Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 3 Word Game - problems with English?

This is topic 3 Word Game - problems with English? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002057

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-09-2003, 06:55 PM:

I'm curious for those who are playing, do the little oddities of the English language such as plural vs. singular and general proper sentence structure in general not apply here? I'm seeing some very poorly structured sentences where people missing a word or changing tense and such. See, I just missed are.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-09-2003, 07:31 PM:

I noticed when I click on the arrow instead of the actual number it takes me to the bottom of page 17 instead of the last page on the list. Maybe this is why there are so many broken sentences.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-09-2003, 07:41 PM:

The blue arrow is to take you to the last post that you have not read yet, not the last page.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-09-2003, 08:09 PM:

GOD! I hate the grammar & spelling police. I mean, that whole thread is meant to be fun, not grammatically or politically correct.

I think most peoples (HA) understand the intent and meaning of the posted comments without being necessarily correct. It's hard to get a continuous thought into 3 words... that's why I chose it! [beer]

Go with the flow all....

(Not specifically referring to Brad's question)

>>> Phil

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-09-2003, 08:42 PM:

But Phil, that's part of the game, to make sure that the next 3 words that you add make sense and fit properly in the context of the existing sentence, while taking it as far off of topic as possible.

Oh and by the way:

quote:
"outta the red"

CHEATER!!! That's "out of". You cheated and snuck 4 words into your post. "Outta" is not a real word. Being from Texas, this means war. [evil]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-09-2003, 08:59 PM:

Yes, that's true and I agree...up to a certain point. I think in order to "tease" the next poster, one has to make a judgement as to how far out one's post is in respect to being correct.

I know that's a real challenge, but I'm willing to accept some latitude.

OBTW: Being from Cali..but NOT the Valley, "outta" is an acceptable word! Don't Fuck with me! [Razz]

>>> Phil

Posted by Don Bruechert (Member # 1538) on 05-09-2003, 10:04 PM:

What sucks for me is posting the next 3 words thinking you are being oh so clever and then seeing 2 people posted before you and it now makes no sense. Is it cheating, therefore, to go back and edit your post so it makes sense, or are we supposed to just suffer. I noticed Phil was guilty of doing this once today!!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-09-2003, 11:16 PM:

In that case, I think it would be that person's responsibility to edit their post so that the sentence continues to flow.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-10-2003, 12:43 AM:

But what if someone responds to you right as you are editing your post? Then the whole game is screwed up and Film-Tech should just close down and people should stop showing movies. So be careful!

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-10-2003, 02:55 AM:

"I noticed Phil was guilty of doing this once today!! "

Guity of what? Having to keep changing my post cuz you got yours posted 1 second before mine and then mine made no sense.

Brad is right...like in the above case, go back and edit your words to go with the flow...Ummmm even if they have to contain words like "outta"... [Big Grin]

>>> Phil

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-10-2003, 05:45 AM:

"thinkin'bout hurry'nup'n just"

Smart ASS! [Razz]

>>> Phil

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 05-10-2003, 03:42 PM:

Proper grammar is the last thing Phil needs to worry about, he can't even count to three correctly, consistently.

Hyphenating words at random doesn't count either!

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 05-10-2003, 07:19 PM:

quote:
Hyphenating words at random doesn't count either!

Daryl speaks what others are afraid to say... [Big Grin]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-10-2003, 07:49 PM:

Unless of course the hyphens are "grammatically correct"...

BTW Daryl! I can count to 3: 1, 4, 7, 8, 3!

>>>Phil

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 05-10-2003, 07:54 PM:

After all that, you never even got to 3. 3! = 6. [Razz]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-10-2003, 07:57 PM:

Is that a fact(orial)? Nooooo! It was a punctuation mark. [Big Grin]

>>> Phil

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 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.
[Smile]

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 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.

[Smile]

Podiatric peregrination is
a good exercise.
Resist new verb
forms which have
snuck into the
common English language.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 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.... [Big Grin]

>>> Phil

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 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.

[Wink]

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 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).

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 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. [Smile]

Posted by Don Bruechert (Member # 1538) on 05-13-2003, 11:58 AM:

Evans: Yes, walking is good exercise!

Isn't Webster's the "official" dictionary?

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 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! [Smile]

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 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.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 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!

[Smile]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-13-2003, 09:43 PM:

GOD! Don't ya just LOVE the Language Police! [puke]

>>> Phil

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-14-2003, 08:53 AM:

Sorry. I'm just answering questions about my post.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 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

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 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.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 05-14-2003, 11:21 PM:

Some colourful spellings have been outmanoeuvred by their American counterparts due to the typical behaviour of optimising spellings to make them simpler and more intuitive. American spellings may slide off the oesophagus more easily as well. Ivst as people ivmped for ioy when "j" and "u" were added, Americans accepted the new spellings although British people may have passed judgement on them, making them the centre of attention. The British saw their spellings as polished, like aluminium, and still use them today, in favour of the American analogues.

[Big Grin]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-15-2003, 12:45 PM:

quote:
What`s wrong with imparticular?

Well, since it isn't defined anywhere, we'd have to assume that the "in-" would follow its own standard of adding "not" to whatever it precedes. So, imparticular would mean "NOT particular" which is very different from saying "IN particular."

I can't think of a sentence off the top of my head where "imparticular" (meaning "not particular") would make sense.

And yes, I agree that languages evolve. Shakespeare invented new words all the time.

No offense taken Phil! [Smile]

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 05-15-2003, 01:32 PM:

Is the 3-word game really over???

What will I do with my time???

[Confused]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-15-2003, 01:45 PM:

Dunno...I think Brad has a 500 post limit in a thread cuz of some software issue. Probably something Daryl screwed up...

>>> Phil

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-15-2003, 01:58 PM:

Maybe we can...

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 05-15-2003, 02:47 PM:

continue the thread

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-15-2003, 03:31 PM:

here, until Brad

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-15-2003, 04:58 PM:

says "you guys"

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-15-2003, 04:58 PM:

are crazy. There's

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-15-2003, 04:58 PM:

nothing preventing the

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-15-2003, 04:58 PM:

game from continuing."

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-15-2003, 05:08 PM:

Short attention span?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-31-2003, 04:36 PM:

Looks like we have some cheaters in our midst. When someone puts punctuation, the next person needs to work around it, not ignore it. A period means the END of the sentence. Oh bob, shame, shame, shame. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-31-2003, 04:53 PM:

You're right Brad. I see another example at the bottom of page 54.... [evil]

>>> Phil

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-31-2003, 04:55 PM:

Yup, good ol' page 54. You really are evil.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-31-2003, 04:56 PM:

Hahahaha...why thank you!

>>> Phil

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 05-31-2003, 10:32 PM:

So, where did I miss a period? Is that what made the site crash?

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-31-2003, 10:38 PM:

I think it was due on the 17th....

>>> Phil

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 05-31-2003, 10:45 PM:

I'm with child, I'll make a fortune. Move over Arnold.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-31-2003, 10:58 PM:

That's ok Bob. It is Paul who likes that sort of thing like that. I mean that crash was all that boy's fault that he caused that to die like that. Isn't that right? That.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 06-01-2003, 04:55 AM:

What is it that that that that you are talking about?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-01-2003, 01:10 PM:

That page 58

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-01-2003, 04:06 PM:

OK OK OK! I KNOW I broke one of my own rules by posting:

"after Brad did. <--- note the PERIOD!"

But, I tried to put the last part in parenthesis, but Daryl's lame software wouldn't let me do it.

SO, I had NO CHOICE since Brad & Bob are NOT trustworthy enough to NOT continue that lame sentence.

>>> Phil

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-01-2003, 04:09 PM:

That is right that Phil that.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-01-2003, 04:23 PM:

I noticed lately you seem to have a typing impediment...or are you just on dope? [Razz]

>>> Phil

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 06-01-2003, 04:30 PM:

Excuse Me! BURP!

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 06-01-2003, 05:18 PM:

Excuse you! Don's a sick puppy...just letting everyone know. Phil--I'm ashamed at you!

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-01-2003, 05:26 PM:

WHAAA! What did I do or NOT do now?

>>> Phil

Posted by Don Bruechert (Member # 1538) on 06-01-2003, 05:27 PM:

It's not what you did, it's WHO you did!!

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 06-01-2003, 05:28 PM:

Well, I just found out something quite shocking going on between you, Don, Brad, and Bob...

Posted by Don Bruechert (Member # 1538) on 06-01-2003, 05:29 PM:

The truth is, that Phil came to Madison for an Addadicktome and I met him while he was still at the hospital and before he became a man. At that time he was known as Phyllis and I didn't know any better.... THERE - the truth is out. Now shush up about it! [Smile]

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 06-01-2003, 05:30 PM:

Well, whats your excuse about Brad and Bob then???

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-01-2003, 06:10 PM:

Yeah Don, that's was when my stage-name was Ms. Viginia Ham...now it's Mr. Big Slaomi.

>>> Phil

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 06-01-2003, 11:27 PM:

after Brad did. (<--- note the PERIOD!)

Gee, that was hard!

By the way, it's still six words!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-02-2003, 02:14 AM:

Phil also likes the word that so much he tends to repeat it.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 06-02-2003, 02:46 AM:

What is that that that word that that you are talking about? That that.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-02-2003, 02:58 AM:

yes yes what what are are you you talking talking about about??

(<---This didn't work the other night!)

And...SHAZZZZAMMM! Daryl can count to six!

>>> Phil

Posted by Don Bruechert (Member # 1538) on 06-02-2003, 08:19 AM:

Careful Gomer - Sargeant Carter could be reading everything you post!!

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 06-02-2003, 02:19 PM:

What the hell are you people talking about that that? Don't you know that that that English is a dead language?

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-02-2003, 05:13 PM:

FYI Brad! "That" is my favorite word *that* is not a cuss or dirty word. *That* should clear up any doubts *that* you may have.

>>> Phil

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 06-02-2003, 05:50 PM:

Phil: Are you sure your favorite word isn't 'yous'???

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-02-2003, 06:10 PM:

*That* applies when referring to certain individuals *that* deserve to be collectively slammed... I won't mention any names but YOUS know who yous are and *that* yous all try to out-wit me and squirm out of all responsiblity for the lame stuff *that* yous all post on here and in my email.

>>> Phil

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 06-06-2003, 04:51 AM:

quote:
roses R4 Daryl.

That's FOUR words you loser! That.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-06-2003, 05:42 AM:

Daryl, you got that script done yet to prevent Phil from cheating?

Phil, next time you are caught cheating, any one of the moderators will initiate Daryl's new script and will prevent you from making a post on that thread until at least 10 other people have posted. You cheater!!! [evil]

that

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-06-2003, 02:08 PM:

Yous are the losers! I could have just said "4" or "for", but then yous would complain about something else.

Let me understand this...if R4 is two words...then if I say R2D2, that would be 4 words? Are two Dee two?

I don't know what you boys are smokin' over there. Me thinks yous are just jealous of my quick wit.

OBTW Daryl, I guess you liked the roses, huh.

>>> Phil

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 06-06-2003, 02:13 PM:

[eyes]

bull

= How many words?

Answer will be posted later. Via Edit.

One word "Bull" the rest are gramlins....... [Big Grin]

[ 06-10-2003, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Bob Maar ]

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 06-06-2003, 05:06 PM:

Oh my gosh... [Confused]

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 06-10-2003, 07:48 PM:

Rach...I ate your cat!

Yes it was delicious with seasoning. [Big Grin]