Pet Intellectual Peeves

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

Post Reply
User avatar
dhkendall
Pursuing the Dream
Posts: 8789
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Contact:

Run, Forrest, Run!

Post by dhkendall »

silverscreentest wrote:Sports are filled with cliches that drive me crazy. One is pluralizing a name to specify a type of player. For example,"You don't give a long-term contract to the Mark Sanchezes. you give them to the Peyton Mannings." As if there were more than one Peyton Manning, or Mark Sanchez for that matter.

The other is in football where they call quarterback, running back, and receivers the skill positions. So everything else is an unskilled position? Just once, after a coach says something like,"We're really strong in the skill positions," I'd like to hear a reporter follow-up with,"But how are you doing in the unskilled positions, coach?"
They're being paid millions of dollars to throw balls and run? And they're trying to tell me that some of them are skilled?

Therein lies the humour.
"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me

"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings

Follow my progress game by game since 2012
John Boy
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2981
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by John Boy »

Paucle wrote:Unfortunately, "unique" long ago stopped meaning only "one of a kind."
My understanding of its current usage is if you want the "pure" version, use it without modifiers. If you want it to mean "unusual or rare," give it some help.

Of course, in your example, they do use the "one of a kind version," then say it again. Essentially, their copy reads, "Not just unique- unique!"
I must not have gotten the memo. In my universe "unique" still means "one of a kind." So "Unique and one of a kind" is redundant, and "very unique" (no matter how often it is used) is meaningless verbal drek.
User avatar
Paucle
Trekardy! Writer
Posts: 3233
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: near Albany NY

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Paucle »

John Boy wrote:I must not have gotten the memo. In my universe "unique" still means "one of a kind."
In all dictionaries, that's still the first definition, so in that we can take some solace. After that, some add a second, similar definition before including "unusual" as a tertiary one. Others place it secondary.
User avatar
Woof
Swimming in the Jeopardy! Pool
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:53 pm

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Woof »

opusthepenguin wrote: The sad truth is, broadcasters aren't trying to please the Paucles and silverscreentests. Let alone, the Opera.

Brilliant, O Flightless One. :mrgreen:
User avatar
Woof
Swimming in the Jeopardy! Pool
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:53 pm

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Woof »

Paucle wrote:Unfortunately, "unique" long ago stopped meaning only "one of a kind."
My understanding of its current usage is if you want the "pure" version, use it without modifiers. If you want it to mean "unusual or rare," give it some help.
I've tried fighting this battle at work (in the halls of academe) when I questioned why we had to conduct an international search for a "uniquely qualified" candidate.
User avatar
one-nil
Contributor
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 11:54 pm
Location: Studio City, Calif.

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by one-nil »

18,001!

The schwa leads to lazy pronunciation and confused vowel sounds. The English words "hybrid" and "militia" come quickest to mind.

Confused vowel sounds: "Mercedes". This takes three distinct sounds for the same "e"! Yow!

P.S. Miss ya too, Schliebert. I commiserate with you on your plight.
Proud Member of the Group of 360 (G360) Since 2007!
User avatar
Schliemann
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Schliemann »

one-nil wrote:P.S. Miss ya too, Schliebert. I commiserate with you on your plight.
hi

toasting with you six vainglorious years in tptb's "ringer folder"
User avatar
one-nil
Contributor
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 11:54 pm
Location: Studio City, Calif.

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by one-nil »

Schliemann wrote:
one-nil wrote:P.S. Miss ya too, Schliebert. I commiserate with you on your plight.
hi

toasting with you six vainglorious years in tptb's "ringer folder"
yea, verily...i'm sure they have "binders full of Schliemen"

l'chaim!
Proud Member of the Group of 360 (G360) Since 2007!
User avatar
Schliemann
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Schliemann »

one-nil wrote:
Schliemann wrote:
one-nil wrote:P.S. Miss ya too, Schliebert. I commiserate with you on your plight.
hi

toasting with you six vainglorious years in tptb's "ringer folder"
yea, verily...i'm sure they have "binders full of Schliemen"

l'chaim!
the path to j! purgatory is paved with SHC championships.
User avatar
MarkBarrett
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 16471
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:37 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by MarkBarrett »

For some newer members who may not know about this thread: Happy reading
UiscePreston
Valued Contributor
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:59 pm

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by UiscePreston »

one-nil wrote:The schwa leads to lazy pronunciation and confused vowel sounds. The English words "hybrid" and "militia" come quickest to mind.

Confused vowel sounds: "Mercedes". This takes three distinct sounds for the same "e"! Yow!
1) Schwa doesn't lead to anything. It is a vowel. (cf. Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) Due to its properties of being centralized and unstressed, as the tongue moves naturally from extremes in the mouth, schwa is just a point in the process.

2) You are confusing the graphic representation of sound with the underlying linguistic nature. You have cited three foreign loanwords that arrived into English after being filtered diachronically through several other phonologies - while still retaining fairly original spellings.

But the Latin alphabet is not phonetic in nature. There is no one-to-one correspondence between every meaningful sound and a letter. Despite what people know about the alphabet from Sesame Street and Wheel of Fortune, there are roughly 24 phonemic consonants and anywhere from 15-25 vowels (depending on the dialect). Spellings would constantly be changing if the letter had to represent the exact sound used by every individual speaker. Not every 'e' whether spoken or written is the "same" because language works on allophonic manifestations of hyper-idealized phonemes. We do not all speak from the identically-shaped mouth. Variations naturally exist in all speakers - even within the same dialect. And that includes age- and sex-based formant frequencies from every speaker. Our minds process classes of sounds based on relativity. It is how tone languages still work amongst speakers of differing vocal pitch ranges.

3) Language and how it is depicted are not necessarily logical. Letters are arbitrary. And sounds are not absolute. George Bernard Shaw sought to impose a phonetic alphabet. It never caught on because it actually complicated mutual intelligibility across dialects. Sure it might be good for writing accents in a novel or describing English academically, but if he had written Pygmalion entirely in his dialect of English using his alphabet, it would be locked in that variety of English and increasingly difficult to read by others, needing countless dialect printings.

4) This may be hard for you to accept but language is fluid. It changes. And nothing is more indicative of that than vowels. They shift most easily of all.

My pet peeve is when people with a limited understanding of linguistics complain pedantically about - or try to dictate how - language works.
Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Vanya »

UiscePreston wrote: allophonic manifestations of hyper-idealized phonemes.
OK you are going to have to explain this one.
UiscePreston
Valued Contributor
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:59 pm

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by UiscePreston »

Vanya wrote:
UiscePreston wrote: allophonic manifestations of hyper-idealized phonemes.
OK you are going to have to explain this one.
In any given language a sound is only meaningful if altering it results in a change in meaning. Meaningful sounds are called "phonemes". For example, take the sounds /p/ and /b/. If pronounced in isolation, the main difference between them is whether your vocal folds are vibrating ("voiced") or not ("unvoiced"). Otherwise. they are made at the same point of articulation and through the same manner in the mouth. We also know that /p/ and /b/ are phonemes in English because pet and bet signify two different things. And there are lots of alternations like this: pin and bin, pat and bat. There are languages that do not make a distinction between /p/ and /b/. That vocal cord vibration difference is not meaningful to its speakers. This is quite common in languages spoken throughout the Far East like Mandarin Chinese. Changing between /p/ and /b/ doesn't signify a change in the meaning of the word. If pet and bet were words in Mandarin, they would mean the same thing. There would be one phoneme in this case, and /p/ and /b/ are allophones of it.

But there are a lot of other things going on when you take language out of a vacuum and into a natural form. These nuances are called suprasegmentals. They are all the little things that make allophones allophones as opposed to an idealized phoneme. They are also the linguistic bits that give languages their unique characteristics - like distinction in the vocal cord voicing, aspiration, palatalized, tones, etc. If the presence or absence of these things changes meaning, they are phonemes. If not, they are allophones. What might be an allophone in one language could be a phoneme in another. So to my original point, what looks like the same "e" was always different sounds since the suprasegmental markers of the Latin alphabet like vowel placement, length, quality and stress have been lost in the three words specified.

I hope that helps.
Last edited by UiscePreston on Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:08 pm, edited 6 times in total.
User avatar
georgespelvin
The Charlie Brown of Jeopardy Auditions
Posts: 905
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:40 pm

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by georgespelvin »

MarkBarrett wrote:For some newer members who may not know about this thread: Happy reading
I consider this post a new wrinkle on trolling that I heretofore had not considered.
I used to be AWSOP but wanted to be more theatrical.
Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Vanya »

UiscePreston wrote: idealized consonant.
What do you mean by that? (in 25 words or less).
Onairb
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 621
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:45 am

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Onairb »

Nothing related to linguistics can be explained in 25 words or less..or at least, not in 25 easily-understood words.
Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Vanya »

Onairb wrote:Nothing related to linguistics can be explained in 25 words or less..or at least, not in 25 easily-understood words.
I can explain it with two letters :) .
UiscePreston
Valued Contributor
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:59 pm

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by UiscePreston »

Vanya wrote:
UiscePreston wrote: idealized consonant.
What do you mean by that? (in 25 words or less).
Speech sounds are not absolute but relative. Example: there is no such thing as a perfect p, just a class of sounds that exhibit p-ness.
User avatar
Magna
Hooked on Jeopardy
Posts: 3079
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:37 pm

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Magna »

UiscePreston wrote:Example: there is no such thing ...
Am I right in thinking your choice of consonants was not intended as a vehicle for puns? If so, you might want to edit.
UiscePreston
Valued Contributor
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:59 pm

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by UiscePreston »

Magna wrote:Am I right in thinking your choice of consonants was not intended as a vehicle for puns? If so, you might want to edit.
If you do not like the one I have chosen, you may insert something different.
Post Reply