SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PastimesThe New Judge Bleonard's Assorted Reef Life&Bottom Feeders


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (140)7/11/1998 1:19:00 PM
From: Grainne
   of 174
 
Alex, when I said sorry about using parenting as a verb, it was because even though I know it bothers you, and essentially I don't want to do that, I still think it is still the most effective sentence construction that I can think of to communicate. I certainly don't think you are wrong to have the opinion that you do, but I simply express my thoughts in a different way. This is quite different from my insulting your wife, or actually hurting you in some way. In those cases, I do agree that saying sorry while being offensive is quite trite!

Is this the grammar thread? We obviously have not only different ways of expressing ourselves, but different concepts of thread head management styles, as well. You didn't scare me off--I just was extremely busy and have not looked at my message manager in a long time, and am just now getting to it. I do think you might intimidate someone who was less sure of his or her own language skills away from posting, however. Don't you want more, not fewer, people posting here?

But to answer your question, I LIKE new verb forms. I think it is modern and efficient."Parenting" is shorter, and the construction is more economic, than "being a parent". I advocate simplicity of structure, generally. Would you like me to URL you something? Now isn't that efficient and colorful all at the same time? I take liberties with English because I enjoy doing so--it is self expressive. Life is short, and this is fun for me. English has been evolving since its first speakers, and so I am unclear why I should refrain from all the pleasures of slang and VERBING, which at least is a solitary activity with no danger of sexually transmitted diseases.

Okay, rant and roll!!!!!! Maybe you could suggest a new Topic? Although certainly I am happy to continue to discuss this one.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)


To: Grainne who wrote (141)7/14/1998 11:53:00 AM
From: Jacques Chitte
   of 174
 
Let's see now.
No, this is not the Grammar thread. At the same time, I reserve and exercise the privilege to make my grammatical preferences known here. I think "parenting" is easily replaced with the correct and marginally less compact "parenthood". When you really need to distinguish the act from the state of being, "being a parent" is universal if arguably verbose.
It's an aesthetic call on my part. "Parenting", "windowing" etc. grate on my nerves, perhaps because these forma have evolved in some of the intellectually laziest and most corrupt circles in our present society. Every time I hear such a form, I visualize a Human Resources weasel or some self-referent social/political sciences mandarin. (The one that really raises my hackles is when folks try to turn "incentive" into a verb and use the bastard "incent". Arrgh. Can you tell I'm - incensed?)
But hey, that's I. (sic)
I also advocate simplicity of structure - so long as it is either correct or is a big improvement over an exixting Indo-Germanic atavism. Although - often I will employ the nominally correct atavism because it is poetic and often more evocative than the spare replacement - which often smacks of verbal Bauhaus.
Thread management. I don't want to wear the mantle of Thread Manager. I want as much freedom as is reasonable to set the tone hereabouts. I didn't call you on writing "parenting". My only complaint was the apparent duplicity of using the form while disguising parenthetic goads as apologies. There is something of a challenge there - sorta like "if he says anything now, he looks like a pedant". I didn't want to leave that uncalled. But enough about taht, if it's OK.
My primary interest here is to keep the thread alive. This is proving tough. There has been attrition among the "old crew" of cybernetic merrymakers. I'm sure there are new web sprites out there ready to share a bon mot or tentative opinion about our collective and individual situation. We have built it; let them come.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Grainne who wrote (141)7/15/1998 5:29:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte
   of 174
 
White flag

Message 5206993

...but I don't have to LIKE it

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (143)7/15/1998 5:40:00 PM
From: Rambi
   of 174
 
THe mark of a true scholar.
I am filled with admiration.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (142)7/20/1998 12:40:00 AM
From: Grainne
   of 174
 
Well, yes, Alex, that was my point!!! You have built it, and they might come, except if they are afraid of having their posts criticized for forms of speech, etc. And of course there is also that huge body of posters who would be so intimidated by your sheer intellectual sparkle that they are not sure they understand some of what you say, and may hesitant to get their feet wet.

Incidentally, my Webster's dictionary indicates that the first known use of the word PARENTING (the raising of a child by its parents; the act or process of becoming a parent; the act of caring for someone in the manner of a parent) occurred in 1958. However, the verb transitive form, PARENT (to be or act as the parent of; originate; produce) first occurred in 1663. So I think I have a lot of historical precedent supporting at least part of my usage patterns of these words.

I would never assert that "parenting" can be replaced with "parenthood", incidentally. I am not sure why you would say that. Could we get a neutral third party involved here, perhaps? Not that we need mediation, but I would be interested in other opinions.

Where DID everyone go, incidentally? I am having to follow the Yahoo threads to keep up on my stocks!!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (143)7/20/1998 12:45:00 AM
From: Grainne
   of 174
 
Alex, no white flag is necessary!!! Something can be technically correct and even in long-term usage, and still drive you crazy. And that is what I originally apologized for--I was acknowledging that even while I liked the word forms I was using, that they drove you crazy.

Can we beat another dead horse for awhile? That seems to be something bottom feeders and other reef life might enjoy.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Grainne who wrote (145)7/21/1998 2:10:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte
   of 174
 
>And of course there is also that huge
body of posters who would be so intimidated by your sheer intellectual sparkle that they are not
sure they understand some of what you say, and may hesitant to get their feet wet.<

Are you suggesting that I am generating a hostile environment here simply by being Me?
Would any of this Huge Body please step forward and comment? Even if only to flame me "a new one".

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (147)7/21/1998 4:52:00 PM
From: Rambi
   of 174
 
I couldn't decide which part of the Huge Body to send forward, so all of me is toddling to the microphone, wearing a pith helmet and glancing warily around, on the alert for hostile attacks from the razor sharp intellects governing the environs.

Why would you intimidate someone here any more than anywhere else? Naw--I think it's the Judge who scares 'em. Maybe they think this is a thread for fishing enthusiasts. And Judge Bleonard is the guy who has that Saturday afternoon fishing show on TV. Fishing is bad enough; watching someone fish on TV is excruciating.

Hostile environments on SI usually don't deter anyone---indeed they attract throngs of people who thrive on insults. MAybe you're not hostile enough. Maybe no one is sure yet what the accepted tone of the thread is:

Let's see-
Now if this were DAR, the exchange would have gone thusly:

Alex: I'm sure you're right, but the word parenting bothers me somehow.

CGB: Oh, I'm sorry. I understand that. It's been accepted since 1958, so it really is a word but it's certainly relatively new and I can see why you might feel that way. Why don't I just not use it?

Alex: Oh, no! That's all right! It won't bother me. I think you're wonderful the way you looked it up and mentioned it so nicely. Thank you.

CGB: Oh, please. You're too sweet! Let's find a word that makes us both happy and write a fantasy about it.
THey hug and get the dictionary and a couple of cold ones

SAME SCENE AT FEELINGS:

ALEx: WHen you use that word, I feel as if I want to scream.

CGB: It's because you're so conservative. DOn't you think it's fairer to make all words equal? Don't they all deserve the same opportunities?

ALex: No-you're violating my rights to maintain a traditional vocabulary. If you want to make-up words, you are free to do so in the privacy of your own home.

CGB: Here is a URL you might like to read.
Webster concludes that parenting has been a word since 1958.

Alex: Well, it makes me feel sick.

ASK GOD:

Alex: Although I love you in Christ, I really hate that word. I forgive you though for using it.

CGB: III Webster v.3-4 . And they shall go forth and parent..
I will pray that you read these words and repent of your sins.

ALex: I believe that verse is open to interpretation.

CGB: It is the Word of Webster, you blasphemer. Take your filth and leave.

(THis is really fun.....)

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Rambi who wrote (148)9/15/1998 8:57:00 PM
From: JF Quinnelly
   of 174
 
How come you losers can't keep this thread alive?
Is there any significance to the fact that the last post was on my birthday? Or that it marked the beginning of the Bear?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (149)10/2/1998 4:19:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte
   of 174
 
Maybe we're not attracting the right brand of loser. A pity Janice won't bring some of her glamorous new friends to play.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10