Latest post of the previous page:
Well, I for one am more impressed with its heuristic isomorphic capability than with its reciprocal reciprocal obsolescence. (BTW, did you notice that isomorphic and regression each occur twice in the middle column?)Dave B wrote:Tetenterre wrote:I think I have offered the following before, that boss I mentioned seemed to think it would be useful . . . I think he was serious!
I scanned that in and it would not "columnate" correctly, some words ended up in the wrong column somehow. I must have looked over it ten times trying to get rid of duplicates! Thanks, TT, I will correct the original.Tetenterre wrote:Well, I for one am more impressed with its heuristic isomorphic capability than with its reciprocal reciprocal obsolescence. (BTW, did you notice that isomorphic and regression each occur twice in the middle column?)Dave B wrote:Tetenterre wrote:I think I have offered the following before, that boss I mentioned seemed to think it would be useful . . . I think he was serious!
SYSTEM ENGINEERS INSTANT PHRASE GENERATOR.doc
That drives me to distraction. Not sure about the first of those meself.animist wrote:I hate "least worst", which should have been "least bad" but always seems to be used instead of it
People say things like "As good as this is, it could be better", but I feel the first "as" is redundant and a newcomer - yes?
surely "least worst" (or "least worse" which is what you've said, or FTM "least best") is simply ungrammatical and almost self-contradictory. "Least bad" surely means that he was not that good but that the others were worse - damning with faint praise, I suppose; "least good" means he was the worst, but maybe that he was not too badDave B wrote:Not sure about the first of those meself.animist wrote:I hate "least worst", which should have been "least bad" but always seems to be used instead of it
People say things like "As good as this is, it could be better", but I feel the first "as" is redundant and a newcomer - yes?
"He was the least worse choice," seems to fit better between, "He was the worst..." and "He was the best..." than "He was the least bad..." I keep wanting to write "baddest"! Is "least worse" the same as "least best"?
Tetenterre wrote:As Tony Nagle drummed into my skull 50-odd years ago, you don't qualify absolutes -- and "worst" is an absolute. The end.
Err... that should be "fewest".Dave B wrote:Leaving the "As" out still leaves a coherent sentence - and some say the least words the better!
or should that be "fewer"?Nick wrote:Err... that should be "fewest".Dave B wrote:Leaving the "As" out still leaves a coherent sentence - and some say the least words the better!
from deep inside my own rectum (or should that be anus?)
I suppose there might be a semi-legitimate usage. "Least worst" could be a shorthand for something like "the least bad of the worst few". Of the ten worst places to live in the UK, Manchester is the least worst. But yes, in general, people mean "the best of a bad bunch", which is a much more pleasing expression.animist wrote:I hate "least worst", which should have been "least bad" but always seems to be used instead of it
I think you should make a wave tooEmma Woolgatherer wrote:I suppose there might be a semi-legitimate usage. "Least worst" could be a shorthand for something like "the least bad of the worst few". Of the ten worst places to live in the UK, Manchester is the least worst. But yes, in general, people mean "the best of a bad bunch", which is a much more pleasing expression.animist wrote:I hate "least worst", which should have been "least bad" but always seems to be used instead of it
Emma
the "got" question has already come up in this thread and in another one some weeks ago; I don't see the problem with it - both "get" and "got" are versatile and easily spelt.Dave B wrote:How do you feel about that no-no when I was at school, "got"? We were always told that it was better to have to use several words rather than use "got". Is it the guttural sound that put the teachers off I wonder? Too Teutonic sounding?
"Do you understand that?" is perhaps to be preferred to "Have you got that?", though I have heard FE college English Language instructors use the latter.
"Gotten" is usually dismissed as an Americanism, but is actually well rooted in Old English. But then, the American language is older than the nation that speaks it!!
Are we victims of language fashion?
yes, I assume it should be "lower" if the context is greenhouse gases rather than male orgasmsEmma Woolgatherer wrote:Oh, that reminds me of my latest pet peeve: "fewer emissions". Ludicrous!
(later) - just got your link, Emma!animist wrote:yes, I assume it should be "lower" if the context is greenhouse gases rather than male orgasmsEmma Woolgatherer wrote:Oh, that reminds me of my latest pet peeve: "fewer emissions". Ludicrous!
I think this is a case of overcorrection. Teachers used to tell us off for saying, "Look what I got!" when we meant "Look what I have!" rather than "Look what I obtained!" That's a genuine matter of grammatical error. Though personally it's not one that bothers me. (And imagine changing the Gershwin song "I Got Rhythm" to "I Have Rhythm", or Nina Simone's "Ain't Got No/I Got Life" to "Don't Have Any/I Have Life".)Dave B wrote:How do you feel about that no-no when I was at school, "got"? We were always told that it was better to have to use several words rather than use "got". Is it the guttural sound that put the teachers off I wonder? Too Teutonic sounding?
