Showing posts with label Grammar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Grammar. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Where I Draw The Line With Soccer Jargon

By: T.R. Slyder,, @AndyDisco on Twitter
I wanted to get this out before the 2010 World Cup started because this has been annoying me forever.

It makes sense that soccer jargon doesn't sound very American Englishy- the game was neither invented here nor thrives here. Given how geographically dispersed the game is, it also stands to reason that it might have a few verbal oddities too and I'm totally ok with that. At the risk of sounding too jingoistic, there is still one I cannot stand. But first I'll review the tolerable ones.

Pitch- the playing field. As in, "he was the best player on the pitch tonight." I don't know why they can't just call it a "field", but we call a baseball "field" a diamond, so I guess I can cut them some slack.

Nil- zero. As in, "his team lost 3- nil." It sounds a little Eurotrashy, and for some reason seems to be used only for soccer, but I guess I'm ok with it. Well, I'm ok when foreigners use it. I hate when American soccer fans feel obligated to say "nil" as if it ups their soccer credibility.

Match- usually it's a soccer match and not a soccer game. As a former tennis player I am ok with that because I know that in tennis you play points, games and sets, which are collectively known as a match.
Football- I wish the rest of the world called it soccer, but I must concede that calling it football makes a lot more sense than us calling our football, "football".

Here's what annoys me about soccer lexicon- when people refer to a country as plural, as in, "England are very strong right now and should advance to the finals", or, "If Argentina are really ready for the challenge, we'll see it early on."

The country, (e.g. England, Argentina) is singular. It is only one country. Conversely, their team, though it comprises several players, is still singular. The singular verb in that case is "is.". You say, "where is your shoe (singular)?" and "where are your shoes (plural)?". One may correctly say, "The players on Spain are in top form" but you can't say, "Spain are in top form".

Sadly, stupidly, maybe arrogantly, annoyingly, lamely, unfortunately, seriously-what-the-fuck-ly, this grammatical rule is repeatedly broken in an attempt to sound more soccer credible. The same a-hole who will say, "Where is my book? I have zero books. Where are your books?" will later put on a soccer jersey, and turn on the soccer match and state, "England are great. They'll win 4-nil." . And it is fucking awful.

As indicated above, I'm ok with some with some slang unique to one's sport. I don't chastise snowboarders for riding "goofy" or getting "squirrelly". It's how snowboarders talk, and that's cool. But they still have the dignity to keep the rules of grammar in tact. They don't say, "Dude, hill steep I anyway down ride it to the wall balls, bro. What? Oh no, it's ok to make my own syntax because I'm talking about a sport, bro." They know better.

With all of this crappiness (sadly) in mind, the real question is: Do I sound more learned about soccer when I make a poor, jargon-buttressed prediction like, "America are going to win the World Cup 6-nil over Argentina." or when I use non-soccer jargon but make a rational prediction. "If Tevez gets injured Argentina is not going to win 3-zero, but probably 3-1."?

Don't bother trying to answer it. It's an Ancient Chinese Riddle.

how I roll.

Saturday, June 13, 2009

More Dumb Crap I Hate

By: T.R. Slyder,

I've noticed sports talking heads are guilty of this most often. They'll be talking about an emerging young player, for instance, and they'll say, "The sky is the limit for him. In the next 3 or 4 years, he could be among your Peyton Mannings, your Tom Bradys, your Ben Roethlisbergers or your Brett Favres."

So now I'm the owner of multiple Ben Roethlisbergers? When were there more than one of these players? Does that sound/feel right coming out of their mouths while they're saying it? It's dumb. It's crap. And I hate it.

Sunday, June 7, 2009

All Things Considered, I'd say This is True

By: T.R. Slyder,

Isn't using the phrase "all things considered" rather pompous? Put differently, doesn't that necessarily mean that you've considered everything that is considerable?

Thursday, June 4, 2009

More Stupidity in a Commercial

By: T.R. Slyder,

Shockingly its from a commercial that's marketing toward the "Dude demographic".

Those dumbass Axe Body Spray commercials where they say crap like "94% of women think nasty hair is a turnoff. Use Axe Shampoo, so that doesn't happen to you."

Firstly, what kind of brain-damaged monkey is surprised by this? They use the word "nasty" (or whatever the word they actually use is) for a reason. That qualifier IMPLIES that people don't like. That's like asking someone if they like food that is disgusting- by definition, you don't. Otherwise it wouldn't be disgusting.

Secondly, and more scientifically, Axe isn't really promising you a whole lot. They're offering to help you ascend to the "upper" 94% of sexy males. By undergoing the metamorphosis they promise I will become non-nasty.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm about to go set up my tent outside of Wal-Greens so I can be there when they open tomorrow to buy their product.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Dumb Stuff I Hate

By: T.R. Slyder,

Not all dumb stuff is inherently bad. But this stuff is.

1) When people, though it seems like sports debaters do this most often, ask whether or not something "can" happen. Examples are, "Can Cleveland force a game 7 against the Magic?", or "Can the Cubs reach the NLCS this season?". The question is not "will" they, but "can" they. That's the problem.

There is no way to incorrectly answer that question. If you say that the Cubs "can" and later they do that, you are of course correct. Conversely, if you say they can and they do not, you aren't absolutely wrong: they still could have, they just didn't; just like how I could have went jogging at 5:30 am this morning. Could I have? Definitely. Did I? No. If last night I asked you, "could I go jogging tomorrow at 5:30 am tomorrow?" and you answered yes, you still wouldn't be wrong. All you confirmed was a possibility.

So the only way to answer a "can" question wrong is to say "no" then have that action occur. So what is the incentive for answering in the negative? None.

The "can" question obviously makes for lousy television or radio, or any form of entertainment. So why do they keep asking it?

2) Another common stupid comment I have yet to hear anyone rebut in the media. Namely, when defending an athlete against a steroid allegation the defender's rationale is, "No way he's on steroids- that guy works out ALL THE TIME. No way he took steroids."

Right. Let's go over how you get extremely muscular from steroids use again.

1) You ingest steroids.
2) You work out all the time.

So when accuser Y says "I think that athlete did action 1 (as shown above)", defendant X feels t a cogent defense would be, "No way he did 1 because he performs action #2!".

With that putrid logic, two things must necessarily be true: 1) working out without steroids can get you as big as fast as working out with them, and 2) It's possible to take steroids, not workout, and still get huge.

Phrased another way, that's like saying, "There's no way Michael Jackson molested that kid, he loves kids!"

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Grammar Call Out: Messin With Texas Edition

By: T.R. Slyder,

Texas Governor Rick Perry said the following today, while riling up some retard Texans.

"There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

1) I would love "to boot" you and nearly all of your people, Governor.

2) Who do you think pays the FEDERAL troops to secure the boarder you suck at securing? Why people from Iowa or Minnesota don't send you jars of their own pee for wasting their federal dollars on you is a mystery to me. You bitch about higher taxes, but your porous border is partly responsible.

3) Let's have a look at what "unique" means.

Main Entry:
unique           Listen to the pronunciation of unique
French, from Latin unicus, from unus one — more at one
1: being the only one : sole unique concern was his own comfort> unique copy. Suppose I lost it? — Kingsley Amis> unique factorization of a number into prime factors>
2 a
: being without a like or equal : unequaled unique — Robert Coover> b: distinctively characteristic : peculiar 1 unique to California — Ronald Reagan>

Looks like it means its the only one of its kind. So how then, could something have varied degrees of one-of-a-kindness? Something cannot be more one of a kind than something else. Looks like the

4) If you seceded and we imposed trade sanctions, you'd beg Mexico to adopt you. Only it wouldn't much matter because your borders still wouldn't be remotely secure and the border would be blurred beyond recognition anyway.

5) "Government thumbing their nose"? Where do you think our last president was from? And you guys STILL suck. Obama's being in office for three months ruined your state?

6) What part of "largest tax-cuts in 40 years" mean to you? Well, other than "the president is black"

7) Keep talking ignorantly tough. All this secession talk is really scaring us into sympathy. No seriously.

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Grammar Call Out

By: T.R. Slyder,

Today's lucky winner is the NY Post's Let's have a look.

KIM Kardashian and Brittney Gastineau were multi-tasking courtside at the Knicks-Pistons game the other night. "Kim texted the whole time, not paying attention, while Brittny looked for the cameras," our spy says. When the Madison Square Garden cameras focused on Kardashian and the crowd roared, Gastineau wasn't happy." (<---- what are those quotation marks doing exactly?) Later, our source reports, "they both went out the players' entrance and Kim again stopped to text. Brittny seemed desperate for attention, but the players were asking Kim what she was doing."

Great job guys.

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Trying out Something New: Grammar Call Outs

By: T.R. Slyder,

Bad grammar annoys me more than it annoys most people. Also, I am stupid enough to read the Comments-section occasionally for web articles that I enjoy. Inevitably, these are a breeding ground for the worst of the worst grammar on the internet. So I decided to start posting examples of extra-bad grammar.

Here's today's entrant. It's from this quasi-article on the Daily Racing Form's website. In the rant, this guy, "Race" sounds off about Kent Desormeaux, a jockey he dislikes. Let's have a look, shall we?

race says:

To "Prozackjack"---I agree hold heartely with your comments with Desormeaux---He's a head case, and cannot be trusted. My wife keeps telling me to let it go, but after he blew the Belmont with Big Brown with enough room for a Tracker Trailer to go through on the rail, I swore off him--and yes, he had to leave California go to another Country, and now he's riding high--Believe me---he'll show his color's soon in a big race, he already does every other day and it's head scratching, but not a big enough race to get any ink, and those in California will say "I told you so"----race

Posted by race Apr 11, 2009 12:14:15 PM

Congratulations "race"---- You don't understand life-----How does "hold heartely" make more sense than "whole"? By the way, you are allowed to use periods-----instead of "-----" dashes. I forgot to tell you that earlier.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

The Righthand Side

By: T.R. Slyder,

Why "hand"? Why is it the right"hand" side? What's wrong with "right side?" I bet that kinda language pisses off amputees. And people who hate, dislike, don't care for, abhor and simply have no time for verbosity. In an effort to offend fewer amputees I go with, "right butt cheek side". Maybe it's time you do the same.

Advice For Sounding Like a Total Moron

By: T.R. Slyder,

Anyone that respects the English language hates the colloquialism "Any way, shape or form". The phrase itself is bad enough, but given it's intended meaning, it's always used in a smug manner. The only time you hear it is when an idiot attempting to sound lawyerly. They feel that the add verbosity adds depth their claim, thereby making them sound much more intellectually complex. But in fact, any respectable lawyer (or human) would know that in regular parlance there is no appreciable difference between "shape" and "form". Furthermore, once you've established that there is "no way" something happened, throwing the "shape or form" in for good measure doesn't bring anything new to the linguistic table. You'll never hear anything like the following.

Mike: Dave, did you eat the last piece of pizza that was in the refrigerator.

Shane: No

Mike: Yes you did.

Shane: I assure you, in no way whatsoever did I take that last slice.

Mike (smugly): Very well....BUT.....Did you by any chance take the last slice of pizza in some shape or form?

Shane: DAMNIT!! You're good. Yes, yes I did. There was a form in which I took the last slice. The "form" in which I took it was when I opened the door and removed the slice from the refrigerator.

Mike: Ahhh, I see. So you didn't take the piece of pizza in any certain "way", but you did so in a specific "form". That all makes sense to me now. You thought that if you ate the slice in a "form" but not in a "way", that your denial of "in no WAY whatsoever" would be technically correct, and you'd have an ironclad alibi.

Shane: I sure did, Mike. I sure did. But you still caught me. You're good, man, you're good.

I can understand the expression of "No way", but if the phrase "No way, shape or form" made sense, then you would think you'd also hear the phrase "No shape, or form!". As in,

Mike: "Dude, did you hear that Clay Aiken came out of the closet?"

Shane: "No shape or form!!!! Are you serious??! Holy crap, I can't believe he's gay!"

Don't be like Shane.