It's been so long, and so blissful, to have taken a JAB vacay. Spending so much time on this site was rotting my soul. Many thanks to the custodians who have taken this little blog to greater heights--and, of course, to the commenters who are, dare I say it, EVIL. (At least according to the pink princess herself.)
Now, I can't say that I'll be around for long, though I do poke in now and then to see what's new. But I don't think anyone here has written about Baugher's latest, which is. absolutely. brilliant.
BAUGHER BINGO! Let us know when you get a Bingo!
p.s. For a "journalist," JAB's command of grammar is horrible. Jules, you need to learn the difference between "which" and "that" and when to use each properly. Hint: In this post, you're all wrong, over and over and over again. God, that has been irritating me forever. Please refer to a ninth grade grammar book.
OMG, I EXPOSE MY VAYINA TO YOU AS A WAY TO SAY "WELCOME BACK!"
ReplyDeleteThis is custom in my land.
You got scooped by trainwrecks on the grammar, and in the case of the bingo card, EVERYONE.
ReplyDeleteFair enough, Anon. I've been blissfully out of the loop. I don't regret it!
ReplyDeleteParsing Ns Girls goes down beter with Skyy Vodka..brought to you by Skyy Vodka
ReplyDeleteplease make this big so we can at least print it at A3 size and hang it in the office. P.L.E.A.S.E.
ReplyDeleteGuys, just as a side, I am sure we would love to know how many people visit this site on average each week. Just interested - it' all about the stats and I am sure you are killing the jackles.
ReplyDeleteFavourite (I know the spelling at least gives away my nationality) comment ever: FUCK that Rambin bitch. I made her. At least Meghan knows how to behave.
ReplyDeleteBEST comment EVER
ReplyDelete"It will all be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end."
— Andy
We had some shocking news today at the frat house (not the way you want to wake up from a post-Peet’s nap). But we’re banning together to find a solution. That’s what friends do. So it’s not the end, it’s a new beginning.
-- Mary Rambin
This one is obvious, but Jackles is not the only one who needs the keys to the English language taken away until she learns who to use it properly...
I've also been taking a Jackles-cation the last few days so excuse me for my lateness to this subject, but was this ever brought up: Julia's Nutty Professor might be one of the people that bid on and won one of her many, many online auction dates?
ReplyDeletewelcome back, RBNS! hope to see you around here more often!
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the that/which distinction (or any "prescriptive grammar" rule, for that matter) is no longer taken seriously by linguists or writers. See, for example, http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/t.html#that. I highly recommend you learn more about language before criticizing others' use of it.
ReplyDeleteThat's cute and all, but you don't have to be a lingistic nazi to recognize that it even SOUNDS INCORRECT. The way she writes that SHOULD be questioned as such by the above-average reader :
ReplyDeletemascara which doesn't lead to racoon eyes....
- where is the rest of that? Without a comma and follow-up explanation or the "which..." etc. etc. in parentheses it makes no sense.
5 inch heels which don't hurt
- so contrary to popular belief, her 5 inch heels they don't actually hurt?
It's not a question of ambiguity, but your defense is honorable. But really, this is a self-professed writer/journalist (hah to both), and those who aren't attempting to claim such as a career while getting paid for it are free to criticize her use of it as they see fit for that reason alone. Oh, but I'm sure in the face of a competent editor these errors would fly noooo problem, right nage? Your reasoning for her missteps in writing are likely much like NS' design decisions - since it's all generally considered "OK", despite the fact that it won't be understood/workable, it shouldn't be criticized.
anon 6:51 -- is that you, georgina?
ReplyDelete9am it's the same old thing: never mind the audience, who one claims to be doing it for. Talking for the sake of hearing one's voice.
ReplyDeleteAnon 9:00: In order to work your counterargument, you would have to assume that "which" signals the fact that a "follow-up explanation" is on the way. And if you assume that, you must assume that "that" and "which" are distinguished in meaning and sharply and determinately so, such that one is restrictive, and the other is not. But of course, this is the very point at issue.
ReplyDeleteSo, you're presupposing the very point at issue. That is, your argument is circular. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question.
RBNS's return: Hooray.com!
ReplyDeleteI'm shocked any other assumption than that which is obvious could be gleaned from this nage. She's not all that complex, nor were her statements. Wrong word.
ReplyDelete5 inch heels *that* don't hurt.
Mascara *that* doesn't lead to raccoon eyes.
It's not even remotely interchangable in this instance, but argue it to the death if you feel you must.
NAGE, Julia doesn't know what "begging the question" means either. Also, you're incorrect. In America, the that/which distinction is still quite relevant for both linguists and writers, despite your ability to find a single source that says otherwise. And are you really saying that "any" prescriptive grammar rule isn't taken seriously anymore by linguists or writers? Tell me, then, how is this sentence making any sense to any of us?
ReplyDeleteIt isn't just a "single" source. Open up any textbook on basic syntax and they'll say pretty much the same thing. For example: http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch1.html#prescriptive
ReplyDeleteAs for "how is this sentence making any sense to any of us?" A moment's reflection will tell you that whatever the mechanisms for "making sense" may be, they can't have anything do do with that/which or anything similar. For if it did, children wouldn't understand each other, but they clearly do.
And finally, yes, I doubt julia would know a circular argument if it hit her in the face (as if it were, perhaps, a boomerang or something similar). But neither do any of you. Which brings me to my point, which was implicit all through, but I doubt now that you geniuses will have understood: Isn't this website simply one set of retarded people criticizing another set of retarded people for being retarded?
LMAO, you are on the wroooong website. Entirely. Fail on your "point".
ReplyDelete