I’ll put it this way. If you’re the kind of person who says ‘No, totally,’ then I probably want to hit you. I don’t really care if you appreciate modern art or not. If it does something for you, that’s great. If it doesn’t, I’m not going to assume that you are a total moron. But if you go around saying the exact opposite of what you mean? I’ll find that irritating.
Still, I could make an exception to the rule here if what you’re really trying to do is say ‘nay’ instead of ‘no.’ In doing away with ‘aye’ and ‘nay,’ we lost the ability to say “I agree with you, no.” We lost a softer version of ‘no’ that carried no implication of contradiction.
But if you’re just going around saying ‘no’ when you mean ‘yes,’ that’s a hittable offense.
I understand your point but I try not to hit people. Hitting people tends to reinforce the point that I am an aggressive NYer living in the West Coast culture. It doesn’t help that I worked with Israelis for 7 years in the 90s during my formative years.
My father was an English teacher and this kind of construction would annoy him as well.
I generally don’t hit people, either. Doesn’t mean that I don’t often want to, though.
You’re still on the big east. Throw a few f-bombs in their direction and physically shove them away from you. If you know them, or they are smaller than you, smack them upside the head and call them a fucking idiot.
Yes, by all means, make sure to pick on people smaller than you.
No, totally!
I imagine in a sanguine moment you’ld cleave to someone you love. Before you dust us with more examples of “No, totally” one must understand the Roman god Janus, meaning doorway. Thanking you Booman for picking up on this grammatical phenomena of contranyms. I could give a damn.
Cleave, clip, it’s all the same, or the opposite.
It’s almost like the modern version of valley girl speak.
Let’s hope it becomes as uncool and dies out as quickly as its predecessors.
I’m sorry, I’ll get off your lawn now.
That said I really dislike Lena Dunham and most modern art.
Eh.
Language evolves, and I say that as an English major.
My wife starts sentences with “No,” when she’s not saying no to anything. I don’t know when it started. I know she didn’t do it when we got married 25 years ago and I know she does it now. And I hate it! Hate, hate, hate, hate it. But what am I supposed to do? Tell her how to talk?
Was there in interim period when she started sentences with “You know, …?” I know that “you know, …” wasn’t a common speech habit a few decades ago. Although recall that “if you know what I mean” was tacked onto the end of sentences by some to add some seriousness to their mostly uninteresting chatter. Can’t stand either. A major user of “you know, …” is Hillary Clinton.
Actually I find Hillary a fairly consistent smooth public speaker, most times easy to listen to and understand. Use of “you know” is very common among most speakers of our language and so to the extent it represents a commonality with the masses, it’s to her political advantage.
I used to get annoyed at pols who um’ed and ah’ed a bit too much. Ted Kennedy in particular. Then I realized there were more important things with pols to get upset about, and annoying quirks and trends in spoken language are inevitable. Like the recent times overuse of “like” or back in the 80s that trend, still around, of ending simple declarative sentences on an upward, questioning tone.
Meanwhile, I hope Hillary focuses more on softening her FP positions, especially wrt Russia. On her public speaking, she needs to soften the loud tones when she’s trying to speak forcefully from a sense of principled outrage. Craft the words more carefully and succinctly and let them do the shouting.
Do you seriously think that the woman hasn’t availed herself of substantial public speaking coaching during the twenty-three years that she’s been on the national stage? What you see/hear is as good as it gets for someone without natural public speaking talent and lacking rhythm who has been coached for decades.
Interesting that even though you say that she’s fairly consistent smooth public speaker, most times easy to listen to and understand and that can discount the “you knows, …,” you also recognize that she can’t modulate her tone or craft her words well. Imagine how you would experience her speaking if you weren’t strongly biased in favor of her candidacy. (When I evaluate/critique public speaking and vocal quality of politicians, it is on technical qualities. And includes an ability to ad lib.)
The incidence of people over the age of 65 years old, authentically veering left on major public policy issues is slim to none. Particularly among those that have been trending rightward for at least a couple of decades. As she’s not going to shift left, those hoping for that from her are deluding themselves or willing to accept campaign lies from her. She is who she is.
The very fact that I can step back and criticize certain limited (and mostly non-essential) aspects of her speaking should show at least I’m not totally in thrall to her or her candidacy. Strongly biased might have described me in the 2008 cycle vs Obama. Not this time — merely “favor” her at this time, given what looks like a limited and uninspiring field to oppose her.
And did you mean to imply you were unbiased towards her, merely an objective observer? Please.
Btw, she’s as good ad libbing as most good pols. Better than Obama in the 2008 race. Neither, I hasten to add, was perfect nor particularly clever. And Hillary was under far more pressure as the front runner and media non-favorite.
Re veering left, let’s let her announce (next month?) and see what happens. My sense of it is she’s already nudging leftward on some populist economic issues (she’s already there on women’s/family issues), recognizing that if she doesn’t lean more in the direction of Eliz Warren on some of these things, she’s going to run the risk of a disappointing base turnout. FP is another huge matter — an area I assign more weight to given the increasingly scary situations developing out there.
We might agree that most politicians aren’t technically good public speakers. There isn’t a wide range between poor, serviceable, okay, and better than average. And even those ratings tend to vary for a single candidate by forum. Gore was better than average in delivering a formal speech, okay in debates, but not so good in interviews (during his POTUS campaign). While I loathed practically everything he said, that wasn’t an impediment to my ability to acknowledge that Reagan was good at public speech. Or in an interview or sit-down debate forum that Cheney is very skilled. So, you are incorrect when you assert that my critique of Clinton’s public speech is biased.
she’s already nudging leftward on some populist economic issues
Rhetorically or authentically?
wrt her support for women and children, it’s not different from the coalition of conservative Democratic and liberal Republican women circa 1972. Where would her candidacy as a politician be without some support for women’s rights? However, on generic economic policies, she has long supported economic inequality and the MIC — both of which undergird the high rates of women and child poverty in this country.
Actually, considering the range of situations that constitute public speaking (which you allude to by including the ability to ad lib), Reagan was only good if he had a script or had been rehearsed with a line. Otherwise, often for instance in press conferences, he was strikingly inarticulate and at times embarrassingly at a loss for facts or coherency (recall the numerous post-conference corrections his press sec’y would have to issue, regularly, like clockwork).
Is Hillary though an essentially effective communicator — vital for a successful pol — despite a minor flaw or two in her public speaking style? Absolutely.
No one will care, or notice, if she adds a few too many “you know”s in her unprepared remarks. No one except for a few progressive anti-Clinton detractors online and maybe a closet Jebbite scribe in the MSM looking to find fault and make trouble for her (as they did for Caroline Kennedy and her speaking style during her brief senate bid).
On women/family issues, apart from backing the military a bit too much for my taste, I’m unaware that she’s, say, opposed equal pay for women in the workforce, or an increase in the minimum wage, or better enforcement of workplace sexual harassment matters, or a woman’s right to choose. Will most leading feminists today endorse her or decide to sit this one out because she’s not perfect?
For purposes of this dispute, let’s try to differentiate between what is said and how well it’s said. The former is generally scripted for the highest officeholders. Even in debates and interviews.
“how well it’s said” includes vocal quality, tone, inflection, pronunciation and enunciation, cadence/rhythm, emotional congruency with the words, fluidity, etc. IOW — how listenable is the voice. Years before Elizabeth Warren became a politician, she was impressive in radio interviews not only for what she said but because she has a good voice on all of the above listed measures. Hillary begins with a tonally flat voice and lacks rhythm (she is possibly really tone deaf) which is a handicap. However, it would be less so if she had worked on improving emotional congruency and fluidity.
Those measures contribute to a perception of whether the speech is authentic or false. Primarily with regard to the true self of the speaker and only secondarily to objective truth. This is in the realm of if the speaker believes it is true, it can’t be a lie, but the speaker may be nutso. It’s difficult to sort out if someone like Cheney is a skilled liar or nutso. Either way, his self presentation leaves an impression of authenticity. Clinton falls short on this — there have been occasions when I’ve heard her speak when I know that what she said is factually true and I have no reason to doubt that it’s an authentic statement from her, and yet she left an impression that she wasn’t telling the truth or was hiding something. I cut her a lot of slack when she testified about Benghazi because in that instance, I was well enough informed to know that she was speaking honestly. However, I can understand how uninformed people would have the sense that she was being dishonest.
That is partially the consequence of having had too many speech/voice coaches over too many years and too many makeovers. I liken it to my poor/weak tennis serve that after several different instructors became so bad it was practically non-existent.
The extraneous “you knows …” are grating and that does enter into impressions she leaves with viewers. But worse are her impression management skills. An example. Many Americans are objectively financially insecure and no pathway forward to some security can be seen. Elizabeth Warren speaks of this reality for many all the time. She expresses empathetic understanding, compassion, and offers policy changes to improve the situation for those struggling financially. Hillary? “Well, you know, we were dead broke when we left the White House.” As if “see, we were just like struggling Americans and therefore, we understand your plight.” Except it was a lie. Dead broke people don’t purchase two multi-million dollar houses. She had an $8 million book advance contract before leaving the WH. And Bill’s was expected to be larger when he signed his deals a few months later. Her salary and his pension alone put them in if not the top 1% then at least in the top 2%. And that income is chump change compared to his expected speaking fees after leaving the WH.
Once again, economic policies at the federal level that increase economic inequality (the legacy of Clinton/Rubin/Summers that Hillary has not only not rejected but has surrounded herself with if not those individuals then like minded advisers) do significant harm to the “have nots” and modest increases to the minimum wage aren’t compensatory. Plus, let’s not forget that “end welfare as we know it” was a Clinton policy that greatly harmed poor women and children.
After 2008, I’m not too interested in what some “leading” feminists say these days. Those that screamed sexism at other lifelong feminists for not supporting Hillary. Championing Clinton simply because she’s a woman is sexist and the antithesis of feminist principles. Nor is it healthy for this nation to have our choice for President limited to a Bush or Clinton yet again. In twenty-four years (1988-2012) there was but one election cycle when a Clinton and/or Bush wasn’t running for POTUS. (And GHWB was on the GOP ticket 1980 and 1984 after losing the primary in 1980.)
Too much there to respond to. Will limit myself to noting several of Hillary’s finest hours have occurred while she was speaking. Her graduation address at Wellesley in 1969, the Hollow Man speech. Her impressive presentation to Congress of her husband’s health care bill. The bold 1995(?) speech in China on women’s/human rights. Her gracious concession speech in 2008. Her forceful testimony to Congress re Benghazi.
No one but a few speech expert purists and Hillary bashers on the left, in addition to the usual MSM suspects, cares about her occasional overuse of “you know”. For most, it’s just biased nitpicking and trying to find a variety of ways to find fault, including assigning to her any policy put forward by her husband during his presidency.
As for Eliz Warren, I’m also a big fan. But she’s not running. And compared to Hillary, she has far less of a public track record to scrutinize and nitpick. Give her enough years in the spotlight, and she’ll have her verbal blunders too. They’re all human.
Hillary looks like the one we’ll have to get behind, that’s the way this has worked out (as lefty Dems failed to take my advice in 2008 and nominate HRC, giving youngster Obama 8 yrs of badly needed seasoning as VP). Or maybe Lincoln Chafee will electrify the anti-Clinton progressive left, though he cuts too much of a Wally Cox persona to be considered as much more than a possible able debate opponent who might be useful in pulling Hillary to the left on FP.
I remember reading somewhere that people tend to apologize to other people when the other person, for example, is the one brushing against the apologizing person. I know I’ll do it, just because who knows who is to blame, and it’s just easier to say “sorry” when neither party necessarily meant any harm or disrespect.
Perhaps saying “no, I agree” is related to that, with the person who says that almost coming off defensive/apologetic, as if trying to say that no, they don’t disagree, they in fact agree. I can see that becoming normal today as anymore there are always “two sides” to every story, so saying, “no, I agree”, you’re saying preemptively that you don’t disagree… as if the other person is accusing you of disagreeing with them, even if they don’t.
I don’t say that, though. Just an attempt to figure out why people are saying that. People are saying “No (I don’t disagree), totally!”.
Yeah, really, no. One of the most miraculous and lovely things about human language is the way you can bend it to your will and make it do things it doesn’t want to do. If you want to let the words control you, go be a vervet. š
I haven’t noticed the use of “No, totally.” But it seems to me that Maron is saying something that both parties might reasonably agree is objectionable or at least something that Dunham might disagree with. So, Dunham is saying, “No, I don’t disagree with you. I actually totally agree.”
You folk just are not understanding the construction.
Let’s say you asked me “What color is that dress?” and I answered:
“Blue. No, Royal Blue” is that just lazy/crazy or is it a sort of partial correction via extra precision?
Let’s say you asked me “How is the wine?” and I answered:
“Fine. No, exquisite.” Well you might conclude that I was an affected ass but probably not accuse me of just talking nonsense.
Getting to the point. Suppose I ask you a question answerable EITHER with a simple assent or something more intense and/or precise. As in “Are you enjoying the show?” and I answered.
“Yes. Wait! that is not quite right! I meant totally!”
Well there is no more crime there than say “It’s pretty, no it is beautiful!”
Read “Yes. No, (I mean) totally” for “Yes. No, totally” and I think it is pretty clear what the drift is.
You know what makes me want to punch people in the neck? People two decades younger than me that want to deploy the “Kids these days, with their shitty TV shows and their illiteracy” thing. Exactly when did you become your own grandparents?
I understand perfectly the discussion that I was addressing. I have no idea what you’re on about, though.
and I screwed up by attaching to yours which in my view actually agrees to some degree with mine.
On the other hand that you don’t have any idea of what I was “on about” says more about you than me.
Booman made a claim. I responded on point. Just clicked on the wrong reply button. Which got your panties in a bunch. Oh well.