Cato's Grammar Grumble

[Karl Henning]

I meant the breaking up of within . . . but there's also the head-fake of 24 business hours. It gives off the impression of 24 hours, but in fact means three work-days.

[eyeresist]

I meant the breaking up of within . . . but there's also the head-fake of 24 business hours. It gives off the impression of 24 hours, but in fact means three work-days.

Ooh, sneaky! Well caught, Karl.

I still remember a sign I saw in a dept store as a child: "Buy 2 for the price of 3".

[Kontrapunctus]

For those of you who live in the UK, can you please explain how you distinguish between that and which? I very rarely see that used as we do (or should) in the US. For instance, UK citizens would write, "Proper usage is a matter which we must always strive to achieve." US citizens would use that in such an instance. We use which when we refer back to a point: "I did not learn proper grammar, which I now see is a fault of my early education."  I will appreciate any enlightenment that/which you can provide. 

[eyeresist]

This is one of the more obscure corners of grammar.... My understanding is that, in UK usage (which I attempt to adhere to), "which" is used in subordinate clauses, and in referring to specific instances of a class. This also helps avoid ungainly repetition (e.g. "that book, that is on that shelf").

Which book do you prefer?
I prefer THAT WHICH is nearest at hand.

Note that this order cannot be reversed!

[Cato]

This morning we saw a commercial for a concert called Celtic Woman, where maidens of supposedly Gaelic background fiddle around on stage, twirbling assorted reels, dirges, and maybe even soda-bread recipes.

Anyway, our ears started bleeding when we heard this claim in the commercial about the singers:

"...with voices reminiscent of the voices of angels..."           0:)   Really???

"Ah yes, I remember it well!"   0:)

[eyeresist]

Oh yes, I've seen "Celtic woman" repeated on our public access channel. It is woeful kitsch. But hardly worse than the last night of the proms 

[kishnevi]

Oh yes, I've seen "Celtic woman" repeated on our public access channel. It is woeful kitsch. But hardly worse than the last night of the proms 

It's much worse actually.  Last Night of the Proms doesn't get replayed for years on PBS (our public television network), and doesn't get marketed to death at Barnes and Noble.

[Lethevich]

American Q: what does 'blowout' mean in the context of an exciting event - or, does it have a special context that makes its use more appropriate?

[Cato]

American Q: what does 'blowout' mean in the context of an exciting event - or, does it have a special context that makes its use more appropriate?

In sports, it means a lopsided victory: a baseball score of 10-0 or 12-1 would be a "blowout." 

I suppose it means that the losing team was "blown out" of the stadium (symbolically)  0:)  .

Transferred, it has come to mean things like a wild party or rock concert.

[eyeresist]

I get annoyed at supposedly educated people misusing the expression "basket case". They seem to think it refers to a wastepaper basket, e.g. "Europe's economy is a basket case". As all here know (I hope), a "basket case" is a crazy person, this expression deriving from the 1920s, when basket weaving was popular as a therapy in mental institutions.


See also this film:
[ASIN]6305186677[/ASIN]

[Lethevich]

In sports, it means a lopsided victory: a baseball score of 10-0 or 12-1 would be a "blowout." 

I suppose it means that the losing team was "blown out" of the stadium (symbolically)  0:)  .

Transferred, it has come to mean things like a wild party or rock concert.

Danke

[Cato]

Danke

Nichts zu danken!

Concerning the phrase "basket case" : yes, I recall it being slang for a mentally ill person, but according to Wikipedia ( 0:) ) it perhaps originally meant a "quadruple amputee" from World War I.  Since both such types of people need great help, the meaning seems to have transferred to badly run companies or countries.

[Cato]

The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms confirms the Wikipedia story about the WWI origin of "basket case."

[kishnevi]

In sports, it means a lopsided victory: a baseball score of 10-0 or 12-1 would be a "blowout." 

I suppose it means that the losing team was "blown out" of the stadium (symbolically)  0:)  .

Transferred, it has come to mean things like a wild party or rock concert.

I've heard an alternative origin for the word as applied to parties and concerts--that it suggests the idea that the music was so loud (and therefore, in the context of rock concerts/parties, suberbly festive*) that it blew out the speakers on the sound equipment.

*I was going to use the word "party-ific" but decides that perhaps I shouldn't do so in a thread devoted to grammar grumbles.

[Cato]

I've heard an alternative origin for the word as applied to parties and concerts--that it suggests the idea that the music was so loud (and therefore, in the context of rock concerts/parties, superbly festive*) that it blew out the speakers on the sound equipment.

*I was going to use the word "party-ific" but decides that perhaps I shouldn't do so in a thread devoted to grammar grumbles.

That origin theory makes a great deal of sense: possibly the same term arose, but from two different backgrounds.

"Party-ific" - You might have something there!  Maybe add an "r" - Partyrific   "party" + "terrific"

[Karl Henning]

I've heard an alternative origin for the word as applied to parties and concerts--that it suggests the idea that the music was so loud (and therefore, in the context of rock concerts/parties, suberbly festive*) that it blew out the speakers on the sound equipment.

http://www.youtube.com/v/QsX5PtVTfxg

[North Star]

http://www.youtube.com/v/QsX5PtVTfxg

That's disgusting 
I mean of course how the hum isn't affected by the guitars volume knob, and the sound from the strummed chord doesn't sound loud at all...

[Cato]

Thanks to Daniel Henninger in the April 5, 2012 Wall Street Journal we have this quotation from the debated "Health Care Law" now before the U.S. Supreme Court:

The ACA calls the act of purchasing insurance a "required contribution." Naturally, many will wonder if they can get out of this. That depends on the meaning of "required contribution," as defined in "Chapter 48—Maintenance of Minimum Essential Coverage, (e) Exemptions, (B) Required contributions:

"For purposes of this paragraph, the term 'required contribution' means . . .: (ii) in the case of an individual eligible only to purchase minimum essential coverage described in subsection (f)(1)(C), the annual premium for the lowest cost bronze plan available in the individual market through the Exchange in the State in the rating area in which the individual resides (without regard to whether the individual purchased a qualified health plan though the Exchange), reduced by the amount of the credit allowable under section 36B for the taxable year (determined as if the individual was covered by a qualified health plan offered through the Exchange for the entire taxable year)."

      

Okay, where is the VERB for "the annual premium," which would seem to be the subject of the verbiage following it?  If it is supposed to be "reduced," that is disallowed because of the "by" clause following it.  "Reduced" seems therefore to be an adjective, but what is it modifying?  The last noun is "Exchange" but how can that be "reduced" ?  Perhaps they mean "is reduced" or "will be" reduced?

And note the lack of the subjunctive in the parenthesis!

The entire bill runs close to 3,000 pages!  Sister Alda  0:)  would have taken out her yardstick and properly chastised any student for such a Crime Against Grammar!  No wonder Justice Scalia sourly joked that having to read the thing constituted "cruel and unusual punishment."   

[kishnevi]

Thanks to Daniel Henninger in the April 5, 2012 Wall Street Journal we have this quotation from the debated "Health Care Law" now before the U.S. Supreme Court:

      

Okay, where is the VERB for "the annual premium," which would seem to be the subject of the verbiage following it?  If it is supposed to be "reduced," that is disallowed because of the "by" clause following it.  "Reduced" seems therefore to be an adjective, but what is it modifying?  The last noun is "Exchange" but how can that be "reduced" ?  Perhaps they mean "is reduced" or "will be" reduced?

And note the lack of the subjunctive in the parenthesis!

You have yourself all turned around and twisted here, I'm afraid,  but it's understandable.

"Required contribution means annual premium" is the bare bones version, to which all the rest is added on verbiage.  "Reduced" is indeed adjective,  and the noun it adjectivizes is the same term--"annual premium".

[Cato]

I have been looking for the "..." before the section marked "ii" in the original document (Chapter 48) to see if a clue exists in there.

But my Lenten penance is technically over.   0:)