 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Doug Chadwick Date: 08 Dec 24 - 08:18 AM ..... if you're following the street pronunciation, it should be "I cant see nothin" More like "I cant see not'n". DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Thompson Date: 08 Dec 24 - 07:00 PM Dubliners do indeed say howya - an occasionally, ironically, yo. I've never heard alright in Ireland, and in England it's mostly orright? Today's peeve: spotting 'n' used as a short form for and (eg rock 'n' roll), but with the apostrophes the wrong way round - the first and second apostrophes should both face the same way, as these are not quotation marks, but markers indicating a missing letter. (Since the Courier used in the typing of this translates into Times, my expression of this here will probably look confusing.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: The Sandman Date: 09 Dec 24 - 04:24 AM Apparently YO is considered insulting in Kerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: meself Date: 09 Dec 24 - 10:48 AM Re: "'n'". Trouble is, often word-processing programs will decide which way the apostrophe is going to face (the wrong way), and, in my experience, it takes some time and ingenuity to trick the program into allowing the apostrophe you want. And, to make matters worse, a lot of text you see now on-line has originated on a cell-phone, which is even less accommodating. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 13 Dec 24 - 06:20 PM I can't remember whether this has been covered here before, but it's just raised me to red heat: "learnings" looks to me like an illiterate's way to say "lessons" in a way which doesn't invoke the spectre of Teacher. Is it some fragment of the horrific null-content space-filling suit-speak that's started leaking from board meetings into real life? Not to put too fine a point on it: *ARGH*issimo. Sorry about that; I feel a bit better now. Now where was I? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Thompson Date: 14 Dec 24 - 03:24 AM This morning I'm reading a thesis which includes the use of the flinchworthy malopropism "giving X free reign". Free rein! Free rein! It's like when you're riding your hunter across the countryside and let the reins fall so the little darling can answer the signals of your body as she leaps the walls and ditches! Nothing to do with reigning! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Lighter Date: 14 Dec 24 - 12:53 PM How about "aircrafts"? It'sp ractically the rule in US media. Also, "I'm a twenty-three-years-old fashion model." I hear the pointless pluralization frequently. The first I noticed, maybe twenty-five years ago, was "the jobs market." Now it's normal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: The Sandman Date: 14 Dec 24 - 04:12 PM celtic rock |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: meself Date: 14 Dec 24 - 04:39 PM And then there's the recently-ubiquitous "an elite" in reference to a single (high status) person. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Thompson Date: 15 Dec 24 - 04:51 AM Ah, now, I have to object to the objection to Celtic Rock. What about Cashel? Today I read again "Low and behold" and flinched so hard I nearly threw my tea over my shoulder. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Backwoodsman Date: 16 Dec 24 - 01:59 AM ‘Lo and behold’ seems to be almost as common as ‘Et viola!’. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Backwoodsman Date: 16 Dec 24 - 02:20 AM Try again…damn autocorrect! ‘Low and behold’ seems to be almost as common as ‘Et viola!’. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Doug Chadwick Date: 16 Dec 24 - 04:16 AM I suspect that while ‘Low and behold’ is most likely a mistake, ‘Et viola!’ may be Fractured French used for comic effect. Another example of Fractured French would be ‘Mersey buckets’ to say thank you. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Backwoodsman Date: 16 Dec 24 - 06:34 AM Possibly, Doug. Although I see it mostly in non-humorous posts by Americans on several US-based guitar forums (where I mostly lurk), so I’m persuaded that it’s nothing more than illiteracy or semi-literacy, more often than not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Thompson Date: 16 Dec 24 - 05:57 PM Low and behold is only one of a flock of migrating spellings; another two are the aforementioned giving free reign, and hone in for home in. If there's a vaguely similar in sound word with a vaguely similar meaning, it'll rush gratefully into the arms of the linguistically confused. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: When Pet Peeves Attack. From: Donuel Date: 16 Dec 24 - 06:33 PM Low and Bee Holed. now toss that tea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 17 Dec 24 - 12:00 PM Fresh peeve: something being described as "actionable", when it's merely meant that some seldom-specified action can be taken about said thing. In my lexicon, "actionable" only ever pertains to things that yield lawsuits (sense 2 in the Wictionary entry); but perhaps that comes from reading Private Eye at a formative age, wherein Messrs Sue Grabbit and Runne feature heavily. Is this yet more leakage of management memo-speak into real life? Would that this were actionable in the legal sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Thompson Date: 29 Dec 24 - 04:50 AM A drawer is apparently now called a draw. Kind of logical, but urrkk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Thompson Date: 29 Dec 24 - 09:50 AM And I've just heard that the difficulties at Omaha Beach were "exasperated". I'll be they were! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Backwoodsman Date: 29 Dec 24 - 12:11 PM On the Morrisons' Do-it-Yerself checkouts, my p**s almost boils when I hear that woman's disembodied voice declare "Your Clubcard is "excepted"!! Aaaaaaaarrgghh! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Thompson Date: 30 Dec 24 - 01:17 PM It was probably illegible for exception, Backwoodsman. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Backwoodsman Date: 30 Dec 24 - 05:57 PM LOL, Thompson! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: DaveRo Date: 21 Jan 25 - 03:03 AM OT-ish, but I've noticed that 'slew' turns up a lot in the UK papers, usually in the phrase "a slew of executive orders". I suspected this was American which Websters confirms: Slew appeared as an American colloquialism in the early 19th century. Its origins are unclear, but it is perhaps taken from the Irish slua, a descendant of Old Irish slúag, meaning "army," "host," or "throng."https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slew To me this word has a slight negative bias - you get slews of bad things but not good ones. But this might just be because of the aforementioned executive orders. Do folk in America receive a slew of gifts at Christmas? Only ish, because UK papers increasingly use US words - especially if they're short. I read yesterday the the Prince of Darkness is "the UK's pick for US ambassador'. Mind you, Australian words appear more frequently too. I initially read 'throng' in the above quote as 'thong'. Rather the opposite! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: gillymor Date: 21 Jan 25 - 07:28 AM So Trump has pardoned the Jan. 6 rioters, which means that if he doesn't like the outcome of the midterm elections or doesn't care to leave office when his term is up he can call on his violent, knuckle-dragging constituents to storm the Capitol again, this time with impunity. Welcome to the third world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Aethelric Date: 21 Jan 25 - 01:22 PM I think we will get even more references now to Laura Nawder, who ever she is? And Lore abiding citizens – is that Folklore, or maybe family lore, lore of the land or what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: The Sandman Date: 22 Jan 25 - 04:20 AM Trump is only a puppet, he like many politicians thinks he has more power than he has, if he upsets the people who really pull the strings he will be out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 22 Jan 25 - 10:25 AM Hm, Sandman: Does that mean the offensive little oik is King Con or King Conned? Meanwhile, I've noticed that he's into |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 22 Jan 25 - 10:34 AM Apologies, MudElf: those last two should be in the current tRump thread. Feel free to translocate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: meself Date: 23 Jan 25 - 07:57 PM The owners of pets being referred to as the pets' "parents" - it's even made its way into newscasts in my part of the world ... smdh .......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Backwoodsman Date: 24 Jan 25 - 02:31 AM As a childless couple, my wife and I regard our dogs as our ‘family’, and ourselves as the dog’s ‘parents’. We didn’t realise we needed your approval to feel that way and, frankly, we don’t give a flying fuck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Aethelric Date: 24 Jan 25 - 04:06 AM All dogs are either bitches or sons of bitches. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: meself Date: 24 Jan 25 - 10:58 AM Backwoodsman: What makes you think you need my approval for anything? I'm really not that powerful. If you want to refer to yourselves as your pets' parents, go ahead; I couldn't care less - but if I hear a newscaster or some public authority figure publicly referring to you as your pets' parents, I'm going to grumble, and perhaps post something curmudgeonly about it on Mudcat. Some people give their cars pet names, and assign them a gender; I've got no problem with that, either, but I don't expect reporters and police to use said pet names and genders when they're recounting the details of, for example, accidents or car thefts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Backwoodsman Date: 24 Jan 25 - 03:18 PM Fairy Nuff... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 25 Jan 25 - 08:53 AM Possibly-fresh peeve: the use of "fast" and "slow" to describe clocks which are ahead (resp, behind) standard time. I know it stems from clocks traditionally being wound up and corrected at the same, erm, time; but it winds me up summat cruel when "slow" is used for a clock which I know for a fact is behind but gaining, as our world-famous chiming clock is on a Monday morning before I correct it. I leave as an exercise the deduction of why said clock gains one minute a day, but loses one or two minutes a week, all without manual adjustment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Donuel Date: 28 Jan 25 - 10:05 AM I don't know if a fat chance is better than a slim chance. Beyond individual word or grammar choices, my language peeves are the statements that separate the 'other' from ourselves like "They are evil, " as if we are incapable of evil ourselves. I believe if anyone is given absolute power they will become capable of an evil act. Who can resist the ring of power? In truth everyone is potentially evil, for example, one of my favorite Superman scenes is when he is a waiter and is humiliated by a truck driver he leaves the restaurant, so when the trucker leaves later he finds his truck skewered by telephone poles up in the air. Yes, I am amused by revenge and retribution which is evil. Much literature and movie plots involve evil revenge. I wouldn't say that evil should not be punished when the punishment fits the crime but culture has excused extreme evil. We can recognize the evil revenge of a Trump figure but it would be bigotry to assume all his followers are evil although I bet they are. :^/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 28 Jan 25 - 10:50 AM > I don't know if a fat chance is better than > a slim chance. It's slimmer, with a side order of scorn. Hold the hope. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Mrrzy Date: 21 Apr 25 - 03:20 PM Unlimited syrength starts by pushing limits? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Mrrzy Date: 21 Apr 25 - 03:21 PM Unlimited strength starts by pushing limits wups |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: The Sandman Date: 24 Apr 25 - 01:46 PM "I DON'T KNOW NOTHING" Abuse of double negative |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Doug Chadwick Date: 24 Apr 25 - 06:35 PM That well known song by The Rolling Stones:- 'I am unable to get any satisfaction'. Sometimes a double negative is better DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: The Sandman Date: 25 Apr 25 - 02:57 AM That depends whether you like the song in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: The Sandman Date: 25 Apr 25 - 03:19 AM Doug, you scored a point. congratulations. is it time for the umpire to announce "new balls please" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: meself Date: 28 Aug 25 - 02:11 PM "Two Men Dead After Drowning in Local Lake" ... no comment, other than, I wonder if headlines are AI-created these days .... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: mayomick Date: 26 Jun 26 - 10:00 AM just checking to see if this thread is still ongoing |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Lighter Date: 26 Jun 26 - 12:58 PM All existing peeves have been expressed. Inciuding those who demand BCE and those who demand BC. (Spellchecker just flagged BCE in this message as wrong.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: meself Date: 30 Jun 26 - 10:50 AM I've noticed in the past year or two the word "poignant" emerging from a quiet life of relative obscurity to become a social butterfly, if not party-animal, in the wild world of 2026. It seems to have gotten confused with "pointed" somewhere along the line, and now apparently means whatever you want it to mean ..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Paul Burke Date: 30 Jun 26 - 12:12 PM Just carry a poignard and whenever anyone says poignant, stick it somewhere poignful. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: meself Date: 30 Jun 26 - 03:23 PM Nowadays, that could be characterized as a very poignant suggestion .... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: Nigel Parsons Date: 01 Jul 26 - 04:10 AM I've noticed in the past year or two the word "poignant" emerging from a quiet life of relative obscurity to become a social butterfly, if not party-animal, in the wild world of 2026. It seems to have gotten confused with "pointed" somewhere along the line, and now apparently means whatever you want it to mean ..... Ah, the Humpty Dumpty approach: “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.” - Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 03 Jul 26 - 06:21 AM Has the abominable abusage of "optics" in the Press been (ahem) brought up here? Optics belong in opticians', with the makers and users of telescopes and microscopes, and behind the bar; newsvermin who want to say "this doesn't look good" but sound posh should learn the word "impression", pay for the extra ink (and banished whitespace), and wait for their fellow scribblers to spot the embedded pun. |
