Canuckistan
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:The sentence is not in itself clearly conveying the meaning you suggest, it is only clear in context.
Seriously, though, what other context is there? Are people randomly walking down the street telling you that they were recorded in front of a live audience?
The only time you'll hear that sentence (and have it make any sense whatsoever) is during a television (or radio, or Internet) show. And, in that context, the saying makes perfect sense, especially considering that in the industry, live also means happening right now, not just opposite of dead.
quote:Recorded live in front of a studio audience
That's a perfectly fine subsitute as well. I just don't think the first one is as unclear as you say it is.
Oh, and you smell.
-------------------- People need to stop appropriating Jesus as their reason for behaving badly. It's so irritating. (Avril) Posts: 8429 | From: New York run by the Swiss (Toronto) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Canuckistan: Seriously, though, what other context is there? Are people randomly walking down the street telling you that they were recorded in front of a live audience?
And that is why this is only being discussed by pedants in a thread about language, and not causing people unnecessary confusion and horror in front of their television screens.
Just because we understand something doesn't make it correct.
It is all part of the great conflict between the amazing intelligence of human beings, and the amazing stupidity of human beings. Somehow we manage to understand each other even when we are talking nonsense.
And you smell more, to the power of infinity. Also, you see that icon at the top of my post - that's you that is.
Victoria J
-------------------- Post accompanied by maniacal laughter. Posts: 577 | From: London, UK | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Victoriaarrggh J: Also, you see that icon at the top of my post - that's you that is.
I popped back in here just to see what kind of post warranted that kind of icon. Very appropriate! Except, I think he's a little less green and a little more purple, I do.
-------------------- "The little local company I buy from has CHEAP shipping and I have met their goats." (snapdragonfly)
"And that's one lost erection I'll never get back! You hear me Dan! I'm owed an erection!" (I'mNotDedalus) Posts: 2658 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lady Moon: What continually shocks me -- I'm a Southerner moved North -- is how my normal speech pattern keeps shocking people.
I startled a good friend of mine in a showering discussion when I asked her if she showered of a morning or of a night. She had never heard of the 'of a' construction meaning 'in the'. But I grew up hearing it.
Not to worry, Lady Moon. I've not used "of" in that way, but I know people who do ..... "He came of a Friday." is from my handy-dandy dictionary, but it's not on-line, so I can't provide a cite.
"Of a" + time of day is quite common hereabouts and unlikely to be remarked upon.
quote:Originally posted by Llewtrah: While looking through my file of linguistic hates (in case I ever get to write another opinion article) I also found my list of words that triggered an American colleagues email filter to bounce my emails. Apparently I can no longer refer to a "thorny issue" because "horny" inappropriate business language. Nor may anyone in the minutes of a meeting be called "Cockerell".
But I digress. "It's" when "its" should be used is always a pet peeve, but its prevalence now makes me pause when I write "its". Aaagh. I've also seen "her's", "Your's" and "their's" , but not "hi's".
Disclaimer: I freely admit that I am not linguistically perfect and that I am biased in favour of British English. Furthermore, like almost everyone else (except Dara, who is, of course, perfect ("Praise Dara, Love Dara")), I have affectations including "wack," "yummers" and "pish-posh" thanks to Mr Farquart. I also have a tendency to say "indeed" when I mean "yes" (or when I do not need to say anything at all, but I feel the need to fill an awkward pause in conversation) and to say "thank you kindly" due to watching Due South far too often.
Some time between my school years and now (a very long time!), the apostrophe came to mean "watch out! here comes an s!" My English isn't as good as it once was, but that is the visual equivalent of fingernails down a blackboard. Grrr!
-------------------- "No Biblical hell could ever be worse than the state of perpetual inconsequence." Beatrice in Dangerous Beauty Posts: 1816 | From: Cayuga County, NY | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by quiltsbypam: [QUOTE] Some time between my school years and now (a very long time!), the apostrophe came to mean "watch out! here comes an s!"
I think it will be a very long time before I'll see an apostrophe and not think, "watch out!"
baby "in case you wonder about the random giggles" shoes
-------------------- "When Jesus said to love your enemies, I think he meant don't kill them." from a song by Linda K. Williams Posts: 124 | From: Rappahannock County, VA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Victoria, speaking of baseball: no harm, no foul!
BTW, Canuck, I'm an excellent speller but a bad Thai pissed.
-------------------- Only when we remake ourselves can we remake the world. - Outer Limits (2001) Posts: 559 | From: Santa Cruz, CA | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Victoriaarrggh J: Just because we understand something doesn't make it correct.
It is all part of the great conflict between the amazing intelligence of human beings, and the amazing stupidity of human beings. Somehow we manage to understand each other even when we are talking nonsense.
Why is that a conflict? Can you imagine how limited our communication would be if our linguistic capacity wasn't flexible? If every sentence had to adhere perfectly to set of ridged grammatical rules in order to be understood by the hearer? The fact that we can adapt and grow, continually adding to our lexicon and working knowledge of what is culturally relevant in a linguistic sense is a sign of our intelligence, not a detraction from it.
I'm sorry, Victoria, I'm not picking on you, it's just that prescriptive language rules happen to be a munchkin of mine. I tried to stay out of this discussion, I did, but it's my field, and when I imagine people reading through my little rant and being more concerned about some prepositional peccadillo than what I'm actually saying, I get all twitchy inside.
The truth is, language evolves, and in my opinion it is unfortunate that we complain about those changes not because we lack the capacity to comprehend them, but because we are more comfortable with sticking with the old rules we learned than growing with our culture. Who owns a language if not its native speakers? Should the language dictate to me how I should and should not use it, or should I be allowed to manipulate it to best meet my communication needs? If we understand each other, why should I be limited to what some speaker with no more right to my native tongue than I have has decided to deem "correct?"
Ah, there now. I feel better. Thanks.
Edited to fix the peccadilloes I noticed.
-------------------- The technical term is narcissism. You can't believe everything is your fault unless you also believe you're all powerful.--House Posts: 2684 | From: Budapest | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Canuckistan
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Victoriaarrggh J: Just because we understand something doesn't make it correct.
Except that, in this case, it is correct. Live has two meanings, so fail to see how its usage would be incorrect if one of the meanings is meant.
quote:And you smell more, to the power of infinity. Also, you see that icon at the top of my post - that's you that is.
-------------------- People need to stop appropriating Jesus as their reason for behaving badly. It's so irritating. (Avril) Posts: 8429 | From: New York run by the Swiss (Toronto) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by quiltsbypam: [QUOTE] Some time between my school years and now (a very long time!), the apostrophe came to mean "watch out! here comes an s!"
I think it will be a very long time before I'll see an apostrophe and not think, "watch out!"
Indeed!
A Dutch friend pointed out that 's is a valid way of pluralising some imported words. His plural of Curry is curry's while the English plural is curries. Normal Dutch practice is, IIRC, -en. I have to switch off apostrophe-pedant mode when in the Netherlands.
posted
"Filmed in front of a live studio audience" sounds better to me than "Filmed live in front of a studio audience". It might just be the fact the former is used more, but I'm guessing the rythm of the sentence has to do with it too. That and "filmed live" seems to give the feeling of a straight-to-air SNL type of situation.
Also, this "of a" has just blown my northerner mind. Well, northerner in language, Idaho is kind of the South of the North. My stepmother used to chide my dad for using "Beg pardon?" since it's supposedly an Idahoan exclusive. Yet, Opus and John Daly(!!) both used it. If that doesn't make it standard English, I don't know what could.
-------------------- Bender: Though you may have to make a metaphorical "deal with the devil". And by "devil", I mean the robot devil, and by "metaphorically" I mean get your coat. ------------ My sad site: A new way to be bored. Posts: 722 | From: Colorado | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bonnie: Interesting. Whereabouts in the South did you grow up?
-- Bonnie
Southeastern Kentucky. Literally in the Appalachian mountains.
I was literally 'born in a holler'.
-------------------- "We've got a fifth member of the band round here, and he's DEFINITELY out of tune!" -- Keith Moon
"If I had a thousand quid for every time I've introduced this song --- oh, I do!" -- John Entwistle Posts: 584 | From: Ohio | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Llewtrah: "Of a" + time of day is quite common hereabouts and unlikely to be remarked upon.
Now this is fascinating to me.
The little, insulated 'holler' that I grew up in had many of the constructs that you and the others from England have mentioned in speech.
"Mind" at the end of sentences, for example. "Like" or "See" at the end of sentences. "About such things" and "comprised of". All those colloquialisms with a thick Kentucky twang.
And one that I was startled was not commonly used 'outside' -- "Brace" for "a pair of".
When I took Shakespeare in college, it was like listening to my great-grandparents and grandparents talk. Minus the 'thee's and 'art's -- those were restricted to prayers.
We grew up spelling British as well -- colour, centre, apologise -- as a child, I always wondered why so many books misspelled things....
Lady "fascinated" Moon
-------------------- "We've got a fifth member of the band round here, and he's DEFINITELY out of tune!" -- Keith Moon
"If I had a thousand quid for every time I've introduced this song --- oh, I do!" -- John Entwistle Posts: 584 | From: Ohio | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Two things : 1) I probably didn't mean conflict. I was being lazy and grabbed at a word that seemed to describe how to opposites can go together. Maybe I meant irony - but I'm not happy about that either. Mostly I just meant "Wow - aren't we all contradictory and amazing".
2) I agree with you absolutely that it's a wonderful thing. I never meant to suggest I was in favour of rigid and stiffling rules of communication. I love the messiness of language, the way that English always has 10 different ways to say something (and the different ways are never equal), and the possibilities for creativity.
I do dislike carelessness with language. And I do think it is better to avoid phrases which are risible if read literally.
Which brings me back to my argument with Canuckistan - Please stop hitting me over the head with a frying pan.
I know that there is nothing wrong with the usage of "live" I just believe that, very strictly speaking, the word is incorrectly placed so as to describe the audience rather than the recording.
If you are right in saying that the distinction is between a program recorded in front of an audience and a program that is later shown to an audience whose reactions are taped then the difference in those two situations is the way the show is recorded/played not in the audience. They sit there "live" in real time either way.
If it does mean that then it is still redundant because the phrase already states that the show is recorded in front of the audience - so it must be live, and no distinction between that situation and one where the show is filmed and then shown to the audience is necessary.
I suspect that it is partly just that the phrase does sound good (as Tantei Kijo suggests), and partly a way of emphasising how spontaneous the show and audience reactions are by mentioning it twice (the same reasoning behind free gifts).
Personally the phrase had never bothered me before I saw it in this thread. (at myself) It isn't even something you hear in the UK - except occassionaly at the beginning of American comedy programs. However I do think it is a poor sentence construction and as someone who does tend to get stuck on the literal meaning of certain phrases I can see why it might make people think of dead studio audiences.
I am unsure exactly how insulted to be by your picture as I do not know whether it is just an ugly pulled face, or if I am meant to recognise the person in the photograph. In either case all I can say is that you, Sir, are a...
Victoria - off to sooth alarmed doors - J
-------------------- Post accompanied by maniacal laughter. Posts: 577 | From: London, UK | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A teacher who hailed from more northerly parts of Britain was confused by us Essex folks saying things like "so-and-so came round mine at the weekend" or "I'm going round Llewtrah's after school" (meaning "over to my home" and "over to Llewtrah's house"). She was in her 50s, but had never come across that construction before.
We also say "beg pardon?".
"Brace" is uncommon unless talking of game-birds (e.g. "a brace of pheasants"). "Couple" is more common, but in colloquial speech can mean more than 2 if the speaker is uncertain of exact numbers ("we've got a couple of people coming over today"). Why not say "a few"?
I am trying to reintroduce "sennight" (we have fortnight, so why not revive sennight as an alternative for "week"?) and "mayhap" into everyday speech. I am having more luck with "mayhap" as it sounds so much like "maybe" and "perhaps". We have little contests in the factory area to improve our vocabulary; sometimes I need a dictionary when reading problem reports.
I've been part of a studio audience several times. I wouldn't describe all of them as live, let alone alive and certainly not lively! Admittedly that was a reflection on whatever was being filmed
Canuckistan
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
Victoria, first, the man in the picture was Rush Limbaugh. Feel the insult.
Oh, and this guy goes pretty much on autopilot. Once snopes starts him up for the day, I can't stop him.
Now, onto more serious matters. What I'm suggesting is that this is a case of words having two meanings; while you're looking at it from meaning one, I'm coming at it from meaning two. I think that's where the disagreement comes from.
The second meaning is the broadcasting term (i.e., this show is happening in real time). In that sense the phrase "in front of a live studio audience" makes perfect sense. It is correct usage as well, given this meaning. If the audience watches the show after the taping, they are not there in real time. They are watching a taping of the show, not the show itself; hence, the audience cannot be said to be live (in that they were not at the show when it was being taped in real time).
Ah well. I think we should live and let live.
-------------------- People need to stop appropriating Jesus as their reason for behaving badly. It's so irritating. (Avril) Posts: 8429 | From: New York run by the Swiss (Toronto) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Canuckistan: Victoria, first, the man in the picture was Rush Limbaugh. Feel the insult.
That's just uncalled for.
quote:Now, onto more serious matters. What I'm suggesting is that this is a case of words having two meanings; while you're looking at it from meaning one, I'm coming at it from meaning two. I think that's where the disagreement comes from.
NO. I am relatively restrained when arguing. Honest. Unless I feel that the person I'm arguing with has misunderstood me - then I will continue to argue until they are willing to hit themselves on the head with a frying pan. Consider it pathological and forgive me please.
The possibility of the odd alternative meaning is caused by the dual meaning of live.
But my objection is that the word "live" has somehow attached itself to the audience rather than the recording.
I think that is incorrect. Which makes the dual meaning quite unnecessary.
I am not saying that anyone is genuinely confused, that sentences with a potential dual meaning are in themselves wrong, or that I don't understand what they mean by live.
I am saying that it is an awkward sentence, that it could potentially be read as implying other programs have dead audiences - if we didn't all know that wasn't the case, and that I sympathise with those who get stuck with the unlikely literal meanings of sentences*. Only the first of these is an actual objection.
I'm sorry if I have not made myself clear. I keep trying.
I will willingly agree to disagree - as long as you are disagreeing with the actual point I am making.
[QUOTE]Ah well. I think we should live and let live. QUOTE]
Well,that wasn't the original plan following the comparison to Rush Limbaugh...
Victoria J
ETA - *by which I mean they get stuck with the mental image, not that they actually misunderstand. I genuinely always visualise alarmed doors as frightened, and coarse fishing as being a bit rude...
-------------------- Post accompanied by maniacal laughter. Posts: 577 | From: London, UK | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Max_Renn: A former boss would always use "on accident" instead of "by accident." ("I sent that email to the wrong person on accident.") That would drive me freaking nuts.
When I was little, I was told that "by accident" was also incorrect, and that the correct term was "accidentally". "I was here accidentally" or "I broke the window accidentally." Although I now know that it is just fine to say it that way, "by accident" still bugs me.
quote:Originally posted by Victoriaarrggh J: Victoria - off to sooth alarmed doors - J
There are signs on some of the classrooms at my school: Caution - These rooms are alarmed. It always makes me laugh to myself.
Canuckistan
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Victoriaarrggh J:
quote:Originally posted by Canuckistan: Victoria, first, the man in the picture was Rush Limbaugh. Feel the insult.
That's just uncalled for.
You're right. I apologize to comparing you to ... ::shudder:: ... Rush Limbaugh.
quote:I am relatively restrained when arguing. Honest. Unless I feel that the person I'm arguing with has misunderstood me - then I will continue to argue until they are willing to hit themselves on the head with a frying pan. Consider it pathological and forgive me please.
No problem at all; it's been a fun debate here.
quote:The possibility of the odd alternative meaning is caused by the dual meaning of live.
But my objection is that the word "live" has somehow attached itself to the audience rather than the recording.
I think that is incorrect. Which makes the dual meaning quite unnecessary.
Then take it up with the broadcasting industry. They're the ones who've done that.
quote:I am not saying that anyone is genuinely confused, that sentences with a potential dual meaning are in themselves wrong, or that I don't understand what they mean by live.
I am saying that it is an awkward sentence, that it could potentially be read as implying other programs have dead audiences - if we didn't all know that wasn't the case, and that I sympathise with those who get stuck with the unlikely literal meanings of sentences*. Only the first of these is an actual objection.
My point is that while this is techinically possible, in actuality, I just don't see this happening.
quote:I'm sorry if I have not made myself clear. I keep trying.
I will willingly agree to disagree - as long as you are disagreeing with the actual point I am making.
Of course.
quote:Well,that wasn't the original plan following the comparison to Rush Limbaugh...
Okay, I deserve it. Bring on Ann Coulter.
-------------------- People need to stop appropriating Jesus as their reason for behaving badly. It's so irritating. (Avril) Posts: 8429 | From: New York run by the Swiss (Toronto) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*pops a bag of popcorn and sits down to watch Canuckistan and Victoria*
Lady "amused" Moon
-------------------- "We've got a fifth member of the band round here, and he's DEFINITELY out of tune!" -- Keith Moon
"If I had a thousand quid for every time I've introduced this song --- oh, I do!" -- John Entwistle Posts: 584 | From: Ohio | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
~ steals some of Lady Moon's popcorn and munches before interrupting with a minor question. ~
Why is it a "pair of pants"? It's one garment, you can't have "a pant" in the singular. If it's a "pair" because we have two legs, and each "pant" would cover one leg, then why don't we have a "pair of shirts" to cover our arms?
Now, I have seen "pant" used when describing a specific kind of garment (Check out our lovely new polyester fuschia and chartruese striped flat-front pant!) but otherwise it is always a "pair of pants".
With all these pants you'd think I was filming a porn film... panting all over the place. Must be Canuck's bad influence.
-------------------- "There is a race between mankind and the universe. Mankind is trying to build bigger, better, faster, and more foolproof machines. The universe is trying to build bigger, better, and faster fools. So far the universe is winning." -Albert Einstein Posts: 1058 | From: Yakima, WA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chez+vowel and chaise are pronounced rather similarly, in my experience.
A couple I notice here regularly occur when when people post headlines from articles they're linking to: using a comma instead of "and" and switching sentences round. The one's I've noticed this morning are "Woman, gunman dead in Montreal school rampage" and "As hotels upgrade, some items are left behind". While the latter is, I suppose, probably grammatically correct it really, really grates on my ears. What would be wrong with "Some items are left behind as hotels upgrade"? That sounds much better (to me).
-------------------- Silence should never under any circumstances be construed as agreement. A lot of the time, it's simply a reflection that someone just said something so stupid that no response could possibly do it justice. - Ramblin' Dave Posts: 8528 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lady Moon: *pops a bag of popcorn and sits down to watch Canuckistan and Victoria*
Sorry to disappoint you but I think I've almost finished arguing with The Baboons Bottom Canuckistan.
quote:Originally posted by Canuckistan: My point is that while this is techinically possible, in actuality, I just don't see this happening.
Well it does seem to upset Signora Del Drago as she is the one who complained about the phrase.
Changing the subject...
I used the phrase "agree to disagree" earlier even though it is a phrase I normally hate. My mother was working with someone from South America who claimed that this phrase summed up everything that was wrong with the British - that we were too luke warm to even disagree properly. When my mother passed this theory on I actually laughed - I have always considered it to be a phrase that just drips with repressed hostility (a much better definition of the problem with the British ).
It is generally only used when someone means " I'm not going to waste anymore time on you, you are too stupid to ever understand my point/my inate superiority".
(This is not what I meant when I said it too Canuckistan - I think it does work in a written argument, but I have never seen it used at face value in actual conversation).
On a related (or not) note - My teacher for A level Philosophy wrote me a truly wonderful (if not entirely true ) reference when I applied to University, the most flattering description of myself I have ever read. The most obvious untruth had to be "Victoria has the rare gift of disagreeing without rancour" - I am well aware that I have the even rarer gift of being able to agree with rancour.
Victoria J
-------------------- Post accompanied by maniacal laughter. Posts: 577 | From: London, UK | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't view "agree to disagree" as repressed hostility. It can be open-mindedness or tolerance. Sometimes I disagree with someone, but I accept that they have a valid point of view, albeit one that I don't (or can't) agree with. It can also prevent a falling out.
Debates with my Dutch friends could go on for hours. Just when I thought the debate was done and dusted and we'd all agreed to disagree (due to the famous Dutch open-mindedness), they then wanted to look at it from a whole different viewpoint in case they'd done anyone an injustice by missing anything!
quote:Originally posted by Mosherette: and "As hotels upgrade, some items are left behind". While the latter is, I suppose, probably grammatically correct it really, really grates on my ears. What would be wrong with "Some items are left behind as hotels upgrade"? That sounds much better (to me).
It would to me, too, in normal expository writing. Headline writing, of necessity, follows different rules.
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But why the need the swap the words around? What are the "rules"? (Apart from piss off your nitpicky readers )
-------------------- Silence should never under any circumstances be construed as agreement. A lot of the time, it's simply a reflection that someone just said something so stupid that no response could possibly do it justice. - Ramblin' Dave Posts: 8528 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A headline is meant to attract the reader's attention to a story and to capture the story's topic concisely. Putting the words "as hotels upgrade" first makes for a more interesting headline than putting "some items . . . " first, and makes it clear at immediate glance that the story is about hotels.
Traditionally, newpspaper articles have also been written in what's called "inverted pyramid" style, meaning that facts are provided in descending order of importance.
Someone who's worked in professional journalism more recently than 20+ years ago could probably explain it better than I can.
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Canuckistan: I would take live to mean whether they were actually present, in this context. They were live during the actual taping of the show, as opposed to shown the program later.
Or a laugh track. Both types of audiences, but they saw things on tape (or, in the second case, was a tape), hence weren't there in person, or live.
Describing a show as "live" means it's happening in real time, as in now. The opposite of a live show doesn't mean the participants of the show are dead.
The live is something that I've always thought unecessary. With the laugh track and the audience seeing the tape they were not present for the filming. They were either present for a viewing, or laughing at something completely different. So, just "Filmed in front of a studio audience" works just the same, but I guess they are trying for the extra emphasis.
"Chums is filmed before a live studio audience is allowed in"
ETA: that I also thought that a spellchecker was unnecessary, and changed a bit that could've been confusing
quote:Originally posted by Lainie: A headline is meant to attract the reader's attention to a story and to capture the story's topic concisely. Putting the words "as hotels upgrade" first makes for a more interesting headline than putting "some items . . . " first, and makes it clear at immediate glance that the story is about hotels.
Traditionally, newpspaper articles have also been written in what's called "inverted pyramid" style, meaning that facts are provided in descending order of importance.
Someone who's worked in professional journalism more recently than 20+ years ago could probably explain it better than I can.
Hmm. It's very strange to me - headlines here aren't written like that at all. It's usually something like "BLAIR IN WMD LIE SCANDAL" - also not grammatically wonderful, but I suppose I'm more used to "our" way of doing things so it's not too bad.
That particular headline over here would probably be some kind of half-truth about hotels pilfering their guests' belongings and then a less incorrect subheadline giving more detail.
-------------------- Silence should never under any circumstances be construed as agreement. A lot of the time, it's simply a reflection that someone just said something so stupid that no response could possibly do it justice. - Ramblin' Dave Posts: 8528 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always thought it was a 'pair of pants' to designate the fact that it's pants (trousers) going on over pants (underwear). Two kinds of pants, so the outer one would make a pair of pants.
My twopence here....
-------------------- "We've got a fifth member of the band round here, and he's DEFINITELY out of tune!" -- Keith Moon
"If I had a thousand quid for every time I've introduced this song --- oh, I do!" -- John Entwistle Posts: 584 | From: Ohio | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
You two were handling it so well I didn't feel the need to jump in.
-------------------- "We've got a fifth member of the band round here, and he's DEFINITELY out of tune!" -- Keith Moon
"If I had a thousand quid for every time I've introduced this song --- oh, I do!" -- John Entwistle Posts: 584 | From: Ohio | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Canuckistan
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Victoriaarrggh J: Stalker - will you join the mob if I provide the pitchfork and torch ? We can overturn his evil rule.
Mere mortals like to think that. They soon learn better ...
Mosherette: eliminating words, such as the, and, and forms of the verb to be, in a headline, is often done for space reasons in print media. This is especially true of one-column headlines. Also, such words are normally assumed to be filled in by the reader, and tend to slow down the pace of the headline. Headlines are meant to be quick soundbites that are as active as possible. (A more active headline from the first version would be Woman, Gunman die in Montreal Shooting [as opposed to killed]).
The second one is a style of certain newspapers, notably the New York Times. I'm not a big fan of those, either, mainly because the headlines they do produce tend to be dull.
(Edited to take out words that shouldn't have been there, yet were for some strange reason.)
-------------------- People need to stop appropriating Jesus as their reason for behaving badly. It's so irritating. (Avril) Posts: 8429 | From: New York run by the Swiss (Toronto) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
(at myself) It isn't even something you hear in the UK - except occassionaly at the beginning of American comedy programs. However I do think it is a poor sentence construction and as someone who does tend to get stuck on the literal meaning of certain phrases I can see why it might make people think of dead studio audiences.![[fish]](graemlins/fish.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
That's just uncalled for.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
