my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » 3 Word Game - problems with English? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6

Author Topic: 3 Word Game - problems with English? Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 05-10-2003 07:57 PM                  Is that a fact(orial)? Nooooo! It was a punctuation mark. >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 05-12-2003 08:34 AM                    Hey, Brad... "Snuck" is not a word. Neither is "imparticularly" which shows up a few times in the FAQs here.  |  IP: Logged Evans A Criswell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1579 From: Huntsville, AL, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 05-12-2003 10:05 AM                        Daryl, that's like something I'd say. (Three factorial equals the number six.) Three word chunks aren't that hard to come up with, you know, to make continuous sentences if you happen to be the one writing all of them. Podiatric peregrination is a good exercise. Resist new verb forms which have snuck into the common English language.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 05-13-2003 04:20 AM                  Mark: From Dictionary.com "Snuck is an Americanism first introduced in the 19th century as a nonstandard regional variant of sneaked. Widespread use of snuck has become more common with every generation. It is now used by educated speakers in all regions...." No comment on "imparticularly". Me thinks someone has been smokin' the good stuff.... >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 05-13-2003 09:29 AM                    The past tense of sneak is sneaked... period. I know a lot of "educated" speakers say snuck. They also have a tendency to change tenses, misplace modifiers, and engage in all kinds of grammatical sloppiness. That might make it an "Americanism," but it doesn't make it correct.  |  IP: Logged Evans A Criswell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1579 From: Huntsville, AL, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 05-13-2003 09:58 AM                        Since we've drug up "snuck", I have to admit that I heard it all my life and never equated it with "sneaked". My mind always just processed it correctly when I heared it. Inparticularly, it just sounds better to say "I snuck around the corner." If you say "I sneaked around the corner," it just doesn't have quite the same meaning. The one with "snuck" implies a little more than just sneaking. It implies your up to something, so its a "value-added" word. Its like the difference in saying "naked" and "nekkid" (spoken, not written).  |  IP: Logged Bob Maar (Maar stands for Maartini) Posts: 28608 From: New York City & Newport, RI Registered: Feb 2001 posted 05-13-2003 10:43 AM                        The Random House Dictionary 1984 edition Lists on page 1246 between the words: Snub-nosed and Snuff the word: Snuck (snuk) Chiefly Dial. pp. and pt.of sneak. Therefore Snuck is officially a word.  |  IP: Logged Don Bruechert Mmmmmmmmm, bird! Posts: 340 From: Manitowoc, WI, USA Registered: Jan 2003 posted 05-13-2003 11:58 AM                        Evans: Yes, walking is good exercise! Isn't Webster's the "official" dictionary?  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 05-13-2003 01:09 PM                    Don: No, the name "Webster's" doesn't mean much anymore. Something about it used to be a copyright, then the copyright ran out, so anyone can call their dictionary "Webster's" now, or something like that. Try the Oxford English Dictionary. It's true that as someone comes up with a new word, and the new word catches on, then the word sometimes finds its way into a dictionary somewhere. Shakespeare invented new words all the time. Snuck is just... sloppy! But I'm sure we're stuck with snuck. I'm sure it's here to stay. I don't lose any sleep over it. Still nothing on imparticularly though. The 2005 dictionaries haven't been written yet... there's still hope! This sure is a fun discussion!  |  IP: Logged Evans A Criswell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1579 From: Huntsville, AL, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 05-13-2003 03:28 PM                        Isn't it "inpartucularly", not "imparticularly"? I think it's just a shortening of "in particular" with an "ly" added. With the "ly", it should be an adverb. The "ly" should be dropped if the word is not modifying a word or phase playing the role of a verb or adjective. Red things are cool. Inparticular, fire engines. Dangerous actions are not advised. Inparticularly, dropping lit matches into gasoline cans. The dog was always getting into mischief. Inparticular, it drug the rug outside and brung all the beer cans inside. There are several easy exercises that can be worked into one's daily life. Inparticular, podiatric peregrination, mandibular mastication, maturational masturbation, and multisensual mythomania. Big things can come in small packages. Inpartucular, munificent munchkins.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 05-13-2003 09:39 PM                    I know what you're saying. A lot of people run two words together by saying "alot." But "in-" means "not". As in "inaccurate." But when you add "in-" to a word that begins with a "P" it becomes "iM" as in "impossible," "implausible," etc. Therefor, as I understand it "inparticular" would become "imparticular" and would mean "not particular," and adding "ly" on the end would make it mean "not particularly." While not only is that not a word, if it were a word, it would mean the OPPOSITE of what you're trying to say! I think you're just trying to say "in particular." I'm reminded of the words "inflammable" and "noninflammable" which totally throws everything I just said out the window!  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 05-13-2003 09:43 PM                  GOD! Don't ya just LOVE the Language Police! >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 05-14-2003 08:53 AM                    Sorry. I'm just answering questions about my post.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 05-14-2003 08:59 PM                  (Mark: I was making a general statement. It was meant to harass Brad. Sorry if I offended you.) >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 05-14-2003 11:07 PM                        If a word or expression or form is recognised and understood by a very large group of speakers, then it becomes part of the language. If that wouldn`t happen, languages wouldn`t have developed to what they are today. That has always happened and will always happen. The same goes for spellings, e.g. tonite, favorite, recognize, analog. What`s wrong with imparticular? It looks like a solidly constructed word to me. The possibility to construct words has been a very important factor especially of the Indo-European language group for as long as it has been documented, starting with Latin and Greek in ancient times. Most of the longer or more complex word you know and use have been synthesised, in many cases actually invented at some point in time.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.