General Chat Thread, Conversation with an English teacher in General; Originally Posted by mac_shinobi
"please give some money to myself and John" ???
It would only be correct if used ...
8th July 2009, 11:46 PM #46
It would only be correct if used in the first person.
Originally Posted by mac_shinobi
"I gave money to myself and John."
"I am giving money to myself and John."
"I will give money to myself and John."
It is to do with the ordering within the sentence, as well as the stress on the active party or recipient of the action (kudos for the person who can name the correct term for this!). The common usage would by 'me' rather than 'myself', but in this instance 'myself' would not be incorrect. If it is not first person then it is incorrect.
Let's all go learn Esperanto.
IDG Tech News
8th July 2009, 11:51 PM #47
This is not incorrect. A manager or person in responsibility may use the term 'we' to place emphasis on the fact that although work will be undertaken by 'you', the task has involved both of you ... the other person playing the role of manager, supervisor or pain in the neck that looks over your shoulder all the time!
Originally Posted by powdarrmonkey
Within Managlement Speak (a specialist language the same way Geek, legalese or medical jargonitis is used) has many such examples where the phrasing or order of words conveys different meanings. Most of them have the same effect on the non-manglement speaking person ... abject hatred and frustration, followed by a desire for plain English.
8th July 2009, 11:54 PM #48
Saturday morning cartoons has taught me the plural is mices, and therefore the singular is mice...
As in Jinksy the cat.. " I hate those mices to pieces".. about Pixie and Dixie..
So I usually refer to them a mices.. just to confuse people.. but I think I might change to mouses.. as it would be better at confusing people.
I do get a little amused by the misuse of "momentarily".. which means "for a moment" not "in a moment".. so there's always the classic response, "oh, well if you're too busy..."
9th July 2009, 12:06 AM #49
Yes, in the UK it does but the USA increasingly use it to mean in a moment. The announcements on trains that tell you that the train will move 'momentarily' always made us laugh!
Originally Posted by User3204
9th July 2009, 12:10 AM #50
True; my second example wasn't a very good one. (ooo, semi-colon )
Originally Posted by GrumbleDook
The annoying thing, I think, isn't the 'we' implication, but the simultaneous attempt by managements to appear to be part of a workforce and enjoy the perks that come with being above it. 'We'-ism is particularly bad here, and it's almost certainly by example - the Head and DHs use it, and gradually everybody else also seems to be doing so, except me.
I agree management jargon is a specialist language of its own, but it's very different to the scientific basis of medical jargon - it seems to come and go in fads of phrases like 'going forwards', 'touching base', 'from the get-go', etc. They don't actually mean anything, otherwise they'd last longer - it's just that all the cool kids are saying them. Most of it's just plain patronising, including a lot of uses of we-ism.
(I feel much better now )
Last edited by powdarrmonkey; 9th July 2009 at 12:14 AM.
9th July 2009, 12:31 AM #51
When jargon is used internally between fellow manglement speakers it can cut down conversations to a fraction of the time since you don't have to explain certain key phrases because we all know the latest bit of Govt target and the phrases *that* uses.
The problem comes when manglement speakers try to interface with those who have opted for a career of leading from the middle or those that provide support and impetus to achieving the end targets (heard last month!)
Good managers will chose how they speak, will help translate when needed and also teach people the key phrases so the jargon is no longer jargon, just a few words used to describe something in a different manner.
The Jargon will always be based on the present trends, the same way that slang is. Sometimes I wish the manglement speak was formally codified and we could seriously tie down the meaning. Personally I hate the use of 'community' or 'stakeholder' when it is used to refer to groups that already have names that are perfectly servicable. Don't give me the excuse of it allowing you to cut down on listing the groups ... they usually end up listing them anyway to make sure that we haven't missed a group out when talking about stakeholders!
9th July 2009, 12:32 AM #52
Agreed, All cheques payable to John please
Originally Posted by mac_shinobi
9th July 2009, 01:19 AM #53
Be honest now, you used a leet speak translator for that, didn't you?
9th July 2009, 01:57 AM #54
I've heard them called 'Meices' pronounced 'Meeces' before now, :S is this even a word?! ahah
9th July 2009, 08:42 AM #55
Deleted and corrected Wasn't sure on that one myself but thought I'd throw it in there lol
Originally Posted by NickJones
9th July 2009, 08:43 AM #56
We Don't trust cheques anymore - only bank transfers, paypal and the likes oh and can't forget all major credit cards are welcomed / accepted
Originally Posted by john
9th July 2009, 09:24 AM #57
Or "excepted" according to the sign on a pub near me. Sigh. I wonder if that means they only accept cash?!
Originally Posted by mac_shinobi
9th July 2009, 10:19 AM #58
Best sign I saw on a pub was supposed to say "Cask Ales", but the C and A had fallen off so it said "ask les". I couldn't find Les to ask...
9th July 2009, 10:46 AM #59
Heh near me there is a "Stationary store" - And to be fair it is still there every time I walk past it.
On management speak: I hate it. Actually in a broader sense I hate any language that is designed to exclude the uninitiated and make the speakers own arena seem more complex and mystical than it actually is.
This comes from spending some years working for a management consultancy company where this kind of thing was rife eg, "Interfacing with forward facing strategic stakeholders to align our prioritised goals blah blah yawn zzzz". On the whole this kind of nonsense is used to cover a lack of real knowledge or an uncomfortable reality.
I once sat through a presentation from the Chief Operating Officer that was abruptly stopped by the CEO by saying "Congratulations, you have set a new record for time spent speaking without actually saying a single thing, tell me, did we get the contract"
"Right...lets move on..."
This isn't just limited to management, all field of work have their own lingo to a certain extent, IT is a good example where unscrupulous techs/company spout some jargon whilst what they actually mean is "I am going to charge you a lot of money for a 5 minute job."
By geeky in forum Wireless Networks
Last Post: 5th February 2010, 09:21 AM
Last Post: 13th February 2009, 12:39 PM
By treetops in forum Network and Classroom Management
Last Post: 10th January 2009, 12:00 AM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)