The following Liberals have used the term "Monkey Around": Obama, Durbin, Carney, Earnest.....

[Stormy Daniels]

Anyone of them use "monkey up"?

You'd have to be lower than a 3rd grade education in language arts to think that substituting one preposition for another could so drastically change the meaning of a phrase so that one is a racist dog whistle while the other is just regular speech. Prepositions are nearly interchangeable. In fact, English is abnormal among languages in that it contains an unusual diversity of prepositions (or, to be more accurate, adpositions). Most languages have a more narrow range of general adpositions whose exact meaning relies on context. Despite English having so many adpositions context is sill the predominant factor in their usage and meaning, with tradition and convention being the second factor. Textbook definitions for adpositions is the lowest ranking factor in determining the meaning or correctness of their usage.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Liberals crack me up with their “dog whistle” hunts. They will map anything.

Ironic post from the same wag who this time a week ago tried to do the exact opposite with a McCain quote you didn't even remember and make that into a 'dog whistle' that never existed.

Having it both ways: Priceless.

“that one” was a dog whistle. How am I having it both ways? I’ve been consistent.... liberals site dog whistles anytime they can to perpetuate the race card.

You're having it both ways by trying to make "that one" into some kind of racial epithet, which it's never been, while simultaneously trying to deny the same status to "monkey this up" as it was used in its context.


Again ---- can't have it both ways. If you're going to hair-trigger on "that one" then you have to be all over "monkey this up". If you're giving "monkey this up" a pass, then you have even less ground than none to stand on for "that one".

Can't have both. Gotta pick one.

It was Liberals that felt McCain’s “that one” statement was racial, not me!

Apparently not. You already had that one shot down, now you wanna air it again KNOWING it'll be shot down the same way?

I think there's a quote somewhere about expecting different results....

You refuse to read supporting content. I never said all Liberals. Just liberals. You however are absolutely relying solely on what lies between your ears as verifiable fact.

 

[Pogo]

Ironic post from the same wag who this time a week ago tried to do the exact opposite with a McCain quote you didn't even remember and make that into a 'dog whistle' that never existed.

Having it both ways: Priceless.

“that one” was a dog whistle. How am I having it both ways? I’ve been consistent.... liberals site dog whistles anytime they can to perpetuate the race card.

You're having it both ways by trying to make "that one" into some kind of racial epithet, which it's never been, while simultaneously trying to deny the same status to "monkey this up" as it was used in its context.


Again ---- can't have it both ways. If you're going to hair-trigger on "that one" then you have to be all over "monkey this up". If you're giving "monkey this up" a pass, then you have even less ground than none to stand on for "that one".

Can't have both. Gotta pick one.

It was Liberals that felt McCain’s “that one” statement was racial, not me!

Apparently not. You already had that one shot down, now you wanna air it again KNOWING it'll be shot down the same way?

I think there's a quote somewhere about expecting different results....

You refuse to read supporting content. I never said all Liberals. Just liberals. You however are absolutely relying solely on what lies between your ears as verifiable fact.

If you don't specify "some" ---- then you mean "all". It's how blanket generalization works.

Besides which IIRC you not only weren't able to come up with "some"; you weren't able to come up with "any". You didn't even have the expression right until I gave it to you, which demonstrates what a memorably big deal it was.

 

[Pogo]

Anyone of them use "monkey up"?

You'd have to be lower than a 3rd grade education in language arts to think that substituting one preposition for another could so drastically change the meaning of a phrase so that one is a racist dog whistle while the other is just regular speech. Prepositions are nearly interchangeable. In fact, English is abnormal among languages in that it contains an unusual diversity of prepositions (or, to be more accurate, adpositions). Most languages have a more narrow range of general adpositions whose exact meaning relies on context. Despite English having so many adpositions context is sill the predominant factor in their usage and meaning, with tradition and convention being the second factor. Textbook definitions for adpositions is the lowest ranking factor in determining the meaning or correctness of their usage.

I don't think that's an adposition; I think it's an adverb -- i.e. "screw up": screw how? "up" (metaphorically). This would of course drastically change the meaning with the switch of an adverb:'

"You screwed up the computer because you didn't screw in the hard drive". Two entirely different actions, same verb. Not the same verb in meaning but in orthography.

 

[kaz]

“that one” was a dog whistle. How am I having it both ways? I’ve been consistent.... liberals site dog whistles anytime they can to perpetuate the race card.

You're having it both ways by trying to make "that one" into some kind of racial epithet, which it's never been, while simultaneously trying to deny the same status to "monkey this up" as it was used in its context.


Again ---- can't have it both ways. If you're going to hair-trigger on "that one" then you have to be all over "monkey this up". If you're giving "monkey this up" a pass, then you have even less ground than none to stand on for "that one".

Can't have both. Gotta pick one.

It was Liberals that felt McCain’s “that one” statement was racial, not me!

Apparently not. You already had that one shot down, now you wanna air it again KNOWING it'll be shot down the same way?

I think there's a quote somewhere about expecting different results....

You refuse to read supporting content. I never said all Liberals. Just liberals. You however are absolutely relying solely on what lies between your ears as verifiable fact.

If you don't specify "some" ---- then you mean "all". It's how blanket generalization works.

Besides which IIRC you not only weren't able to come up with "some"; you weren't able to come up with "any". You didn't even have the expression right until I gave it to you, which demonstrates what a memorably big deal it was.

I'm not the first person to call you anal, am I?

You're right in so far that it does mean all are culpable. For example, leftists are racists and constantly race bait is a true statement. While not every leftist says the words, by their silence the ones that don't are participating in the racism and race baiting the rest of you regularly engage in. So yeah, you're all racists and race baiters

 

[Stormy Daniels]

I don't think that's an adposition; I think it's an adverb -- i.e. "screw up": screw how? "up" (metaphorically). This would of course drastically change the meaning with the switch of an adverb:'

"You screwed up the computer because you didn't screw in the hard drive". Two entirely different actions, same verb. Not the same verb in meaning but in orthography.

First of all, your example uses two words as if they were the same word. Screw and screw in your example are two separate words, which happen to be both homographs and homophones. But their meanings are entirely different. The first screw approximately means "to foul, damage, or otherwise molest." The second screw means "to attach with screws." I think you are mistakenly believing that up is modifying a common word (in this case, screw) so as to effect a meaning change, when in fact the two are different words.

That being said, if we are really going to decompose this to the atomic level, what we're actually talking about here are phrasal verbs, which are essentially compound words. So your use of "screw up" is a compound of screw (to foul, damage, or otherwise molest) and up (generic, analogous spacial preposition indicating a general increase, as if filling an empty vessel), while your use of "screw in" is a compound of screw (to attach with screws) and in (specific spacial preposition identifying a specific location).

Long story short, "monkey up" versus "monkey around" are phrasal verbs that are effectively the same for all intents and purposes. Both of these phrasal verbs derive their meaning from their primary root "monkey". And indeed, those who claim that there's racism in the term "monkey up" predicate that alleged racism on the use of the root. The prepositional component is only changed here for grammatical purposes, much like inflected word endings can make words plural, past tense, etc, without substantively changing the meaning of the root. The differences between "monkey this up, monkey around, monkey about, monkey with" or comparable terms are merely grammatical in nature. They all have the same essential meaning.

 

[Pogo]

I don't think that's an adposition; I think it's an adverb -- i.e. "screw up": screw how? "up" (metaphorically). This would of course drastically change the meaning with the switch of an adverb:'

"You screwed up the computer because you didn't screw in the hard drive". Two entirely different actions, same verb. Not the same verb in meaning but in orthography.

First of all, your example uses two words as if they were the same word. Screw and screw in your example are two separate words, which happen to be both homographs and homophones. But their meanings are entirely different. The first screw approximately means "to foul, damage, or otherwise molest." The second screw means "to attach with screws." I think you are mistakenly believing that up is modifying a common word (in this case, screw) so as to effect a meaning change, when in fact the two are different words.

That being said, if we are really going to decompose this to the atomic level, what we're actually talking about here are phrasal verbs, which are essentially compound words. So your use of "screw up" is a compound of screw (to foul, damage, or otherwise molest) and up (generic, analogous spacial preposition indicating a general increase, as if filling an empty vessel), while your use of "screw in" is a compound of screw (to attach with screws) and in (specific spacial preposition identifying a specific location).

Long story short, "monkey up" versus "monkey around" are phrasal verbs that are effectively the same for all intents and purposes. Both of these phrasal verbs derive their meaning from their primary root "monkey". And indeed, those who claim that there's racism in the term "monkey up" predicate that alleged racism on the use of the root. The prepositional component is only changed here for grammatical purposes, much like inflected word endings can make words plural, past tense, etc, without substantively changing the meaning of the root. The differences between "monkey this up, monkey around, monkey about, monkey with" or comparable terms are merely grammatical in nature. They all have the same essential meaning.

Firstly, proposing that screw and screw are two different words is analogous to holding that "Grover Cleveland" and "Grover Cleveland" are two different people, thus throwing off the ordinal rank of Presidents thereafter. Of course they're the same word. And used as a noun, the thing that you screw in with a screwdriver, it's still the same word. Variant parts of speech but all the same word. Here a noun, there a verb meaning this, over yonder a verb meaning that.

To "monkey around" and to "monkey up" may be related in function just as "to screw" (with a screwdriver) and "to screw" (with a penis) are related in function. The difference for this purpose is that while "to screw" (a screw) and "to screw" (a person, in either of two different ways) are common colloquialisms ----just as "to monkey around" is a common colloquialism ---- to "monkey up" is not. While the connection is close enough to convey the intended meaning, it's also obvious that the speaker went out of his way to invent a phrase that is not in common parlance.

It's perfectly valid speech to invent one's own colloquialism; it's his choice of verb as a building block for that phrase that raises the question. He clearly meant to draw attention to it, whether to simply garner the media attention he in fact did, or whether as a racist code to rouse his base. Only he knows. The only other explanation would be that he didn't do it on purpose, that he was holding the concept "monkey" in his head the whole time, and it just slipped out. But I doubt that; it looks very very scripted.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Firstly, proposing that screw and screw are two different words is analogous to holding that "Grover Cleveland" and "Grover Cleveland" are two different people, thus throwing off the ordinal rank of Presidents thereafter. Of course they're the same word.

I'm sorry, but this is pathetic. Homonyms are fundamental first grade language arts. Words can have the same spelling, but different meaning. So if you "screw a screw," you have two separate words. While they may be polysemes, they are still different words.

There is no reason to continue this conversation. You are failing first grade English class, and it's becoming clear that you're doing it on purpose.

 

[Lesh]

Anyone of them use "monkey up"?

In reference to a black man???

no???

 

[Pogo]

Firstly, proposing that screw and screw are two different words is analogous to holding that "Grover Cleveland" and "Grover Cleveland" are two different people, thus throwing off the ordinal rank of Presidents thereafter. Of course they're the same word.

I'm sorry, but this is pathetic. Homonyms are fundamental first grade language arts. Words can have the same spelling, but different meaning. So if you "screw a screw," you have two separate words. While they may be polysemes, they are still different words.

There is no reason to continue this conversation. You are failing first grade English class, and it's becoming clear that you're doing it on purpose.

Ummmm nnnnnno. Homonyms are SOUND-ALIKE words such as son and sun. Homonyms are spelled differently. Son and sun are different words; screw and screw are not. Simple as that. Tantrum all you like, throw things around the room, whatever you need, then go look it up.

Damn. I've come across many a wag that needed a definition of a particular word but you're the first one who needs a definition for the word word.

 

[kaz]

Firstly, proposing that screw and screw are two different words is analogous to holding that "Grover Cleveland" and "Grover Cleveland" are two different people, thus throwing off the ordinal rank of Presidents thereafter. Of course they're the same word.

I'm sorry, but this is pathetic. Homonyms are fundamental first grade language arts. Words can have the same spelling, but different meaning. So if you "screw a screw," you have two separate words. While they may be polysemes, they are still different words.

There is no reason to continue this conversation. You are failing first grade English class, and it's becoming clear that you're doing it on purpose.

Ummmm nnnnnno. Homonyms are SOUND-ALIKE words such as son and sun. Homonyms are spelled differently. Son and sun are different words; screw and screw are not. Simple as that. Tantrum all you like, throw things around the room, whatever you need, then go look it up.

Damn. I've come across many a wag that needed a definition of a particular word but you're the first one who needs a definition for the word word.

You are confusing homonyms with homophones. You know you're on the internet, you could have looked it up, right? Sheesh, the fake news editor rides again! Now you're losing English debates to porn girl

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Sen. Angus King
Chuck Schumer
McCurry
John Kerry
Robert Byrd
Bernie Sanders
Adam Schiff

on and on and on.....

Liberals are hypocrites.....new flash....

AND JOE BIDEN SAID THAT OBAMA WAS ARTICULATE!

FUCKING HYPOCRITES


For the record, I don't think Gillum is articulate at all. He is VERY INARTICULATE and corrupt.

He rambles on and on about socialist nonsense that doesn't make any sense at all.

Well that means that all of those Democrat Leaders are racist SOBs and they should do the right thing and resign.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Ummmm nnnnnno. Homonyms are SOUND-ALIKE words such as son and sun.

Are you still talking? Please go to school. You're making a fool out of yourself. You're now trying to assume a faux high ground by feigning superiority through ignorant simplicity. Any first grader would be able to tell you that you're wrong.

Homonyms include two classes, homophones and homographs. Homophones are pronounced the same, but have different meanings. Homographs are spelled the same, but have different meanings. Some homophones are also homographs, and vice versa. There is also a category called polysemes, which are homophone and homographs that share a common etymology. For example, man can be defined as "the human race." It can also be defined as "An adult human male." It could also be defined as "A general exclamation, similar to a swear, but invoking a human or humanity in general instead of a divine being." These all have common origins but have distinct, albeit related, meanings. Some people suggest that polysemes stand apart from homonyms and that "true" homonyms only include those homophones and homographs of distinct etymologies (such as the "groom" at a wedding, and the action to "groom" a protege for a job).

I've come across many a wag that needed a definition of a particular word but you're the first one who needs a definition for the word word.

Word - noun
A distinct element of language or speech with a specific meaning, which is used in conjunction with other elements of its kind to communicate complete propositions in the form of sentences.

Contrary to what you seem to think, "word" is not defined on the superficial basis of its spelling. How could it be? Writing was not invented until long after humans had been using language. How could two, too, and to have ever been considered separate words based on your theory? Should we believe that they are identical words up until the invention of writing? Should they continue to be identical words for the illiterate?

You sound no better than someone who disputes global warming simply because it's a cold winter day in Australia. You're being amazingly simple minded, parading your own ignorance as if there were some high wisdom in being uneducated and running your mouth without knowing even the basic facts.

 

[Pogo]

"Running your mouth"?

So you're a cop? Or just a fascist?

Oh please, don't let me interrupt. Make more pretzels.

 

[Skylar]

Sen. Angus King
Chuck Schumer
McCurry
John Kerry
Robert Byrd
Bernie Sanders
Adam Schiff

on and on and on.....

Liberals are hypocrites.....new flash....

AND JOE BIDEN SAID THAT OBAMA WAS ARTICULATE!

FUCKING HYPOCRITES


For the record, I don't think Gillum is articulate at all. He is VERY INARTICULATE and corrupt.

He rambles on and on about socialist nonsense that doesn't make any sense at all.

How about 'Monkey up'?

 

[kaz]

"Running your mouth"?

So you're a cop? Or just a fascist?

Oh please, don't let me interrupt. Make more pretzels.

You were wrong. She defined homonym correctly. You confused it with homophone

You really were fake news ...

 

[Pogo]

Sen. Angus King
Chuck Schumer
McCurry
John Kerry
Robert Byrd
Bernie Sanders
Adam Schiff

on and on and on.....

Liberals are hypocrites.....new flash....

AND JOE BIDEN SAID THAT OBAMA WAS ARTICULATE!

FUCKING HYPOCRITES


For the record, I don't think Gillum is articulate at all. He is VERY INARTICULATE and corrupt.

He rambles on and on about socialist nonsense that doesn't make any sense at all.

How about 'Monkey up'?

They keep running away when we point that out.

Some of us, I was one, challenged anybody to find any other instance of anyone anywhere ever using the term "monkey up". So far we've got "almost one".

 

[kaz]

Ummmm nnnnnno. Homonyms are SOUND-ALIKE words such as son and sun.

Are you still talking? Please go to school. You're making a fool out of yourself. You're now trying to assume a faux high ground by feigning superiority through ignorant simplicity. Any first grader would be able to tell you that you're wrong.

Homonyms include two classes, homophones and homographs. Homophones are pronounced the same, but have different meanings. Homographs are spelled the same, but have different meanings. Some homophones are also homographs, and vice versa. There is also a category called polysemes, which are homophone and homographs that share a common etymology. For example, man can be defined as "the human race." It can also be defined as "An adult human male." It could also be defined as "A general exclamation, similar to a swear, but invoking a human or humanity in general instead of a divine being." These all have common origins but have distinct, albeit related, meanings. Some people suggest that polysemes stand apart from homonyms and that "true" homonyms only include those homophones and homographs of distinct etymologies (such as the "groom" at a wedding, and the action to "groom" a protege for a job).

I've come across many a wag that needed a definition of a particular word but you're the first one who needs a definition for the word word.

Word - noun
A distinct element of language or speech with a specific meaning, which is used in conjunction with other elements of its kind to communicate complete propositions in the form of sentences.

Contrary to what you seem to think, "word" is not defined on the superficial basis of its spelling. How could it be? Writing was not invented until long after humans had been using language. How could two, too, and to have ever been considered separate words based on your theory? Should we believe that they are identical words up until the invention of writing? Should they continue to be identical words for the illiterate?

You sound no better than someone who disputes global warming simply because it's a cold winter day in Australia. You're being amazingly simple minded, parading your own ignorance as if there were some high wisdom in being uneducated and running your mouth without knowing even the basic facts.

True, but pogo has a good reason for being wrong. He was in fake news