to me as having a weird structure. They said stuff like, "Has Tom a sister?" and "Has Mrs. Johnson two girls?"
I know this was once considered grammatically correct, but is it still? Does anyone really say things like, "Have you a spare quarter?" or "Hasn't he a penny?" in 2016? The last time I heard someone speak a sentence like that was in a Shakespeare play. Most English speakers and writers I know of would have used, "Do you have a spare quarter?" or "Doesn't he have a penny?", but does that mean the other way is wrong today, or does it just mean that language usage has outrun official grammar, so it's still technically correct but just rarely used?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 22, 2016 15:33:48 GMT
I have an English grammar question and I thought this would be the best place to put it, since this is already a thread about language. Boy brought home his English book from school yesterday and I'm sad to say that I had to correct a few things, because apparently the author of the book, the editor, the publisher, the people at the Ministry of Education who okay these things and his English teacher all missed it. There were a few spelling mistakes that could just be typos, but there were also a couple of grammatical errors. However, there's one I initially told Boy was a mistake that I now have my doubts about. On one page, the kids were asked a series of yes or no questions about a text they'd read. Some of the questions stood out to me as having a weird structure. They said stuff like, "Has Tom a sister?" and "Has Mrs. Johnson two girls?" I know this was once considered grammatically correct, but is it still? Does anyone really say things like, "Have you a spare quarter?" or "Hasn't he a penny?" in 2016? The last time I heard someone speak a sentence like that was in a Shakespeare play. Most English speakers and writers I know of would have used, "Do you have a spare quarter?" or "Doesn't he have a penny?", but does that mean the other way is wrong today, or does it just mean that language usage has outrun official grammar, so it's still technically correct but just rarely used? usage has left it behind. it is technically correct, but its only current use is identifying people who haven't grown up speaking english as a first language.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Nov 22, 2016 20:02:55 GMT
I have an English grammar question and I thought this would be the best place to put it, since this is already a thread about language. Boy brought home his English book from school yesterday and I'm sad to say that I had to correct a few things, because apparently the author of the book, the editor, the publisher, the people at the Ministry of Education who okay these things and his English teacher all missed it. There were a few spelling mistakes that could just be typos, but there were also a couple of grammatical errors. However, there's one I initially told Boy was a mistake that I now have my doubts about. On one page, the kids were asked a series of yes or no questions about a text they'd read. Some of the questions stood out to me as having a weird structure. They said stuff like, "Has Tom a sister?" and "Has Mrs. Johnson two girls?" I know this was once considered grammatically correct, but is it still? Does anyone really say things like, "Have you a spare quarter?" or "Hasn't he a penny?" in 2016? The last time I heard someone speak a sentence like that was in a Shakespeare play. Most English speakers and writers I know of would have used, "Do you have a spare quarter?" or "Doesn't he have a penny?", but does that mean the other way is wrong today, or does it just mean that language usage has outrun official grammar, so it's still technically correct but just rarely used? usage has left it behind. it is technically correct, but its only current use is identifying people who haven't grown up speaking english as a first language. I already knew that Americans don't use it. If any ever have, I'd be willing to bet we're talking 1920 or earlier. I'd like to hear from some of our Brits on this, as the current curriculum in Danish schools has the kids learning British English.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 23, 2016 1:44:03 GMT
usage has left it behind. it is technically correct, but its only current use is identifying people who haven't grown up speaking english as a first language. I already knew that Americans don't use it. If any ever have, I'd be willing to bet we're talking 1920 or earlier. I'd like to hear from some of our Brits on this, as the current curriculum in Danish schools has the kids learning British English. I'm thinking it faded around the 50s and 60s.
|
|