I don't get the language in the new True Grit

[Cyrus Cassidy #45437]

*I posted this a few days ago and the thread has disappeared, even when I search my own screen name*

 

I like the movie. In fact, I liked it a lot. I just don't understand why everyone annunciated everything like they were English professors. It seemed unrealistic for most of the characters, especially an old, drunk, seemingly-uneducated US Marshal. The young lady I could see, depending on her background, but the others, no.

 

The costuming and "grittiness" of the movie were much more realistic than the original. Movies in The Duke's day tended to be very "clean" in that regard.

 

But what was the purpose behind the dialogue?

[Pecos Clyde, SASS #48481]

Could it be related to "Elocution"?? Here is some information from Wiki:

 

Sample curriculum

An example of this can be seen in the Table of Contents of McGuffey's New Sixth Eclectic Reader of 1857 :

 

Principles of Elocution

I. Articulation

II. Inflections

III. Accent and Emphasis

IV. Instructions for Reading Verse

V. The Voice

VI. Gesture

New Sixth Reader. Exercises in Articulation

Exercise I. -- The Grotto of Antiparos

Exercise II. -- The Thunder Storm

Exercise III. -- Description of a Storm

IV. Hymn to the Night-Wind

V. -- The Cataract of Lodore

On Inflection

VI. -- Industry Necessary for the Orator

VII. -- The Old House Clock [etc.]

 

 

 

Then there was this info as well after a search on diction:

 

The value of learning to speak effectively was also impressed on children through magazines and books. Both the contents listed on the cover The Schoolmate from 1852 and the images document the fact that learning to give speeches was a normal part of life for even fairly small children.

[Marauder SASS #13056]

Dost thou not recall the lessons of your youth, my dear man?

 

P.S.

Thank you for the correction, sir .

[Captain Woodrow Cahill, SASS # 54363]

Since the original book was a memoir by Mattie, Portis probably wrote it looking through the lens of Mattie's view. If you read diaries, letters, and memoirs of actual people from that era they also tended to write in a very educated and grammatically correct fashion. It's also quite likely that their speech patterns mirrored their writing style. Vulgarity was still frowned upon, so in that regard True Grit is a lot better than that cussfest known as "Deadwood".

[Loquacious Bill]

If you read the transcripts from the Tombstone trial of Wyatt Earp, his brothers and Doc Holiday, the language is very much the same. People just spoke differently then. More courtly if you will.

[Buffalo Creek Law Dog]

Just a day or so ago I was reading in the Calgary Sun newspaper that they went all over the U.S. to find a girl who could act and handle the period language with ease for the Mattie role. Most failed the test however, the new Mattie Ross apparently was at ease with it, so they went with her.

[Marshal Max Henry]

If you read the transcripts from the Tombstone trial of Wyatt Earp, his brothers and Doc Holiday, the language is very much the same. People just spoke differently then. More courtly if you will.

Where can I find these Transcripts?

[Barterin Bill]

Maybe because they were not as far removed from proper old English as we are today.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

Mostly it's because that's just how it is in the book. That was why it was that way in the Wayne movie, too.

 

The same sort of formal dialogue is all through Deadwood, too. (Along with the cussin'.)

[That Masked Man]

If you read the transcripts from the Tombstone trial of Wyatt Earp, his brothers and Doc Holiday, the language is very much the same. People just spoke differently then. More courtly if you will.

+1

 

"Back in the day" people were proud of the education they had. Nowadays people don't care if they can't spell or speak correctly, just so long as they feel as though they can "get the point across". Bothering to use proper speech, grammar, and spelling is a sign of respect for the listener/audience -- today's practices indicate how respectful our culture is these days (not very).

 

Note: the foregoing is merely my own opinion, unencumbered by facts !

[Guest Dusty Feller, SASS #20010L]

THE ANSWER IS VERY SIM0PLE!

 

In those days people actually had a vocabulary of more than 100 words and virtually all of them were well spoken.

 

"We ain't go no...." is an invention of today.

[Lone Dog, SASS #20401]

"The past is a different country, they do things different there."

 

The American frontier was a far finer place culturally than the vulgar cesspool we inhabit today.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

What??...no 'Ebonics' or 'Jive' in the movie???

 

 

GG ~

[Cyrus Cassidy #45437]

+1

 

"Back in the day" people were proud of the education they had. Nowadays people don't care if they can't spell or speak correctly, just so long as they feel as though they can "get the point across". Bothering to use proper speech, grammar, and spelling is a sign of respect for the listener/audience -- today's practices indicate how respectful our culture is these days (not very).

 

Note: the foregoing is merely my own opinion, unencumbered by facts !

 

I agree that modern-day Americans are failing at our own language usage, that our culture has very little respect for one another, and that "getting the point across" has taken precedence over proper forms of communication. However, I disagree with a lot of your historical facts. Go back a few generations to the colonial / Revolutionary era and I've read a LOT of original manuscripts, journals, and transcriptions thereof, most of them written by well-educated people -- lawyers, doctors, scientists, etc., including documents written by almost all of our Founding Fathers. The Ranger at the Yorktown battlefield actually let me read original correspondence between Cornwallis and Clinton, as well as correspondence between Cornwallis and Washington regarding the surrender (hint: Go in the winter when they're not busy and be very nice!).

 

All of them are rife with mispellings, grammatical errors, and poor punctuation usage. Granted, many rules have changed since then and some words are spelled differently now than then; however, when the author spells the same thing two or three different ways throughout a document I think it's safe to assume they are mispelling it somewhere.

 

Education in that era as well as the Old West era (including locations in the East) was nothing like it is today. Very few people ever graduated high school, let alone college, and the idea of a one-room school house for grades K-12 gives me the heebie jeebies about the slow pace that learning must have taken place at. I think perhaps you have a romantic image of the Old West, but that romantic image just wasn't so.

 

Is it true that folks spoke more eloquently then than now? I'll take your collective words for it. That is a fact I was not aware of; however, I still contend that American writing was as poor then as it is now.

[Cyrus Cassidy #45437]

Dust thou not recall the lessons of your youth, my dear man?

 

Correction: "dost." It comes from the root word "do" or "does," not "du" or "dues."

[Lone Dog, SASS #20401]

Watch it CC, lest a certain person call you a spelling nazi.

[ALAMO KID SASS #8100]

As they said in "Tombstone" it was oh so Tony.

It was the Victorian age, and most people wanted to be shown and known as smart.

[Steel-eye Steve SASS #40674]

I agree that modern-day Americans are failing at our own language usage, that our culture has very little respect for one another, and that "getting the point across" has taken precedence over proper forms of communication. However, I disagree with a lot of your historical facts. Go back a few generations to the colonial / Revolutionary era and I've read a LOT of original manuscripts, journals, and transcriptions thereof, most of them written by well-educated people -- lawyers, doctors, scientists, etc., including documents written by almost all of our Founding Fathers. The Ranger at the Yorktown battlefield actually let me read original correspondence between Cornwallis and Clinton, as well as correspondence between Cornwallis and Washington regarding the surrender (hint: Go in the winter when they're not busy and be very nice!).

 

All of them are rife with mispellings, grammatical errors, and poor punctuation usage. Granted, many rules have changed since then and some words are spelled differently now than then; however, when the author spells the same thing two or three different ways throughout a document I think it's safe to assume they are mispelling it somewhere.

 

Education in that era as well as the Old West era (including locations in the East) was nothing like it is today. Very few people ever graduated high school, let alone college, and the idea of a one-room school house for grades K-12 gives me the heebie jeebies about the slow pace that learning must have taken place at. I think perhaps you have a romantic image of the Old West, but that romantic image just wasn't so.

 

Is it true that folks spoke more eloquently then than now? I'll take your collective words for it. That is a fact I was not aware of; however, I still contend that American writing was as poor then as it is now.

 

I have seen this in my own research also.

[Steeldust Dan, SASS #2631Life]

Cyrus,

 

You make some good points, but comparing the Colonial Period to the Victorian Era is much like comparing apples to oranges. Rules of grammar, punctuation and spelling were not well codified in the 1600s and 1700s. By the mid-19th century this had all changed. People, even fairly uneducated ones, wanted to strive for a higher level, at least in appearances anyway. Few (I'm sure there are exceptions, always are) people wanted to prove they were uneducated or ignorant.

 

Also, don't think being educated in a one-room schoolhouse was a disadvantage. My father was educated in one through the eight grade. Students actually LEARNED in that environment. The older students helped the younger ones. And the younger ones had role models right there in the classroom. And teachers didn't put up with many distractions. You didn't do your lessons, pulled a prank, etc., and you got a whipping or were set down in the corner to be an example to the other students. The teacher didn't care about the offending student's self-esteem. Dad may not have had an opportunity to learn "advanced" topics like geometry or trig, but the basics of Reading, Writing and Arithmatic (the Three Rs) were learned. And teachers didn't have to spend time teaching social behavior, either. Students were expected to learn that at home, and if not, they received an "attitude adjustment" at school.

 

It is really sad how lax or casual our society has become in language, dress and deportment. Ten years ago I would never have contemplated attending church services not wearing a tie. Now I don't even wear a tie when I'm called to usher or serve Communion.

 

Steeldust Dan

[That Masked Man]

<snip> However, I disagree with a lot of your historical facts. <snip>

 

Historical facts? Didn't I say in my post that my opinion was unencumbered by facts? That means I claim to have no facts!

 

Education in that era as well as the Old West era (including locations in the East) was nothing like it is today. Very few people ever graduated high school, let alone college, and the idea of a one-room school house for grades K-12 gives me the heebie jeebies about the slow pace that learning must have taken place at. I think perhaps you have a romantic image of the Old West, but that romantic image just wasn't so.

<snip>

 

What romantic image? Again, I did not claim to have any facts. However, in my *opinion* I would say that if your claim is factual (and I have no doubt it is :-) that it would tend to support my point; if education is more rare, it will be more highly valued...and people will try to "show off" what little education they may have.

 

I did not say people were more educated than they are today, only that they were more proud of their education!!

[Charlie Whiskers]

Cyrus,

 

You make some good points, but comparing the Colonial Period to the Victorian Era is much like comparing apples to oranges. Rules of grammar, punctuation and spelling were not well codified in the 1600s and 1700s. By the mid-19th century this had all changed. People, even fairly uneducated ones, wanted to strive for a higher level, at least in appearances anyway. Few (I'm sure there are exceptions, always are) people wanted to prove they were uneducated or ignorant.

 

Also, don't think being educated in a one-room schoolhouse was a disadvantage. My father was educated in one through the eight grade. Students actually LEARNED in that environment. The older students helped the younger ones. And the younger ones had role models right there in the classroom. And teachers didn't put up with many distractions. You didn't do your lessons, pulled a prank, etc., and you got a whipping or were set down in the corner to be an example to the other students. The teacher didn't care about the offending student's self-esteem. Dad may not have had an opportunity to learn "advanced" topics like geometry or trig, but the basics of Reading, Writing and Arithmatic (the Three Rs) were learned. And teachers didn't have to spend time teaching social behavior, either. Students were expected to learn that at home, and if not, they received an "attitude adjustment" at school.

 

It is really sad how lax or casual our society has become in language, dress and deportment. Ten years ago I would never have contemplated attending church services not wearing a tie. Now I don't even wear a tie when I'm called to usher or serve Communion.

 

Steeldust Dan

 

 

Well,that was before some idiot judge found a woman guilty of child abuse for SWATTING,not beating or spanking her unruly brat on the butt.Now adults are afraid of their own kids.

[Steeldust Dan, SASS #2631Life]

I did not say people were more educated than they are today, only that they were more proud of their education!!

 

That is an excellent distinction you made. I agree, and would further state that people, who had the opportunity to attend school, were better educated in the BASICS (the Three Rs).

 

SD

[Adirondack Jack, SASS #53440]

The problem when making a movie out of a book, is writing is "book talk", where the entire weight of the meaning falls upon the words on a printed page. Whereas a movie tries to convey an experience of spoken language, perhaps 50% or more of which is generally conveyed by body language, etc, and allows for a much abbreviated and yes, among peers, a more vulgar or "vernacular of the street" experience. So what is the "real" way it should be in a movie attempting to show us life over a century ago? I suppose it's really hard to tell, as none of us has heard the CONVERSATIONS of those days in context. What we have are written records, "book talk" cleaned up and more well thought out than conversation. Now for our more recent settings, this is not an issue, but can sometimes still surprize us. Listen to the Nixon tapes of his late night conversations with Kissinger. Two well educated men, one especially known for his proper turn of phrase, yet we might well be listening in on a conversation among truck drivers or sailors.....

[Captain Woodrow Cahill, SASS # 54363]

In the 1800's the written word had more importance than it does today.

 

Newspapers, pamphlets, and books were the only forms of information and entertainment available. Today, thanks to television and other technologies, it just gets dropped in people's laps and no brain power is required at all. That could be one explanation as to why at the outbreak of the Civil War the literacy rate was around 90%, and in some regiments it was around 99%. Depending on how you spin the modern numbers, we're now at an average of 65%. That's just pathetic.

 

Here's some other interesting information that also displays a disturbing trend. A study done by the University of Dayton in 2008 found that:

 

1/3 of high school graduates never read another book for the rest of their lives.

42 percent of college graduates never read another book after college.

80 percent of U.S. families did not buy or read a book last year.

70 percent of U.S. adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years.

57 percent of new books are not read to completion.

 

And to think Uncle Tom's Cabin sold 300,000 copies in its first printing in 1852. We all know what that lead to. The printed word had a great deal of power and influence back then. Nowadays more than half these slugs wouldn't even be aware of its existence.

[Adirondack Jack, SASS #53440]

In the 1800's the written word had more importance than it does today.

 

Newspapers, pamphlets, and books were the only forms of information and entertainment available. Today, thanks to television and other technologies, it just gets dropped in people's laps and no brain power is required at all. That could be one explanation as to why at the outbreak of the Civil War the literacy rate was around 90%, and in some regiments it was around 99%. Depending on how you spin the modern numbers, we're now at an average of 65%. That's just pathetic.

 

Here's some other interesting information that also displays a disturbing trend. A study done by the University of Dayton in 2008 found that:

 

1/3 of high school graduates never read another book for the rest of their lives.

42 percent of college graduates never read another book after college.

80 percent of U.S. families did not buy or read a book last year.

70 percent of U.S. adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years.

57 percent of new books are not read to completion.

 

And to think Uncle Tom's Cabin sold 300,000 copies in its first printing in 1852. We all know what that lead to. The printed word had a great deal of power and influence back then. Nowadays more than half these slugs wouldn't even be aware of its existence.

 

 

I'm not sure this is as meaningful as the numbers imply. Sure, we have a lot of folks handicapped by low literacy, but there is a countervaling force afoot. Since Edison gave us the telephone and phonograph and we got movies and TV, and of course the BIG game-changer of the internet, BOOKS have become less essential, and in some measure, standard literacy as well. One CAN grasp the meaning of "MR Smith goes to Washington" or "It's a wonderful life" even without turning a page...... One does not need to be able to read or write to make a phone call. On the other hand, with internet, some folks read and write more than their ancestors EVER did, even if they don't read books.....

 

Not sure therefore how the stats dovetail with meangful life. It could be argued the 20th century gave us MORE ways to communicate and learn, freeing us from Guttenberg's invention....

[Steeldust Dan, SASS #2631Life]

AJ,

 

Good post, and good points. While we have more, and quicker, forms of communication at our disposal now, I'm not so sure we actually communicate any better. In fact, I believe in many cases we don't communicate as well in many instances. As you point out, we can grasp the meaning of a book by watching the movie, but we put ourselves at the mercy of the director of the movie, not the author of the original story. May not be a big deal with It's Wonderful Life, but what about our Constitution? Television ound bites and blogs do not a society educate. Also, how does a phone call educate anyone? Besides, there is no lasting record (with few exceptions, such as the Nixon tapes).

 

I believe we communicate more but share less knowledge than a few decades ago.

 

Steeldust Dan

[Ornery Cuss]

"I'm not sure this is as meaningful as the numbers imply. Sure, we have a lot of folks handicapped by low literacy, but there is a countervaling force afoot. Since Edison gave us the telephone and phonograph and we got movies and TV, and of course the BIG game-changer of the internet, BOOKS have become less essential, and in some measure, standard literacy as well. One CAN grasp the meaning of "MR Smith goes to Washington" or "It's a wonderful life" even without turning a page...... One does not need to be able to read or write to make a phone call. On the other hand, with internet, some folks read and write more than their ancestors EVER did, even if they don't read books....."

 

A.J.,

 

Books may be less essential to the experience of a good story now-a-days, but they are still the only way to get the real substance of what a good author is saying. It is not possible in a movie to express much of the story, such as thought processes, introspection and subtle details which are contained in the written version of a story. Movies are just too limited in that regard, even with all the high-tech computer in-put.

 

I do not, for the most part, read modern novels. They are much too simplistic; absurd plots and plot twists and generally written for the 'modern tastes' (I'm referring here to the 'popular' novels, such as anything by Stephen King or his like, including John Gresham and other "mystery" writers). They are simply one-dimensional. But, staying on thread, speaking of diction and linquistics, try reading some Anthony Trollope (English writer ~1840s-1880s), George Eliot (same), or Jane Austin (1790s-~1816), if you want to see an example of education during those periods. The narratives are exquisite (can you say 'exquisite' on a cowboy board? ), and so beautifully written, it's worth the read just for the language.

 

Sorry, I got carried away, but try some late 18th, through late 19th century literature if you want to experience ultra-literate writing. And see what 'courtly' language and expression are all about.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Ornery Cuss

[Diamond Dave Anthony]

They could have got some of that professor talk from watching plays:

 

Shakespeare as Popular Entertainment

 

"There's a lovely, a small little anecdote of a person who we do know was illiterate who paid somebody to read Shakespeare to him, and this is a gentleman called Jim Bridger, the man who founded Fort Bridger in Wyoming. And he's known to actually have traded a pair of cattle worth about 125 dollars to a passing wagon train, so that he could get their copy of Shakespeare. But he couldn't read, he was illiterate, and he then had to pay a local boy to read this to him. And it was remarked by people who later knew him, he wandered around quoting great swathes of Shakespeare for all sorts of points in his life. But this was a man, of course, who couldn't read a thing."

[Marauder SASS #13056]

My mother taught in a one room school in western Nebraska, so that brings back memories of her stories.

How the kids came to school on horse back and most carried some type of weapon. The old wood burning stove, etc.

 

Back then many teachers only had an associates degree, but you can search out the "standard" tests for an 8th grader and I doubt that many high school graduates of my day as well trained in the basics of reading, writing, arithmetic, history, literature, and even science. As to today's students, well, . . .

 

I believe that you would find a very broad spectrum of education and a resulting breadth in speech patterns back in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

 

I was reading the statements that Wyatt Earp made at his trial and it was not quite as formal as some of the speech in the movie, but it demonstrated quite good logic and literacy.

[Cyrus Cassidy #45437]

In the 1800's the written word had more importance than it does today.

 

Newspapers, pamphlets, and books were the only forms of information and entertainment available. Today, thanks to television and other technologies, it just gets dropped in people's laps and no brain power is required at all. That could be one explanation as to why at the outbreak of the Civil War the literacy rate was around 90%, and in some regiments it was around 99%. Depending on how you spin the modern numbers, we're now at an average of 65%. That's just pathetic.

 

Here's some other interesting information that also displays a disturbing trend. A study done by the University of Dayton in 2008 found that:

 

1/3 of high school graduates never read another book for the rest of their lives.

42 percent of college graduates never read another book after college.

80 percent of U.S. families did not buy or read a book last year.

70 percent of U.S. adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years.

57 percent of new books are not read to completion.

 

And to think Uncle Tom's Cabin sold 300,000 copies in its first printing in 1852. We all know what that lead to. The printed word had a great deal of power and influence back then. Nowadays more than half these slugs wouldn't even be aware of its existence.

 

REALLY?!?!?!?!?!? I had no idea it was that bad. Sixty-five percent are illiterate?!?!? I'm a cop in the ghetto and part-time soldier, and even I found that statistic shocking. The vast majority of people I arrest have the ability to read the charging documents and sign their name when needed. Are you sure it's that bad? The people I arrest are gangbangers, high school dropouts, armed robbers, drunks, d-bags, and general ne'erdowells, too. You'd think of anyone they would be the least literate.

 

As to the reading, I'm shocked by that, too. My wife thinks I'm crazy for owning my own library rather than using one. When I visited Monticello (Thomas Jefferson's estate) I remarked that one could lock me in his library with a chamber pot, slide some food under the door every few hours, and I'd never come out. I was only half kidding, too. I'm always reading something, and quite often I'm reading two or three books at the same time.

 

I read the Bible every morning before work. I used to skip around to whatever interested me, but recently have undertaken reading it from front to back (considered by many theologians to be the hardest way of doing it based on the way it's organized). I started Judges this morning.

 

After that I delve into history (you're shocked, I know!). My areas of interest are the US Civil War, the Revolutionary War, and origins of the US Constitution.

 

Sometimes I have another book going, too. I'm often reading fiction, or theological books.

 

I know I read a LOT more than most people, but the idea that most folks haven't read ANYTHING since high school or college is shocking. We're worse off than I thought if those facts you cited are true! Can you provide a link to that study?

[Steeldust Dan, SASS #2631Life]

Cyrus,

 

Just this week or late last week the US Army released a report that claims only 65% of new recruits are "literate." I use the word in italics because I do not remember the specific language of the report. Suffice it to say the new recruits struggled reading and doing math. This is shocking to me, because I supposed those entering the military right now to be on the upper end of the educated spectrum of high school graduates, given the economy and lack of jobs.

 

The week after I finished my grad school finals I went to the bookstore and bought four or five books to read for my own pleasure. I distinctly remember Son of the Morning Star was one of them. My goal was to read what I wanted to read, on my own schedule, and not what some professor assigned and in the few days' time he allowed me.

 

You must have a higher level of perps in your community. Your public school system should be proud (LOL).

 

Steeldust Dan

[Marauder SASS #13056]

CC, I think Captain Woodrow said that the literacy rate was about 65%. So that would be about 35% as illiterate.

 

And generally those that are illiterate can read and write to some extent. Just not up to the level they define as fully literate.

[Rufus Brady]

We all know the adage that you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink. That demonstrates the difference between learning and educating. My grandfather grew up on the plains of the Midwest and Canada, yet he spoke at least two languages and could read and write quite well. He also read fiction well into his 70's (died at 75). Tests have shown that the average American IQ is decreasing at almost 10 percentage points per generation. Since most IQ tests are based on "verbal" intelligence, this likely reflects our use of the language rather than actual intelligence.

 

I supervise a crew of college educated biologists. And I am supervised by the same. My supervisor has trouble completing a sentence in the English language (They is...., he are...., etc). Another has spelling mistakes in every e-mail. Don't get me started on "effect" vs "affect" or "use" versus "utilize".

 

I live in a town where the local tire store has a "clarence" sale every year (I thought slavery was outlawed?). And stores advertise "Gett your Ester chics here!".

 

Studies have shown that more people (including home schooled) in the 19th century could read a newspaper or letter than can today. When I started grad school, we HAD to take a writing examination to see if we needed remedial English==no matter that I had a degree in Biology with High Honors. Like most grad students, I took the CBEST (California Basic Education Skills Test) so that I could teach part-time as a sub-teacher. You get 6 hours to complete tests on math (8th grade level), and vocabulary & grammar, as well as a short essay (3 parts altogether). If you fail a portion, you get 6 hours for a second try but DO NOT have to retake the sections you've already passed. You can take it as often as you need, until you pass all three parts. The girl next to me was complaining that, on her third try, she had to write a one-page essay in six hours or lose her job (She was already teaching!).

 

BTW: The grad department in education required 2.5 (C average) to get in. Anything less than a "B" in biology grad school was considered a failing grade. Two "C"s and it was "Hasta la bye-bye!" to grad school.

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

Dost thou not recall the lessons of your youth, my dear man?

 

P.S.

Thank you for the correction, sir .

 

Well, as long as we are correcting, it should be,

 

Dost thou not recall the lessons of thy youth, my dear man?

 

If you are using "thou", which is the familiar of the second person pronoun, "you" is the formal, then you also need to use the familiar thine instead of the formal your.

 

And, I am reasonably certain that it should thy, and not thine in this sentance.

 

 

To be honest, I am very glad the English simplified itself and just started using you for everything; singluar, plural, formal and familiar.

[Hardscrabble,SASS#41292]

What??...no 'Ebonics' or 'Jive' in the movie???

 

 

GG ~

 

 

Heard they were gonna try to have a "Miss Ebonics" Padget but no-one wanted to be Miss I da hoe.