What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Who Says “Hubby” On An Entertainment Report Hoping To Imply Closeness? (1 Viewer)

rockaction

rockaction

Footballguy
Just watching a E! report in KTLA. Who uses the word “hubby”? When did this happen? You’re not close. It’s not your pet name. These things, this artificial family and familiarity. Like you can ever replace the work needed for the affection.

Forget getting off my lawn. I’m too busy pissing on it with all my vinegar might.
 
"Amanda Seyfried's 'hubby,' so-and-so, is also in the cast."

My complaint is nothing of a feminist or anti-feminist variety. It's just the use of the familiar diminutive name to imply a closeness that one did not earn with that person.

It's a little abstract, but if you had a gossip columnist calling your wife by her name and you her "hubby," it would be somehow like you were really familiar to the people with whom that gossip columnist was speaking. Or, more importantly, the gossip columnist is pretending to be friends to her readers/viewers by using the diminutive form of husband.

Let's gossip, shall we friends? About private things over public airwaves concerning things of international import. Like Seyfried's hubby.
 
Last edited:
rockaction said:
"Amanda Seyfried's 'hubby,' so-and-so, is also in the cast."

My complaint is nothing of a feminist or anti-feminist variety. It's just the use of the familiar diminutive name to imply a closeness that one did not earn with that person.

It's a little abstract, but if you had a gossip columnist calling your wife by her name and you her "hubby," it would be somehow like you were really familiar to the people with whom that gossip columnist was speaking. Or, more importantly, the gossip columnist is pretending to be friends to her readers/viewers by using the diminutive form of husband.

Let's gossip, shall we friends? About private things over public airwaves concerning things of international import. Like Seyfried's hubby.
Click to expand...
Ah, got it. Yeah, I wouldn’t ever hear about any of this, because it involves gossip columnists. That’s a group of people I completely ignore just on principle.
 
I don't understand any of the words in this thread?

I have only ever heard hubby from 70+ year old women. What are they saying on TV?
 
I abbreviated the entertainment section of the news. It’s not the “E” brand, per se. Just the entertainment section of the news.
 
In that particular field (gossip/entertainment journalism), I always considered terms like "hubby" and "sibs" (for 'siblings') to be more or less terms of art. Especially in written form, though bleedover to electronic communication was to be expected.
 
Doug B said:
I always considered terms like "hubby" and "sibs" (for 'siblings') to be more or less terms of art.
Click to expand...

I get this, Doug B. My question is why the need for diminutives and faked closeness with both subject and viewer/reader? It's disposable, this trash that we let into our daily lives and take seriously. It's sad to me. We have skyrocketing divorce rates and a veritable bazaar of self-fulfillment that leads us astray from others. The gossip shows and segues on the news profit off of people's misery and loneliness while pumping us full of the notions of self-fulfillment without compromise. It's a generalized gripe, but one I think has very real and lasting import on people (myself included in this milieu).
 
In general, I strongly dislike hubby, wifey, kiddos, etc. Never heard someone sibs but I already know I hate it. All of this is irregardless of context.

Sidenote: do you consider irregardless a word? I didn't as a kid but I've kind of taken to it as an adult.
 
Ilov80s said:
Sidenote: do you consider irregardless a word?
Click to expand...

Regardless is much more clear to me. I have to stumble over "irregardless" because the grammar police lights sound German in my ears. I usually know what it means, but it's been drilled into me that it's incorrect, so...no, I don't. But I'm not a ninny about it. It's a sign to me that someone doesn't take language as seriously as I do, but that can be okay in the grand scheme of things. And if you find that using it suits you, then so be it. But that brings up another issue about whether you're speaking for yourself or speaking to communicate.

Long answer short? No, I don't consider it a word. But descriptive grammarians have a way of winning in the end over prescriptive grammarians, so you know...

It's kind of like "couth" wasn't acceptable for so long. You know what the person is saying, but that doesn't make it as easy as just using a better adjective.
 
rockaction said:
Ilov80s said:
kiddo
Click to expand...

I never minded this word. My father's admin assistant used to call me "kiddo," and it was endearing rather than patronizing. I like her.
Click to expand...
Ok I’ll amend this because I actually don’t mind the singular kiddo. What I now realize I don’t like is the plural kiddos. It’s something many many teachers say referring to their students. Can’t stand it. Maybe it’s the false closeness you were speaking to earlier in the thread.
 
rockaction said:
Ilov80s said:
Sidenote: do you consider irregardless a word?
Click to expand...

Regardless is much more clear to me. I have to stumble over "irregardless" because the grammar police lights sound German in my ears. I usually know what it means, but it's been drilled into me that it's incorrect, so...no, I don't. But I'm not a ninny about it. It's a sign to me that someone doesn't take language as seriously as I do, but that can be okay in the grand scheme of things. And if you find that using it suits you, then so be it. But that brings up another issue about whether you're speaking for yourself or speaking to communicate.

Long answer short? No, I don't consider it a word. But descriptive grammarians have a way of winning in the end over prescriptive grammarians, so you know...

It's kind of like "couth" wasn't acceptable for so long. You know what the person is saying, but that doesn't make it as easy as just using a better adjective.
Click to expand...
Interesting, to me it’s obvious what it means and I thought everyone got it but if not, maybe I won’t use it. I am not trying to be confusing- just like the way it sounds

. I’m definitely not a formalist with language. IMO, the point of language is to communicate. If I use a word or grammar that’s odd or intentionally incorrect yet people clearly understand what I’m saying, then I feel l that’s all that matters. I’ve never been big on rules though.
 
Ilov80s said:
Sidenote: do you consider irregardless a word? I didn't as a kid but I've kind of taken to it as an adult.
Click to expand...
It was always taboo to use it, but IIRC a few years ago Merriam-Webster got fed up with fighting it and made it allowable. I blame the millennials.
 
zamboni said:
Ilov80s said:
Sidenote: do you consider irregardless a word? I didn't as a kid but I've kind of taken to it as an adult.
Click to expand...
It was always taboo to use it, but IIRC a few years ago Merriam-Webster got fed up with fighting it and made it allowable. I blame the millennials.
Click to expand...
LOL, guilty as charged. It clearly doesn't make grammatical sense with it's double negative.
 
Ilov80s said:
LOL, guilty as charged. It clearly doesn't make grammatical sense with it's double negative.
Click to expand...

That's honestly why I get confused by it now.

Your point about speaking to communicate is taken. I'd stick with proper usage in this context because the double negative makes people slow down for a second to process it. That's what I was trying to say upthread.

You also make the point about descriptive grammar and meaning that I was acknowledging. It's more important to understand the written or spoken word rather than be a formalist, but I would counter that the formalism makes the written and spoken word easier to understand once you know the rules. Otherwise, things can get all personal and willy-nilly.

But I love evocative changes in language, too. So I'm not really all that rigid.
 
rockaction said:
Ilov80s said:
LOL, guilty as charged. It clearly doesn't make grammatical sense with it's double negative.
Click to expand...

That's honestly why I get confused by it now.

Your point about speaking to communicate is taken. I'd stick with proper usage in this context because the double negative makes people slow down for a second to process it. That's what I was trying to say upthread.

You also make the point about descriptive grammar and meaning that I was acknowledging. It's more important to understand the written or spoken word rather than be a formalist, but I would counter that the formalism makes the written and spoken word easier to understand once you know the rules. Otherwise, things can get all personal and willy-nilly.

But I love evocative changes in language, too. So I'm not really all that rigid.
Click to expand...
Makes sense, I thought the word had been adopted into the lexicon enough that people get it naturally. Perhaps not and that was my misjudgment. Funny enough, in a similar sense, I do not care for the word literally now having 2 opposing meanings.

As for knowing the rules before you can break them, certainly true. I am well educated but not honed in on language like writers, editors, etc. Perhaps I shouldn't play around with the rules so much. I just can't help myself. And on this board, lord knows what I am doing, it's all just written as it comes to my mind and with my fingers doing their damndest to keep up.
 
rockaction said:
But I love evocative changes in language, too.
Click to expand...
I’d say the allowance of “irregardless” is more convenient than evocative, but we’re a crumbling world. I still cringe at its use, much like “just between you and I”.

At the end of the day, I’m admittedly a pompous *** when it comes to grammar.
 
Ilov80s said:

As for knowing the rules before you can break them, certainly true. I am well educated but not honed in on language like writers, editors, etc. Perhaps I shouldn't play around with the rules so much. I just can't help myself. And on this board, lord knows what I am doing, it's all just written as it comes to my mind and with my fingers doing their damndest to keep up.
Click to expand...

You do fine. Excellently, if I may. I'm the one that used to confuse so many people with my drunken written word. I'm getting better, though. I think.
 
rockaction said:
Just struck my ears like nails on a chalkboard.

There are bigger fish to fry.

Hear the sizzle at the fish fry!
Click to expand...
When I reviewed a draft of a grant renewal proposal I saw the word "groundbreaking" applied to the research. It struck me as a hyperbolic version of nails on a chalkboard. I felt compelled to back it up, and turns out I was right. Published in a JAMA journal no less.

>>Hyperbole in grant proposal language has risen dramatically, according to a study analyzing more than 90,000 grant abstracts from 1985-2000.<<

 
zamboni said:
rockaction said:
But I love evocative changes in language, too.
Click to expand...
I’d say the allowance of “irregardless” is more convenient than evocative, but we’re a crumbling world. I still cringe at its use, much like “just between you and I”.

At the end of the day, I’m admittedly a pompous *** when it comes to grammar.
Click to expand...
I just like the way irregardless sounds compared to regardless. It's more fun to say?
 
Ilov80s said:
zamboni said:
rockaction said:
But I love evocative changes in language, too.
Click to expand...
I’d say the allowance of “irregardless” is more convenient than evocative, but we’re a crumbling world. I still cringe at its use, much like “just between you and I”.

At the end of the day, I’m admittedly a pompous *** when it comes to grammar.
Click to expand...
I just like the way irregardless sounds compared to regardless. It's more fun to say?
Click to expand...
It's also more fun that way to annoy certain people. :hey:
 
rockaction said:
Ilov80s said:

As for knowing the rules before you can break them, certainly true. I am well educated but not honed in on language like writers, editors, etc. Perhaps I shouldn't play around with the rules so much. I just can't help myself. And on this board, lord knows what I am doing, it's all just written as it comes to my mind and with my fingers doing their damndest to keep up.
Click to expand...

You do fine. Excellently, if I may. I'm the one that used to confuse so many people with my drunken written word. I'm getting better, though. I think.
Click to expand...
I always took that as a somewhat intentional way of writing in order to challenge the reader and convey some unusual or challenging ideas. I usually understand everything you say- I have to think about it sometimes, but there's nothing wrong with that given this medium. If you spoke like that to me in person, I would be annoyed though.
 
zamboni said:
Ilov80s said:
zamboni said:
rockaction said:
But I love evocative changes in language, too.
Click to expand...
I’d say the allowance of “irregardless” is more convenient than evocative, but we’re a crumbling world. I still cringe at its use, much like “just between you and I”.

At the end of the day, I’m admittedly a pompous *** when it comes to grammar.
Click to expand...
I just like the way irregardless sounds compared to regardless. It's more fun to say?
Click to expand...
It's also more fun that way to annoy certain people. :hey:
Click to expand...
LOL it may be a bit I have with my wife. I am sure she secretly hates it.
 
Ilov80s said:
I always took that as a somewhat intentional way of writing in order to challenge the reader and convey some unusual or challenging ideas
Click to expand...

Thanks. It was deliberate, but I lost a bunch of people who might have agreed with me if I had just written more clearly and less obliquely. I do think, though, that I actually try to think things through so much that I arrive at indecision regarding the grander scheme of things, and that obliqueness is in part a window into my thought process.
 
rockaction said:
Ilov80s said:
I always took that as a somewhat intentional way of writing in order to challenge the reader and convey some unusual or challenging ideas
Click to expand...

Thanks. It was deliberate, but I lost a bunch of people who might have agreed with me if I had just written more clearly and less obliquely. I do think, though, that I actually try to think things through so much that I arrive at indecision regarding the grander scheme of things, and that obliqueness is in part a window into my thought process.
Click to expand...
Probably true but also what's the fun in just being so direct all the time? It's nice to have some variety. The people/posters with the more idiosyncratic styles tend to be the most memorable.
 
Ilov80s said:
Probably true but also what's the fun in just being so direct all the time? It's nice to have some variety. The people/posters with the more idiosyncratic styles tend to be the most memorable.
Click to expand...

I agree with your rhetorical question. And as for the boldface font, we know who the idiosyncratic writers are -- and were -- and enjoy or remember them fondly. They bring and brought a sense of flair and thought to this here place, and I'm better for it.
 
Last edited:
rockaction said:
Doug B said:
I always considered terms like "hubby" and "sibs" (for 'siblings') to be more or less terms of art.
Click to expand...

I get this, Doug B. My question is why the need for diminutives and faked closeness with both subject and viewer/reader? It's disposable, this trash that we let into our daily lives and take seriously. It's sad to me. We have skyrocketing divorce rates and a veritable bazaar of self-fulfillment that leads us astray from others. The gossip shows and segues on the news profit off of people's misery and loneliness while pumping us full of the notions of self-fulfillment without compromise. It's a generalized gripe, but one I think has very real and lasting import on people (myself included in this milieu).
Click to expand...
Are divorce rates really any worse than they were in the '80s and '90s (which were already bad)? What has changed in recent years is that fewer people are getting married to begin with.
 
Pip's Invitation said:
Are divorce rates really any worse than they were in the '80s and '90s (which were already bad)? What has changed in recent years is that fewer people are getting married to begin with.
Click to expand...

No, they're not really any worse. In fact, they're better. The second thing should probably be what I should have opined on. (I was on a roll!) The delay of marriage, the fertility rate because of that, and the unmarried option are all byproducts, in my opinion, of new definitions of self-fulfillment for both men and women.
 
rockaction said:
Pip's Invitation said:
Are divorce rates really any worse than they were in the '80s and '90s (which were already bad)? What has changed in recent years is that fewer people are getting married to begin with.
Click to expand...

No, they're not really any worse. In fact, they're better. The second thing should probably be what I should have opined on. (I was on a roll!) The delay of marriage, the fertility rate because of that, and the unmarried option are all byproducts, in my opinion, of new definitions of self-fulfillment for both men and women.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Marriage isn't ideal/necessary for some people, and that's OK.
 
Pip's Invitation said:
Agreed. Marriage isn't ideal/necessary for some people, and that's OK.
Click to expand...

It is. But on a macro level, you really want as many people married and fertile as you can have. We're going to go through (and already are) a birth dearth where the fertility rate doesn't support the greying of America vis a vis social programs and outlays. But that's another topic for another time.

We're also experiencing a "marriage gap," where college-educated, wealthy people are more likely to marry and stay together than their poorer, high-school educated counterparts. I think the numbers are actually quite staggering. Unmarried people tend to live in poverty in greater frequency than married people do, even controlling for income and education, IIRC. It's better for society that people are married. That does not mean each individual will be better off by marriage, which is why unmarried people are okay. I'm one of those never married ones, and I think I'm okay, though I dread getting older without somebody to literally help take care of me. Again, another subject for another day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BobbyLayne
The 25 Greatest Films of the 21st Century So Far
2 3 4
Replies
155
Views
11K
El Floppo
El Floppo
(HULK)
Dave Berry's Year in Review
Replies
2
Views
1K
Joe Summer
J
HellToupee
Ted Kennedy , the liberal lion, attempted to conspire and collude with the Kremlin to defeat Ronald Reagan
2
Replies
61
Views
4K
rockaction
rockaction

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top