Cato's Grammar Grumble

[Cato]

That's right;  just a mish-mash between my ears 

Blame it on French, a language similar to the scyphozoa when it comes to gelatinous pronunciation! 

[Florestan]

"Fearless Leader" has an education degree (the worst degree in America, next to Sociology     )

Education schools are such a danger to education that they should all be closed immediately. People with doctorates in "education" should be banned from any involvement in education, until they do some real academic work. (People with actual PhD's in education might be considered on a case by case basis.) Despite the constant failure of their methods and theories, educrats never learn better.

[Cato]

Education schools are such a danger to education that they should all be closed immediately. People with doctorates in "education" should be banned from any involvement in education, until they do some real academic work. (People with actual PhD's in education might be considered on a case by case basis.) Despite the constant failure of their methods and theories, educrats never learn better.

Florestan!  Thanks for the link to a most fascinating website!  And the sentiment above is in agreement with "Cato's Rule of Education #17" i.e. All educational bureaucrats should be fired and sent to do real work commensurate with their talents, like bagging groceries.

[kishnevi]

At one point, I was considering becoming a teacher, and took courses at FIU's College of Education here in Miami, (This was somewhat over twenty years ago.)   I didn't follow through once I perceived the amount of bureaucratization that accumulated around public schools--at the state and local level, and not to forget the added input of the teacher's union, which merely increased the paperwork level.

But my experience of the College of Education was also not encouraging.  You may remember the quote attributed to George Bernard Shaw--those that can, do; those that can't teach (probably not the precise phrasing).  Well, consider what the quote implies about those who teach courses on how to teach, and you well get an excellent representation of the CoE.

[Cato]

At one point, I was considering becoming a teacher, and took courses at FIU's College of Education here in Miami, (This was somewhat over twenty years ago.)   I didn't follow through once I perceived the amount of bureaucratization that accumulated around public schools--at the state and local level, and not to forget the added input of the teacher's union, which merely increased the paperwork level.

... Well, consider what the quote implies about those who teach courses on how to teach, and you well get an excellent representation of the CoE.

One of the advantages of Catholic schools, or private schools in general, is the (in general) absence of bureaucrats trying to prove the necessity of their existence by giving you forms to fill out and reports to write, which they then file and believe that something has happened to improve education!

We have a few bureaucrats in my diocese: after 6 years here, not one has ever visited my classroom or those of my colleagues!

And teachers everywhere will agree that the most miserable courses they have ever taken were in the Education Department!  Worse, Education Departments have colluded with government bureaucrats to force teachers back into their classrooms every so often "to improve their skills."

And thereby to give bureaucrats more papers to file and also to fatten the bank accounts of the universities!

[Cato]

So today we went to see a British movie called...




A large 30-something woman, bleached blond, well-candied and popcorned with a "smart phone" glued into her palm, plopped down next to us.  I feared she would be badly behaved, since she refused to turn off her "smart phone" during the previews.  Fortunately she eventually turned it off, so I did not need to cause an incident!   0:)

At the end of the movie, she leans over toward us and says:

"You must be British, or watch the BBC all the time!"   

I: "Oh?  Well, no, we are Ohioans and watch only a few shows from the BBC.  Why?"

She: "Because you really seemed to understand all that British language by the way you were laughing and nodding.  I couldn't understand what they were talking about most of the time!"

I: "Well, maybe if you watch the movie again, your ear will get attuned to everything."

Yes, what is it with "that British language" anyway?  0:)  Something needs to be done about it!

[North Star]

Those damn Brits, why can't they speak English?!

[Karl Henning]

They do their level best!

[Cato]

On commercial TV (yes, I know, stop watching it!      ) here in America there is a highly annoying jingle for an insurance company (Safe Auto), where some YouTube musical genius pronounces the company's name as "Safe Oddo."

No attempt is made to pronounce the "Au" correctly, and obviously the "T" just takes too much energy to hit properly.   

[Karl Henning]

Grand Eft Oddo!

[aquablob]

No attempt is made to pronounce the "Au" correctly, and obviously the "T" just takes too much energy to hit properly.   

Do unstressed T's pronounced as D's really bother you? They sound quite normal—even "proper"—to my (Midwestern) ears. I'd expect to hear "auTomobile" or "Harry PoTTer" from a Brit, but "auDomobile" and "Harry PoDDer" strike me as perfectly acceptable pronunciations in American English.

[The Six]

No attempt is made to pronounce the "Au" correctly,

?

[Cato]

Do unstressed T's pronounced as D's really bother you? They sound quite normal—even "proper"—to my (Midwestern) ears. I'd expect to hear "auTomobile" or "Harry PoTTer" from a Brit, but "auDomobile" and "Harry PoDDer" strike me as perfectly acceptable pronunciations in American English.

Yes: and to be sure, the "D" = "T" is becoming more common.  One used to hear a mid-level "T" in words such as "butter," where the double "T" was not yet a "D" sound.

Mrs. Cato says it is a losing battle: perhaps just part of the general slovenliness growing throughout the culture.

[Karl Henning]

Do they pronounce the T in nineteen but not in ninety?

[petrarch]

Mrs. Cato says it is a losing battle: perhaps just part of the general slovenliness growing throughout the culture.

Indeed a losing baddle! Upon first moving to the US, after living in the UK, Mrs. Petrarch and I had a significant amount of trouble being understood in the most mundane activities. Asking for a glass of wohTer at a café was invariably met with quizzical looks... We soon learned to adopt the more easily communicable wohdder.

[mn dave]

Indeed a losing baddle! Upon first moving to the US, after living in the UK, Mrs. Petrarch and I had a significant amount of trouble being understood in the most mundane activities. Asking for a glass of wohTer at a café was invariably met with quizzical looks... We soon learned to adopt the more easily communicable wohdder.

Forget about country to country, pronunciation varies from county to county.

[petrarch]

Forget about country to country, pronunciation varies from county to county.

Yes, it is worth noting that this was in NYC. Another interesting contrast was how quietly we spoke, contributing to the confusion. And here's another infuriating habit in these lands: "Thank you" Reply: "Mmm-mm".

[Karl Henning]

That is certainly grumble-worthy 

[aquablob]

This I've never understood.

Mmm-hmm is a casual way of saying you're welcome, and that's been the case for some time now.

Granted, context matters, and if the mmm-hmm comes with an eye-roll or some other body language that clearly signals impatience or annoyance, then sure, be offended. But if a stranger has already done something kind enough to warrant a passing thank-you (like holding a door open), isn't it a bit prim to get one's feathers ruffled over what is now a standard reply, even though you don't like it? (Or is it the inflection you're criticizing? That I understand, but I'd group it with body language at the top of this paragraph, and I still insist that mmm-hmm is typically intended as a casual but not impolite you're welcome.)

I've even heard people grumble about a friendly no problem or sure thing. I hope they aren't the same people who grumble about this generation's sense of entitlement.

In many places, you're welcome simply has a formal or stodgy ring to it these days. That's why it's often avoided in casual contexts, and the alternatives aren't inherently rude.

Of course, there are two sides to "rude": the intention of the actor and the eyes and ears of the beholder. But shouldn't the beholder consider the actor's intention? If you don't like mmm-hmm but know that people who use it aren't trying to be rude, shouldn't you give them the benefit of the doubt and grumble over something less trivial? I mean, somebody is wrong on the internet at this very moment!

[petrarch]

This I've never understood.

Mmm-hmm is a casual way of saying you're welcome, and that's been the case for some time now.

Granted, context matters, and if the mmm-hmm comes with an eye-roll or some other body language that clearly signals impatience or annoyance, then sure, be offended. But if a stranger has already done something kind enough to warrant a passing thank-you (like holding a door open), isn't it a bit prim to get one's feathers ruffled over what is now a standard reply, even though you don't like it? (Or is it the inflection you're criticizing? That I understand, but I'd group it with body language at the top of this paragraph, and I still insist that mmm-hmm is typically intended as a casual but not impolite you're welcome.)

I've even heard people grumble about a friendly no problem or sure thing. I hope they aren't the same people who grumble about this generation's sense of entitlement.

In many places, you're welcome simply has a formal or stodgy ring to it these days. That's why it's often avoided in casual contexts, and the alternatives aren't inherently rude.

Of course, there are two sides to "rude": the intention of the actor and the eyes and ears of the beholder. But shouldn't the beholder consider the actor's intention? If you don't like mmm-hmm but know that people who use it aren't trying to be rude, shouldn't you give them the benefit of the doubt and grumble over something less trivial? I mean, somebody is wrong on the internet at this very moment!

I know it is an informal way of saying you're welcome, though it took some time to understand that was the intention, based on how common it was (though that commonality did not extend to any other countries I have visited or lived in, hence the surprise).

I'm sorry, but if I am at a restaurant and I thank the the server or host I definitely do not expect an informal reply, and this (or similar situations) is where I frequently encountered it.

I understand there is no intended rudeness; it does smack of lack of care, effort and attention, and that is what makes it infuriating.