|
Post by Fryguy64 on Jan 28, 2010 4:55:15 GMT -5
Txting and Twitter have pushed writing to the point that you often have to sacrifice meaning or grammar, as there aren't the available characters to achieve both. However, getting to the point rather than spewing out a mental soup in the hope that meaning can be extracted by the reader is a vital skill in communications.
It is often said that great design (rightly) goes unnoticed. A reader shouldn't struggle to read a sentence or understand its meaning. Grammar helps this, hidden away in the background as a little secret that writers use to great effect, guiding the reader without being intrusive and ensuring they stay on the path to understanding.
But as writing becomes more commonplace (and since the internet, it has really taken off in a big way), mental soup can be found all over forums, comments and more. Everybody wants their voice to be heard, even if they're not sure how to articulate those thoughts.
You can go too far though. Being a stickler is fun for a while, but after you've smugly retorted that an anonymous person on a sparsely populated message board that nobody reads misused their grammar, you start to feel even more dirty and pointless than they do.
|
|
|
Post by TV Eye on Jan 28, 2010 10:28:57 GMT -5
Here's something for you guys to ponder. Is "irregardless" a word? I mean, regardless is what you say when defending something, but irregardless...is what you say when you're defending something. lol wut? Did that blow your mind?
|
|
|
Post by Boo Destroyer on Jan 28, 2010 13:13:47 GMT -5
That also applies to "valuable" and "invaluable", both with the same meaning. Weird, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Shrikeswind on Jan 28, 2010 19:51:56 GMT -5
Irregardless IS NOT A WORD. Period. Here's why: The root "Regard" means to pay attention. Regardless, one does not pay attention to the original meaning when the word "Regardless" is said, because the suffix "-less" negates it, so the word "Regardless" means "With no attention paid." The prefix "ir-" means the same as the suffix "-less," and so "Irregardless" is a double negative meaning "Without no attention paid," which grammatically means "With attention paid." So, if "Irregardless" has a definition, then it's a word, right? WRONG WRONG WRONG and again WRONG! Because the definition of "Irregardless" is a double negative, it is grammatically incorrect to say it, and so it is neither a word nor is it able to become a word simply based on how the language works. In spite of its capacity for ornamentation, English is a language, and as such must be able get a point across. Double negatives obscure points, and therefore are not grammatically correct in English and, if I'm not mistaken in how other languages operate, are equally unacceptable in other languages (if I am mistaken, then they are at least equally invalid.)
"Invaluable," meanwhile, actually has a seperate meaning. In the word "Invaluable," the suffix "In-" is an intensive, meaning that it's intent is to up the ante. If something is valuable, it is worth a pretty penny, if it is invaluable, it's worth more than money. A mansion is valuable, shelter is invaluable. The same thing is true of "Inflammable," a redundant (due to the fact that both "Flammable" and "Inflammable" refer one state of two and mean the same) but otherwise technically valid word. If you create a word that means something by adding a suffix or prefix to it, you have to understand what the etymology. It's what my avatar text does, albeit with humorous intent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2010 12:25:30 GMT -5
Irregardless IS NOT A WORD. Period. Here's why: The root "Regard" means to pay attention. Regardless, one does not pay attention to the original meaning when the word "Regardless" is said, because the suffix "-less" negates it, so the word "Regardless" means "With no attention paid." The prefix "ir-" means the same as the suffix "-less," and so "Irregardless" is a double negative meaning "Without no attention paid," which grammatically means "With attention paid." So, if "Irregardless" has a definition, then it's a word, right? WRONG WRONG WRONG and again WRONG! Because the definition of "Irregardless" is a double negative, it is grammatically incorrect to say it, and so it is neither a word nor is it able to become a word simply based on how the language works. In spite of its capacity for ornamentation, English is a language, and as such must be able get a point across. Double negatives obscure points, and therefore are not grammatically correct in English and, if I'm not mistaken in how other languages operate, are equally unacceptable in other languages (if I am mistaken, then they are at least equally invalid.) "Invaluable," meanwhile, actually has a seperate meaning. In the word "Invaluable," the suffix "In-" is an intensive, meaning that it's intent is to up the ante. If something is valuable, it is worth a pretty penny, if it is invaluable, it's worth more than money. A mansion is valuable, shelter is invaluable. The same thing is true of "Inflammable," a redundant (due to the fact that both "Flammable" and "Inflammable" refer one state of two and mean the same) but otherwise technically valid word. If you create a word that means something by adding a suffix or prefix to it, you have to understand what the etymology. It's what my avatar text does, albeit with humorous intent. Man, we totally need Schoolhouse Rock to come back.
|
|
|
Post by Boo Destroyer on Jan 29, 2010 16:37:39 GMT -5
^YES Here's another one: Doesn't the Pokemon Weepinbell look like Krusty the Clown from the Simpsons? Well, Krusty's face at least. Yeah...the two leaf things on Weepinbell's sides are almost like that of Krusty's hair. Not sure of other aspects, though. But just by looking at them either way, it's there. To be honest, that's actually what I thought about when I first ever saw Weepinbell. I've completely forgotten all about this, up until I recently saw somebody's AIM icon of it.
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Jan 29, 2010 20:04:27 GMT -5
I love the Bellsprout line too much... and now you've pointed it out, I'm wondering if the Krusty likeness has something to do with it
|
|
|
Post by Shrikeswind on Jan 29, 2010 20:36:17 GMT -5
I gotta back you there, TEi.
Also, I'd never noticed that but OH MY GOD YES.
|
|
|
Post by mrmolecule on Jan 30, 2010 20:02:32 GMT -5
OK, I've got one. Everyone seems to think Avatar is the coolest movie ever, but I disagree. I think it honestly sucked. I'll give reasons: the plot was too linear, characters were shallow, etc etc. In fact, you could practically just write the plot of "Pocahontas" and change the characters. Oh wait, somebody already did!
|
|
|
Post by Manspeed on Jan 30, 2010 22:47:53 GMT -5
Pfft, everyone on the internet seems to rag on how Avatar is just Pocahontas in space, but I think it's one of those movies where a simplistic story is necessary for it to work.
Keep it mind, you can NEVER have the best of all three no matter what movie it is: Story, Acting, Visuals. This one had the Acting and the Visuals but not the Story. Does that REALLY matter that much? Just be glad the critics are raving over a movie like this. It's a huge step forward for the way movies are made and probably the second "geek" oriented film to be this huge in popularity (the first being Lord of the Rings).
|
|
|
Post by Shrikeswind on Jan 31, 2010 0:52:14 GMT -5
When you look at the success of a certain indie space drama, yes it does. It managed to spawn a series that has an accepted canon extending into alternate media, has stood up to 30 years worth of simple existence, and had few good actors and was obviously built with duct tape and love and, while possessing a decent plot, was still not amazingly deep and actually had a cheaper to maintain ending written should the movie have failed, which was considered likely due to low budget, little corporate back-up, and very little tolerance for the genre. Tell me, then, how Star Wars did so well with the only thing running the engine was a semi-decent plot. Luck? Harrison Ford? Or another factor? A decent, original plot is the only thing in your triage that can stand alone in sci-fi. Most sci-fi fans find pretty graphics more of a benefit when the movie's good and remember, even chick flicks have good actors, even though the movies suck harder than a black hole.
|
|
|
Post by Manspeed on Jan 31, 2010 1:33:29 GMT -5
"Most sci-fi fans" aren't the ones running the Academy Awards. I'm talking about general cinema here, not sci-fi movies in general. We geeks bitch whenever a movie like Avatar has a simplistic plot but forget the kind of impact in has with regard to other things. If it were more like Star Wars where the plot is better than the special effects, the public wouldn't be so accepting, and it's hard enough to get the public to accept a movie about blue cat aliens and giant mech suits.
|
|
|
Post by mrmolecule on Jan 31, 2010 18:02:45 GMT -5
Does Avatar feature "acting" since a good number of the characters are CGI? Also, you are forgetting character development. There can be good acting for shallow characters. The other thing I didn't like about Avatar was the over-the-top environmental/anti-war message. Was it really that necessary to be, as TVTropes says, anvilicious?
|
|
|
Post by Shrikeswind on Jan 31, 2010 18:29:17 GMT -5
Yes, Avatar did have acting. CGI is used to create visuals, not personality. Plus some of the characters weren't CGI.
|
|
|
Post by mrmolecule on Jan 31, 2010 20:29:21 GMT -5
Yes, Avatar did have acting. CGI is used to create visuals, not personality. Plus some of the characters weren't CGI. Yes, I know. I didn't say all of the characters were CGI. I also said that Avatar did have acting, and not even bad acting at that.
|
|