GenePeer wrote:EminemBase wrote:GenePeer wrote:Lol, Embase, "last album you listened to" has only one fucking meaning! If he meant latest, he'd say latest
No it doesn't only have one meaning you retard as it depends where you're from. The fact you don't appreciate or aren't conscious of that shows your limited you are.
For example, if most people said "I'm at this party" the 'I'm' would always mean present tense. But as Em has shown with his local terminology (and maybe just black or certain American terminology in general), he can say "I'm at this party" and mean it in a past tense.
Like when he says "I'm (present) bored out of my gored, so I took (past) a hammer". In most people's mind that's grammatically incorrect, but not if you're from where he's from. And where I'm from, if somebody said to me "what's the last album you listened to" they could easily mean 'last' as in the latest NEW album, it could just be implied.
Regional diction, slang and specifics go far and wide beyond standard language and have non-stop variables and subtleties. So don't be so ignorant, you fool.
Can you ever make a valid point without insulting someone? News Flash: It's doesn't make what you say more credible.
"they could easily mean 'last' as in the latest NEW album, it could just be implied."
No they couldn't easily mean that. The only case where last would mean latest is "What's the last album [artist] released" or "Last album {released} by [artist]" where the released is implied, not "last album you listened to". But if people in your area are retarded enough to use last/latest as synonyms, I totally apologize for being too naive to acknowledge that possibility.
And yeah, I know I can go fuck myself, so quit your stupid insults.
Yes I can. But you're saying dumb things, so I'm going to point it out. News flash: I never said it did or implied it did, I'm insulting you because you're being stupid.
As for saying if people in my area are 'retarded enough', you've once again proven you're on a lower playing field mentally. Language was essentially the first Wikipedia, languages borrow from each other and diction varies.
This idea that there's truly unchangeable 'grammar rules' is silly. We have to adhere to a certain amount to bare common ground, but language is constantly changing, new words are constantly being added and any local diction is as valid as the next if it's correct to that group of people.
English grammar is not an objective truth, it's a state of affairs. That can be changed or altered. Now, if I was writing a thesis on Shakespeare, and in that context used 'out of character' grammar, you'd have a point. But disregarding local grammar variance as 'retarded' because your's is different, and thinking it's objective and definite, is retarded.
And if you're retarded enough to not understand that, you shouldn't be speaking with such authority on it. But... I guess that's what makes you a retard. Oh and it's not that the words are used as synonyms, it's that given our accent and deep... familiarity with tone and speak, words like that can IMPLY such a thing, not mean the exact same thing. Once again, variance can be so subtle and never-ending, you are one incredibly ignorant, arrogant fool.
