this is not a question?
March 23, 2006 8:06 AM Subscribe

So we're at this bar and I'm like, Jessica, your uptalk is totally annoying?, and she goes, actually Stephanie, it's called HRT? and I'm like, whatever, I heard it'll destroy your career? and she's all, no way, even the President does it now? so I go, just forget it ok? and order another Stooooohhhleee owwrindge and taaaahnick.
posted by Armitage Shanks (158 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite

debonics.
posted by phaedon at 8:11 AM on March 23, 2006

OK, you made me laugh, you can stay until next week.
posted by NinjaPirate at 8:12 AM on March 23, 2006

i think this FPP is dope? finally i have a name for this stupid habit i hear all the time?
posted by freudianslipper at 8:14 AM on March 23, 2006

meh. Yet another doofus decrying a linguistic change as the end of the world.
posted by teece at 8:16 AM on March 23, 2006

We New Zealanders tend to speak like this as well. I never noticed it until I was well into my 20s.
posted by gaspode at 8:16 AM on March 23, 2006

It could be worse! They could all talk like Walter Winchell! Or the characters from old comic books! Punchy! Short! Exclamations! Fast!
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:17 AM on March 23, 2006

btw, Armitage (may I call you Armitage) is not the doofus, just in case that was not clear.
posted by teece at 8:19 AM on March 23, 2006

It seems to me that one component of "uptalk" is that actual interrogative statements don't themselves have HRTs: "So he's like, I just broke up with her yesterday? And I'm like, what are you talking about."
posted by Prospero at 8:19 AM on March 23, 2006

I thought it was interesting, Pollomacho?
posted by anomie at 8:19 AM on March 23, 2006

PinkStainlessTail: That wouldn't be worse; that would be awesome.
posted by keswick at 8:20 AM on March 23, 2006

I've seldom watched That 70s Show, but I've noticed that they don't try to keep the vocal mannerisms period, and that modern forms like this are all over the place. Or to put it another way: "Could the dialogue BE any more anachronistic?"
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:20 AM on March 23, 2006

I thought it was interesting, Pollomacho?

Me too?
posted by Pollomacho at 8:23 AM on March 23, 2006

We New Zealanders tend to speak like this as well.

See also.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:23 AM on March 23, 2006

Somehow when I imagine it it's not quite the very last part of the sentance that's elevated, it's more like the second or third to last syllable and then a little bit lower terminal, but still higher then the rest of the sentance.

like Bump-bump-bump-bump-bump-BAMP-bemp!?
posted by delmoi at 8:24 AM on March 23, 2006

This is an excellent post? Thanks for putting it up?
posted by Malor at 8:25 AM on March 23, 2006

This is a fantastic post (he declared assertively).
posted by spock at 8:27 AM on March 23, 2006

I'm going to have to stop reading this thread now. No doubt about it? You jerks and your question marks are driving me nuts?
posted by PhatLobley at 8:29 AM on March 23, 2006

I blame Rummy's practice of speaking entirely in rhetorical questions. Do I wish he wouldn't? Absolutely. Does it reek of condescension? You bet. Is it a way of avoiding the question that you asked in favor of answering the one he would prefer to answer? Fuck yeah.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:32 AM on March 23, 2006

(This is a very interesting post) he declared parenthetically.
posted by carsonb at 8:34 AM on March 23, 2006

MetaFilter: Bump-bump-bump-bump-bump-BAMP-bemp
posted by antifreez_ at 8:40 AM on March 23, 2006

OK, one more? Totally Like Whatever?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:41 AM on March 23, 2006

I blame it all on Texans - Herb Caen described the moneyed oil set accent thusly (from memory, so not verbatim):
"This is mah husbin? He's in Ahl? An we live in Hewstun?"
Where each ending syllable "sings" upward.
LBJ/Ladybird started it, and California had it's way with it, and now we're stuck?
My .02?
posted by dbmcd at 8:43 AM on March 23, 2006

the FPP is totally awesome? I think it's ammmazzzing? It's funny and makes a good point about Gen Y at the same time? You rule?
posted by Sijeka at 8:55 AM on March 23, 2006

Nice post. I'll toss in recent discussion at Language Log about "The Affect": Mark Liberman, Ben Zimmer. The latter touches on uptalk:

As for "uptalk," that is neither a regional phenomenon nor a new one. Cynthia McLemore and others have been investigating final rises among young American women for more than a decade and a half now (see here and here for further discussion). Most trace the intonational pattern to "Valley Girl English" as popularized by the likes of Moon Unit Zappa in the early '80s, though it probably could be detected among speakers from southern California long before that. Some of the other phonetic characteristics that Horowitz is gesturing towards also probably have a Californian provenance, particularly the shifting and lengthening of vowels as studied by Penelope Eckert. The popularization of like as a quotative or discourse marker has also been traced to California English.

posted by languagehat at 9:05 AM on March 23, 2006

in that last link, I would like to point out that the author is describing a long island accent desperately clinging to a girl who is trying to sound metropolitan. as someone from long island who thankfully grew up deploring that accent rather than using it, I can give the following tip someone told me to know if you're pronouncing something correctly:

touch the side of your index finger to your nose, as if you were making a "shhh" face, except that your finger should be in line with the end of your nose, not touching your lips.

now, say something, like "long island" or "car park." if your lips touch your finger, it's because you're saying "lawng ayelind," and "cawh pawhk," and therefore mangling the english language and the non-geographic accent.
posted by shmegegge at 9:06 AM on March 23, 2006

as far as uptalk, I would like to say that I personally see the phenomenon (non-geographically speaking) as stemming from a constant desire on the part of young american women to seek validation as they speak as part of their social indoctrination to fit in and be in step with the latest fashions and trends. It is a perpetual question mark implying "am I being normal enough? am I being interesting enough? am I being clear enough? are you deciding you hate me as I speak?"
posted by shmegegge at 9:08 AM on March 23, 2006

Thanks for this. I didn't know there was a term for it.

Fair or not, when I hear someone (and in my experience, it is almost always a female) talk with uptalk, my first thought is "Immature".

And when I hear that intensely annoying city girl squawk, I think "Dumb as a fucking post".
posted by Gamblor at 9:11 AM on March 23, 2006

I will carry a brick with me from now on so I can clout people who uptalk over the head repeatedly, until they stop.
posted by illiad at 9:11 AM on March 23, 2006

Just. Don't. Speak.
I find you physically attractive, but then you open your mouth and when the words come out it spoils it for me.
Don't speak, please, just don't.
Don't.
posted by Floydd at 9:12 AM on March 23, 2006

Minnesotans don't uptalk, but we do tend to nod incessantly when somebody else is talking.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:12 AM on March 23, 2006

I have wondered whether uptalk comes from talking on the phone ("Are you still there? Did you hear me? Can you understand me?"). It implicitly asks for some response from the listener as indication that the speaker may proceed.

I for one have definitely internalized the use of "I'm like" and "he goes" (and, perish the thought, "she's all") to indicate that I'm about to quote somebody. It used to annoy me when other people did this, but now not only do I do it myself but I've noticed that my parents' generation is doing it to. It doesn't bother me anymore; I'm rarely even aware of it. As a western New Englander living in New Jersey and working in NYC I am extremely aware, in particular, of Long Island and New Jersey accents that feature those pinched, whiny vowels. I'm probably absorbing these too, and uptalk as well. At least the uptalk might help my Norwegian.
posted by Songdog at 9:17 AM on March 23, 2006

HRT? Bush uses hormone replacement therapy?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:20 AM on March 23, 2006

are you deciding you hate me as I speak?

Yes?
posted by djeo at 9:21 AM on March 23, 2006

And by the city girl squawk, I don't necessarily mean Long Island, but that lazy way girls talk with their mouths too open, the way they drag out all the vowels too long. The words "I know" become "I naowww", "you" becomes "yowww", etc.

They sound like the "Delta! Delta! Delta!" girls from SNL. Just impossible to take someone who talks like that seriously.
posted by Gamblor at 9:22 AM on March 23, 2006

1. It could be worse! They could all talk like Walter Winchell! Or the characters from old comic books! Punchy! Short! Exclamations! Fast!

Personally-- I'd rather go for Jack Kirby speak!!! Fragments coming together-- to make a whole!!! Word jazz!!!

2. Minnesotans don't uptalk, but we do tend to nod incessantly when somebody else is talking.

This is so true that I was nodding while I read it.
posted by COBRA! at 9:24 AM on March 23, 2006

I can give the following tip someone told me to know if you're pronouncing something correctly:

That's funny. Next you'll be telling the Brits how they can make sure they are "pronouncing something correctly." (no, it's "car" not "ca").
posted by teece at 9:25 AM on March 23, 2006

Clapton plays uptalk on his guitar.

Most of these girls have Paris Hilton posters on their walls.
posted by HTuttle at 9:29 AM on March 23, 2006

Hrm. I've been totally oblivious to this phenomenon. Don't know anyone who speaks like this either. I first thought "uptalk" meant someone being snobby or uppity. Oops. 1 point for living in Arkansas.
posted by Atreides at 9:35 AM on March 23, 2006

Is the squawk the thing that turns lake into leak and action into auction? I notice that the Duff girls (among many, many others) do that. I heat it.
posted by MrMoonPie at 9:35 AM on March 23, 2006

Excellent post! I like it very much! Engaging! Funny! Good discussion! Will deal with again! A+++!
posted by arcticwoman at 9:41 AM on March 23, 2006

argh. this is my pre-med sorority-joining little 21-year-old sister to a 't'.
She also has the profoundly painful habit of prefacing her sentences with, "Guess what? Guess what guess what?" Make me want to strike her with a tennis racket.

Of course, I'm her moody, black-sheep older brother who doesn't get along well with the rest of the family - so maybe I should start using this uptalk? So I can join in the dinner conversation? And get along better with her friends?

We're from the midwest, and both my mother and my sister are completely incapable of pronouncing the word 'milk'. It comes out sounding like 'malk'. and 'pallow' instead of 'pillow'.

though i'm sure the midwestern glottal-stop - to which I must also plead guilty - is just as annoying the the brits.
Could you please close the cur-ins? I think I've lost a buh-in.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:44 AM on March 23, 2006

Interesting that it's a Californian phenomenon - in the UK it tends to get blamed on the arrival of Australian soaps in the '80s.

Also, I found myself speaking this way, briefly, when I first arrived at University, as did many of the people I met - some combination of mass insecurity and the sudden intermingling of a large number of regional accents? (Um, that was a genuine question mark, not an uptalk indicator.)
posted by jack_mo at 9:46 AM on March 23, 2006

To be or NOT to be?

THAT is the question?
posted by ColdChef at 9:49 AM on March 23, 2006

Funny, I've always referred to this as Duh-Speak. Evesdrop on a flock of sorority girls or any one of those vapid MTV "reality" shows, and all you hear is: "Da-duh duh DUH? Da-duh duh DUH?"
posted by TBoneMcCool at 9:51 AM on March 23, 2006

This is really interesting ?
posted by slimepuppy at 9:54 AM on March 23, 2006

One thing's for sure. You can't tell a proper joke when you uptalk. It just, like, totally ruins the punchline?
posted by attaboy at 9:54 AM on March 23, 2006

Next you'll be telling the Brits how they can make sure they are pronouncing something correctly.

The Brits have their own problems when it comes to uptalk. What's up with ending every other sentence with "Yeah?". As in, "So I run into this chap on the street, yeah?"
posted by Gamblor at 9:58 AM on March 23, 2006

It's actually amazing to me to watch otherwise intelligent, open-minded people become bigoted buffoons when it comes to things like this.

Of course, everyone who uptalks is stupid. Of course, the "correct" way to speak is your way. Of course, thinking less of people based entirely upon a superficial and arbitrary speech trait makes great sense. Of course, to truly be educated, you must speak with exactly the same arbitrary inflection and accent as the educated.

Hmph.

That's not everybody in this thread, or even most, but it's definitely in the linked articles. The whole idea is amazing. It's totally taboo to stereotype someone based on their race or gender today. But do it based upon differences in regional or generational accent and dialect? That's A-OK! Indeed, it's encouraged in some circles. Question some idiotic hiring manager that bases employment decisions on your dialect? Never! Baffled by the ignorance.

I guess most people are too close to their language to notice this kind of sillyness.
posted by teece at 9:59 AM on March 23, 2006

gamblor: yeah i agree, yeah?
posted by Sijeka at 10:04 AM on March 23, 2006

Of course, to truly be educated, you must speak with exactly the same arbitrary inflection and accent as the educated.

But a rising terminal for a question isn't arbitrary? It serves a purpose? It helps the listener identify a question? If every sentence, declarative or otherwise, ends with a rising inflection, don't you lose a useful indicator? It be would like ending every written sentence with a question mark?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:12 AM on March 23, 2006

While I was in school I noticed that the most prolific uptalkers were from Florida, so I thought all this time it was a Floridian phenomenon.
posted by brownpau at 10:12 AM on March 23, 2006

Oops, I meant "bee wood" of course.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:13 AM on March 23, 2006

Rummy's practice of speaking entirely in rhetorical questions. ... Is it a way of avoiding the question that you asked in favor of answering the one he would prefer to answer? Fuck yeah. - George_Spiggott

Yes. And good impression of him.
posted by raedyn at 10:16 AM on March 23, 2006

well, I will admit that there's a certain amount of prejudice in my perception of long island accents. But it's not a "there's one correct way to speak and that's all there is to it," thing. It's really just a "there are a lot of ways to speak, but long island accents are just wrong," thing. I love almost all accents, and I find british accents, particularly, ridiculously attractive. But I'm simply biased toward that grating accent I grew up around. It may not be right to feel that way, but at least I'm not that way about all accents.
posted by shmegegge at 10:18 AM on March 23, 2006

Armitage, you hit it. It's not necessarily elitist to dislike this manner of speaking - it's just very annoying to listen to. Our ears are trained to expect a question when the voice goes up, and when there isn't a question, it gets very jarring. I have teenaged daughters whose friends speak that way, and my husband often comments that he feels like his head is exploding after listening to them for awhile.

I've also noticed that it "catches" easily. If my daugheter goes to a sleepover with a particularly upward-speaking group of girls, we have to spend the next few days saying "was that a question?"
posted by Flakypastry at 10:19 AM on March 23, 2006

But a rising terminal for a question isn't arbitrary? It serves a purpose? It helps the listener identify a question? If every sentence, declarative or otherwise, ends with a rising inflection, don't you lose a useful indicator? It be would like ending every written sentence with a question mark?

Sigh. Everything (absolutely everything) in language is arbitrary. Our language, and every other, has undergone much more serious "losses" and survived just fine.

(and the intonation is nice, but redundant, generally. Most interrogative statements in English have an interrogative structure. English makes very, very limited use of tone. The only thing that might be truly threatened by this is one-word interrogatives like "Coming?" But even that I doubt. And even if they were eliminated by this, c'est la vie).
posted by teece at 10:19 AM on March 23, 2006

arcticwoman: LOL
posted by twsf at 10:20 AM on March 23, 2006

God. I'm a horrible, horrible person for this, but as soon as I identify and latch on to certain verbal tics that I can't stand (overuse of "Like" and "He's all/she's all") I cannot help but want to carve out the tongue of the speaker with a spoon...
posted by TeamBilly at 10:21 AM on March 23, 2006

It's totally taboo to stereotype someone based on their race or gender today. But do it based upon differences in regional or generational accent and dialect? That's A-OK!

As I said in my previous comment "Fair or not..."

Fair or not, people are judged by the way they speak. You compare it to judging someone on their race or gender, but that's a poor comparison, as those don't carry any inherent values of intelligence. Speech does, to a certain extent, as it's taught in school. So if you speak like someone who's uneducated, you're going to be judged as such. When I hear a girl talk in that sorority girl squawk, you might as well put a sign on her head that reads "I never paid attention in school."

And if my comment was full of spelling and grammatical errors, tell me you wouldn't make some kind of judgement as to the level of my intelligence?
posted by Gamblor at 10:22 AM on March 23, 2006

We're from the midwest, and both my mother and my sister are completely incapable of pronouncing the word 'milk'. It comes out sounding like 'malk'. and 'pallow' instead of 'pillow'.

Yeah, I'm from Chicago, and I pronounce 'milk' as 'melk'. I also pronounce 'roof' as 'ruhf'. Drives my New York wife crazy, but I refused to change it. It made me me. Then we moved to Los Angeles, and one day I noticed I had just said 'milk' as 'milk'. I also stopped saying 'expressway' in favor of 'freeway'. It's time to move back to the midwest, I think.

Yeah, I'm from Chicago! And I pronounce 'milk' as 'melk'! I also pronounce 'roof' as 'ruhf'! Drives my New York wife crazy! But I refused to change it! It made me me! Then we moved to Los Angeles! One day I noticed I had just said 'milk' as 'milk'! I also stopped saying 'expressway' in favor of 'freeway'! It's time to move back to the midwest! I think!
posted by davejay at 10:26 AM on March 23, 2006

Of course, to truly be educated, you must speak with exactly the same arbitrary inflection and accent as the educated.

Ehhhh, I would say that speaking with a regional dialect, and having someone judge your character from your speech would fit your broad stroke of this thread and the linked articles -- however, judging someone on affected speech, someone who chooses to speak this way, is so, like, totally allowed.

As a Midwestern fellow who took a turn out on the East coast for a decade, I can relate to the assumptions that people make based on your accent. I, being from Iowa originally, have no accent, of course (except for a tendency to bark like a dog when I'm talking about the top of a house..."Nice ruff you've got on that house.") I got to Connecticut, and all these people who couldn't move their jaws while talking ("Yes, I live in Daaaahhriennne.") thought I was quaint.

Of course, this is also the same crowd that, when I told one woman I had a friend that went to the University of Iowa, said: "Oh, my dear, you can't just make up schools on your resume like that."

I still feel like I unconsciously judge people with a lazy southern accent, because I tend to associate it with backwoods folk that are really out of touch. In this case, however, this is quite different: These girls certainly didn't start out talking like this, and I can bet their parents still look at them strange when the come around to visit.
posted by thanotopsis at 10:27 AM on March 23, 2006

uptalking = uptarded
posted by GuyZero at 10:28 AM on March 23, 2006

this reminds me of the simpsons episode where bart makes a long distance prank call to a little aussie boy who squeals, "eez eet... an emergansee?"
posted by phaedon at 10:30 AM on March 23, 2006

Our ears are trained to expect a question when the voice goes up, and when there isn't a question, it gets very jarring.

Do you stop to think about why it is not very jarring to your teenage daughter's friends? And "uptalkers" in general? You do realize that there is absolutely no way to say non-uptalking is "correct" and uptalking is "incorrect," right?

Gamblor:

Fair or not, people are judged by the way they speak.

Fair or not, people are judged by their race.

I have a problem with both (where "judgement" is superficial and negative, generally, I mean). You don't, I guess. I've learned that arguing about this is probably pointless, but this is my axe to grind so I'm grinding it.

I married into a poor, urban family. Many elitists immediately tag their language as uneducated and stupid. It's bullshit. Like all people, you have to actually get to know them before you make those judgements — some of my in-laws are uneducated, others aren't. Some of them are smart, some of them aren't. Gee, what a surprise.
posted by teece at 10:31 AM on March 23, 2006

Also, the poster-girl on CBC for this is Cathy Bond who does video reviews on "Definitely Not The Opera" (DNTO) on Saturdays. She's even taken it to a new level with an up-up-UP up-up-UP up-down-DOWN structure as she speaks in three sentence paragraphs.

Promo Girl has nothing on Cathy Bond for radio-annoyingness. Why do they let this woman on the airwaves?
posted by GuyZero at 10:31 AM on March 23, 2006

You do realize that there is absolutely no way to say non-uptalking is "correct" and uptalking is "incorrect," right?

And if I start making rulers with 27mm inches printed on them, would this also be correct? It's called a standard.
posted by GuyZero at 10:33 AM on March 23, 2006

And if I start making rulers with 27mm inches printed on them, would this also be correct? It's called a standard.

Really bad example. If people like and buy your rulers by the millions, and start using your new inch by the thousands, people will have to start to make allowances for the two different inches. An inch is completely arbitrary, too, and if for some reason folks want to use a different one, they're more than welcome to. Your example is, of course, absurd, and it relates very poorly to the way language changes, but even in your absurd example we'd get along fine, and you'd still be really silly for looking down on the idiots that use 27mm inches.

(and we already have this system with miles).
posted by teece at 10:39 AM on March 23, 2006

Do you stop to think about why it is not very jarring to your teenage daughter's friends?

Because it's more important to them to sound alike? (Dont go nucular on me, Im only axing.)
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:43 AM on March 23, 2006

I have to say I am sometimes guilty of the the Canadian ,"eh" - but it is usually because I am trying to say "hey".

Although I usually only say this when I think someone isn't paying attention or doesn't understand. Thing is, I noticed people from Northern England do this a lot more than Canadians.
posted by Deep Dish at 10:47 AM on March 23, 2006

If nothign else, this thread has some great violence - carrying a brick so as to brain people, smacking with tennis rackets, carving out tongues with spoons...
posted by notsnot at 10:47 AM on March 23, 2006

usually only?
posted by phaedon at 10:47 AM on March 23, 2006

Fair or not, people are judged by their race.

You completely omitted the part where I said that judging by race or gender is a poor comparison.

you have to actually get to know them before you make those judgements

This is just horseshit. Are you actually implying that I have to personally meet and converse with every person on the planet before I can draw general assumptions about them?

I said, when I hear someone speak with an uptalk "my first thought is..." I didn't say I form an immediate and unchangeable opinion. My first thought may be "dumb", but whether that proves to be true or not depends on the person.

If you really feel judging someone by their language is such bullshit, then the next time you go to apply for a job, leave lots of spelling an grammer errors on your resume. It shouldn't matter, right?
posted by Gamblor at 10:47 AM on March 23, 2006

Other commentators have likewise associated uptalk with other features of west coast "mallspeak", such as the slacker habit of self-interrupting sentences with "like", using the intensifier "totally", and responding to any actual question (as opposed to an uptalk interrogative) with "whatever".

I find this all really funny. I grew up in southern california (north san diego county) and EVERYONE spoke like this, including me.

So, then I graduated highschool and in my first year of east-coast college (Harvard) everyone around me started making fun of the way I talked. I was an uptalker and I also started many sentences with "Dude,..." Keep in mind, this was not at all common!

Me: Dude, that's rad!
Them: Dude? Rad?

So, later in life, I started hearing more uptalkers in different cities and at first thought: "Hey! a fellow southern californian!" only to discover that they were in fact not californian. A really strange turn of events, all this.
posted by vacapinta at 10:48 AM on March 23, 2006

Really bad example.

Oh, come on. Is there where I say "Really bad rebuttal?"

People who break from a standard, knowingly, will be rebuffed by the majority. You may think that uptalking is some sort of noble act of asserting individually, but it's done for much less noble reasons - to indicate that you're part of a clique at the expense of clear communication. I would prefer that you go assert you individuality somewhere else and try to communicate like a regular person.

If the analogy won't get you, maybe the reductio ad absurdum will. If uptalking is so great, why not also stop using English words altogether and grunt in an imaginary language of your own making. Apparently everything is an equally valid means of communication, so the grunting, drooling and occasional feces flinging should be as effective as asking "Can I get a milkshake?" on your next trip to McDonalds.

Uptalking is wrong. If it's not, I'd like to hear where you've decided to draw the line between correct and incorrect speech. And if there isn't one, why do you bother writing anything when you could save a lot of effort with "cat /dev/random > comment".
posted by GuyZero at 10:54 AM on March 23, 2006

Everything (absolutely everything) in language is arbitrary.

Arbitrary, but agreed upon, and that's the big distinction. When I say the word "watermelon", you know what I'm referring to. When I end a question with an upward intonation, you know it's interrogative.

When I end a sentence with an upward intonation yet I'm making a statement, it's against the normal use (and annoying).

If everyone in a particular area does this, then it becomes an accent, and locally recognized and accepted. But if it's just random people througout the country doing this, it's annoying for the reasons stated above.
posted by Gamblor at 10:56 AM on March 23, 2006

*flings feces*
posted by Pollomacho at 10:58 AM on March 23, 2006

You completely omitted the part where I said that judging by race or gender is a poor comparison.

Right, because I think it's bullshit to say it's a poor comparison. You're happy assuming people that don't speak the academic English dialect are dumb (your word) -- that's to your shame. At best, you should be saying to yourself "they don't speak standard, academic English, hmm, maybe they did not spend much time in the academy." Just like a southern dialect indicates southern heritage, etc, not southerners are dumb. Instead, you jump right to a negative value judgment. You might want to think about that. Is it really fair to make so many people in the world prove to you that they are not dumb?

Might it not be better to recognize your own language bigotry, and instead make people prove that they are dumb? I started out with the same academic bigotry as you, I've chosen to grow out of it. And I'm better for it.

Learning to use the academic English dialect proficiently does not mean you need to degrade those that have not. And I think that's what you (and countless others) are doing. And hell, this instance is not even academic English, it's just a fucking different intonation pattern that has folks up in arms.

And it's not all that different from many other forms of bigotry.

(And as for your resume comment -- classic red herring that has nothing to do with this).

GuyZero:

You may think that uptalking is some sort of noble act of asserting individually, but it's done for much less noble reasons

I think nothing of the sort, so you might want to check the settings on your mind reading cap.

Uptalking is wrong. You are completely, 100% full of shit in this statement. Get to the library, study some linguistics and anthropology if you don't believe me.
posted by teece at 11:02 AM on March 23, 2006

I work at a helpdesk in the midwest where I provide support mostly for University students. A difficult job is made even more difficult when 2 out of every 3 students that call (especially the sorority girls) have to start their every sentence with:

"Like, My computrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr(?) has, like, so stopped workinggggggggggggggggg(?)..can you, like...can you, like, fix ittttttttt?"

It's not only annoying but, more importantly, it gives an air of stupidity to everything the person says. It's especially noticeable to me since I'm from this country. It also breaks down communication; I just got off the phone with one such girl and I had to reduce the conversation to yes/no questions just to get the information I needed out of her:

"Are you able to connect to the internet now?"

"Well, like, I tried connecting yesterdayyy(?) and, l, like..clicked a link(?) warning about the, like, idunno, blackworm virusss(?).."

Thank god someone wrote something about the occurance.
I thought it was just me being a hateful foreigner...
posted by tbonicus at 11:13 AM on March 23, 2006

Just to make teece happy: I have yet to come across an uptalking teenager who thought that anything outside of the mall was worth discussing.

Just sayin'.
posted by illiad at 11:13 AM on March 23, 2006

When did we all become so "tolerant" that it became impossible to call bullshit on something? If you read those articles, the people currently talking like this are upper middle class white girls. This is an affectation. It isn't a result of lack of education or lack of exposure to "proper" English. It's the linguistic equivalent of wearing Uggs. Uptalk sounds stupid to me. It sounds lazy and obnoxious and it grates on my ears.
There is a world of difference between a regional vowel shift (saying 'ruff' instead of "roof") and a sentence like "yaaaah maah gaaad? he like raaan daaaahn the streeet? like aftah that caaar? and omigaaad". Kill.
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 11:16 AM on March 23, 2006

God bless you, teece, you're saving me lots of work here. Everybody else: listen to teece, she's about the only one with her head screwed on straight.

both my mother and my sister are completely incapable of pronouncing the word 'milk'

Translation: both my mother and my sister pronounce the word 'milk' in a way I happen to dislike.

it's just very annoying to listen to.

Translation: I happen to dislike this way of speaking.

You compare it to judging someone on their race or gender, but that's a poor comparison, as those don't carry any inherent values of intelligence. Speech does, to a certain extent, as it's taught in school. So if you speak like someone who's uneducated, you're going to be judged as such. When I hear a girl talk in that sorority girl squawk, you might as well put a sign on her head that reads "I never paid attention in school."

Wrong, wrong, wrong, in every respect. I'm sure in most areas you wouldn't equate "doing what teacher tells you" with intelligence; why here? Does good penmanship also equal intelligence? Does attendance? "Citizenship"? "So if you speak like someone who's uneducated, you're going to be judged as such" = "It makes me feel good to look down on people who talk a certain way." It's called elitism, and it's really not that different from racism and sexism.

Speaking of which, sexism is very relevant here. How come it's women's speech that's met with such contempt and rejection? And spare me the "useful indicator" stuff; if this catches on and becomes normal American pronunciation, you think we won't know what's a question and what isn't?

It's called "language change." Get used to it or not, but don't flatter yourself that your proud rejection makes you a smarter and better person. It just makes you... (wait for it...) conservative.
posted by languagehat at 11:17 AM on March 23, 2006

This is an affectation. It isn't a result of lack of education or lack of exposure to "proper" English. It's the linguistic equivalent of wearing Uggs.

Where's your cite for this sweeping statement, Dormant Gorilla? There is a study to back such a thing up, right?
posted by teece at 11:21 AM on March 23, 2006

that's to your shame.

Oh the shame! How it burns!

Might it not be better to recognize your own language bigotry, and instead make people prove that they are dumb? I started out with the same academic bigotry as you, I've chosen to grow out of it. And I'm better for it.

Thank you so much for instructing me on how to be a better person. Please enlighten us with more of your sage advice.

Tell you what, I'll work on being less of a grammar nazi if you work on dropping the self-righteous sanctimony.

And as for your resume comment -- classic red herring that has nothing to do with this

Hardly. I suspect grammar and correct English matter very much to you, when the stakes are high and it's you people might be judging.

When did we all become so "tolerant" that it became impossible to call bullshit on something?

Careful or you'll expose teece's delicate sensibilities to your harsh linguistic bigotry.
posted by Gamblor at 11:23 AM on March 23, 2006

GuyZero, I am thinking very violent thoughts about you for reminding me about Cathy Bond. I'm going downtown, picking her up, and beating you about the head with her. No court in the province would convict me.

The damnedest thing about uptalk is that it's so sticky. I hate it, I avoid it, but I find that if I spend a lot of time with younger clients who continuously uptalk, I find myself mimicking their inflections in some subsconscious attempt at empathy. I can shake it off as soon as I start talking to someone else, but it feels so unlike me, as I am usually a blunt, assertive, even sarcastic speaker.
posted by rosemere at 11:25 AM on March 23, 2006

It just makes you... (wait for it...) conservative. - languagehat

100% true. Isn't that... beautiful?
posted by raedyn at 11:28 AM on March 23, 2006

And spare me the "useful indicator" stuff; if this catches on and becomes normal American pronunciation, you think we won't know what's a question and what isn't?

If you drop the capital letter at the start of that sentence, remove the quotation marks around someone else's words, throw away the semi-colon linking independent clauses, get rid of the apostrophes indicating contractions in "won't" and "can't" and drop the question mark at the end of the sentence, I'll probably still figure out what you meant. It doesn't change the fact that they serve a purpose.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:32 AM on March 23, 2006

Is racism/xenophobia really the same level of bigotry as poking a bit of fun at my friend from Hoboken that he tawks funny?

Seriously, only the worst kind of effete, supercilious twit would make a judgment about the intellect of someone based on his/her regional dialect. Regional differences in pronunciation and elocution may differ wildly, and often be painful to our ears (I for the life of me don't get why my fellow Connecticutters cannot bring themselves to pronounce the middle consonant sounds in words like "button" and "didn't"), but I have never heard of discriminatory behavior on this basis.

Not to call you out teece, but I think you might be making a mountain out of a molehill on this on, you Rocky Mountain Oyster eating Colorado bastard. jk
posted by psmealey at 11:32 AM on March 23, 2006

I find myself mimicking their inflections in some subsconscious attempt at empathy.

If you're able to monitor yourself and catch yourself doing it, you could always try switching to a thick Scottish brogue or whatever it is that irritates them. It would be kinda fun, oneupmanshipping on who can irritate the other guy more with language behaviours.
posted by illiad at 11:33 AM on March 23, 2006

you might want to check the settings on your mind reading cap

Oh, snap!

You are completely, 100% full of shit in this statement

No bite on the reductio? Oh well. I suppose I should take some comfort from your tacit admission that there is no defence to your relativistic viewpoint.

My thesis is that uptalking is wrong. Specifically, it takes a commonly used speech pattern, used to distinguish questions from statements and scatters it throughout speech, removing its useful value. From the standpoint of (mathematical) communication theory, these people have effectively reduced their communications bandwidth and are now harder to communicate with. I wish to find ways of communicating more effectively, not less, as communicating is already hard enough.

I would like to hear your defence of why it's acceptable to make communication harder.

Please note that I'm not one of the people saying things like "cuz it makes you sound dum". Let's assume that I pass no moral judgement on people who uptalk. I really want to hear why it's defensible. So far your argument seems to centre around... actually I'm not sure what your argument is. I suppose that's why I asked.
posted by GuyZero at 11:38 AM on March 23, 2006

I'm sure in most areas you wouldn't equate "doing what teacher tells you" with intelligence; why here?

And I'm sure you wouldn't be arguing that there's no correlation between education and intelligence. So what's your point?

It's called elitism, and it's really not that different from racism and sexism.

I'm guilty of so many -isms, apparently. I didn't realize I was such a bigot. Just so we're clear, if, as you say, I'm elitist, do I also automatically dislike brown people and women? Or do I have to work at this? Because I think Tyra Banks is hot, which this would seem to preclude.

I have this strange desire to actually want the kids of America to go to school and learn. Learn basic things like language, and science, and math. The strange thing is, after you've learned something, you're often expected to demonstrate that knowledge with some degree of comeptency. So when someone has been taught the english language in school for twelve, sometimes sixteen years, and they still get it wrong, it implies (on first meeting them) that they weren't paying attention, or maybe just arent' that bright. I'm happy to change my opinion once that person proves to me otherwise, though.
posted by Gamblor at 11:43 AM on March 23, 2006

The damnedest thing about uptalk is that it's so sticky.

Yup. Language is sticky. If you were a teenage girl in a community of uptalkers, you'd do it to, unless your parents were really uptight about it (in which case you'd just not do it around your parents, only around your friends).

The sad thing is such kids are only doing what every other human being alive does: trying to fit in with their peer group. Yet certain people decide that that makes them stupid.

Gamblor:
"And as for your resume comment -- classic red herring that has nothing to do with this"

Hardly. I suspect grammar and correct English matter very much to you, when the stakes are high and it's you people might be judging.

You really don't understand what I'm saying at all, do you? I'm not trying to me sanctimonious or self righteous. You really are fundamentally ignorant* of how language and culture interact. I'd be thrilled if you actually figured that out from anything I've said. Really. Go to the library and get a book on linguistics or the anthropology of language. You'll enjoy it, and it will open your mind to an entire area of language you don't know exists. What I'm saying is not even the littlest bit controversial to the people that understand the interaction between language, culture, and language change.

* And I don't mean ignorant in a dickhead way. It's just the word that fits. I'm ignorant of lots of stuff, too; it's not a value judgement.

GuyZero:

As someone that has ample mathematical knowledge and a bit of linguistic knowledge, I call your bluff. Language has built in redundancy. Intonation is really not even a significant part of the interrogative in English- it's more like a nice bit of sugar.

IF this made it harder to communicate, it would not exist. Language that actually "reduces bandwidth" does not survive, or something new arises to replace that which was lost. This is all part of the inexorable change of language. This language is surviving just fine. And you're really on very, very shaky ground trying to turn this into something mathematical -- there is no communication theory that comes even remotely close to doing anything like that for human language.

I really want to hear why it's defensible.

Because it's none of my business how someone else talks. Everyone on this post that says this hampers communication is full of it. They don't like it, but they understand it just fine.

Language does not need defending or justification. It just is.
posted by teece at 11:46 AM on March 23, 2006

Regional differences in pronunciation and elocution may differ wildly, and often be painful to our ears

And this isn't a regional difference, which is why people find it so annoying. People make fun of the way Christopher Walken speaks precisely because it's so different, and because there's no Walken-land where everybody talks like that. It's unique. (Now that I think about it, Walken-land would be absolutely awesome.)
posted by Gamblor at 11:53 AM on March 23, 2006

The sad thing is such kids are only doing what every other human being alive does: trying to fit in with their peer group. Yet certain people decide that that makes them stupid.

Must... not... mention... Hitler... youth... *gasp* must... not... Godwin... thread... ugh! Too late!
posted by GuyZero at 11:53 AM on March 23, 2006

Seriously, I really don't want to Godwin this thread. Just joking around. Carry on, everyone.
posted by GuyZero at 11:54 AM on March 23, 2006

And this isn't a regional difference

I understood that part as the main point of the post, but was just responding to teece's earlier comment.
posted by psmealey at 11:56 AM on March 23, 2006

And I'm sure you wouldn't be arguing that there's no correlation between education and intelligence.

I hope you didn't put money on that bet, because you'd lose. It's perfectly obvious there's no correlation, unless you start off by assuming the two are the same thing. Education = schooling; intelligence = ... well, that's complicated and disputed, but I don't think anyone could seriously argue that it means sitting in a classroom. Do you think that before schools were invented, there were no intelligent people? Do you think in countries where education is available only to the elite few, only those few are intelligent? When I was teaching college in Taiwan, the smartest guy I knew would have flunked out if it hadn't been forbidden to give F's; he'd had a lousy education in Korea and wasn't particularly interested in studying. But he was smart as a whip and much more fun to talk to than the general's son who'd had the very best education money could buy and aced all the tests.

Just so we're clear, if, as you say, I'm elitist, do I also automatically dislike brown people and women?

Oh, please. I was disputing the idea that this kind of elitism had nothing in common with racism and sexism; I think they have a lot in common. I also think people and dogs have a lot in common. Does that mean I think people automatically eat dog food? Try to think for five seconds before responding, OK?

I have this strange desire to actually want the kids of America to go to school and learn.

Me too, and it would help them learn if they weren't filled with a bunch of bullshit about language that has no scientific validity but makes people who have already absorbed it feel good about themselves.

Apology to teece: I don't know why I assumed you were female. If it's any consolation, people have made the same assumption about me.
posted by languagehat at 11:56 AM on March 23, 2006

They don't like it, but they understand it just fine.

Imagine that while you're speaking, I belch quite audibly. Without inflection, how will you know whether my saying "pardon me" means "excuse me for belching" or "I didn't hear what you said because I was belching"? It's a recipe for disaster.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:59 AM on March 23, 2006

Apology to teece: I don't know why I assumed you were female. If it's any consolation, people have made the same assumption about me.

No worries, I wasn't even going to correct it.
posted by teece at 12:00 PM on March 23, 2006

It's a recipe for disaster.

And a surefire way to lose friends.
posted by Gamblor at 12:01 PM on March 23, 2006

George_Spiggott:

Your impression of Dick Cheney was perfect and it wasn't until I read it that I realized just how similar his speech is to Robert Evans.
posted by nuala at 12:06 PM on March 23, 2006

Language does not need defending or justification. It just is.

So, back to the slippery slope. At what point does my deviation from linguistic norms stop being acceptable and start being grunts and poop flinging? I seriously want to know. I draw the line pretty high, I guess. Do you really feel that there's no line and that it's all OK because language changes?

I call your bluff.

No bluff intended. That came across more as "proof by SCIENCE" rather than the analogy it was meant to be.
posted by GuyZero at 12:09 PM on March 23, 2006

It's a recipe for disaster.

I think that's being a little melodramatic. Like I said upthread, certain constructs might be put at risk by this.

But I think you're giving too little credit to the flexibility of human language. I think it's quite possible to have a much more complex system of intonations than we have now with no serious structural changes to the interrogative. If not, the language will change to accommodate it.

Either way, it's no disaster.

But I really doubt this uptalking alters the language anywhere near as much as you seem to be implying here. Hell, I've gone several decades without ever really noticing it enough to even consider giving it a name, let alone getting to the point where I thought it was hard to understand its practitioners.
posted by teece at 12:09 PM on March 23, 2006

At what point does my deviation from linguistic norms stop being acceptable and start being grunts and poop flinging?

When no one can understand you, and no one is willing to learn your dialect. We are light years away from that here, or in any of the "improper" English dialects that drive folks nuts.
posted by teece at 12:11 PM on March 23, 2006

I was all like, "blame Nelly!" and she was all like,"no way?"

I was like, good gracious ass bodacious
Flirtatcious, tryin to show faces
Lookin for the right time to shoot my steam
Lookin for the right time to flash them g’s
Then um I’m leavin, please believin
Me and the rest of my heathens
posted by The Jesse Helms at 12:11 PM on March 23, 2006

There is a similar speech pattern in Japanese. Women, especially young women, generally end their sentences with "ne" - a particle whose function is to solicit agreement. It's similar to ending a sentence with "right?"
Some women end EVERY sentence this way. It can be annoying, even to a foreigner.

teece,
Spehllllling iz ahlsew ahrbeetrairy. So the previous sentence is not "wrong" - right?
posted by bashos_frog at 12:23 PM on March 23, 2006

Although I agree with teece and languagehat that uptalking is not an indicator of low intelligence, I do maintain that uptalkers are lazy in that they don't bother monitoring how they sound when they talk.

And I don't have a problem with admitting I don't like listening to uptalkers. I think they sound silly.
posted by illiad at 12:25 PM on March 23, 2006

Spehllllling iz ahlsew ahrbeetrairy. So the previous sentence is not "wrong" - right?

No, the previous sentence was more like a troll than "wrong."
posted by teece at 12:29 PM on March 23, 2006

I'm not trying to me sanctimonious or self righteous. You really are fundamentally ignorant* of how language and culture interact. I'd be thrilled if you actually figured that out from anything I've said. Really.

Consider me corrected. There's certainly no sanctimony there.

Now, I may not be a linguist, nor an anthropologist, and yet I still understand the concept of a social norm. And I can disagree without calling people things like "elitist", "bigot", "buffoon", or "ignorant".

As someone that has ample mathematical knowledge and a bit of linguistic knowledge...

Then educate us ignoramuses, but please be sure to type...very...slowly. I remember taking many years of a course called "English" in school. We were tested on things like grammar, spelling, writing, and speech. What was the purpose of that again?

There are also lots of schools that teach English as a foreign language. Do you suppose they tell their students "There are no rules to the language. Everything is arbitrary"? If not, why not?
posted by Gamblor at 1:22 PM on March 23, 2006

teece and languagehat -- i think you're both awesome in your knowledge and understanding of linguistics, communication, and anthropology, but i have to ask why you seem to be taking the position that people who choose to speak in uptalk should be exempt from ridicule and contempt. they have no right to be: they are choosing to speak in that way.

i have several kanji characters tattooed on my body. i have read many a thread on metafilter where posters have naught but scorn for those of us who choose to mark our bodies in this way. i would never tell those posters that they have no right to ridicule me, nor would i accuse them of having any sort of -ism; all i can do is explain my reasons for making the choice and why it works for me.

a less flattering example: i make immediate negative judgements about people who proudly display the confederate flag on their persons, homes or vehicles. i am fully aware of the fact that my beliefs are going to be flat out wrong when applied to a (perhaps significant) number of people who do this, but i'll still vigorously defend my right to harbor those beliefs and feelings, just like i'll vigorously defend their right to display that symbol.

same with this "uptalk:" it's a choice. and i understand that some dialects and patois -- and perhaps even full-blow languages -- start out as similar in-group markers and affectations, but until uptalk reaches that status, it's speakers shouldn't be free from ridicule.

besides, i would wager my meager life savings that many speakers of uptalk belittle those of us who speak standard english: "omg this guy totally tawks like a total square? he's all "the way you're speaking is incorrect"? and i'm all like whatever?"
posted by lord_wolf at 1:22 PM on March 23, 2006

And if my comment was full of spelling and grammatical errors, tell me you wouldn't make some kind of judgement as to the level of my intelligence?

Delmoi seems pretty bright by his/her comments, no? Uptalk is like a stream of consciousness: fluid, free of constraint. Practiced by a woman is definitely sexy, inviting to insinuate yourself into the flow and become an undefined sequence of it without any declarative intention. As if touched by the wings of angels.
posted by semmi at 1:25 PM on March 23, 2006

semmi just made it sound dirty.
That's so awesome.
We need more sleazy in the way everyone talks.

Butter my bread with two, like, pats.
posted by daq at 1:30 PM on March 23, 2006

When you put it that way...Well, dang. Now I'm kind of turned on.
posted by Gamblor at 1:30 PM on March 23, 2006

Practiced by a woman IT is definitely sexy.
Sorry, tired fingers.
posted by semmi at 1:32 PM on March 23, 2006

Lord_wolf....Thanks for saying what I was trying to say and doing a much better job of it. :)
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 1:32 PM on March 23, 2006

I remember taking many years of a course called "English" in school. We were tested on things like grammar, spelling, writing, and speech. What was the purpose of that again?

To enforce conformity and ensure a steady supply of people who "talk proper" to fill the high-status positions so they don't have to consider immigrants, po' folk, etc. Somebody's always got to be the... uh, lower-status person.

There are also lots of schools that teach English as a foreign language. Do you suppose they tell their students "There are no rules to the language. Everything is arbitrary"? If not, why not?

OK, let's go over this one more time, since you seem to be willing to learn.

1) Yes, language is arbitrary. Pomme and apple are equally "good" ways to refer to that particular fruit. Any good language program will understand that and operate on that basis.

2) This does not, of course, mean that "There are no rules to the language." There are lots of rules, if by "rules" you mean "dependable regularities of behavior." It is a rule of English phonology that words do not begin with the /ng/ sound (as in sing); it is a rule of English grammar that you cannot use the "present perfect" (have + past participle) with a specified time (*I have been there in 1972). The interesting thing about these rules is that they do not need to be taught. The genuine rules of language never do; they're absorbed along with the language itself. The vast majority of the earth's languages exist only or primarily in spoken form, and speakers are never exposed to anything comparable to "English classes" for them; nevertheless, those languages have just as many rules as English, enforced in exactly the same way: by usage and imitation. The "rules" you're thinking of, the ones they drum into you in fourth grade, are invented for the sole purpose of separating the sheep from the goats and have nothing to do with actual language. It's as if they taught you to preface all sentences with a cough and then made fun of people who didn't do so for "not speaking correctly."

lord_wolf: Nobody has a "right" to be "exempt from ridicule and contempt." I'm a believer in absolute free speech; the right to ridicule is the right to be free (to paraphrase a wonderful A.E. Van Vogt tagline). But if you choose to ridicule others for silly reasons, I'm going to ridicule you. If you are regularly exposed to ridicule for having kanji characters tattooed on your body, and yet you still feel comfortable ridiculing others for equally absurd reasons like using a particular intonation in their sentences, I'm afraid I don't know what to tell you.
posted by languagehat at 1:40 PM on March 23, 2006

"omg this guy totally tawks like a total square? he's all "the way you're speaking is incorrect"? and i'm all like whatever?"

I am inspired to pen the first-ever novel in uptalk...

So, like, call me Ishmael? Some years ago - I dunno - having little or no money in my, like, purse, and nothing particular to interest me on the, like, you know, shore, I thought I would sail about a little and, you know, see the watery part of the world? It is a way I, like, have of, like, driving off the, you know, spleen, and regulating, like, the circulation?

Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth? Whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul? Whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses? Bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet? Especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me? That it requires a strong moral principle? To prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street? And methodically knocking people's hats off? Then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can?

Ugh. It's not even funny. Blarch.
posted by GuyZero at 1:45 PM on March 23, 2006

Languagehat - there's no intrinsic value in pronouncing words the way the pronunciation guides in the dictionary have them displayed?

What about people who don't use punctuation? Is that cool, too?
posted by Baby_Balrog at 1:45 PM on March 23, 2006

Well. I just read your last comment and I humbly retract my question.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 1:48 PM on March 23, 2006

are lots of rules, if by "rules" you mean "dependable regularities of behavior."

So you only agree with descriptive rules and not proscriptive ones? That's a bit too sophisticated for me, emphasis on the "sophist".
posted by GuyZero at 1:48 PM on March 23, 2006

I'm on a project at work? With a really big consulting firm that uses Tiger Woods in its ads? And there is this Aussie woman that works for this firm? And she does this constantly, in her Aussie accent, while doing briefings? And it's the most disconcerting thing I ever heard? I can almost get the words, but not quite?
posted by fixedgear at 1:52 PM on March 23, 2006

Gamblor: Hardly. I suspect grammar and correct English matter very much to you, when the stakes are high and it's you people might be judging.

In the possible interest of trying to get some peace and understanding here. teece and languagehat are coming from a linguistic perspective. This perspective is more concerned with how language is actually used, rather than some illusion of linguistic correctness based on arbitrary rules. Language is "correct" when it enables communication between people, it's "incorrect" when it gets in the way of communication between people.

You don't use the language of resumes and cover-letters because it's objectively correct. I have trouble writing cover-letters because all the first person statements rub against extended training to use passive voice in writing. You use the language of resumes and cover-letters because that's the language of the culture you wish to be a part of. In fact, when you write a cover-letter, a good idea is to take a look at the language used by your employer and co-opt some of their buzz-words.

We were tested on things like grammar, spelling, writing, and speech. What was the purpose of that again?

To be very blunt, the purpose was to assimilate you into a dominant culture.

Guy Zero: I am inspired to pen the first-ever novel in uptalk...

So, like, call me Ishmael?

Actually, I suspect that if we transported Herman Melville into the 20th century, that his spoken language would be incomprehensible. And who knows about George Washington with those ill-fitting dentures.

(It is also a bad idea to assume that a person who uses an uptalk spoken mode is incapable of using a literary writing mode.)

Baby_Balrog: Languagehat - there's no intrinsic value in pronouncing words the way the pronunciation guides in the dictionary have them displayed?

Take a look at the stamps on your mail. Do they have intrinsic value? They are only valuable because some people accept them as payment for services, and other people enjoy them as collectable items. Both the value of postage stamps and the pronunciation of words are local conventions.

What about people who don't use punctuation? Is that cool, too?

In modes where punctuation gets in the way, it's very cool.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:58 PM on March 23, 2006

Ok, that was cheap. But just because the rules of language are created ex post facto (gosh, latin makes me sound smart) doesn't mean that we can't turn around and ask people to follow them.

languagehat, I get that you don't like people to judge other people, but I'm still a bit fuzzy about how you believe people should apply rules. I get the feeling you see the study of language as a purely descriptive endeavour. Which is part of it, but without a proscriptive element, it's chaos.

I'll return to my favourite technique: the well-stretched analogy. Would you like to see the legal system follow the same model of being purely descriptive? People don't commit murder, but we can't actually TELL them not to commit murder. 'cause that's, you know, judgemental.
posted by GuyZero at 1:59 PM on March 23, 2006

My husband pointed out to me that I do something similar, but I way "Do you know what I mean?" at the end of many of my sentences. I am pretty sure is the deep-seeded quest for validation. I have tried to curb it because it is so annoying and needy, but it still pops up occasionally.

Know what I mean?
posted by thekilgore at 1:59 PM on March 23, 2006

languagehat said something like what I would have.

So you only agree with descriptive rules and not proscriptive ones?

Just what do you mean by "agree?" Really think about it, and if you do you might understand the point.

Any serious study of language is descriptive. Period. If you don't understand that, you don't understand language and how it fits into our culture.

You do understand that, I hope.

The prescriptive method is fine if your goal is only to prescribe the set of norms that are extant in any given dialect. Your 4th grade teacher teaching you the standard, academic dialect of English is fine and good.

That is not what I think is silly. What I think is silly is the prescriptivist's sophistic (and ignorant) belief that their prescription has some Biblical and moral sense of "right." It doesn't. I find it more than a bit disturbing that people so blithely dismiss someone as stupid, when they don't conform to what amounts to an arbitrary convention. I also find it completely silly that prescriptivists find any deviation from their prescription as "the end of language" and tantamount to complete breakdown of communication.

Why do I find that silly? Because it evinces complete and total ignorance of the actual nature of language, and yet you feel so comfortable arguing about it. I find it abhorrent to assign one dialect of English as "good" and another as bad, because it's both ignorant and harmful.

Most (all?) violations of the prescriptive rules absolutely do not hamper communication. You can communicate with the "lowest" of gutter-talk Americans, to the "highest," British received pronunciation speaker, each with their own unique (and internally consistent) sets of minor rule variations. Don't believe me? The next time you feel the urge to point out something that was "wrong," ask yourself this: "Did I understand it?" I guarantee you the answer will always be yes.

If you think it's cool to mock some one for uptalking, the exact same logic says it's cool to mock someone for speaking British received pronunciation, or American standard dialect, or Australian English, etc. So do you support that?
posted by teece at 2:09 PM on March 23, 2006

GuyZero: Ok, that was cheap. But just because the rules of language are created ex post facto (gosh, latin makes me sound smart) doesn't mean that we can't turn around and ask people to follow them.

Of course. You can also insist that people follow norms of costume, diet, table manners, eye contact and proper distance for a conversation. All of these are markers that serve to distinguish members of your culture from members of other cultures.

I get the feeling you see the study of language as a purely descriptive endeavour. Which is part of it, but without a proscriptive element, it's chaos.

Well, of course it's a purely descriptive endeavor in the same way that biology has no prescriptive control of physiology, astronomy can't tell a galaxy how it should rotate, and geography can't tell Spain that it should be south of the equator.

But there is a basic check and balance built into how communities work. Drift too far away from the norms of your community, and it becomes harder and harder to be understood and get along. This is usually a better moderator of linguistic change than enforced rules. People in general tend to adapt their language to the communities they are currently engaged with.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:13 PM on March 23, 2006

Basically, y'all are talking about different things. Linguistics, like biology, studies the way things are. Grammar, like etiquette, provides rules to reduce friction among group members.

Two people may be equally human (biology) but differ in manners (etiquette). Two people may speak a recognized language (linguistics) but differ in acents or mannerisms (grammar, for lack of a better word).
posted by occhiblu at 2:16 PM on March 23, 2006

Standard American english spells it "color"
Standard Canadian english spells it "colour"

Which is "right"?
posted by raedyn at 2:16 PM on March 23, 2006

"But if you choose to ridicule others for silly reasons, I'm going to ridicule you."

bring it!!!!

yet you still feel comfortable ridiculing others for equally absurd reasons like using a particular intonation in their sentences, I'm afraid I don't know what to tell you.

you could try telling me i'm human. i'd take it as a compliment. ;-)

i'm only talking about ridicule: i'm not saying i consider uptalkers non- or sub-humans who deserve to be subjugated and harmed at every opportunity.

on the other hand, if i were in a position to hire someone for a job, i would not hire someone who used uptalk in the interview, just as i wouldn't hire someone who spoke the way i did when i was hanging out with my in-group when i was a younger wolf. nor would i hire someone who tried to speak in any dialect, jargon, argot, patois, or lingo that gave me reason to doubt their abilities ("i'm skilled in leveraging opportunities to grow scaleable solutions" "yo, could you hook me up with a j-o-b?", "so i dissimilated the server with an isolinear bisymmetrical process algorithm", etc.)
posted by lord_wolf at 2:19 PM on March 23, 2006

I remember taking many years of a course called "English" in school. We were tested on things like grammar, spelling, writing, and speech. What was the purpose of that again?

languagehat: To enforce conformity and ensure a steady supply of people who "talk proper" to fill the high-status positions

Wouldn't that be "talk properly"?

/snickersandgrins
posted by thanotopsis at 2:24 PM on March 23, 2006

Basically, y'all are talking about different things. Linguistics, like biology, studies the way things are. Grammar, like etiquette, provides rules to reduce friction among group members.

This is quite true. I'm not arguing for chaos -- I understand the generally accepted etiquette that is "proper grammar" (great analogy, btw) just fine. I also understand the non-standard "grammar" that is English poetry, of many forms. And I have no trouble communicating with my 14-year-old niece living in an urban environment, and can appreciate and comprehend her dialect without mocking it. I can also teach her where her dialect differs from the academic one, so she can fit in there.

But I'm also equally intrigued by (and understand) the "improper" "grammars," too ( I quote the words because the terms are abused there, but those are often the terms. Almost all English speakers understand English grammar just fine, and what prescriptivists call grammar isn't, but that's neither here nor there).

What I don't want to do is get hung up on saying which ones are good, and which ones are bad. It's fruitless and harmful.

Asking someone to step back and kill some of their prescriptivist biases and bigotry is not the same as saying there should be not standard academic dialect, or that that dialect is irrelevant. But unfortunately, many seem to take it that way.
posted by teece at 2:27 PM on March 23, 2006

To enforce conformity and ensure a steady supply of people who "talk proper" to fill the high-status positions

Oh good grief. Like the President, you mean?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:39 PM on March 23, 2006

Very well put, KirkJobSluder. This is an especially nice summary:

You don't use the language of resumes and cover-letters because it's objectively correct... You use the language of resumes and cover-letters because that's the language of the culture you wish to be a part of.

Exactly. It's not "correct" in some Higher Sense, it's just how you have to write in that context. An analogy I like to use is clothing: if you're going out to a fancy restaurant or a wedding (unless you have very bohemian friends), you dress up. If you're hanging out in the backyard, you wear jeans and a t-shirt. Neither of those styles of dress is "better" in any objective or permanent sense; each is right for its context. The same is true of forms of speech. And you don't need classrooms and academies to create "higher" forms of speech; most languages I know about, even the purely oral, "primitive" ones (a stupid word, that—all languages are of more or less equal complexity and sophistication aside from superficial elements like scientific vocabulary), have higher speech registers that are used for purposes of religion, poetry, and the like. We humans seem to need ritual and artifice, in language as elsewhere. But just as when we become advanced we can admire the moon without seeing it as a god, we should be able to admire highfalutin' language without seeing it as more "correct."

Look, I like standard English a lot; you'll notice I tend to write in it. Furthermore, I think it's important to teach it to people—it would do kids a disservice to withhold from them something so important to advancement. My point is that you should treat it as parallel to a suit they put on for interviews, not as a replacement for their everyday (and perfectly good) dialect but as another dialect they should master to get ahead in the world. Don't tell them "ain't is wrong," tell them "ain't is fine in the schoolyard and in your house, but it will make potential employers look down on you, so you won't want to use it at an interview."

Is this making sense?

on the other hand, if i were in a position to hire someone for a job, i would not hire someone who used uptalk in the interview

So you'd rather have a fancy-talking incompetent than a great employee who happened to use rising pitch at the end of their sentences. Well, your elitism would be its own punishment, as your less snooty competitors forged ahead of you. You know, a lot of colleges allowed black players on their football teams not because they had seen the light and renounced racism but because they were getting their asses kicked by teams that had integrated. There's a lesson there.
posted by languagehat at 2:47 PM on March 23, 2006

Oh, and KirkJobSluder, while I've got your attention: could you answer this? kthxbye
posted by languagehat at 2:50 PM on March 23, 2006

you know what's really annoying? when people type out "sigh." what an obnoxious thing to do. just sayin'.
posted by shmegegge at 2:55 PM on March 23, 2006

You know, a lot of colleges allowed black players on their football teams not because they had seen the light and renounced racism but because they were getting their asses kicked by teams that had integrated. There's a lesson there.

and a lot of colleges allowed black players on their teams because they had seen the light and renounced racism not because they were getting their asses kicked by teams that had integrated. there's a lesson there.

and some college teams didn't allow black players on their teams because they hadn't seen the light and were getting their asses kicked by teams that integrated. there's a lesson there.

and some college teams allowed black players on their teams and got their asses kicked by teams that hadn't integrated. there's a lesson there.

college athletics aside, how can you write "Don't tell them "ain't is wrong," tell them "ain't is fine in the schoolyard and in your house, but it will make potential employers look down on you, so you won't want to use it at an interview." and then 2 paragraphs after that castigate me for saying i as a potential employer would look down on someone who used uptalk in a job interview?

it looks like you're either:
1) saying uptalk is better than the use of "ain't," which would seem to violate your rule that Forms of Verbal Communication Shall Not Be Judged or
2) holding me to a different standard than the employers in your scenario simply because i don't like uptalk.

i ain't getting it? please clarify?
posted by lord_wolf at 3:06 PM on March 23, 2006

For me, it boils down to this - there's a lot of young female Peace Corps volunteers here. Most seem to be middle class white females. (Just guessing on the family funds, but there are several clues that suggest it) They are, among other activities, teaching English. Almost every female volunteer I've met, and there have been quite a few, has the uptalk/drawl combo. While the accent is extremely irritating to me (and I'm known for having antipathy for certain accents), I could probably just avoid them - but the first time I heard a local student say, "I met Karim in the caaaafe? And we watched some football?" - I thought my head was going to explode. How could I yell at him? He had picked up the accent perfectly, and he thought that was the way he was supposed to talk.
posted by Liosliath at 3:12 PM on March 23, 2006

another dialect they should master to get ahead in the world.

Ok, languagehat, at the core, I don't think we're really that far apart on this matter.

Your point about language being situational is a good one. The situations we've been talking about (mostly) are the ones in which uptalking (and the city girl squawk) are out of place: Professional settings, interviews, academia, etc. I would argue that the type of language that would generally be used in those settings, the kind so important to advancement, should be considered "correct", or the baseline.

Obviously people speak in a less formal way with their friends, but they should know when this type of speech is appropriate and when it isn't. My point is that I don't think people who talk like this recognize that they shouldn't speak like this all the time. The reasons for this are many (lack of education, know but don't care, can't be bothered to think, just plain dense, etc.), but in any case, it reflects poorly on the person speaking. We can debate the exact term, but "dumb" is the one that comes to mind for lots of people when they're faced with someone doing something so situationally wrong, like wearing bluejeans to a formal wedding. "Annoying" is another. Hence, my initial negative reaction.

For example, a few weeks ago, I was interviewing someone for a job. The guy spoke to me in a really colloquial way, like we were guys that just met at a bar. I said, "Oh, sorry it's so hot in here." He replied, "Yeah, it is fucking hot in here, man." This is a forty year old man, by the way, not some kid. Later on, he gave me his (unsolicited and off topic) opinions on South American politics. The position he was interviewing for involved dealing with people in a professional setting all the time, in a formal office, and producing client-facing documentation.

We could quibble over me saying his manner of speech was "wrong" vs. "wrong for just this particular setting", but the point is, the guy was clueless, and left a really negative impression on me and with the other people that met him. And even though he had lots of other good qualifications and background, he didn't get the job.
posted by Gamblor at 3:57 PM on March 23, 2006

We could quibble over me saying his manner of speech was "wrong" vs. "wrong for just this particular setting"

Or you could just use the much better terms, inappropriate unprofessional, both of which are much more accurate than "wrong." Or you could just realize that his speech was just a symptom of something else, that was (hopefully) relevant to his performance on the job. But I don't think uptalking is as nearly as inappropriate, if at all, in that situation.

My point is that I don't think people who talk like this recognize that they shouldn't speak like this all the time.

Agree with you completely, here, except perhaps for the "shouldn't."

The reasons for this are many...

Vehemently disagree with your reasons for why they don't know that they "shouldn't." Which gets right back to what I was saying about assuming that these people are dumb.

I think such speech patterns are 100% automatic to most of these people, and it's never even occurred to them that certain people look down their noses at them because of it. I doubt it has much to do with laziness or stupidity or lack of education for many, probably most. It simply has to do with how they learned to talk.
posted by teece at 4:33 PM on March 23, 2006

I don't think we're really that far apart on this matter.

I don't either (which is often the case in these debates once people get past the automatic responses). Here's the nub of the difference:

We could quibble over me saying his manner of speech was "wrong" vs. "wrong for just this particular setting", but the point is, the guy was clueless

But that's more than a quibble, that's the essence of the matter. "Wrong for this particular setting" is objective and nonjudgmental; you can tell that to somebody and have them accept it. Just plain "wrong," or (worse) "dumb," is a judgment on that person. It's lazy and counterproductive to assume that anyone who behaves in a manner other than what we prefer is "dumb." It's human, of course—it's at the root of a lot of humanity's problems (especially when you go whole hog and replace "dumb" with "evil")—but there's really no excuse for it. As teece says, "It simply has to do with how they learned to talk."

Imagine a situation in which the uptalkers have risen to the top and are only hiring people who talk like them. You'd probably grit your teeth and learn to do it, because you'd need the work. But I don't think you'd accept that you were "dumb" because the favored speech pattern didn't come naturally to you. This is exactly the same.

lord_wolf: Your point is reasonable, but I'm not really contradicting myself. In one case I'm talking to the student (prospective applicant) and saying "Look, it doesn't really make any difference, but those idiots who do the hiring think it does, so you'll up your odds by going along with it; you may not be any smarter or better than the other guy, but if you sound like you are to the idiot doing the hiring, you're golden." In the other case I'm talking to you, the idiot doing the hiring, and pointing out that your criteria have nothing to do with actual competence, and I'm saying a non-idiot who hires purely on merit will have a more competent workforce. See the distinction?

Also, uptalk isn't really comparable to ain't; the latter has been stigmatized, for whatever stupid reasons, for well over a century and is pretty much the prototypical example of "bad English," whereas the former is simply a new pattern of intonation that is objected to by the usual fuddy-duddies. I see no reason to assume it will take its place in the "bad English" corner; rather, I suspect (since a lot of the uptalkers are from the elite class) it will become established, much to the chagrin of conservatives like yourself. But it's too soon to tell.
posted by languagehat at 5:01 PM on March 23, 2006

Reading this thread is making me tired?
posted by rob511 at 5:13 PM on March 23, 2006

Yeah, no kidding. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this, I guess. You guys haven't convinced me to change my position, nor have I convinced you, it would seem.

This one time? At band camp?
posted by Gamblor at 5:19 PM on March 23, 2006

He had picked up the accent perfectly, and he thought that was the way he was supposed to talk.

Having just come from a TESL course, I can assure you that this generation of ESL teachers have atrocious English skills in every way. Intonation is the least of their problems.
posted by dreamsign at 5:30 PM on March 23, 2006

Semmi just totally changed my outlook? But seriously, this was a great post. (Simple declarative with no fear of becoming an outcast by virtue of having an opinion.) (?)
posted by dejah420 at 5:56 PM on March 23, 2006

>We New Zealanders tend to speak like this as well.

>>See also.

Yeah, when I lived there, I definitely noticed a tendency in Australian women to uptalk. Very interesting, but it does tend to grate.

Minnesotans don't uptalk, but we do tend to nod incessantly when somebody else is talking.

Watch the body language of Japanese women on TV, and contrast it to that of the men. It's fascinating.

All of this really interests me. A related thing I notice very strongly because I haven't been continuously exposed to it, having been expatriate a decade and a half, and something that has grown steadily more pronounced, is newscastertalk, in America particularly. The cadences and intonation are so ritualized, and so over-the-top from my un-inured perspective, that I start to giggle sometimes when I see clips from American news programs.

I love this stuff.

I can assure you that this generation of ESL teachers have atrocious English skills in every way.

Don't get me started on that. It's getting better, but christ on a popsicle stick, it's amazing the people that get jobs here in Korea. Not their fault, entirely -- the Korean government lets 'em in, and the employers pay 'em well, and either don't care or don't want to know how incompetent the foreign 'teachers' are, as long as the moms keep pushing their little prodigies and paying the fees.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:23 PM on March 23, 2006

Ha ha ha!

The world emulates low-class Australians?!?
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:28 PM on March 23, 2006

(That was a statement, by the way?!?!?)
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:36 PM on March 23, 2006

I remember reading about a study of girls patterns of speech compared to that of boys, and they found that girls were more likely to qulaify their statements, and to be looking for agreement and reinforcement from whomever was listening. That girls used more "I think" and "you know?", that sort of thing.

Does anyone know what I'm talking about? (I strongly suspect I read about it on Mefi)

I don't know if this is what you mean but I recently read about a study published in The Journal of Personality and Psychology (Nov. 1991.) Men are more willing to be influenced by women who self-deprecate, using phrases such as "I am no expert, but..." or "I may be wrong..." or "I'm not sure..." or qualifiers such as "kind of," "sort of," or "a little bit."

Men will acknowledge that a woman who speaks assertively sounds competant but prefer to take the advice of a woman who speaks tenatively. This turns out to be because men respond most positively to the behavior they'd most appreciate in subordinates.

Women, on the other hand, prefer women who speak straightforwardly; they don't like or trust women who pussyfoot around.

As to the whole issue of speaking Japanese as a female, there is a great deal of gender specific language and behavior beyond adding the ne? at the end of the sentence. When I speak Japanese, my voice automatically softens, develops a lisp, and goes up in tone (not quite an octave.) It infantilizes. Japanese restricts women from using the grunted yes and the verbs are always the more polite form.

My own 12 year old is torturing me these days with the "Guess what?" intro to every conversation. But then I tortured my own parents with "he goes, she goes" in place of "he said, she said." I won't even get started with my brother's surfer talk.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:01 PM on March 23, 2006

Minnesotans don't uptalk, but we do tend to nod incessantly when somebody else is talking.

And there's that mmHm that goes with it.

At least up by the North Dakota border. It might be ND's fault.
posted by flaterik at 11:11 PM on March 23, 2006

OK to sum up folks. Some of you think James Joyce had bad grammar and some of you think, he was like, well, awesome? Right?
posted by Wilder at 8:20 AM on March 24, 2006

So you'd rather have a fancy-talking incompetent than a great employee who happened to use rising pitch at the end of their sentences.

Right, because their language is the sum totality of the characteristics upon which I am judging them.

I'd rather hire someone intelligent enough to use the English language properly. An unwillingness to correctly use language, for me, is an almost infallible indicator of mental sloppiness.

By the way, try taking your linguistic relativism over to Germany and see how far it gets you: there, if you use the wrong article, it instantly lands you with a whole passel of assumptions and judgements about your native intelligence and/or manners.

I do not consider poverty an excuse for "bad English": both my mother- and father-in-law grew up on the Navajo reservation, in conditions that make Appalachia look positively bucolic. English is their second language, one that they still do not speak well. Their education, such as it was, was intermittent and grossly inadequate.

Despite this, my mother-in-law, even though she has a difficult relationship with English, raised three daughters (under dire conditions) who speak excellent English, and make a point of using language correctly. She and I have excellent conversations: if I use a word she doesn't know, she asks me to explain it, in detail, and she integrates it almost immediately.

So, really, I'm sorry, but the people railing against "elitism" in this thread (teece, I'm lookin' at you) are full of crap.

English, contrary to popular belief, has rules. If someone can't be bothered to learn them, and walks in saying "ain't" and using "like" as their favorite interlocution, and "keeps it real, knaaamean?" in the interview, they're done. Full stop, end of discussion, don't let the doorknob hit you where the Good Lord split you, etcetera.

I class this utterly specious "people have the RIGHT to speak however they WANT without being JUDGED OMG YOU BIGOT" argument in exactly the same way as I class the epidemic of "my child was honor student of the minute at George W. Bush Middle School" bumper stickers. It is an attempt to legitimize half-assery, and it presently infects every layer of our society.

There are a limited number of grammatically correct ways in which to express yourself in the English language. If you want to publically cherish ignorance, you shouldn't be surprised when those of us who aren't lazy call you on it.
posted by scrump at 4:03 PM on March 24, 2006 [1 favorite]

No one will see this, but for the record, Mefi's own Mark Liberman has an excellent new Language Log post on the subject; Mark says that:

"Uptalk", invented by a journalist in 1993, is a good term for the practice of ending assertions with rising pitch. "High rising terminal" or "HRT", invented by linguists, is a bad term, making a false claim about the phonetics of the phenomenon. It should be abandoned.

While I'm here: scrump, you haven't got the faintest clue what you're talking about. Yes, "English has rules" (though I don't know what you mean by "contrary to popular belief," since your misplaced indignation is shared by the vast majority of Americans), but they're not the rules you imagine. Take a linguistics course and learn about these matters, or continue in your ignorance; it's up to you.
posted by languagehat at 11:21 AM on March 28, 2006

I saw it, for the record. (Yes, I have a painful Metafilter addiction) And I still maintain that it's wrong. Is it wrong according to lingusitics? Probably not. But it's wrong in the same way that peeing on walls in public is wrong. And I'm sure people will continue to do both.
posted by GuyZero at 11:51 AM on March 28, 2006

Yay, you saw my comment! And I have no problem with you or anyone objecting to such things, even calling them "wrong," as long as there's a sense that your objection is not some sort of universal law and an acceptance that "people will continue to do both." Hell, I'm not always comfortable with language change myself; I hate "may have" for counterfactuals (instead of "might have") and the use of "disinterested" to mean 'uninterested.' I do feel those are "wrong," even though I know intellectually that they're just new. But there's a huge difference between that and the kind of contemptuous rant scrump and his ilk indulge in: not only do they dislike the new form, but all those who use it are slack-jawed morons. Fuck that noise.
posted by languagehat at 1:15 PM on March 28, 2006

yeah, those people calling people slack-jawed morons are tight-assed name-callers (booger-sniffers too, by all accounts).
funk 'em right in the ear.
posted by carsonb at 3:35 PM on March 28, 2006

While I'm here: scrump, you haven't got the faintest clue what you're talking about.

That's unfair, you loveable old descriptivist bastard, you. scrump was stating his/her opinion, one for which I, with a fair bit of study of linguistics under my own belt, harbour some small degree of sympathy.

It's thorny, as we all know, and well, and so I'm not meaning to start up the old back-and-forth again, but yeah. No need to get all highfalutin'. (It'd be amusing to draw a parallel between linguistic prescrip/descrip with the metalevel here, too: opinions and categorical assertions. But I'll leave that alone, 'cause the thread is dead, Jim.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:47 PM on March 28, 2006

Naah, it's not about scrump stating an opinion (which I have no problem with), it's the asinine blackguarding of anyone who doesn't share that opinion. That always gets my populist/egalitarian goat. (Yes, my goat has very advanced ideas for his species.)

And the thread ain't dead till the last fulminator falls over drunk!
posted by languagehat at 6:40 PM on March 28, 2006

Yay comments in dead threads.

I have no problem... as there's a sense that your objection is not some sort of universal law

See, this is where a number of posters and you part ways. Myself included perhaps.

You live in a lovely Copernican world of descriptivist studies. Which is nice.

I, and some other posters, are slowly working our way, perhaps, towards heliocentrism. In the meantime, the centre of my little universe contains one very luminous object: me. In my universe, description is interesting, but ultimately irrelevant. I have rules and I expect people to follow them. Those who don't can expect my wrath. True, my wrath is hardly worth the paper it's written on, but there it is. I am my own tiny god and I say, "stop uptalking." I will not go gently into that brave goodnight. I am going to rage against the dying of the light that is me in the exact centre of my own little world.

I'm also not exactly sure whether that's a parody of my beliefs or my actual beliefs; it's rather close to both. I expect it may be very close to other posters' actual beliefs.

Also, I sometimes do use "disinterested" when I mean "uninterested" and my wife calls me on it every time. Because it is wrong! I don't do it for novelty; I do it because I'm sloppy with language. Evolving new terms for new concepts is one thing; simply using word wrong is another. And if you think I'm just winding the whole stupid debate back up again, let me refer you back to my fourth paragraph.
posted by GuyZero at 6:27 AM on March 29, 2006

« Older "I don't want this, I want large bread" | When Firefox, privacy and relationships collide... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

MetaFilter

this is not a question?
March 23, 2006 8:06 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share

this is not a question? March 23, 2006 8:06 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share

this is not a question?
March 23, 2006 8:06 AM Subscribe