|
martle
|
 |
« Reply #120 on: 22:24:14, 14-08-2007 » |
|
(Although 'guys' is, by now, a completely non-gender-specific plural term, no?) Only in America, I think. Not on the evidence of the young folk I work with, Ian. I'm also thrown by the habit girls have of referring to 'my girlfriend', meaning a friend who happens to be female rather than anything else. But it doesn't work the same way with 'boyfriend'... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Green. Always green.
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #121 on: 22:27:19, 14-08-2007 » |
|
(Although 'guys' is, by now, a completely non-gender-specific plural term, no?) Only in America, I think. Not on the evidence of the young folk I work with, Ian. I'm also thrown by the habit girls have of referring to 'my girlfriend', meaning a friend who happens to be female rather than anything else. But it doesn't work the same way with 'boyfriend'... That's clearly because boyfriend carries pederastic connotations, I'm sure you'll agree. Have you tried "manfriend"? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thompson1780
|
|
« Reply #122 on: 00:10:22, 15-08-2007 » |
|
"Dude" is indeed gender-specific. And, ugh, "dudette" is indeed the, um, "feminine" form of the term, though it's entirely invented. It would be like finding a masculine equivalent for "chick" (or "bird," as you lot would say) ... doesn't actually exist, but surely one could invent some sort of male equivalent?
So, picking up on Inky's suggestion, we would have 'chicks' (f) and 'd**ks' (m), or alternatively, 'birds' (f) and 'Richard the Thirds' (m). Oh no, that's not quite right.......  It's "Richards the Third"  Tommo |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 00:13:13, 15-08-2007 by thompson1780 »
|
Logged
|
Made by Thompson & son, at the Violin & c. the West end of St. Paul's Churchyard, LONDON
|
|
|
|
John W
|
|
« Reply #123 on: 00:10:40, 15-08-2007 » |
|
The developing argument was moved to the Argument Thread, pedantically  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #124 on: 00:11:56, 15-08-2007 » |
|
The developing argument was moved to the Argument Thread, pedantically Fair enough. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
John W
|
|
« Reply #125 on: 00:18:49, 15-08-2007 » |
|
Thanks Ian, The argument can continue, over there. Meanwhile I hope pedantry can resume  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #126 on: 00:25:28, 15-08-2007 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Chafing Dish
Guest
|
|
« Reply #127 on: 00:27:08, 15-08-2007 » |
|
Meanwhile I hope pedantry can resume And hopefully cease everywhere else... I can dream can't I? Just leaving... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thompson1780
|
|
« Reply #128 on: 00:28:32, 15-08-2007 » |
|
Actually, I wonder if John really does wonder whether or not pedantry can resume, or indeed if it will resume. I am sure the ability of board members in the art of pedantry is without question. For my money, it is more a question of whether or not we can be arsed to carry on. Tommo |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Made by Thompson & son, at the Violin & c. the West end of St. Paul's Churchyard, LONDON
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #129 on: 00:32:17, 15-08-2007 » |
|
Actually, I wonder if John really does wonder whether or not pedantry can resume, or indeed if it will resume. I am sure the ability of board members in the art of pedantry is without question. For my money, it is more a question of whether or not we can be arsed to carry on. Tommo Not wishing to be - er - pedantic, but you do not declare how much money that is (and please no anti-capitalist responses from anyone to this genuinely innocent statement - a simple answer from you, Tommo, will suffice)... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 21:32:05, 15-08-2007 by ahinton »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
George Garnett
|
|
« Reply #130 on: 00:33:28, 15-08-2007 » |
|
Meanwhile I hope pedantry can resume And hopefully cease everywhere else... I can dream can't I? Your dream is partially granted, CD. I was about to question Ian's use of "mackerels" but John W has whisked them away and there is a problem no more. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 00:42:05, 15-08-2007 by George Garnett »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thompson1780
|
|
« Reply #131 on: 00:38:01, 15-08-2007 » |
|
Actually, I wonder if John really does wonder whether or not pedantry can resume, or indeed if it will resume. I am sure the ability of board members in the art of pedantry is without question. For my money, it is more a question of whether or not we can be arsed to carry on. Tommo Not wishing to be - er - pedantic, but you do not declare how much money that is (and please no anti-capitalist responses from anyone to this genuinely innocent statement - a simply answer from you, Tommo, will suffice)... Best, Alistair Well what am I willing to wager? A pint is about £3.00 now in Central London, no? That should do it. Tommo (Awaiting pedantic replies alongthe lines of 'A pint of what?'.....) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Made by Thompson & son, at the Violin & c. the West end of St. Paul's Churchyard, LONDON
|
|
|
|
John W
|
|
« Reply #132 on: 00:47:30, 15-08-2007 » |
|
So happy to see that Pedantry has resumed For once I was around when a horrible argument was brewing, and it allowed me to practice thread splits, title changes, move announcements and member group administration all in half an hour !!!! ... group administration. Pedants will be glad to know the subgroup is named Argumentative People. It was Michael who installed the mechanisation of it all, while Baldrick here had to figure it all out  Michael seems AWOL again, must mail him to say how swingingly the thing works (I see Alistair has already posted on the exiled thread....) Such fun John W |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mary Chambers
|
|
« Reply #133 on: 07:58:10, 15-08-2007 » |
|
How does one punctuate a sentence with a smiley at the end? Does it have a full stop after the smiley? I'm deeply concerned about this - I hate getting things wrong.
I certainly hear "you guys" used to refer to males and females together. Ugh. I realise we have Americans here, so I'd better not say too much about my thoughts on the influence of American usage.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tonybob
|
|
« Reply #134 on: 08:15:25, 15-08-2007 » |
|
here's some spare punctuation i had lying around the house:
............. ,,,,,,,,,,,,, ;;;;;;;;;;;;; :::::::::::::
and for the hard of hearing:
............. ,,,,,,,,,,,,, ;;;;;;;;;;;;; :::::::::::::
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
sososo s & i.
|
|
|
|
