Loser vs Looser

[redduck]

In the spirit of this thread, I know younger people (>30) who use "Him and me" as a subject in casual speech all the time, as in "Him and me went to the show Saturday night." And also "It's him and my's favorite movie."

These younger people have obviously not met GregLee.

Or, these younger people obviously have not met GregLee.

Or, obviously these younger people have not met GregLee.

I'm just not sure where the "obviously" should be placed.

And, as much as I like this thread, I think it's causing me to develop an eye twitch.

 

[Lisa99]

Utilize...grrrr

Ax instead of ASK (spoken)

prolly instead of probably (written)

Texting will be the downfall of our language. But then when I read Shakespeare I have to really pay attention to understand, so that era probably thought the young uns would kill their language as well.

 

[Meadbh]

"It's our favourite movie".

 

[Bestwifeever]

These younger people have obviously not met GregLee.

Or, these younger people obviously have not met GregLee.

Or, obviously these younger people have not met GregLee.

I'm just not sure where the "obviously" should be placed.

And, as much as I like this thread, I think it's causing me to develop an eye twitch.

It's obvious that I have an eye twitch too!

 

[GregLee]

These younger people have obviously not met GregLee.

Or, these younger people obviously have not met GregLee.

Or, obviously these younger people have not met GregLee.

I'm just not sure where the "obviously" should be placed.

And, as much as I like this thread, I think it's causing me to develop an eye twitch.

Uh, is that a real question? Actually, I have a theory about this, which is: (1) Adverbs and principal parts of a sentence are typed as 0, 1, 2, or 3, which gives the degree of obliqueness, (2) the basic rule of placement is that more oblique things must not precede less oblique things, (3) "obviously" along with other sentence adverbs has obliqueness of degree 1, (4) subjects of sentences and finite auxiliary verbs also have obliqueness of degree 1. So "obviously" can either precede or follow a subject (they have the same degree of obliqueness) and can either precede or follow a finite auxiliary verb ("have" in your examples).

So, according to that rule, all three orders of "obviously" you give are okay (and mean the same). However, one could not have "They have not obviously met him" (though this is okay with a different interpretation) or "They have not met obviously him" or "They have not met him obviously" (though the last would be okay if separated with a comma).

Adverbs are hard.

 

[KingB]

Adverbs are hard.

English is hard.

 

[redduck]

Uh, is that a real question? Actually, I have a theory about this, which is: (1) Adverbs and principal parts of a sentence are typed as 0, 1, 2, or 3, which gives the degree of obliqueness, (2) the basic rule of placement is that more oblique things must not precede less oblique things, (3) "obviously" along with other sentence adverbs has obliqueness of degree 1, (4) subjects of sentences and finite auxiliary verbs also have obliqueness of degree 1. So "obviously" can either precede or follow a subject (they have the same degree of obliqueness) and can either precede or follow a finite auxiliary verb ("have" in your examples).

So, according to that rule, all three orders of "obviously" you give are okay (and mean the same). However, one could not have "They have not obviously met him" (though this is okay with a different interpretation) or "They have not met obviously him" or "They have not met him obviously" (though the last would be okay if separated with a comma).

Adverbs are hard.

Among other things, it actually was a real question. Thank you.

 

[TromboneAl]

From my very limited knowledge of Esperanto ( mostly from: Esperanto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), I think all those things have been addressed.
-ERD50

The guys in the high school Esperanto club were a bunch of looser's.

 

[KingB]

The guys in the high school Esperanto were a bunch of looser's.

Watch out for the grammar police.

 

[ERD50]

The guys in the high school Esperanto were a bunch of looser's.

But were the high school Esperanto girls looser than the other girls?

Better throw in the .

-ERD50

 

[TromboneAl]

But were the high school Esperanto girls looser than the other girls?
-ERD50

Irregardless!

 

[HFWR]

Irregardless!

I could care less...

 

[TromboneAl]

Ever hear a conversation like this?

Guy 1: Boy, I'd like to sleep with Claudia Schiffer
Guy 2: Yeah, I bet you would.

 

[Rustward]

Using SWR (safe withdrawal rate) in place of WR (withdrawal rate).

 

[ERD50]

Using SWR (safe withdrawal rate) in place of WR (withdrawal rate).

+1

I'm probably guilty of it from time to time just due to inertia, but I do try to distinguish. A WR is a WR, we won't know if it is a safe WR until it's too late!


-ERD50

 

[W2R]

+1

I'm probably guilty of it from time to time just due to inertia, but I do try to distinguish. A WR is a WR, we won't know if it is a safe WR until it's too late!


-ERD50

Well, but we can HOPE it's safe! I do this from time to time as well, and while feeling a bit guilty about it I also regard it as analogous to hanging garlic over a door to ward off vampires.

 

[ERD50]

Well, but we can HOPE it's safe! I do this from time to time as well, and while feeling a bit guilty about it I also regard it as analogous to hanging garlic over a door to ward off vampires.

Easy for you to say - you have a Crystal Ball, and access to all that N'awlins Mojo stuff!

Hmmm, maybe I'll try hanging garlic around the computer screen while I watch the market......

-ERD50

 

[W2R]

Easy for you to say - you have a Crystal Ball, and access to all that N'awlins Mojo stuff!

Hmmm, maybe I'll try hanging garlic around the computer screen while I watch the market......

-ERD50

There ya go! That's probably a great idea.

 

[ls99]

Ever hear a conversation like this?

Guy 1: Boy, I'd like to sleep with Claudia Schiffer
Guy 2: Yeah, I bet you would.

Guy 1, genuine loser.

If I could get Claudia into the sack, sleeping would not be on the list.

 

[nvestysly]

I could care less...

How much less?

 

[HFWR]

How much less?

Until I couldn't care less?

 

[TromboneAl]

Until it don't make me no never mind.

 

[RHLnFLA]

What about: "HOT water heater"? If its hot, you don't need to heat it!!

 

[Nemo2]

What about: "HOT water heater"? If its hot, you don't need to heat it!!

And, if it's a water heater, the hot is already implied.

 

[GregLee]

What about: "HOT water heater"? If its hot, you don't need to heat it!!

Good point. The "heat" part being redundant, it should instead be "hot water-er".