• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Calling All Grammar Nazi's

EarlyMon said:
Our version of English is simply more fluid, adaptable and agile than your own.
Click to expand...

I don't really agree with this. I think both versions are pretty much the same - in structure as well as fluidity and adaptability. If you look in the Oxford English Dictionary at word definitions you see numerous meanings under the same word heading, as additional meanings have been accrued to the word while its usage changed over time. It is a written record of the language's adaptability.

English is a living language, regardless of which natives use it, and particularly because natives of many countries do use it.

Most of the differences between US and British English are merely word differences. True, that to a pedantic English national this is likely the strongest 'proof' of the degradation of English by American speakers.

Personally, I think many of the American derivations can make more sense than their British counterparts, or even have a more poetic feel:

I think 'fall' is a poignant name for autumn, for instance.

While we call it a windscreen, your windshield makes more sense because it shields the driver from the wind.

Our pedestrians walk on pavements (they are usually, but not always, paved) whereas your sidewalks are at the side of the road and you walk on them.

The one big dislike that I held for your language was your use of 'gotten' when our past participle of get is simply 'got'. But I have to admit that gotten sounds more like a past participle than 'got' which is also the simple past form of the verb. I guess I've now gotten used to it. ;)

BUT... BUT... BUT... what the heck is with your word 'burglarize'... ??? lol

The original English verb for breaking into someone's house and stealing stuff is 'to burgle'. Following from that, the name for someone who burgles is... a burglar.

But then changing the verb to 'burglarize' is like calling preaching 'preacherizing' because it's done by a preacher.

To me, this seems like the one American derivation of English that is a pointless convolution for the sake of change, and sounds a bit silly tbh. This one word lets your whole language down. ;)

I know that on the other hand a butcher butchers and doesn't 'butch', but they don't 'butcherize' either. I guess I just think that the change to 'burglarize' is inelegant and pointless compared with 'fall' and 'sidewalk'.
 
davoid said:
Well there is the term Native American... and doesn't it refer to the people who were there before?
Click to expand...

Yes, as well as their present-day descendants, however the preferred terms in some circles are Native People or Native Peoples.

Sorry burglarize is a problem. I understand that burglary occurred first. I guess someone here thought that to commit burglary would be to burglarize based on that rather than the perpetrator.

More likely someone just took a wag at the verb and it stuck.

Which leads me to thank you for the term, preacherizing.

I can't imagine that not taking off. :)
 
EarlyMon said:
More likely someone just took a wag at the verb and it stuck.

Which leads me to thank you for the term, preacherizing.

I can't imagine that not taking off. :)
Click to expand...

Mulling it around in my head, I think preacherizing does actually have a good ring to it. :)

EDIT: It sounds like it has a different meaning than just preaching. More like someone incessantly oppressing someone with their opinions with an intensity far beyond that of merely preaching.
 
Okay, I must say that the first thing that came to mind was a scene in The Hobbit where someone tells Bilbo, "you're a burglar, go burgle something!"

And I will just have to find a way to use preacherize... it is like a moral imperative.
 
I've known and have been friends with a few good preachers in my time.

I've been exposed to far, far more preacherizers though.

:D
Dngrsone said:
And I will just have to find a way to use preacherize... it is like a moral imperative.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, right? :D

Plus, with its flavor, you can even make the language abuse recursive -

Don't you go preacherizing me!

Once again, one of the best outcomes of a thread on proper grammar is an invention to throw it out the window.

I'm ready to retract the whole flexibility thing based on this one word.

And besides, anyone in the USA questioning its use - we can say that we learned that it originated in the UK. :D

However - it may have occurred on a Sunday or two already for all we know.
 
EarlyMon said:
I've been exposed to far, far more preacherizers though.

:D
Click to expand...

Preacherizer. Brilliant. :D

Again, it has a useful specific meaning, as you have aptly demonstrated!


Don't you go preacherizing me!
Click to expand...

And this is the correct usage, as opposed to 'Don't you go preacherizing at me.' (oh dear, a 'correct' (or preferred) usage is already being developed...) ;)

Once again, one of the best outcomes of a thread on proper grammar is an invention to throw it out the window.
Click to expand...

Couldn't wish for a better outcome :)


I'm ready to retract the whole flexibility thing based on this one word.
Click to expand...
Does that mean you don't really like the word? I think it proves your flexibility thing. :D

And besides, anyone in the USA questioning its use - we can say that we learned that it originated in the UK. :D
Click to expand...
:o :hmpf:

:congrats: :D

Thanks I'm quite proud of it now
 
No, I'm retracting that American English is more flexible.

By the way -

"Don't go preacherizing at me!"

- is correct.

See:

"Don't go yelling at me!"

In those cases, the object is being held objectively and is defiant of the victimization.

"Don't go preacherizing to me!"

See:

"Don't come crying to me!"

In those cases, the object has personalized the engagement, usually as a form of escalating the conflict.

Also notice how go can be used in place of come with preacherizing.

With preacherizing, coming and going take on added dimensions, although "go preacherizing to me" has more of a Southern flavor to it.

Hope this helps! :rofl:
 
EarlyMon said:
Hope this helps! :rofl:
Click to expand...

Indeed. :rofl:

I totally get that you can use it in all those ways. Nice one. :D

And you could also say 'don't you preacherize on me.'

It's similar to the way you can say 'don't you beat on me.'

To preacherize on someone is to perform a preacherization upon them

But then... Don't you go preacherizing on me! Again, come and go will have different influences on the preacherization.

And also, I was thinking of its use in your first example - that I first agreed with - Don't you go preacherizing me! (I love that!)

I think of it as affecting an object in some way, leaving it in a state described by an adjective such as 'preacherized'.

If you think of other -ize words, such as pressurize, hypnotize, and patronize, the object is changed to a state where it is pressurized, hypnotized, and patronized. I think -ize words ought to at least demonstrate this behaviour even if they have other ways of being used.


Hope this helps! :rofl:
 
Kaat72 said:
Mark: preacherizing. Not preacherising ;)
Click to expand...

I beg to differ: we have clearly established it's British origin, it therefore deserves proper, British spelling ;)

Have to say my favourite new word of the last couple of years was coined by John Oliver* for eulogies on the passing of the Bin Ladens or Sadam Husseins of this world: a 'f**keulogy'. Absolute classic.


* in The Bugle podcast somewhere around episode 166
 
Proper British spelling would include at least one unnecessary u, so it's preacherizing.

Then again, I understand that you spell pressurized wrong, so I'm not surprised that you'd attempt that. :rolleyes:
 
SiempreTuna said:
I beg to differ: we have clearly established it's British origin, it therefore deserves proper, British spelling ;)
Click to expand...

Well, HW Fowler (the founding father of Grammar Nazism) in his Dictionary of Modern English Usage (the early 20th Century classic of English grammatical pedantry) surprisingly states that -ize is the preferred, Greek-derived ending (preferred by the OED), with -ise being derived from French, and therefore less preferable.

Only a few English verbs can take the -ise ending, but all those that can, also take the -ize ending. But there are far more verbs that take the -ize ending and don't take the -ise ending.

For this reason I always use -ize because it saves me the effort of remembering which verbs can also use -ise. And I can't be bothered to learn them for the sake of sounding quirkily English.

So, if -ize is good enough for Fowler, it's good enough for anyone. :D

Perhaps, for the sake of flexibility, this should be one of those words that can be either preacherize or preacherise. Although -ise is a British idiosyncrasy, it isn't actually the preferred ending in the OED.

It is funny that English people largely think that -ize sounds American, and therefore improper, when it isn't.

It's therefore always better to use -ize.

EDIT: correction to follow... It's not always better to use -ize - unless you're American maybe. No scratch that anyone can use anything it seems. :)
 
Yes. Quite educational and entertaining this thread is ;)
Lol while my hair is dyed and cut. Or is it 'is getting dyed'?
 
We always said "don't preach at me"

What happens on a Sunday is either a rambling monolog that puts you to sleep, usage of parables, or sheer pontification.

The Vulcan pontificates.
 
davoid said:
Only a few English verbs can take the -ise ending, but all those that can, also take the -ize ending. But there are far more verbs that take the -ize ending and don't take the -ise ending.
Click to expand...

I just checked this in Fowler's and I didn't remember it quite right.

There are actually a number of words that ONLY take the -ise and do not take the -ize ending. They are not derived from the same Greek root and therefore cannot use -ize and these need to be memorized.

Fowler laments that the less-than-ideal solution would be the wholesale use of -ise in order to never be incorrect, but that it is a poor compromise because of the preference for -ize.

Here is his list of important words that should be memorized for their requirement of -ise:

advertise, apprise, chastise, circumcise, comprise, compromise, demise, despise, devise, disfranchise, disguise, enfranchise, enterprise, excise, exercise, improvise, incise, premise, supervise, surmise, surprise.
 
davoid said:
I just checked this in Fowler's and I didn't remember it quite right.

There are actually a number of words that ONLY take the -ise and do not take the -ize ending, They are not derived from the same Greek root and therefore cannot use -ize and these need to be memorized.

Fowler laments that the less-than-ideal solution would be the wholesale use of -ise in order to never be incorrect, but that it is a poor compromise because of the preference for -ize.

Here is his list of important words that should be memorized for their requirement of -ise:

advertise, apprise, chastise, circumcise, comprise, compromise, demise, despise, devise, disfranchise, disguise, enfranchise, enterprise, excise, exercise, improvise, incise, premise, supervise, surmise, surprise.
Click to expand...

... of all those words, one doesn't use the -ize sound: premise. Why the hell is it on this list?
 
Dngrsone said:
... of all those words, one doesn't use the -ize sound: premise. Why the hell is it on this list?
Click to expand...

In the OED the pronunciation of the verb premise, rather than the noun premise, is prɪˈmaɪz which rhymes with wise and has the stress on the second syllable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom