11–20 of 46 posts
The worst one today is people adding "uhhh" to the end of every sentence. "What did you do-wuuuh?" "Where should we go-wuuuh?" "Can't you see-yuhhh?" It grates on you even worse than vocal fry and like inserting like into like everything you like say.
Who is doing this and where?
The worst one today is people adding "uhhh" to the end of every sentence. "What did you do-wuuuh?" "Where should we go-wuuuh?" "Can't you see-yuhhh?" It grates on you even worse than vocal fry and like inserting like into like everything you like say.
Loads of languages around the word have a sentence-final particle that doesn’t mean anything on its own but serves as a vocative particle, creates a bond between speaker and listener, softens the assertion for politeness sake, etc. Some varieties of UK English already used innit? that way. It’s pretty normal human linguistic behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Loads of languages around the word have a sentence-final particle that doesn’t mean anything on its own but serves as a vocative particle, creates a bond between speaker and listener, softens the assertion for politeness sake, etc. Some varieties of UK English already used innit? that way. It’s pretty normal human linguistic behavior.
But that one is particularly grating because it's exactly the same thing that young children do when they're whining or begging.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that one is particularly grating because it's exactly the same thing that young children do when they're whining or begging.
If a linguistic behavior has spread widely enough for you to notice it, then obviously the bulk of people (or the bulk of that speaker’s people, at least) don’t find it grating.
This particular thing appears to be largely generational and rather regional so I don't encounter it frequently.
The worst one today is people adding "uhhh" to the end of every sentence. "What did you do-wuuuh?" "Where should we go-wuuuh?" "Can't you see-yuhhh?" It grates on you even worse than vocal fry and like inserting like into like everything you like say.
Loads of languages around the word have a sentence-final particle that doesn’t mean anything on its own but serves as a vocative particle, creates a bond between speaker and listener, softens the assertion for politeness sake, etc. Some varieties of UK English already used innit? that way. It’s pretty normal human linguistic behavior.
Quite a different way to use "like" than what this article talks about.
The worst one today is people adding "uhhh" to the end of every sentence. "What did you do-wuuuh?" "Where should we go-wuuuh?" "Can't you see-yuhhh?" It grates on you even worse than vocal fry and like inserting like into like everything you like say.
Loads of languages around the word have a sentence-final particle that doesn’t mean anything on its own but serves as a vocative particle, creates a bond between speaker and listener, softens the assertion for politeness sake, etc. Some varieties of UK English already used innit? that way. It’s pretty normal human linguistic behavior.
My mum could use a single "la" as an entire sentence and we knew exactly what she meant, rarely something good.
That's a bizarre article from an actual linguist.
Other than that, the article was groovy, man. And get off my lawn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I submit that, given the obvious disdain the author has for the speech of ordinary people and what he considers "low" culture, "snob" is an entirely appropriate term.
That said, the response to your comment was about the content of the argument against their position being simply that they are a snob, not that snob is an inappropriate term. Instead, describe the behavior which makes the author seem to be a snob so people can get a clearer picture.
From my point of view, this author is beating their chest the same as the author they denigrate in their post. The article is simply espousing a preference for this style without providing any arguments for its righteousness. The author laments that “speaketh” is no longer used, but why should I care? I dunno, they don’t explain. “Alice speaks” seems to work just as well as “Alice speaketh”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Loads of languages around the word have a sentence-final particle that doesn’t mean anything on its own but serves as a vocative particle, creates a bond between speaker and listener, softens the assertion for politeness sake, etc. Some varieties of UK English already used innit? that way. It’s pretty normal human linguistic behavior.
In Ireland people add "like" to the end of a sentence like. Quite a different way to use "like" than what this article talks about.