OT: There Is No "a" In "Definitely" Dammit!

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by BOBA JFET If we were not talking about a mild obscenity, I'd be inclined to agree. But since the propriety of the root word is somewhat questionable to begin with, and usually only seen in literature and casual writing (where style often has precedence over denotative correctness),

 

 

My point is not that it is objectionable from a standpoint of obscenity, but in propriety in terms, but in terms of "properness"

ie not in terms of "social properness" but "lproperness of linguistic usage"

 

 

 

it seems more appropriate to use the spelling that corresponds to the context in which it's usually used.

 

exactly, the context here is indictment of others "correctness" or spelling, so looser interpretations (colloquialism, "internet speeling) should be avoided as it is looseness that is being criticized - the context is mor than venue, but also includes subject

[BOBA JFET]

I don't know what to say except that evidently we look at language very differently.

Should "dammit" be an entry in the OED? Probably not.

Does "dammit" convey something that is unique and seperate from "damn it" because of the culture it originates from? I think so. In that sense, I think "dammit" is just as proper, and far more importantly just as valuable as "damn it".

[urbanscallywag]

How do dammit and damn it differ?

[BOBA JFET]

Originally posted by MorePaul My point is not that it is objectionable from a standpoint of obscenity, but in propriety in terms, but in terms of "properness" ie not in terms of "social properness" but "lproperness of linguistic usage"

 

 

To address this point -

 

I understand what you mean by "propriety". I'm saying that cultural perception of a word is a component in defining it's linguistic propriety.

[BOBA JFET]

Originally posted by urbanscallywag How do dammit and damn it differ?

"Damn it" suggests the more literal meaning of the phrase, to damn something. "Dammit" is more of an emphatic term, usually used to express sudden frustration or to solidify a point (I'm a man, dammit!).

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by BOBA JFET I don't know what to say except that evidently we look at language very differently. Should "dammit" be an entry in the OED? Probably not. actually, I don't think we do have that different an outlook on language itself. We do, however, hav a disagreement bout context Does "dammit" convey something that is unique and seperate from "damn it" because of the culture it originates from? I think so. In that sense, I think "dammit" is just as proper, and far more importantly just as valuable as "damn it".

 

 

exactly, I agree with you...in proper context

 

 

the context here, however, was a call for more rigor - so the looser, more casual, even cavlier use is contrary to the subject and intent of the statement

[urbanscallywag]

Originally posted by BOBA JFET "Damn it" suggests the more literal meaning of the phrase, to damn something. "Dammit" is more of an emphatic term, usually used to express sudden frustration or to solidify a point (I'm a man, dammit!).

Frustrating, thus leading you to damn the object of frustration.

 

Dammit, I stubbed my toe on the dresser. Damn the dresser [it], for stubbing my toe.

 

I see them as the same is all.

[BOBA JFET]

Originally posted by MorePaul exactly, I agree with you...in proper context the context here, however, was a call for more rigor - so the looser, more casual, even cavlier use is contrary to the subject and intent of the statement

 

 

 

Is that really what's being called for? The original post calls for better spelling habits in the context of avoiding a simple spelling error - "definately" does not convey anything different from "definitely" and "definately" is not even phonetically correct. Yoozer's post makes a broad stakement about the correctness of "damn it" versus "dammit" in general, it contained no qualifiers. I do not think that the sentence that reads "There's also no second 'm' in 'damn it'" is universally true, as I have demonstrated.

[BOBA JFET]

Originally posted by urbanscallywag Frustrating, thus leading you to damn the object of frustration. Dammit, I stubbed my toe on the dresser. Damn the dresser [it], for stubbing my toe. I see them as the same is all.

 

 

While that interpretation is logical (and indeed, that's exactly what people mean sometimes), that's often not the speaker/writer's direct intention when using the expression. It's just a simple expression of frustration, not necessarily directed towards the object in question at all.

[MorePaul]

I'd say both views are compatible.

the sentiment is still there..to damn, to consign something (a thing a situation) to an unpleasant fate

Thedifference I see is in to what level of formality we are interpreting the expression.
now, it may be by using a more cavalier version of the expression, we can imply that we are not serious (just as an abvious misspelling or mispronunciation can do) -- sadly, that can also leak into the statement which houses that intentional casual usage..esp if the usage is counter the the statement

which is why I brought up my point...if we are crying for more adherence to a "correctness" it would be more stylistically consistent to adhere to just that during the statement

...lest we have criticism visited upon us, as we have just seen.

[urbanscallywag]

Originally posted by BOBA JFET While that interpretation is logical (and indeed, that's exactly what people mean sometimes), that's often not the speaker/writer's direct intention when using the expression. It's just a simple expression of frustration, not necessarily directed towards the object in question at all.

Well then I guess its just like when people say something is gay, sucks, or is retarded they don't mean it has sexual feelings for objects of the same sex, they try and emulate a vacuum, or they are a bit slow in the head.

Just the evolution of language.

[BOBA JFET]

I can concede to that. I just think that "correctness" is a far cry from correctness.

[BOBA JFET]

Originally posted by urbanscallywag Well then I guess its just like when people say something is gay, sucks, or is retarded they don't mean it has sexual feelings for objects of the same sex, they try and emulate a vacuum, or they are a bit slow in the head. Just the evolution of language.

Precisely!

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by BOBA JFET I can concede to that. I just think that "correctness" is a far cry from correctness.

 

 

I think that was the point many were trying to make in their criticism of the original post

 

"correctness" may not equal correctness...in their case as well as his (ie if you give no quarter, ask for none)

 

that's what makes it a tylistic, as opposed to a technical, misstep

 

 

 

[BOBA JFET]

Ah, fair enough. I still think there is a difference in the level of correctness of "definately" and "dammit" given the colloquial validity of the latter and the virtually nonexistent validity of the former, but I see your point now.

[urbanscallywag]

Originally posted by BOBA JFET Ah, fair enough. I still think there is a difference in the level of correctness of "definately" and "dammit" given the colloquial validity of the latter and the virtually nonexistent validity of the former, but I see your point now.

I'll agree with dammit just because that's how I spell it, but I definitely don't agree with definately.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by BOBA JFET Ah, fair enough. I still think there is a difference in the level of correctness of "definately" and "dammit" given the colloquial validity of the latter and the virtually nonexistent validity of the former, but I see your point now.

 

 

 

I wouldn't go as far to say "nonexistent validity" -- some find that level of spelling acceptable (some parsers even have that inbuilt!)...the internet especially is creating it's own set of colloquial values

 

that's exactly the issue, there are varying opinions of "how correct is acceptable"

 

I believe you are still thinking in terms of a technical, not stylistic, error and, that by way of having a longer colloquial history, "dammit" is somehow more proper

 

that's not my point

[BOBA JFET]

I understand your point. dome1 demands adherance to one commonly accepted standard while ignoring another. I had initially overlooked the context in which Yoozer's comment was made, and I was considering his comment as if it were said in isolation. It was a misunderstanding on my part.

Determining absolute correctness is another affair entirely, and perhaps dismissing "definately" as wholly invalid isn't entirely fair, either. I just fail to see how "definately" is correct in any context except perhaps linguistic defiance (as in Umbra's case), or in the case where any parties involved are either suitably lax or suitably ignorant about such issues of correctness that the issue is unlikely to present itself.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by BOBA JFET I understand your point. dome1 demands adherance to one commonly accepted standard while ignoring another. I had initially overlooked the context in which Yoozer's comment was made, and I was considering his comment as if it were said in isolation. It was a misunderstanding on my part. yes, that's understanding my point, but not truly seeing the point perhaps linguistic defiance (as in Umbra's case), or in the case where any parties involved are either suitably lax or suitably ignorant about such issues of correctness that the issue is unlikely to present itself.

 

 

It speaks to your I just think that "correctness" is a far cry from correctness. comment

 

"suitably lax" is exactly one of the contexts where this comes,where the colloquial lives...the following of a more casual, more flexible style...lax, loose...but suitably

 

It's the "fail to see..correct in any context" that people are commenting on -- the failure to see that is at issue

 

It's a question of .wanting to apply a specific set of acceptance values where I still see you thinking in technical, not stylistic terms

[BOBA JFET]

Colloquiality transcends simple laxness or ignorance. It is true that the spelling itself of colloquialisms are often a result of such attitudes, but something is not truly colloquial until it takes on it's own meaning tied to the culture from which it originates. What I'm saying is that "definately" doesn't convey anything different from "definitely" (unlike damn it v. dammit), and that's the distiction I'm making.

[rockon1202]

Originally posted by dorme1 please see subject! *rant mode off*

 

 

 

It drives me nuts too man.

 

 

*Hugs*

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by BOBA JFET Colloquiality transcends simple laxness or ignorance. let us not understand 'lax" as merely "lazy", but is simply loose It is true that the spelling itself of colloquialisms are often a result of such attitudes, but something is not truly colloquial until it takes on it's own meaning tied to the culture from which it originates. What I'm saying is that "definately" doesn't convey anything different from "definitely" (unlike damn it v. dammit), and that's the distiction I'm making.

 

 

I disagree, a colloquialism can be merely the product of an evolution (as you mentioned) and does NOT NEED to have a mening inherently different than is root...the difference in connotation one MIGHT have comess from an evaluation *of* the culture from which it sprang

 

just as "damn it" and "dammit" mean, phonetically and at it's core, the same thing (The idea of consignment to damnation) - it's not that they have inherently different meaning, but are interpretations of the same words...one being more casual than the other ...in some contexts, the looseness of the spelling may convey a more cavlier attitude (and a less literal meaning) -

again, we are looking at the nature of the word IN RELATION to its context (thast's really the deal, I believe you are stilltrying to apply an external and specific acceptance criterion of "correctness")

 

[BOBA JFET]

Originally posted by MorePaul just as "damn it" and "dammit" mean, phonetically and at it's core, the same thing (The idea of consignment to damnation) - it's not that they have inherently different meaning, but are interpretations of the same words...

 

 

But see, to me, they DO have a different meaning, and when someone says "dammit!" they may not be suggesting that something actually be damned at all. Of course their message could logically be interpreted that way, but that's entirely dependent on who is doing the interpreting.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by BOBA JFET But see, to me, they DO have a different meaning, and when someone says "dammit!" they may not be suggesting that something actually be damned at all. Of course their message could logically be interpreted that way, but that's entirely dependent on who is doing the interpreting.

 

 

exactly!

 

 

The interpretation is because of contextual association, and those aren't going to be universal, that's why it's a question of stylistic misstep as opposed to a technical misstep

 

which speaks back to the "correct" and correct aren't always the same

 

I believe you are understanding the CONCEPT behind my p[oint, but not the spirit and aesthetic - you are still looking to a single hard line of "correctness"

[BOBA JFET]

Originally posted by jdwinger hmmm interesting points I don't really have any answers - I guess it's just a mental workout to talk it up

Just between you and me...

I'm a lot more interested in the dialogue than I am in reaching any kind of consensus on the issue. It's a relaxing way to spend a Saturday evening, and MorePaul is a good person to debate with. So, I'll stick to my position, MorePaul will stick to his, and we can go back and forth until one or both of us tire of it, and hopefully some others will gain something from reading it.