tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403642865904161814.post4474963747993035337..comments2023-10-17T05:19:48.148-04:00Comments on Rose-coloured: Vocabulary Rant: Winter EditionRebecca Rosenblumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10859985178895250412noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403642865904161814.post-34043818445244112422010-01-13T21:21:33.071-05:002010-01-13T21:21:33.071-05:00p.s. i always feel like a bit of a fraud when i us...p.s. i always feel like a bit of a fraud when i use the word 'rhetoric', like i'm not entirely sure what it means, either... but i know YOU do, so that makes me feel better.AMThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04043299823746418746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403642865904161814.post-59551324526974418852010-01-13T21:20:25.814-05:002010-01-13T21:20:25.814-05:00so, i agree completely that it would be great to h...so, i agree completely that it would be great to have a syntax that made the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses completely unambigious...<br /><br />but, uh. your title for this part of the post was 'that which you choose [...] makes a difference'. ... and, uh, isn't that a restrictive reading? i mean, you are talking crucially about the thing being chosen, crucially just that one... no? but i would think that everybody would say *'that that you choose' sounds totally bad (myself included.) <br /><br />just saying: it's not necessarily so clear what exactly this that/which rule is? <br /><br />cheers,<br />amt.AMThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04043299823746418746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403642865904161814.post-92086567289349382892010-01-13T20:16:29.411-05:002010-01-13T20:16:29.411-05:00This post is the first time I've ever heard of...This post is the first time I've ever heard of a confusion between amused and bemused (but it's also the first incorrect pronunciation of 'rhetoric' I've heard of either--my own in that vein was 'vacancy', which I pronounced 'va-CAN-cy' for quite some time), but recently I've been seeing 'nonplussed' used to mean 'pleasantly surprised'.Augusthttp://www.vestige.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403642865904161814.post-5504615429776743932010-01-13T18:59:33.964-05:002010-01-13T18:59:33.964-05:00We've got amused and bemused, no cemused or de...We've got amused and bemused, no cemused or demused; the language is barren 'til we get down to emus.<br /><br />That remark may leave you amused, or bemused.<br /><br />The fact is that bemused <i>does</i> mean amused, in the minds of many native speakers -- and that's the only place that counts. The dictionary lags the living language. Use bemused correctly, and your meaning will be confused.<br /><br />Grammar and usage can only be considered "correct" in context.<br /><br />Anyone see this?<br />http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/books/01book.htmlAndrew Shttp://ajsomerset.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403642865904161814.post-35569858697030976302010-01-13T17:41:33.367-05:002010-01-13T17:41:33.367-05:00People who write "a lot" as one word are...People who write "a lot" as one word are the worst kind.Kerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13169971552802919035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403642865904161814.post-25279591241229660492010-01-13T17:40:07.924-05:002010-01-13T17:40:07.924-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Kerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13169971552802919035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403642865904161814.post-62777467395467033742010-01-13T17:39:32.915-05:002010-01-13T17:39:32.915-05:00I learned how to say rhetoric when we watched Rose...I learned how to say rhetoric when we watched Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead in grade eleven english. And I'm still not entirely 100% sure what it means.Kerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13169971552802919035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403642865904161814.post-72214846501540683902010-01-13T16:50:45.177-05:002010-01-13T16:50:45.177-05:00Have you read this article in the Chronicle of Hig...Have you read this article in the Chronicle of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497/ ?<br /><br />It even addresses that/which.Augusthttp://www.vestige.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403642865904161814.post-69622301893805793202010-01-13T13:27:46.876-05:002010-01-13T13:27:46.876-05:00"is lots" kills me. "ARE lots"..."is lots" kills me. "ARE lots" for the love of God!<br /><br />GillianAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403642865904161814.post-91112850352029587362010-01-13T13:13:14.524-05:002010-01-13T13:13:14.524-05:00"That/which" was one of the things that ..."That/which" was one of the things that bugged me the most when I was a TA (we weren't allowed to mark in red pen, so I would just have to settle for circling it with a big pencil mark.) I'm all for the evolution of language, but only when it doesn't affect how we understand it (ugh, "affect/effect" is another one that totally bugs me).<br /><br />PS. Until I read your post, I thought it was "re-TOR-ick" too.Amyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04996388831366696226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403642865904161814.post-2686950202472795602010-01-13T12:31:37.478-05:002010-01-13T12:31:37.478-05:00"Only one thing counts in this life: get them..."Only one thing counts in this life: get them to sign on the line which is dotted."<br /><br />– <i>Glengarry Glen Ross</i>, David MametSteven W. Beattiehttp://www.stevenwbeattie.comnoreply@blogger.com