| Author |
 Topic  |
|
AC 
"Returning FWFR Old-Timer"
|
 Posted - 01/30/2005 : 15:57:47
|
I concur. "Conman" might be used often online, but it's grammatically incorrect. Because they are two words we hear together semi-regularly, we associate them together and assume they're one word. They are two separate words, separated by a space, never a hyphen.
For futher reading: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=con-man
|
 |
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 01/30/2005 : 23:43:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by AussieCanuck
I concur. "Conman" might be used often online, but it's grammatically incorrect. Because they are two words we hear together semi-regularly, we associate them together and assume they're one word. They are two separate words, separated by a space, never a hyphen.
For futher reading: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=con-man
Duly declined.
|
|
|
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 01/31/2005 : 02:18:45
|
"Jar-Jar Binks = Ewoks forgiven."
This seems like 5 words to me. "Jar Jar" is two unhyphenated words. I should know since I actually met Ahmed Best. 
|
|
|
|
AC
"Returning FWFR Old-Timer"
|
Posted - 01/31/2005 : 04:11:13
|
I think this review is generic, but it's also misspelled.
"Sexual innuendo geting tedious."
It's generic because the sexual innuendo is tedious from the fifth mimute of the first Austin Powers movie, and this review refers to the third one, Goldmember. However, if you like this review, benj, could you just change the spelling? It's by deluxe.
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/31/2005 : 08:33:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
"Jar-Jar Binks = Ewoks forgiven."
This seems like 5 words to me. "Jar Jar" is two unhyphenated words. I should know since I actually met Ahmed Best.
Fixed... plus a stack of others 
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/31/2005 : 08:33:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by AussieCanuck
I think this review is generic, but it's also misspelled.
"Sexual innuendo geting tedious."
It's generic because the sexual innuendo is tedious from the fifth mimute of the first Austin Powers movie, and this review refers to the third one, Goldmember. However, if you like this review, benj, could you just change the spelling? It's by deluxe.
Declined-ed.
|
|
|
|
AC
"Returning FWFR Old-Timer"
|
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 19:59:37
|
Okay, here's one for the Mummy:
Zane-y Egyptian bugs Brendan. by Maus.
In one sense this review's wrong, since Billy Zane does NOT play Ihmotehp, even though the actor does resemble him.
Then again, 'Zane-y' could be interpreted as 'Zane-like', in that there is a strong resemblance.
I tend to lean more towards the idea that the reviewer mistook the actor playing the Mummy for Billy Zane, which led to an incorrect pun.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Stalean
"Back...OMG"
|
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 23:34:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
"Jar-Jar Binks = Ewoks forgiven."
This seems like 5 words to me. "Jar Jar" is two unhyphenated words. I should know since I actually met Ahmed Best.
Fixed... plus a stack of others
The politically correct way of spelling Jar Jar is "Jar Jar" - two words, but (this is where it gets hazy) for clarification purposes people use the hyphen. As for the hyphenated version, the hyphen simply joins two words of separate meaning together to form an entirely different meaning of the words.
Example:
jar (verb) - 1 a : to make a harsh or discordant sound b : to have a harshly disagreeable or disconcerting effect c : to be out of harmony; specifically : BICKER
2 : to undergo severe vibration
transitive verb : to cause to jar: as a : to affect disagreeably : UNSETTLE b : to make unstable or loose : SHAKE <jar the ball free>
jar (noun1) - 1 a : a state or manifestation of discord or conflict b : a harsh grating sound
2 a : a sudden or unexpected shake b : an unsettling shock c : an unpleasant break or conflict in rhythm, flow, or transition
jar (noun2) - 1 : a widemouthed container made typically of earthenware or glass
2 : as much as a jar will hold
jar (noun3) - archaic : the position of being ajar -- usually used in the phrase on the jar
Jar-Jar [my hyphen for clarification purposes] proper noun -
Homeworld:
Naboo
Species:
Gungan
Gender:
Male
Height:
1.96 meters
Weapon:
Gungan boomer
Vehicle:
kaadu
Affiliation:
Gungan Grand Army, Galactic Senate, Galactic Republic
Long before galactic strife enveloped his native Naboo, Jar-Jar Binks was exiled from the underwater city of Otoh Gunga. His main sin: being clumsy in front of the head of his clan. To hear Jar-Jar tell it in his Gungan/Basic pidgin, he "boomed da gasser, and crashed de boss's heyblibber, den banished."
An outcast, the Gungan spent his time in the Naboo swampland, surviving on raw shellfish or just about anything else that the murky ecosystem had to offer. Jar-Jar's fate took a twist when the hapless Gungan encountered a pair of Jedi as they eluded enemy forces during the Trade Federation invasion of Naboo.
By Gungan tradition, Jar-Jar found himself indebted to Qui-Gon Jinn for saving his life. Jar-Jar guided the Jedi to the underwater city of Otoh Gunga, where they secured transport to the Naboo capital of Theed. Jar-Jar braved the "nocombackie law" to present Qui-Gon to the Gungan leader, Boss Nass, even though he risked the consequence of being "pounded" to death.
Throughout the adventure of liberating Naboo, Jar-Jar tagged along with Qui-Gon. Although his bungling, haphazard mannerisms constantly landed him in hot water, his good nature and loyalty somehow helped him triumph in the end.
Queen Amidala requested that Jar-Jar make contact with the Gungans. With Jar-Jar's help, the Naboo and the Gungans forged an alliance that liberated the besieged world of Naboo. During the ground battle against the mechanized armies of the Trade Federation, Jar-Jar was made a general in the Gungan Grand Army. After the battle, Jar-Jar continued to ascend in Gungan society, putting his awkward past as an outcast behind him.
Jar-Jar eventually became a Senior Representative for Naboo, serving alongside Padm� Amidala in the Galactic Senate. While his compassion spoke volumes of the quality of his character, his inherent gullibility and trusting nature were easily exploited by the less scrupulous in the field of politics. For many, Jar-Jar was but a joke, the subject of derision, but in the corrupt inner confines of Senate, his lanky frame stood as a rare example of non-corrupt politician interested only in the greater good of the Republic and his people.
Jar-Jar was a member of the Loyalist Committee, a panel of Senators concerned with countering the increasing threat of a Separatist movement spreading throughout the galaxy. He and Padm� worked hard, favoring negotiation and peaceful resolution over the growing popularity of the Military Creation Act. While Padm� was away from Coruscant, it was Jar Jar who took her place in the Senate.
After several botched assassination attempts on Senator Amidala forced her to flee the capital, Jar-Jar again served in her stead. The Gungan politician was there, in Palpatine's office, when it became apparent that desperate measures would be required to stop a Separatist force determined to start a war with the Republic.
Jar-Jar took the initiative and proposed the motion granting emergency powers to Supreme Chancellor Palpatine -- a move that would have profound impact on the Galactic Republic.
Believe it or not, there are quite a few people everywhere that don't know or care who Jar-Jar Binks is. I say leave the hyphen... it seems every other character in "The Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones" has a hyphen in their names! I purposefully left the hyphen out of one of the "Jar-Jar(s)" above... when you're reading a lengthy piece of writing, the one that stands out as NOT belonging is the one with no hyphen!
Examples:
Obi-Wan Kenobi
Qui-Gon Jinn
Ki-Adi-Mundi
C-3PO
R2-D2
TC-14
RIC-920
COO-2180
This has been bothering me for some time, and having one of my reviews in jeopardy motivated me to submit this post. I can't understand why we are headhunting (or is that head-hunting or head hunting) these kinds of reviews? I have one that has 17 votes that hasn't gotten the axe as of yet: "Warning: May contain Jar-Jar." Am I going to delete it? NO! If benj wants me to change it and give me my 17 votes, then I most certainly will. I could change it to "Warning: Contains Jar Jar," but I don't think that I should have to with only a trivial hyphen in question.
If we are going to single out reviews that have hyphens misplaced ("Hoff-man, Hoff-woman" which is on the Top 100 of all time) or non-existant words ("Iraqnophobia," "Fishtar," "Centerolds," & "Poultrygeist" some of my favorite reviews also on the Top 100), then we should delete all the reviews with made up names, bastardization of names, etc. Let me point out this, there wouldn't be as many reviews from all of us on this site for all of us to enjoy! This is just my opinion, I'm not taking potshots at anyone (this means you GHcool who has "actually met Ahmed Best") for any of their reviews or opinions (except the generalized, vague reviews that could be for any film ever made).
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 02/08/2005 : 00:13:50
|
Good post, StaLean. I tend to agree. If in doubt, leave them on the site. We specialise in rule-breaking here at fwfr anyway.
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 02/08/2005 : 00:41:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
Good post, StaLean. I tend to agree. If in doubt, leave them on the site. We specialise in rule-breaking here at fwfr anyway.
I'd normally agree, but there should be one rule here at least: no review should be over four words. It's the name of the site for gawd's sake.
I have no problem with made up words as long as they aren't a made up word that is really two words trying to be one. Unless those two (or more) words make a pun on a word that has some kind of relevance in the context of the review.
That's my personal theory to it anyway.
When it comes to names, I try to be lenient because some well-known people have, say, a two part surname that wouldn't make sense if you just used the second word. My reason for this is because I don't think reviewers should be disadvantaged from writing a review involving Robert De Niro over Steven Spielberg. In such a case, I typically allow DeNiro just as validly as Spielberg.
If Jar Jar really is Jar Jar and not Jar-Jar, then I'll allow Jar-Jar for the simple reason that Jar alone doesn't much sense by itself.
|
|
|
|
Stalean
"Back...OMG"
|
Posted - 02/08/2005 : 02:36:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
Good post, StaLean. I tend to agree. If in doubt, leave them on the site. We specialise in rule-breaking here at fwfr anyway.
I'd normally agree, but there should be one rule here at least: no review should be over four words. It's the name of the site for gawd's sake.
I'm not saying you should start accepting more than four word reviews, benj. I just think that when two words are synonymous with one another there should be some lenience.
quote:
I have no problem with made up words as long as they aren't a made up word that is really two words trying to be one. Unless those two (or more) words make a pun on a word that has some kind of relevance in the context of the review.
That's my personal theory to it anyway.
I totally agree, as I was trying to point out in my original post. That's what makes this site so enjoyable and great.
quote:
When it comes to names, I try to be lenient because some well-known people have, say, a two part surname that wouldn't make sense if you just used the second word. My reason for this is because I don't think reviewers should be disadvantaged from writing a review involving Robert De Niro over Steven Spielberg. In such a case, I typically allow DeNiro just as validly as Spielberg.
If Jar Jar really is Jar Jar and not Jar-Jar, then I'll allow Jar-Jar for the simple reason that Jar alone doesn't much sense by itself.
Thanks, benj. I really appreciate your taking the time to consider my post.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 02/08/2005 : 03:00:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
Good post, StaLean. I tend to agree. If in doubt, leave them on the site. We specialise in rule-breaking here at fwfr anyway.
I'd normally agree, but there should be one rule here at least: no review should be over four words. It's the name of the site for gawd's sake.
Agreed.
Also, when I wrote that, I thought that Jar Jar was sometimes written Jar-Jar, but just discovered that it doesn't seem to be, that's what happens when I skim-read.  How about JarJar? Or how about asking Jar Jar how Jar-Jar spells his name? Or how about I withdraw from this conversation? 
|
Edited by - Sean on 02/08/2005 03:01:15 |
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 02/08/2005 : 03:56:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
Good post, StaLean. I tend to agree. If in doubt, leave them on the site. We specialise in rule-breaking here at fwfr anyway.
I'd normally agree, but there should be one rule here at least: no review should be over four words. It's the name of the site for gawd's sake.
Agreed.
Also, when I wrote that, I thought that Jar Jar was sometimes written Jar-Jar, but just discovered that it doesn't seem to be, that's what happens when I skim-read. How about JarJar? Or how about asking Jar Jar how Jar-Jar spells his name? Or how about I withdraw from this conversation?
At least until you have had a couple of jars.
|
|
|
|
AC
"Returning FWFR Old-Timer"
|
Posted - 02/08/2005 : 04:08:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by AussieCanuck
Okay, here's one for the Mummy:
Zane-y Egyptian bugs Brendan. by Maus.
In one sense this review's wrong, since Billy Zane does NOT play Ihmotehp, even though the actor does resemble him.
Then again, 'Zane-y' could be interpreted as 'Zane-like', in that there is a strong resemblance.
I tend to lean more towards the idea that the reviewer mistook the actor playing the Mummy for Billy Zane, which led to an incorrect pun.
Any thoughts?
I just thought I'd bump my query up since it got buried.
Here's the link.
http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?ID=337
|
|
|
|
Joe Blevins
"Don't I look handsome?"
|
Posted - 02/08/2005 : 05:06:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
I can't find
Conman
Conmen
Con-man
Con-men
in any online dictionary as one word 
"cons" would be good for the review
Uh-oh. We're only allowed to use words found in the dictionary now? If so, a lot of reviewers are in trouble. (Me included.) In truth, I never claimed that "conman" would be found in a dictionary, just that it's in common usage (and not just online, but in everyday, real-life usage). Many, many, many reviews (including some in the top 100) are built around words that don't even exist. In this case, it's a moot point. "Cons" does the job perfectly well. But I'd still say "conman" counts as a legitimate compound, "official" dictionary entry or no. It follows a well-documented grammatical precedent established by such words as policeman, milkman, fireman, etc. This same grammatical precedent is what allowed comic book writers to bestow names like Batman and Aquaman -- none of which were "real" words -- on their characters. The pattern of using "-man" as the second half of a compound noun was so well-established that the names were instantly understandable. The possibilities for the "-man" morpheme are limitless, far too numerous to list in any dictionary, just as no dictionary can hope to catalogue every possible use of "un-" or "-less."
Just recently, I had to type up a report in which a man is quoted as saying he was "computerless." There is no such word as "computerless." You'll find it in no dictionary. But the grammatical precedent of using "-less" as a suffix makes the neologism "computerless" instantly understandable. Yes, this same idea could be conveyed in "real" words, but you'd need two or three of them to do what "computerless" accomplishes in one.
What makes the English language so great is its flexibility. We can use morphemes (i.e. the smallest part of a word that carries meaning) and combine them in any number of ways. That premise is what makes words like "computerless" possible.
Is "computerless" a real word? No. Would it be acceptable as one word in a FWFR? In my opinion, absolutely. Others may disagree, and there is certainly room for debate on this issue, but I wanted to take this opportunity to make my stance clear and explain why I feel this way. In general, I think it's appropriate for FWFR to play "fast and loose" with the rules of grammar, since the site makes no pretense of being formal or authoritative.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Reviews that are wrong
