Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

SandChigger wrote:A beginning is the time for taking the most delicate care that the balances are correct.

Damnit ... I've heard this somewhere before.

I don't have a mic hooked up. Eru's met me, where the hell is he? He doesn't have much of an accent either. We're nerds, not rednecks.

Example: "for" as a conjunction meaning "because"; comes up almost every year. I tell my students to recognize it, in case they come across it in older texts, but under no circumstances to use it in their own writing.)

WHAT?!

I can't even say "For he is the Kwisatz Hadercah!" now?

Cupcake, you can say any thing you bloody well please, and we'll still love you just the same. That much should be obvious by now.

I wouldn't use it in NORMAL conversation unless I was quoting (as you are there) or trying to be funny (by using old-sounding language).

OK?

Oh, then it's just old-fashion, but still in use.

I like to use it to make my language somewhat prettier.

That the kids nowdays only say "cuz", and soon even "because" will be old, is something completely different.
They're lowering down the language so any internet kiddy could still be considered within range of it.

We're still not communicating, it seems.

If you use it, your English will sound odd, because no one but a non-native would use it informally today. Suit yourself.

SandChigger wrote:We're still not communicating, it seems.

If you use it, your English will sound odd, because no one but a non-native would use it informally today. Suit yourself.

I used to use it as a kid, I think I read too much Tolkien or something. I stopped when I noticed people looking at me funny. I miss for...wonderfully dramatic word.

For he's a jolly good fellow... lol

Fossilized in song lyric. HA!

Come on, come on, hit me with your best shot!

For the Horde!

No, wait, that's not right...

Just for your pertinence, I'm going to smack you.

BZZZZZZT!!!

WRONG!

I mean, your sentence is correct but that's not the usage I'm discussing, which is that of sentential conjunction, not some sort of preposition!

MWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Ha.

The evil grammar teacher strikes again.

Don't mess with me or I'll start throwing phrase structure trees at you.

SandChigger wrote:Don't mess with me or I'll start throwing phrase structure trees at you.

DAMN! I hated those ... and still do.

Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Hey, how'd you do that? That actually looks like it might come in handy.

HBJ

Really?

For what?



(Oh, gawd, please don't mention anything about for fantisizing while ... touching yourself special. )

SandChigger wrote:

Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

I am having a nightmare in broad daylight. I had to make these when I studied Dutch language. At times I wake up in the middle of the night strangling my better half with an imagined phrase structure ( boomdiagram in Dutch ).

The Horror!

Boom ... as in German Baum?

Let's see...what's the English cognate. Aha...of course: beam! Semantic drift, since it no longer means tree.

I've always rather enjoyed boomdiagrammen (tree diagrams).

There are just a few students in my grammar seminar this semester (we're switching curricula, so the only students left who can get credit from it are fourth years, and most of them already have all their credits ), but they're hardcore and seem to like trees. I was in a wicked mood and gave them the first epigraph from Dune to diagram.

They did pretty well with it. The first sentence is a right brancher from Hell and the second confused them for a while with the fronting of the object. The third sentence is a bitch...we're still mulling over what to do with the initial infinitival phrase. The hardest part of the remainder was the appositional phrases.

Love the Horror, don't fear it!


(HBJ: to answer your question seriously this time: I used a Mac OS X program called OmniGraffle to draw the tree by hand and then just exported the graph as a jpg. There are any number of specialized tree-drawing programs out there, though. I just like doing my own. )

I don't even know what those grammer trees are, and I don't wanna know.


Chig, I happen to use alot of "archaic" expresisons and phrases in Hebrew too, things that most people nowdays see, in a good day, only in old stories learned in literature classes.
Not my fault they're dumb.

The people(humanids? they don't really deserve to be called human after all) in my gas station don't even know what Monty Python is!

Well, OK, half of them I wouldn't expect to know(much. about anything ), but still.

Well, considering you're using one of the "Frankensteins" of languages (once dead but reconstructed and reanimated ), I guess a lot of expressions would be archaic.

Yea, but it's evolved enough that normally you don't use such old words, or Aramaic loan-words from the time of Rome that are still in use in some places.

I think it's also my religeous background talking, but I haven't seen many religeous people using those either.


It's funny, you know. There's this test one has to do to get a grade before applying to a university and one of the parts is vocabulary(and grammer?), so I hear people who study for it talk about the "strange" and "old" words they have to know the meaning of, and those are words I've known since I was a kid.

Boom = Baum = Tree is correct. Also the plural of diagram = diagrammen is correct. You do have quite a "feeling" for languages.

...or he knows a bit of Dutch/German?

Hey, even *I* know "baum" means "tree". Applebaum.

Sorry, been away a few days (july 4 long weekend).

SandChigger wrote:Really?
For what?

Well, I actually would like to know more about grammar, and something that automatically parsed and identified bits that you gave it seemed like a handy thing to have.

HBJ