Very true. It's only ever a problem when we just can't find what we like...
Printable View
Very true. It's only ever a problem when we just can't find what we like...
Like when I visit my parents, who have 300 cable television channels, yet are usually watching the local broadcast stations.
It's one way of avoiding all those endless repeats :)
I find I have to turn the subtitles on when watching US series on TV. There is an increasing tendency for young American actors to mumble.
I use them for every show, anyway. I have a problem with high pitches, especially some women's voices. That trained me well for watching foreign films, which I prefer to watch in their natural language.
You're meaning you miss some higher frequency sounds, Jerry?
Yah. I've had that problem since at least 2nd grade. I should have sprung for hearing aids a few years ago but I've an inkling that I don't want to hear most of what I'm missing [[conversation-wise). I think it might bug others more than me, though because I tend to EQ my music with a little more treble than most probably like.
I seem to think that's exactly how Motown produced their 45s!
I've always been pitched 'high'. Now I'm older, some at least of the lower sounds seem not quite so distinct. Some of that may be because I'm intent on something, then somebody says something to me, and I say "Sorry?". Then my brain tells me, correctly, what they've just said! Delayed reaction...
I have to concentrate when in conversation, particularly in crowded places, coffee shops with lots of glass where the acoustics are 'sharp', and also where enunciation of other people is less than clear - i.e. mumbling, which often occurs in TV and movie work, when they're using 'natural' sound. Find I'm not getting it when the actual TV volume is at the usual level.
Most of the time I've fine, even with tinnitis, which came on full-time after I had my ears syringed in my mid-40s. A constant, ringing whistle. Notice it more when I'm tired. Not really a problem, and my hearing was OK when I had it tested, but the whistling distracts.
I've had tinnitus for years. Sometimes it gets loud enough to be a distraction but most of the time, it is just something that's there and easy enough to ignore. I'm with you on the mumbling and crowds, as well. The thing that bugs me most though, is when I am at a movie and it is so loud, I'm uncomfortable but has muttered lines that I can't even make out. How can it be so loud and so hard to understand, sometimes in the same scenes? I've had others complain about that, though.
That's exactly my own experience!
I can pump up the volume, then find it too loud, but still can't make out some of the lines. And when you're sat there, brain trying to process what has just been said, the next line or two is often missed. And then I start to get restless.....
Not wanting to start a war, but when I listen to some of the singers, they slur their words. For me, it's great for the rhythm, but not so great for the actual meaning. A lot of Stevie Wonder's recordings from 70s to present day leave me slightly at a loss, although his voice is great, when judged as another instrument, simply because he 'swallows' many of the lyrics.
When The Supremes became so popular, Diana Ross' voice came over the radio loud and clear, as also did her enunciation [[particularly on the endings of her words - for instance " I Ammmm", when many others will enunciate the words as "I Yam").
Diana would at times even slightly over-emphasise [[[[as when she seemed to be adopting phrasing used by other singers) but Jean Terrell - great voice, but not always crystal clear lyrics to me.
Probably just my 'pitch', but couldn't help noticing. And never had any problems with Gladys Knight - lovely warm contralto singing voice, but still very clear diction.
Hey westgrand,some singers do slur,but then others are just trying to pronounce
[listen to some early stax recordings]and then again some lyrics just make no sense anyhow!
I've noticed on some of the early Motown recordings where the singer says 'aks' instead of 'ask', and have always assumed it's a regional thing.
I don't give any time to lyrics which make no sense - I'd be happier just listening to the instruments:)
Curiously, I understand Stevie Wonder clearly but not some female singers. Diana Ross' voice has always been crystal clear to me, however.
When I was in high school, I had so many people ask me "why do black people say 'axe' instead of 'ask'?" that I made it a particular point to pronounce that word the way it says in the dictionary [[usually, they were trying to be buttholes by asking).
I appreciate the chance to answer it for someone who is sincere in asking [[thanks!). It is a dialectic pronunciation that you'll find is in many regions of the US. So much so, that I never notice it until someone brings it up. It's as common as droppin' your "g" or bringing "ain't" into a proper conversation [[look at the first post on this page).
Here in England alone, let alone the UK, there are still many regional differences, despite being a comparatively small country. The typical accents vary from warm and soft to quite hard and emphatic, and even residents from other UK regions will sometimes struggle to understand what is being said.
Nationally, pronounciation of many words is often inconsistent.
I have always pronounced 'ask' as 'ahsk','bath' as 'bahth', and 'grass' as 'grahss'. In other regions, many would pronounce those words as 'assk','batthh' and 'grasss'. But then, for 'plastic' they might say 'plasstic' and, instead of 'plahstic', so would I!
For the generation above me, the Queen's English was the ideal. Taking it to an extreme, some would emulate the rather stilted, cut-glass tones of the 'upper classes'. Over the decades, the differences have become blurred. Even the nuances in the Queen's present speaking voice have softened.
Generally, the grammar and speech used by BBC news broadcasts is the nearest to standard English. In that context, dropping the 'g' or use of "ain't" would technically be incorrect, I imagine - but in everyday colloquial English , commonplace. "Ain't" is perhaps more commonly used in US.
I remember reading about the "H" test that kids were given in the playgrounds of Northern Ireland. The kids made new students pronounce the letter, knowing that Catholic kids said "haich" whereas Protestant children said "aich" [[or vice versa). Suffice it to say, there were consequences for saying it the wrong way.
Language is always evolving. Some new words I'm happy to use, while others I'm not.
I was always taught that 'H' was pronounced 'aitch', and still believe it should be - but 'haitch' is indeed used increasingly and quite commonly now, especially by younger people.
I believe the alternative pronounciation has been in use for a long time in Ireland, so your story does seem to confirm that might be true.
And if I were to say 'aitch' in a broad Scottish accent, I'd probably pronounce it as 'itch' - LOL!
I'm a snob about language in many regards. I hate to hear people use the now popular "conversate" in any manner. "We need to conversate." Ugggh. I also am bugged by the fact that "loaned" is apparently the popular choice over "lent", which was the word that I was taught. The biggest of my irrational language pet peeves is when people try to be proper and say "he gave it to Harold and I". Such a simple rule that is increasingly ignored in the U.S. If he gave it to me and he gave it to Harold, then he gave it to Harold and me. Okay. I feel better now...
Although I was considered to be quite bright at school [[but then proceeded to spend most of my time failing to live up to my teachers' expectations!) I was always shaky on the technical terms of language.
I picked up a lot simply by reading and with spoken usage - and also by correction. If someone was thoughtful and kindly, I could learn much from them, without feeling I was silly.
I do not feel you are a snob Jerry as, in your responses, you don't appear to put people down [[perhaps denigrate is a suitable word...), if they differ from your opinion. That would be my definition of a snob, and usually it would seem to disguise some form of underlying insecurity.
I'm not too familiar with the word 'conversate'. It sounds a tad clumsy, somewhat contrived, but I understand its meaning. Perhaps it is just a fashion? And yes, borrowed, loaned and lent are indeed all subtly different.
Again, yes, examples such as 'Harold and I' are falling out of favour, as it now sounds too stilted, too pretentious. It might still be used in the written word, where appropriate, but not in spoken language.
One of my own little corrections [[and I still find myself saying it when I'm also thinking about something else...) is that something is similiar to, but also different from other things. 'Different to' is very often used, as is 'Different than'.
The main object in language is to reach an understanding, and some will simply say the details don't matter, or "Well, you know what I mean". Taken literally, use of incorrect language can inadvertently mislead, and sometimes lead to unfortunate consequences, so it's always going to be a little tricky....LOL
Good points, all. One that I'm frequently guilty of is "whether or not". And I've been avoiding "yet" in my e-mails because it is almost always redundant. Ah, but why should I point out the splinter in my brother's eye when there is a beam in my own?
At school, we were taught that the use of "ain't" and "haitch" was uneducated.
Grammatical errors do not worry me too much as long as they do not confuse the meaning, though I am a bit sad that adjectives are being used incorrectly instead of the adverbial form ending in -ly.
I am more concerned by the fact that young people seem to have a smaller vocabulary, resulting in them not being able to express subtle shades of meaning.
I think that it's important to be able to communicate well. By "well", I have to consider the source, so if I have a problem with something that someone says or writes on a technical level, it's typically because that person knows better and got lazy [[in my opinion). I work around people who say "ain't" all the time and speak in a manner not to be heard in the board room, and that's no problem for me. My wife sometimes gives me a dirty look if I slip into "work mode" at home and talk more like my co-workers than I do like myself.
It just bugs me to hear professionals talking in an unprofessional manner. A few years ago, I heard a news anchorwoman describe a crime suspect as being a "dark-complected Hispanic man". I don't know if there's an acceptable use of "complected", but how hard would it have been to write "Hispanic man with a dark complexion"? That's when my funky inner snob comes out, not when I hear the same thing from someone on the street.
True Jerry [[answering your earlier post) - on reflection, the word 'whether' should suffice alone, although in conversation I'm sure I do say 'whether or not'.
Hadn't really thought too much about 'yet' - but on that subject, I'm never sure if the best is yet to come, or if the best has yet to come. Both seem in common use.
Agreed 144man, 'ain't' and 'haitch' were indeed frowned upon in my own youth. My Mum didn't receive the depth of education I was offered, and wanted better for her children. She insisted to this tiny tot that I not call farm animals 'moo cow' and 'baa lamb' - they were cows and lambs/sheep, so best to get it right from the start. I slightly cringe now at hearing even professionals who care for cats, dogs and other animals describing them as 'boys' and girls'. They have their own identity and dignity. Why not 'male' and female', if not 'tom and queen', 'dog and bitch' etc....we have such a vast number of words from which to choose.
[[Jerry : 'from which to choose' - that sounds old-fashioned, maybe? Probably we'd all now say 'to choose from' - ?)
And [[in my mind, I can hear my English teacher say 'now, you don't start a new sentence with the word 'and' - !!), without ingratiating myself with anyone here, it's my experience that many an educated American is far more fluent in the English language than many born here in the UK, despite some of the obvious differences in terms used.
I don't know about that last point... But my complaint about "yet" is more based on the commonly used phrases like "he's not here, yet" or "I don't have it, yet". Sadly, as this conversation continues, I realize that many would have a lot of complaints about my own use of English.
Use of the word 'yet' in that context would seem to imply that the subject of the enquiry is, at least, expected....
Thinking about it, maybe you mean the construction should be 'He's not yet here" or "I don't yet have it" - which also seem valid, even if they perhaps might be strictly incorrect in a technical sense....
How do you stand on "I haven't got it", as opposed to "I don't have it"...?
I prefer "I don't have it"; simpler is better. However, I know that I've used both of those to say the same thing. In my perfect world, no word would be used that isn't necessary. Therefore, "it isn't here yet" would become "it isn't here", which seems to say just as much. I'm cool with "they have yet to arrive" as opposed to "they haven't arrived", but I don't like "they haven't arrived yet". Tell me, doctor. Is there a pill that will help someone like me?:[[
No, patient correspondent, there is not. It's really all to do with one's expectation. Either the words satisfy, or they do not.
When they do not satisfy, even if using correct grammar, theemotional feeling of disappointment and irritation supersedes everything.
Happens to everyone. We all need that pill LOL
You need to know what the rules are before breaking them. The great Anglican hymn "Jerusalem" begins "And did those feet in ancient times...?"; and Shakespeare often used the double negative. I believe on a forum we should be using conversational rather than written English, so I usually write "isn't" instead of "is not".
Grammar is largely arbitrary anyway, based on the grammar of classical Greek and Latin, sometimes resulting in ridiculous rules. I maintain that it has never been wrong to split the infinitive in English. You can't split the infinitive in other languages because it only consists of a single word. To extend this to English, where the infinitive consists of two words [[as in "to go") is stupid.
And why on earth can't a preposition be used to end a sentence with?
There is a way to justify "to Harold and I", by making a comparison to [with[[?)] French, where they would say "Harold et moi" instead of "Harold et je". The argument would be that English usage now allows the use of the disjunctive form as an alternative to the objective case.
Ending a sentence with a preposition? Happens all the time :)
On the subject of 'isn't' instead of 'is not' : I remember a note written on one of my school reports by my English teacher, also my form mistress. 'His work is spoiled by overuse of colloquialisms' but, to me in my teens, it was simply everyday language.....
A contraction is a colloquialism? Tough teacher! I use contractions all the time, whether speaking or writing. You guys are filling my head up with great stuff. I thought that I was alone in the world when it came to actually applying thought toward written and spoken words.
As for ending sentences with prepositions, I try hard to avoid the practice while remembering the Churchill response to it: "This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.”
That comment on my report was written nearly 50 years ago and, as we know, such a lot has changed in that time.
Standards were strict then, and the written word was to be in standard English, although even then it would differ from the spoken word. I would say it still is different, and should be so.
I would also say it is useful to know the difference, but only if individuals think so. Many get by just fine with everyday speech. I'm not so sure that is adequate where, as an example, business communications are concerned. A few years ago, I queried a procedure with a young, very sweet young lady at the bank which held the business account for our house [[divided into flats). When I opened the letter sent in response, her opening line began "Not to worry...." and continued in similar vein.
I think what we are discussing here is the blurring of the line between formal and informal communications - ?
That sounds like it. I'm the only supervisor in my warehouse who has formal secondary schooling and I cringe when I read some of my peers' e-mails. That's not meant to be disrespectful. It's just that they sometimes write in the manner that they speak and it seems inappropriate for professional written communication.
And then, there are the typos...
I typically read every e-mail at least twice [[and up to five times, depending upon where it's being sent) before I send it. Even still, I often find out later that I forgot a comma or period somewhere. Some of my buddies [[God bless them all) compose notes that you almost have to read aloud to understand. Phonetically, they sort of make sense, but on the computer screen it all becomes confusing.
I think we all need to be aware of some structures, some standards, which keep us on track through the often tedious routine which takes up a lot of life's time. I would say that many of us also have quite a few self-imposed standards, maybe even based on little personal rituals and routines which might even seem strange to others. LOL
To have received a good education at a young age when, with luck, some of it sank in a little easier, is a real plus. It's easy to assume that everyone has it and, of course, many do. Thankfully, times are more enlightened, and there is more help available for those who might struggle a bit, for whatever reasons.
I can tell you enjoy your work and your colleagues, but can also imagine you would feel a little concerned, maybe disappointed, not to see a similar performance from the others at work. I think we all hope that what we are trying to achieve is a shared goal. To realise that it is not, is disappointing. Put simply, you'd be forgiven for feeling there's little inspiration for you in that scenario, so you're left to make it through the days as best you can.
You said recently that the first thing you do when opening up your computer, is to head for the Word Assocation thread. I, for one, can now see why....and it's a very positive routine for you :)
It's like meth, but easier on the teeth.
There comes a time when anything that is easier on the teeth, is welcome :)
Truth, as it has ever been told.
Well, well, I see that all of you have not been idle! Let's see:
Jerry, did you like Ultraman?
You are all talking about different words. PBS did a special between 1988-1991 [[close as I can get) about how different geographical areas in the US have words/phrases that are used only in those areas. They would interview a person from a respective area. The person would give a word/phrase and then give the meaning. I dropped my drink when a man came on and gave the word "gum band." Of course I knew he was from Pittsburgh [[interviewed in front of the University of Pittsburgh)..........a rubber band!!!:D
Hey, Moe! Are you back with us or still on your trip and just checking in? I don't know of Ultraman. But I remember the year when I worked in Memphis when one of my employees told me she was "fin" to go home. Ummm... What? I felt so stoopid. Ultimately, it came out that she was fixing to go home. A young woman with whom I was acquainted in high school once told me she was "pert'nary" ready to graduate. [[????!!!) "Pretty near" is how we said it on my block. You learn these things eventually.
I'm back Jerry, thanks for asking.
Ultraman was this Japanese show with a superhero [[Ultraman) who would fight monsters to save Japan. It was hysterical to see one of the "monsters" bend & see the zipper on the back of the suit!!!!
Look up Ultraman on YouTube.
It seems as if "Bless Your Heart" has been replaced by "Just Asking."
I think I saw some of those back in the '70s when we first got cable. I was a bigger fan of Johnny Sokko and His Flying Robot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POsk1y68avo