That is waaaaay too accurate. The moron should be shot out through an airlock with his idjit bosses.
I did think of you when I saw that just now at EotAW, but I was mostly confused that "beck" is supposed to be a transitive verb meaning "to be baselessly attacked". Is there an English prof over there who could give that post an edit?
I guess it's one-sylllablers whose names get verbed? Borking, fisking, becking. No scaliiing, brodering, or limbaughing.
Remember when Labs was covering that beat? And people suggested an intervention?
I feel you, Becks. Fucking Chris Matthews's fucking assistants can fuck right off. "Tweety"? Yes, it's funny. A-holes.
4: Tell that to my friend Steve Awassail.
As I clicked on this one, the iPod rolled around to Beck singing Your Cheatin' Heart.
Is there an English prof over there who could give that post an edit?
Boo! Boo! There's nothing wrong with splitting infinitives unless you're a Latin prig, and that only describes one person here.
And Becks, I deleted the "beck-s" I had there specifically so as not to seem to indict you. I mean, I didn't want anyone to think that was blog-venge or something for heebie's recent post.*
*I kid! I sent her an email saying it was fine and she should re-open that thread, but she never did.
The problem is not with the split infinitive.
And there isn't actually a split infinitive there.
Prior to being becked, Y.S. ran against a friend of mine to be a local Obama delegate at the DNC.
They both turned out their friends to vote for them, and they were both good organizers. It came down to a coin toss. My friend won.
To be clear: this has nothing to do with anything.
I'm with 2, 3, 10, but I'm afraid we're being piled on by SEK here.
Being split by an infinitive would be painful, so I understand why grammar gurus were being admonished about it.
I understand that the definition as given is attempting to highlight the commonly passive usage of a verb like this. He was fisked, she got borked, I am becked. But it still seems wrong to give the definition of a verb as a passive construction.
That is, under the current definition, I could say "Dudes, I becked yesterday!" and it would mean that an idiot with a megaphone baselessly attacked me and I was fired.
And yeah, this is a well-known finding in experimental linguistics: making up nonsense words and giving them definitions like this (i.e., active form with passive meaning) makes it virtually impossible for people to learn them.
|| Apparently Chris Matthews does a good piece for once, on right-wing fringe violence being encouraged by mainstream right-wing commentators. |>
I mean, is he Teofilling the morning-full?
No, I just happened to be up a little earlier than usual this morning and had some extra time before I had to leave for class. Speaking of which, I should probably leave now.
Teo is being Spanished hard by his class.
I somehow read that Teo was going to Spanish class. 23 was intended to be slightly differently nonsensical.
16: but it's also transitive. So, "Dudes, I becked Michael Savage yesterday" would mean Michael Savage baselessly attacked you and you were fired.
Speaking of which, I should probably leave now.
Tu me manques, teo!
It's used correctly in the post, though: "soon-to-be-becked* Yosi Sergant".
It's used correctly in the post, though: "soon-to-be-becked* Yosi Sergant".
Under the definition given, it should be "soon-to-beck ...", no?
Right. The definition at the end is off, but it was used correctly in the text.
Classes don't start until Thursday. When they do, I'll turn my brain back on. Until then, I'm still running on outrage.
I'm becking the hell out of this morning.
I'm mourning the hell out of Becks.
I'm moroning the becks out of Hell.
I'm normally Samuel Beckett.
There's a hole in the Beckett, dear Liza, dear Liza.
There's a hole in the Beckett, dear Liza, a hole.
Beckett has an a-hole, dear Liza, dear Liza.
With what shall I plug it, dear Liza, dear Liza?
That's as far as I'm willing to take my PBS/Fox mash-up. I've got childhood memories to protect.
I can't believe it took a half-dozen of us to take SEK down. He's like a language abuser on angel dust.
All this bitching and moaning and nobody even tried to offer a non-passive construction that captures the fact that, unlike Bork, to whom something was done, with Beck, someone's doing something. I mean, this works no better:
"to baselessly attack an innocuous public official, then has those accusations alter that official's life for the worse because it's politically expedient for their superiors to demote or fire them"
See, then I lose the idiot and the megaphone, plus I have to do the squishy "their" for "his and her" to keep the pacing, &c. Suggestions are welcome.
On the contrary, that alternative works perfectly grammatically. You could add something like "esp. used of idiots with megaphones etc."
On the contrary, that alternative works perfectly grammatically.
Ditto! The trouble with the original is that it claims that for X "to beck" means for X "to be attacked by..." -- but really you mean that X does the attacking.
Alternatively, you could change the English language to use a wider variety of grammatical cases. Then all you'd need is the appropriate suffix on the becked person's name.
Oh, well 46 is obviously the easier fix.
So, in OED style, it'd be:
beck, v. trans. beck-ed, beck-ing to baselessly attack, esp. by idiots with megaphones, an innocuous public official, then have those accusations alter that official's life for the worse because it's politically expedient for their superiors to demote or fire them. Also intr.
I don't know, y'all. Sometimes correct just ain't funny.
48: I'd move the "esp. by idiots" to the end of the definition and maybe change the "by" to "with respect to" or somesuch. Also, it's not intransitive.
It's funnier if it's right!
If "borked" can be intransitive, "becked" can be too, right? (Modeled mine off "borked," obviously, and seems like it can be used the same way. This is where I should add that being a linguistics major turns all this prescriptive stuff into an utter mind of the fuck.)
Oh, well it can be used passively, yes -- "I was becked, I tells ya!"
If "beck" were intransitive, you could say "Yesterday I becked." That doesn't work for me, except as a jocular usage. Bork fails to be intransitive in the same way. You just can't sit around borking without mentioning whom. Not in early 21st-century American English, not if you don't want people to look at you funny. It has nought to do with prescriptivism.
all this prescriptive stuff
It's not even prescriptive, it's an attempt at accurate description!
"I was becked" isn't an example of an intransitive construction. "I becked" is, though.
Eh, beck this santorum. Let's get back to abusing root vegetables.
/emits the mournful cry of the pwned
"I was becked" isn't an example of an intransitive construction. "I becked" is, though.
Well, exactly. What would "I becked" mean? Can such a thing even make sense without an object?
He keeps coming up swinging, people. Keep hitting him with the grammatical tasers until the PCP wears off.
Addendum to 57: Especially when both the subject and the object are actually named in the definition of the verb.
Can't we all just get along?
Don't passive voice uses of transitive verbs count as intransitive? They're not taking taking objects.
Don't encourage him, Criminally.
When in doubt, argue from authority. Here's the OED on "bork":
trans. To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way. Also intr.1987 Los Angeles Times 20 Sept. V. 4/3, I think this time the local minorities are 'Borking' up the wrong tree. 1991 New Republic 9 Sept. 21/2 'We're going to Bork him,' the National Organization for Women has promised. But if they succeed, liberals may discover that they have Borked themselves. 1993 N.Y. Times Bk. Rev. 23 May 11/1 This powerful force...that now goes around 'Borking' politically incorrect nominees. 2001 Roll Call (Electronic ed.) 5 July, Democrats..have established a tradition of 'Borking' Republican nominees.
By which I mean, if you can bork it, you can beck it . . . or be becked . . . or be becked by it. Hey! Did I ever tell you guys about the time I [insert what you will].
The "also intr." there seems to be based entirely on that one 1987 cite, which is an obvious play on a common phrase. Aside from that, the entry seems to be phrased exactly as everyone here has been advocating.
But I thought it's "It's funnier if it's right!" Hypocrites!*
*Originally typed "Hypnocrites," which would be a completely different, but still sorta awesome, kind of beast.
65: Yes, Teo is right. The "Borking" up a wrong tree cite is a pun. The word isn't really intransitive. So, indeed, "Funnier if correct!"
But, also, the "borking" there is a gerund -- punning off "barking." "To bark" can certainly be intransitive -- but come to think of it "borking" still isn't.
69: Eh, no it's not a gerund. Just progressive. And an object is still necessarily implied. As if one said "beating up the wrong bush" or some such.
You can change parts of the definition around to be funnier and still keep it accurate.
Isn't this the kind of satire that's not really funny, as it's usually defined?
That wasn't meant to be a conversation stopper, I swear!
I knew I saw SEK at that "legalize pcp" rally that one time in SF!
75: Sadly, despite the exuberance of their rallies, NORPCPL still hasn't figured out how to be effective legislatively. Most meetings just end up with everyone staring at the acronym on the banner and trying to remember what the hell it means and how to pronounce it and why it has tentacles and oh my god get it off me. The phone banking hasn't been going very well.
NORMAL, on the other hand, has been keeping itself quite busy.