Are StreetEtiquette Literate?

[NotoriousMarquis]

This is only one of many sentences I've found after being linked to an article from time to time, but this one really takes the prize.

"Although considered ripe to the ‘industry’, more and more the fashion week extravaganza is becoming routine for Travis and I."

This sentence, according to laws of grammar, says that the "fashon week extravaganza" is "considered ripe to the industry." I can't reallllly imagine that this is what they meant to say.

However, there is also a remarkable mistake here that I just can't really get my head around: "Is becoming routine for travis and I."

My question is, can these people read?

Would you say, "Aunt Millie brought a cake for I" or "This is really a surprise to I," or even take it to the logical extension "this girl gave I an STD."

Then a few sentences later it just seems like they gave up entirely on making sense

"While street style photographers shutters are going off providing us with live in the moment action, public relation companies continue to make sure their clients (designers) are receiving the best press possible, mixed with a couple of sleepless nights fashion week was well and alive."

The use of the word "providing" to sound elegant is funny, but can be overlooked. But the last clause, "Mixed...alive" doesn't even make sense if one were to forgive any grammatical errors. It's just an idea thats there related to nothing else in that sentence. I'm really surprised that these people were given an article in NYT, let alone given the opportunity to write english words.

 

[gladhands]

Stop

 

[NotoriousMarquis]

Stop what?

 

[mymil]

They can clearly write and read. Everybody makes mistakes. Blog posts are generally not proofread as well as NYT articles (and even those regularly include mistakes!). Hyper-correction (e.g. 'Travis and I' when the latter is the object) is rampant. Maybe more sinister and disturbing (to me, at least) is the penetration of standard language ideology (see Michael Silverstein's 1987 essay, 'Monoglot "Standard" in America: Standardization and Metaphors of Linguistic Hegemony') and the over-admiration of prescriptive grammar.

Clauses don't always cooperate after combining sentences unless they're double-checked.

 

[gladhands]



Stop what?

What are you trying to accomplish here? They aren't very good writers, but that's not what made them famous. This thread can either go to a very ugly place or it can die. This will be my last reply.

 

[Mr. Moo]

Obvious troll thread is obvious.

 

[asdf]

In this context, ripe means old, past its time, etc.

The other item you "can't get your head around" is also correct, I believe, though I am not certain.

 

[NotoriousMarquis]



What are you trying to accomplish here? They aren't very good writers, but that's now what made them famous. This thread can either go to a very ugly place or it can die. This will be my last reply.

In this context, ripe means old, past its time, etc.
The other item you "can't get your head around" is also correct, I believe, though I am not certain.

lol using I as an object is most definitely not, unless your name is I, or it's short for Ivan or something else like that.

 

[asdf]

You seem to be correct regarding "I." Still, a pretty small mistake and hardly noticeable in the sea of improper uses of "me" I see every day.

 

[NotoriousMarquis]



(see Michael Silverstein's 1987 essay, 'Monoglot "Standard" in America: Standardization and Metaphors of Linguistic Hegemony'

I actually attended a few lectures by him, one where he talked about devolution of language as a correlation to purposeful destruction of literary style starting after the first world war, which was fairly interesting, and basically we have lost a lot of lyricism to our language (4/5 of our sentences were spoken accidentally in iambs before 1900, now its something like 2/5). So to continue to use outdated phrases and syntax is I think more what you're talking about, as opposed to the complete devolution of grammar (which If i can recall, was hyper-popularized by british films of the 1960s, where verbs and nouns are really interchangeable, and at a point it becomes unintelligible).

I have a few hours tonight before I have to complete the work I wanted to get done, and I'm in the UC library right now. will go have a look.

 

[mymil]

It's extremely hard for me to imagine Michael Silverstein describing the "devolution of language," unless he were either a) tongue-in-cheek or b) voicing a particular language ideology. Key to his thought is the trichotomous unity of structure, practice, and ideology as they mutually effect each other historically. So language change, yes. Devolution? Probably not.

Related, as a gigantic corpus for exactly what Silverstein is describing in 'Monoglot Standard': https://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&q=death+of+english

Also educational: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=5

 

[LA Guy]

Neither Travis nor Josh are particularly good writers, but that doesn't mean that they don't bring something meaningful to the discourse on fashion.

 

[F. Corbera]



Neither Travis nor Josh are particularly good writers, but that doesn't mean that they don't bring something meaningful to the discourse on fashion.

I say that we move things to neutral ground and have a sing-off.

Perhaps it can be an American Idol-style attraction at the StyleForvm 10th.

 

[foodguy]



I say that we move things to neutral ground and have a sing-off. Perhaps it can be an American Idol-style attraction at the StyleForvm 10th.

better [VIDEO][/VIDEO]

 

[greyinla]

..