Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 11:59 pm

Also singular they. God do I fucking hate people who fucking whine about grammar shit that never made any sense.

radthemad4 · Post by **radthemad4** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:04 am

I never learned what an infinitive was and don't remember a lot of grammar basics (though I'm reasonably sure that came up in school). Yeah, I'll need a more thorough understanding. I highly suspect that some of the stuff the students got right was purely accidental based on the rest of their work. Also,

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:17 am

Infinitives are the unconjugated verb. The weird thing about English is that it comes in the form of "to fuckup" or whatever, instead of in most languages where it is "fuckupem." So in most languages, the idea of splitting infinitives isn't even possible, and therefore is not something to be avoided. But in English, people whine about split infinitives because some grammar teacher told them not to do it every single time you have "to" in a sentence not directly in front of verb.

And in addition to splitting infinitives not being inherently bad, and sometimes necessary, sometimes that "to" isn't even a split infinitive, it is just a valid preposition being appropriately used, and they still whine.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:30 am

Yeah, I hate people who bitch about singular they too, for my own special snowflakism. I kind of let it slide when it's a style guide thing for a business, but I also think businesses should fucking update their style guides (Looking at you, Wizards.)

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:13 am

Prak_Anima wrote:Oh, gotcha. Yeah, it's a splitting infinitives thing and, like ending sentences with prepositions, gets old folks' undergarments in a bunch for no fucking reason other than a nun told them it was bad.

(the preposition was recently deemed by word nerds to be acceptable because the prohibition of it was based on latin, where a sentence ended with a preposition would make literally no sense. In English it's perfectly clear what such sentences mean, so it's not a big deal.)

Same with split infinitives. Because they weren't split in Latin.

(and that's because infinitives in Latin were one single word, a modified form of the verb in question. "Amo" means "I love", "amare" means "to love".)

Prepositions were because Latin ended sentence with verbs because they had to show it somehow.

So if someone about your prepositions or infinitives begins bitching, to Latin sentence structure switch.

Like Yoda-talk or Reverse Polish Notation it is. Your point it will make.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:34 am

Maxus wrote:So if someone about your prepositions or infinitives begins bitching, to Latin sentence structure switch.

Like Yoda-talk or Reverse Polish Notation it is. Your point it will make.

Yeah, I had a professor whose (very long) style guide for papers included a ban on split infinitives. I wrote my first paper for that course in Yodaspeak. He didn't mark me down, and gave me a smiley-face, but he didn't revise the guidelines.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:11 am

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
Maxus wrote:So if someone about your prepositions or infinitives begins bitching, to Latin sentence structure switch.

Like Yoda-talk or Reverse Polish Notation it is. Your point it will make.
Yeah, I had a professor whose (very long) style guide for papers included a ban on split infinitives. I wrote my first paper for that course in Yodaspeak. He didn't mark me down, and gave me a smiley-face, but he didn't revise the guidelines.

Yeah, it sure seems like Grammar Nazis are actually the same as fucking Fox news watchers for this kind of shit. Like, even if you explain exactly why they are full of shit, and link to a bunch of sources that actually show that the he as the only acceptable third person singular for unknown gender was specifically made up by this one person in 1745 for pretty much no reason that matters, and they will totally just nod and agree... and then go right back to demanding every single person but you must conform to their stupid shitty rules that make no sense, until they eventually slip up and forget that you corrected them, and bring it up to you again.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:41 am

Yeah, I had a professor whose (very long) style guide for papers included a ban on split infinitives. I wrote my first paper for that course in Yodaspeak. He didn't mark me down, and gave me a smiley-face, but he didn't revise the guidelines.

Clearly that's what he wanted. Yodaspeak is the correct way he thinks.

That said, I enjoy correcting particularly clever people on stupid grammatical points ("None of them work." "I'm very disappointed... none of them works.") Especially the ones where general usage basically means they're right and the "correction" is wrong.

Exceptions: I am resistant to the Americanisation of English, so I will fight against duty being "doodie", new being "noo", "holding down the fort", "filling out a form" and "I could care less". And this weird letter "Zee" that apparently exists somewhere.

But a large part of that is just the fact that it's like my youngest sister learned to speak by watching Friends, and I think it would be reasonable for production of shows like that to be a jailable offence.

radthemad4 · Post by **radthemad4** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:36 pm

More partial towards Americanese I am. At least when it comes to spelling. It feels more intuitive imo.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 11:40 am

Koumei wrote:I am resistant to the Americanisation of English

It's "Americanization."

-Username17

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 12:12 pm

I was almost hoping someone would say that, and you didn't let me down.

Eikre · Post by **Eikre** » Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:13 pm

The Romans spelled it "Color," and so shall I. Any superfluous "u" is merely a damp nook into which the speller accepts the long, penetrating cock of French cultural supremacy. Feel free to take THAT laying down, limeys~

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:45 pm

Koumei wrote: Exceptions: I am resistant to the Americanisation of English, so I will fight against duty being "doodie", new being "noo",

I'm American and I've always pronounced them "Doo-tee" and "N-eeww."

Of course, I'm from the South. Thus "Y'all" is a perfectly valid collective pronoun.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Jun 27, 2014 12:43 am

Eikre wrote:The Romans spelled it "Color," and so shall I. Any superfluous "u" is merely a damp nook into which the speller accepts the long, penetrating cock of French cultural supremacy. Feel free to take THAT laying down, limeys~

Your armor is useless without u in it.

Shrapnel · Post by **Shrapnel** » Fri Jun 27, 2014 12:54 am

I am agnaist al forms of speling becuse comprehenshun and context is a bad thing

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Fri Jun 27, 2014 12:58 am

and now for the classic: grey or gray

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Fri Jun 27, 2014 1:04 am

Stahlseele wrote:and now for the classic: grey or gray

Gray in America. Grey in Europe.

http://grammarist.com/spelling/gray-grey/

edit: Linky goodness.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Fri Jun 27, 2014 1:12 am

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
Stahlseele wrote:and now for the classic: grey or gray
Gray in America. Grey in Europe.

I always thought it was the other way around.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:57 am

Both in both, actually.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:07 pm

So, World War I.

1.) If you don't that that WWI was unavoidable, what would be the minimum number of trends you'd have to change or black swans to introduce to permanently take the conflict off of the table? What's more, would this be worth it in the long run?

2.) What would have had to happen to prevent the Armenian genocide?

3.) I know people have said that World War I was pretty much a 'everyone's at fault' kind of dealyo, which but it seems to me that the blame lies mostly with Austria-Hungary. Any discussion of the causes seems to be centered around the fact that they were hell-bent on a war with Serbia and I can't think of a scenario where they could be peacefully talked down. Thoughts?

4.) My intuition is that the Russian Revolution was pretty much unavoidable short of some crazy Alt History scenario, World War I or no. However, if World War I didn't happen at all or if it had been conducted differently how many extra years would it have bought the Russian crown?

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:35 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:So, World War I.

1.) If you don't that that WWI was unavoidable, what would be the minimum number of trends you'd have to change or black swans to introduce to permanently take the conflict off of the table? What's more, would this be worth it in the long run?

World War I was avoidable. Germany was a dick, the political situation was a powder keg set up to produce a gigantic conflict, the technology was way ahead of the tactics. All of which should have been foreseeable and fixable. I mean, any look at the American Civil War should have warned everybody about trench warfare; the Crimean War about disease control.

That said, the number of stuff you'd have to introduce to prevent it is more complicated than "keep Archduke Ferdinand alive." If it wasn't him, it could have been any other little spark that set things off. You'd probably need a complete political change in Europe to prevent WWI, and it's hard to imagine that coming about non-violently.

2.) What would have had to happen to prevent the Armenian genocide?

Oh fuck. You might as well ask what you'd need to do to prevent the Holocaust. It's not just the entrenched political attitude, the rampant racism, or the individual madness of a couple leaders. There's a culture of seeing people as less than other human beings there.

3.) I know people have said that World War I was pretty much a 'everyone's at fault' kind of dealyo, which but it seems to me that the blame lies mostly with Austria-Hungary. Any discussion of the causes seems to be centered around the fact that they were hell-bent on a war with Serbia and I can't think of a scenario where they could be peacefully talked down. Thoughts?

I'd put it more on Germany - yes, the Austro-Hungarians took a diplomatic incident and turned it into a causus belli, and that dragged other nations into it through alliances, but the Germans were the first to invade a neutral country, dragging England into the fight.

4.) My intuition is that the Russian Revolution was pretty much unavoidable short of some crazy Alt History scenario, World War I or no. However, if World War I didn't happen at all or if it had been conducted differently how many extra years would it have bought the Russian crown?

Russia liberated the serfs in 1861; there's no reason to think that Russia couldn't have transitioned into an English-style constitutional monarchy if it was given enough time...and if, admittedly, the Romanovs had been less dicks. The fact is that the troubles of Russia stretched back over a century, and the war only exacerbated the problems already inherent in what was a massive, ungovernable, backwards nation.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:34 am

Does anyone else find, when unwell and going mad from stress, that they almost have an urge to start fights/arguments?

I mean, I know how to fix it - codeine and alcohol (which suggests that aggression is created in the liver, and you need to suppress it with toxins), but is it in any way common?

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:42 am

Yeah, I always figured the stress was triggering adrenaline and the "fight-or-flight" urge or something. Have you tried jogging?

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:50 am

I actually jog daily in general, despite all the evidence that exercise is really bad for you. But doing so when it's specifically a problem is trickier - midnight (when all those pikies and hoodies and chavs are wandering the streets with their gats and Bacardi breezers*), or during actual work hours.

Glad to know it's not just my fucked-up brain though.

*I know what one or two of those words mean

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:09 am

Does anyone else find, when unwell and going mad from stress, that they almost have an urge to start fights/arguments?

Stress (like over money troubles or uncertainty of employment) is strongly associated with family violence rates, and violence of crime in general. Using your words is a better idea, but not everyone does. You can always try a placebo like a stress-ball, build some strong wrists while choosing to relax about the things you cannot change and get the fuck on with fixing the things you can.

So, World War I.

So, Germany was being a dick because the whole concept of a country for people of one language was a new idea, coming out of the whole public education drive that Prussia had kicked everyone's ass with. Not long before all that, everyone had "assumed" languages just melted into each other through ever-changing dialects as you travelled. With the new schools there was only one language and you would fucking well speak it or else.

That also drove the nationalism agenda which was tearing apart the old empires and creating this mess of border wars in the first place. People with a dialect too far gone to easily learn the new official Austrian or whatever wanted their own fucking country so that they wouldn't have to.

Anyway, large enclaves of "German-speaking" people didn't all end up in Germany when it formed, and they often got treated as second-class citizen in the places they lived. Not seriously bad, but a dent on the pride of the nation recently built for the purpose of promoting the common welfare people who speak German.

1.) You have to develop multiculturalism to fulfil everyone's desires in Europe. Give full rights for people to perform public services like education and religious gatherings in their own language rather than that of the state. Everyone was just getting started with nationalism instead, which was probably because of technological limitations around the new state apparatus. Multicultural nation states are probably impossible in 1914.

2.) The Armenian genocide is the Turkish response to calls for separatist self-governance, a primitive expression of nationalism, of Turkish oneness. They're still doing it to the Kurds, because in Turkey people who aren't Turkish officially don't exist and anyone saying otherwise is a traitor to the state. Their official policy on the genocide today is that it can't be true because Armenians aren't really a thing.

3.) Serbians wanted their own schools and judges and stuff, the Hapsburgs wanted a grand empire in the model of the new nation states where Serbians couldn't have anything like that. When a Serbian anarchist killed the heir to the empire, BOOM!

4.) There was a series of meetings between the Russian crown and the British crown not long before. The British record is that they spent the whole time trying to convince Nicholas that he needed to let people vote for a parliament with real power or they would cut his fucking head off in the immediate future. He did not listen. Totally avoidable though.