Irrational Words

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

The following is an attempt at humor.

What is an “irrational” word? Some would say it is word that is not standard in its derivation. Or that perhaps it is a word the means something different from what people think it does, or one that has changed its meaning over time. Or perhaps it is a word that just doesn’t “make sense” for some odd reason. There is truth to all of those definitions, but that’s not what I am talking about.

Consider the following words…

 

Ain’t

Alright

Dunno

Gonna

Irregardless

Silencer

Transpire (When used to mean to take place, not to leak out)

 

These are words that, even though you hear them a lot, and everyone knows what they mean, the so called “grammar Nazis” have apoplectic fits of rage when they hear them being used. They will say they are the wrong word, are not a word, (and I’ve never understood THAT argument) or that there is a “better” word to use.

In other words, they have an “irrational” hatred of these specific words.

There may be more, but I think you get my point; these are perfectly cromulent words that embiggen the mind.

Have a nice day.

[Father Kit Cool Gun Garth]

Silencer - More silence  
             As in
Quieter - More quiet   

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

Cromulent.  

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

pi

[John Kloehr]

Extra- as a prefix means "outside" in the sense of not in some grouping or collective.

 

So extra ordinary is not ordinary.

 

The works for most uses, but in describing champagne or wine, "brut" means dry. "Extra brut" means "more" dry instead "not" dry.

 

 

 

[Cheyenne Ranger, 48747L]

1 hour ago, Father Kit Cool Gun Garth said:

Silencer - More silence  
             As in
Quieter - More quiet   

 

does this mean there is a Silenest?

[Subdeacon Joe]

32 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

Extra- as a prefix means "outside" in the sense of not in some grouping or collective.

 

 

See also "super" as as a prefix, meaning over or above. Now meaning very good.

 

Awesome,  to fill with reverential respect, or fear. Now watered down to mean "good."

Awful,  to fill with dread, fear, or respect.  Now degraded to "very bad."

 

My response to a checker or waiter saying, "Perfect!" is, "I knowIam,  thanksfornoticing. "

4 minutes ago, Cheyenne Ranger, 48747L said:

 

does this mean there is a Silenest?

 

Hmmm...that's a rather grave question. 

[Cypress Sun]

Didn't Al Bundy use to read a magazine called Embiggen?

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

1 hour ago, Cheyenne Ranger, 48747L said:

 

does this mean there is a Silenest?

Sinlencest does t sound right, neither does silentest. I think you resort to most silent.

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

1 hour ago, Cypress Sun said:

Didn't Al Bundy use to read a magazine called Embiggen?

Big 'Uns!

[Alpo]

In the webcomic Grrl Power, they use that as a sound effect. The comic is about superheroes, and supervillains. One of the supervillains has the ability to change size. And when he grows big, the sound effect next to him says "embiggen".

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

6 hours ago, Father Kit Cool Gun Garth said:

Silencer - More silence  
             As in
Quieter - More quiet   

 

Ah, but quiet and quieter are adjectives.  Silence is a verb, and silencer is a noun.  So it doesn't work.

Kinda like how the palindrome of Bolton woulda been Notlob.

Hmmm...   Kinda shoulda been on the list.

Coulda should've been as well.

 

Interesting... Coulda, woulda and shoulda did not come out as misspelled words, but kinda sorta did.  

Argh...

Sorta didn't.

[Alpo]

Flammable and inflammable both mean the same thing. They easily burn.

 

I wonder if they are like regardless and irregardless? One of them was correct and people used the other, incorrect, term so often that it became acceptable and correct?

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

4 minutes ago, Alpo said:

Flammable and inflammable both mean the same thing. They easily burn.

 

I wonder if they are like regardless and irregardless? One of them was correct and people used the other, incorrect, term so often that it became acceptable and correct?

 

If I recall correctly, flammable and inflammable have separate derivations.   Inflammable has it's roots in the word inflame, meaning to set on fire, so inflammable means capable of being inflamed.  It's also the older word.

Flammable come from flame, which means fire.  Which means flammable means capable of being set on fire.

Technically inflammable and flammable therefore have a slightly different meaning, but it's such a subtle difference that it's not worth worrying about. 

Although, I have also read that flammable came about by people dropping the  the in off of flammable to create a word that meant the opposite in inflammable, just as vulnerable and invulnerable have opposite meanings, but it didn't work.

English is a fascinatingly weird language.
 

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

However, reckless and wreckless…..

[Will Kane]

The grammar nazis really go nuquhler. Don't they?

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

I had an old spinster English teacher in high school who only accepted one contraction: "ain't", but only it was used  properly as a contraction of "am I not".  As in "I'm going also, ain't?  Clumsy sounding but proper usage.  I miss that old woman.  Most of her students hated her (my sister for one).  She challenged me every day I was in her classes.

 

So there.  I'm finished, ain't?  

[Injun Ryder, SASS #36201L]

[Pat Riot]

1 hour ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

I had an old spinster English teacher in high school who only accepted one contraction: "ain't", but only it was used  properly as a contraction of "am I not".  As in "I'm going also, ain't?  Clumsy sounding but proper usage.  I miss that old woman.  Most of her students hated her (my sister for one).  She challenged me every day I was in her classes.

 

So there.  I'm finished, ain't?  

My 3rd grade teacher, Mrs. Lively, told us “Ain’t ain’t a word.” Then she told us that ain’t was a contraction of “are not”. 
I remember asking “If I say to someone ‘I ain’t going’ should I change that to ‘I are not going’? That doesn’t sound right.” She then said it could be ‘are not’ or ‘am not’.

I am not sure why I remember that so well. 
 

More info: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ain't

[J.D. Daily]

We have the son of Hiram Maxim to blame for the noun silencer for a device that attenuates not silence noise.  In the 1st decade of the 20th century he invented & marketed a device that when attached to the muzzle of a firearm reduced the sound power of the muzzle blast.  He market it as a "silencer".  The name stuck. as it was applied to other products that attenuate noise from a moving gas.  Such as exhaust from internal combustion engines, pressure relief vents, etc.  There are still industrial silencers that use the trade name.    The term silencer is used for air duct noise attenuators, reciprocating engine & gas turbine intake & exhaust noise attenuators.  If the length of the firearm silencer is long enough the muzzle blast will be at least 10 dB below the ambient noise level.  The discussion in the firearms community re. "silencer" implies that the noise from a firearm with silencer is inaudible or like a BB gun per Hollywood movies.  This is not the case unless you screw 3 or more silencers together.  I am sure that is why the mfg's don't use silencer in their marketing.  120-130dBA at 1 meter isn't quite.  Besides unless the muzzle velocity is subsonic (1060 FPS at standard conditions) you still have the crack (sonic boom)

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

Yeah, the guy who invented them, called them silencers.
The patent calls them silencers.
The LAW that regulates them, calls them silencers.
Suppressor is a word made up after the fact that has no "legal" meaning with regards to the devices.
 

" 120-130dBA at 1 meter isn't quite."

Isn't quite what?  I assume you mean a VU meter?  These are used to measure volume, as in sound, but I are confuzzled.

[Blackwater 53393]

44 minutes ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

Yeah, the guy who invented them, called them silencers.
The patent calls them silencers.
The LAW that regulates them, calls them silencers.
Suppressor is a word made up after the fact that has no "legal" meaning with regards to the devices.
 

" 120-130dBA at 1 meter isn't quite."

Isn't quite what?  I assume you mean a VU meter?  These are used to measure volume, as in sound, but I are confuzzled.

I believe that the word “quite” that you’re looking at was intended to be QUIET.

[Blackwater 53393]

The “irrational” word that annoys me the most is “of” as in “should of” or “could of” or “might of”!!

 

”OF” is a possessive preposition! It links one noun to another!

 

The proper word is HAVE, or the contraction used with words like would being “‘ve” as in “would’ve”!!

 

The word “OF” has no place here!

 

Phrases like “right of passage” or “Seven of nine” express a relationship between the two words separated by the of!

 

”Should of kicked him” is totally incorrect and irrational and has no real meaning!!  
 

Some people even plainly SAY the word of when telling what they “could have” said or done!  When you think about it, it even SOUNDS….       kind of stupid!

[Rip Snorter]

Should've, could've short form contractions of should have , could have,  Spoken sounds as much like "of" as is necessary for it to be in common use, though incorrect. 

[Blackwater 53393]

4 minutes ago, Rip Snorter said:

Should've, could've short form contractions of should have , could have,  Spoken sounds as much like "of" as is necessary for it to be in common use, though incorrect. 

 

AND IT SHOULD NEVER  BE WRITTEN AS “Would of”!!!

 

 

[MizPete]

Annnnnnnd the English major runs away screaming.....

[Rip Snorter]

1 minute ago, MizPete said:

Annnnnnnd the English major runs away screaming.....

Nah, we quickly become inured to mangled grammar and vocabulary.  Fascinating in and of itself! 

[Blackwater 53393]

You’d never know it from listening to or reading what I often say and write, but I was an A+ student in language arts.

 

I tend to lapse into the local language patterns of my surroundings, quickly adopting local accents to a point and assimilating the local vernacular.

 

I like to use slang and colloquialisms in my communication with the people I find myself involved with.  It seems to make them comfortable and that makes me more comfortable too.

 

There ARE a few words and phrases that I don’t like and won’t use!

 

On the other hand, I can butcher the English language as well as anyone and often do, deliberately!

[Alpo]

"It doesn't matter if it's misspelled. You know what I meant!!!"

 

Makes you want to reach through the screen and bitchslap somebody don't it?

[Rip Snorter]

Good luck with that, Buckwheat!  I believe the best course of action is to speak as the person you are.  To the extent there are still regional dialects in the U.S., nearly everyone understands Standard American Speech as seen on the TV news.  No need or benefit in trying to be something you are not.  We have seen a few glaring examples of make pretend accents recently.

[MizPete]

3 hours ago, Rip Snorter said:

Nah, we quickly become inured to mangled grammar and vocabulary

No.  No, we don't.  And irregardless still is not a word.  Neither is prolly (probably).  It drives me freakin' nuts.

 

[watab kid]

ill admit use sometimes to either provoke a bit of thought or confuse a conversation when im speaking to someone that doesnt follow ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but the word semantics gets misused a lot , 

[Rip Snorter]

58 minutes ago, MizPete said:

No.  No, we don't.  And irregardless still is not a word.  Neither is prolly (probably).  It drives me freakin' nuts.

 

Actually, used for deliberate effect, some, and I admit to "Prolly", are pretty good fun.  It is unknowing abuse of language, but there you have it! English / Speech and Dramatic Arts double from another time.

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

Mebbe 

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

16 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

I believe that the word “quite” that you’re looking at was intended to be QUIET.

 

Ah, that would make a modicum logical sense.