zompist bboard

Viktor77 wrote:I just heard a BBC news reporter use a basically RP accent that was rhotic. I've never heard a rhotic RP accent and it was striking. She's based out of Lancaster. Has anyone heard such an accent before?

I've heard rhotic RP from a news reporter, but I suspected she was Irish (can't remember why).

I was recently watching an episode of Making a Murderer, a documentary series chronicling events that took place in a rural part of Wisconsin, and one individual who was interviewed used the word "supposably" several times in place of "supposedly." I had heard a joke about this phenomenon once, but I don't think I had ever heard anyone actually say "supposably" before.

I suspect that a speaker's level of formal education has a lot to do with which word they use, but I was curious if others had heard this substitution, and if it might be at least partly an areal feature.

CatDoom wrote:I was recently watching an episode of Making a Murderer, a documentary series chronicling events that took place in a rural part of Wisconsin, and one individual who was interviewed used the word "supposably" several times in place of "supposedly." I had heard a joke about this phenomenon once, but I don't think I had ever heard anyone actually say "supposably" before.

I suspect that a speaker's level of formal education has a lot to do with which word they use, but I was curious if others had heard this substitution, and if it might be at least partly an areal feature.

Could be. I've heard it before here in northeastern Illinois and have even used it myself. (I can remember at least once typing "supposably" and puzzling at why the spellcheck didn't like it.)

CatDoom wrote:I was recently watching an episode of Making a Murderer, a documentary series chronicling events that took place in a rural part of Wisconsin, and one individual who was interviewed used the word "supposably" several times in place of "supposedly." I had heard a joke about this phenomenon once, but I don't think I had ever heard anyone actually say "supposably" before.

I suspect that a speaker's level of formal education has a lot to do with which word they use, but I was curious if others had heard this substitution, and if it might be at least partly an areal feature.

I'm sure I've said it in Michigan. It might be marked as lower class to some but it's not particularly shocking to me to hear or say.

Ditto. I think in careful speech most people would avoid it, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to hear it here.

Has anyone from the British Isles ever heard the word "kinema" said for a "cinema?" This appears to be an older variant that likely has died out. It may have been more common than the variant used today, though I can't say for sure. In any case I was wondering if it had been preserved in any British dialects? Google doesn't seem to have an answer.

I've never heard that variant.

nope

Two out of three interviews for a new training coordinator down and I'm still not used to hearing "training" used as a count noun.

I tend to convert "own" into a prefix, sometimes when there isn't an explicit possessive pronoun.

Can not remember examples where this occurred.

Having broken the words "literally" and "technically", are today's Snake People now moving on to "nonetheless"?

I'm my history class we had a substitute teacher that was a real basic white dad and he was scolding a student that repeatedly took his phone out. Finally the sub said he's gonna be watching the student closely now. That's when another student blurted out "always watching" with the exact voice [of Roz in Monsters, Inc.]. Nonetheless it was hilarious.

Why "nonetheless" when there's no concession being made?

linguoboy wrote:Having broken the words "literally" and "technically", are today's Snake People now moving on to "nonetheless"?

I'm my history class we had a substitute teacher that was a real basic white dad and he was scolding a student that repeatedly took his phone out. Finally the sub said he's gonna be watching the student closely now. That's when another student blurted out "always watching" with the exact voice [of Roz in Monsters, Inc.]. Nonetheless it was hilarious.

Why "nonetheless" when there's no concession being made?

I don't know the fancy linguistic terminology for this, but could it be argued that people just like using these long adverbs to sound cultured? But then they simply mis-employ them in their haste to pull off this facade of being educated and overtime it just begins to permeate everyday language?

I guess they're using "nonetheless" when they really just mean "anyway"? Maybe they think "anyway" sounds trite or something.

linguoboy wrote:Having broken the words "literally" and "technically", are today's Snake People now moving on to "nonetheless"?

I'm my history class we had a substitute teacher that was a real basic white dad and he was scolding a student that repeatedly took his phone out. Finally the sub said he's gonna be watching the student closely now. That's when another student blurted out "always watching" with the exact voice [of Roz in Monsters, Inc.]. Nonetheless it was hilarious.

Why "nonetheless" when there's no concession being made?

I'd be more inclined to dismiss "I'm my history class" as a typo if they hadn't included the apostrophe. :p

Zaarin wrote:I'd be more inclined to dismiss "I'm my history class" as a typo if they hadn't included the apostrophe. :p

I think that's a mobile autocorrection as it happens to me a lot when I accidentally type "im" for "in" on my cellphone.

Viktor77 wrote:

Zaarin wrote:I'd be more inclined to dismiss "I'm my history class" as a typo if they hadn't included the apostrophe. :p

I think that's a mobile autocorrection as it happens to me a lot when I accidentally type "im" for "in" on my cellphone.

Ah. My cellphone doesn't have auto-correct.

Zaarin wrote:Ah. My cellphone doesn't have auto-correct.

That's a rarity these days. I found I started understanding my friends' garbed texts and posts much better after I'd played around with an iPhone for a while.

linguoboy wrote:I found I started understanding my friends' garbed texts and posts much better after I'd played around with an iPhone for a while.

I have a friend who's always on an iDevice, too. I think I just figured it out over time, and also perhaps because I'd seen people complain about autocorrect often enough already. I don't think I've ever used an iPhone.

Vijay wrote:

linguoboy wrote:I found I started understanding my friends' garbed texts and posts much better after I'd played around with an iPhone for a while.

I have a friend who's always on an iDevice, too. I think I just figured it out over time, and also perhaps because I'd seen people complain about autocorrect often enough already. I don't think I've ever used an iPhone.

My husband wanted one, so I bought it him a 4 and then found myself having to learn it (or at least certain features) so I could show him what to do. (He eventually decided he hated it and switched to an Android, so now I have to learn *that* since--as I discovered only Monday--he doesn't even know how to make calls with it.)

So here's a good question to throw out in this thread: How has using mobile devices for written communication altered your style and diction and do any of these alterations carry over into other contexts (e.g. speaking, writing on a desktop computer)?

linguoboy wrote:My husband wanted one, so I bought it him a 4 and then found myself having to learn it (or at least certain features) so I could show him what to do. (He eventually decided he hated it and switched to an Android, so now I have to learn *that* since--as I discovered only Monday--he doesn't even know how to make calls with it.)

Yeah, my dad does this for my mom all the time, too. It looks frustrating, though I'm pretty sure that's at least partly because this is my mom.

Vijay wrote:Yeah, my dad does this for my mom all the time, too. It looks frustrating, though I'm pretty sure that's at least partly because this is my mom.

It's inherently a pretty frustrating situation. You have one person who just wants to do the same basic things they've always been able to do (e.g. call a cab, find an address) and now they're being forced to relearn them. They start off annoyed and a little defensive. Then you have another person who wants to help them (even if only not to be troubled with future requests). Unless they really love tutoring, they probably start out annoyed as well. And then they find themselves either assuming too much knowledge on the part of their audience (thus losing them) or assuming too little (thus insulting them). And that's before you even get into any personality conflicts.

linguoboy wrote:So here's a good question to throw out in this thread: How has using mobile devices for written communication altered your style and diction and do any of these alterations carry over into other contexts (e.g. speaking, writing on a desktop computer)?

My cellphone is pretty archaic. I use it for accepting calls (I don't call anyone if I can avoid it unless it's my best friend) and texting, but I'm one of those weird people who texts in full words in grammatical sentences--though now that my cellphone's keypad is dying (it either will not put in a space, <i>, or <v> or will put in three of them--nothing in between--and some other keys are getting temperamental, too) I've started using more abbreviations...So other than my dying keypad, it hasn't really.

I'm much more outspoken and outgoing online, though. I'm pretty terse in person, at least around strangers.

In French something rather fascinating is happening where negative imperatives are being used affirmatively to convey a negative sense in highly familiar speech. These appear to only be seen in 3 fixed phrases, the traditional "ne t'inquiète pas," "ne t'occupe pas," and "ne te tracasse pas."

"Ne t'inquiète pas" has turned into "t'inquiète."
"Ne t'occupe pas" has turned into "t'occupe.'
"Ne te tracasse pas" has turned into, oddly enough, "tracasse."

I hear the lattermost all the time and can attest to it. It seems to be perhaps modeled after the first two where the reflexive "te" is elided. It's also really only attested to in Belgium since "se tracasser" is far more common in Belgium than in France where "s'inquiéter" is the norm.

But what's fascinating is that all the negative elements, and not just the "ne" as is common, (and in one case even the reflexive pronoun) are being dropped but the meaning has not changed.

What do these mean?

Pole, the wrote:What do these mean?

Oh sorry they mean "don't worry" but they're being used as if an English speaker were to say "worry!" to mean "don't worry!"