Word of the Year 2007
175 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
I waive all copyright, just for you. All I ask is that you relate how you pulled it off. I'll be metaphorically buggered if I can work out how you could.
-
...chastity belts...All I ask is that you relate how you pulled it off.
She's good at picking locks. With her tongue.
-
Sorry, that was probably inappropriate. But I've had six bottles of [redacted] sitting on my desk all day for [redacted] and I haven't touched them, and I've already blow-dried my hair, and now I am clock-watching until the big shindig tonight. And trying to fight rising needless sensations of panic.
-
Your locks are itching to be picked? (one your [redacted])
-
Nah, the penicillin took care of the itching, thanks for asking though!I'm just keen to start partying...
-
"Scumbag"
after 20 years in Wellington i finally went and sat through question time
very interesting it actually makes perfect sense now. you say something to wind someone up so they show there true colours Cullen can look like a very angry school teacher sometimes -
No, Kath and Kim think "pacific" is an Australianism - maybe we gave it to them, or maybe it's just transnational Basic Bogan.
"Apostrophe Catastrophe" was the title of a mystery serial I wrote online with a Canadian co-author around 1999, just for a lark - someone gave it its own webpage and someone else wrote a fussy book with the same title some years afterwards.
Not wishing to be too negative, I'll also throw my vote behind "sub prime". It just seems to mean anything below par, dodgy or all-round stupid. Like lending to people with insufficient funds.
-
Nah, the penicillin took care of the itching, thanks for asking though!I'm just keen to start partying...
Crikey. I was actually referring to the locks on your 6 bottles of [redacted]. But I'm glad to hear the [redacted] is all cleared up too.
-
is [redacted] the new smurf?
-
It never catches my 2 most common typos - "on" for "one" and "to" for "too". Grammar checking in MS Word used to do a sterling job for that, and also opened my eyes to the whole world of split infinitives. But it did piss me off that it always pulled me up for using the passive voice, or any sentence with more than 15 words. Would have been good if you could turn certain warnings off, as 'my style' settings.
-
Grammar checking in MS Word used to do a sterling job for that...
I have nothing but obscenities for Grammar Checker. Allow me ( cause how're you gonna stop me) to share from Language Log on the subject:
For the most part, accepting the advice of a computer grammar checker on your prose will make it much worse, sometimes hilariously incoherent. If you want an amusing way to while away a rainy afternoon, take a piece of literary prose you consider sublimely masterful and run the Microsoft Word™ grammar checker on it, accepting all the suggested changes.
I designed a writing exercise for our group last year that was full of grammar errors. Too/to, stripped/striped (okay, yeah, it was erotica), and for a laugh, I ran it through MS's grammar and spelling checkers to see what it would pick up correctly. Answer? Nothing at all.
-
But it did piss me off that it always pulled me up for using the passive voice, or any sentence with more than 15 words. Would have been good if you could turn certain warnings off, as 'my style' settings.
Umm, you can - Tools, Options, Spelling & Grammar, Grammar Settings.
-
Umm, you can
You can now. But I haven't used Word for years. Glad to hear they followed my (and a million other people's) suggestions, though.
Emma, despite the truth of all that, that doesn't make them useless. They're good at the subset of proofreading that they do.
-
Emma, despite the truth of all that, that doesn't make them useless. They're good at the subset of proofreading that they do.
Well, it's a combination of poor tool (in that they can't read context, which is the main thing that tells you whether you've used the right word or not), and PEBKAC. I've had people who call themselves writers tell me they don't need to proof-read, because they've used the spelling and grammar checkers. If those tools weren't there, they would proof-read, and end up with a slightly better end product.
But that throwing in some John Donne and accepting all the 'corrections' is a genuinely fun game, at least for literature nerds.
No, actually on consideration, I don't even accept the 'subset' thing, because they're wrong about as often as they're right. They're only useful if you have a functioning intelligence in the chair to begin with.
-
They're only useful if you have a functioning intelligence in the chair to begin with.
True of so many things in life...
-
Emma, I don't buy it. The kind of things it pinged me for were pretty useful, like punctuation and simple typos that just made no sense (but were not spelling mistakes). Sure it didn't catch the accidental typos that did make grammatical sense, but they are a much lesser number. It's a support system, not a substitute for proof reading, and I found it useful. It catches the kind of things people miss, like putting the
the twice across lines.OK, I do buy that it can make you lazy. That's pretty much the case with all software, and has never been a particularly compelling excuse not to use it. It's more of an argument to get harsh on the mistakes that people try to excuse themselves from in their lazy use of a system.
-
</off-topic>
Not wishing to be too negative, I'll also throw my vote behind "sub prime". It just seems to mean anything below par, dodgy or all-round stupid. Like lending to people with insufficient funds.
Just so we're clear - it wasn't 'stupid', just dodgy. Very dodgy. Capitalism at it's worst. You lend money at a discount to people who won't be able to afford the real interest rate when it kicks in, in 6/12/18 months time. You 'justify' this on the basis that the property market is rising and in 6/12/18 months they can probably sell the property at a higher price, pay off the loan, and maybe make some extra dollars for themselves in the process. In the meantime you've made money on Day One by charging them a range of fees for getting these no-hopers a loan.
Then these dodgy loans are bundled together with other 'good' loans into what is called a CDO - a Collateralised Debt Obligation. And as if by magic these CDO's are given a positive risk rating, because for some reason the CDO is rated according to the strongest link in the chain, not the weakest. And those CDO's can be bought and traded on the International market, and down in little ol' NewZealand some fund managers decide to buy some because they're a new trading instrument, and they're hot.
Until one day finance people start to notice that a lot of people are defaulting on their loans, and maybe these CDO's aren't as hot as they thought, and then they stink, and no-one wants them, and suddenly a lot of funds are writing off their CDO holdings. Which means all the mums and dads who invested in these funds because their financial planner/bank manager told them to, suddenly find their retirement savings is looking a little/lot thinner. Bummer. -
Just so we're clear - it wasn't 'stupid', just dodgy.
And as if by magic these CDO's are given a positive risk rating, because for some reason the CDO is rated according to the strongest link in the chain, not the weakest. And those CDO's can be bought and traded on the International market, and down in little ol' NewZealand some fund managers decide to buy some because they're a new trading instrument, and they're hot.
And there's the point where dodgy crosses over into stupid...
-
In honour of David Haywood (actually, ripping his wonderful child-birth novellas hardly is honourable, but...), I'd like to suggest: Breastapo.
In a similar calcium-rich vein, I've always been tickled by: lactivist.
But if you're wanting to describing the year of politics, the word must surely be dragonic
Dragonic [drag-ON-ic]: Used to describe the numerous hysterical protests this year, all complaining about nanny or police-state government policy, that turn out to be more virulent and have longer half-lives than whatever Iran is apparently (now apparently not) fiddling with.
-
"Mallardorous"
- to be acting with either verbal or physical aggression
- normally restricted to the species politicus ridiculous -
"Mallardorous"
Seriously, I think everyone in Labour must have had their head in their hands by yesterday. Watching it on the news, it seems only plain stubborn _and_ bad politics that he hasn't fronted up and said "sorry". This whole waiting for whatever inquiry they're having, is only going to lead to a week of bad publicity about him not saying sorry, and then him having to end up saying sorry anyway. Can Clark not get him back in his kennel?
-
"down in little ol' NewZealand some fund managers decide to buy some"
Have they though? I could be wrong but I haven't seen any reports of local institutions buying them.
-
I was just looking at the Eggcorn site and thought it rather chideish but I did like "like a bowl in a china shop" It has such a good feel to it, it's like it's supposed to be there, like a fish in the water.
-
John Key threw himself into policymaking like a bowl in a china shop, he sat there until someone turned up with enough money to buy him.
-
I thought the word for this is was 'malapropism'.
I suppose it's a species of malapropism (or possibly just a more homely version of the technical term).
The best ones being so close you only notice when people get to writing them down, and being mostly non-standard versions of phrases or cliches rather than misunderstands of particular words - this might make a difference.
Another game is phrases where the words have stayed the same but the meaning has migrated. For instance 'the exception that proves the rule', which Bierce(?) insists should be in the sense of being put to the proof - tested - and, probably, failing.
I recall there's proverbs like that; for the time being they escape me.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.