|
|
Post by OziRiS on Nov 23, 2016 8:55:04 GMT
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. Really? It took that long? |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 23, 2016 11:27:55 GMT
Have you [GOT] a few moments to think this through.
The sentences above imply the word "got" in there, but dont use it.
Have I got this right or have I this right...
Have I GOT a spare quarter?.. no actually we dont have a coin for 25p in UK.
Have I got a granny?.. no, mine have passed on.
Have I GOT a sister?.. no, not since the [female canine] refused to attend our Fathers funeral.
Has Mr Johnson GOT two girls?.. or is it a Boy and a Gorilla?.. or has he GOT Three girls?..
[note, I spelt Goril wrong and auto-correct "suggested" something that I let slide in because why not?..]
As long as the word "Got" is in the sentences, as I have supplied, the grammar is correct, and in use, in common language all over the UK today.
No one I know would be as silly as to use that terminology without the word "got".
Alternatively you may hear " Does Mr Johnson [Have] two gorillas or is it three "
Or Do you Have a spare 20p....
or do you have a few moments.
Not in my lifetime.
Dropping words like that is never "Correct" in written modern language... and never in spoken?..
May have been "back in the day" before the turn of the century before 1800's, but not anywhere close to anyone's lifetime who may be still alive?..
..is it?.. where?... maybe in a song-writers "buddy have you a spare dime" terminology, but no one I know would use it, or has used it.
And this is the first time I have heard it may have been in common use anywhere....
I have plenty of research on early languages and how English words came into being, but I have sort of a blank spot between 1700 and 1900;s, because the Victorians messed everything up, and nothing of worth remains from them re-inventing what was before.
There were some notable "First" inventions from that time, steam power evolved, Electricity became more usable, and the infernal combustion engine was born, science took a huge leap.
But when it comes to "Social sciences", in how we are supposed to behave, all we got was how to be frigid in public and that stupid stiff upper lip thing that says Men are not supposed to even know what emotions are.
Behaviourally, we de-evolved... scientifically, we made great leaps, and became the workshop of the world, the tinkering shed, the place where things got done.
However...
I do know there has always been two languages.
There is the language of the street, real words, real emotions, used by the "common people", as in, MOST of us, the workforce behind getting things done.
There has also been the language of "The upper crust".....
Thats the stuff that is written about as being what we should be representing to the world...
The "Bogus" world of high-finance and Big Business.
Just maybe those with a silver spoon lodged in a place its going to take a skilled micro-surgeon several hours to remove, there may be a "Certain set" of goits who talk "Like that"..
Think the Upstairs and Below stairs of things such as Downton Abbey kind of TV shows, to use something that is current today in many places on TV...
There was a "Push" at ne point to "Standardise" the English Language, and have us all adhering to the "rules"...
Problem.
The Standard they pushed was "BBC" English, think 1950's type BBC broadcast "Silver spoon" plummy type posh snob language.
Stuff so "Formal" that even the Queen doesnt use it?..
[and I have it on good authority that when one of her Horses kicked her, she swore like a sqaddie.... My Granddad was household guard at both Windsor and Buck House.]
Not all of us talk like that, and if you watch shows like Geordie Shore, and can hear the "west country drawl" of almost Pirate type accent [All pirate talk sounds like Cornwall / Zummerzet / Devon accent because thats where a lot of seafaring folk came from...]
So we have a plethora of different languages in the UK, that have been influenced by our close neighbours, Germanic, Danish, Viking, phrench, Roman, and a few others.
The resistance won out.
Although we now have standard rules on spelling, the pronunciation is left to glorious local accent, and we now are "allowed", like we ever stopped, to celebrate out uniqueness of local identity?.
So in final answer, I do not know of any instances where it would be correct at the detriment of alternatives or to the detriment of the full version using the word "got", to use those sentences like that, and, in truth, if you did try, I suspect you would be questioned on it, as in "Has who what?.. " because no one "talks" like that anywhere, unless you is in "that special snowflake " area of protection kind of thing panic room?..
Or stuck in a room of hoo-harr-heneries who can barely manage a coherent sentence and converse in mumbles....
Haw haw haw haw.... whar, nuver dwink-e-wink wot?..
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Nov 23, 2016 12:22:03 GMT
That's what I thought. Even though the grammarists of the world may think 17th century rules still apply, no one talks that way anymore.
What I've always heard is "has she got a...?" or "does he have an...?", never just "has he a...?"
As I said, the last time I heard that was in a Shakespeare play and you'd have to be some sort of posh git to to insist on speaking like you're constantly in one of those in everyday conversation.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 23, 2016 14:59:28 GMT
That's what I thought. Even though the grammarists of the world may think 17th century rules still apply, no one talks that way anymore. What I've always heard is "has she got a...?" or "does he have an...?", never just "has he a...?" As I said, the last time I heard that was in a Shakespeare play and you'd have to be some sort of posh git to to insist on speaking like you're constantly in one of those in everyday conversation. the other diminutive of "have you got a...?" is "you got a...?" or just "got a...?"  |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 22, 2017 10:34:07 GMT
Duck-Fu. Same as Google-fu, but no so monopolithic... "google that" refers to internet search, but I dont google, because they are "Watching you", and because of that, they are slow, and prefer to put a lot of useless advertisements in their page ranking. I use a search engine that promises to be fee of all of that, duckduckgo.com/ "the search engine that doesnt track you", also available as an add-on to firefox.... Am I shamelessly promoting that site?.. No, I ask, if you can find a better one, please let me know?.. Anyway, back to the term.. Duck-fu... Its a question... "What the duck-fu was that" Its a statement "Go duck-fu yourself and get over yourself!" [ if you dont appear on the internet, then you are that insignificant?.. ] [1]Its a whole lot more, and its not corporate advertising. [1] However, I have spent a lot of time ensuring I dont appear on the internet, because of privacy, [.shy?..]I know there is someone somewhere trying to place "who da duck-fu is that" my face as seen passing a CCTV camera but cant find out who owns that face, and its probably annoying them, but as I have no reason to be significant enough to be of interest, they have no reason to hold a file on me?. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 6, 2017 22:47:11 GMT
at Silver's request:
Whargarbl (n) a speech, oration, essay, or other communication that consists of a huge pile of nonsense intended to confuse people into agreeing with the producer. Essentially, an argument that fails to achieve a sufficiently high standard to be considered a fallacy.
already in common use in politics
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 7, 2017 14:05:07 GMT
at Silver's request: Whargarbl (n) a speech, oration, essay, or other communication that consists of a huge pile of nonsense intended to confuse people into agreeing with the producer. Essentially, an argument that fails to achieve a sufficiently high standard to be considered a fallacy. already in common use in politics Added it to the list, but it needs an example. Can you give one? ADDENDUM: Preferably one that doesn't name a specific person. I don't want the dictionary to have political connotations or opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 7, 2017 14:34:18 GMT
at Silver's request: Whargarbl (n) a speech, oration, essay, or other communication that consists of a huge pile of nonsense intended to confuse people into agreeing with the producer. Essentially, an argument that fails to achieve a sufficiently high standard to be considered a fallacy. already in common use in politics Added it to the list, but it needs an example. Can you give one? ADDENDUM: Preferably one that doesn't name a specific person. I don't want the dictionary to have political connotations or opinions. the only example presently coming to mind is from Starship Troopers. it would be the male scientist in this clip. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 9, 2017 9:52:44 GMT
Expand the dictionary, may I RE-Introduce an old word here.
Prat.
It is slang, or was slang, for buttocks.
It spread to include incompetence, lazy, and stupidity.
It is "Mild" slang, its not a red-card slang.
So if someone is too damn lazy or stupid to go get help and just does a bodge-job to cover up their own incompetence, they are being a prat.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 10, 2017 13:54:12 GMT
Expand the dictionary, may I RE-Introduce an old word here. Prat. It is slang, or was slang, for buttocks. It spread to include incompetence, lazy, and stupidity. It is "Mild" slang, its not a red-card slang. So if someone is too damn lazy or stupid to go get help and just does a bodge-job to cover up their own incompetence, they are being a prat. I wasn't aware it had gone out of use...? |
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Feb 10, 2017 17:18:13 GMT
In the tech world, a common phrase is "matches current functionality". I think everyone here would agree that another phrase that should be added is, "matches current disfunctionality". I was testing a new website and ran across something that really shouldn't have been broken, but it was. HOWEVER, since it was broken on the new site too, when I reported the issue, I used the phrase "matches current disfunctionality". Folks seemed to enjoy that description  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 10, 2017 18:08:32 GMT
In the tech world, a common phrase is "matches current functionality". I think everyone here would agree that another phrase that should be added is, "matches current disfunctionality". I was testing a new website and ran across something that really shouldn't have been broken, but it was. HOWEVER, since it was broken on the new site too, when I reported the issue, I used the phrase "matches current disfunctionality". Folks seemed to enjoy that description I've found that tech geeks like anything of that nature. "definition of an upgrade: take oldbugs out, put new bugs in." |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 12, 2017 23:42:58 GMT
In the tech world, a common phrase is "matches current functionality". I think everyone here would agree that another phrase that should be added is, "matches current disfunctionality". I was testing a new website and ran across something that really shouldn't have been broken, but it was. HOWEVER, since it was broken on the new site too, when I reported the issue, I used the phrase "matches current disfunctionality". Folks seemed to enjoy that description Just to be sure before putting it on the list (because it IS going on the list ), how would you say the term is to be correctly used? Is it a question of the new thing basically being the same as the old thing (bugs and all), but with a purely cosmetic makeover, or would it still apply if the new thing did have improvements, but some specific things that should have been better are still the same? Example of the first version: You go out and buy a new car, only to find that it's basically the same as your old one. It has everything you liked about the old one, but you quickly realize it also has everything you didn't like. The only difference is how it looks and the fact that it's new. Other than that, it's more or less the exact same car. Example of the second version: You go out and buy a new car specifically because your old one has electrical problems and you're sick of it. Your new car has a lot of features the old one didn't and they're all really nice, but the electrical system sucks on this one too, which was the one thing you really felt like you needed fixed and the entire reason you bought a new car to begin with. |
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Feb 13, 2017 2:14:22 GMT
Good question. In the context I was using it, #1 would be the more accurate. The webpage had a face-lift, but the wrinkles still showed through, LOL I would say it's not going to have all the same bugs, it will have some improvements, but at the same time, some of the most basic bugs, that clearly should have been fixed, haven't been. I see why there may be some confusion... I had a typo above. I've corrected it below In the tech world, a common phrase is "matches current functionality". I think everyone here would agree that another phrase that should be added is, "matches current disfunctionality". I was testing a new website and ran across something that really shouldn't have been broken, but it was. HOWEVER, since it was broken on the old site too, when I reported the issue, I used the phrase "matches current disfunctionality". Folks seemed to enjoy that description |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 13, 2017 10:23:56 GMT
Can I add a word I have used on the board today for the first time?..
"Lagom".
Its Swedish for "Sufficient" in the same way as not too much and not too little but enough for all where everyone gets enough.
Its that comfort zone when all the food is gone but no one is looking for more, you know you did "Lagom"
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 13, 2017 11:35:06 GMT
Omnishambles.
Not only just for politicians, but I have mostly heard this phrase used recently as a polite way of saying FUBAR,or right-royal-total-[duck]-up, snafu, which all describe the recent "#-tag=FAIL" which has been the launch of the labour party manifesto.
The draft manifesto?.. how can they call it that?.. Draft is a word that means rough, manifest means basically become clear to the eye, so its a total misnomer to call anything a draft manifesto?.. again, omnishambles... omnishabloic-total-fail if it needs any extra help.
This is a bit like setting of for a 100 mile bike ride on two flat tyres... and no brakes...and never learnt to ride in the first place...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 17, 2017 3:00:40 GMT
"internet famous"
adjective: used to denote a person who has established a significant internet presence, but is completely unknown offline.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 17, 2017 7:31:52 GMT
"internet famous" adjective: used to denote a person who has established a significant internet presence, but is completely unknown offline. I'm sorry, your who?.. Saying internet famous is famous is like saying someone who just came in from a rainstorm is "Relatively dry in comparison"... With what?.. a Fish?.. I have seen the TeeVee channels desperately trying to "Catch on" with some internet famous people, by trying to cros platform them onto mainstream TeeVee shows, and failing badly. Just because they are internet, does not mean they are newsworthy... Someone who has 1,000 viewers is relatively obscure. However, bringing someone who has as many worldwide viewers as the shows host of the show they are about to appear on, onto a regional news channel... a regional news channel that has maybe one city watching it... they are about as relevant as the cameraman. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 17, 2017 13:35:01 GMT
"internet famous" adjective: used to denote a person who has established a significant internet presence, but is completely unknown offline. I'm sorry, your who?.. Saying internet famous is famous is like saying someone who just came in from a rainstorm is "Relatively dry in comparison"... With what?.. a Fish?.. I have seen the TeeVee channels desperately trying to "Catch on" with some internet famous people, by trying to cros platform them onto mainstream TeeVee shows, and failing badly. Just because they are internet, does not mean they are newsworthy... Someone who has 1,000 viewers is relatively obscure. However, bringing someone who has as many worldwide viewers as the shows host of the show they are about to appear on, onto a regional news channel... a regional news channel that has maybe one city watching it... they are about as relevant as the cameraman. just as I said. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 22, 2017 14:33:06 GMT
what would be the land based equivalent of "CFIT" - Controlled Flight Into Terrain?
the official term for crashing an airplane by hitting something you could have avoided had you known it was there.
it became relevant last night.
|
|
