- Welcome to ExKayEnDay.
ExKayEnDay
Under Construction
Recent posts
#51
Mmmmm... Yummy! / Your stuffing/dressing recipes
Last post by SepiaAndDust - Nov 04, 2024, 04:30 PMMy recipe is Open a box of Stouffer's Stovetop Stuffing and follow the directions. But I've had some truly amazing homemade varieties made by other people. Some have chunks of turkey inside. Some have boiled eggs. Some have hot peppers. One had raisins. One especially infamous dish from my younger days had all the celery (didn't care for that one).
So, with US Thanksgiving fast approaching, what are your favorite varieties, even if you don't necessarily know the recipe?
So, with US Thanksgiving fast approaching, what are your favorite varieties, even if you don't necessarily know the recipe?
#52
Nuts & Bolts / Usage Wars: split infinitives
Last post by SepiaAndDust - Nov 04, 2024, 04:27 PMHave any of you been taught the "rule" to not split your infinitives? ( 
)
I just realized that we're in the 40th anniversary of its demise. In 1983, the Chicago Manual of Style removed its long-standing preference for infinitives that remained intact, and after a hundred years of oppression, we were once again able to split infinitives to our little hearts' content.
So RIP, you son of a bitch.
I ran across a poster on these forums a few years ago who was a staunch opponent of split infinitives, and I met another person of similar opinion more recently. But I think that those are the only two I've seen in... fifteen years maybe.
So what about you? Do you still run across this supposed rule? Were you, especially you younger people, ever taught this in school?
)I just realized that we're in the 40th anniversary of its demise. In 1983, the Chicago Manual of Style removed its long-standing preference for infinitives that remained intact, and after a hundred years of oppression, we were once again able to split infinitives to our little hearts' content.
So RIP, you son of a bitch.
I ran across a poster on these forums a few years ago who was a staunch opponent of split infinitives, and I met another person of similar opinion more recently. But I think that those are the only two I've seen in... fifteen years maybe.
So what about you? Do you still run across this supposed rule? Were you, especially you younger people, ever taught this in school?
#53
Coffee Klatch / Your weirdest misreadings
Last post by SepiaAndDust - Nov 04, 2024, 04:25 PMI once read an obituary. It said that the guy was a skilled woodworker.
I read it as He was killed by a woodpecker.
So that was weird. What are some of those times when your eyes played tricks on you while reading?
I read it as He was killed by a woodpecker.
So that was weird. What are some of those times when your eyes played tricks on you while reading?
#54
Nuts & Bolts / Re: Usage Wars: misused words
Last post by SepiaAndDust - Nov 04, 2024, 04:23 PMMay/Can:
Traditionally, can indicates the ability to do something, and may indicates permission to do something. But can has overtaken both senses in the past several decades, though may is still used on occasion.
I mean, you rarely here mayn't anymore.
Traditionally, can indicates the ability to do something, and may indicates permission to do something. But can has overtaken both senses in the past several decades, though may is still used on occasion.
I mean, you rarely here mayn't anymore.
#55
Nuts & Bolts / Re: Usage Wars: misused words
Last post by SepiaAndDust - Nov 04, 2024, 04:22 PMIn actual fact:
Generally regarded as redundant, and I agree. In fact or actually work better there.
Most of the time. But I also think that the phrase is the perfect counter when someone is presenting "alternative facts" as evidence.
Generally regarded as redundant, and I agree. In fact or actually work better there.
Most of the time. But I also think that the phrase is the perfect counter when someone is presenting "alternative facts" as evidence.
#56
Nuts & Bolts / Re: Usage Wars: misused words
Last post by SepiaAndDust - Nov 04, 2024, 04:22 PMFrankenstein:
What is the proper use of the name?
As I've heard it put:
Familiarity with the story dictates that Frankenstein was not the monster.
Understanding of the story dictates that Frankenstein was, indeed, the monster.
What is the proper use of the name?
As I've heard it put:
Familiarity with the story dictates that Frankenstein was not the monster.
Understanding of the story dictates that Frankenstein was, indeed, the monster.
#57
Nuts & Bolts / Usage Wars: misused words
Last post by SepiaAndDust - Nov 04, 2024, 04:16 PMA thread for all those words that make you grit your teeth when people use them in the "wrong" way.
Civil argument is encouraged.
Note: this is not a thread for frequently misspelled or mispronounced words. I'm counting your/you're and their/there/they're and it's/its as mere misspellings.
Irregardless:
Does anybody still use this? It's right up there with for all intensive purposes as the poster child of poor word usage.
Still, there is the idea that it has one proper use as a conversation ender. In that function, it means I've made my decision. Stop talking.
Literally:
Not much can melt down a writing debate like the misuse of literally. Can it mean and be understood to mean figuratively? Lots of people would say no.
But I say yes, literally can mean figuratively, and it often does. In fiction, most such uses would come up in dialogue for characters who tend to overstate or use hyperbole. I literally died laughing!
Ironic:
Does ironic mean weird, funny, or coincidental? It's often used as such, and I think that's okay as long as you're not analyzing an artistic work. Irony, on the other hand, has a more limited meaning.
Don't you think?
Vagina:
Lots of people like to throw a fit when they see vagina used to refer to all of the lady bits. Technically, this is true. To see the actual vagina, you've gotta be up close and personal. But I think that people generally just use the word as a replacement for the more vulgar-sounding pussy, so such use is perfectly acceptable.
Convince/Persuade:
Convention tells us that you cannot convince someone else to do something. You can only persuade them. Similarly, convention has it that convince may only be followed by that or of, never by to. Persuade, however, may freely take a to.
Chicago wiffle-waffles a bit, saying that convince relates to beliefs or understandings, while persuade relates to courses of action and that persuaded to is traditionally considered better than convinced to. I see no linguistic grounds for the distinction, so I think they're synonyms.
Comprised of:
Some say--and it's a pet peeve for many of them--that the whole comprises the components. The album comprises twelve songs.
Others scoff--The album is comprised of twelve new songs is perfectly correct.
I think that either is fine and that Chicago is once again wrong in its claim that "The phrase comprised of, though increasingly common, is poor usage."
Infer/Imply:
I think that they're separate words with separate meanings, even though many people use them synonymously. They've been tangled up for centuries, but I believe that they've settled (at least for now) into their individual niches in current English.
Orientated:
I've encountered this word quite a bit lately, and my initial impression was that it was a corporate buzzword like going forward.
But no, turns out it's just British.
Bring/Take:
Bring typically refers to something moving toward you, and take refers to something moving away from you. How strict is that, though? A child can bring home a book. They can take a book to school. But can they bring a book to school? Can you give a child a cold drink and tell them to Bring that to your mother?
I don't think that there's much distinction there, and what there is depends heavily on dialect.
Celibacy/Chastity:
Any difference to you all? Some say that celibacy means that you aren't married and chastity means that you don't have sex. I think that's splitting hairs.
Hung:
Convention holds that things are hung and people are hanged. I don't see any good reason for the distinction, so I ignore it. Same for:
Less/Fewer:
The convention here is that fewer is used for things that are counted and less is used for things that are measured. So Bob has fewer apples than Pete but Pete has less time than Bob. The real distinction, I think, is idiomatic--whatever we're used to hearing is what's correct.
Unique:
Can a thing be the most unique or fairly unique? To me, if something is unique, it is one-of-a-kind (though that can refer to characteristics of the object, not necessarily to the object itself). Qualifiers aren't especially useful. YMMV.
Whom:
Personally, I don't use whom much. I think it's archaic and overly hypercorrected, and as such, it has little utility in current English. Who works for most of my needs. Others disagree...
Pled/Pleaded:
Pled seems to be fading away in most contexts, replaced by pleaded. I'm good with it either way. Bob pled for his life or Bob pleaded for his life. Bob pled guilty or Bob pleaded guilty. Whatever.
Impact:
Impact is not a verb according to many. So It will impact our bottom line! is not proper usage. Those people are simply wrong--it's been used as a verb since forever--but even Chicago sorta-kinda agrees with them: "Resist using this as a verb... impact used as a verb is widely considered a solecism (though it is gaining ground)."
Hopefully:
Does it mean I hope as in Hopefully, they'll find us before we starve? Or is it limited to meaning full of hope as in The boy opened his Christmas presents hopefully?
Either is fine as far as I'm concerned, and I've found zero linguistic evidence for limiting its use.
Lay/Lie:
My advice is to do what I did--find a conjugation chart and print it out. Keep it with your writing supplies for quick access.
Ensure/Insure/Assure:
Honestly, I'm still working out where I stand on these.
Assure, to me, still always means to give confidence.
Champ/Chomp:
Is it champ at the bit or chomp at the bit? I think that champ was the original, but its variation, chomp, is equally acceptable. Some disagree and believe that it's always champ at the bit. And some disagree with them because they've always heard it as chomp.
Home/Hone:
Does a missile home in or does it hone in? The original was home in, much like a carrier pigeon would do. But I can see the attraction of hone in, in the sense that the target area becomes more and more precise (sharper, you might say).
So what do y'all think? Any others you would like to add?
Civil argument is encouraged.
Note: this is not a thread for frequently misspelled or mispronounced words. I'm counting your/you're and their/there/they're and it's/its as mere misspellings.
Irregardless:
Does anybody still use this? It's right up there with for all intensive purposes as the poster child of poor word usage.
Still, there is the idea that it has one proper use as a conversation ender. In that function, it means I've made my decision. Stop talking.
Literally:
Not much can melt down a writing debate like the misuse of literally. Can it mean and be understood to mean figuratively? Lots of people would say no.
But I say yes, literally can mean figuratively, and it often does. In fiction, most such uses would come up in dialogue for characters who tend to overstate or use hyperbole. I literally died laughing!
Ironic:
Does ironic mean weird, funny, or coincidental? It's often used as such, and I think that's okay as long as you're not analyzing an artistic work. Irony, on the other hand, has a more limited meaning.
Don't you think?
Vagina:
Lots of people like to throw a fit when they see vagina used to refer to all of the lady bits. Technically, this is true. To see the actual vagina, you've gotta be up close and personal. But I think that people generally just use the word as a replacement for the more vulgar-sounding pussy, so such use is perfectly acceptable.
Convince/Persuade:
Convention tells us that you cannot convince someone else to do something. You can only persuade them. Similarly, convention has it that convince may only be followed by that or of, never by to. Persuade, however, may freely take a to.
Chicago wiffle-waffles a bit, saying that convince relates to beliefs or understandings, while persuade relates to courses of action and that persuaded to is traditionally considered better than convinced to. I see no linguistic grounds for the distinction, so I think they're synonyms.
Comprised of:
Some say--and it's a pet peeve for many of them--that the whole comprises the components. The album comprises twelve songs.
Others scoff--The album is comprised of twelve new songs is perfectly correct.
I think that either is fine and that Chicago is once again wrong in its claim that "The phrase comprised of, though increasingly common, is poor usage."
Infer/Imply:
I think that they're separate words with separate meanings, even though many people use them synonymously. They've been tangled up for centuries, but I believe that they've settled (at least for now) into their individual niches in current English.
Orientated:
I've encountered this word quite a bit lately, and my initial impression was that it was a corporate buzzword like going forward.
But no, turns out it's just British.
Bring/Take:
Bring typically refers to something moving toward you, and take refers to something moving away from you. How strict is that, though? A child can bring home a book. They can take a book to school. But can they bring a book to school? Can you give a child a cold drink and tell them to Bring that to your mother?
I don't think that there's much distinction there, and what there is depends heavily on dialect.
Celibacy/Chastity:
Any difference to you all? Some say that celibacy means that you aren't married and chastity means that you don't have sex. I think that's splitting hairs.
Hung:
Convention holds that things are hung and people are hanged. I don't see any good reason for the distinction, so I ignore it. Same for:
Less/Fewer:
The convention here is that fewer is used for things that are counted and less is used for things that are measured. So Bob has fewer apples than Pete but Pete has less time than Bob. The real distinction, I think, is idiomatic--whatever we're used to hearing is what's correct.
Unique:
Can a thing be the most unique or fairly unique? To me, if something is unique, it is one-of-a-kind (though that can refer to characteristics of the object, not necessarily to the object itself). Qualifiers aren't especially useful. YMMV.
Whom:
Personally, I don't use whom much. I think it's archaic and overly hypercorrected, and as such, it has little utility in current English. Who works for most of my needs. Others disagree...
Pled/Pleaded:
Pled seems to be fading away in most contexts, replaced by pleaded. I'm good with it either way. Bob pled for his life or Bob pleaded for his life. Bob pled guilty or Bob pleaded guilty. Whatever.
Impact:
Impact is not a verb according to many. So It will impact our bottom line! is not proper usage. Those people are simply wrong--it's been used as a verb since forever--but even Chicago sorta-kinda agrees with them: "Resist using this as a verb... impact used as a verb is widely considered a solecism (though it is gaining ground)."
Hopefully:
Does it mean I hope as in Hopefully, they'll find us before we starve? Or is it limited to meaning full of hope as in The boy opened his Christmas presents hopefully?
Either is fine as far as I'm concerned, and I've found zero linguistic evidence for limiting its use.
Lay/Lie:
My advice is to do what I did--find a conjugation chart and print it out. Keep it with your writing supplies for quick access.
Ensure/Insure/Assure:
Honestly, I'm still working out where I stand on these.
Assure, to me, still always means to give confidence.
Champ/Chomp:
Is it champ at the bit or chomp at the bit? I think that champ was the original, but its variation, chomp, is equally acceptable. Some disagree and believe that it's always champ at the bit. And some disagree with them because they've always heard it as chomp.
Home/Hone:
Does a missile home in or does it hone in? The original was home in, much like a carrier pigeon would do. But I can see the attraction of hone in, in the sense that the target area becomes more and more precise (sharper, you might say).
So what do y'all think? Any others you would like to add?
#58
Nuts & Bolts / Re: Roald Dahl (or You're Full...
Last post by SepiaAndDust - Nov 04, 2024, 04:15 PMMy take is that they're hoping to make Roald's work palatable (and therefore profitable) to the new generations who won't put up with the bigoted bullshit of years past.
So less culture war and more profit margin.
So less culture war and more profit margin.
#59
Nuts & Bolts / Roald Dahl (or You're Full of ...
Last post by SepiaAndDust - Nov 04, 2024, 04:14 PMDahl died in 1990. Before snuffing it, he managed to write about 20 novels and several shorter works. He has been called one of the 20th century's greatest writers, especially so among children's authors.
He was also unabashedly anti-Semitic, casually racist, and quite thoroughly misogynistic.
So, he's being given a facelift. His publisher, Puffin (an imprint of Penguin) has hired a sensitivity reading firm to suggest changes to his classic stories. James and the Giant Peach, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda.
Probably should be noted that NetFlix recently bought the partnership that controlled the copyright on Dahl's entire catalog. They're making a new TV series based on his work.
Hundreds of changes are being made, everything from eliminating the word fat to removing the word black when used in negative connotations to removing passages about casual firearm use.
Seems like everybody's either righteously pissed off about it or vehemently supporting it.
Here're some of the changes:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/17/roald-dahl-books-rewritten-offensive-matilda-witches-twits/
He was also unabashedly anti-Semitic, casually racist, and quite thoroughly misogynistic.
So, he's being given a facelift. His publisher, Puffin (an imprint of Penguin) has hired a sensitivity reading firm to suggest changes to his classic stories. James and the Giant Peach, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda.
Probably should be noted that NetFlix recently bought the partnership that controlled the copyright on Dahl's entire catalog. They're making a new TV series based on his work.
Hundreds of changes are being made, everything from eliminating the word fat to removing the word black when used in negative connotations to removing passages about casual firearm use.
Seems like everybody's either righteously pissed off about it or vehemently supporting it.
Here're some of the changes:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/17/roald-dahl-books-rewritten-offensive-matilda-witches-twits/
#60
Nuts & Bolts / Usage Wars: Different From, Di...
Last post by SepiaAndDust - Nov 04, 2024, 04:12 PMIn a sentence like iPhones are different ________ Androids.
Which do you say? (And, if you would, roughly how old are you and where did you grow up?)
I use different from most often, followed closely by different than. I don't think I've ever used different to
Chicago recommends different from in most cases.
Ancient, Texas.
Which do you say? (And, if you would, roughly how old are you and where did you grow up?)
I use different from most often, followed closely by different than. I don't think I've ever used different to
Chicago recommends different from in most cases.
QuoteDifferent. The phrasing different from is generally preferable to different than ("This company is different from that one"), but sometimes the adverbial phrase differently than is all but required ("She described the scene differently than he did").
Ancient, Texas.