Author Topic: What happened to "You're welcome"? (Read 10117 times)

Jonathon · « **Reply #25 on:** August 20, 2009, 09:53:28 PM »

I don't think "you're" is ever used to mean "you were".

The Genuine · « **Reply #26 on:** August 20, 2009, 10:13:32 PM »

Quote

It's a game -- how long can he spout nonsense and still get people to respond as though he's serious?

That's rude.

Porter · « **Reply #27 on:** August 20, 2009, 10:39:07 PM »

I apologize if I was rude.

I must admit that I am frequently unable to tell when you're being serious and when you're not. I hope you'll be understanding when I get it wrong.

I've tried always assuming one or the other, but neither gave me satisfactory results.

rivka · « **Reply #28 on:** August 20, 2009, 10:40:41 PM »

Quote

Quote
It's a game -- how long can he spout nonsense and still get people to respond as though he's serious?
That's rude.

Is it true?

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #29 on:** August 21, 2009, 01:13:37 AM »

Quote

It's a game -- how long can he spout nonsense and still get people to respond as though he's serious?

I personally think he's just being funny. I use the obnoxious badgery funny sometimes too.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #30 on:** August 21, 2009, 01:15:52 AM »

And to be fair, Porter, you use quite a bit of the over-the-top hyperliteral humor yourself.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #31 on:** August 21, 2009, 02:25:22 AM »

Hey guys, thank you!

Porter · « **Reply #32 on:** August 21, 2009, 07:07:59 AM »

Annie -- I can't figure out if you're saying that I was wrong or that I do it too. Or both.

The Genuine · « **Reply #33 on:** August 21, 2009, 10:54:10 AM »

It's not a game. I thought this was a place where we could seriously discuss language.

Sure, I was a bit whimsical, but was there something about my analysis that provoked you into saying I was spouting nonsense? I thought we were having a fun little discussion. Isn't that how ideas evolve?

I take precision in language very seriously. While not the best example ever, I dealt with this case just this week (Lake Oswego Review, Inc. v. Steinkamp):

Quote

The Rule states that the service “shall” meet the federal due process standard and that it “may” be accomplished in numerous specified ways. ORCP 7 D. The Rule provides that mail service “shall” be made as specified, but that is not at issue in this case. ORCP 7 D.(2)(d). In ORCP 7 F.(4) and 7 G. the word “shall” is again used. The Rule's contrasting usage of the words “shall” and “may” is too conspicuous to be ignored. Compliance with methods or manners of service which are preceded by the word “may” is not required. The methods of service listed in ORCP 7 D. (2)-(4) are not exclusive of other methods of service reasonably calculated to apprise defendant of the action.

Just by this example, from the Supreme Court of Oregon, you can imagine a "hyperliteral" analysis costs people billions of dollars, but is also worthwhile.

Just because I am sometimes boisterous and/or dramatic sometimes doesn't mean you should summarily dismiss my ideas, especially when they are in another thread. Well, at the very least you shouldn't label them "nonsense." To do so would be to suggest that no one could ever make a joke and ever be taken seriously again.

Porter · « **Reply #34 on:** August 21, 2009, 11:15:06 AM »

Quote

was there something about my analysis that provoked you into saying I was spouting nonsense?

Quote

Why don't we just all grunt?

The Genuine · « **Reply #35 on:** August 21, 2009, 11:19:43 AM »

Quote

Here's a crazy thought: maybe "welcome" has multiple meanings and is used in different ways at different times.

I was alluding to the fact that if we start blurring the lines of meaning then language would revert rather than progress.

The idea (well, my idea) is to achieve more particularity, not less.

Porter · « **Reply #36 on:** August 21, 2009, 11:24:53 AM »

I find it hard to buy your explanation.

It's not burring the lines of meaning -- it's acknowledging.

Pretending that words mean something other than what they're intended to mean (or making pronouncements about what they "should" mean), like you've been doing in this discussion, does more to muddle communication than being aware of what people actually mean when they say "you're welcome".

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #37 on:** August 21, 2009, 12:57:01 PM »

Quote

Annie -- I can't figure out if you're saying that I was wrong or that I do it too. Or both.

That you do it too. It didn't strike me as anything outside of the normal tone of banter that goes on here.

Quote

Hey guys, thank you!

Don' worry 'bout it!

Porter · « **Reply #38 on:** August 21, 2009, 01:09:57 PM »

Quote

It didn't strike me as anything outside of the normal tone of banter that goes on here.

I agree. But then, I didn't think my comment was either.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #39 on:** August 21, 2009, 01:32:49 PM »

Ah. I interpreted your comment as a lot more scornful than you probably meant it.

Jonathon · « **Reply #40 on:** August 24, 2009, 09:30:49 AM »

To be honest, Jesse, it seemed to me that, as Porter said, you were just trying to be difficult and didn't actually want to have a real discussion.

I would think that, as a lawyer who takes precision in language so seriously, you would recognize that words can mean different things in different contexts. Saying "Welcome!" to someone who comes to your house is not the same as saying "You're welcome" to someone who thanks you for something. The word has different—and quite distinct—meanings in each context. There's no blurring of meaning here, but rather specialization of it.

The whole idea of language reverting or progressing is something of a fallacy. Language changes, but not necessarily for the better or the worse. Language change is balanced by the desire of speakers to be understood and the desire of listeners to understand. I don't believe there's any way a language could actually devolve into grunts, because then both speakers and listeners lose.

The Genuine · « **Reply #41 on:** August 24, 2009, 10:49:55 AM »

What wasn't serious about how I approached the discussion? Did I say something snarky?

Jonathon · « **Reply #42 on:** August 24, 2009, 11:11:15 AM »

Quote

Slippery slope there, Jonathon.

But maybe you're right. Why don't we just all grunt?

This is the prime example, but also your insistence on using an overly narrow definition of "welcome" that isn't supported by any evidence or common sense. Your discussions of usage always seem to follow the same pattern, asserting that a certain word can only have one narrow meaning and that all other uses of the word are wrong. And you seem far more interested in insisting that real usage is nonsensical and wrong and making ridiculous, eye-roll-worthy claims—like arguing that you're welcome to another bagel—than you are in learning why your assumptions about meaning are wrong. Seriously, what do you think people intend to express when saying "You're welcome" when you take a bagel and say "Thanks"?

The Genuine · « **Reply #43 on:** August 24, 2009, 11:15:01 AM »

I think it's because I had my lawyer hat on. Perhaps I need to find a forum—as a supplement, not to leave yours—specifically for lawyers.

As I tried to point out in my quote from that case, a big part of my life is being so annoying with particularity.

Jonathon · « **Reply #44 on:** August 24, 2009, 11:19:26 AM »

Quote

As I tried to point out in my quote from that case, a big part of my life is being so annoying with particularity.

But then you seem taken aback when people get annoyed.

And honestly, I think that lawyers would do well to pay attention to and try to understand actual usage instead of simply insisting that it doesn't make sense.

The Genuine · « **Reply #45 on:** August 24, 2009, 11:25:13 AM »

I had the wrong hat on when I posted here, and I apologize if I took unreasonable offense.

By necessity, we have to argue strict construction. Or the opposite. It's what we are trained to do.

Be careful before opening this link. Given your profession, it could be NSFW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_construction#Canons

Jonathon · « **Reply #46 on:** August 24, 2009, 11:43:00 AM »

I'm having a hard time believing that you would argue in a court of law that a bagel store employee's saying "You're welcome" would entitle you to take another bagel.

The Genuine · « **Reply #47 on:** August 24, 2009, 12:02:06 PM »

That would never work at trial. But these things do come up in pre-trial motions, which is what my mindset was. I mean, we're here to talk about language, right? I was just trying to have fun. I thought we all enjoyed this kind of debate.

Porter · « **Reply #48 on:** August 24, 2009, 12:06:12 PM »

You keep saying things like "I was just trying to have fun." and "It's not a game. I thought this was a place where we could seriously discuss language."

It looks like you're trying to have it both ways.

The Genuine · « **Reply #49 on:** August 24, 2009, 12:09:35 PM »

The idea, well, my idea, was to discuss the term with a serious eye towards its meaning, but not to get heated about it.