Doctor... one day

http://rosietherivethead.tumblr.com/post/93884344778/can-someone-please-help-me-understand-the-concept →

rosietherivethead:

can someone please help me understand the concept of the grammatical case, in general, not in any specific language. i partially understand it but it isn’t clicking in my head and i’m going to be learning german this fall and i’ve been having a hard time wrapping me head around it. i understand…

From what you’ve said, you already know enough for learning German. That really is literally all it is - the different roles nouns have in a sentence have different cases. So German does with case what English might do with a preposition or with word order (I don’t speak German so can’t give an example but imagine a language where instead of saying ‘I stroked him with a feather’ you say ‘I stroked him a feather-INSTRUMENT' or even 'I stroked him a feather-with’. Just extra info, or the same info, but as a suffix instead of some other way of doing it. 

There is more to it, if you want to get into the linguistics of how it all works. For instance, not all languages that have case have the same cases - some have lots and lots, and there’s a split between what are called nominative-accusative (like German) and ergative-absolutive languages, which use case for the same sort of thing but in a slightly different way. But all of this is not needed to speak the language :) 

Sorry - I feel like I haven’t added anything much to this discussion. But rest assured you will know more than most people trying to learn a language with case. 


rhecession:

deerdem:

selkiesounds:

bogmoth:

I said “have a nice day!” to this old dude and apparently that’s not fucking good enough because he retrieved his wallet and from like a stack of 30 of these things pulled one out and gave it to me and said something like “I hope you reconsider your choices next time”

holy shit

This is the most self entitled shit i’ve seen all day

My boss always says some shit about “not a problem” and it’s like…its meant as a reassurance that they aren’t being an inconvenience even though they most likely are because…retail


Ugh. It’s one thing being pedantic, but it’s quite another to make someone else feel like crap for something that’s personal preference anyway. PLUS there are at least four mistakes in the text. View Larger

rhecession:

deerdem:

selkiesounds:

bogmoth:

I said “have a nice day!” to this old dude and apparently that’s not fucking good enough because he retrieved his wallet and from like a stack of 30 of these things pulled one out and gave it to me and said something like “I hope you reconsider your choices next time”

holy shit

This is the most self entitled shit i’ve seen all day

My boss always says some shit about “not a problem” and it’s like…its meant as a reassurance that they aren’t being an inconvenience even though they most likely are because…retail

Ugh. It’s one thing being pedantic, but it’s quite another to make someone else feel like crap for something that’s personal preference anyway.

PLUS there are at least four mistakes in the text.


I just remembered a time when my partner was doing a theme tune/jingle/intro for a friend’s story collection and he needed the title to be creepy so I worked out how it would be if it was said backwards and wrote it out in IPA so I could say it easily and he reversed it and the result was creepy, and LINGUISTICS WAS USEFUL. 


Gwynne, sexist language and causing offence

He’s good value, that Gwynne chap. Two posts out of one little book which I haven’t even read.

In his preface, Gwynne explains about his use of pronouns. He notes that ‘he’ used to be used for ‘a member of the human race of either sex’, but now is found offensive by ‘some people’ (here, he implicitly compares these overly sensitive people to those sensible women who used to use ‘he’ ‘without hesitation or objection’). He (rightly) says that ‘he or she’ is ‘disagreeably clumsy’, but then irrationally dismisses singular ‘they’, a perfectly elegant and simple solution with good historical pedigree. His dismissal is based on nothing more than the ‘authoritative’ opinion of a style guide and Simon Heffer, who is a journalist, and whose work has been called ‘staggeringly erroneous’ and inconsistent by, you know, actual authorities on language (=linguists). So, he says, he will avoid generic ‘he’ where it is possible to do so, so as not to potentially annoy those namby pamby sensitive readers. However, avoiding it completely is beyond even Gwynne’s considerable writing skills, and so sometimes, he must use it to avoid awkwardness. He says,

Please be assured, therefore, on the few occasions that you see the all-embracing ‘he’ or equivalent, that it is occurring without any offence being intended.

Oh, well, that’s all right then. If he doesn’t mean any offence, there won’t be any offence. Permit me to make an extreme analogy, which I’ll put under a readmore as it contains highly offensive language (the ‘n-word’).

Read More


Gwynne strikes again, and this time it’s Latin

The odious Neville Gwynne is at it again, publishing books. This time, he’s written a Latin book. He’s so pompous, my immediate instinct is to disagree with anything he says, so when I saw an advert for it in the paper that said learning Latin would improve your English, I refuted it loudly and firmly to anyone who would listen.

I love Latin, and I think everyone should learn it. A friend who was subjected to the refutation pointed out to me several ways in which learning Latin can improve a person, and he actually mentioned things that most people never think of, such as scientific analysis (I think he said this, anyway - he said biology, so I suppose he may have meant that you’d understand binomial classifications better, which is true, but it would also help you with doing anything that requires careful, logical, rigorous analysis). This friend also agreed with Gwynne that Latin would improve your English, however, and until today I thought that I heartily disagreed with this point of view.

Read More


stephendann:

vixyish:

solarbird:

xgenepositive:

mmmahogany:

#john barrowman is having none of your misogynist bullshit

i love that barrowman’s response also distances him from the contestant"hahahaha women do laundry right john?  you with me, john?""don’t lump me in with you, you fucking martian”

This is what I’m talking about when I keep saying that men have to deny the endorsement. This guy wanted Barrowman’s tacit support or agreement for his sexism, as part of bonding through humour. John went nope.

Bolding mine.

When faced with an “amirite?” moment, you have to state clearly, no, you are wrong. Because anything less than a “Nope, Yo’re Wrong” will be gathered up as a “See? Approval”
Don’t forget, the more misogyny in the statement, the more likely the party stating it will use silence as a consent in a social conversation
stephendann:

vixyish:

solarbird:

xgenepositive:

mmmahogany:

#john barrowman is having none of your misogynist bullshit

i love that barrowman’s response also distances him from the contestant"hahahaha women do laundry right john?  you with me, john?""don’t lump me in with you, you fucking martian”

This is what I’m talking about when I keep saying that men have to deny the endorsement. This guy wanted Barrowman’s tacit support or agreement for his sexism, as part of bonding through humour. John went nope.

Bolding mine.

When faced with an “amirite?” moment, you have to state clearly, no, you are wrong. Because anything less than a “Nope, Yo’re Wrong” will be gathered up as a “See? Approval”
Don’t forget, the more misogyny in the statement, the more likely the party stating it will use silence as a consent in a social conversation
stephendann:

vixyish:

solarbird:

xgenepositive:

mmmahogany:

#john barrowman is having none of your misogynist bullshit

i love that barrowman’s response also distances him from the contestant"hahahaha women do laundry right john?  you with me, john?""don’t lump me in with you, you fucking martian”

This is what I’m talking about when I keep saying that men have to deny the endorsement. This guy wanted Barrowman’s tacit support or agreement for his sexism, as part of bonding through humour. John went nope.

Bolding mine.

When faced with an “amirite?” moment, you have to state clearly, no, you are wrong. Because anything less than a “Nope, Yo’re Wrong” will be gathered up as a “See? Approval”
Don’t forget, the more misogyny in the statement, the more likely the party stating it will use silence as a consent in a social conversation
stephendann:

vixyish:

solarbird:

xgenepositive:

mmmahogany:

#john barrowman is having none of your misogynist bullshit

i love that barrowman’s response also distances him from the contestant"hahahaha women do laundry right john?  you with me, john?""don’t lump me in with you, you fucking martian”

This is what I’m talking about when I keep saying that men have to deny the endorsement. This guy wanted Barrowman’s tacit support or agreement for his sexism, as part of bonding through humour. John went nope.

Bolding mine.

When faced with an “amirite?” moment, you have to state clearly, no, you are wrong. Because anything less than a “Nope, Yo’re Wrong” will be gathered up as a “See? Approval”
Don’t forget, the more misogyny in the statement, the more likely the party stating it will use silence as a consent in a social conversation

stephendann:

vixyish:

solarbird:

xgenepositive:

mmmahogany:

#john barrowman is having none of your misogynist bullshit

i love that barrowman’s response also distances him from the contestant
"hahahaha women do laundry right john?  you with me, john?"
"don’t lump me in with you, you fucking martian”

This is what I’m talking about when I keep saying that men have to deny the endorsement. This guy wanted Barrowman’s tacit support or agreement for his sexism, as part of bonding through humour. John went nope.

Bolding mine.

When faced with an “amirite?” moment, you have to state clearly, no, you are wrong. Because anything less than a “Nope, Yo’re Wrong” will be gathered up as a “See? Approval”

Don’t forget, the more misogyny in the statement, the more likely the party stating it will use silence as a consent in a social conversation

(Source: kaniehtiio)