HoodyNynja Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I try not to be a grammar nerd, and I understand this may also be a localization thing, but I think "available" is spelled incorrectly on my account page. See below: "Note: Your clan emblem has been already approved and will be availible in game when the next update is released." "Has been already" is also borderline passive voice, but I already hate myself a little for posting about the one thing so I'll just go hide in the library now... :-/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archistopheles Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 You aren't the only one who notices these things, don't worry. Silly Canadian Grammar, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp4rtan148 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 You aren't the only one who notices these things, don't worry. Silly Canadian Grammar, imo. Canadian grammar? That's not how we spell "Available" either, so no need to insult us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[DE]Zwak Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Should be fixed now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSeannachaidh Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) You aren't the only one who notices these things, don't worry. Silly Canadian Grammar, imo. Well, it is a good thing you made an informed opinion and didn't make an &#! of yourself, eh? As a Canadian Linguist I am rather perturbed. First, Canadians don't spell it like that. From a purely linguistic stand-point, though, it technically is a sound prototypical morphology of the word. The suffixes -ible and -able mean the same thing. The only reason the spelling "availible" is prescriptively incorrect in English grammar is that English speakers have just developed a system of rules whereby we establish how a suffix applies to a prefix morpheme. Also, it is only noticeable in written form. When you say available, whether you use the -ible or the -able version of the suffix, the "i" and "a" both make a schwa sound, which is just a nondescript "uh" sound used to pronounce vowels we pass over quickly in a word. We don't say "avail- AYbul" do we? So really it isn't silly any kind of grammar at all, Archistopheles -- all grammar is quite complex. Yes, it should be changed to the accepted spelling for the game, but it certainly wasn't silly. ;) Edited January 29, 2014 by TheSeannachaidh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)Alsark Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 ^ World's longest way to say "yes, it should be changed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSeannachaidh Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 ^ World's longest way to say "yes, it should be changed." The main point wasn't that it should be changed, but I won't deny that it was lengthy. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llyssa Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 It's worth noting, some dialects of english actually pronounce schwas differently, based on what vowel they're from. It's also worth noting DE is from canada, so "Silly" could be modifying "canadian" rather than "grammar". They are silly(watch a livestream). They are canadian. So, they are silly canadians. Thus, anything they write is "silly canadian grammar". Just like, if they were stern canadians, it could be "stern canadian grammar". It's also noteworthy that "grammar" was used, not "spelling". Grammar refers to sentence usage, not spelling usage. The OP had 2 complaints, 1: a word's spelling, and 2: weak tense usage. To respond about "grammar" and mean "spelling" would be a strange error on the first replier's part. To assume the first replier is making that mistake either means you're not a very good linguist(failing to know the difference between the two), or you're quite arrogant(assuming that a non-canadian MUST have made that error!) That doesn't mean it wasn't made, but it seems strange of you to assume it was, and then react as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taiiat Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 the courtroom litigation in here is disgusting considering it's focused around a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSeannachaidh Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) It's worth noting, some dialects of english actually pronounce schwas differently, based on what vowel they're from. It's also worth noting DE is from canada, so "Silly" could be modifying "canadian" rather than "grammar". They are silly(watch a livestream). They are canadian. So, they are silly canadians. Thus, anything they write is "silly canadian grammar". Just like, if they were stern canadians, it could be "stern canadian grammar". It's also noteworthy that "grammar" was used, not "spelling". Grammar refers to sentence usage, not spelling usage. The OP had 2 complaints, 1: a word's spelling, and 2: weak tense usage. To respond about "grammar" and mean "spelling" would be a strange error on the first replier's part. To assume the first replier is making that mistake either means you're not a very good linguist(failing to know the difference between the two), or you're quite arrogant(assuming that a non-canadian MUST have made that error!) That doesn't mean it wasn't made, but it seems strange of you to assume it was, and then react as such. Alright, well I was just poking fun. I generally agree with Archi's posts and have frequently +1'd them. I have nothing against him at all. I just wanted to troll a bit in response to the phrase "silly Canadian grammar." That said, let me respond to your three points. To the first part of what you are saying, while my focus wasn't in phonetics and phonology, I am going to have to disagree: A shwa sounds like a shwa (though, as you quite correctly say, with slight variations based on factors such as which verb they represent and the sounds preceding and succeeding them in a word). If you meant the actual IPA variation on shwas like adding rhoticity, then I understand where you are coming from. However, the symbology of the IPA is pretty specific -- an unaltered shwa represents a specific neutral sounding vowel. I do grant you that different dialects may pronounce words differently, and that it is indeed feasible for the example I gave earlier to be false -- that is, there may be a dialect-group of English speakers that pronounce available as "AY-bul," or "Ah-bul," or "ih-bul," but those are not shwa sounds, those are different sounds altogether. As to the second part about modifiers, I say well played! You done did got me. -_- Lastly, I believe I will have to claim victory on the third. Grammar isn't just sentence usage; I think by definition grammar refers to the rules that govern the composition of language. That includes the composition of words through morphology, which is what spelling is based on. 'T'is very much a part of grammar. I am sorry that my banter followed by a very much intended winky-face has so frustrated you to the point of casting me as mediocre or arrogant in a public forum. My intent was a written joust with Archistopheles for calling, or allegedly calling, Canadian grammar silly... I didn't mean it to come off as flame, so for giving that impression I am sorry. Also, who said that he was non-Canadian? He never specified where he was from in his post. Even if I was right about the modifier, you don't have to be non-Canadian to think Canadians (or their grammar) are silly. Nationality had nothing to do with my post at all. Edited January 30, 2014 by TheSeannachaidh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts