Dumbest anti-surround argument you've heard

[JediJoker]

The rule is that the word "only" modifies the following word. If it appear last, it modifies the entire sentence.

Grammar is defined by usage, so this "rule"—if it ever was one—no longer applies.

 

[MidiMagic]

Grammar is defined by usage, so this "rule"—if it ever was one—no longer applies.

Ah! The mindless no-logic approach.

 

[esimms86]

Smartest anti-surround argument I’ve ever heard: “My apartment is too small for a surround system that I can play at volume levels that I’d like. So would you mind indulging me with an invitation to listen to your rig from time to time?”

I can only imagine the trouble you’d start for yourself if you had an Atmos and/or Auro setup and upstairs neighbors.

 

[DuncanS]

Hey Ralphie, you got anything else or is that your prime rib???

I would pull @DuncanS and @fredblue into this but I don’t want to get into a London broil!

Its all Bull I tell you!

 

[4-earredwonder]

Its all Bull I tell you!

Not if your life is at steak!

 

[DuncanS]

Not if your life is at steak!

What's your Beef? I will not be cowed! Well I might hoof it away

 

[JediJoker]

Ah! The mindless no-logic approach.

No. Stop being overly prescriptive.

 

[GeoffpianoMan]

The rule is that the word "only" modifies the following word. If it appear last, it modifies the entire sentence.

Let's look at all of the cases:

I have two apples
Only I have two apples = Nobody else has two apples
I only have two apples = I have them. I can't eat them.
I have only two apples = I don't have 1 or 3 apples.
I have two only apples = I have two apples that are kept separated.
I have two apples only = I don't have anything else.

I have eyes for you
Only I have eyes for you = Nobody else has eyes for you.
I only have eyes for you = I have eyes. I can't use them.
I have only eyes for you = I don't have a nose for you.
I have eyes only for you = My eyes are not against you.
I have eyes for only you = Not anyone else
I have eyes for you only = I don't have anything else.

The funniest thing I’ve ready in a LONG time

 

[jaybird100]

Can you explai
Please let me explain why it IS a grammatically correct way of saying that a someone is attracted to one person, and one person only (which is the intended meaning of this particular song title).

First of all; if a person says “I have eyes for .....” this is the correct way to express that this person is interested only in that one thing, and no other; (in the context of the subject under discussion).

If I say “I only have two apples”, then I’m correctly saying I have two apples, not more.

Therefore: “I only have eyes for you” is absolutely grammatically correct, although it is a rather formal way of saying “I’m interested in you, and you alone”.

To say “I have eyes for only you” isn’t technically incorrect, but the lyricist must’ve felt that it didn't sound quite as poetic... and I would have to agree with him/her.

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to; do you want grammar with good taste, or grammar that tastes good?

 

[atrocity]

I only use cursive because my printing is so terrible, never looked back, people look at my writing like its ancient, sad.

Exactly the opposite of me. If I didn't know any better, I'd almost suspect that people aren't all the same and don't have identical talents and weaknesses.

But if I learned anything in school it's that such talk would be blasphemy!

 

[J. PUPSTER]

Rather, a BUM STEER!

BTW, Beefalo hasn't posted lately ..... maybe's he's out to pasture...or 'beefing up' at the gym!

actually, I believe he has posted, maybe you just missed it

 

[MidiMagic]

Smartest anti-surround argument I’ve ever heard: “My apartment is too small for a surround system that I can play at volume levels that I’d like. So would you mind indulging me with an invitation to listen to your rig from time to time?”

I have a room that is 8 feet by 4 feet with surround in it. My chair is near one of the 4-foot ends. I use it as a recording isolation booth.

 

[M-D-Z]

I have a Bachelors Degree in English Literature which makes me somewhat of an outlier when looking at society as a whole. I’m not insinuating that it makes me better or smarter, rather, it’s just an acknowledgement of a particular acquired skill set.

In any event, schools have certainly been dumbed down over the years here in the US. For one, they don’t teach cursive anymore. My home state of Massachusetts also used to require passing the MCAS exams in order to receive a high school diploma. The MCAS basically was a kind of guarantee that a graduate had demonstrated, at minimum, eighth grade competency in English and Math. The MCAS was the highest ELHI graduation competency standard in the country. Massachusetts has since abandoned the MCAS, substituting it with the much lower competency standard used throughout the country, including states with lower adult literacy percentages.

Mathematics competency in the US has, likewise, fallen(actually, plummeted) to the point where the country ranks low in that category when viewed among the other industrialized nations of the world.

The average American’s knowledge of geography, not surprisingly, is abysmal.

Text messaging has further eroded standards for grammar and spelling.

For what it’s worth, I know many people who only read books in audiobook form. While audiobooks admittedly have their benefits and advantages, they reinforce listening skills over reading skills.

Okay, rant over.

What he said.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/225849.The_Deliberate_Dumbing_Down_of_AmericaI purchased and read this book, some eyebrow raising stuff revealed, though sadly, none of it surprised me much. Call me a cynic.

 

[M-D-Z]

We still sign checks, contracts, tax returns, etc. from time to time and I recently had to sign an envelope in order to vote early. And your credit card is technically not legal tender if you haven't signed the back.

Illiterate people can legally sign with an "X," however, it may require a co-sign for verification.

I used to have a very legible signature until I finished the third year of med school LOL.

Isn’t there a required core course ALL medical students must take in their junior year teaching them “Advanced Hen-Scratch”?

 

[M-D-Z]

The rule is that the word "only" modifies the following word. If it appear last, it modifies the entire sentence.

Let's look at all of the cases:

I have two apples
Only I have two apples = Nobody else has two apples
I only have two apples = I have them. I can't eat them.
I have only two apples = I don't have 1 or 3 apples.
I have two only apples = I have two apples that are kept separated.
I have two apples only = I don't have anything else.

I have eyes for you
Only I have eyes for you = Nobody else has eyes for you.
I only have eyes for you = I have eyes. I can't use them.
I have only eyes for you = I don't have a nose for you.
I have eyes only for you = My eyes are not against you.
I have eyes for only you = Not anyone else
I have eyes for you only = I don't have anything else.

“I only have eyes for you” was the best choice of “wording”, because let’s face it, ain’t nobody evah miss-unna-stood wuddit rilly ment to say.
Plus it just sounds right, proof of that was the wide popular success and longevity that song achieved!

 

[MidiMagic]

“I only have eyes for you” was the best choice of “wording”, because let’s face it, ain’t nobody evah miss-unna-stood wuddit rilly ment to say.
Plus it just sounds right, proof of that was the wide popular success and longevity that song achieved!

It sounds "right" because you are expecting "only" to be an adverb. Adverbs must hug their verbs, And all other words ending in "ly" are adverbs.

The rule is that the word "only" modifies the following word. If it appear last, it modifies the entire sentence.

Let's look at all of the cases:

I have two apples
Only I have two apples = Nobody else has two apples
I only have two apples = I have them. I can't eat them.
I have only two apples = I don't have 1 or 3 apples.
I have two only apples = I have two apples that are kept separated.
I have two apples only = I don't have anything else.

I have eyes for you
Only I have eyes for you = Nobody else has eyes for you.
I only have eyes for you = I have eyes. I can't use them.
I have only eyes for you = I don't have a nose for you.
I have eyes only for you = My eyes are not against you.
I have eyes for only you = Not anyone else
I have eyes for you only = I don't have anything else.

Let's look at all of the cases again with the adjective "just" substituted for its synonym "only"

I have two apples
Just I have two apples = Nobody else has two apples
I just have two apples = I have them. I can't eat them.
I have just two apples = I don't have 1 or 3 apples.
I have two just apples = I have two apples that are behaved.
I have two apples just = I don't have anything else.

I have eyes for you
Just I have eyes for you = Nobody else has eyes for you.
I just have eyes for you = I have eyes. I can't use them.
I have just eyes for you = I don't have a nose for you.
I have eyes just for you = My eyes are not against you.
I have eyes for just you = Not anyone else
I have eyes for you just = I don't have anything else.

Let's look at all of the cases again with the adverb "absolutely" substituted for its synonym "only"

I have two apples
Absolutely I have two apples = Huh?
I absolutely have two apples = I have them.
I have absolutely two apples = I don't have 1 or 3 apples.
I have two absolutely apples = Gonch
I have two apples absolutely = I don't have anything else (modifies verb).

I have eyes for you
Absolutely I have eyes for you = emphasis
I absolutely have eyes for you = I have eyes.
I have absolutely eyes for you = Huh?
I have eyes absolutely for you = Gonch
I have eyes for absolutely you = Scronch
I have eyes for you absolutely = I don't have anything else (modifies verb).

 

[jimfisheye]

Looks like someone just got the new Black Eye Peas single.

 

[kap'n krunch]

What he said.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/225849.The_Deliberate_Dumbing_Down_of_AmericaI purchased and read this book, some eyebrow raising stuff revealed, though sadly, none of it surprised me much. Call me a cynic.

and that book is from TWENTY ONE YEARS AGO!!! not funny...
as a person who lived abroad for 26 years I knew that coming back to the USA was going to be painful but it has been tortuous...I'm not saying that "abroad" is without its faults, but , man!!
So many people that can´t even SPELL, and English is my SECOND language... and for most of these people English is their ONLY language..no wonder...Idiocracy indeed...

oh, and let's not even go into "Political correctness"!!! "Junior High IQ/EQ country"!!!!

 

[furui_suterioo]

In Cali an adult can use apostrophes witb plurals, say things like "that's mine's" and still get a government job of authority over other adults, its no wonder why everything is so dumbed down here.

 

[M-D-Z]

Benny Hill was a master of clever word play.

We might not bother to judge the song writer for his/her choice of words or word placement, artistic concerns do often rightly prevail.
Although this gesture of forgiving awkward language is tortured in lines like:
'Cause there ain't no one for to give you no pain… from America’s song, ‘A Horse With No Name’.

Consider this interpretation:
“I only have eyes for you” ... ! ... however, the rest of what is me, including my heart, mind, soul and various physical body parts, remain free to do as they please!

Back to the topic...
As far as stupid arguments against surround sound, the only (there’s that word again!) argument I take issue with is anytime one side asserts that his or her analysis is the correct one, and so the opposition is therefore engaging in wrongthinking!
There are all types of prejudices everywhere you might care to look, but how any person chooses to ‘enjoy’ their own music is their own prerogative.

My ear/brain auditory perception envelope is in part dependent upon my physiological makeup and how I process the sound-field I am immersed in, and ‘sound’ itself does not technically even exist until my brain interprets how the surrounding energy propagating through nearby air acts upon my body.
No two human body structures are identical, no two brains arrive at identical manifestations of how to convert those energies into information that that person may or may not choose to utilize.
There are many factors, for example, I.Q. plays a part, humans do not all possess the same intellectual processing power, and injuries to the inner ear can muck up that persons ability to hear what his neighbor can.
Some folks will live out their entire post-adolescent years committed to listening exclusively to those same songs from their misspent youth, while others, like myself, live to hear audio artistry from new and or different sources ... constantly, different genres, instruments, time signatures, life for me would be seriously (and negatively) impacted if I were strictly prohibited from listening to any music that I did not listen to regularly way back in my teen years!

I can easily understand why a person who simply can not hear what you or I hear or experience would think spending tons of money, time, and effort to fill up our precious living spaces with all this gear, for them, that would certainly be a waste.
People who possess advanced hearing and listening skills should be tolerant of others who can not.
I do not have perfect pitch or perfect tone, but several people close to me do, and one thing is clear, these individuals are extraordinarily kind to the mere mortals around them that don’t have these abilities, also they tend to be super intelligent and passionate about music, I imagine they experience music at levels I may never enjoy, I don’t know! So folks who don’t hear surround effects well at all must share in a version of that same frustration. I cut them slack, and my doing so usually results in there being no argument.
it takes two to tango!