WHITE PANTS BADDD!
Is it a coincidence that the Ducks have only lost twice...the only two times they've worn the white pants? PANIC!
about 2 years ago
hazmat5793
31 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
As long as we don’t come out in the Dixonpocalypse uni, i’ll be ok.
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by Takimoto on Nov 19, 2009 9:44 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
RIP Takimoto
http://www.twitter.com/fiveohthree/
by inroywetrust on Nov 22, 2009 5:37 PM PST up reply actions
We were only just beginning...
Addicted To Quack [dot] com
Officially getting some more often than The VD Special since 2009.
Let's try this again...
No shit, my mom took it upon herself to e-mail this to Chip:
From: Mom
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 10:32 PM
To: Chip Kelly; Chip Kelly
Subject: Uniforms
Please do not wear the white pants anymore! We are 0-2 with them. When I saw those white pants on for the Stanford game I knew we were in trouble…lost to Boise State with those pants too. Go Ducks!
From: “Chip Kelly”
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:52:04 -0800
To: Kelly C
Subject: RE: Uniforms
Pants Have nothing to do with performance…. It really has no bearing on how we play.
Chip
-——————
I especially like how Chip Interwebz-smacked her down with his response! I told her that’s what she gets for bothering Chip with such nonsense. She couldn’t believe he responded. I immediately saw that Chip’s elipses had 4 dots instead of 3 and thought JShufelt would be super-disappointed.
He can run, he can pass, he is sicker than e-coli. Jeremiah always keeps things rolling.
by MarineCorpsDuck on Nov 20, 2009 12:01 PM PST reply actions
A 4 dot ellipses is applicable when an textual omission ends at the end of a sentence.
Clearly he said a lot more to your mother, and decided to omit it – likely out of professionalism and kindness.
It's spelled "S-H-U-V-3-0-0-0"
And “an” is an inappropriate article to use when it is followed by a word that starts with a constant.
This error was likely due to an editing oversight when the original author decided to include the word “textual” without appropriately changing the article from “an” to “a”.
It's spelled "S-H-U-V-3-0-0-0"
A word starting with a constant? Like, πncushion?
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by Takimoto on Nov 20, 2009 12:26 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Oh man
It’s so sexy when people mix grammar with multinomial mathematic expressions.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Honest question
What is your opinion on the recent trend to put the article “an” before words that begin with the lightly aspirated "h’ sound, such as “historical”? I hate it. If the ‘h’ isn’t silent, it’s a consonant. I get so mad when I see that…
Defending maligned chants since 2009
/nerd hat
Letters aren’t vowels or consonant. It’s easier to each they are. Sounds are what really define that. The correct usage of the articles “an” or “a” are in results for phonetics.
Phonetically, “historical” begins with a vowel, as the sound “\ˈhis” is unrestricted in the vocal track.
So phonetically, it is correct to have “an” before “historical”
That’s why “sometimes y” is said when listing vowels. There are some words where “w” is a vowel. “-ough” as in “dough” is actually only one vowel that is made of four letters. The word “Eight” is made of a four letter vowel and a one letter consonant.
There is even an English word that doesn’t even have a, e, i, o, u, y, or w, yet it still has vowels: Tsk. The vowel is actually a mesh between the consonant sounds of “T” and “S”. This is a common vowel in Chinese. (Ref: General Tso Chicken.).
Consonants are the same way. Such as “Hirschspring” – as in “Hirschpring’s Disease”.
“Hi” is one vowel. “rsch” is one consonant. “spr” is another consonant. “ing” is another vowel.
BAM.
It's spelled "S-H-U-V-3-0-0-0"
I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
He can run, he can pass, he is sicker than e-coli. Jeremiah always keeps things rolling.
by MarineCorpsDuck on Nov 20, 2009 1:06 PM PST up reply actions
I am not a linguistics expert
Although my wife is, and I may bring her in to help me with this, since I know she agrees with me about hating it when people say “an historic _.”
Wwouldn’t it be wrong to simply classify ‘hi’ as a vowel in the contemporary American version of the English language? What about the word “hymn”? It would sound absolutely ludicrous to put “an” in front of “hymn.” We put the extra ‘n’ in the article to break up the vowel sounds, so if you’re pronouncing the ‘h’ as a consonant, I don’t see why you would include the ‘n’. It makes it sound all British where they don’t pronounce ‘h’ at the beginning of words at all.
No, I’m sure of it. I hate it.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
I guess my point is
“Hi” may have originated as a vowel. Heck, “h” by itself was really a vowel in the the Romance languages (virtually unpronounced in Spanish and pronounced like ‘y’ in Portuguese, for example). Same with ‘w’ in the language of the Britons. But that’s not how they’re used now, and trying to use them that way seems pretentious to me.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Really, the English language as a whole is at fault for being based on so many other languages (Primarily Latin and Greek which have two very different phonetic systems). Most languages were very phonetic when originally written, but with English, you can’t spell phonetically – because then it would be wrong.
Vowels and consonant have been around longer than the English language. They’ve been around longer than written languages. English, as a language, and as it has been taught has definitely become lazier, but that’s its own fault for being so complicated to begin with.
Does it make me mad? No. Do I fault other people doing it? Absolutely not.
It's spelled "S-H-U-V-3-0-0-0"
Well, it does, and I do, mainly because it seems like people trying too hard to sound proper. Don’t get me wrong, I can’t stand how lazy our language has become, abbreviating words and phrases that have no business being abbreviated. But stuff like that sounds snobbish to me. Whatever, just a personal pet peeve I guess. Carry on.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
The choice of article is actually based upon the phonetic (sound) quality of the first letter in a word, not on the orthographic (written) representation of the letter. If the first letter makes a vowel-type sound, you use “an”; if the first letter would make a consonant-type sound, you use “a.” So, if you consider the rule from a phonetic perspective, there aren’t any exceptions. Since the ‘h’ hasn’t any phonetic representation, no audible sound, in the first exception, the sound that follows the article is a vowel; consequently, ‘an’ is used. In the second exception, the word-initial ‘y’ sound (unicorn) is actually a glide [j] phonetically, which has consonantal properties; consequently, it is treated as a consonant, requiring ‘a’.
It's spelled "S-H-U-V-3-0-0-0"
But when I say “historic” I pronounce the ‘h’ as in “hiss” or “himself” or “hymn.” So I would disagree that it doesn’t have an audible sound. When I hear the words pronounced, the word “historic” clearly sounds different from the word “isthmus” for example.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
If you really do it with the right amount of arrogance, there is no hard "h" sound in "an historic"
Add extreme nasal draw and snide nasal laugh that follows.
Try again
“This conversation is simply ludicrous. The scale is really of an istoric proportion. Wah ha ha.”
GEEEEEERHAAAAAAARRRT!!!!!!
(arms and eyes to sky, ala Stephen Colbert)
by Bill Musgrave on Nov 20, 2009 5:43 PM PST up reply actions
I suppose if I want to slip into British-style cockney English, then yes, I would pronounce it that way. I would then shoot myself, which would go down as a historic event.
(see what I did there?)
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Its not the white pants...
Its a combination of the White pants and the White jersey w/ Green numbers!!
ps. we need to bring back the yellow pants. (Can’t beat White helmet/White jersey/Yellow pants)
[IMG]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/tj4eck/oregonsig.gif[/IMG]
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
