New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Actually, the phrase is "cater to whims," not contour. (nt)
in reply to a message by -=A=-
.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
Not wanting to have anything whatsoever to do with this silly argument, which has already ended anyway, I still must say that -=A=-s use of "contour" was perfectly appropriate in context. There are a number of words that would have fit, but the one he chose is every inch as grammatically acceptable as "contort" or "cater," without being as cliché as they are in that phrase, which, if you're paying attention, speaks volumes.
1
Contour did slightly work in context; however, it altered the acceptable idiomatic expression, which doesn’t do much to bolster his argument. Idioms are not clichés, rather they are colloquial speech that is recognizable to speakers in the culture. Altering an idiom generally reduces the effect of an argument, rather than enhances it. I was merely pointing out the conventional figure of speech.
1
Contour in the context in which -=A=- used it is interchangeable with the word conform; go back and look. While I do not pretend to speak for him (or agree with what he said), I highly doubt he intended to use the "acceptable idiomatic expression," which, to be very precise, would be "cater to your every whim." That phrase is nothing like what he said; catering implies servicing, while conforming (and certainly contouring) implies yielding. I doubt he meant he wouldn't be of service; what sense would that make? I believe he intended to say exactly what he did say, by which he clearly meant he would not yield to others' points of view.
I strongly disagree that "altering an idiom generally reduces the effect of an argument, rather than enhances it." Who says? Quite to the contrary, the use of cliché idioms reduces the effect, or strength, of any argument. Any single argument is more forceful when it does not rely on such pap.
And for the record, I pursue this only because I felt the word contour was being maligned, not -=A=-. The English language is a very subtle thing, capable of limitless variety; I'm quite in love with it, and I felt it was being unjustly restrained. This interest is quite separate from the content of who said what.
I strongly disagree that "altering an idiom generally reduces the effect of an argument, rather than enhances it." Who says? Quite to the contrary, the use of cliché idioms reduces the effect, or strength, of any argument. Any single argument is more forceful when it does not rely on such pap.
And for the record, I pursue this only because I felt the word contour was being maligned, not -=A=-. The English language is a very subtle thing, capable of limitless variety; I'm quite in love with it, and I felt it was being unjustly restrained. This interest is quite separate from the content of who said what.
1
Catering implies servicing, or a subserving one's own opinion to the whims of others. Which means yielding your own personal desires to the desires of others - which also means conform. I'm quite aware that the way he was using contour was synonymous with conform. However, the message he was trying to convey was better served with cater and the recognizable idiom.
If one alters an idiom, it generally makes the speaker look like they don't have a grasp on what they are saying - in speech, altered idoms work far better than in text because there are cues in the tone. Again, idioms are not cliches - just as regional differences in the name of things are not cliches. It's about the figurative meaning that's known because of it's usage - looking at the literal meaning does not always convey the full meaning in idiomatic expression. Something like "spend time" or "act of God," can't be altered without changing the meaning attempting to be expressed. This isn't a restraint on language, it's simply the way idomatic expressions work.
I believe that the English language can be subtle, and it does have the potential for variety. However, I don't think we're going to agree on this, as I can see you disagreeing with my points on the ability for others to understand altered idiom. I'd hate to drag the name ops board off topic with a long debate on the usage of expression and word choice in language. Agree to disagree?
If one alters an idiom, it generally makes the speaker look like they don't have a grasp on what they are saying - in speech, altered idoms work far better than in text because there are cues in the tone. Again, idioms are not cliches - just as regional differences in the name of things are not cliches. It's about the figurative meaning that's known because of it's usage - looking at the literal meaning does not always convey the full meaning in idiomatic expression. Something like "spend time" or "act of God," can't be altered without changing the meaning attempting to be expressed. This isn't a restraint on language, it's simply the way idomatic expressions work.
I believe that the English language can be subtle, and it does have the potential for variety. However, I don't think we're going to agree on this, as I can see you disagreeing with my points on the ability for others to understand altered idiom. I'd hate to drag the name ops board off topic with a long debate on the usage of expression and word choice in language. Agree to disagree?
1
agree :-)
1
Yah, I know . . .
After reading that I did go and look up contour and saw that it can be used as a verb. However by that time it was too late so I just left it as it was and walked away from the thread altogether.
After reading that I did go and look up contour and saw that it can be used as a verb. However by that time it was too late so I just left it as it was and walked away from the thread altogether.
1