Internet grammar?

Like also has become completely altered. Originally it only meant similar to or identical, now it is used to connotate a feeling or emotion about someone or something.

You can like a person or an object but that object may also be like another object as well. I think that was changed sometime in the 1950's if I recall the history properly, for advertising reasons of course.
 
Words that no longer mean what they used to.

Another:

Nonplussed - Technically, this means baffled, shocked, perplexed, bewildered. Indeed, that’s the first (and often only) definition offered in most dictionaries. But popular usage has shifted to the opposite (!) meaning: cool, detached, unperturbed, unfazed. Many language pedants use the original meaning defiantly and without apology. But note that the original meaning could be new and confusing to many.

Some authorities cite nonplussed as a “contranym” — words that are their own opposites. A famous example (among many) is the verb “dust.” It can either mean to remove dust (e.g., “dust the bookshelves”) or apply dust (as in “dust for fingerprints). But with contranyms, the opposite meanings are acknowledged; and it’s usually pretty clear from the context which one is intended. With nonplussed, OTOH, there is dispute. In fact, those who use the “unfazed” definition may not even know about the original meaning. Therefore, probably not a true contranym.
 
tact vs. tack

“Tact” means sensitivity, delicacy, diplomacy, etc. If you’re delivering bad news in a courteous way, you’re displaying tact.

“Tack” is a small nail. :word: But it can also mean a course, direction or approach (it derives from the nautical term). So, for example: if you find that one strategy isn’t working, you might start all over using a different tack.

However, it’s fairly common to see “tact” used in the “tack”/approach sense — even by professional writers. E.g.: Fellow Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota took a similar tact as she spoke at the rally. - from a CNN article.

This switcheroo is sometimes rationalized on the assumption that “tact” is a shortened form of “tactic.” But apparently it is not. And (at least currently) most usage guides DO NOT sanction the conflation of the two words.
 
pour vs. pore

You pour milk over your breakfast cereal. But you pore over a document.

As a verb, pore means to study intently or scrutinize. ;nd
 
I often see people using aka instead of i.e.

E.g."Only one city, aka London, has hosted the Summer Olympics three times."

This is incorrect.

Aka is an abbreviation which stands for "also known as", similar to how btw stands for "by the way" or ttyl stands for "talk to you later".

I.e. is Latin and stands for "id est" which means "that is" or "namely" or "in other words".

So if you say "Only one city, aka London, has hosted the Summer Olympics three times" you're saying that only one city is also known as London. But it's not, because that one city could be any city.

The correct usage is i.e.
"Only one city, i.e., London, has hosted the Summer Olympics three times"

Which is another way of saying
"Only one city, namely, London, has hosted the Summer Olympics three times"

Or "Only one city, that is, London, has hosted the Summer Olympics three times"

Or
"Only one city, in other words, London, has hosted the Summer Olympics three times"

You use aka in the following contexts:

"Clark Kent aka Superman"

I.e. (<== see how I'm using this?) "Clark Kent also known as Superman."

Or "Meghan Markle aka the Duchess of Sussex"

In other words, "Meghan Markle also known as the Duchess of Sussex."

Now you could say Meghan Markle i.e. the Duchess of Sussex, meaning Meghan Markle, that is, the Duchess of Sussex.

However you can't use aka in the place of i.e. because some things are simply not also known as the thing you're saying it has equivalence with.

E.g. "Can you let her know aka call her"

Letting someone know is not also known as calling because you could be emailing or texting or telling in person.

You'd say "Can you let her know i.e. call her"

So i.e. has broader scope and aka has narrower scope.
 
Last edited:
Memory trick to keep e.g. and i.e. straight:


E.g. stands for “example given” (or “eggs-ample” :cwink:).

I.e. stands for “in essence.”


Of course, neither trick is literally true. But they're easier to remember than Latin... :word:
 
Last edited:
One’s vs Ones (and related grammar trivia)


One’s - is the possessive form of the indefinite pronoun, one. It’s somewhat formal and not often used in casual conversation. Example: “One should mind one’s business.” Other indefinite pronouns include someone/somebody, anyone/anybody, etc. Typically, they refer to unspecified (generic, hypothetical) persons. And to make these pronouns possessive, you use the “apostrophe + s” construction.

In contrast, most other possessive pronouns or possessive adjectives are intrinsically possessive. So they DO NOT take “apostrophe + s.” E.g.: my/mine, his, her/hers, their/theirs, our/ours, its and whose. (As we all know :cwink:, it’s and who’s are contractions, not possessives; and they shouldn’t be confused with its and whose.)

Ones - is the plural form of one, which might be either a pronoun or noun. Examples: “I like gummy bears, especially the red ones (plural pronoun) or “I need ones for the vending machine” (plural noun).
 
“The exception that proves the rule”

This is a familiar adage. But as it’s frequently used, it doesn’t seem to make sense. Indeed, it often comes across as a weak defense for a mistake made. E.g.:

Frank: All swans are white.
Joe: Actually, there are swans in Australia that are black.
Frank: Ah, but that’s the exception that proves the rule!


Huh? Doesn’t that exception disprove the alleged “rule”? :huh:

Turns out, the original meaning of the adage is more coherent. It refers to the notion that a general condition can be inferred from an exceptional circumstance. Classic example: A sign that reads “Free parking on Sundays.” Here, the free parking on a particular day is the “exception” which indicates a more general (but unstated) “rule” — that you have to pay for parking on the other six days of the week.

Granted, encountering this sort of scenario is rare. Therefore, the chance to correctly employ “the exception that proves the rule” in normal conversation is somewhat… limited. :word:
 
242359005_4377518662295131_1402044108002510959_n.jpg
 
Collins dictionary 2021 Word of the Year:

NFT (non-fungible token)

Runners up:

crypto (cryptocurrency)
double vaxxed
hybrid working
neopronoun


and...

cheugy :ebr:
 
I don't give a s**t if I am cheugy.
Does that, by definition, make me cheugy...?
BTW I did have to look it up!
:hehe:
 
A grammar meme with deliberate mistakes. How many can you find? :cwink:

273683844_10225299732374786_4250523254799278061_n.jpg
 
A grammar meme with deliberate mistakes. How many can you find? :cwink:

273683844_10225299732374786_4250523254799278061_n.jpg

Actually lots of Americans don't even say foe par (which at least sounds phonetically similar to faux pas) but fox pass. :doh:
 
Updated version of the "I before E except after C" mnemonic device: :ninja:

 
People saying "wah-la" when presenting or pointing to something.

"Wah-la" is nonsensical and a complete misspelling and butchering of the actual word. The word is "voilà" which is French for "this is" or "there is" and is a contraction of of vois là (literally, "see there"). It is not pronounced with a "w" as in wah-la but, if you were going phonetically, would be more like "vwala" with a 'v' sound on the front of it.

Similarly, the French word for "here is" is "voici" which is a contraction of vois ici (literally "see here").

Voilà is further away in the distance whereas voici is nearer, although people tend to use voilà these days even for something relatively nearby, and so sometimes it even takes on the meaning of "here it is".
 
Last edited:
A grammar meme with deliberate mistakes. How many can you find? :cwink:

273683844_10225299732374786_4250523254799278061_n.jpg
I got lost at about 11 or 13 or 14 or something. My voice recognition does better than that. Well, generally anyway. Excuse my fox pass, but I’m using it right now
 
I like when my interlocutor uses proper language and don't make tons of misspellings. However, I understand that here is not school, and we all can relax and use phrases that suit the style of a conversation. Nevertheless, it brings me pleasure to read an interesting thought which is grammatically correct. Maybe, that's why I'm working with https://letsgradeit.cоm/review/samedayessay/ guys, for side income. I assume, it also brings me satisfaction on a subconscious level.
 
Last edited:
People saying "wah-la" when presenting or pointing to something.

"Wah-la" is nonsensical and a complete misspelling and butchering of the actual word. The word is "voilà" which is French for "this is" or "there is" and is a contraction of of vois là (literally, "see there"). It is not pronounced with a "w" as in wah-la but, if you were going phonetically, would be more like "vwala" with a 'v' sound on the front of it.

Similarly, the French word for "here is" is "voici" which is a contraction of vois ici (literally "see here").

Voilà is further away in the distance whereas voici is nearer, although people tend to use voilà these days even for something relatively nearby, and so sometimes it even takes on the meaning of "here it is".

Are you sure it's not "wallah" ? Because that's what some young people use here in France.
My neighboor's sons (20+) use it constantly every 2 words, I'm "sad" when I here them talk, it's incomprehensible and I'm sure they don't even know the true meaning of the word.
 
Are you sure it's not "wallah" ? Because that's what some young people use here in France.
My neighboor's sons (20+) use it constantly every 2 words, I'm "sad" when I here them talk, it's incomprehensible and I'm sure they don't even know the true meaning of the word.

Wallah or wah-la, it's still wrong. It's supposed to be voilà, but people don't know what they're saying or have misheard the original and then just just say what they think it is meant to be. But what would "wallah" or "wah-la" even mean as a phrase in itself if it were just those two random syllables said? It would be totally nonsensical and meaningless.
 
I guess this would be the appropriate place to humbly ask about an English variation of words which always bug me?

For some reason I always seems to keep mixing up/not totally understanding the difference when to use while or whilst. Is there a smart simple rule here?

I asked on some other forum once, but didn't get any wiser. So, please have patience with me here, it probably has to be quite a basic explanation for me go get it lol.
 
I guess this would be the appropriate place to humbly ask about an English variation of words which always bug me?

For some reason I always seems to keep mixing up/not totally understanding the difference when to use while or whilst. Is there a smart simple rule here?

“While” can function as a noun or verb; whilst “whilst” cannot. :cwink: On those occasions when the words are interchangeable, methinks “whilst” is a bit more formal, old-fashioned and/or British English-y. E.g., Sherlock Holmes might say “whilst.” Otherwise, “while” is the safer bet.
 
“While” can function as a noun or verb; whilst “whilst” cannot. :cwink: On those occasions when the words are interchangeable, methinks “whilst” is a bit more formal, old-fashioned and/or British English-y. E.g., Sherlock Holmes might say “whilst.” Otherwise, “while” is the safer bet.
A lot of people will have to think for a long whilst before they understand your post. :D

It can also be used as a conjunction. Something along the lines of I’ll go to the store while you feed the dogs. I’m always bringing dogs into stuff.

I think that, in general, the words can be used interchangeably in their conjunctive form. If you while away time, that’s generally been its verb usage that I can think of.

edit: should you end a sentence in a preposition? Lol

Also please excuse any typos in this as I’m using voice recognition. My computer had a software crash and it’s in the shop right now.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dr.
Many thanks from my friends here. It seems though as expected, still a mystery in which we need Sherlock Holmes.

Please beare with me, as I said. I need simple rules here lol
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"