Mar
19th
2014
- Member Since 11th Apr, 2012
- offline last seen Wednesday
Bad Horse
Beneath the microscope, you contain galaxies.
Bad Horse
Joined 11th Apr, 2012 ·
Offline
Join our SubscribeStar to remove these adverts!
Join our SubscribeStar to remove these adverts!
Stats
Page generated in 0.042 seconds
Total duration
917 users online
471,946 hits today, 2,280,440 yesterday
FIMFiction
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic Fanfiction
Designed and coded by knighty & Xaquseg - © 2011-2024
Follow & Support Us
Support us
SubStar
Chat!
Discord
Follow us
Twitter
MLP: Friendship is Magic® - © 2024 Hasbro Inc.®
Fimfiction is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Hasbro Inc.®
...
I need to go distract myself before this grows roots in my mind, and it becomes lodged in my memory forever.
I'm sorry, were you looking for consistency?
In English?
The language of ghoti[1]?
[1] Pronounced 'fish.'
That would have made sense about 150 years ago, when the 'm' would have been much more markedly pronounced, akin to yes'm and cap'n.
Not much, admittedly. But still...
Right you're, my fine fellow.
Well I ain't.
This is the sort of absurd over-application of linguistic principles up with which I will not put.
Clever bastard
And this is why you need to be careful when using the find & replace function.
1938703
That always bugged me. Each of the components only works in context. In fact, the joke depends on a consistency that, as you note, English doesn't have.
...sorry. Waxed Twilight there, didn't I?
1938742
Never don't use no double negatives, and never use a preposition to end a sentence with.
One has to wonder whence the idea came from.
Perhaps it's a matter of which of the two words you're emphasizing? You say "I'm" when you want to emphasize the "I," and "I am" when you want to emphasize the "am?"
(of course, there's all these contextual rules about when to emphasize each word... but as GoH mentioned, "ghoti.")
I amn't in favor of this.
1938742 Fun fact: That one cannot end a sentence with a preposition is a myth.
1938703 Now you're just some grammar rules that I used to know!
[youtube=DqRC5tquyU0]
But you didn't have to contract me!
1938819
Yep! Though it's often hauled out by proprietists, you're right, I don't believe it's actually a rule of the language.
"I'm who I'm." --Popeye (or Yaweh)
I'mn't sure contractions work that way.
1938760 Ending with a preposition really isn't actually a rule. It just seems to be something taught in school. Otherwise, ending with a preposition is something up with which I would not put.
As 1938974 said. You shouldn't've opened this can of worms, but I suppose you couldn't've left it alone. I'lln't complain overly much about your non-standard contraction usage, but I'd've been remiss to completely ignore it. The proper use of contractions: it'sn't a confusing aspect of English, to be honest, but people still get it wrong .Ezn hasn't said much about contractions in his style guide, but one day maybe he'll've to. One of these days, perhaps it'll be the topic of a blog post or a FAQ. Or, perhapsn't. We'll just've to wait and see.
Do you not know the number one rule of the English language?
"Natural speech" and "common sense" are just fancy ways to say "bad English."
Hmmm...
"They aren't,"
, or "They're not?" 
They'ren't
1939076
I know, but I'm a fan of, among other things, self-demonstrating rules of grammar, even when they're more like suggestions. For example, sentence fragments shouldn't.
1939145 Some may say that you're a fan of most everything...
On a complete non sequitur, but possibly of interest to you, what do you think of the concept of a G/W reach/stacking lifegain/Serra MtG deck?
1938703 I think the rule is consistent. We just don't know consciously what it is. It appears that you can't contract away a verb that is the main verb of the clause. Something like that. OOPS, no; that's wrong. Maybe something phonetic.
1938954
Really, I am pretty sure 90% of the actual rules of English were written down by one or two people who arbitrarily decided how the language was to be spoken, not by recording how people used it, but by their own notion of it.
1939221
FYGHT THE, POWERE
Horizon'll try to one-up you with an archaism, as if this conversation were about capturing some sort of grammar trophy — but at the end of the day he won't have won't.
What perplexes me is that "Don't you like it?" expands to not "Do not you like it?", but "Do you not like it?".
1939460 This is all of my English confusion. At the same time, they say 'Was für eine Ehre'* in German, so...
*'What for an honor'
That's just the kind of guy I'm too. I'm just like you're. This is just the way we're.
1939221 More precisely, the rules of English were written down by a couple of people who decided the correct way to use it by their notion of how it was written. Literati, typically, who only circulated in the upper-class and had no idea how speech evolved.
1938819 1938954 In fact, there are certain structures in English that require ending with a preposition in order to pass grammaticality judgements (though it could be argued that these are less prepositions than they are prepositional compound verbs).
As to the opening idea, though, off the top of my head I would wager that pronominal contractions must be clause-initial, or at least can't be clause-final.
I would say the contraction comes about based on typical pronunciation more than any actual grammar rule. Try saying the phrase "I am Henry the Eight I am" out loud, and notice that (even without contraction) you will pronounce the two instances of "I am" differently. In the first instance, "am" will (for many people) be shortened/reduced while the "I" retains its accent, while in the second instance both words will keep the accent. The contraction (or lack thereof) simply reproduces an effect that was already naturally occurring in speech, with no particular grammar rules to define where it could be used.
(EDIT): As to WHY this reduction is not allowed... Huh, not sure. I think I would have to agree with Sunchaser above me, basically. In fact, it can probably be generalized that no clause-ending verb may be reduced (and thus contracted), as the same pattern holds true with other nouns/pronouns (*Tell me which girl Jane's) as well as other verbs that can be contracted (*This is the best hay that I've).
Also, while English spelling is very annoying thanks to 1000+ years of conquering and borrowing from several very diverse languages, there ARE still rules and it is more regular than it at first seems. For example, there is NO English spelling rule that would actually allow "ghoti" to be pronounced "fish". GH can only be pronounced as an F and the end of a syllable ("laugh", "enough"), and TI can only be pronounced as SH at the beginning of a syllable, and even then only if it is not the first syllable ("diction", "ration", "nation"). Silly and arbitrary rules, but fairly consistent rules nonetheless. For more, I recommend Hou tu pranownse Inglish by Mark Rosenfelder.
(Yes, I think and read WAY too much about this stuff.
)
*opens mouth to say something*
...
I got nothing.
BH, you frighten me sometimes.
No... no. Frighten is too strong a word for this. There's a hint of amusement inside hiding inside me, so I will have to say I find your above statement mildly terrifying.
*produces a curved metal stick, bounces it off back of elbow before snatching it up in a hand*
Anyone want a shoehorn labotomy? I figured out how to not kill people with it. I can't promise I can cure your mildly troubling affliction of illiteracy, but I can promise to greatly expand upon it. It won't matter if it's "their," "they're," "there," or "thar." It especially won't fucking matter the difference of "should've," "would've," or even "could've" between "should of," "would of" and "could of." It will all look the same... I'm pretty sure.
All I'm asking for is payment in socks. My steel-toe shoes I use for work have the nasty habit of eating holes right where the achilles is. Having holes in the back of your socks looks silly as fuck.
As a bonus for payment in toe socks (always wanted to try those), I'll even screw your orbital bone back together. Well, not screw, per se, but more like threading the fractures closer together using paper clips, safety pins, and a hammer. Hell, I bet I can make it look like eyebrow piercings when I'm done stitching the skin and flesh back together (alcohol will be involved, but I'm kinda cheap so we'll use Listerene. What? I've seen many a hobo get drunk off it).
Socks for the ability to never be mildly frightened by the big scary words from The Bad Horse, even the small scary words like "I'm." Totally worth.
So, what do you say, buddy? >:D
I think the rule is simply that you cannot end a sentence in a contraction involving a noun.
"We can't," is a legitimate sentence (indeed, "Can't" on its own is a legitimate sentence), but I can't think of any contraction involving a pronoun which is allowed at the end of a sentence (or as a sentence unto itself).
"I am", "We are", "He is", "We would", "They have", ect. are all correct, but "I'm", "We're", "He's", "We'd", "They've", ect. are all wrong.
I'm not sure if there are any exceptions to this rule.
1939976
We all know the best thing for that is The Chaos, a wonderful poem about English pronunciation. It starts:
The whole thing is wonderful. You should enjoy it.
1938707 1938785 >>Bad Horse
Well, great, you guys. Just great. Now I've got four different pronunciations of that sound sequence in my head.
There's "I'm", the standard contraction pronunciation;
"IM", for Instant Messaging;
"I am", the two-word form;
and now "ay'M", the alternate pronunciation by analogy to "yes'm" this suggests.
(And we thought Chinese was bad...)
1938742 I think it should be "with which I will not put up", as "put up" appears to function as a verb phrase in that context.
1939976
Bough
Rough
Through
Cough
Dough
..."consistent rules," huh?
Interesting. Here's it split into linguistic terms:
What we've got here is Pronoun-Copula + Predicative Expression (+ Pronoun + Copula).
It appears that the first pronoun-copula pair 'claims' the predicative first, and so can be reduced into a single grammatical unit (this isn't uncommon -- Chinese and a few other languages treat them as one word too) whilst the second one can't -- probably because the second pair is considered to be part of the predicative.
If that's correct, then the copula in the second pair is not functioning as a copula -- I'm not sure exactly what it is functioning as; perhaps some third form of 'to be' -- and as you may only form a contraction on 'to be' when it is functioning as a copula, no contraction is allowed.
A problem with that would be a sentence like the following, though, in which the first pronoun does have a complimentary copular verb (though I wouldn't rule out suggesting it's implied):
Regardless, I can't come up with any construction that does not start with a noun first of all and isn't also Yoda speech.
My favorite version of this one:
My brain is hurt. You have made it not good. It works badly damaged.
I'm okay with this.
1939460
There's a rule about where the negative modifier goes if it's not contracted and such. It was meant to allow contractions where sentences would otherwise require not using them. (i.e., allow "Don't you like this?" versus forcing "Do you not like this?")
English is a patchwork of exceptions, rules, exceptional rules, ruling exceptions, receptions, exertions, fictions, dictions, frictions, fricassees, semiotics, Balthazars, mayonnaises, mustards, cheeses, lubrications, axioms, maxims, hacksaws, and plain old "it's there because now deal with it"-isms.
And I love it to death.
1940161
I am not joking about those heel holes.
i.imgur.com/TLqa5W3.jpg
I will do quality work for non holy socks. I tend to kneel a lot, so the leggings tend to ride up, revealing my embarrassing situation to any passers by. If that ain't a good incentive to make good on delicate work, I don't know what is.
I know you're feeling quite remorseful about having been a Grammar Nazi. I offer you a simultaneous operation and confessional. The fixing of the askew brain matter is as important as the fixing of the regretful spiritual one.
The erasure of your past as a sinful Grammar Nazi for a pair of good socks... it's an absolute steal. Just step inside my office.
*presents an uncleaned bathroom stall in a men's washroom in fast food joint near a highly frequented bar. There are many obscene things written and drawn on the walls.*
1945794 Wait a minute. Those look like feet. Are there... humans in here?!
1946006
Hmm? Whaaa...?
HOLY CELESTIA JACKHAMMERING LUNA ON A POGO STICK!!!
It appears that I am a youmon. Err, human.
I'm what I'm. And you're what you're.
"I AINT'NT DEAD" -- Granny Weatherwax
1939508
cdn.themetapicture.com/media/funny-English-teacher-positive-negative.jpg
cdn.lolzbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/English-is-Stupid..png
Just since we're on the subject.
1938742 remove that "with".