N
G
Gregory Ewing
rantingrick said:
So when we reach a certain age we're meant to abandon
short, concise and idomatic ways of speaking, and substitute
long words and phrases to make ourselves sound adult and
educated?
G
Gregory Ewing
I don't mind people using e.g. and i.e. as long
as they use them *correctly*.
Many times people use i.e. when they really
mean e.g.
as they use them *correctly*.
Many times people use i.e. when they really
mean e.g.
R
Roy Smith
Gregory Ewing said:
Yup.
S
Steven D'Aprano
Say what?
"Used to" isn't idiom. It is grammatical English. Avoidance of "used to" is
a hyper-correction done by people who don't know as much about English as
they think, like "the grammar policeman let Johnny and I off with a
warning", perhaps the most widespread hyper-correction in English.
(If you take Johnny out of the picture, the policeman let I off with a
warning... which is obviously wrong. Whether Johnny was there or not, the
policeman let *me* off with a warning.)
"Used to" is unexceptional English:
http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/usedto.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/youmeus/quiznet/newquiz114.shtml
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-m_used-to-do.htm
http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/usedtotext2.htm
Any-grammatical-errors-are-deliberate-ly y'rs,
M
MRAB
Can you give me an example?
R
Roy Smith
Gregory Ewing said:
The only correct way to use i.e. is to use it to download a better
browser.
S
Seebs
Similarly:
Boy, is there, e.g., on my face now!
-s
R
rantingrick
Well that is the idea anyway. Not that we should be overly pedantic
about it of course, however some words need to be cast off before we
leave the "primary school playground" in the name of articulate
communication.
These specific phrases i have pointed out ("used to" and "supposed
to") are a result of a mind choosing the easy way out instead of
putting in the wee bit more effort required to express one's self in
an articulate manner. Also these two phrases are quite prolifically
used within his community (among others), from the BDFL on down. It's
a slippery slope my friend.
A
alex23
rantingrick said:
All the way down indeed. Can you pick who said these?
"There are noobs watching and we to provide code that can be used to
teach!"
"And just what *point* an i supposed to be "getting" Stephen?"
"An end user should NEVER EVER have to write glue code so their
"abstraction of choice" can be used to to script an API."
(For bonus points: can you also spot who is bored at work today?)
R
rantingrick
Obviously your grep skills are superb however you need to brush up on
those reading and comprehension skills a bit.
Yes i said this, however the use of "used to" is proper here. -1
Yes i said this, and it "may" seem that you have me on this one
however i believe that Stephen had said something like """you are
"supposed to" blah, blah""" and i retorted with """oh, and just what
*point* am i "supposed to" blah blah blah"""... although i DID forget
to quote "supposed to", still it's a -1.
Yes i said this, however AGAIN the use of "used to" is proper here.
-1.
sorry alex, better luck next time
. Follows is some homework i haveprepared for you so that you can understand the proper and improper
usage of "used to".
Incorrect past tense usage of "used to":
""" I "used to" wear wooden shoes """
Incorrect description using "used to":
""" I have become "used to" wearing wooden shoes """
Correct usage of "used to":
""" Wooden shoes can be "used to" torture someone """
For our next assignment we'll be learning about the exploits of Jack
and Jill.
Trolling doesn't count as "work" unless you're being paid for it,
however some people might consider you a pro by now!
PS: Does anyone notice how Stephen has fallen off the face the earth?
Where is Stephen i wonder? He was such a vocal nuisance and then he
just disappeared. It seemed like he appeared as strangely as he
disappeared. Well, he's probably where most sock puppets go when they
have no further usage.
M
Martin P. Hellwig
Well admittedly English isn't my native language, But indeed all
sentences seem correct to me.
With the first sentence meaning: in the past I wore wooden shoes, but
presently I do not.
With the second sentence meaning: in the past I was not used to (i.e.
uncomfortable, hey bonus points!) wearing wooden shoes, but presently I
am used to it (although not necessarily comfortable, but at least not
uncomfortable).
I actually can't figure out a way of saying those two sentences more
concise or correct then it has been given.
But then again I do recognize that these are quite 'Germanic'* ways of
constructing sentences, as in freely mixing past, present and future to
indicate that a certain description is restricted to a specific time frame.
* For the lack of a better description, I am not a linguist, but I was
born in Germany and I am often guilty of mixing times.
Also RR, congratualation to another troll post that turned out quite
interesting
C
Chris Angelico
This usage can also be seen in a more archaic form, such as this
example from WS Gilbert's "The Yeomen of the Guard" (which, as it
happens, I'm presently in rehearsal of):
Lieutenant: "I see. I think that manner of thing would be somewhat irritating."
Jack: "At first, sir, perhaps; but use is everything, and you would
come in time to like it."
We would be more inclined to say "You'd get used to it". I don't see
that this usage (heh) should be considered in any way wrong.
ChrisA
R
rantingrick
If conciseness is all you seek then perhaps you prefer the following?
ORIGINAL: "I used to wear wooden shoes"
CONCISE: "I wore wooden shoes"
"I wore wood shoes"
"I<<wood shoes"
ORIGINAL: "I have become used to wearing wooden shoes"
CONCISE: "I like wearing wooden shoes"
"I like wooden shoes"
"I like wood shoes"
"wood shoes: +1"
However as you can see much of the rich information is missing. Good
communication requires that we use clear and articulate words (and
phrases) that will re-create a similar thought (if not perfect clone
of!) in the mind of your listener
Of course we should never seek to be overly elaborate and ornate in
our speech unless that is the point (As in "poetry, philosophy, and
music" which are elaborate and ornate for good reason!).
Likewise we should never seek to be overtly simplistic and dull with
our speech. (As in "txt speak" which is too simplistic and dull for
intelligent conversation but it has a niche appeal among the children
and idiots)
Think of speaking with articulation as an extension of your body image
GO==GI[1]: You put in too much effort and you become a disgustingly
self gratifying "gorilla" strutting on the stage of bombast-ity
flexing and posing whist your skin glistens from the oils of your own
mental masturbation. Likewise, if you put in too little effort you
become a disgustingly self gratifying couch potato consumed by
lethargy and atherosclerosis completely covered with the crumbs of
your own mental refuse.
It would be wise (my friend) to find a "happy medium".
[1] Garbage Out equals Garbage In(ternally)
R
rantingrick
Really? Are you sure?
------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL1: "I used to wear wooden shoes"
------------------------------------------------------------
CONCISE_1a: "I wore wooden shoes"
the word "wore" is "past tense" and can be replaced with the "past
tense" phrase of "used to wear" without changing any meaning
whatsoever -- albeit the latter is childish!
CONCISE_1b: "I wore wood shoes"
Wooden = "object made of wood" = "flesh of a tree"
Wood = "the flesh of a tree"
Completely interchangeable!
CONCISE_1c: "I<<wood shoes"
Considering that "I" is an object that has overloaded the left shift
operator with an instance method to append a single argument (in this
case "wood shoes") to instance "I's" feet. Obviously if an object
didn't like wooden shoes it would not have a method that accepts
them... yeah it's a bit of a stretch, but not so much that it's
impossible to comprehend!
------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL_2: "I have become used to wearing wooden shoes"
------------------------------------------------------------
CONCISE_2a: "I like wearing wooden shoes"
the word "like" is a positive "present tense" inflection of emotion as
it regards to wooden shoes; as is the phrase "become used to" --
albeit the latter is childish.
CONCISE_2b: "I like wooden shoes"
If you like wooden shoes it's only natural to assume that you would
wear them.
CONCISE_2c: "I like wood shoes"
Wood, Wooden, we've been here before.
CONCISE_2d: "wood shoes: +1"
Since the fact about "wearing" them can go without being said, you get
the picture... although this too is a stretch, but not impossible!
------------------------------------------------------------
Guido himself admitted that hidden descriptors are real. The inception
has begun!
J
John Gordon
"wore" does not convey the same meaning as "used to wear."
"wore" means you have worn them in the past.
"used to wear" means you have worn them in the past AND don't intend
to do so again.
R
rantingrick
Actually that assertion is wrong.
Take (in the extreme example) that you were (in the past) forced to
wear a tutu. You did not like wearing the tutu but someone put a gun
to your head, so you did it. Now. If later someone asks you "Have you
ever been forced to wear anything you did not like?" and you replied
"Yes, i wore a tutu [once]", there is no way anyone could extrapolate
from that statement whether or not you would NEVER wear a tutu again.
So the moral is: Just because something happened in the past does not
mean it will happen in the future. The fact remains that "wore" and
"used to wear" both compile down to the same "past tense" event
HOWEVER neither have the capacity to predict future events.
No one can predict the future. Not even YOU can predict whether or not
you will wear a tutu again. You may say you would "never" wear a tutu
again however you can NEVER be sure about that statement without a
time machine, and lots of free time.
J
John Gordon
Of course -- that's why the word "intend" was part of my answer. Did you
overlook that crucial word?
I stand by my assertion that the phrase "I used to do X" carries the
meaning that you have done X in the past but DO NOT INTEND to do so
in the future.
T
Tim Chase
I'd tweak the meaning to be something like "I did X regularly in
the past and I no longer do it regularly". E.g. "I used to drink
a lot of cranberry juice"[*] connotes that I drank it regularly,
but no longer drink it regularly, even though I might still drink
it occasionally. But on the whole, I side with John far more
than I side with RR on the issue.
-tkc
[*] seriously, in college I managed to put away over a gal/day.
Ah, to be young again and have an unlimited cafeteria food-plan.
C
Chris Kaynor
There is a difference between "I used to drink cranberry juice" and "I
used to drink a lot of cranberry juice". The first says that you no
longer drink it at all, while the latter has quantified the statement
to say you may still drink it occasionally, but less than you used to.
The key is that "a lot" quantifies "drink" in the second statement.