If Republicans want everyone to speak proper English...

Here's my pet peeve of the day - the apparent inability of many English-speakers to insert the word allowed into certain sentences. Observe the following sentence:

There is no smoking in this building.

Grammatically, this sentence is way too ambiguous and functionally meaningless. Prima facie, it is a simple declaration that the act of smoking is not currently taking place in the building, but conveys no message that smoking is, in fact, forbidding within said structure. This could be remedied by very simply adding another word:

There is no smoking allowed in this building.

See how easy that was? Now you have a simple declaration that informs the recipient that not only is there no smoking in the building, but any attempt to smoke in the building will not be tolerated. And you can apply that same technique to so many other sentences: "There's no touching the topless dancers" quickly becomes "There's no touching the topless dancers allowed", for example.

And yet, so many English-speakers are either too tired, too hassled, or to unwilling to go the extra mile to save their beloved tongue. Thus, when immigrants come to America and try to make sense of our language, this little barrier is just one of many that they'll have to deal with.

But not from me, though. I'm not afraid of the word allowed. Allowed, allowed, allowed. Nyah.

idiot at the top: bu$h.

Fascist.

You want to use permitted instead of allowed, have at it. But at least you're on the right track.

I bet those pesky "12 items or less" signs at the grocery store drive you to distraction:)

I often go out of my way to patronize the one grocery anywhere near me that has "fewer" on its express lane signs.

I think I might need help. :cry:

:kick:

What's with the "There is no":evilgrin:

DUers know how to bang the rocks together, I tell you what.

I've never heard that expression. :rofl:

Reliance on "permit" or "permission" presumes the absence of a liberty - which requires no permit. The same thing applies in a more general sense to the connotation of "allow" - a presumption that such a prerequisite exists. To baldly state that it's prohibited or forbidden is much more to the point.

Rauchen Veboten - Defense de Fumar - Smoking Prohibited.

It's the new Age of Prohibition, after all. :shrug:

A veritable literary nuclear warhead. Resistance is futile.

Assertive, honest, responsible people use active voice. Auditors (like I was once) use passive voice far too often in order to avoid conflict and ascription of responsibility in plain terms.

I detest the "Thank You For Not Smoking" signs. The slothful impersonal nature of a sign coupled with a presumptive (and completely insincere) use of "thank you" is, to me, a kind of obscenity. Better to use the authoritarian "Don't Smoke In This Building" (with a signature) or "I Forbid Smoking In My Home" (with the owner's signature) than hide behind the hypocrisy of a faux appreciation.

Otherwise, just a take-off on 'No Smoking'.

Eh. Usus. It's what makes "How are you?" a meaningless utterance, if construed too narrowly.

Some errors are just that; some reflect changing norms; others, on-going changes in the grammar. This one is just a bit telegraphic.

Chill.

like fingernails dragging down a chalkboard for me.

Consider the following sentence that might be found in a DU post:

"Hopefully we'll be out of Iraq by the end of 2006."

From a strictly grammatical point of view, the speaker is stating that we will be out of Iraq in a hopeful manner by the end of 2006. ('Hopefully' functions here as an adverb modifying the conjugated form of 'to be.')

What the speaker means is that he or she hopes we will be out of Iraq. How much more musical it would sound were the speaker simply to say:

"I hope we'll be out of Iraq by the end of 2006."

I've personally never seen that brand. :dunce:


Counterperson: "Can I help you?"
Me: "Well, if you can't then your employer should know."

annoyed me.

Furthermore, would people comprehend "less energy"?? :silly:

:rofl:

is a "fingernails on chalkboard" irritant to me. as curt as it sounds, "next, please" would be less irritating.

Suitable even for those who were too lazy to read the August 6, 2001 PBD.