- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I'll get down voted, but what is so wrong with our freshman having "swag"
Posted on 9/10/14 at 11:38 pm to LSUvegasbombed
Posted on 9/10/14 at 11:38 pm to LSUvegasbombed
I'm going to beat this already pulverized horse to dust by adding that I understand "swag" is shorter than "swagger", and helps keep the thesis short. But, frankly, I don't think it's worth it.
These players have sincere swagger, and I believe truncating the final three letters effectively castrates the term, it's worse than "swagga". At least that term maintains the general form; exchanging a syllable is preferable to killing it.
On top of that, there's exists a namespace collision with the noun form of "swag". It's more or less synonymous with "lagniappe", sometimes used in reference to objects you might acquire at an entertainment transaction. Personally, I would steer of clear that of ambiguity, by using the already existing word which specifically describes the characteristic to which you refer. There's both nouns, and they're applicable in some overlapping situations, however they describe weakly associated but fundamentally direction things: on is a collection of physical and non-corporal (but discreet and well-defined instances), while the other is the nebulous confluence of confidence, exuberance, arrogance and style. But that's your choice: only you (or an admin) can change it.
Also, I disagree with the omission of the "?" sentence terminator. Because I'm not utterly retarded, I understood that you're asking a question and understood the line inquiry. To summarize, the subject's structural quality reminds of the 2011 season: it was solid from the beginning and fantastic most of the way through, but ended badly.
Moving on to your answer, I agree.
These players have sincere swagger, and I believe truncating the final three letters effectively castrates the term, it's worse than "swagga". At least that term maintains the general form; exchanging a syllable is preferable to killing it.
On top of that, there's exists a namespace collision with the noun form of "swag". It's more or less synonymous with "lagniappe", sometimes used in reference to objects you might acquire at an entertainment transaction. Personally, I would steer of clear that of ambiguity, by using the already existing word which specifically describes the characteristic to which you refer. There's both nouns, and they're applicable in some overlapping situations, however they describe weakly associated but fundamentally direction things: on is a collection of physical and non-corporal (but discreet and well-defined instances), while the other is the nebulous confluence of confidence, exuberance, arrogance and style. But that's your choice: only you (or an admin) can change it.
Also, I disagree with the omission of the "?" sentence terminator. Because I'm not utterly retarded, I understood that you're asking a question and understood the line inquiry. To summarize, the subject's structural quality reminds of the 2011 season: it was solid from the beginning and fantastic most of the way through, but ended badly.
Moving on to your answer, I agree.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 9:05 am to Woodreaux
quote:
I'm going to beat this already pulverized horse to dust by adding that I understand "swag" is shorter than "swagger", and helps keep the thesis short. But, frankly, I don't think it's worth it. These players have sincere swagger, and I believe truncating the final three letters effectively castrates the term, it's worse than "swagga". At least that term maintains the general form; exchanging a syllable is preferable to killing it. On top of that, there's exists a namespace collision with the noun form of "swag". It's more or less synonymous with "lagniappe", sometimes used in reference to objects you might acquire at an entertainment transaction. Personally, I would steer of clear that of ambiguity, by using the already existing word which specifically describes the characteristic to which you refer. There's both nouns, and they're applicable in some overlapping situations, however they describe weakly associated but fundamentally direction things: on is a collection of physical and non-corporal (but discreet and well-defined instances), while the other is the nebulous confluence of confidence, exuberance, arrogance and style. But that's your choice: only you (or an admin) can change it. Also, I disagree with the omission of the "?" sentence terminator. Because I'm not utterly retarded, I understood that you're asking a question and understood the line inquiry. To summarize, the subject's structural quality reminds of the 2011 season: it was solid from the beginning and fantastic most of the way through, but ended badly. Moving on to your answer, I agree.
You sir, are an obvious genius. I cannot rightly comprehend why you would waste your precious time analyzing the dribble put forth on a lowly message board.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News