Discussion Main / DelusionsOfEloquence

The trope image doesn't seem to be an example of the trope. Kim's dialogue does include a number of big words, and the kobold claims she sounds like an idiot, but the words seem to all be being used correctly; the kobold's outburst is based more on "using big words to sound smart is dumb," or perhaps "is this really the best time to be using big words?" than "I do not think that means what you think it means". I propose finding another page image. Maybe something from Frank and Earnest?

Under "theater," there is a quote given for Sir Andrew Aguecheek from Twelfth Night, but this seems more like an example of a misunderstanding between the two characters, rather than an example of this trope. However, Malvolio, from the same play, does have a few instances of this. Opinions?

Did a bunch of cleaning in the Real Life section, since it tends to be misused.

Singular examples:

• The letters page of one issue of Just A Pilgrim had a letter from a reader praising Garth Ennis for creating "Believable characters whom can make mistakes".
• Otep's lead singer once did an interview where she claimed to be "the agog of the alchemist" - agog being an adjective meaning "full of interest or excitement; eager". Oops...

Incorrect Grammar Nazis:

• Moral guardian Tom Carder of Childcare Action Project spent the first paragraph of his review of The Village bemoaning the fact that the monsters are referred to as "Those we don't speak of", it should, he insisted be "Those of whom we do not speak". He bemoaned the lack of respect for The King's English, an odd expression from a US citizen, especially at a time when Britain has a Queen, but we'll let that pass. However, this defender of the language is quite capable of including in his reviews sentences like, "He looked at her and she at he". He also lapses into sermonising very often and frequently reminds readers that "Jesus died for you and I".
  • About the only people to note Carder's grammatical whining seem to have been a group he hates, the makers of the Scary Movie series. Their parody of the village dutifully calls the bogeymen "Those of whom we do not speak". Carder, however, was too busy being shocked and outraged by the movie to notice this.
  • In the same scene, the writers offer a nice Take That! at Carter's pedantry. One of the leads, in an attempt to speak like the Villagers, quotes the classic Churchill comeback, "This is something up with which I will not put."
• People who refuse to split infinitives often end up writing ridiculously worded sentences in an effort to sound formal. The "rule" that you don't split infinitives was invented by people who wanted English to more closely follow the rules of Latin. The only reason why you don't split infinitives in Latin is because you can't. Latin infinitives are one word.

Spoonerism is a different trope:

• Reverend Spooner, who named Spoonerism.

If it might count it might not be an example:

• The language spoken by the Church of Happyology might count.

That's using similar words where you do know the meaning of them:

• A Russian joke, easily translated into English because the words involved are international:
  "Is there life on Marx?" (Mars)
  "It's just a scientific hypotenuse" (hypothesis)
  "Maybe, I'm not Copenhagen in these matters" (competent)
• A common German reply (less common in recent years but prevalent in the 1980s) to Shlubb and Klump expressions would have been: "That sentence would make any Japanese samowar commit Kalahari."^note Samowar being a samovar, a kind of Russian tea item, and Kalahari meaning the Kalahari Desert in southern Africa, the joke being...well..."Samurai" and "hara-kiri" aka seppuku.

Grammar Nazi, or some other such:

• Check out this article: It's about a bunch of pompous Britons criticizing "Americanisms", despite the fact that what they declare "wrong" is either not objectively worse, or in fact objectively better, than what they declare as being "correct". For instance
  "It was closely followed by ‘I’m good’ as opposed to ‘I’m very well, thank you’. This phrase is even more infuriating when used as an alternative to ‘No, thanks’, in declining a second helping.
  ‘I just want to yell, “NO, you are NOT good – you might be really, really BAD,” ’ wailed Patsy Holden."
  • Just to show that this cuts both ways: [1] features an American criticising "Britishisms" (along with others who like them).

Just grammatically incorrect. It's not about word use:

• One of the many language fumbles made by the writers of Nigerian scam e-mails, particularly when they try to sound official. Actual example:
  The choice of contacting you aroused from the geographical nature of where you live particularly due to the sensitivity of the transaction and the confidentiality herein. Now our company has been waiting for any of the relatives to come-up for the claim of the inheritance fund but unfortunately all efforts has being void. I personally have been unsuccessful in locating neither the relatives nor any next of kin to Mr. Saba. On this regards, I seek your consent to present you as the next of kin / will beneficiary to the deceased so that the proceeds of this account valued at Eighty Five Million Dollars($85M) can be paid to you.

More like You Keep Using That Word. Also a singular word:

• Sarah Palin's infinite use of "refudiate".

Deleted "Barack Obama often veers toward this trope (especially in the absence of a teleprompter), despite sycophants praising him as a "great orator". "57 states", "the expression in Austrian", "Naval corpsemen" and "You didn't build that" are some of the more memorable (and embarrassing) examples of his numerous public speaking blunders." because (a) "sycophants" tends to indicate the original writer probably is a bit biased regarding the politics, (b) those aren't examples anyway: making an error is not in itself a Delusion of Eloquence, and (c) some of those examples are taken completely out of context and aren't, in fact, wrong.

Removing the following for being mostly incorrect:

• Ironically, most people these days will believe that answering the question "Who's there?" with "I" is incorrect grammar when the truth is that answering "me" is incorrect grammar. The same for "it was me" when correct grammar would have a person say "it was I". That which is accepted as correct grammar evolves over time with usage and habit. This makes using correct grammar sometimes appear to be this trope when it is actually an inversion of the trope. For example:
  • In the movie Electric Dreams, the computer entity correctly replies to "who's there" with "I".

It's true answering "I" to the first question is correct grammar in the sense of being short for "I am". However, the whole argument otherwise seems to be based on the "it is I" grammar rule, which is pretty much obsolete. Normal logic of the language without this weird special case rule has it that the "me/I" in "It's me" is in an object position (not exactly the object but close enough), and that implies the form "me" is correct. See for example the book Language Matters by Donna Jo Napoli. (Not sure what exactly it said about this, it's been a while, but I know there was something about how that rule is an old special-case one.)

It's ironic, of course, that the entry mentioned changing usage, as if "it is I" is the new standard. Or possibly as if the standard doesn't change even though the accepted standard does.

What happened to the original Self Demonstrating Article with Schlubb and Klump dialog? That was brilliant. Or was that another article?

This was the first take on the laconic. I think it carries comedy to excess given the clear > concise > witty maxim for laconics. I replaced it with a more straightforward definition.

Untantalizing the wrong dictionary to seem more integral than you really are.

the shlubb and klump quote.. shouldn't it be "parameters" not "perimeters" ?

the shlubb and klump quote.. shouldn't it be "parameters" not "perimeters" ?