Comments on: so be good for goodness sake http://thisfieldisrequired.com/2009/12/24/so-be-good-for-goodness-sake/ ethics, education, etc. Wed, 09 May 2012 17:37:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Self Deprecate Humor http://thisfieldisrequired.com/2009/12/24/so-be-good-for-goodness-sake/comment-page-1/#comment-106 Self Deprecate Humor Mon, 28 Dec 2009 05:18:19 +0000 http://thisfieldisrequired.com/?p=325#comment-106 That comic sums up most people's religious beliefs. That comic sums up most people’s religious beliefs.

]]> By: Adam http://thisfieldisrequired.com/2009/12/24/so-be-good-for-goodness-sake/comment-page-1/#comment-105 Adam Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:32:01 +0000 http://thisfieldisrequired.com/?p=325#comment-105 Reminds me of Calvin and Hobbes on why you should believe in Santa: http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2009/02/04/ awesome example of Pascal's Wager Reminds me of Calvin and Hobbes on why you should believe in Santa: http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2009/02/04/ awesome example of Pascal’s Wager

]]> By: shyam http://thisfieldisrequired.com/2009/12/24/so-be-good-for-goodness-sake/comment-page-1/#comment-104 shyam Fri, 25 Dec 2009 05:05:08 +0000 http://thisfieldisrequired.com/?p=325#comment-104 yeah true it does promote that which was the major point you were making. roughly i think it expresses surprise, annoyance, surprise something like that. also i feel like i've heard a new one recently. "for fuck's sake" which is really weird. yeah true it does promote that which was the major point you were making.

roughly i think it expresses surprise, annoyance, surprise something like that.

also i feel like i’ve heard a new one recently. “for fuck’s sake” which is really weird.

]]> By: thisfieldisrequired http://thisfieldisrequired.com/2009/12/24/so-be-good-for-goodness-sake/comment-page-1/#comment-103 thisfieldisrequired Fri, 25 Dec 2009 04:37:00 +0000 http://thisfieldisrequired.com/?p=325#comment-103 And I suppose I should mention that, any evidence from the idiom aside, the song still clearly promotes rewarding children's behavior with gifts, which I think is a bad practice for a number of reasons. But you didn't take issue with that, so I don't really need to defend it. And I suppose I should mention that, any evidence from the idiom aside, the song still clearly promotes rewarding children’s behavior with gifts, which I think is a bad practice for a number of reasons. But you didn’t take issue with that, so I don’t really need to defend it.

]]> By: thisfieldisrequired http://thisfieldisrequired.com/2009/12/24/so-be-good-for-goodness-sake/comment-page-1/#comment-102 thisfieldisrequired Fri, 25 Dec 2009 01:43:29 +0000 http://thisfieldisrequired.com/?p=325#comment-102 Oops, I should have known better than to try to make this kind of point where a language person might read it. Maybe I just have little patience for idiomatic language the meaning of which is opaque and not obviously related to its constitutive words. What could the meaning of "for goodness/christ/pete's sake" be, anyway? I can't put my finger on it... Oops, I should have known better than to try to make this kind of point where a language person might read it. Maybe I just have little patience for idiomatic language the meaning of which is opaque and not obviously related to its constitutive words.

What could the meaning of “for goodness/christ/pete’s sake” be, anyway? I can’t put my finger on it…

]]> By: thisfieldisrequired http://thisfieldisrequired.com/2009/12/24/so-be-good-for-goodness-sake/comment-page-1/#comment-101 thisfieldisrequired Fri, 25 Dec 2009 01:38:10 +0000 http://thisfieldisrequired.com/?p=325#comment-101 Yep, that's true! I actually checked earlier tonight, and it turns out that either goodness's or goodness' is acceptable, but definitely not goodness. Stupid song! :-) Yep, that’s true! I actually checked earlier tonight, and it turns out that either goodness’s or goodness’ is acceptable, but definitely not goodness. Stupid song! :-)

]]> By: shyam http://thisfieldisrequired.com/2009/12/24/so-be-good-for-goodness-sake/comment-page-1/#comment-100 shyam Fri, 25 Dec 2009 01:18:16 +0000 http://thisfieldisrequired.com/?p=325#comment-100 errr ones errr ones

]]> By: shyam http://thisfieldisrequired.com/2009/12/24/so-be-good-for-goodness-sake/comment-page-1/#comment-99 shyam Fri, 25 Dec 2009 01:16:56 +0000 http://thisfieldisrequired.com/?p=325#comment-99 the meaning of the expression isn't a function from the meaning of its parts. you can tell because you can't, in general, substitute something of the same grammatical category as 'goodness' and get a similar meaning. the only one's which work are 'God's' 'Pete's' 'Christ's' things like that. I can't say "John is in jail for Pam's sake" and mean anything like what I mean when I say "John is in jail for God's/Pete's/Christ's/goodness sake". so i don't think the intrinsic value reading is correct. its an idiomatic expression. the meaning of the expression isn’t a function from the meaning of its parts. you can tell because you can’t, in general, substitute something of the same grammatical category as ‘goodness’ and get a similar meaning. the only one’s which work are ‘God’s’ ‘Pete’s’ ‘Christ’s’ things like that. I can’t say “John is in jail for Pam’s sake” and mean anything like what I mean when I say “John is in jail for God’s/Pete’s/Christ’s/goodness sake”. so i don’t think the intrinsic value reading is correct. its an idiomatic expression.

]]> By: beala http://thisfieldisrequired.com/2009/12/24/so-be-good-for-goodness-sake/comment-page-1/#comment-98 beala Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:52:20 +0000 http://thisfieldisrequired.com/?p=325#comment-98 That's not the only thing that's wrong with it. It's also ungrammatical! "Goodness" should be possessive ("goodness's sake"). But alas, now that it's an idiom, the rules of grammar no longer apply. That’s not the only thing that’s wrong with it. It’s also ungrammatical! “Goodness” should be possessive (“goodness’s sake”).

But alas, now that it’s an idiom, the rules of grammar no longer apply.

]]>