Re: IS and the Western response : Wed Aug 27, 2014 1:46 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I suppose the more people dumbly parrot American language abuses then the more will follow, and sadly eventually these horrible Americanisms will, by default, become assimilated.

We already have, in rugby league, widespread use of O-ffense and DE -fense, which I have spelled in American as thankfully all other instances of use of the English word "defence" are still used with the emphasis on the second syllable. But what was wrong with Attack & Defence?

Other words and phrases heading the same way:

"Momentarily" - as in "I'll be with you momentarily". No, I'm gonna need much more of your time than that, pal;

In every other news report, that news reporters' staple verbiage, the awful, ponderous and usually superflous, "in the coming days";

"To go", meaning to take out;

"Can I get". Urrrrrrrgh;

"Step up to the plate" - aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrghhhhh!

... and sadly a regular on these very forums, the truly awful "Go figure!"

I take the "momentarily" quote to mean "I'll be with you in a moment" not "I'll be with you for a moment"

My own particular bugbear is "you do the math".

It's maths, you ignorant bastads, it's an abbreviation of mathematics, a plural, not a singular noun

Re: IS and the Western response : Wed Aug 27, 2014 6:08 pm  

Cronus wrote:

Or, as the Oxford Dictionary puts it, "The form gotten is not used in British English but is very common in North American English." It may have roots in Old English/Norse but realistically it simply wasn't used here until the relentless barrage of American TV began to affect our language. Even now it's rarely used, and long may that continue.

Besides, it sounds stupid and the user sounds like a stupid pubescent American.

P.s. when trying to educate one's audience in the English language, it strengthens one's argument to ensure one's spelling and grammar are correct.

Crumbs, I'm not a member of the grammar police, that particular glass-house has a tendency to shatter around me, as you've pointed out .

I love words, though, and lament the passing of words long traditional in the English language that are becoming/have become obsolete. A bleeding tragedy, I firmly believe. Gotten is one such word, like it or not. As I pointed out, the English usage of the word is markedly different to the abhorrent American adaptation. They use it to indicate possesion of an object ('I've gotten me a new cell phone...') whereas in English the correct usage is to indicate the past participle of 'get'.

We now tend to use the word 'got' instead. In Standee's example: "Had we not got involved..." 'got' sounds ungainly and crude. The traditional 'gotten' reads, sounds and flows better as can be seen by Standee's correct usage.

I hate, hate Americanisms, text-speak and vulgar adaptations into the English language that really don't belong here (toilet, serviette and pardon being particular bugbears of mine). But 'gotten' isn't one of them and long may it remain.

Re: IS and the Western response : Wed Aug 27, 2014 6:20 pm  

WormInHand wrote:

Crumbs, I'm not a member of the grammar police, that particular glass-house has a tendency to shatter around me, as you've pointed out .

I love words, though, and lament the passing of words long traditional in the English language that are becoming/have become obsolete. A bleeding tragedy, I firmly believe. Gotten is one such word, like it or not. As I pointed out, the English usage of the word is markedly different to the abhorrent American adaptation. They use it to indicate possesion of an object ('I've gotten me a new cell phone...') whereas in English the correct usage is to indicate the past participle of 'get'.

We now tend to use the word 'got' instead. In Standee's example: "Had we not got involved..." 'got' sounds ungainly and crude. The traditional 'gotten' reads, sounds and flows better as can be seen by Standee's correct usage.

I hate, hate Americanisms, text-speak and vulgar adaptations into the English language that really don't belong here (toilet, serviette and pardon being particular bugbears of mine). But 'gotten' isn't one of them and long may it remain.

I really do wish he'd said "If we didn't get involved"

Re: IS and the Western response : Wed Aug 27, 2014 7:37 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

I really do wish he'd said "If we didn't get involved"

That's because 'got' sounds so clumsy and was therefore actively discouraged when we were taught English. That, in turn, is because the far more graceful 'gotten' was already passing into history.

I do wonder why, though. After all, "ill-gotten" is still commonplace.

Imagine saying, "The corrupt capitalists and their ill-got gains." It's obviously wrong. Gotten is correct.

Re: IS and the Western response : Wed Aug 27, 2014 7:57 pm  

WormInHand wrote:

Crumbs, I'm not a member of the grammar police, that particular glass-house has a tendency to shatter around me, as you've pointed out .

I love words, though, and lament the passing of words long traditional in the English language that are becoming/have become obsolete. A bleeding tragedy, I firmly believe. Gotten is one such word, like it or not. As I pointed out, the English usage of the word is markedly different to the abhorrent American adaptation. They use it to indicate possesion of an object ('I've gotten me a new cell phone...') whereas in English the correct usage is to indicate the past participle of 'get'.

We now tend to use the word 'got' instead. In Standee's example: "Had we not got involved..." 'got' sounds ungainly and crude. The traditional 'gotten' reads, sounds and flows better as can be seen by Standee's correct usage.

I hate, hate Americanisms, text-speak and vulgar adaptations into the English language that really don't belong here (toilet, serviette and pardon being particular bugbears of mine). But 'gotten' isn't one of them and long may it remain.

Being a member of the Etymology Police automatically invites prosecution by the Grammar Police.

As far as I can tell, 'gotten' hasn't been in common usage in England since the 1700s and has certainly never played a part in modern English. That's more than long enough to consign it to the dustbin of the English language. The fact it's only via American TV that we are seeing it crop up again very occasionally is even more reason.

Re: IS and the Western response : Wed Aug 27, 2014 8:06 pm  

You all need to 'chill out'......

Re: IS and the Western response : Wed Aug 27, 2014 8:19 pm  

USA! USA! USA!

I generally assume Americans are just checking they've got the acronym to the name of their own country correct by continually shouting it in an aggressive manner when happy. Because to everyone else it just makes them look a bit simple.

Re: IS and the Western response : Wed Aug 27, 2014 8:29 pm  

If Islamic state aren't grammar police, they may get a few votes

Re: IS and the Western response : Wed Aug 27, 2014 8:55 pm  

FFS does it really matter?

My daughter is dyslexic and when someosked me how bad it was I replied:

"If you ask her to write dog ten times, you'll get 8 dogs, a bog and a god. But it would take a special kind of stupidity or pedantry to not realise that she'll never take god or a bog for a walk"

Re: IS and the Western response : Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:19 pm  

Grammar pedantry is fine if its humurus

Otherwise its just plain daft ,not big and not clever