BS: Language Pet Peeves part II

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: meself
Date: 09 Dec 23 - 02:58 PM

This isn't really a pet peeve; more of a curiosity, I suppose. I heard someone on TV, commenting on an up-coming election, say, "There will be no surprises." I don't think this quite qualifies as an 'oxymoron', but it does seem in a way self-contradictory, given that a 'surprise' is, well, a 'surprise'; it would be the equivalent of saying, "Nothing unexpected will happen". Perhaps someone who has studied logic can apply a neat Latin or Greek term here ....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Dec 23 - 04:16 PM

"Less" for "fewer" is indeed hopeless and rightly so.

"Less" has been so used since the 14th century. That it must not be used that way is a superstition promulgated in the 18th.

Stylist John Lyly, 1587:

"I thinke there are fewe Vniuersities that haue lesse faults then Oxford."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 23 - 05:24 AM

Hmm. Less vs fewer is not a simple matter. I'd say we should be inclined to excuse alleged misuse in the spoken word but be a bit stricter with the written word.

The trouble with "less" and "fewer" is that they are both the opposites of "more." Two words on one side of the fence but only one on the other. I've plucked some examples of the use of "less" and "fewer" from the Grammarly website Here goes:

Rebecca has less than twenty dollars left in her checking account.

Rebecca has fewer than twenty dollars left.

Ethan has been at his job for less than five years.

I wish I could spend fewer hours on household chores and more on watching television.

Baby pandas weigh less than 200 grams at birth.

Fewer than eight percent of the world’s people have blue eyes.

I see you have eaten less than ten percent of your mashed potatoes.

On the face of it, it looks like a bit of rule-breaking is going on there in places - but Grammarly adjudges every one of those examples to be correct. Sometimes, either word may be permissible. English is a wonderfully zany language, more or less...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 23 - 05:35 AM

I heard on the radio this morning that the warming climate will make conditions "increasingly ideal" for disease-carrying insects to establish themselves in the UK. I was wondering whether you can have even more ideal than ideal, then I remembered that we often say "less than ideal", which I think is OK. If the top of the mountain equals "the ideal" for the climber, you can come down from it but (unless you can fly) you can't go higher than it. I think the newsreader might have been better off saying "increasingly suitable" or something like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 11 Dec 23 - 06:07 AM

the warming climate will make conditions "increasingly ideal" for disease-carrying insects to establish themselves ...... I was wondering whether you can have even more ideal than ideal

There could be, perhaps, the ideal temperature but the less than ideal humidity. A warming climate could be bringing more factors into alignment.

Or, possibly, the ideal conditions, which have previously only existed for a short period each year, could be occurring earlier and lasting longer.

Just my thoughts as a point for discussion.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Dec 23 - 11:01 AM

Less is for mass nouns, like grass, that don't take "a" in the singular, and have no plural. There is some grass, there is less grass. Less butter. Fewer pats of butter. Fewer blades of grass.

Fewer grassES grow in this region. Now it is a count noun. As in, barley is a grass.


Fewer is for count nouns, like dog, that can take "a" in the singular, and have a plural. There is a dog, there are some dogs, there are fewer dogs.

Both use More. More dogs, more grass. Fewer people. And so on.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 23 - 06:09 PM

So, you think that these are all wrong, do you? I'm afraid that I shall have to beg to differ:


Rebecca has less than twenty dollars left in her checking account.

Ethan has been at his job for less than five years.

Baby pandas weigh less than 200 grams at birth.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: meself
Date: 12 Dec 23 - 12:48 PM

Here's one I've been noticing for the past year or so: "blame on" meaning "blame for". Yesterday I heard on the radio, "Failed health policies are being blamed on increased deaths from drug overdose." Been hearing that misusage a lot lately.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Thompson
Date: 12 Dec 23 - 12:56 PM

Delay - what many's the girl wished too late she could do.

They're still at it: using "on behalf of" where they mean "on the part of". Must see dentist. Teeth ground down to pathetic nubs.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Dec 23 - 12:11 PM

Fewer than 10 dollars mwans fewer than 10 individual, counted dollars. Total agreement.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Thompson
Date: 14 Dec 23 - 01:58 PM

Is "blamed on" a misusage? Surely it's just a reversal of meaning. Bad singers are blamed for bad singing; bad singing is blamed on bad singers?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Dec 23 - 03:05 PM

In meself’s example - “Failed health policies are being blamed on increased deaths from drug overdose." - yes, it is a misuseage. Should be “Failed health policies are being blamed for increased deaths from drug overdose”.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Dec 23 - 03:38 PM

IMHO, of course! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 23 - 06:44 PM

"Increased deaths"? Hmm...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: meself
Date: 14 Dec 23 - 08:15 PM

Probably wasn't the clearest example, but it was the one I had heard most recently. A simpler example would be something like, "Police are blaming icy roads on the car accidents."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Thompson
Date: 15 Dec 23 - 03:16 AM

The difference between 'specially' and 'especially' seems to have disappeared.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 23 - 03:49 AM

Then there's speciality and specialty...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 23 - 10:07 AM

Bog, dunny, lavvy, shithouse, man about a dog, checking the plumbing, off to drain the spuds, drain the snake, off to shake hands with the unemployed/wife's best friend, take the temperature of the porcelain, spend a penny, khazi, John, throne, crapper, jakes, loo (yuk), even gents or ladies....so many rude or not-so-rude alternatives to choose from. So, yanks, what's with "rest-room" or "bathroom"? You don't go there for a rest and there's no bath! Explain yourselves! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Dec 23 - 10:30 AM

‘Murrican prudishness?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: gillymor
Date: 17 Dec 23 - 11:32 AM

We're very informal about it around here, we just call "the euphemism".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Dec 23 - 12:11 PM

LOL! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 17 Dec 23 - 04:39 PM

I once heard a rumour (refutation requested) that every word for the Smallest Room, and the actions taken therein, is a euphamism, right back to "bog", which was alleged to be of Roman origin; the source wasn't clear whether that included medical terms.* Calling said room or its porcelain furniture "the Euphemism" sounds about right, which makes it a meta-euphemism.

* "Taking the mickey" has an especially long and interesting etymology.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 23 - 04:54 PM

I must say, I like "euphemism," which I will now use when in polite company. Except that none of my company is ever really polite...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Dec 23 - 05:36 PM

I once heard a rumour (refutation requested) that every word for the Smallest Room, and the actions taken therein, is a euphamism

Washing your hands after urinating or defecating seems to be a fairly non-euphemistic action. As the room in my house where all these actions take place contains a bath, the word bathroom is not a euphemism.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 23 - 06:59 PM

We can't help it if you live in a Mayfair mansion, Doug! ;-)

On another tack, I've never quite understood why a bloke needs to wash his hands after having a wee. Your hands have been mauling God knows how many unhygienic objects all day, yet your willy has been kept hygienically under wraps ever since you left home after your shower this morning - and healthy urine is completely sterile. I think we should wash our hands BEFORE having a wee. At least, that would help to protect the family jewels from the hazards of the hostile, germ-ridden outside world...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 18 Dec 23 - 04:13 AM

healthy urine is completely sterile.

But what if it's not healthy? - and it still smells, healthy or not. If the last few drops get onto your hands as you are adjusting your underwear, everything you touch immediately after that could end up with a certain perfume.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 23 - 06:35 AM

Hmm. I could suggest that you, er, try modifying your technique, Doug... ;-)

From what you say, so many things in daily life should be smelling of wee. Supermarket trolley handles, everything on the shelves (all put there by human hands), my steering wheel, the telly remote, my cat, my harmonicas, my oft-resorted to wine glass... Well, either (a) my sense of smell is too weak, or (b) there's no smell anyway, or (c) I don't do nearly enough sniffing around...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 23 - 06:41 AM

And this is not a linguistic pet peeve, but its still a peeve: how come that, after using a public toilet and washing your hands, you are obliged to pull a door handle in order to get out? All that rigorously-executed hand hygiene undone in one obligatory move? The only way to mitigate the problem, at least to some extent, is to employ the pinky only at the very top of the handle, powerful door spring permitting...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 18 Dec 23 - 11:14 AM

They answered that on cruise ships, Steve, as part of their response to (*argh*) COVID: use a paper towel to open the door. The notices are still there, and are universally ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: G-Force
Date: 18 Dec 23 - 11:19 AM

This door is alarmed.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: meself
Date: 18 Dec 23 - 12:35 PM

Just remembering what Anne Landers wrote, presumably with a sigh: "Once my readers get into the bathroom, there's no getting them out!" (or words to that effect).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 23 - 01:08 PM

Alas, many a lavatorium now lacks paper towels, preferring you instead to launch an aerosol of droplets via fearsome hand-driers. And what's in that nasty little dirty puddle at the bottom of the trough in those Dyson Airblade things you're supposed to stick your hands into...?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 23 - 01:10 PM

By the way, I used to show my biology classes a video in which it was demonstrated that bacteria on the hands can easily pass through six layers of toilet paper...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: mayomick
Date: 20 Dec 23 - 09:05 AM

i hope everybody is looking forward to their "Christmas lunch "

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Dec 23 - 03:22 PM

Once again, Whosis Dies After Plane Crashes made me think Whosis survived the crash, then someone cane along and murdered them.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 21 Dec 23 - 02:55 PM

Hot-air hand dryers: For a school science project, one lass wished to find out how effective using a hot-air dryer was at removing germs from the hands. In the event, it proved to be worse than the control, which was to wipe her hands down her jeans.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 23 - 03:45 PM

They're even less effective if you can't get them to come on. I've lost count of the number of times I've stood there feeling utterly stupid, waving my hands uselessly under the bloody thing, unable to find the sweet spot that gets it to work...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Dec 23 - 06:17 PM

re: bathrooms..etc as noted above.
Perhaps 25 years ago, our folk club was preparing for our annual weekend festival at a park. We decided to take a lunch break and headed for the picnic tables.
   One bright lady said, "I'll meet you there. I need to go to the euphemism!"
   There is a well-built brick building which has since been remodeled, but I wish I'd stolen the old sign from it..because the sign above the door where that lady was headed said *COMFORT STATION*.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Dec 23 - 09:50 AM

The subtitles in something I was watching kept saying Outhouse when they meant Outbuilding. Hilariously, sometimes.

Is the hot air dryer thing a language peeve?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 23 - 10:03 AM

Brick outhouse (polite)
Brick shithouse (less polite)
Built like a brick shithouse: description of a large robust person of whatever gender, e.g. rugby player or district nurse

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Dec 23 - 02:26 PM

Using ‘bring’ but meaning ‘take’ (seems to be another ‘Murrican thing).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Dec 23 - 05:57 PM

Daily Intelligencer (Lancaster, Pa.) (May 12, 1876):

"Two Cigar Stands, one Soda Water Stand, and one Public Comfort Station."

The phrase became widespread in the 1890s. My grandparents were familiar with it. It referred to a public facility, as at at a train station - not just to any lav.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Dec 23 - 09:20 PM

Brits have take-away, we have take-out. Both, you bring home, no?

Example of bring/take?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Dec 23 - 03:09 AM

Mrrzy, on the US music forums I lurk around, I frequently see, for instance, “I will bring my guitar to a luthier for a set-up”, when it should be “I will take my guitar…”.

‘Bring” implies movement towards the speaker, whereas take implies movement away from the speaker. Even Merriam and Webster, they of suspect spelling-skills, understood that… ;-)

Merriam-Webster on ‘Bring’ v. ‘Take’.

Under that rule, ‘Take-out’ and ‘Take-away’ are both correct, as they both imply movement away from the fast-food establishment which is supplying them. In the case of the purchaser, he/she brings a Take-out/away home.

And an owner takes his guitar to the luthier, and brings it back home.

That’s IMHO at least. I’m sure someone will be along shortly to ‘correct’ me!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 24 Dec 23 - 04:50 AM

I completely agree with BWM on bring/take. I have thought several times of raising it as a pet peeve and I was surprised when I checked back through this and the original thread, that it hadn't been discussed before.

In the same vein, when I was at junior school in Liverpool many years ago, it was common for a pupil who needed a writing implement to ask another "Can I lend your pen?". The answer, of course, should have been "Who are you going to lend it to?". For my daughter, who was brought up on Northern Lincolnshire, it was the opposite way round:- "Will you borrow me your pen for a minute?".

The same goes for teach/learn. I have a wonderful spoof foreign language phrase book, for visitors to Liverpool, called "Learn Yerself Scouse".

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Dec 23 - 09:44 AM

The casual language of which you speak is all perfectly fine - in speech. It is not fine in the written word unless the writer is deliberately resorting to the vernacular, which is also valid. As ever, language is wot people speak in their everyday lives, not subject to the strict "rules" of the grammar police. Enjoy the colour!

I was a good lad at school, bright and literate*. One day, my mate put up his hand and politely asked the teacher, "Sir, can I go to the toilet, please?" Came the reply, "You can, but you may not." That teacher was two bastards rolled into one, and witnessing that exchange left its mark on me. If you understand what the speaker is saying without having to do a lot of mental processing, it's all good and it shouldn't be subjected to snarky criticism.

*The gloss may have worn off just a tad...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Dec 23 - 10:19 AM

The confusion between ‘lend’ and ‘borrow’ seems to be common in my neck of Yellerbelly-land too, Doug (west of your bit). Strangely, it didn’t seem to become a ‘thing’ until perhaps the late ‘60s/early ‘70s - during my childhood and youth I hardly heard it but, beginning in my early 20s, it seemed to become more and more prevalent, especially amongst the younger age-group (who are now the older age-group). It drives me nuts. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Dec 23 - 09:32 PM

Hmmm, not my experience with bring and take. Bring, to me, involves the thing going along with the speaker whether to or fro (I could bring my uke to your house, or home again). Take is rather when the thing changes hands (if I took your uke home, I would bring it back to you later. You would then take it from me.).

Fascinating, the take to and bring from thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Dec 23 - 11:48 PM

I think you’re doing the ‘Murrican thang with bring and take, Mrrzy, which even your revered lexicologists Merriam and Webster say is wrong. In English English, to use your example, I would take my uke to your house (movement away from the speaker), and bring it home again (movement towards the speaker. If you check the M-W page I linked to, that’s exactly what they say too.

Tomarto tomayto, eh? ;-) :-)

I can live with it, I understand what’s meant, but…. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Dec 23 - 11:50 PM

Aa-a-a-and….100! :-)