Cato's Grammar Grumble

[Sef]

Sorry - having a really shit day. 

[Cato]

Those psychologists are bullies.

0:) Amen!

Psychologists - chew on that!

0:)  Another big Amen!

Speaking of attacking those trying to preserve language that makes sense...

One of the catch phrases of the 1960's is "I think you know what I'm trying to say."

Remember that the 1960's were some of the stupidest times in recent history: the phrase was meant to evoke sympathy from the listener, especially when the speaker was stuttering forth opinions full of bleary-eyed, bleary-minded, and possibly drug-dappled cliches. 

I have mentioned the following before, but for those who do not know about it:

Neil Postman, the late media and society critic, analyzed "stupid talk" and its cousin "crazy talk" with this example:

"The 'problem' of crazy talk is...very close to uncorrectable. It does not involve a momentary loss of judgment, subject to review in a more rational moment. Crazy talk usually puts forward a point of view that is considered virtuous and progressive. Its assumptions, metaphors, and conclusions are therefore taken for granted, and that, in the end, is what makes it crazy. For it is language that cannot get outside of itself. It buries itself in its own foundations.

"Here, for example, is a specimen taken from Red Stocking's Manifesto:

'Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. We are exploited as sex objects, breeders, domestic servants, and cheap labor...We identify the agents of our oppression as men. Male supremacy is the oldest, most basic form of domination. All other forms of exploitation (racism, capitalism, imperialism, etc.) are extensions of male supremacy...'

"If you talk about men as 'total oppressors' and women as 'totally exploited,' you have constructed a context that bears almost no relation to the actual experience of men and women. Crazy talk is, in fact, almost always characterized by simple-minded conceptions of complex relationships.

"One way it achieves this is through the construction of a massive metaphor which permeates every sentence and does not allow for any perceptions that go beyond the bounds of the metaphor. In the foregoing instance, we are presented with a vicious and uncompromising paradigm: Man-woman relationships are a war between master and slave. It follows from this that a woman who gives birth to a child is a 'breeder.' And a woman who stays home with children while her husband works is a 'domestic servant' and 'cheap labor.' It follows, as well, that there can be no such thing as 'mutual dependency' or 'love' or even a 'family,' since such transactions do not arise in a class war. It also follows that it is only an illusion that some men have sacrificed their own well-being for their families, since masters do not do such things for slaves.

"In short, to talk this way is to distort, beyond recognition, a complex situation as it is actually experienced by most men and women...

(from Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk )

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/Crazy%20Talk,%20Stupid%20Talk.htm

[Karl Henning]

. . . an immense orchestra in this work, requiring well over one hundred musicians. This, combined with the extreme technical and emotional demands placed on the performers . . . .

O, merciful heavens! Emotional demands upon the performers!!! Extreme emotional demands!!!!

[Cato]

O, merciful heavens! Emotional demands upon the performers!!! Extreme emotional demands!!!!

Isn't everything extreme these days?   

Which means that nothing is extreme!  0:)

Hey Karl!  How about some EXTREME CLARINET music?!   0:)

[Karl Henning]

Have to wear safety goggles while playing....

[North Star]

Have to wear safety goggles while playing....

And earmuffs!

[listener]

headline in a local community paper:
"Homeless population remains stable"
    Deceased homeless people own horses?

[North Star]

headline in a local community paper:
"Homeless population remains stable"
    Deceased homeless people own horses?

Pray tell me what is wrong with this headline? Any better ideas?

[Cato]

And earmuffs!

EXTREME Earmuffs!!!

And now for a comment on the nature of grammar:

A priest was reminiscing recently about a rather ancient "old maid" English teacher he had endured and enjoyed in high school.

She called grammar "the morality of language."  0:)

I think the grand old lady was correct! 

[Karl Henning]

And earmuffs!

Karlo, you sure know how to hurt a guy!

(j/k)

[Cato]

A priest was reminiscing recently about a rather ancient "old maid" English teacher he had endured and enjoyed in high school.

I should mention an elderly nun (born in the Rutherford B. Hayes administration) from my days in the Sixth Grade, who was wonderful, but who had a dislike of "is" (or any form of the verb "to be") followed by "when."

I recall one of the most intelligent boys in the class explaining something:

Larry: "Photosynthesis is when..."
Sister Servatia: "Ahem: 'is when,' Lawrence?!"
Larry: (shifting his weight) "Uh, that's when..."
Sister Servatia: "Contracting it does not solve the problem!"
Larry: "Uh, photosynthesis..."  (blanks out on what the problem is)
Sister Servatia: "...occurs, Lawrence, or happens, but 'photosynthesis' can NEVER be a 'when'!"   0:)

Undoubtedly such a fight is doomed to fail in our increasingly anti-literate age, but... 

[Karl Henning]

So far so good, has done everything they said it wood, I am very imprest with it, Have been useing it as a Kindle reader.

[The Six]

I've basically become resigned to the fact that "song" now refers to any piece of music. There's no turning back. "Hey Jude" is a song just as much as "Take Five" is, which is just as much a song as the Eroica is. There's no use correcting people anymore, because they don't care and you'll just be accused of being pretentious. Plus, "piece" isn't really an attractive catch-all term, anyway, so there's nothing you can suggest as an alternative.

My favorite Debussy song is Le cathédrale engloutie.

[aquablob]

My favorite Debussy song is Le cathédrale engloutie.

That's a good song.

[North Star]

Oh well. Thank goodness 'lyrics' hasn't lost its original meaning.

[aquablob]

Speaking of which, do you use lyric or lyrics when referring to the words of a song? I've heard both, and I wonder if this is just a matter of regional difference. I use the plural.

[kishnevi]

Speaking of which, do you use lyric or lyrics when referring to the words of a song? I've heard both, and I wonder if this is just a matter of regional difference. I use the plural.

I've only heard lyric used as an adjective, and almost only as an adjective for one word, at that--lyric poetry (or lyric poet).  (I suppose it could be used to modify other nouns,  but I don't remember hearing/seeing an particular use--only lyrical used that way.)  But we only speak of lyricists who write song texts, not lyricsists.

[aquablob]

It is used that way all the time here, where I live, In Nashville.  For example, a publisher often will ask a songwriter for a copy of the lyric(s) of a song.

I see now that my use of "or" was ambiguous.

I wasn't actually asking if lyric(s) can be used as a noun (I'm a native speaker, and I know that it can). I meant to ask whether you people in GMG Land use the singular lyric in such situations or the plural lyrics. I've always used the latter (I really dig those lyrics, Mr. Dylan), but I've heard the former also (let's discuss the lyric of this song), which sounds weird to me.

[Wendell_E]

From an e-mail I just received from Pensacola Opera Artistic Director Kyle Marrero:

We are in the throws of mainstage preparations

[Karl Henning]

Oof!