Talk:absolutely

Interjection
05:25, 17 January 2010 Doremítzwr (Talk | contribs) (2,360 bytes) (RV: "Puritan rantings" or not, we do our users a disservice by denying the existence of such objectors simply because we disagree with them (and yes, I also disagree with them).)


 * Well I will contend that these objections have zero foundation. The emphatic sense is undeniably pervasive colloquially.--Anthonzi 05:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Singular undefined: is also pervasive, but there are still heaps of people who object to it. If you’re writing for a particular audience, it may be a good idea to avoid infuriating them. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Interjections are much, much more common on speech (and reported speech) than elsewhere. I find it hard to imagine a good (or even likely) other use of the interjection in writing. "Absolutely!" (or its even-more-intensified derivatives, absofuckinglutely and absobloodylutely) clearly has a role in giving a strongly positive response. What is there to disagree about? DCDuring TALK 12:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said in my original edit summary (which Anthonzi quoted above), I disagree with SLE on this particular proscription. That’s not the point; the point is made by Jack Lynch (better than I probably could). In the spirit thereof, how do y’all feel about this formulation ? †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the point of prescription with respect to any colloquial (one-to-one); one-to-few) usage whatsoever ever, under any circumstances or in any manner, no matter how disclaimed, referenced, or attributed. It seems at best presumptuous, not to mention futile. Some register information is useful.
 * Prescription seems to me more nearly appropriate in writing or speech (one-to-many) directed at a general audience. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Consider this scenario: A person gives a presentation to an audience comprising typical readers of The Telegraph. At the end of the presentation, there is a Q&A session. A member of the audience asks the person a question which includes asking him whether he agrees with a given point of view on a matter. The presenter wishes to note his emphatic agreement. How should he answer? †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Quickly, confidently, without recourse to Wiktionary, letting the chips fall where they may. I don't think we are in a position to offer this human any help. Moreover, any speaker who would think to ask the question probably doesn't need our help. Perhaps at some point in the future, robospeaker might derive more benefit from such prescriptive advice.
 * He might consider hiring some heavies to make sure that the prescriptivist Telegraph columnist is either excluded or intimidated. DCDuring TALK 01:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume that I’m not meant to take your response seriously. Your first two sentences cast doubt upon the value of our having any usage notes at all, whereas the last two are clearly sarcastically jocular. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't believe you thought we could advise a speaker how to speak. One's personal lexicon and grammar is something that one learns over a long period of time. One selects from what is available at the time, especially in spontaneous speech. A usage guide is somewhat useful in adjusting one's lexicon and grammar, heightening one's self-awareness, and in meeting specific situational needs, always involving prepared utterances, usually written. Our ability to come up with something that would apply to all speakers of all Englishes is laughable, yet another overreaching among a pattern of them. I'll bet that people do and will find their favorite sources of style info that take the tone that they find suitable, usually particular to their country, profession, age, and education level. DCDuring TALK 10:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On-the-spot and off-the-cuff utterances are not unamenable to conscious filtering and self-checking; consider elocution lessons. The proscriptive usage note is not “something that would apply to all speakers of all Englishes”; it is the opinion of “[s]ome commentators”, specifically the mouthpieces of the more disgruntled elements of the Daily Telegraph’s readership. It is up to any given user to pay heed to or to ignore their complaints. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But what does it have to do with Wiktionary? My sole interest is to avoid yet another class of overreaching by our contributors. There is no way that we should be holding forth on speech. There is some grounds for some usage guidance for formal and collegial writing as well as basic register information. End of, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * They’re usage notes on the use of words, which is certainly within our remit, IMHO, anyway. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If they were "against the rules", there wouldn't have been a need for any discussion beyond pointing to the rules. Instead, I think prescriptive usage notes regarding colloquial speech are simply a waste of time. There oughta be a law, but there isn't. I would seek to persuade as many as possible to limit prescription to that relevant for prepared speech and writing. A review of the better usage guides makes it clear that such is their focus. Not that there is any shortage of ranting about speech patterns among younger generations that elders find irritating or signs of the end of days. DCDuring TALK 18:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Haven’t you noticed the wiki pattern? Policies are generally descriptive of some consensus; if rules don’t reflect what people believe should be the case, then they tend to go about trying to change them or, if that doesn’t work, to flout them. I suggest that, with usage notes, you should ensure that they’re balanced, and that their assertions are either backed up by authority or explain their rationales fairly and exoterically. Such usage notes don’t harm the project, and so, opposition thereto ought not to be a high priority for you. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus in favor of prescriptive usage notes of any kind, AFAICT. There is a small amount of pressure, mostly from newbies, to add such. My bet is that deletion of lengthy, tendentious, weasel-worded, or inadequately sourced prescriptive usage notes would meet with substantial acceptance. DCDuring TALK 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Another thing about wiki is that it tends to be inclusive of content. This may have a lot to do with the fact that they’re almost entirely volunteer-run, and volunteers, lacking a financial incentive, will tend to devote their labours only when it is to something which interests them or about which they care; if they are too narrowly directed, fewer will hang around. The prescriptive desire to exclude content (that is, to note our distaste for certain terms by refusing to talk about them) has been decisively shouted down; “include and criticise”, however, still has a fair bit of support. (The wisdom of this is explained in the link I posted hereinbefore; did you read it?) †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(Rethreading)@User:Doremítzwr|Raifʻhār: But are the dissenting opinions notable? And if they are, wouldn't that also mean that we would have to append a note concerning Creationist drivel on every Biology page on Wikipedia?--Anthonzi 06:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, they’re published, and they represent the collective opinion of 842,912 Daily Telegraph readers, so probably. Creationists talking about biology are somewhat disanalogous with SLE talking about common usage, since in the former case, there is a definite standard for what is worth talking about (see Scientific method). †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, anyone who thinks that this interjection means a simple yes is not using the Scientific method properly and have serious flaws in their research methodology.--Anthonzi 10:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'm not sure why the scientific method is being evoked regarding a newspaper poll and the accompanying cartoon book they published. It sounds hardly like a logically concluded research paper rigorously reviewed by professional linguists.--Anthonzi 10:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The reviews on Amazon do not speak well of the scientific nature of this book either:http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/1845296753/ --Anthonzi 10:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, my point is that there is clearly a significant number of men in the street who bitch and whine about people who use undefined: as an emphatic form of undefined:; here, we can warn people that that can sometimes happen, and that it may be a prejudice worth avoiding. We also tell them that it is an ill-founded prejudice, and nothing more, by adding the bit about pragmatics. This is a completely different case from creationism in biology, where there is patent bad faith, ignorance, poor methodology, deception, and so on the part of its proponents, and where it is unequivocally the case that it is facts, and not opinions, which matter; where this does matter, it is noted, as in parthenogenesis. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 10:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * >worth avoiding
 * Very clever. I suppose I can agree to this purpose...for now, though I really don't see that being a large problem--particularly in America.--Anthonzi 06:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn’t possibly comment about the gut reactions of the American populace. Anyway, DCDuring seems to have dealt with that point already . I don’t know why he said “English” and not “the UK” or “Great Britain”, but since most of The Daily Telegraph’s readership is English, I’m sure it’ll do just fine. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

unconditional term
What's "unconditional term" mean in the usage note? --Backinstadiums (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

/ˈæbs(l)i/
According to the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary, "There are also casual rapid-speech forms /ˈæbs(l)i/" --Backinstadiums (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)