My Sweet Little Ass Was Saved By The Mk III Today!!!

"ASAAR" <caught.DeleteThis@22.com> wrote in message
news:n9omd3h2dq90eamhfqinnfgl5olqk7mraj@4ax.com...

>
> Q. How do you distinguish smart Mk III photographers from dummies?
>
> A. The smart one's manuals aren't dog-eared.
>

Manuals? We don't need no stinkin' manuals!
 >> Stay informed about: My Sweet Little Ass Was Saved By The Mk III Today!!! 

On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 21:42:29 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:

>>> Please go learn what the phrase "begs the question" really means.
>>
>> Please crawl back under your rock.
>
> He's right, though.
>
> Notwithstanding the stupid TV commercials that seem to have made this
> misusage extraordinarily popular, "begs the question" does not mean
> "raises the question." It never did.

But you're wrong in saying that it "never did", when what's really
meant is that you've never accepted that definition even though you
may have understood what was meant when you encountered it. Maybe
if this objection was raised in little old schoolhouses on the
prairies a century ago, when Latin was commonly taught, it would
have been valid, but that was then, and it ain't(i.u.) now.

Language word definitions aren't fixed for all time. If that were
the case, the OED might contain only several thousands or tens of
thousands of definitions. Too bad. Then I'd have a copy in every
room. You've also noticed that a great number of words have
different, sometimes contradictory definitions? The same goes for
phrases such as "begs the question". Those that are only able to
accept newer definitions and usages that have come about before they
learned the language have much to more to learn. If they're already
well educated, they should be ashamed of their appalling ignorance.
I'd guess that most people that fit in this latter category would
match the "conservative" or "geezer" profile.
 >> Stay informed about: My Sweet Little Ass Was Saved By The Mk III Today!!! 

On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 23:21:18 -0700, Bob wrote:

> "There are even places where English completely disappears.
> Well, in America they haven't used it for years."
>
> Hilarious song and a great movie. I think I'll go watch it. Thanks!

With many other wonderful songs. I've never seen the film (which
I'll try to remedy soon with a DVD), but frequently listened to my
grandparent's LP of the soundtrack. Hmm. It's more likely to have
been a recording from the Broadway show and not from the film.
 >> Stay informed about: My Sweet Little Ass Was Saved By The Mk III Today!!! 

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 00:11:14 -0700, G.T. wrote:

>> That's right, Neil. Television commercial writers and especially newscasters
>> misuse the phrase in an attempt to sound intelligent.
>
> Color me clueless but can someone please explain the difference?

I think it was originally used more in the sense that something
was previously said that may have appeared to be unreasonable,
"begging" that "Oh really? Show me some proof." should be asked.
Or maybe not, but if not then maybe that begs the question . . .
 >> Stay informed about: My Sweet Little Ass Was Saved By The Mk III Today!!! 

"ASAAR" <caught DeleteThis @22.com> wrote in message
news:8qupd3t9jn7dal4cu1pn4s4k9qvhtubsql@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 23:21:18 -0700, Bob wrote:
>
>> "There are even places where English completely disappears.
>> Well, in America they haven't used it for years."
>>
>> Hilarious song and a great movie. I think I'll go watch it. Thanks!
>
> With many other wonderful songs. I've never seen the film (which
> I'll try to remedy soon with a DVD), but frequently listened to my
> grandparent's LP of the soundtrack. Hmm. It's more likely to have
> been a recording from the Broadway show and not from the film.

The film is great (and I don't have it in my DVD collection yet either), but
they never should have replaced Julie Andrews with Audrey Hepburn for the
Eliza role. Evidently they did this just because Andrews wasn't at that time
"a name" and Hepburn was, though of course Eliza's singing then had to be
dubbed by someone who could actually sing. Unforgiveable, really.

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: My Sweet Little Ass Was Saved By The Mk III Today!!! 

"Bob" <nimby_NEEDSPAM.TakeThisOut@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
news:wuGdnZuvmPGMgUDbnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@giganews.com...


> I'm not sure of its origin, but it may be called "begging" because since
> you're not supplying any new information in your arguments you're pleading
> (begging) with your audience to accept your conclusion without any
> substantiating facts.

I believe it comes from the fact that the significant question is *not
asked*.

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: My Sweet Little Ass Was Saved By The Mk III Today!!! 

"Neil Harrington" <not.DeleteThis@home.today> wrote in message
news:gvCdnTaJkYlX10DbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...

<snipped>

> in exactly the same way as the misusage of "prime lens," now so common
> here in the photo newsgroups.

In what way have people been misusing the term "prime-lens"?

I have to admit it has passed me by or potentially I too am ignorant..

I understood it to mean a fixed focal length lens, is this correct?

Thanks in advance,

John
 >> Stay informed about: My Sweet Little Ass Was Saved By The Mk III Today!!! 

Bob <nimby_NEEDSPAM.DeleteThis@roadrunner.com> wrote:

> Television commercial writers and especially newscasters
> misuse the phrase in an attempt to sound intelligent.

Well, they seem to create an opposing effect.

> They also love the word "literally". "It's literally been raining for two
> days." Sigh...

Oh, yes.
"His jaw literally fell to the ground." Well? Did he ever
get around to picking it up and getting it sewed on correctly
this time.

"Her eyes literally popped out!" Did they play a game of marbels
with them, then?

But maybe it's not been literally, but figuratively raining
for two days ...

> Don't even get me started about the usage of "actually".

Actually, I shall actually start you actually.

> Why can't they be like we were? Perfect in every way. What's the matter with
> kids today?

"The Earth is degenerating these days. Bribery and corruption
abound. Children no longer mind their parents, every man wants
to write a book, and it is evident that the end of the world is
fast approaching." -Assyrian stone tablet, c.2800bc

-Wolfgang

--
Ars longa, vita brevis - Hippocrates // vitam brevem esse, longam artem - Seneca
The lyfe so short, the craft so long to lerne - Chaucer
Die Kunst ist lang, das Leben kurz, das Urteil schwierig, die Gelegenheit
fluechtig. - Goethe (Wilhelm Meister Buch 7 Kapitel 9)
 >> Stay informed about: My Sweet Little Ass Was Saved By The Mk III Today!!! 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: My Sweet Little Ass Was Saved By The Mk III Today!!! 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: My Sweet Little Ass Was Saved By The Mk III Today!!! 

On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 20:26:46 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:

>> Many usages have been picked up here, and many of ours
>> has also migrated to Britain. Here's another. Once upon of time
>> you'd only hear "is lost" or "hasn't returned" or "has vanished".
>> Then several years ago I heard (complete with British accent) "has
>> gone missing".
>
> And you've even punctuated that in the British style, or partly so. We
> always put the period inside the quotation marks; the British do not.

I use both forms of punctuation, because sometimes one seems more
appropriate than the other. I generally prefer the British form.


> (By "we" I mean literate Americans, of course.)

See what I mean about superciliousness?


> But the Brits use single quotes where we use double, and vice versa. So I have
> to say you've made quite a mess of this whole thing: you use a British expression
> that you don't understand and apparently refuse to learn the meaning of, and
> punctuation which is not quite correct on either side of the ocean.

You're getting desperate now, or perhaps you've recently
mind-melded with a certain infamous Alaskan that argues endlessly,
whether right or wrong.


>> Kind of an absurd usage if you think about it. But
>> then blimey, it caught on, and now you hear it all the time. Do you
>> rail against this too? I don't. I consider it to be one of the
>> pleasanter language changes.
>
> Why would I "rail against" it? There's nothing wrong with it.

On this side of the pond it would (or should) be incorrect. One
says that "He went to the store" or "she went around the corner" or
"they are missing". But not until recently, at least in the USA,
would anyone ever say "He went missing". It's completely
inconsistent with past usage, and if the "he" suddenly shows up, do
you hear anyone say "He went found" or "he came found"? I doubt
that you ever have, but it's of the same form as "he went missing".
That you don't rail against it is probably because it's such a new
change that the small set of curmudgeons that rail against so many
other of what they consider to be "incorrect" usages, haven't yet
adopted this one into their fold. But if they had, I'm sure you'd
have been similarly dismissive of this "new" expression.


>> I say that it's you that's playing the "prevent defense", and if you know
>> anything about sports, you'll know that it's widely considered to be
>> a loser's strategy. It's not surprising that you'd also cringe
>> when you see "prime lens" used in a manner other than the one you
>> first learned. People are capable of using words and phrases that
>> have picked up several meaning over time. Ducklings undergo
>> parental imprinting and that's that. Are you no better than that?
>> If not, your goose is cooked.
>
> Ducklings do have the capability to eventually learn from their mistakes,

Most don't. At least I'm not aware of any that do. Have you read
Konrad Lorenz's "On Agression"? He covered this pretty well,
although some consider his writings to be politically incorrect.


> Apparently people who pick up misusages of language out of ignorance
> and then twist themselves into logical pretzels

You've got that quite twisted. People recognize *new* usages, and
the ones that catch on are incorporated into the language. You and
Der Bush both have your own pretzel problems, although they aren't
quite the same. I suspect that neither you nor he will ever manage
to overcome them.
 >> Stay informed about: My Sweet Little Ass Was Saved By The Mk III Today!!! 

On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 20:39:37 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:

>> I had to look it up, and Holloway was in both versions. But B&N
>> shows that the CD's cover is that same as the old LP's, and Julie
>> Andrews it was. Great cover art too. I'll bet it was sketched by
>> Al Hirschfeld though there's not enough resolution to spot the Nina.
>
> What's a Nina?

Hirschfeld was famous not only for his sketches, but for the fact
that each contained a few strokes of the pen spelling out "Nina",
the name of his daughter. It might be represented by a few wisps of
hair or whatever, and it was sometimes easy to spot, sometimes not.


> Getting the CD is a good idea too. I hadn't even thought of that. I'm hoping
> that Andrews sang Eliza's part on that. . . . ?

I'm sure that she did. I can still hear the sound of her voice
although I probably last heard the LP at least 40 years ago. As the
cover art for the CD and LP are the same, I can't imagine that the
cast would have changed for the CD version.


> It really was a marvelous show, even better than Shaw's original. Thorne
> Smith once did a story on the Pygmalion theme also, and I think I dimly
> recall someone making a movie of that too.

I never heard of that film. If it was well done it just might be
another topper!
 >> Stay informed about: My Sweet Little Ass Was Saved By The Mk III Today!!! 

On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 20:26:46 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:

> This isn't evolution, and has nothing whatever to do with evolution. What
> we're talking about is someone's misusing an expression through ignorance of
> what it really means, and that misusage becoming popular among some *other*
> people who are ignorant of what it really means.

And you remain ignorant of the fact that that's exactly how
languages evolve. Not just ignorant but willfully ignorant.


> It can *only* become popular among the ignorant.

Wrong. That's one mechanism, but so what? If you deny that
that's a way, if not the primary way that languages evolve then
virtually every word and phrase you utter is "wrong", and all due to
an appalling ignorance.


> Now why would anyone work so hard to defend their right to be
> ignorant, and do it so publicly?

I've been wondering about that. You have no reasonable excuse.


>> Then it started to change,
>
> No. The expression means what it always did.

Sorry Neil, but you've now gone beyond ignorance to cluelessness.
Of course the expression means what it always did and I haven't said
otherwise. Do you think that there's some great lexicographer in
the sky that at some point in time throws a switch and the meaning
of words and phrases suddenly changes? Of course not. New meanings
arise in parallel, if if successful enough, eventually replace the
original meaning, as in one example I already gave. In many other
cases two or more definitions are able to coexist.


>> and voila!, critical mass was passed. So sorry for your
>> sensibilities.
>
> So sorry for yours, but being defensive about it doesn't strengthen
> your case.

You're still defending the indefensible. Once past the imprinting
stage you can't change. Or won't, which ultimately amounts to the
same thing. Centuries ago in an earlier incarnation, you'd be
insisting that the sun revolves around the earth.


>> That usage may have once been rare in the USA, but that's no
>> longer true.
>
> The correct usage is still rare here as far as I know. Now unfortunately
> we have people babbling about "begging the question" who haven't the
> foggiest idea of what they're saying.

That's a pretty stupid thing to say, since it's so obviously
incorrect, and you should have known better, if not for your extreme
defensiveness. Those that you refer to as babblers know
precisely what they're saying. They may be unaware of the rare or
arcane usage, and what's sad is that you know what they mean, but
prefer to sit haughtily on your elevated perch, looking down at
them. Why, someone might think that you're nothing but a smug
disciple of Randian superciliousness.
 >> Stay informed about: My Sweet Little Ass Was Saved By The Mk III Today!!!