Nope.
I already had my fill of being fucked in the ass every few months whenever Dave decides to update the forums.
[Funny] Funny Pictures! (Keep em clean, folks!)
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
- Status
I already had my fill of being fucked in the ass every few months whenever Dave decides to update the forums.
figmentPez
Staff member
In "1984" all positive and negative adjectives were replaced with "good". Everything was good, or plus-good or double-plus-un-good. No awesome or wonderful.
In reality, we just reduced all adjectives to meaning merely "good". Astounding, extraordinary, breathtaking, etc, etc.... have all been reduced, more-or-less, down to meaning the same thing. So "awesome" means "good" and "totally awesome" means "plus-good" and "totally awesome and amazing" is "double-plus-good".
In reality, we just reduced all adjectives to meaning merely "good". Astounding, extraordinary, breathtaking, etc, etc.... have all been reduced, more-or-less, down to meaning the same thing. So "awesome" means "good" and "totally awesome" means "plus-good" and "totally awesome and amazing" is "double-plus-good".
Which is probably when something truly exceptional happens, people now label it indescribable or are at a loss for words.
figmentPez
Staff member
But what words are being used only in the extreme? I don't know of any. I'm fine with words shifting in use, but I find it distressing that our language as a whole has been mostly, if not completely, stripped of the ability to succinctly state something's magnificence, because every statement is hyperbolic without need. I'm not really interested in having to write an essay every time I'm really blown away by something, just because I have to explain that I really truly mean that this was an exceptional experience, no, really, I'm not kidding, I'm not exaggerating, this really was outside of the scope of normal events, please believe me, literally, no not figuratively-literally, I mean literally-literally, as in actually something that deserves to be recognized for being rare and special, not just something that is everyday nice but we overstate it's value because exaggeration is the new normal and everyone gets an A, a gold star and a trophy for participating.
Don't get me wrong, today's language is rife with unnecessary hyperbole. The current push to accept literally as a perfectly acceptable replacement for the word that means the exact opposite of what it means grates on me to no end. The question is exactly that, where do the lines get drawn? Who determines that? If it's the culture at large, we've already lost the battle.
The pendulum will eventually swing the other way. Everyone uses dozens of words to mean "good," then everyone starts using "good" for everything indiscriminately, then a new generation will "rediscover" the words that denote all the different shades of meaning, and the cycle will begin anew.
--Patrick
--Patrick
Even in 1984 "plus-good" and "double-plus-good" have a different meaning than just "good" though, otherwise they wouldn't have even bothered with it. Meaning that words like awesome and amazing are not just merely adjectives to "good".
Also, the whole point of comedians talking about these kind of things is to have fun with semantics. Turning in into a double-plus-serious discussion kinda defeats the entire purpose..
figmentPez
Staff member
You missed my point. I was saying that they are merely "good" and that they are magnified by the number of uses. 1x of any positive = good, 2x positives (or a positive with a modifier) = plus-good, and 3x positives = double-plus-good.
I didn't know this discussion was all that serious. I'm typing all this with a grin on my face because it's funny.Also, the whole point of comedians talking about these kind of things is to have fun with semantics. Turning in into a double-plus-serious discussion kinda defeats the entire purpose..
figmentPez
Staff member
No. No, no, no. No. Not enough no to know how much no I want to no.
Oddly enough, that's one thing the French did right. The Académie Française does a rather spiffy job at keeping grammar and vocabulary both current and up to date, and classic and coherent.
Why not both?
I find it hilarious that the French have an official language organization whose sole job is to eject words that have roots in other languages, invent new words to replace them, then try to get French speakers to adopt them.
This was basically my reaction too. French is failing to evolve and will likely die a slow death like latin did.
If you really believe so, you've missed the work of the AF the last few years. French isn't a dead language, and it does still evolve. Franglais and such are recognized parts of the language, and even text and leet speak - just like most dialects, they're considered forms of language adapted to specific situations and needs, but not fit for "proper" conversation or business use - and French children are taught as such. Which means they're at least somewhat aware of the different social situations and the different languages you can/should use in each - compare and contrast to more and more children in the English world expecting "u no, rite?" to be acceptable in school tasks.
It slows down language evolution and seems stiff, certainly. It also allows certain qualities to be kept, unlike that mongrel that is English.
French from Shakespeare's day is still legible, but clearly different from modern French. English from that time reads like...well, you know better than I
There's a difference between "evolving slowly and carefully" and "not evolving at all".
It slows down language evolution and seems stiff, certainly. It also allows certain qualities to be kept, unlike that mongrel that is English.
French from Shakespeare's day is still legible, but clearly different from modern French. English from that time reads like...well, you know better than I
There's a difference between "evolving slowly and carefully" and "not evolving at all".
GasBandit
Staff member
You know, ordinarily I'd have made some comment about how the difference is standing still vs walking, away from a charging bear, while everybody else at least has a segway.
But then English went and changed "literally" to mean "not literally" this year, so I got nothin. Cause you know what the french are doing would have prevented that atrocity.
He is the night...he is...
I didn't mean to imply it never evolves. Consider this quote, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
One can attempt to cultivate and direct a living thing's growth into paths they think are ideal, but the act of control, the belief that they are the sole arbiter of "language truth" just rubs me the wrong way.
You might think of the French Language as a beautiful blossom being cultivated with care in a greenhouse, but it really seems to me that it's in a glass prison, suffering from stockholm syndrome, and won't survive outside its specialized environment.
Those who have no problem with the forced direction of a language's evolution should similarly have no issues with GMOs. They are both implicitly trusting that the people making the decisions for the directed alterations are absolutely and universally correct.
GasBandit
Staff member
Merriam-webster, Cambridge, and Google. I posted about it in the minor rant thread a bit back, I think.
Holy Christ, that article.
Ed Paine and Dorrine Mendoza (TWO PEOPLE WROTE THAT?) need to punched in their faces.
- Status