Grammar Lessons for Pop Stars

[Rachel Bunting]

Funny article.
Especially the part about Britney.

Grammar Lessons for PopStars (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/columns/?article=grammarpopmain)

[River Not]

oh ya, that's funny,
with Britney, ta boot!


but the whole *site* reminds me of a conversation I heard this morning outside the work source on aurora ave/hwy 99.

three men were gathered 'round an ashtray outside of the building - discussing the events of some famous actress's "intimate" life.

How dire, I thought, then I reflected on Heidegger's account of inauthenticity, figured it applied, but then quickly refuted its applicability.

Because whether here, or there, you are you, more or less.


but this beef, I know, is not for this thread, nor for rachelb,


grrr.

[Rachel Bunting]

uh,
huffing again, crow?

[River Not]

I'm ready and willing to provide a better explanation, if you drop the huffy house ruse.

[Rachel Bunting]

kidding.

consider it dropped.

[River Not]

'tis cool;
we're buds,
ya know.

[Rachel Bunting]

:D
glad to hear that, then.

[Roge]

FIGHT! FIGHT! Bugga it's over already. They have kissed and made up before it really got going. ;)

Great site - just another reason not to listen to Britney et al.

[Harry R]

Actually, this kind of thing really annoys me. The snobbishness of it is bad enough, but I also think that Martha's analysis is clumsy and shows a complete lack of sensitivity to language.

In "Overprotected," Britney sings,

"Say hello to the girl that I am!
You're gonna have to see through my perspective
I need to make mistakes just to learn who I am
And I don't wanna be so damn protected"

Britney might need to make mistakes to learn who she is. But grammar mistakes don't lead to self-discovery, they just make people sound dumb. She should have sung, "Say hello to the girl who I am." "That" is for animals and inanimate objects, such as hair extensions.

The line 'say hello to the girl that I am' is asking the listener to discover the kind of girl she is. 'Say hello to the girl who I am' would be a statement that she was a different particular individual than the listener had previously thought; and sounds distinctly odd.

(actually, reading over what I just wrote, I'm not sure if my explanation is the right one - probably not - but I'm pretty damn sure there's nothing wrong with the lyric as it stands)

Meanwhile, Britney should work harder to protect herself from lyrics that read like a diary entry penned by someone who's just returned home, sweaty and tired, from a seventh-grade dance. They're nigh unintelligible. First she wants a greeting; then she wants someone to see through her eyes, as though what she's doing makes sense, and then she demands permission to make mistakes, which would imply that whatever she's doing does not make sense. It's dizzying.

Again, rubbish. L1 is not asking for a greeting. If, in a pub brawl, I said 'say hello to Mr Knuckles', I wouldn't be asking the listener to greet my fist. She's (metaphorically) introducing the listener to her 'real' personality; and it's the expectation set up that she's revealing something about herself that makes sense of the following lines.

And the implication that the line 'You're gonna have to see through my perspective' is somehow in conflict with the line 'I need to make mistakes just to learn who I am' is just daft. The line about seeing from her perspective is a plea for understanding, not a claim that she knows what she's doing.

For fuck's sake, claiming writerly superiority over the people who write disposable pop choons is petty enough at the best of times (and smacks of pens envy); the least you could do is read the lyrics carefully first.

Harry
sticking up for Britney

[Kristi]

For fuck's sake, claiming writerly superiority over the people who write disposable pop choons is petty enough at the best of times (and smacks of pens envy); the least you could do is read the lyrics carefully first.

Harry
sticking up for Britney

I'm with Harry!

Kristi
*sucking up*

[Harry R]

Originally posted by Kristi
I'm with Harry!

Kristi
*sucking up*

don't encourage him - it's late, he's tired, and he's showing off

[Kristi]

don't encourage him - it's late, he's tired, and he's showing off I'm with Harry!


Kristi
(whom hath no'th good'th reason)

[Rachel Bunting]

Sigh.

Kristi, wipe the brown stain off your nose. ;)

Rachel

[River Not]

there's a quote somewhere in this book:

http://www.referencehub.com/The_Oxford_Essential_Guide_to_Writing_0425176401.html

that I'll have to go fetch from my shelf, which is nowhere near me now, that just might work here, hopefully.


but here's a clue for now, or maybe just an unrelated gas!

http://www.geocities.com/hobotramp/HoboLogo.html



off to fetch catch...

[Harry R]

I was thinking about this last night, and came to the conclusion that 'that' and 'who' were interchangeable in these constructions; i.e. 'what was the name of the builder that fixed your roof?' and 'what was the name of the builder who fixed your roof?' both sound equally correct to me.

for those who prefer a published authority for these things, this is from a usage note for 'who' from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (via dictionary.com) -

Some grammarians have argued that only who and not that should be used to introduce a restrictive relative clause that identifies a person. This restriction has no basis either in logic or in the usage of the best writers; it is entirely acceptable to write either the woman that wanted to talk to you or the woman who wanted to talk to you.

Harry

[River Not]

here we go --


from Thomas S. Kane's The Oxford Essential Guide to Writing


p. 280

But it is also true... that rhyme, the deliberate repitition of sound, has a place in prose, as in this example:

...those Hairbreadth Harrys of History [who] save the world just when it's slipping into the abyss. Arthur Herzog


*the editorial insert into Herzog's extract was the priority of Kane*


however,
it works for me,
from what I see,
about a nother Harry.