https://forum.dynastyleaguefootball.com/
https://forum.dynastyleaguefootball.com/viewtopic.php?t=203803
curiously, in italian "mano a mano" means "gradually".Hottoddies wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:24 pmIt's actually Spanish for "hand to hand" It is used to mean that two people are pitted in competition with each other. So in this sense, sports broadcasters are not misusing the phrase.
Tell me, it's silly. I don't need to see a team signature, frankly I never look at them. It's fairly simple, be nice and let people provide an opinion on the topic.
As long as that opinion is right (in my opinion) and aligns with my preconceptions, sure, have all the opinions you want!esloan35 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:28 amTell me, it's silly. I don't need to see a team signature, frankly I never look at them. It's fairly simple, be nice and let people provide an opinion on the topic.
I guess I need to correct myself. Mano in Spanish or Italian means hand. It comes from the Latin word manu. In Spanish when you say, mano a mano, it can be translated as hand to hand or hand in hand. It's meaning can vary depending the context in which it is used. So if a broadcaster were to say that two players will be facing each other today mano a mano, it might mean that they will be holding hands.Hottoddies wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:24 pmIt's actually Spanish for "hand to hand" It is used to mean that two people are pitted in competition with each other. So in this sense, sports broadcasters are not misusing the phrase.
I certainly prefer when people use correct grammar and spelling, but I don't think it's a lack of etiquette if people don't do it. You don't know everyone's circumstances, they could be dyslexic, or they might not be native/fluent English speakers/writers, they could have trouble reading/writing, they might not be able to spell, they could be uneducated, they might not have the time (doctors use shorthand for note taking, does that mean they don't care about their educating, practice or patients?). None of those things make them less of a person or show that they have a lack of etiquette. I think it's very disingenuous to paint people with a very large brush.M-Dub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:37 amI strongly disagree. Using incorrect spelling/grammar indicates that the speaker/keyboardist doesn’t care enough about the topic at hand and/or the other people involved in the discussion to even communicate coherently. That’s the epitome of poor etiquette, imo.
“Winningest” specifically doesn’t really bother me. It’s been in use since at least the 1940s. What I find particularly irksome in sports broadcasting is the all-too-frequent use of “mano a mano” where the speaker obviously thinks it means “man to man.”
I didn’t think it needed to be explicitly stated, but just so nobody thinks I’m some sort of heartless monster, if you have a learning disability or English isn’t your primary language, my criticism isn’t directed at you. However, I’d be willing to wager that the overwhelming majority of examples of poor grammar/spelling on this site aren’t due to those circumstances, but just general apathy and indifference.elvisn wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:28 amI certainly prefer when people use correct grammar and spelling, but I don't think it's a lack of etiquette if people don't do it. You don't know everyone's circumstances, they could be dyslexic, or they might not be native/fluent English speakers/writers, they could have trouble reading/writing, they might not be able to spell, they could be uneducated, they might not have the time (doctors use shorthand for note taking, does that mean they don't care about their educating, practice or patients?). None of those things make them less of a person or show that they have a lack of etiquette. I think it's very disingenuous to paint people with a very large brush.M-Dub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:37 amI strongly disagree. Using incorrect spelling/grammar indicates that the speaker/keyboardist doesn’t care enough about the topic at hand and/or the other people involved in the discussion to even communicate coherently. That’s the epitome of poor etiquette, imo.
“Winningest” specifically doesn’t really bother me. It’s been in use since at least the 1940s. What I find particularly irksome in sports broadcasting is the all-too-frequent use of “mano a mano” where the speaker obviously thinks it means “man to man.”
This could go both ways. I’ve always felt that if you’re a guest in someone’s home, you SHOULD, in fact, make a good faith effort to adhere to their etiquette. As long as host and guest are capable of coherent communication, this shouldn’t be that big of an issue one way or another.Like when you welcome someone to your home you shouldn't demand they adhere to the style of etiquette you like, you should just be happy that they've accepted your invitation and are polite and respectful.
It’s not like I’m going through every thread I open, correcting people’s spelling/grammar errors on a case-by-case basis. That would absolutely be super annoying, judgmental and downright douchey. Plus, I’d never have time to ask for advice or dole out any of my own. But in a thread specifically discussing etiquette on these boards, I don’t think it’s out of line to point out a handful of common errors frequently encountered around here.Another example is the "no elbows on the table", generally people who protect their plates have had to fight for their food and thus use elbows to protect it. So an etiquette rule is made to differentiate the classes.
No white after labor day is another class indicator rule.
Generally the person enforcing etiquette is the one in the wrong, as long as the other person isn't being crass, offensive or aggressive there's never a need to pull someone up for a lack of etiquette.
A lot of etiquette stuff was and is just a way to class shame and/or to project superiority over people. Items include judging people based on how they pronounce words, what fork they use for dinner, if and where they were educated, demanding to be called Sir and so on.
I could go on and on and on, but I won't. As long as we're all being respectful then there's no harm with people saying "alot", and mixing up their "there's, they're & their" etc
That’s wild. You must not watch much sports. I hear it used synonymously with “man to man” all the time in sports broadcasts. Maybe I’m just more sensitive to it because it’s a pet peeve of mine.Finally, on your "mano a mano" point, I've never heard 1 single person think it means "man to man", the first reference to such I've ever seen is literally you right here.
Speaking of the devil; on the Fantasy Footballers podcast today, where the three host were going to do a mock draft with each one picking their own team, they referred to it as going "mano a mano a mano".
Hottoddies wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 10:46 pmSpeaking of the devil; on the Fantasy Footballers podcast today, where the three host were going to do a mock draft with each one picking their own team, they referred to it as going "mano a mano a mano".
I agree that "could of" is an attempt to say "could've" or "could have", but the user not knowing that spelling is incorrect. I disagree with the idea that all people who say/spell "coulda" KNOW it's incorrect. Willing to bet a fair number believe that's how you say/spell it. Those people may not frequent a message board, however.M-Dub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:28 amEh, see I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. I view “could of” and “coulda” completely differently.Pullo Vision wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:36 pm It'll be interesting if changes in common speech like "could of" or "coulda" is a permanent change in the language or more of an ephemeral change like slang terms that come and go.
When people type “coulda,” they’re aware that the correct spelling is “could’ve,” but they’re intentionally typing it “incorrectly” in an attempt to more accurately portray an accent/dialect in spoken language. For example, Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront: “I coulda been a contendah! I coulda been somebody!” Typing it like that helps the reader internally hear it closer to the way it was delivered in the movie.
In contrast, when people type “could of,” they genuinely believe that’s how it’s supposed to be spelled because it’s very similar to how the correct spelling of “could’ve” sounds when you say it out loud.
The former is a genuine attempt to better represent spoken language on the page/screen. The latter is simply borne of ignorance. Enough people not knowing any better and not caring enough to learn isn’t a valid reason to change a word or phrase’s spelling or accept it as an alternate spelling, imo.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... 20a%20manoAmerican slang Definition of mano a mano. : in direct competition or conflict especially between two people.
Yeah, my bad on speaking in absolutes. I’m sure there are also people who believe “coulda” is the correct spelling, but my suspicion is that most of the people who type it that way are aware that it’s an informal spelling meant to imitate speech.Pullo Vision wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 7:15 pmI agree that "could of" is an attempt to say "could've" or "could have", but the user not knowing that spelling is incorrect. I disagree with the idea that all people who say/spell "coulda" KNOW it's incorrect. Willing to bet a fair number believe that's how you say/spell it. Those people may not frequent a message board, however.M-Dub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:28 amEh, see I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. I view “could of” and “coulda” completely differently.Pullo Vision wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:36 pm It'll be interesting if changes in common speech like "could of" or "coulda" is a permanent change in the language or more of an ephemeral change like slang terms that come and go.
When people type “coulda,” they’re aware that the correct spelling is “could’ve,” but they’re intentionally typing it “incorrectly” in an attempt to more accurately portray an accent/dialect in spoken language. For example, Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront: “I coulda been a contendah! I coulda been somebody!” Typing it like that helps the reader internally hear it closer to the way it was delivered in the movie.
In contrast, when people type “could of,” they genuinely believe that’s how it’s supposed to be spelled because it’s very similar to how the correct spelling of “could’ve” sounds when you say it out loud.
The former is a genuine attempt to better represent spoken language on the page/screen. The latter is simply borne of ignorance. Enough people not knowing any better and not caring enough to learn isn’t a valid reason to change a word or phrase’s spelling or accept it as an alternate spelling, imo.
Really, the evolution was "could've" to "could of" to "coulda". The first is the formal "correct" way, the 2nd an attempt to use it correctly in a formal setting, the 3rd has enough variety in setting and user intent that I don't think we can make a blanket statement that all users know it's not the "correct" spelling.
On that underlined part, curious what is a "valid" reason for a language to change. A language doesn't need approval from some council to reflect changes of its users. If two consecutive generations use a word/phrase in the same way, is that sufficient to enshrine that officially?
I drives me nuts when people use pronouns without indicating what noun they are talking about. It would be one thing if it was attached to a quote or at least referring to the subject of the thread. But short of that, it's both lazy and selfish. It puts the onus on the reader to go back and search for the prior post to try to figure out who the writer is talking about.dawgs4life wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:51 am Just stating what I saw. He could be timed fast, but his routes were so ugly and indecisive he definitely does not play at a 4.33. He would not be the first WR to time fast and play slow. And it does not mean he can’t improve. Just wrote up what I saw.
