Grammar that makes you cringe

[citoyen]

I don't get it.

[Cudzoziemiec]

You're going to get it, one way or another.

[mattc]

If this word has (at least) 10 OED-approved meanings, then there are probably situations where it will create uncertainty. The "latte incident" appears to be one of them.

So I would recommend using a more clearerer wording. "May I ..." is also more polite, a double-win!

[Gareth Rees]

If this word has (at least) 10 OED-approved meanings, then there are probably situations where it will create uncertainty. The "latte incident" appears to be one of them.

There are 34 major and 94 minor senses of get in the OED, so nearly every use of the word has lots of ambiguity. But there's nothing particularly special about get in this respect: most common English words have multiple meanings. Ambiguity is inherent in the language, and coping with ambiguity is a mark of fluency in the language.

So I'm puzzled by the comments (from Tim Hall originally and later from T42—though possibly repudiated in the latter case) where posters claimed to be having trouble with the use of get in the sentence "can I get a latte?" Either these comments are confessing to a surprising level of disfluency in English, or they are being insincere in their claim not to understand this meaning of the word get. (I guess there's a third possibility: they really do understand the meaning of the word, but they object to some other aspect of the word—perhaps its register, or its association with American usage—but they have trouble explaining that, and light on the lexical ambiguity as a way out of the difficulty. But I don't know: as I say, I'm puzzled.)

I should be careful about coming down too hard here: difficulty with lexical ambiguity resolution could be due to language impairment or autism spectrum disorder. So I apologise if that's the case for anyone posting here.

[T42]

If this word has (at least) 10 OED-approved meanings, then there are probably situations where it will create uncertainty. The "latte incident" appears to be one of them.

There are 68 senses of get in the OED, so nearly every use of the word has lots of ambiguity. But there's nothing particularly special about get in this respect: most common English words have multiple meanings. Ambiguity is inherent in the language, and coping with ambiguity is a mark of fluency in the language.

So I'm puzzled by the comments (from Tim Hall originally and later from T42—though possibly repudiated in the latter case) where posters claimed to be having trouble with the use of get in the sentence "can I get a latte?" Either these comments are confessing to a surprising level of disfluency in English, or they are being insincere in their claim not to understand this meaning of the word get. (I guess there's a third possibility: they really do understand the meaning of the word, but they object to some other aspect of the word—perhaps its register, or its association with American usage—but they have trouble explaining that, and light on the lexical ambiguity as a way out of the difficulty. But I don't know: as I say, I'm puzzled.)

I should be careful about coming down too hard here: difficulty with lexical ambiguity resolution could be due to language impairment or autism spectrum disorder. So I apologise if that's the case for anyone posting here.

Including, perhaps...?

Re my "long arms" comment: that was, of course, interpreting get from the point of view of the barista's reply.  Pardon me for neglecting to make that even more blindingly obvious that it already was.

[Gareth Rees]

Re my "long arms" comment: that was, of course, interpreting get from the point of view of the barista's reply.

Yes, I got that, thank you. What I'm saying is that a barista who replied in that way would be misunderstanding or insincere.

[mattc]

If this word has (at least) 10 OED-approved meanings, then there are probably situations where it will create uncertainty. The "latte incident" appears to be one of them.

There are 34 major and 94 minor senses of get in the OED, so nearly every use of the word has lots of ambiguity. But there's nothing particularly special about get in this respect: most common English words have multiple meanings. Ambiguity is inherent in the language, and coping with ambiguity is a mark of fluency in the language.

So I'm puzzled by the comments (from Tim Hall originally and later from T42—though possibly repudiated in the latter case) where posters claimed to be having trouble with the use of get in the sentence "can I get a latte?" Either these comments are confessing to a surprising level of disfluency in English, or they are being insincere in their claim not to understand this meaning of the word get. (I guess there's a third possibility: they really do understand the meaning of the word, but they object to some other aspect of the word—perhaps its register, or its association with American usage—but they have trouble explaining that, and light on the lexical ambiguity as a way out of the difficulty. But I don't know: as I say, I'm puzzled.)

I should be careful about coming down too hard here: difficulty with lexical ambiguity resolution could be due to language impairment or autism spectrum disorder. So I apologise if that's the case for anyone posting here.

You say "there's nothing particularly special about get in this respect: most common English words have multiple meanings."
Yet in your post above - with its many words! - I didn't sense any ambiguities.

So the phrase "can I get a latte?" seems to have a very high ambiguity/word_count!
Sure, most people would correctly guess the intended meaning - but avoiding ambiguity is a good thing, all else being equal. There are several common words that could have been used instead.

I'm not saying "get" was wrong in this context - just that there were much better wordings available. IMHO!

[Gareth Rees]

Yet in your post above - with its many words! - I didn't sense any ambiguities.

There are many ambiguities (just from the first paragraph, consider lots, common, inherent, language, coping and mark), but you're a fluent English speaker so you have no difficulty picking among these meanings to find an interpretation that makes good sense.

[mattc]

Yet in your post above - with its many words! - I didn't sense any ambiguities.

There are many ambiguities (just from the first paragraph, consider lots, common, inherent, language, coping and mark), but you're a fluent English speaker so you have no difficulty picking among these meanings to find an interpretation that makes good sense.

OK, fair point. but I still believe that with its "34 major and 94 minor senses of get in the OED" this tiddler can create a LOT* of ambiguity. Hence it's a word to avoid where practicable.

[I only know one meaning for inherent and coping (as a verb anyway!). But I'm not as fluent as thee.]

_{*Hope that was clear!}

[T42]

Re my "long arms" comment: that was, of course, interpreting get from the point of view of the barista's reply.

Yes, I got that, thank you. What I'm saying is that a barista who replied in that way would be misunderstanding or insincere.

Insincere? I wouldn't put it that way, but I'd say that he might just be an Eng. Lang. moonlighter administering a deserved correction by deliberately misinterpreting the request.

[red marley]

Maybe coffee was being served by a barrister with a good command of English who applied for the job over the phone.

[citoyen]

Insincere? I wouldn't put it that way

No, maybe disingenuous would be a better word.

[Ian H]

The joy and irritation of English is how it can be twisted, mangled, subverted, inverted and still make sense. Of course, the English lost control of English some time ago. Here's some twisted language for you:-

Me up at does

out of the floor
quietly Stare

a poisoned mouse

still who alive

is asking What
have i done that

You wouldn’t have

[Gareth Rees]

Insincere? I wouldn't put it that way, but I'd say that he might just be an Eng. Lang. moonlighter administering a deserved correction by deliberately misinterpreting the request.

Deliberate misinterpretation is a form of insincerity (the OED says "insincere, adj. assuming a false guise in speech or conduct" which seems to accurately describe someone who is pretending to misinterpret). But more importantly, your phrase "deserved correction" assumes what's under dispute here. How can a deliberate misinterpretation possibly be a "correction"? If the question was understood, what is there to correct?

[T42]

Insincere? I wouldn't put it that way, but I'd say that he might just be an Eng. Lang. moonlighter administering a deserved correction by deliberately misinterpreting the request.

Deliberate misinterpretation is a form of insincerity (the OED says "insincere, adj. assuming a false guise in speech or conduct" which seems to accurately describe someone who is pretending to misinterpret). But more importantly, your phrase "deserved correction" assumes what's under dispute here. How can a deliberate misinterpretation possibly be a "correction"? If the question was understood, what is there to correct?

Should the aim be to simply understand?  In a real-life coffee-shop, perhaps, but I rather think the example was invented to push things to the extreme as an illustration.

[citoyen]

Should the aim be to simply understand?  In a real-life coffee-shop, perhaps

QED

[Cudzoziemiec]

The joy and irritation of English is how it can be twisted, mangled, subverted, inverted and still make sense. Of course, the English lost control of English some time ago. Here's some twisted language for you:-

Me up at does

out of the floor
quietly Stare

a poisoned mouse

still who alive

is asking What
have i done that

You wouldn’t have

I, up and doing,
out of the door,
calmly look at
a poisoned mouse,
who, still alive,
is asking, What
have I done that
you wouldn't have?

[Jacomus]

The joy and irritation of English is how it can be twisted, mangled, subverted, inverted and still make sense. Of course, the English lost control of English some time ago. Here's some twisted language for you:-

Me up at does

out of the floor
quietly Stare

a poisoned mouse

still who alive

is asking What
have i done that

You wouldn’t have

I, up and doing,
out of the door,
calmly look at
a poisoned mouse,
who, still alive,
is asking, What
have I done that
you wouldn't have?

A poisoned mouse, still alive, quietly stares up at me from the floor, asking 'why have you done that? I wouldn't have'.

I'd love to know the actual answer Ian H!

[Ian H]

I'd love to know the actual answer Ian H!

You 'd have to ask the American poet, E.E. Cummings.*


*Cue for someone to get tiresome about capitals.

[nicknack]

I'd love to know the actual answer Ian H!

You 'd have to ask the American poet, E.E. Cummings.*


*Cue for someone to get tiresome about capitals.

I can be tiresome at 1 in the morning after a long day's drinking.

Oh, I believe you mean e e cummings.

Yah boo.

[jsabine]

I'd love to know the actual answer Ian H!

You 'd have to ask the American poet, E.E. Cummings.*


*Cue for someone to get tiresome about capitals.

I can be tiresome at 1 in the morning after a long day's drinking.

Oh, I believe you mean e e cummings.

Yah boo.

The Wikipedia entry (yeah, I know ...) suggests that Ian H did in fact mean E. E. Cummings, with one of the references supporting the idea that the poet himself preferred E.E. Cummings, at least when it came to the title page of one of his books ...

(Yes, there's a difference in the spacing there. I can be tiresome too.)

[Salvatore]

The OED says:

early doors
A. n. In a theatre, etc.: a period of admission ending some time before the performance begins, during which a wider selection of seating is available, usually for a higher price. Now hist.
B. adv. Early on; near the beginning. Freq. in the context of Association Football.

First quote for sense A is from 1883; for sense B from 1979.

See the bottom of this 1916 theatre poster for an example whereas this one also from 1916 is quite clear - "No early doors".

[citoyen]

http://toys.usvsth3m.com/control-your-inner-pedant/

The results are in! Your inner pedant is
80% under control
You can tollerate most mistakes.

Actually, my inner pedant wanted to point out that several of the examples aren't actually misteaks.

[Cudzoziemiec]

http://toys.usvsth3m.com/control-your-inner-pedant/

The results are in! Your inner pedant is
80% under control
You can tollerate most mistakes.

Actually, my inner pedant wanted to point out that several of the examples aren't actually misteaks.

Is that part of the test?

[citoyen]