| quibblemuch |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I watch a lot of sports. In the past year, the new grating sportscaster meme is calling something good in a NON-BASEBALL sport a 'home run'.
No. He did not hit a home run. He threw a football well and the other guy caught it well. No, she did not hit a home run. She vaulted the HELL out of that vault and stuck the landing. And if a tennis player hits a home run, they're definitely doing it wrong.
Seriously, people. Are you so bereft of metaphors?!
Theconiel
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I watch a lot of sports. In the past year, the new grating sportscaster meme is calling something good in a NON-BASEBALL sport a 'home run'.
No. He did not hit a home run. He threw a football well and the other guy caught it well. No, she did not hit a home run. She vaulted the HELL out of that vault and stuck the landing. And if a tennis player hits a home run, they're definitely doing it wrong.
Seriously, people. Are you so bereft of metaphors?!
I'm literally besides myself with rage. That's the penultimate failure.
| Steve Geddes |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
quibblemuch wrote:I'm literally besides myself with rage. That's the penultimate failure.I watch a lot of sports. In the past year, the new grating sportscaster meme is calling something good in a NON-BASEBALL sport a 'home run'.
No. He did not hit a home run. He threw a football well and the other guy caught it well. No, she did not hit a home run. She vaulted the HELL out of that vault and stuck the landing. And if a tennis player hits a home run, they're definitely doing it wrong.
Seriously, people. Are you so bereft of metaphors?!
This comment is perfect.
| Waterhammer |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Theconiel wrote:Why, in fact, I did.David M Mallon wrote:I understand that colloquial definitions are not literal definitions, but every time I hear someone use the phrase "completely decimated," I die a little inside.Do you die 10% inside?
Every tenth one of you was cut down by the centurion, I bet.
| David M Mallon |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
David M Mallon wrote:Every tenth one of you was cut down by the centurion, I bet.Theconiel wrote:Why, in fact, I did.David M Mallon wrote:I understand that colloquial definitions are not literal definitions, but every time I hear someone use the phrase "completely decimated," I die a little inside.Do you die 10% inside?
Nah, the other nine parts of me beat the tenth to death with clubs.
Theconiel
|
Theconiel wrote:This comment is perfect.quibblemuch wrote:I'm literally besides myself with rage. That's the penultimate failure.I watch a lot of sports. In the past year, the new grating sportscaster meme is calling something good in a NON-BASEBALL sport a 'home run'.
No. He did not hit a home run. He threw a football well and the other guy caught it well. No, she did not hit a home run. She vaulted the HELL out of that vault and stuck the landing. And if a tennis player hits a home run, they're definitely doing it wrong.
Seriously, people. Are you so bereft of metaphors?!
*Takes bow. Nods head, smiling with gratitude. Begs forgiveness from fellow pedants.*
| Hunt, the PugWumpus |
I just saw someone use the phrase: "pitfalls loom..."
Pitfalls can't loom. They're pits. They do the exact opposite of looming. They can await, they can deepen, they can yawn... g#+ d++n it, do words mean NOTHING any more?
I suppose they could loom if the pitfall is actually a mimic. Or if the pitfall had been previously bitten by a radioactive Douglas Adams.
If the pitfall was lined with giant spider webbing, then I guess that technically the spider did the looming.
| David M Mallon |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another one that's been bothering me recently: you don't "fire" an arrow, you "loose" or "shoot" an arrow. (Some exceptions apply, however.)
| Bjørn Røyrvik |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless your species is one of them there 'hive minds' don't be using the phrase 'group selfie'.
One might argue that the definition of a 'selfie' is that you take it yourself of yourself with a handheld device, not that it must contain only yourself as a singular subject. So 'group selfie' is merely a convenient way of saying that one 'took a picture of oneself with a handheld device with onself as subject + (other subjects)'.
| quibblemuch |
quibblemuch wrote:Unless your species is one of them there 'hive minds' don't be using the phrase 'group selfie'.One might argue that the definition of a 'selfie' is that you take it yourself of yourself with a handheld device, not that it must contain only yourself as a singular subject. So 'group selfie' is merely a convenient way of saying that one 'took a picture of oneself with a handheld device with onself as subject + (other subjects)'.
One might... except the British have thoughtfully coined the phrase "ussie" to refer to that exact situation. There WAS a solution, people chose not to use it. WILL SAVE FAILED!
| Bjørn Røyrvik |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:One might... except the British have thoughtfully coined the phrase "ussie" to refer to that exact situation. There WAS a solution, people chose not to use it. WILL SAVE FAILED!quibblemuch wrote:Unless your species is one of them there 'hive minds' don't be using the phrase 'group selfie'.One might argue that the definition of a 'selfie' is that you take it yourself of yourself with a handheld device, not that it must contain only yourself as a singular subject. So 'group selfie' is merely a convenient way of saying that one 'took a picture of oneself with a handheld device with onself as subject + (other subjects)'.
There are plenty of good solutions to linguistic demands that are not widely employed despite their usefulness. Tok pisin has some very nice inclusive/exclusive pronominal constructions which not used by the rest of the English dialectal spectrum, for instance. While I agree that 'group selfie' is a suboptimal choice, it isn't without internal logic and precedent.
| Qunnessaa |
Probably less pedantry and more just me being wrong, but this bugged me: I need to clean out my sock drawer and refresh my hosiery, so I started browsing online for something fun, only to be met with, among other things, "solid sheer" tights.
Now, I understand that what they're getting at is "unpatterned, but including more exciting colours than flesh tones and black," but given the range of skin tones, let alone the desired diaphanous effect once one puts the damn things on, *I* would think anything sheer introduces too much variation in effect for "solid" to be quite the right word.
If I wanted a solid colour, I would get opaque tights, and if I just wanted a particular hue, I would get a monochrome pair, I think? Or just "colourful" rather than "patterned." (: