Author Topic: Funny English and Linguistics stuff... (Read 217233 times)

BlackBlade · « **Reply #425 on:** December 22, 2011, 12:44:53 PM »

"I know all of the stuffs"

BlackBlade · « **Reply #426 on:** December 22, 2011, 02:40:28 PM »

Have you ever learned a word and suddenly felt a sort of rush of happiness that you now have a word to describe a concept you didn't realize could be described? This isn't strictly speaking a word, but it should exist.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Porter · « **Reply #427 on:** December 28, 2011, 10:02:15 PM »

That was the awesomest Dinosaur Comics I've seen in a long time.

Nighthawk · « **Reply #428 on:** January 01, 2012, 09:07:21 PM »

Jonathon · « **Reply #429 on:** January 01, 2012, 09:14:10 PM »

*skeptical*

pooka · « **Reply #430 on:** January 11, 2012, 09:30:03 AM »

I'm so linking to that Dino comics next time someone makes that assertion. Though no one will probably ever make it again.

I guess another funny way to take it would be "We thought the Eskimos had 200 words for snow, but it turned out 195 of them were expletives of displeasure."

Jonathon · « **Reply #431 on:** January 11, 2012, 09:34:21 AM »

Quote from: pooka on January 11, 2012, 09:30:03 AM

I'm so linking to that Dino comics next time someone makes that assertion. Though no one will probably ever make it again.

I highly doubt that.

BlackBlade · « **Reply #432 on:** January 12, 2012, 07:27:02 AM »

So somewhere else this has elicited furious debate.

"The engineer walked in and found his wife, an English major, in bed with another man. He said, "Why, Susan, I'm surprised." She said, "No. I am surprised. You are astonished."

I sorta see the distinction, but had it been me I would have certainly said surprised. Is there really a difference in today's usage? In the past?

rivka · « **Reply #433 on:** January 12, 2012, 08:44:37 AM »

She is surprised (2a); he is surprised (3).

Jonathon · « **Reply #434 on:** January 12, 2012, 09:58:11 AM »

Quote from: BlackBlade on January 12, 2012, 07:27:02 AM

So somewhere else this has elicited furious debate.

"The engineer walked in and found his wife, an English major, in bed with another man. He said, "Why, Susan, I'm surprised." She said, "No. I am surprised. You are astonished."

I sorta see the distinction, but had it been me I would have certainly said surprised. Is there really a difference in today's usage? In the past?

As Rivka said, there are different meanings of "surprised," but the alleged distinction is bogus. I've heard jokes with similar punchlines, like "You smell; I stink," but I think they're all similarly bogus.

pooka · « **Reply #435 on:** January 12, 2012, 01:04:29 PM »

I don't think surprise or astonishment would be my first thought.

rivka · « **Reply #436 on:** January 12, 2012, 01:45:34 PM »

Murderous rage?

pooka · « **Reply #437 on:** January 12, 2012, 03:43:28 PM »

If I were the wronged spouse. Embarassment if otherwise.

rivka · « **Reply #438 on:** January 12, 2012, 05:18:07 PM »

That's interesting. If I consider my reaction in such a scenario, it doesn't occur to me to place myself anywhere other than as the wronged spouse.

Dobie · « **Reply #439 on:** January 13, 2012, 10:01:38 AM »

http://books.google.com/books?id=nFdOG5JxWZoC&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=noah+webster+surprised+astonished&source=bl&ots=m-kZ5XJWAd&sig=9VhwBLFFnraP2RsccXBXNgkptY4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1XAQT8CrOKTv0gG1hOG7Aw&sqi=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=noah%20webster%20surprised%20astonished&f=false

Jonathon · « **Reply #440 on:** January 13, 2012, 10:31:02 AM »

Too bad for Asimov the facts don't support the claim. The "caught unawares" meaning goes back to the late 1500s, while the "astonished" meaning goes back to the mid-1600s. Both were well established by Webster's day, and neither meaning is the original, which was "seized" or "overpowered," dating to the late 1400s (and now obsolete).

pooka · « **Reply #441 on:** January 13, 2012, 10:35:31 AM »

To me, surprise means unexpected but not hard to believe, which astonished involves some incredulity.

Now I can't figure out if incredulity is a quality of the astonisher or the astonishee, or if it should be incredulousness.

rivka · « **Reply #442 on:** January 13, 2012, 12:22:19 PM »

Quote from: Jonathon on January 13, 2012, 10:31:02 AM

Too bad for Asimov the facts don't support the claim. The "caught unawares" meaning goes back to the late 1500s, while the "astonished" meaning goes back to the mid-1600s. Both were well established by Webster's day, and neither meaning is the original, which was "seized" or "overpowered," dating to the late 1400s (and now obsolete).

The man also thinks (thought) Tuesday should be pronounced "tyoosday".