babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » You know when words suddenly loose meaning?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: You know when words suddenly loose meaning?
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 25 October 2003 04:29 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As I'm typing this I have CityTV (the Moses channel) on the tube as I only have my TV antennae to pick up channels. The warning for the show currently on is "This program is intended for mature audiences."

Has anyone watched Ed the Sock lately? "Mature audiences"?????

Is this some relativistic, postmodern joke that Russel Smith should write about in yet another column I don't understand?

edited: matuer to mature!

[ 25 October 2003: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
banquosghost
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4520

posted 25 October 2003 12:12 PM      Profile for banquosghost     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When you captioned this thread as "when words *loose* meaning", did you mean to say "when they *lose* meaning" or "when they *loosen* meaning"?

Either would work.

*Loose* for *lose* is probably the newest evolutionary change in english. I think the spelling will have to change to *looze* though.

Edited due to momentary loss of memory.

[ 25 October 2003: Message edited by: banquosghost ]


From: north vancouver, bc | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
minimal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2222

posted 25 October 2003 03:29 PM      Profile for minimal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It may be evolutionary for you, fellow babbler, but for me it's just bad spelling and being too lazy to learn the difference. Perhaps spelling is being too loosely taught these days. Why don't we just lose the present system of non-teaching of spelling so that we don't suffer the "lows" of such a discussion, loosely speaking, that is.
From: Alberta | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 25 October 2003 04:20 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is this a variation of what is colloquially referred to as a "spelling flame"?

"Russel" is also spelt wrong and I'm missing some commas. You guys gonna come up with witty remarks about that, too? Or are you guys just Ed the Sock fans?


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
banquosghost
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4520

posted 25 October 2003 05:08 PM      Profile for banquosghost     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What exactly is an "ed the sock" anyway?

No flame intended. A flame would have been 'why don't you learn to spell the Queen's english properly you semi-literate dolt'. Or words to that effect.

I see *loose* used for *lose* so frequently now that I think it probably is another example of liguistic evolution. I don't care for it much but then evolution generally doesn't give a shit about that for which I care. See, that's an example of proper construction that sucks. It's so much more direct to just say 'evolution doesn't give a shit about what I care for'. But that leaves the preposition 'for' dangling. But, you know, who gives a shit?

It doesn't really matter much if words loose meaning because too often meaning itself is so loose anyway. There's no mean meaning is what I mean. That point where one meaning becomes the opposite meaning would be the mean meaning. Meanly stated.

[ 25 October 2003: Message edited by: banquosghost ]


From: north vancouver, bc | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 25 October 2003 05:52 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Err…. do you see a lot of people spelling "Russell" as "Russel", too? Any insightful observation on that?

I suppose my original post is really about the evolution of language but… er… well, I never intended it to be a dissertation as such. I just thought I was being funny. Ha, ha, my derriere has an IQ of 160, type of thing, you know?


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
banquosghost
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4520

posted 25 October 2003 08:20 PM      Profile for banquosghost     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Aha! What does Ed do if one may ask?

I'm so pleased for your derriere.

edited to add: Russel is too easily a typo. Which is of course a house of a different collar.

www.wordweb.co.uk

[ 25 October 2003: Message edited by: banquosghost ]


From: north vancouver, bc | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 25 October 2003 11:28 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What a pretty thing man is when he goes in his
doublet and hose and leaves off his wit!

From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 26 October 2003 12:46 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ha, ha, my derriere has an IQ of 160, type of thing, you know?

Having met clockwork in person, I can attest that his derriere does indeed have an IQ of 160, although some other parts were a bit of a disappointment.

Anyway, "Ed the Sock"! This um.. thing, for want of a better word has been a force on late night television for more years than I can recall, but a lot.

Mature audiences indeed. HAH! Ya know that goofy Brit that advertises phone sex late at night with all the jiggling mammaries and bottoms cavorting across the screen. This also apparently is for people who are mature. When I was 12 years old, and, ummm... being "stimulated" by some of Hugh Hefners pubelications, I'm glad no one told me they were really for "mature" people.

Yup, that interview with Norman Mailer was sure stimulating.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca