Pet Intellectual Peeves

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

Post Reply
bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by bpmod »

Maybe it's the programmer in me that needs correct syntax and total lack of ambiguity. But I can't help but wonder why we have proper grammar, sentence structure, punctuation, etc. if "everybody understands what [you] mean anyway". And when we are learning, we are told not to assume anything, but then we have to assume with every sentence that is uttered or written.

If I were to write a line of computer code whose English equivalent would be along the lines of "me tarzan you jane", the parser would spit it back out at me and not (be able to) do anything with it. But it has become perfectly acceptable for educated (and non-educated) people to not know the difference between a subject and an object (for instance). And, the funny thing is, I have heard the worst usage of English, of all places, in the school staff room. Things like "Give that form to myself when you are done." or "Mary brought those cookies for I because she knew I like them." Of course, I also had lots of fun with the children in the classroom too... "Sir, can I go to the bathroom?" to which I would answer "You would know your ability better than I would."

Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
User avatar
Magna
Hooked on Jeopardy
Posts: 3079
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:37 pm

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Magna »

Paucle wrote:I brought the order in to the manager to ask if they got both discounts and she said yes, first take the membership off and put that total here, then use that total and do the group rate discount here "So yes they get a full 40% off."
Now I was confused. "Wait, take both off the top and add the discounts together?"
Fwiw, most retail establishments do this - which, as a customer, I don't mind at all! :)
bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by bpmod »

Vanya wrote:The point is, you have no basis for objecting to different than or awhile or alot, other than (!) the fact that you don't like them.
No. At least in my case, it's because I went to school and I learned what was correct and incorrect. And if things have changed since I learned them, I don't have the opportunity (or the stamina) to keep up with the changes.

Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
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 »

Magna wrote:
Paucle wrote:I brought the order in to the manager to ask if they got both discounts and she said yes, first take the membership off and put that total here, then use that total and do the group rate discount here "So yes they get a full 40% off."
Now I was confused. "Wait, take both off the top and add the discounts together?"
Fwiw, most retail establishments do this - which, as a customer, I don't mind at all! :)
My point being, WE didn't. She was showing me a procedure that conflicted with the math. If she wanted me to give them 40% off, she needed to show me a different way to fill out the form.
User avatar
trainman
Moderator Extraordinaire
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:27 pm

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by trainman »

bpmod wrote:But we keep hearing about the couple in Buffalo watching the evening newscast...

TV: And now, the weather. Current temperature 32 in Buffalo, 30 in the Southtowns, 27 out by the airport, 34 in Niagara Falls and 0 across the border in Fort Erie.
They don't really do this on the TV news in Buffalo, do they?
bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by bpmod »

trainman wrote:
bpmod wrote:But we keep hearing about the couple in Buffalo watching the evening newscast...

TV: And now, the weather. Current temperature 32 in Buffalo, 30 in the Southtowns, 27 out by the airport, 34 in Niagara Falls and 0 across the border in Fort Erie.
They don't really do this on the TV news in Buffalo, do they?
I really have to use more emoticons. :mrgreen:

Actually, the entire story is one made up by my friends and me with the thought "What if the US weather broadcasts got our temperatures 'right'?"

Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
User avatar
dhkendall
Pursuing the Dream
Posts: 8789
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Contact:

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by dhkendall »

bpmod wrote:
trainman wrote:
bpmod wrote:But we keep hearing about the couple in Buffalo watching the evening newscast...

TV: And now, the weather. Current temperature 32 in Buffalo, 30 in the Southtowns, 27 out by the airport, 34 in Niagara Falls and 0 across the border in Fort Erie.
They don't really do this on the TV news in Buffalo, do they?
I really have to use more emoticons. :mrgreen:

Actually, the entire story is one made up by my friends and me with the thought "What if the US weather broadcasts got our temperatures 'right'?"

Brian
I'm sure I have seen this done on printed maps (either in the newspaper or on static maps on, say, the Weather Channel that don't have a talking head in front of it), where the other temperature (either F or C) for the Canuck temps, is bracketed.
"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
User avatar
billy pilgrim
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 11:42 pm

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by billy pilgrim »

bpmod wrote:
trainman wrote:
bpmod wrote:But we keep hearing about the couple in Buffalo watching the evening newscast...

TV: And now, the weather. Current temperature 32 in Buffalo, 30 in the Southtowns, 27 out by the airport, 34 in Niagara Falls and 0 across the border in Fort Erie.
They don't really do this on the TV news in Buffalo, do they?
I really have to use more emoticons. :mrgreen:

Actually, the entire story is one made up by my friends and me with the thought "What if the US weather broadcasts got our temperatures 'right'?"

Brian
Well maybe it was -40 ?
She caught the Katy and left me a mule to ride.
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 »

billy pilgrim wrote:Well maybe it was -40 ?
I can calculate that! Probably F, so need C. Subtract 32 negative 72 divide by 9 is negative 8 multiply by hey WAITAMINNIT

Must've gotten it backwards... Need F! Divide by 5 negative 8 multiply by nine negative 72 add 32, neg for... hey WAITAMINNIT!

What kind of nonsense is this?? Are these conversion formulas correct or not?
bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by bpmod »

billy pilgrim wrote:
bpmod wrote:Actually, the entire story is one made up by my friends and me with the thought "What if the US weather broadcasts got our temperatures 'right'?"

Brian
Well maybe it was -40 ?
And when it's colder than that, all of the USians want to move up here.

Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by bpmod »

Paucle wrote:
billy pilgrim wrote:Well maybe it was -40 ?
I can calculate that! Probably F, so need C. Subtract 32 negative 72 divide by 9 is negative 8 multiply by hey WAITAMINNIT

Must've gotten it backwards... Need F! Divide by 5 negative 8 multiply by nine negative 72 add 32, neg for... hey WAITAMINNIT!

What kind of nonsense is this?? Are these conversion formulas correct or not?
They can't possibly be if -40 is twice as cold as -20.

Or is that twice as cold as -4... or -28.9... or...?

Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by bpmod »

Paucle wrote:She was showing me a procedure that conflicted with the math. If she wanted me to give them 40% off, she needed to show me a different way to fill out the form.
And sometimes, it's all in the way you look at things. It used to be, when I'd cross the border to shop (or, more accurately, when I'd be shopping while across the border), I'd see signage informing me what the exchange rate was on Canadian currency (I probably still do, but don't take notice any more). Let's say it was 10%. I'd go to the counter with my $10.00 widget and expect to pay $11.00 Canadian for it. At first, I was surprised that they would charge me $11.11. And, of course, the higher the 'exchange', the further from my calculations the end result was. If it was 20% (and I was expecting to pay $12.00), I'd be charged $12.50. Of course, at 50%, I'd have to pay $20.00.

Now I just use US currency when I'm over there.

Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
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 »

You're calculating the cost of the item increasing by 10%, which would indeed be the $11, but you can't do that. The item does not increase in cost. It's 10 American. So you owe the merchant 10 American dollars. How much did you give him if you pay 11 Canadian?
Although the Merchant could eat the 11 cents for neighborly good will and just put two prices on everything- US and Can $ amounts.
bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by bpmod »

Paucle wrote:You're calculating the cost of the item increasing by 10%, which would indeed be the $11, but you can't do that. The item does not increase in cost. It's 10 American. So you owe the merchant 10 American dollars. How much did you give him if you pay 11 Canadian?
Although the Merchant could eat the 11 cents for neighborly good will and just put two prices on everything- US and Can $ amounts.
No. I was calculating the cost of a US dollar at a given exchange rate. The cost of the item is irrelevant. Also, as I said, it's 11 cents on a $10 item at 10%. A $100 item at 65% costs me almost $300 rather than the $165 that the exchange rate would imply.

Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
User avatar
econgator
Let's Go Mets!
Posts: 10673
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:32 am

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by econgator »

bpmod wrote:
billy pilgrim wrote:
bpmod wrote:Actually, the entire story is one made up by my friends and me with the thought "What if the US weather broadcasts got our temperatures 'right'?"

Brian
Well maybe it was -40 ?
And when it's colder than that, all of the USians want to move up here.

Brian
It's 82 out right now. I don't need to go anywhere. :)
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 »

checking back, you said the exchange rate is 10%. OK. Again, that doesn't mean you increase the American by 10%; rather you decrease the Canadian by 10%. Therein lies the difference. You have to offer enough Canadian $ so that the 10% reduction equals the American dollar. So if you owe me a dollar American, and give me 1.10 Canadian, how much have you offered me? (Since you're a nice guy, I'll eat the penny!)
bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by bpmod »

econgator wrote:
bpmod wrote:And when it's colder than that, all of the USians want to move up here.

Brian
It's 82 out right now. I don't need to go anywhere. :)
In case you didn't get what I meant (and for others that may not have, even if you did), if it were 82 (of your degrees) here, you* would look at our temperature of 27.8, and say "no thanks", even though it is the same. If your* temp was -62 (for instance) and ours was -52.2 (also the same), you* might get the impression it's warmer here.

*'you' and 'your' here do not refer to you specifically, but to the aforementioned hypothetical USian who doesn't realize there's a different system in place.

Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by bpmod »

Paucle wrote:checking back, you said the exchange rate is 10%. OK. Again, that doesn't mean you increase the American by 10%; rather you decrease the Canadian by 10%. Therein lies the difference. You have to offer enough Canadian $ so that the 10% reduction equals the American dollar. So if you owe me a dollar American, and give me 1.10 Canadian, how much have you offered me? (Since you're a nice guy, I'll eat the penny!)
But that's what I am saying. Looking at it one way, a 10% exchange equates to a 10% reduction. But that's not the way to calculate exchange. We (being so closely tied to the US economically and every other way) get our daily exchange rate news as two numbers. The first tells us what a US dollar will cost us. The second tells us what our dollar is worth in the US (both theoretically -- we never see those amounts in practice).

Let's use a couple of actual dates in history to make the point (rounded off a little):
January 18, 2002 1.6403 0.6096
January 18, 2011 1.0075 0.9926

In the latter, we could say "less than 1%" and it's close enough either way. But in the former, we would generally say 64%. We also might say 60% (which would not be equivalent to the former's "less than 1%"; it would be equivalent to 99%), but we would never say 40% (which is what you* say).

* you being the aforementioned US merchants, and you specifically, if I am reading you right.

Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
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 »

bpmod wrote:
Vanya wrote:The point is, you have no basis for objecting to different than or awhile or alot, other than (!) the fact that you don't like them.
No. At least in my case, it's because I went to school and I learned what was correct and incorrect. And if things have changed since I learned them, I don't have the opportunity (or the stamina) to keep up with the changes.

Brian
I did say that I was talking about my preferences.

Part of my objection, however, is my hope that changes take place not for random reasons, but somehow to improve the language. New usages do come into common acceptance to reflect new ways of thinking (e.g. after the Civil War, Americans started talking about "the United States IS" instead of "the United States ARE;" this reflected a new way of looking at the country. I can't fathom why someone started using "awhile." It improves nothing.

What do you think of the hypothetical example I used? If people started saying "I will be in town for aweek" (instead of 'for A WEEK') would you simply accept that as a new and correct usage? How about if they said "I will be in town for twoweeks" instead of "I will be in town for two weeks" (apart from the fact thay they are now overstaying their welcome)? If enough people start doing that, does it become correct? Where does that end?

In these usages the noun and tne modifier are separate words, or used to be. What is to be gained by jamming them together like this? Yes, I prefer changing the language only for good reason. If I'm teaching the class, you're darned right students get graded down for these substandard practices. And thanks, Brian, for sticking to some notion of right and wrong in language usage.
User avatar
Magna
Hooked on Jeopardy
Posts: 3079
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:37 pm

Re: Pet Intellectual Peeves

Post by Magna »

John Boy wrote:
bpmod wrote:
Vanya wrote:The point is, you have no basis for objecting to different than or awhile or alot, other than (!) the fact that you don't like them.
No. At least in my case, it's because I went to school and I learned what was correct and incorrect. And if things have changed since I learned them, I don't have the opportunity (or the stamina) to keep up with the changes.

Brian
I did say that I was talking about my preferences.

Part of my objection, however, is my hope that changes take place not for random reasons, but somehow to improve the language. New usages do come into common acceptance to reflect new ways of thinking (e.g. after the Civil War, Americans started talking about "the United States IS" instead of "the United States ARE;" this reflected a new way of looking at the country. I can't fathom why someone started using "awhile." It improves nothing.
Fwiw, not everyone went to a school that agreed with your school's philosophy. Many went to schools where "different than" and "awhile" (where "while" is really just a noun) were taught as standard. So many of these disputes are really just a battle of what one person was taught vs. what another was taught. Also fwiw, "awhile" in the sense you don't like has been in use since the 1200s, when people were still speaking Middle English. Caxton used it in 1489. So it's not really a new usage - just a lingering old one that some people don't like.

I don't like "aweek," though I also can't see it catching on. Running the article and noun together like that would be confusing for everyone.
Post Reply