Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates
L wrote:A day without kells is a day not worth living.
Adonis1x23 wrote:
Ototoni, it means 'the day before yesterday' in Japanese. Asatte means 'the day after tomorrow.' Ever since the movie with the same name as the latter came out, people always snicker or make some stupid joke about it. The former is just damn useful. It saves a sentence from sounding clumsy.
If anyone knows the actual english term for either, I would appreciate knowing.
kellsbells wrote:I always love learning words that perfectly describe a situation or something else that would normally take up several words to (imperfectly) describe. I like efficiency in language, and I would imagine many fora members feel the same.
Do you guys have any other great words like this?
Adonis1x23 wrote:That is a really sad example...
So these aren't english words, but I am trying to bring them in.
Ototoni, it means 'the day before yesterday' in Japanese. Asatte means 'the day after tomorrow.' Ever since the movie with the same name as the latter came out, people always snicker or make some stupid joke about it. The former is just damn useful. It saves a sentence from sounding clumsy.
If anyone knows the actual english term for either, I would appreciate knowing.
L wrote:A day without kells is a day not worth living.
Mr. Mack wrote:Myrmidon - An unquestioning follower. (nicer than"sheeple," eh?)
Alcas wrote:I like "philtrum" - the little indentation-and-two-parallel-lines apparatus between your nose and upper lip.
Alcas wrote:I like "philtrum" - the little indentation-and-two-parallel-lines apparatus between your nose and upper lip.

ZLVT wrote:Mr. Mack wrote:Myrmidon - An unquestioning follower. (nicer than"sheeple," eh?)
I think that's mean, the myrmadons were loyal yes but brave warriors etc, i think it's mean to use their name in such a way. when will the englihs langauge stop its destruction [sobbs] when?!
Masuri wrote:
Also... The 'englihs langauge?' There shall be no English rants where there is no spelling, sir!
kellsbells wrote: inserting a word inside of another word (ex: abso-freaking-lutely or any-old-where) is called a "tmesis".
v > #,:# _@#:<
>62*1+9*66*1+3*25*1+25*1+*48*99*45*+74*4*6+66*1+3*43*9*48*89*1+^nmrboy wrote:when it comes down to it, clarity is everything . . . the use of archaic or obsolete words should be encouraged because they promote clarity, and the argument that 'no-one uses such words these days' is irrelevant.
ZLVT wrote:It shall remain there as a testament to my confidence in my English skills and the fact that I believe that people who do know the language should have the right to manipulate/abuse it to facilitate easier communication, which many common errors can help achieve.
Mr. Mack wrote:ZLVT wrote:It shall remain there as a testament to my confidence in my English skills and the fact that I believe that people who do know the language should have the right to manipulate/abuse it to facilitate easier communication, which many common errors can help achieve.
Y'all's gettin' kinda uppity thar, don'cha think? (silly face goes here)
nmrboy wrote:the sad fact of the matter is that english is first and foremost a mongrel language, and while this gives it a marvellous (or marvelous) variety of words it also means that essentially any abuse of it is permissible. there is no gold standard usage of english, and there is no committee for regulating the language (as in, say, french). not only does anything go, but that anything then becomes the standard through something no better defined than 'common usage'. when it comes down to it, clarity is everything (except for creative writing, when style can trump in although even this needs to be done with care). the use of archaic or obsolete words should be encouraged because they promote clarity, and the argument that 'no-one uses such words these days' is irrelevant.
ZLVT wrote:Perhaps "Queen's English" ought to be standardised and distributed and left at that.
Boym wrote:This one word encompasses triviality, vulgarity, sexual promiscuity, and a lack of spirituality.
gmalivuk wrote:ZLVT wrote:Perhaps "Queen's English" ought to be standardised and distributed and left at that.
How do you propose to "leave it at that"? The French have tried, and tend to fail pretty miserably since the way everyone actually *talks* is really damn different from the way the Academie would like to think French works.
No natural language in the history of the world has remained "pure". Hell, the Queen herself speaks differently now than she did 50 years ago. What version of the Queen's English do you propose to standardize and distribute?
ZLVT wrote:gmalivuk wrote:ZLVT wrote:Perhaps "Queen's English" ought to be standardised and distributed and left at that.
What version of the Queen's English do you propose to standardize and distribute?
This one. I'm saying, take it as it is NOW and make it the official language. I'm not saying people will use it, but it should be kept for official purposes, law, government etc. American, Australian, British, Canadian, and New Zealand Englishes are all diverging.
ZLVT wrote:It shall remain there as a testament to my confidence in my English skills and the fact that I believe that people who do know the language should have the right to manipulate/abuse it to facilitate easier communication, which many common errors can help achieve.
Proverbs 9:7-8 wrote:Anyone who rebukes a mocker will get an insult in return. Anyone who corrects the wicked will get hurt. So don't bother correcting mockers; they will only hate you.
gmalivuk wrote:in a few centuries' time stuff written today will be more difficult to understand. As you want things, a few centuries will mean, in addition, that official documents written in that future time are also more difficult to understand.
evilbeanfiend wrote:
whilst i agree with the gist of gmalivuk's argument (i.e. standardising natural language is pointless at best and dangerous at worst) i don't think we have any reason to suspect that english will mutate as quickly in the future as it has in the past, after all not all languages have mutated much over 100s of years. of course at the same time we have no reason to believe it will stay static enough that standardisation could work even if we wanted it to.

Alcas wrote:After having a look around the internets, it turns out that "ereyesterday" is an English word for the day before yesterday, but it's obsolete. There is a similarly obsolete "overmorrow" for the day after tomorrow.
Darkfather wrote:Maybe it's best reserved for International Talk Like a Pirate Day (19 Sept), but I always liked "Savvy?" It's much more succinct than "Do you understand what I said?". Seems Johhny Depp can't even bring a good word back.
Felstaff wrote:But...But [that would] just be announcing you're definitely about to fail.Okita wrote:"What are you up to?"
"Attempting to save the free world and preserve Democracy...without Liza"
gmalivuk wrote:ZLVT wrote:gmalivuk wrote:ZLVT wrote:Perhaps "Queen's English" ought to be standardised and distributed and left at that.
What version of the Queen's English do you propose to standardize and distribute?
This one. I'm saying, take it as it is NOW and make it the official language. I'm not saying people will use it, but it should be kept for official purposes, law, government etc. American, Australian, British, Canadian, and New Zealand Englishes are all diverging.
And when they continue diverging, because you cannot stop language change, to the point where our calcified official version of English becomes unintelligible to all but a few specially trained people, what then? As things are now, language change means that in a few centuries' time stuff written today will be more difficult to understand. As you want things, a few centuries will mean, in addition, that official documents written in that future time are also more difficult to understand.
Darkfather wrote:Maybe it's best reserved for International Talk Like a Pirate Day (19 Sept), but I always liked "Savvy?" It's much more succinct than "Do you understand what I said?". Seems Johhny Depp can't even bring a good word back.
Ari wrote:Given the advent of the internet, I would've said English is a bit more likely to converge a bit more than it diverges, (of course, it will do both at once in many different ways) at least for a while, given that until now people in Australia/New Zealand and the UK and the USA didn't have much chance to talk to each other.
Ari wrote:Darkfather wrote:Maybe it's best reserved for International Talk Like a Pirate Day (19 Sept), but I always liked "Savvy?" It's much more succinct than "Do you understand what I said?". Seems Johhny Depp can't even bring a good word back.
"Get it?"/"Got it?" could be used pretty reliably, although it sounds a bit more hostile than either of the alternatives, it's still two syllables.
Felstaff wrote:But...But [that would] just be announcing you're definitely about to fail.Okita wrote:"What are you up to?"
"Attempting to save the free world and preserve Democracy...without Liza"
Outchanter wrote:In the spirit of Terry Pratchett I just googled a word for the smell of the earth after rain. Turns out it's "petrichor".
Somehow I was expecting something better.
eierkopf wrote:I have a fantastic t-shirt that reads "English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar."

Return to Language/Linguistics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests