Judith:
It's funny you mention that clip of Burnett because she was the subject of a PBS "American Masters" special last night and they showed that clip. She cried and cried. Then she stopped and asked if she could do it again. Funny woman.
A Propos of Nothing
-
movieman1957
- Administrator
- Posts: 5522
- Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
- Location: MD
-
jdb1
I missed that show - but then, I've seen them all a zillion times, and we have quite a few of the videos (for my budding comic genius daughter to study).
I can think of another, simlar, instance: Nelson Rockefeller (at this time the Vice President), called a press conference to announce that his wife, Happy, had breast cancer. This was soon after Betty Ford announced she had been treated for the same condition. He started out, looking sad, sighing, etc., with "You're not gonna believe this, but. . . ." Then one of the journalists asked him to start again because a camera wasn't rolling, and he did it again, exactly, but exactly, the same way. I've rarely seen anything so contrived, phony looking, and cynical, and I've seen a lot of politicians in my time.
I can think of another, simlar, instance: Nelson Rockefeller (at this time the Vice President), called a press conference to announce that his wife, Happy, had breast cancer. This was soon after Betty Ford announced she had been treated for the same condition. He started out, looking sad, sighing, etc., with "You're not gonna believe this, but. . . ." Then one of the journalists asked him to start again because a camera wasn't rolling, and he did it again, exactly, but exactly, the same way. I've rarely seen anything so contrived, phony looking, and cynical, and I've seen a lot of politicians in my time.
-
sandykaypax
- Posts: 490
- Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:15 pm
- Location: Beautiful Ohio
Good thread. A weird language trend that I've noticed lately is that when asked a question, the responder will start by answering, "Yeah, no." Is it yes or no?
For example: TV entertainment reporter asks actor "Was it difficult shooting the film on location in Alaska?"
Actor: "Yeah, no, it was really cool to be away from L.A."
What?
My pet peeve is when people say that an actor was "casted" in a role. The word is "cast."
Sandy K
For example: TV entertainment reporter asks actor "Was it difficult shooting the film on location in Alaska?"
Actor: "Yeah, no, it was really cool to be away from L.A."
What?
My pet peeve is when people say that an actor was "casted" in a role. The word is "cast."
Sandy K
-
jdb1
The thing about using words such as "casted," Sandy, is that it's a perfectly logical construction. It seems right to the speaker that such a short word should take an "ed" ending in the past tense. It's wrong, but it's understandable. It's analogous to the typical childhood phrase "I'm being have" for "I'm behaving." I hear people saying "waivered" for "waived" all the time. Another instance in which language will be changing through constant use. Language, like time, marches on.sandykaypax wrote:My pet peeve is when people say that an actor was "casted" in a role. The word is "cast."
Sandy K
-
jdb1
Last week I was looking in on those TLC shows - the one about the Roloff family and the following one about the family with twins and sextuplets. Everyone on both shows said "off-ten" for often. The Rolloffs live in the Portland area, and the multi-kid family lives near Hershey, PA, so this phenom is apparently all over the country. Except in my house.
-
cinemalover
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:57 am
- Location: Seattle, Washington
Great teaser on the radio this morning for the local news tonight..."Tonight, at 6:30 KIRO news will tell how to get rid of ALL telemarketers on ALL your phones for FIVE YEARS! Tune in tonight!"
I wish. And what's the significance of five years? Darnit, now I'll just have to tune in.
I wish. And what's the significance of five years? Darnit, now I'll just have to tune in.
Chris
The only bad movie is no movie at all.
The only bad movie is no movie at all.
-
movieman1957
- Administrator
- Posts: 5522
- Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
- Location: MD
-
jdb1
Here's another: more and more people are saying "grosheries" for
"groceries." What's the problem - an epidemic of overbite?
I would have thought that some sort of regional pronunciation - for years I heard actors in TV commercials say "pishers" for "pictures." (If you know Yiddish, feel free to giggle now.) I assumed that was a California thing - the Beach Boys talked in that exotic way, after all. But now, it seems to be spreading.
And how about the relentless spread of "you guys?" Everyone says it now for "you" in the plural. I've heard pundits on TV who I would never have thought would stoop so low, using it. I use the phrase too, but I hope appropriately. I wouldn't assist at a meeting of CEOs and ambassadors, and refer to them all as "you guys." So, do you guys all want coffee? That sounds so Dubya. Actually, I think I prefer "y'all" to "you guys."
There's more: what about "continue on" and "separate out?" Redundant, no? I'm sure those come from military parlance. My ex was in the Navy for 20 years, and it sounds just like the kind of thing you'd hear on base. In fact, I'm sure I've heard it dozens of times in that venue.
And "go ahead?" All the cooks on the food shows say it: "I'm going to go ahead and dice this cabbage." Oh? You mean you're going to do it now and use it in the future, so you'll be ahead of schedule? I don't get this deflective passivity of the language. If it were me, I'd use a declarative, decisive sentence: "Friends, I am dicing this cabbage. See?"
"groceries." What's the problem - an epidemic of overbite?
I would have thought that some sort of regional pronunciation - for years I heard actors in TV commercials say "pishers" for "pictures." (If you know Yiddish, feel free to giggle now.) I assumed that was a California thing - the Beach Boys talked in that exotic way, after all. But now, it seems to be spreading.
And how about the relentless spread of "you guys?" Everyone says it now for "you" in the plural. I've heard pundits on TV who I would never have thought would stoop so low, using it. I use the phrase too, but I hope appropriately. I wouldn't assist at a meeting of CEOs and ambassadors, and refer to them all as "you guys." So, do you guys all want coffee? That sounds so Dubya. Actually, I think I prefer "y'all" to "you guys."
There's more: what about "continue on" and "separate out?" Redundant, no? I'm sure those come from military parlance. My ex was in the Navy for 20 years, and it sounds just like the kind of thing you'd hear on base. In fact, I'm sure I've heard it dozens of times in that venue.
And "go ahead?" All the cooks on the food shows say it: "I'm going to go ahead and dice this cabbage." Oh? You mean you're going to do it now and use it in the future, so you'll be ahead of schedule? I don't get this deflective passivity of the language. If it were me, I'd use a declarative, decisive sentence: "Friends, I am dicing this cabbage. See?"
-
jdb1
I think "different from" is now a lost cause - nobody says it. I don't use is regularly any more, unless I have a microsecond to stop and think about it.Erebus wrote:One thing is different "from" another, not different "than" another. One is going to try "to" do something, not try "and" do it. One gets something "free", not "for free".
Oh, yes - what about anymore and everyday for any more and every day?
Everyday, especially, changes meaning whether it's joined or not:
I do that every day.
This is just an everyday pair of shoes, nothing special.
I hate "anymore," but it's used even in the NY Times these days, so why fight it?
In defense of anymore, it usually refers to something happening or not happening again. Any more usually refers to a leftover amount.
Maybe we should allow some leeway for this poor orphan.
Maybe we should allow some leeway for this poor orphan.
"I'm at my most serious when I'm joking." - Dudley
Don't sweat the petty things - don't pet the sweaty things.
Don't sweat the petty things - don't pet the sweaty things.
-
jdb1
Well, there's a point made about changing language, Charlie. Even 20 years ago, "anymore" did not exist, and you would have been marked wrong by your teacher if you wrote it that way. But that isn't the case any more (I just can't bring myself to write that other one).CharlieT wrote:In defense of anymore, it usually refers to something happening or not happening again. Any more usually refers to a leftover amount.
Maybe we should allow some leeway for this poor orphan.
Is there a situation where you would write "anyless?" I don't think so, at least not at this moment. You would write "any less," as in "I don't go to the movies any less just because the weather is bad." Maybe that one will soon evolve as a logical opposite of "anymore."
That is the whole point of this thread: just because you see/hear it in the media is no guarantee that it's correct. Media no longer sets such standards - rather, it reflects and follows them. And, I suppose, the other point is that there aren't really any standards any more.
-
jdb1
Here's a new topic:
Have you read about the NYC Schools Chancellor Joel Klein's latest attempt to act get school children to pay attention? Last month he proposed a plan whereby students would be paid if they got good grades. This week he has another brilliant idea: give them gifts, like cellphones and iPods, if they get good marks on the standardized tests. I'm not sure if this latest proposal is in addition to, or in place of, the first great notion.
What do you all think of that? Right now I am so furious with this ineffectual man that I don't know if I can cogently list the two or three hundred reasons why this is a terrible idea.
Mr. Klein is a lawyer, not an educator. Previous to his appointment, he was general counsel to the media conglomerate Bertelsman, and before that he was with the US Attorney General's Antitrust Division.
I'm wondering if (a) he has any children of his own (if he does, it's for sure they go to private schools); and (b) whether he ever went to school himself. I can't believe the complete unreality of his administration of our poor public schools.
There's only one little gleam of hope I can see in this plan: at least it's possible it will foster a bit of competition, something sorely missing from the NYC schools these past few decades. Anyone who has paid any attention to recent history should have learned that the absence of competition means the absence of effort and interest. Is this not, in part what led to the downfall of Communist regimes?
In an effort not to "offend" anyone (read: to avoid costly lawsuits), the NYC schools have become bastions of false equality; it is an equality of mediocrity and worse, not of success. Our school kids don't have to work for anything - they get pushed through regardless of how little they know and can do. I despair of the current system. If you've tried to get anything done in NYC lately and been the victim of any recent high school graduate (or dropout), you know how frustrating and frightening it is to be in such hands.
Well, here's what I think: kids don't need presents from school (well, maybe a little something here and there); they need something to strive for, and that thing should be approval. Approval brings self-respect, and self-respect promotes effort and success. Besides, if kids get gifts from their schools, then they will expect the same from their parents; that is, they will expect material gain where they should be seeking emotional encouragement.
I'm appalled at how out of touch our schools (and our parents) have gotten. I don't think there is any benefit to our children in this new, misguided plan.
Have you read about the NYC Schools Chancellor Joel Klein's latest attempt to act get school children to pay attention? Last month he proposed a plan whereby students would be paid if they got good grades. This week he has another brilliant idea: give them gifts, like cellphones and iPods, if they get good marks on the standardized tests. I'm not sure if this latest proposal is in addition to, or in place of, the first great notion.
What do you all think of that? Right now I am so furious with this ineffectual man that I don't know if I can cogently list the two or three hundred reasons why this is a terrible idea.
Mr. Klein is a lawyer, not an educator. Previous to his appointment, he was general counsel to the media conglomerate Bertelsman, and before that he was with the US Attorney General's Antitrust Division.
I'm wondering if (a) he has any children of his own (if he does, it's for sure they go to private schools); and (b) whether he ever went to school himself. I can't believe the complete unreality of his administration of our poor public schools.
There's only one little gleam of hope I can see in this plan: at least it's possible it will foster a bit of competition, something sorely missing from the NYC schools these past few decades. Anyone who has paid any attention to recent history should have learned that the absence of competition means the absence of effort and interest. Is this not, in part what led to the downfall of Communist regimes?
In an effort not to "offend" anyone (read: to avoid costly lawsuits), the NYC schools have become bastions of false equality; it is an equality of mediocrity and worse, not of success. Our school kids don't have to work for anything - they get pushed through regardless of how little they know and can do. I despair of the current system. If you've tried to get anything done in NYC lately and been the victim of any recent high school graduate (or dropout), you know how frustrating and frightening it is to be in such hands.
Well, here's what I think: kids don't need presents from school (well, maybe a little something here and there); they need something to strive for, and that thing should be approval. Approval brings self-respect, and self-respect promotes effort and success. Besides, if kids get gifts from their schools, then they will expect the same from their parents; that is, they will expect material gain where they should be seeking emotional encouragement.
I'm appalled at how out of touch our schools (and our parents) have gotten. I don't think there is any benefit to our children in this new, misguided plan.