Respet, yo. I gots 2 give ya props 4 keepn it real. Natch, peeps gonna kick it like nuskool, cooskool, anyfoostyle. LOL! I thot no-‘oh’ the arcwielder wuz just sane heez not down like in hiz HO widat bitchass shiiit. LOL! Philologeez 4 fags and Nieieieitzschian(sp?) nazi fucks! LOL!

Dylan wrote:What about "zed"? That's a super-cool word, I think.

Zed's dead, baby.

stewie wrote:

Dylan wrote:What about "zed"? That's a super-cool word, I think.

Zed's dead, baby.

Is naught!

Dylan wrote:
What about "zed"? That's a super-cool word, I think.


Zed's dead, baby.

Is naught!

perhaps you got it and were just trying to say something funny, which you did. anyway, i think he was quoting pulp fiction.

whiskerando wrote:

Dylan wrote:
What about "zed"? That's a super-cool word, I think.


Zed's dead, baby.

Is naught!

anyway, i think he was quoting pulp fiction.

Zero interest in that movie. Thanks, anyway!

I am all for saying "zero" instead of "oh." I try to do it every time.

But it would really be weird to hear a baseball game and have the announcer say "the first pitch is in there for a strike, and the count is zero and one." That would just sound wrong.

Does anyone know of any professional baseball play-by-play person who says it this way?

I am British, and i say 'oh' and 'zed', and I am obviously right and you are all wrong. Can I point to Mr. Glenn Miller's fine tune "Pennsylvania 65000", where the band clearly sing "oh-oh-oh"; scanning well, perfectly understandable, and not giving a tinkers cuss for this fashionable 'zero' nonsense? A syllable too far, only enjoyable because of the novel, naked use of the Z sound. Such jejune debasements of the language are gayass.

If these are the big issues in your lives, you should seriously think about joining the peace corps, or greenpeace, or the black panthers, or something.
-n

I think equating "linguistic purity" with elitism and the technically incorrect use of the traditional linguistic forms with populism or evolution is a big, fat liberal knee-jerk that serves only to further the power relationship that created the technically incorrect uses in the first place. Here's what I mean:

We educated liberals recognize that there are a whole bunch of people massacring the English language in one way or another. Here, it is in the misuse of the statement of the letter, "O", to signify the integer, "zero".

We recognize that most of the people who make this mistake belong to an economic or social class that is, in one way or another, disadvantaged so that the members of the class do not have access to the education required so that they will know the difference between "O" and "zero" (this is kind of a bad example, as I think this more than others examined by the Electrical Audio forum initiates results mostly from the laziness of a society overburdened by numbers, but I digress...).

So, recognizing that these disadvantaged-class-members do not have any fault in the misuse, but are just ignorant of the subtle distinctions inherent in the English language, we redefine the language in subtle, non-fault-based ways so that the misuses are no longer thought of as such. We create ideas like "evolution of language", when, if you think about it, the thought of language needing to change to assure its continued survival, while for sure having applicability to the discovery of new objects (like, e.g., the "jungle"), doesn't really apply to the misuse of already-established traditions of the language in traditional applications (think of their and there). We reify our definitions of language in a misguided effort to include these disadvantaged classes.

At the same time, we still know its "technically incorrect", and, more importantly, so do the people who do the hiring. We have just marginalized the members of those disadvantaged classes by attributing to them some act (like, e.g., the "evolution of language") in which they have taken no part, and of which they are unaware. We have, in so doing, convinced ourselves that its ok that they haven't had the educational opportunity to know the difference. Thus, we can stop worrying about the systemic inequalities that caused the problem in the first place.

I, for one, aint gonna take it.

joshsolberg wrote:I think equating "linguistic purity" with elitism and the technically incorrect use of the traditional linguistic forms with populism or evolution is a big, fat liberal knee-jerk that serves only to further the power relationship that created the technically incorrect uses in the first place. Here's what I mean:

We educated liberals recognize that there are a whole bunch of people massacring the English language in one way or another. Here, it is in the misuse of the statement of the letter, "O", to signify the integer, "zero".

We recognize that most of the people who make this mistake belong to an economic or social class that is, in one way or another, disadvantaged so that the members of the class do not have access to the education required so that they will know the difference between "O" and "zero" (this is kind of a bad example, as I think this more than others examined by the Electrical Audio forum initiates results mostly from the laziness of a society overburdened by numbers, but I digress...).

So, recognizing that these disadvantaged-class-members do not have any fault in the misuse, but are just ignorant of the subtle distinctions inherent in the English language, we redefine the language in subtle, non-fault-based ways so that the misuses are no longer thought of as such. We create ideas like "evolution of language", when, if you think about it, the thought of language needing to change to assure its continued survival, while for sure having applicability to the discovery of new objects (like, e.g., the "jungle"), doesn't really apply to the misuse of already-established traditions of the language in traditional applications (think of their and there). We reify our definitions of language in a misguided effort to include these disadvantaged classes.

At the same time, we still know its "technically incorrect", and, more importantly, so do the people who do the hiring. We have just marginalized the members of those disadvantaged classes by attributing to them some act (like, e.g., the "evolution of language") in which they have taken no part, and of which they are unaware. We have, in so doing, convinced ourselves that its ok that they haven't had the educational opportunity to know the difference. Thus, we can stop worrying about the systemic inequalities that caused the problem in the first place.

I, for one, aint gonna take it.

i'm not sure what i like best about this post. could it be 1) the thoroughly flawed premise that folks who say "oh" instead of saying "zero" are in some way ignorant or uneducated, or could it be 2) the fact that every one of the sentences in this post is in some way gramatically incorrect, with only two or three exceptions as far as i can see, or could it be 3) the last sentence, which in addition to being a gramatically incorrect use of a word that's messed up to begin with (i.e. ain't) seems to imply that the entire post is just a joke. i really can't pick just one.

so i guess i'll go with this little section of one of the giant runons:

"...when, if you think about it, the thought of language needing to change to assure its continued survival, while for sure having applicability to the discovery of new objects (like, e.g., the "jungle"),..."

because the use of "for sure" here, i mean, wow. if there were ever a more clear example of somebody using a bullshit expression that was added recently into the lexicon (for example, i.e., e.g., like totally, ya!) well hell, i dunno.

salut the joshsolberg, for this irony-laden post!