Zompist Bboard Again

A small label on the cover of my 2026 wall calendar:
Posting this here to note that apparently, the phrase "fun facts" is now a regular part of the German language. Or at least the designers of that calendar cover thought it is.

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Jan 01, 2026 6:06 am A small label on the cover of my 2026 wall calendar:

fff.jpg

Posting this here to note that apparently, the phrase "fun facts" is now a regular part of the German language. Or at least the designers of that calendar cover thought it is.

The hyphenation is innovative as well! (Although usual for loans, I think.)

Lērisama wrote: ↑Thu Jan 01, 2026 6:30 am
The hyphenation is innovative as well! (Although usual for loans, I think.)

Well, German doesn't really have a tradition of forming a noun phrase out of several words that aren't at least hyphenated.

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Jan 01, 2026 6:34 am

Lērisama wrote: ↑Thu Jan 01, 2026 6:30 am
The hyphenation is innovative as well! (Although usual for loans, I think.)

Well, German doesn't really have a tradition of forming a noun phrase out of several words that aren't at least hyphenated.

Yes, the hyphenation is the less innovative innovation¹

¹ Try saying that 5 times!

Earlier this week, I overheard a German-language conversation between three young women or teenage girls on a bus during which one of them kept addressing the other two with the English word "bro".

Spotted on YouTube, emphasis mine:

A meme I saw wrote: Kendall Jenner standing behind Lewis Hamilton (her ex who's now dating her older sister) while dancing to Bad Bunny (her other ex) accepting the 2026 Grammy for Album of the Year from Harry Styles (her another ex) is a level of multiverse chaos we were not prepared for

Use of “another” in this context is new to me (intuitively I’d say “her other other ex”, “(yet/still) another of her exes”, “ex number three”, or probably “a/her third ex”).

Via YouTube (it should play from the timestamp):

Watch It For Days wrote:I very first saw her [Mary Wickes] in the I Love Lucy episode ‟The Ballet”. . .

I very first Xed is a new construction to me, though I find it rather intuitive.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 4:51 am The (im)possibility of sound changes in languages of immortals are a subject frequently discussed among Tolkien fans.

I'm increasingly seeing agreement of the verb with the last element of a noun phrase rather than with the number of the head, even where it cannot be described as agreement with sense. Have others noticed such an increase? Is it a consequence of a parsing error in grammar checkers? Is it just attraction? Is it merely that I've become sensitised to these misconstructions?

Richard W wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 9:32 am

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 4:51 am The (im)possibility of sound changes in languages of immortals are a subject frequently discussed among Tolkien fans.

I'm increasingly seeing agreement of the verb with the last element of a noun phrase rather than with the number of the head, even where it cannot be described as agreement with sense. Have others noticed such an increase? Is it a consequence of a parsing error in grammar checkers? Is it just attraction? Is it merely that I've become sensitised to these misconstructions?

It was just a mistake in this case.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 10:57 am

Richard W wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 9:32 am

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 4:51 am The (im)possibility of sound changes in languages of immortals are a subject frequently discussed among Tolkien fans.

I'm increasingly seeing agreement of the verb with the last element of a noun phrase rather than with the number of the head, even where it cannot be described as agreement with sense. Have others noticed such an increase? Is it a consequence of a parsing error in grammar checkers? Is it just attraction? Is it merely that I've become sensitised to these misconstructions?

It was just a mistake in this case.

But that raises the question of how often serious language changes start out as mistakes.

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 11:04 am

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 10:57 am

Richard W wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 9:32 am
I'm increasingly seeing agreement of the verb with the last element of a noun phrase rather than with the number of the head, even where it cannot be described as agreement with sense. Have others noticed such an increase? Is it a consequence of a parsing error in grammar checkers? Is it just attraction? Is it merely that I've become sensitised to these misconstructions?

It was just a mistake in this case.

But that raises the question of how often serious language changes start out as mistakes.

You are of course correct! Common mistakes at some point cease being mistakes and become acceptable usage - after all, correct usage is defined by what the speakers of the language do.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 2:13 pmcorrect usage is defined by what the speakers of the language do.

No, it is defined by the will of the... oh never mind, we're all fallen anyway.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 2:13 pm You are of course correct! Common mistakes at some point cease being mistakes and become acceptable usage - after all, correct usage is defined by what the speakers of the language do.

Hmm. On one hand, this is completely correct... after all, every sound change started out as a "mistake", usually a simplification. And in all areas of language we see usages condemned by one generation of grammarians becoming standard later on. (Of course historical linguists love those condemnations, because they're evidence that the change in question was already common.)

On the other hand, if language is what speakers do, then there really is no theoretical idea of a mistake, and that sounds wrong. I do think speakers follow rules, but that those rules are those of their own idiolect, not those of some grammarian. And we can violate our own rules, if only out of carelessness. (I don't assume that we know our own rules; in phonology and in syntax it's easy to demonstrate that we mostly don't. Linguists have ways of teasing those rules out.)

E.g. since the invention of the keyboard, surely two of the commonest tokens in English text are "hte" and "het". They are something writers do, but those writers themselves would agree that it's a mistake for "the". Of course a few spelling mistakes have become slang and then acceptable, e.g. "OK" (19th century) and "pwn".

zompist wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 3:29 pm E.g. since the invention of the keyboard, surely two of the commonest tokens in English text are "hte" and "het". They are something writers do, but those writers themselves would agree that it's a mistake for "the". Of course a few spelling mistakes have become slang and then acceptable, e.g. "OK" (19th century) and "pwn".

But mind you "teh" has managed to become a new article in English which is not equivalent in usage to "the"...

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 5:24 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 3:29 pm E.g. since the invention of the keyboard, surely two of the commonest tokens in English text are "hte" and "het". They are something writers do, but those writers themselves would agree that it's a mistake for "the". Of course a few spelling mistakes have become slang and then acceptable, e.g. "OK" (19th century) and "pwn".

But mind you "teh" has managed to become a new article in English which is not equivalent in usage to "the"...

From some quick Googling, the only usage referred to is a 90s form of irony, like typing "lmao!!!11" Do you have something else in mind?

zompist wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 6:38 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 5:24 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 3:29 pm E.g. since the invention of the keyboard, surely two of the commonest tokens in English text are "hte" and "het". They are something writers do, but those writers themselves would agree that it's a mistake for "the". Of course a few spelling mistakes have become slang and then acceptable, e.g. "OK" (19th century) and "pwn".

But mind you "teh" has managed to become a new article in English which is not equivalent in usage to "the"...

From some quick Googling, the only usage referred to is a 90s form of irony, like typing "lmao!!!11" Do you have something else in mind?

I mean that 'teh' is used in fashions where it is not entirely interchangeable with 'the' -- e.g. speaking of 'teh Revolución' mocks the concept of 'the revolution' to a greater degree than simply 'the Revolución' does.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 7:11 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 6:38 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 5:24 pm
But mind you "teh" has managed to become a new article in English which is not equivalent in usage to "the"...

From some quick Googling, the only usage referred to is a 90s form of irony, like typing "lmao!!!11" Do you have something else in mind?

I mean that 'teh' is used in fashions where it is not entirely interchangeable with 'the' -- e.g. speaking of 'teh Revolución' mocks the concept of 'the revolution' to a greater degree than simply 'the Revolución' does.

OK, but that's what I meant by irony. It's not really a word meaning, any more than saying words in an exaggerated sarcastic tone.

zompist wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 3:29 pm E.g. since the invention of the keyboard, surely two of the commonest tokens in English text are "hte" and "het".

I've never actually seen this, and if I did, I might assume it's some subconscious Dutch influence.

I know that I've posted about this very theme before, but is it that much to ask businesses to be somewhat consistent in how the address me?

I wonder to which extent this is an innovative usage. I don't think I've seen a comparative phrasing before.

From the Introduction to the book Bad Jews: A History of American Jewish Politics and Identities by Emily Tamkin:

The book was written during the global coronavirus pandemic, and so was mostly reported out by phone or over WhatsApp or Zoom from my home in Washington, DC, [...] Parts were also reported in New York City, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem

I'm asking about the formula that goes something like "the book was reported", used to mean more or less "the research for the book was done" or "the book was written". Is that usual or unusual?