Who's English is the best here?

[Pogo]

Y'all thus fills in the gap created by the absence of a separate second-person plural pronoun in standard modern English.

What? English has second-person plural personal pronouns: you, your and yours.

Yes but those are not specifically plural. They can be either. That's why y'all is needed to specify as plural.

Go back and read what koshergrl wrote you about you/all you-all Fokker.

I already corrected that, Chipples.

 

[yiostheoy]

Anyone who repeatedly violates the list of fallacies goes onto the iggy list.

Ad hom is a fallacy.

Verbosity is a fallacy too.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

 

[yiostheoy]

Who's English is the best here?

That's a very difficult question to answer, for so much of the discussion on USMB depends as much upon (1) one's awareness of the topic one opts to discuss, (2) the clarity and coherence of one's thinking about the topic, (3) one's willingness to fully express one's thoughts, and (4) one's command of English in expressing one's ideas. One's command of English can appear inept as a result of gaps and flaws related to the former three factors. In light of all four factors, though it's possible to discern when a writer has specific lapses in their command of standard English grammar, syntax and usage, it's not nearly as easy to reliably gauge whose English is the best.

More importantly, however, what is the point of determining/discussing whose English is best? There is no competition for that "title." The person who "owns" that superlative won't care because they already know their English is excellent. The people who have subpar English skills won't care because they likely aren't soliciting lessons, and were they, the conventions of "perfect" English composition and usage are there for the taking on myriad Internet sites.

Thus, even if we were to arrive at a consensus on who among us does have the best English, then what? What is there to do with that knowledge/agreement? Indeed, I'm amazed this thread topic has garnered some 125+ posts that are presumably on-topic.

Simplicity is not an easy task for the overly educated tribe.

overly educated

Now there's a fine example of an oxymoron.

I could have said the excessively instead of overly but the later count took up less space to keep the diatribe down.

I could have said the excessively instead of overly

"Overly," "excessively" and "too" are, in the contest of your statement, synonymous; thus doing so would not have altered the oxymoronic nature of the remark.

Perhaps, however, you'd care to share with us just how one can have too much education. Frankly, I can't imagine that's possible. I think it's possible to make a qualitative judgment about how much education one needs or should have in various situations and life circumstances, but the notion that there is such a thing as absolutely being over educated is preposterous.

Repetition is actually a learning tool in Learning Theory.

And in some languages like Greek and French the double negative is grammatically correct and even required.

It is as if you are saying "No! No!" but with grammar.

"OXI THEN" in Greek is a classic example.

So is "nes ... pas" in French.

 

[xotoxi]

How about this for legalese lawyer-speak:

WHEREAS: The semicolon is primarily reserved for ultra technical writing such as statues of laws, and

WHEREAS: This is in the high country of legalese lawyer-speak, now

THEREFORE: In any other type of writing a semicolon detracts from communication not adds to it.

 

[yiostheoy]

It looks like nobody knows the plural of "y'all."

I'll give this a few days to see if any true Texan's knows.

Interesting but grammatically atrocious inflection there son of God.

Very good !!

Your Greek is not bad !!

You are the first moron on this Forum who has noticed this correctly !!

I am Half-Greek and no moron. I am easily one of the most literate, if not the most literate poster on this forum. I can run circles around you in at least three languages, obviously including English.

And in wanking -- that is probably your forte.

Don't leave that off your resume too.

I'm sure you can't pick up a pencil with one hand, but could crush a Volkswagen with the other. (sorry, an old Woody Allan line)

Meathead would you like to go onto the iggy list with your Yankee friend Pogo ?

I am giving you a break because you obviously know Greek and therefore there is a chance that you might even know some Philosophy as well.

 

[yiostheoy]

How about this for legalese lawyer-speak:

WHEREAS: The semicolon is primarily reserved for ultra technical writing such as statues of laws, and

WHEREAS: This is in the high country of legalese lawyer-speak, now

THEREFORE: In any other type of writing a semicolon detracts from communication not adds to it.

Yup, that's standard contract language. I'm used to it from reading international corporate agreements between related affiliated corporations.

 

[xotoxi]

Anyone who repeatedly violates the list of fallacies goes onto the iggy list.

Ad hom is a fallacy.

Verbosity is a fallacy too.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

Trump uses each of those fallacies daily in his tweets.

 

[yiostheoy]

This is all going to be way over Rooski Comrade Johnson 's head.

All he wanted to know about was the word "democracy" which by the way is Greek.

 

[xotoxi]

How about this for legalese lawyer-speak:

WHEREAS: The semicolon is primarily reserved for ultra technical writing such as statues of laws, and

WHEREAS: This is in the high country of legalese lawyer-speak, now

THEREFORE: In any other type of writing a semicolon detracts from communication not adds to it.

Yup, that's standard contract language. I'm used to it from reading international corporate agreements between related affiliated corporations.

I couldn't stand being a lawyer. Reading contracts just scrambles my brain.

 

[yiostheoy]

Anyone who repeatedly violates the list of fallacies goes onto the iggy list.

Ad hom is a fallacy.

Verbosity is a fallacy too.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

Trump uses each of those fallacies daily in his tweets.

Politicians are deceivers and liars and must speak to the common denominator of their base.

DJT is no different.

His biggest problem is getting re-elected in 2020.

And if he manages to do that but the House and Senate both become DEM then he will live in the same living Hell that BHO lived in for the past 6 years.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Y'all thus fills in the gap created by the absence of a separate second-person plural pronoun in standard modern English.

What? English has second-person plural personal pronouns: you, your and yours.

Yes but those are not specifically plural. They can be either. That's why y'all is needed to specify as plural.

???

"Y'all" is nothing more than a contraction of "you all," which, though my Southern roots endear me to writing and saying it in casual situations, is considered both redundant and informal.

• It's redundant because "you/your" without "all" afterwards already means "you all." If a speaker/writer doesn't indeed mean all the people hearing/reading his work -- you readers, you listeners, you in the audience, etc. -- s/he should use an impersonal pronoun.
• It's informal because it's a contraction.

Romance languages, for instance, has a distinct second-person plural language. English, however, is an agglomerated evolution of Latinate, Germanic and Greek linguistics. In other words, it is a language unto itself. Yes, one can compare and contrast English with other languages, and in doing so, one observes the noted difference. Variance notwithstanding, English doesn't have a distinct second-person plural personal pronoun because the conventions of the language don't require there to be one. Because English grammar is what is is, there is no call for inventing distinct second-person plural personal pronouns, except perhaps among people who just can't "get with" the way English works.

 

[yiostheoy]

How about this for legalese lawyer-speak:

WHEREAS: The semicolon is primarily reserved for ultra technical writing such as statues of laws, and

WHEREAS: This is in the high country of legalese lawyer-speak, now

THEREFORE: In any other type of writing a semicolon detracts from communication not adds to it.

Yup, that's standard contract language. I'm used to it from reading international corporate agreements between related affiliated corporations.

I couldn't stand being a lawyer. Reading contracts just scrambles my brain.

Endless columns of numbers from downloads out of SAP or Oracle for mega-corporations are even worse than contract law.

 

[Pogo]

That's a very difficult question to answer, for so much of the discussion on USMB depends as much upon (1) one's awareness of the topic one opts to discuss, (2) the clarity and coherence of one's thinking about the topic, (3) one's willingness to fully express one's thoughts, and (4) one's command of English in expressing one's ideas. One's command of English can appear inept as a result of gaps and flaws related to the former three factors. In light of all four factors, though it's possible to discern when a writer has specific lapses in their command of standard English grammar, syntax and usage, it's not nearly as easy to reliably gauge whose English is the best.

More importantly, however, what is the point of determining/discussing whose English is best? There is no competition for that "title." The person who "owns" that superlative won't care because they already know their English is excellent. The people who have subpar English skills won't care because they likely aren't soliciting lessons, and were they, the conventions of "perfect" English composition and usage are there for the taking on myriad Internet sites.

Thus, even if we were to arrive at a consensus on who among us does have the best English, then what? What is there to do with that knowledge/agreement? Indeed, I'm amazed this thread topic has garnered some 125+ posts that are presumably on-topic.

Simplicity is not an easy task for the overly educated tribe.

overly educated

Now there's a fine example of an oxymoron.

I could have said the excessively instead of overly but the later count took up less space to keep the diatribe down.

I could have said the excessively instead of overly

"Overly," "excessively" and "too" are, in the contest of your statement, synonymous; thus doing so would not have altered the oxymoronic nature of the remark.

Perhaps, however, you'd care to share with us just how one can have too much education. Frankly, I can't imagine that's possible. I think it's possible to make a qualitative judgment about how much education one needs or should have in various situations and life circumstances, but the notion that there is such a thing as absolutely being over educated is preposterous.

Repetition is actually a learning tool in Learning Theory.

And in some languages like Greek and French the double negative is grammatically correct and even required.

It is as if you are saying "No! No!" but with grammar.

"OXI THEN" in Greek is a classic example.

So is "nes ... pas" in French.

Actually it's ne... pas (no S) but that's only used in formal/written French. Nobody bothers with the ne in the spoken language, excepting of course the Knights Who Say Ne.

But it does remind me of an old joke.

"In Russian", the linguistics professor intoned, "a double negative is a stronger negative. In English a double negative makes a positive. But there is no language in which a double positive makes a negative".

A bored voice from the back said, "yeah right".

 

[usmbguest5318]

How about this for legalese lawyer-speak:

WHEREAS: The semicolon is primarily reserved for ultra technical writing such as statues of laws, and

WHEREAS: This is in the high country of legalese lawyer-speak, now

THEREFORE: In any other type of writing a semicolon detracts from communication not adds to it.

Yup, that's standard contract language. I'm used to it from reading international corporate agreements between related affiliated corporations.

I couldn't stand being a lawyer. Reading contracts just scrambles my brain.

Trust me, the training one receives to become a lawyer would result in your having no "scrambling" effect from reading contracts. You may not like reading them, but reading them won't "scramble" your brain if you have the training for it.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I will throw my proverbial hat into the ring. In addition to my discerning perception, impeccable good taste, and extensive vocabulary, I am quite adept at spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

Excellent use of the Oxford comma.

I also normally put a comma before the final conjunctive "and", "or", etc.

Doing so might save you millions of dollars.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/oxford-comma-lawsuit.html?_r=0

What a frivolous lawsuit. SMH.

 

[yiostheoy]

Y'all thus fills in the gap created by the absence of a separate second-person plural pronoun in standard modern English.

What? English has second-person plural personal pronouns: you, your and yours.

Yes but those are not specifically plural. They can be either. That's why y'all is needed to specify as plural.

???

"Y'all" is nothing more than a contraction of "you all," which, though my Southern roots endear me to writing and saying it in casual situations, is considered both redundant and informal.

• It's redundant because "you/your" without "all" afterwards already means "you all." If a speaker/writer doesn't indeed mean all the people hearing/reading his work -- you readers, you listeners, you in the audience, etc. -- s/he should use an impersonal pronoun.
• It's informal because it's a contraction.

Romance languages, for instance, has a distinct second-person plural language. English, however, is an agglomerated evolution of Latinate, Germanic and Greek linguistics. In other words, it is a language unto itself. Yes, one can compare and contrast English with other languages, and in doing so, one observes the noted difference. Variance notwithstanding, English doesn't have a distinct second-person plural personal pronoun because the conventions of the language don't require there to be one. Because English grammar is what is is, there is no call for inventing distinct second-person plural personal pronouns, except perhaps among people who just can't "get with" the way English works.

I like "you all" or even "all of you".

koshergrl in her Wiki citation has given a hint (actually spilled the beans) of what Texans say when they want to mega-pluralize y'all however.

 

[RodISHI]

Who's English is the best here?

That's a very difficult question to answer, for so much of the discussion on USMB depends as much upon (1) one's awareness of the topic one opts to discuss, (2) the clarity and coherence of one's thinking about the topic, (3) one's willingness to fully express one's thoughts, and (4) one's command of English in expressing one's ideas. One's command of English can appear inept as a result of gaps and flaws related to the former three factors. In light of all four factors, though it's possible to discern when a writer has specific lapses in their command of standard English grammar, syntax and usage, it's not nearly as easy to reliably gauge whose English is the best.

More importantly, however, what is the point of determining/discussing whose English is best? There is no competition for that "title." The person who "owns" that superlative won't care because they already know their English is excellent. The people who have subpar English skills won't care because they likely aren't soliciting lessons, and were they, the conventions of "perfect" English composition and usage are there for the taking on myriad Internet sites.

Thus, even if we were to arrive at a consensus on who among us does have the best English, then what? What is there to do with that knowledge/agreement? Indeed, I'm amazed this thread topic has garnered some 125+ posts that are presumably on-topic.

Simplicity is not an easy task for the overly educated tribe.

overly educated

Now there's a fine example of an oxymoron.

I could have said the excessively instead of overly but the later count took up less space to keep the diatribe down.

I could have said the excessively instead of overly

"Overly," "excessively" and "too" are, in the contest of your statement, synonymous; thus doing so would not have altered the oxymoronic nature of the remark.

Perhaps, however, you'd care to share with us just how one can have too much education. Frankly, I can't imagine that's possible. I think it's possible to make a qualitative judgment about how much education one needs or should have in various situations and life circumstances, but the notion that there is such a thing as absolutely being over educated is preposterous.

As very wise person once told me that if you really desire to get someone people's attention speak as though talking to a kindergartner. Formal education, knowledge base and wisdom are not all one in the same even though some may believe that they are. One can be totally educated to the highest degree and yet still have the common sense total idiot.

 

[yiostheoy]

I will throw my proverbial hat into the ring. In addition to my discerning perception, impeccable good taste, and extensive vocabulary, I am quite adept at spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

Excellent use of the Oxford comma.

I also normally put a comma before the final conjunctive "and", "or", etc.

Doing so might save you millions of dollars.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/oxford-comma-lawsuit.html?_r=0

What a frivolous lawsuit. SMH.

SMH ??

Sh!t my hueovos ??

 

[xotoxi]

How about this for legalese lawyer-speak:

WHEREAS: The semicolon is primarily reserved for ultra technical writing such as statues of laws, and

WHEREAS: This is in the high country of legalese lawyer-speak, now

THEREFORE: In any other type of writing a semicolon detracts from communication not adds to it.

Yup, that's standard contract language. I'm used to it from reading international corporate agreements between related affiliated corporations.

I couldn't stand being a lawyer. Reading contracts just scrambles my brain.

Trust me, the training one receives to become a lawyer would result in your having no "scrambling" effect from reading contracts. You may not like reading them, but reading them won't "scramble" your brain if you have the training for it.

That makes sense. But I wouldn't want the training.

I've got enough to keep track of.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The fact that you know that as proven by your mentioning it makes you one of the best and most knowledgeable writers here.

Thank you.