Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Clemo

Things people say or sing

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Everybody says or hears strange things said or even sing the wrong song lyric!

A freind of my wife said she wanted a steak fries with a side saddle!

a mate of mine said - you'll just have to bite the bucket! 

His brother in law said march come's in like a lion and goes out like lemon!

Please give us your examples.

 

PS somebody else we knew sang - Civil, civil, She's civil to me, 

If it was'nt for tune we would never have guesed the song!

 

 

 

Edited by Clemo
No replies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a boss who used to say 'have to nip it in the butt'.

 

A coworker who thought the song went 'pulling muscles from Michelle'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sing different usually ridiculous words to almost every song I listen too. I just can’t help it. My family members don’t like it and they never laugh. I don’t care 🤷‍♂️ 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew someone who thought euthanasia is about the "youth in Asia" :)

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard that some one sang 

Im a yorkstone fireplace, - nothing like the lyric!

but still fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once had a boss who would visit for coffee and conversation at a site I was taking care of.  Words used in conversation had a regular tendency to come back mangled a couple of weeks later.

 

After a discussion about heredity versus environment, for example, he insisted that "It's all genital, innit?".  But my favourite had to be when he said enviously, "Of course it's all right for you boys today.  All the girls are on the pill.  They're impregnable".  Which makes a lot of immediate sense.

 

Two other regular mistakes which I find a little more disturbing than amusing are the way people seem to write "could of a great deal, instead of "could have", and the tendency for people to write and think a metaphor is "tow the line"  rather than "toe the line" .  It's as if they've been using language all their lives without paying real attention.  It certainly means that they don't read.

 

I far prefer more creatively inventive mistakes like those of my old boss over those lazy ones.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2018 at 16:50, Lazz said:

"Of course it's all right for you boys today.  All the girls are on the pill.  They're impregnable".  Which makes a lot of immediate sense.

 

Two other regular mistakes which I find a little more disturbing than amusing are the way people seem to write "could of a great deal, instead of "could have"...

 

"Could of" comes from "could've" as opposed to the non-contraction. But I'm sure you know this. Writers will intentionally spell for sound occasionally. Others might just goof it up or maybe copy those writers without realizing intention. Like it or not this is the way languages change. When I was a kid, things like "I got a pen" or "I've got a pen" to mean "I have a pen" were a no-no. Now, they're taught in language schools. And I've come to use them, too. 

And don't get me started on conditionals... I caught myself saying "was" the other day for a hypothetical, and nearly slapped my own lips off. 

Impregnable... lolol love it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Moso said:

But I'm sure you know this.

Yes, of course I understand that "could of" is a fair phonetic representation of what people hear.  It's just the sleepy failure to recognise - despite vernaculars - what language is doing at the time that we're doing it.  And I'm not speaking about writers who know exactly what they're doing, but those who fail to be awake to what their words are doing. What on earth do people imagine "of"  should mean in this context? 

 

It's tough for me to tolerate the idea that language changes through the blind mangling and murder of verb forms.

 

 

"Got"  - taught in language schools !!!???

There are always better choices:  "Do you have?"  is easily more graceful that "Have you got?" or the barbarous "Have you gotten?".

There are always better choices: hence I believe those guilty language-school teachers must be Merkan (a terrible state of affairs).

 

Merkans appear largely responsible also for the almost total evaporation of the personal pronoun.  More casual and thoughtless language abuse.  If ever I am referred to as a "that"  I take offence at the objectification, for example, and am consequently driven mad by constantly hearing about "a person that did something or other" instead of "a person who did something or other" . 

 

Thank you.

I feel better now.

Where do I send the cheque?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Lazz said:

"Got"  - taught in language schools !!!???

 

Where do I send the cheque?

I noticed got being taught as part of an official EFL curriculum about... 7 or more years ago when I was running this little language and arts school. But, in their defense, you have to remember that language descriptions can be prescriptive or descriptive, and if you're trying to teach non-native speakers how to communicate with native speakers, descriptive teaches them what is reality, prescriptive might teach them what to tick on tests. 

Again, like it or not, this is how language changes. I've slowly come to accept this. To a degree. 
But face it -- some of the language you/we use now that is totally apropos may very well have been gutterspeak or something otherwise grammatically faux pas in a much farther past. 

 

Ooh... money?... hmm... 

Gimme me a few more years, when I have my license. :P

(EDITED. Oh yeah. What else did I miss...) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ATM my favourite cringe-worthy phrase used by many in the media is:

 

"Take a look" or "Take a Listen" Gaaa!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, PaulCanuck said:

cringe-worthy phrase used by many in the media is:

The word "So..."  as used by talking heads at the beginning of their answers to questions.

Pointless and without meaning, this linguistic tic has nonetheless proven to be virulent and highly contagious.

Another example of not being awake to language in the actual moment we speak.

Asleep at the real.

 

And how about "impact"?

Phenomena no longer have consequence or effect or influence.

Everything these days has impact - another useage which seems to have burned every synonymous alternate from common vocabulary.

 

What's another word for "thesaurus"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very common in Birmingham uk, to use the word sooooo at the end of a statement, I usually question with sooooo what?

They usually have a look of bewilderment followed by silence 

 

Edited by Clemo
Typo
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Moso said:

you have to remember that language descriptions can be prescriptive or descriptive, and if you're trying to teach non-native speakers how to communicate with native speakers, descriptive teaches them what is reality, prescriptive might teach them what to tick on tests

There is absolutely no excuse, in my grandiose opinion, for not being able to make that fundamental distinction.

 

In "reality", I wager we are all members of different overlapping groups possessing various rag-bags of jargon and argot, for example, and yet we all magically retain the ability to communicate outside those circles with others who know doodley-squat about computers or combine-harvesters.  We need to re-introduce appropriateness into the mix, I think.  For, while our descriptive reality may introduce the student to the pleasures of shouting "Fuck!"  (appropriately, of course), it would surely be a dereliction of duty not to acquaint them with more formal everyday expectations governing places of worship, some professions, children's parties etcetera..., where profanity would be unwelcome.

 

If all a person desires is the ability to make an effective conversational run to the shops, then I guess the descriptive reality fares well enough - 'though surely this is something we learn from neighbours and neighbourhoods.  But most often, in my experience, when the non-native speaker has needs to communicate meaningfully and unambiguously - in fields like medicine, law, engineering, architecture, music, science... - they must rely on vocabulary and formal structure.

 

Why should any vernacular fluency necessarily blind us to the operation of syntactical logic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Lazz said:

There is absolutely no excuse, in my grandiose opinion, for not being able to make that fundamental distinction.

 

In "reality", I wager we are all members of different overlapping groups possessing various rag-bags of jargon and argot, for example, and yet we all magically retain the ability to communicate outside those circles with others who know doodley-squat about computers or combine-harvesters.  We need to re-introduce appropriateness into the mix, I think.  For, while our descriptive reality may introduce the student to the pleasures of shouting "Fuck!"  (appropriately, of course), it would surely be a dereliction of duty not to acquaint them with more formal everyday expectations governing places of worship, some professions, children's parties etcetera..., where profanity would be unwelcome.

 

If all a person desires is the ability to make an effective conversational run to the shops, then I guess the descriptive reality fares well enough - 'though surely this is something we learn from neighbours and neighbourhoods.  But most often, in my experience, when the non-native speaker has needs to communicate meaningfully and unambiguously - in fields like medicine, law, engineering, architecture, music, science... - they must rely on vocabulary and formal structure.

 

Why should any vernacular fluency necessarily blind us to the operation of syntactical logic?

Aye yay yay... Talk about a forest for the trees comment. With respect, you seem to be assuming language learners would only get to know one way or the other. In learning a language, you have to take things piecemeal, or you'll get overwhelmed quickly. Besides, I never said that they weren't learning other structures. That seems to have been an assumption on your part. 

And if these dear language learners were going on to medicine, law, science, etc., of course they're going to develop more formal language structure. (Btw, English formalities, beautiful (and fleeting) as they may be, can be far slipperier to codify than those of other languages.) 

 

And, if you don't mind me bringing it up, you completely overlooked my primary point --> Language changes. Like it or not, it does. And sometimes very quickly. Whatever we call the "right way" to use a language (and please understand I'm totally with you on what is good English and what is not), it is just a snapshot in time. It is not by any means an immortal, universal law. What is the rule now will not be the rule tomorrow. We can already see this in our own lifetimes. (Which brings me right back to my conditionals pet peeve.) I understand that does not mean we should throw it all to the wind and have no rules, but it does mean that we can huff and haw about certain peeves, but in the end some of them will just be that -- personal pet peeves of us older goats slinging the same antiquated story about how "it was better" or "people used to know better". 

 

Now with a fellow such as yourself who prides himself on spooning out what is a quite attractive and nostalgic diction, I can understand that it's a sort of character call to put your foot down on matters syntactic. But there is a limit to its reality, if it is being bolstered by what amounts to gilded stubbornness. Language is beautifully flexible. That's, I think, my favorite thing about it. 

But again, yeah, of course the aspiring language learner will learn all the ways of such that as got and have over time. Just not all once. Dude. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lazz said:

 

What's another word for "thesaurus"?

 

.. and where would one look it up? :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×