The (MY) Syndrome!

[Methen]

I'm getting better, but I use "ya know" and "um" as fillers while I think through what I should've thought through before I opened my mouth. Ya know?!

Actually Ya know is not very good english cause we (dont) know

also thats going to make you sound like a brainless teenager!

[Vic]

Actually Ya know is not very good english cause we (dont) know

also thats going to make you sound like a brainless teenager!

Ouch..I DID say I was working on it.

[Methen]

Ok, here is a really good example of someone who is really cursed with the my syndrom!

See if you can count how many times he says the word my!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUHfLWsncy8&feature=fvwrel

[jHop]

I have a fascination with the English language. Or, perhaps more accurately, the American language. No other language in the world has more twists and turns in logic in it than this collection of concepts and thoughts we attempt to call our language.

My sister has pointed out something that she got from her studies. This is a term known as "The Royal We." This seems to apply to any time we use the plural form to apply to the singular form. For example, "we are not amused," when you really mean "I'm not amused." This somehow inflates the person speaking to a bigger person, more authoritative person, and one who should be listened to. After all, the speaker is speaking on behalf of a multitude, not just a singular individual.

There also is that concept, previously mentioned, about "we will now make a rip cut" -or whatever, that lends to a sense of community. As in, "you are joining me on this journey to joinery," not just "watch me do all the work." By including others in these projects, we give a "warm fuzzy" to the viewer, implying that they also have a stake in how this project turns out, and if it turns out well, they also can accomplish the (seemingly difficult) project.

I suspect, getting back to the original post, that the other comment is also accurate. I believe any shop that is in large scale production, with major sponsorship, will have tools on the set that are not a part of the presenter's personal equipment. I've been curious about how much equipment the manufacturer gave to some of the shows, Marc's included, but it's not really my place to know. Perhaps, in Norm's case, he would bring in the tool box with the tools he thought he might use that day, and if he used one of the "company tools," he would subtly delete the "my," letting you know ownership. I know that the Food Network maintains one kitchen that they then "dress" with the various implements, styles, and knick-knacks for each host, making the shows feel like they are separate studios when, in fact, it's all just one place. (Or at least it used to be. That interview was a few years old.) All the utensils and tools are owned by the props department, they just loan it out to the chef/cook for the taping of their show.

I apologize for the "soap box" feel of this particular post. I have a predisposition to pay attention to the language we speak and write. My great aunt, even after she became a principal for a junior high, was an English teacher (both literature and grammar), and my uncle teaches literature in a university. I, myself, would like to become an author, and I have done quite a bit of reading for fan's sake. Some of this knowledge was destined to sink it's way into the non-permeable dense structure that is our (yes, I really mean my) brain.

OK, I think I have meandered enough on this pet peeve of ours. I suppose it's time I did something actually worthwhile. (How many more of these verbal language mannerisms do you think I can add before I end this post?)

[samhell]

Not really sure why this is even an issue... if he is using his hammer, what else would he say? "I'm using this community owned hammer to pound this publicly donated nail into this wood somebody provided" What puzzles me more is why someone describing ownership of an object in a sentence is bothersome to some people....