BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Alvin-Songster
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 11:31 AM

"Emma Thompson attacks poor language" inspired me to begin this thread. Jump in with your own PP's.

"Awesome" use to mean "inspiring awe," but currently it's beginning to mean "better than average." "Hey, look! The Grand Canyon. Isn't that better than your average hole in the ground?" Sometimes it's even used just to say something nice. "You know how to spell cat? That's awesome!" Huh?

Where did, "Here's the deal" come from, and what will make it go away?

The word is "information," NOT "info." Is four syllables really that much more difficult to say than two? Okay if you want to use it informally, or to show you're with it. But using it on radio or television, as in, "For more info..." makes me wonder who's in charge.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 11:48 AM

People who use the word `fuck` on threads. Hear that Spaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 12:09 PM

"One pence"

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: michaelr
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 12:12 PM

"...one of the only..." Someone/thing is either the only, or one of the few. Drives me nuts!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 12:50 PM

Awesome post 999 and here's the deal on that.......I'll tell myself to fuck off and that should handle it. If you need more info on my decision just lemmee know.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 01:06 PM

"We shal re-double our efforts"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 01:25 PM

You got it Ake,,,,one of the only things we can all do! Let's all give 200% 100% of the time!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 03:38 PM

Then instead of than
"PIN number" (the N already stands for number)
X "a.m. in the morning" (similar issue)
"baited breath" (unless you've been eating worms)
"very unique" (see "one of the only", in a previous post)
X "peaked my interest" (unless your interest began to decline after that)
"forward" instead of "foreword"
apostrophes -- some missing, others unnecessary

These things don't bother me so much from everyday punters (we all have our strengths and weaknesses; just because spelling & grammar always seemed to come pretty easily to me (perhaps because I read a lot as a kid) doesn't mean everyone else finds them easy), but when I see them in books/magazines/newspapers or hear them on radio or TV, I really feel that someone should have caught it before it was published/aired -- aren't proofreaders/editors/subeditors supposed to notice such things?

Although... it seems that businesses rarely think it worth the time to proofread things these days -- after all, "time is money"!
I'm a graphic designer, and in more than one job I've had, it has not been appreciated when I've caught mistakes; I've been told it's not my job to worry about such things. One printer even said that mistakes were no bad thing (as long as the mistake was the client's rather than ours), since they generate more business when the job needs to be reprinted... [sigh] Let's not worry about the sheer waste of binning all that paper and ink from the first run...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Wesley S
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 04:35 PM

The word "veggies". I guess "vegetables" takes to long to say.

"Newbie" for newcomer. Same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 04:44 PM

12 am and 12 pm ~~ if you work it out, both can only mean mean midnight, which is both 12 hours before noon [=ante meridiem] & 12 hours after noon [=post meridiem]. 'Noon' & 'midnight' are the correct terms.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: maple_leaf_boy
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 05:13 PM

I don't get "my bad" and "a$$hat".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 05:51 PM

I think "my bad" is a useful coinage.

What is "a$$hat"?

I think I am most annoyed by the following (partly because of their frequency, partly because of their egregious nature): -

"For free" in stead of "free" or "for nothing"
Split infinitives
"Checkout" in stead of "till"
"Janitor" (or, worse, "in-store janitor") for "cleaner"
"Regular" for "ordinary". "Regular" means "recurring with a fixed periodicity".
"Expiration" (which means "exhalation") in place of "expiry"
"In the event that" in stead of "if".
"Less" in place of "fewer" (the former applies to amorphous quantities, the latter to numbers of individuals or individual things).

I am confident that more will occur to me as the evening wears on and the bottle empties.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 05:52 PM

Oh - how could I have overlooked "Off of"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 06:15 PM

I would have sworn that I posted the following earlier in this thread:

"Epicenter" as in a usage like "Hollywood is the epicenter of the film industry in the U.S."

Oh, so the film industry in the U.S. is way down underground, and Hollywood is located on the surface above it?   Awww, c'mon!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 07:28 PM

I'd say the repetition of the word "is" in sentences like, "The trouble is, is that nobody listens."

Once you notice it, you keep hearing it everywhere (in the US).

I have only heard it in speech, probably by people who don't even realize they're saying it. I have never seen it in print.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 09:01 PM

Right here, in our very own, Mudcat, a lot of posters, use way too many, commas, without any, justification or sense. Makes it, hard to, understand. Leaving ALL commas, out, would make it, more readable!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Phil Cooper
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 09:33 PM

Misuse of quotation marks and apostrophes. Also confusing compose and comprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: michaelr
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 10:12 PM

People who don't know the difference between palette, palate, and pallet.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 11:01 PM

Oops! How could I forget "copywrite" (for "copyright") "copywright" and even "copywritten"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 11:42 PM

I've been having a little to-do with a newperson at the station where my Rog is chief engineer. They posted a story with the headline approximately as follows:

"Humane Society Looking to Get New Diggs"

Found out said reporter teaches at the local college and readily admitted to mistakes, which were corrected. We exchanged a couple of more comments in which she agreed using such slang as "diggs" should be guarded against, as she tells her students, but that sometimes it is "just fun."

The new headline reads as follows:

"Lots of tail wagging over proposed Roice-Hurst move"

A definite improvement, though I suppose it would be better if "tail" were plural.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST,Bert
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 01:49 AM

Second of all

Surely it should be 'second of all but one' seeing as 'first of all' has already dealt with the first one?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 01:55 AM

People who use 'gibberish-logic' ...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 02:50 AM

Uncle DaveO: for some reason you posted your 'epicenter' comment on the Emma Thompson thread ~~ I wondered at the time if you had meant it for this one, or were making some recondite point about luvviedom!

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 03:30 AM

Go figure, which is usually written as ' go figger, ' it really means " If you don't know that, I think you are stupid "

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 04:01 AM

People who say 'two things, a) blah de blah and secondly....' It's A and B or First and Second!!!

Less instead of Fewer gets me every time and I shout at the TV when an advert that uses it is shown.

'Compares to' instead of' compares with'.

I can accept that we are ruled by Microsoft's version of spelling (even when the thing is set to English rather than American English) but am driven completely spare by books and publications that have both UK and US spellings used with gay abandon, often ON THE SAME PAGE! I dearly wish to go through certain books with a red pen, correcting every mistake and send it back to the author with the exhortation to employ a proofreader or at least a bloody spell checker! The worst offender was a 'vanity printing' tome that professed to be 'one of the best guides' to its subject matter... Opened at random, I gave up counting after the spelling mistakes, grammatical and typesetting errors got to 2 dozen on one double page. Obviously the subject matter was not 'how to write correct English'.

Another pet peeve is the continued publication of historical "facts" that have been proven to be otherwise. The accusations of murder levied against Richard III is a prime example. The account of these murders were written on the orders of the man who had just usurped Richard and wanted to dispose of any potential threats. Tudor 'historians' state that Richard III had his 2 nephews murdered in the Tower of London when in fact, there is no contemporary evidence that this happened. When the Tudor dynasty was exhausted, a retraction was broadcast and Richard exhonorated. However, if you open any school history book published in the last 200 years, you'll see that Richard murdered the Princes in the Tower and that is it.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST,FloraG
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 04:01 AM

The last line is repeated ( singers)

- if so - its not the last line.

A right and left hand star - callers call. Try putting both hands in!

This door is alarmed ( poor door )

Turn into a bowl ( cooks ). How?
FloraG

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Abdul The Bul Bul
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 04:53 AM

"tiny little" and pronouncing 'aitch' with an h.
Al

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Wyrd Sister
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 05:19 AM

"Should of" as the expansion of "should've", a contraction of "should have". Same for could/would

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Paul Burke
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 05:37 AM

It's been going on a long time, and I doubt if it will stop in our species' lifetime. A hundred years ago, Disgusted of Tonbridge Wells might have written to "The Times"(*):

The word "terrific" used to mean "inspiring terror," but currently it usually means "very good."

Where did the phrase "Hello" come from, and what will make it go away?

The word is "omnibus," NOT "bus." Are three syllables really so much more difficult to utter than one? It is permissible if you want to use it informally, or to show you are "up to date". But to use it in the newspapers, as in "to catch the bus..." makes me wonder who is in charge.

Note that I've partially corrected a few solecisms ("use to", a certain laxness of punctuation), and excised contractions like "isn't" that would not have been printed in the better newspapers, but wouldn't be blinked at today.

(*) That's how he would have put it then. No one with any education wrote to the Times.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 05:51 AM

"Didn't used to" ~ horribly widespread ~ should of course be "Didn't use to": think about it. But this one a losing battle, I fear.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 06:47 AM

The American usage [following on from a post above] 'The London Times'. There is no such newspaper. It is called simply 'The Times'. A friend from US once tried to defend this, as necessary to distinguish from 'The New York Times', &c; but climbed down and admitted I was right when I pointed out that the masthead of 'The New York Times' reads 'The New York Times'; while the masthead of 'The Times' simply reads 'The Times'.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Paul Burke
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 09:27 AM

And haitch with an haitch his has hold has the 'ills.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 10:00 AM

I once bought a guidebook to the northwest United States (principally Washington and Oregon) that consistently and repeatedly referred to the "Williamette River." The correct spelling is Willamette.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 10:08 AM

"The American usage [following on from a post above] 'The London Times'. There is no such newspaper. It is called simply 'The Times'."

That's true MtheGM, and I understand that both are proper names so the insertion of a place name (as in London) isn't grammatical, but for US readers the default cultural assumption would (probably?) naturally be that if someone refers to 'The Times' they will be using shorthand for "The NY Times"?

Personally I'm inclined to think "The London Times" is sloppy journalism because you'd never get that kind of fudge used as a reference in academic literature. But is there a preferable way to disambiguate, that is both uncomplicated and concise for more general use?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 10:11 AM

Expressions such as `Are you joking me?`

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 12:02 PM

>But is there a preferable way to disambiguate, that is both uncomplicated and concise for more general use? <

CS ~ I think 'The [London] Times', or '"The Times" of London' would both be acceptable.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 12:48 PM

I think it was GUEST,Bert who asked us:

Second of all

Surely it should be 'second of all but one' seeing as 'first of all' has already dealt with the first one?

"Of them all, the first is" blah-blah = "First of all"

"Of them all, the second is" whatever = "Second of all"

So "second of all" is perfectly logical, Bert.   I wouldn't use it myself, because the unadorned "second" is quite sufficient in that context and "second of all" is kind of cumbersome, but it's not logically or grammatically wrong.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 01:13 PM

in order to,....why not just to?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 01:15 PM

There seems to be a belief among tv football commentators and commenters that "Goal" is an indelicate word in some way, and the euphemism "It's in the back of the net" is somehow more seemly. I don't think I have ever heard the word "Goal" on Alan Hanson's lips, for example.

Now, why do I find this so profoundly irritating?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 01:39 PM

"Here, here!" instead of "Hear, hear!"
"It's a mute point" instead of "moot point"

I think the reason "Here, here!", "mute point", "peaked", "baited breath" and "forward" bug me so much is that by using homonyms, people are losing the original sense(s) of the word(s), along with a certain richness of expression (and even understanding) which accompany the "proper" spelling(s), and I regret that loss -- even while knowing it's inevitable.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Penny S.
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 03:35 PM

"Fascia" instead of "facia". Lost cause already. It's a bundle of things, such as ligaments in the foot, not a facing board.

And there's something else, but fortunately I have forgotten it.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Penny S.
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 03:40 PM

"Comprises of".

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 03:57 PM

"Go figure" in my neck of the woods usually means "Who would have thought it?"

We've always referred to it as the NYTimes and the Times of London as just the Times.

I can still hear Mrs. Worcester, my old English/Latin teacher, scolding any of us who used "like" when we meant "such as." It's a lost cause, it's even been deemed "acceptable," but it still bugs me, greatly! The best example of incorrect usage she used with us was the old "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should!" My, how times have changed.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 06:27 PM

"There seems to be a belief among tv football commentators and commenters that "Goal" is an indelicate word in some wa"

... because they associate it with the 'goal' spelling of 'jail'.... and don't want to upset the supporters?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: maple_leaf_boy
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 06:41 PM

"a$$hat" or "asshat" is a term I've heard used. An "ass" is a donkey,
so a donkey hat doesn't make sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 09:37 PM

How could I have forgotten?

"try and".

In the vast preponderance of circumstances "try to" is correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 09:39 PM

I agree my peeve doesn't make much sense, but I'm peeved by people who introduce themselves by simply walking up to another person and saying their own name. As in:

"Leeneia? Jonathan Bimblethwaite."

Apparently I am so unimportant that it's too much effort to say, "Hello, I'm Jonathan Bimblethwaite and..."

When someone does that, I stare at them and say "What about him?"

When I worked at the fabric store, pushy women would sometimes barge into somebody else's transaction with "Scissors?" or "Velcro?"

I didn't let them get away with it. The person I was helping deserved my full concentration.
=============
This isn't a peeve, but it gave us a good laugh. A novel involving concert violinists said that when premier violinist So-and-so performed, "there wasn't a dry seat in the house."

Obviously got 'wasn't a dry eye' mixed up with 'wasn't an empty seat.'

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Slag
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 11:44 PM

"The END of the DAY"! How about "after all is said and done" or "The bottom line is" or "To sum up" or " the net effect is" or "with the results being" or and the conclusion is" or "in the final analysis" or just about anything except "at the end of the day" Please!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Darowyn
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 03:52 AM

"Attendees"!
Someone who attends an event is an attender.
Someone who is 'attended to' is an attendee.
So at a gig the audience are the attenders, and the artists are the attendees.
The "..er" suffix is active. The "...ee" suffix is passive.
A referee is someone who is referred to. A referrer is someone who refers.
I saw a notice on a bus recently. It said "Seating capacity 56. Standees 12"
Standees must be people who have been stood up. How sad for them!
Cheers
Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Wolfhound person
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 04:09 AM

nucular

Suggestions for use of this term welcome - it looks like a good word in its own right, but what does it mean?

Nuclear I understand already, thank you (when pronounced correctly)

Paws

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 05:23 AM

Whether it is X Factor, or an obesity fitness programme or anything people are lumped together to train and go through their paces 'boot camp' I hate that.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: s&r
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 05:59 AM

Dissect and cervical with long 'i'sounds. Questionnaire and quarter with no 'w' sound (eg courter). Don't like the affectation of an otel, but like even less an hotel with the'h' aspirated.

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: s&r
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:08 AM

And 'he gave it to John and I'

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Wyrd Sister
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:24 AM

'ahead of' meaning 'before'!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST,Nigel
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 08:02 AM

"You know" and "know what I mean" make me cringe. If I know, why tell me, and if I don't know what you mean then I'll tell you.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Hrothgar
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 08:32 AM

Surplus prepositions (if anybody needs to know what a preposition is, PM me and I'll explain without telling anybody) as in "signed off on". What's wrong with "signed"?

Nigel, I am of the opinion that anybody who is being interviewed should be cut off after ten "y'know" (or "y'knows?") in the interview, or possibly after five in the one sentence.

I have counted up to ten in one long, rambling sentence, Usually they seem to be preceded by "um". It appears to be a disease amongst those of the football persuasions, especially soccer and rugby league.

Yes, I'm a snob.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 08:59 AM

Can I be frank? (meaning they can justify how rude they are going to be).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jeanie
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 09:30 AM

I find this very irritating in TV and Radio interviews with members of the public:

"I'm married to Mary" - or "This is Bert Johnson, and you're married to Mary, is that right, Bert ?"

as if there is only ONE person called Mary in the whole world ! It should be: "My wife's name is Mary" or "...and your wife's name is Mary...."

Another pet peeve of mine is a pronunciation issue: the use of an open "ay" sound for the rounded "o" sound. I actually stopped listening to my local radio station because the travel reporter annoyed me so much with his pronunciation: "All clear on the M25 say far" (instead of "so far"). The presenter of a recent archaeology programme on TV did the same, and kept talking about "stanes" and "banes". This would be fine if the rest of the pronunciation was "heightened RP" (i.e. Noel Coward-type English), but these random rogue vowel sounds amongst otherwise standard RP really irritate.

Another annoying pronunication issue amongst broadcasters in particular: the use of "-in" as the ending of a word, instead of "-ing" when this is not part of their native dialect - i.e. the rest of their pronunciation is standard RP. Do they think it makes them sound relaxed and cool ?

- jeanie

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 10:19 AM

I think it was S&R who declared:

Don't like the affectation of an otel, but like even less an hotel with the'h' aspirated.

So is "a hostelry" or maybe "an 'ostelry" better than those?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Penny S.
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 10:36 AM

Putting "Without Prejudice" at the head of an offensive document intended to damage someone else. Only known one usage of it, and I don't know the correct meaning of the phrase.

Using the term "goodwill payment" of a payment from a debtor designed to cover a portion of expenditure by the group he was in debt to.

Same misuser of language in each case, and one who wouldn't, indeed didn't, recognise real goodwill when it was offered.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: s&r
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 10:45 AM

A Hostelry every time. The omission of the 'h' sound is a bizarre hangover from court pronunciation when French was the language of the court. Kestionnaire and onvelope are similar.

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST,CrazyEddie
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 10:51 AM

Patsy's "Can I be frank?" brings to mind a Goons' sequence

Gridpype Thynne: "I'll I be Frank?"

Moriarty: "Yes, I'll be Gladys"

(Sound of Thynne slapping Moriaty across the face)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:11 AM

Here are four expressions which deserve pet-peevehood. They are from a recent thread, but bear repeating.
========
picking his brains (what an ugly image)

diddley or diddley squat (Just act yourself what it really means.)

verbal diarrhea (I'm eating!)

anal, or anal retentive (meaning merely "More particular than I")

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:13 AM

I have to say that, at this particular moment in time, I can't think of any particular peeve's.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:18 AM

I lied. Do not say "albeit" within my earshot. And, yanks, there is no need whatever to say "London, England."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:26 AM

One of the commonest modern horrors is saying "prior to" when you simply mean "before."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:28 AM

liase

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:29 AM

I'm sure there's a London in Canada. And "albeit" is a perfectly proper word.

But people who say "Can I" when they mean "May I" are bad for my blood pressure.

And so are people who say "literally" when they mean the opposite.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:29 AM

pre-order

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:35 AM

"I'm sure there's a London in Canada."

Without wishing to sound imperialist, "London" on its own, to all sane people (except perhaps for those living in the vicinity of London, Canada), means London on the banks of the Thames. A qualifier would be needed for the Canadian one for most people who don't live in Canada, and even for some who do. Let common sense prevail.

"And "albeit" is a perfectly proper word."

In every circumstance it can be replaced by although, though or but. It is just pretentious. Literate people avoid it like the plague, as with clichés.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:39 AM

Unfortunately, Steve Wikipedia has:

London is a city in Southwestern Ontario, Canada along the Quebec City – Windsor Corridor with a metropolitan area population of 457,720; the city proper had a population of 352,395 in the 2006 Canadian census. The estimated metro population in 2009 was 489,274.[2] It was named after the city of London in England.[3] London is the seat of Middlesex County, at the forks of the non-navigable Thames River, approximately halfway between Toronto, Ontario and Detroit, Michigan. The City of London is a separated municipality, politically separate from Middlesex County, though it remains the official county seat.


Confused? You will be!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:41 AM

"Avoid like the plague"? perhaps...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:42 AM

I was only going from what Richard said. Do they burn hospitals in London, Canada?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:46 AM

"Burn?" I meant "blow up."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:52 AM

"One pence"

~Michael~

"One pee."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 01:28 PM

"...'goal' spelling of 'jail' " (Foolestroupe - 03 Oct 10 - 06:27).

- the word is gaol. Pronounced the way it is spelled.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Penny S.
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 01:34 PM

"With respect", "With all due respect," "With the greatest respect," etc. You know that what follows is totally without it.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: s&r
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 01:38 PM

Pronounced as jail in my dictionary Kevin

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Howard Jones
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 01:43 PM

I am prepared to defend the use of "pee" for pence. It evolved quite spontaneously on decimalisation, when it became necessary to distinguish between "New Pence" (as they were then known) and the old penny, not just on paper but in speech. "One penny" was ambiguous, "one New Penny" a bit of a mouthful, so it became "one pee".

If "pence" was said in full, it was emphasised to make it clear it meant New Pence, whereas pre-decimal the emphasis was on the amount. So we lost the old contractions: "tuppence" (emphasis on the first syllable) signified 2d whereas "two pence" (with either equal emphasis or slightly more on "pence") meant 2p. Same with "thruppence". The "ha'penny" (1/2d) became "half-p"

Of course, in time people became used to the new coinage and there was less chance of confusion, but by then these usages had become established.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 01:44 PM

Pronounced the same way whichever spelling you prefer.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 01:57 PM

Half a pee

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 04:43 PM

'cop-speak'..."At this point in time the inebriated individual exited the vehicle"
I wonder if that is taught in police training?

(And I HEARD an announcer say on the radio, "This program was pre-recorded earlier.")

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 05:18 PM

A few years ago I heard a Beeb weathher forecaster on the telly say that at least the overnight rain had washed the humidity out of the air.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 05:40 PM

All the following, not in themselves, but in their currently fashionable senses, which perhaps need not be specified: abuse, agenda, contradiction, define, denial, disorder, dysfunctional, excellence, existential, featured, feel, foundation, genocide, icon, identity, impact, incredible, international, issue, legacy, legendary, multicultural, narcissism, personality, potential, price tag, quality, reinvent, relatively, resolve, showcase, signature, total, who.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 05:58 PM

Hiccups rather than hiccoughs.

People who say 'I don't want to be rude/offend you/single you out but... because it always means they are about to be very rude, or offensive or pick on you for something. If you don't want to do it, don't do it!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: artbrooks
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:10 PM

'Decimate'. It means "reduce by ten percent". It is not a synonym for devastate. An army that has 10 soldiers in every hundred killed has been decimated. A city destroyed by an earthquake is devastated.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST,Bert
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:49 PM

'Decimalization' when they really mean centigesamalization (or however you spell it).

There IS no unit between the pound and the new penny. The term florin is obsolete.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:18 PM

Yeah Joe. "Existential": is it the most pretentious word of all? Or should we vote instead for "paradigm shift?"

"A city destroyed by an earthquake is devastated."

Indeed. But it is certainly not "razed to the ground" (or, even worse, "raised to the ground").

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:59 PM

"Half a pee"???

Man, you gotta see a doctor about that prostate!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:26 PM

As my frequent posts will show spelling is not a strong point of mine. That being said in the USA they intentionally spell words such as labour, harbour, honour, etc. incorrectly by dropping the silent "U". That is their right, I suppose, and I have no objection to that. What does piss me off though is when computer spell-checkers keep underlining these words when I spell them correctly! That's my rant on this! :-}

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 12:30 AM

asHphalt, pronounced that way.
Presently, when currently is meant.
I should have went,when gone is meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST,Songbob
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 12:56 AM

To illustrate a few of my pet peeves in spelling, may I say:

I would of told you that some folks are just loosers,
And the Internets filled with poor English users,
But noone ever said its easy
To express yourself as non-cheesy,
Without you become a language abuser.

Yeah, I know it's not much, but it's off the top of my head, so I couldn't be exhaustive in the listing.

Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 04:04 AM

"....in the USA they intentionally spell words such as labour, harbour, honour, etc. incorrectly by dropping the silent "U". That is their right, I suppose, and I have no objection to that. What does piss me off though is when computer spell-checkers keep underlining these words when I spell them correctly!...."

Agreed, Sandy ~ tho your 'incorrectly' might be queried as a bit if a relativist term here?. And WHY does it do so when one has opted for the UK setting in the computer toolbar-menu? I mean, what is the use of having this option if it doesn't recognise this distinction?

This refers to the  system; is it the same with other computers? And, for info, the word 'recognise' in the last line of previous para has acquired a red line because I didn't type 'recognize' ~~ which I categorically decline to do, Mr Macintosh!}

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 06:42 AM

I tend not to defend many things American, but I have to speak up for American spelling. English may well have started here in England but many more non-English than English people speak English these days and a big majority use American-English spellings. It's typically quirky (and very honourable) of the Brits to hang on for dear life to their own way of spelling, but it's a bit Canute-like to berate the Yanks for their system, which (I hate to say) is often more logical than ours. But who wants logic to enter into it!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 07:50 AM

Steve ~~ If that was addressed to me or Sandy McLean, one of whose points I was developing, I would point out that neither of us was in any way 'berating' the American system; merely querying the logic of spellchecks which mark our own spelling [which I am sure you will agree at least remains a viable option] as incorrectly spelt when we have opted for the UnionJack rather than the OldGlory logo in the computer toolbar. That seems to be a piece of poor programing at  HQ to me! And an implied beratement on THEIR part of OUR perfectly acceptable system.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 08:00 AM

It wasn't directed at anyone. Just something I've occasionally mused over for some time.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 08:10 AM

Any automated telephone message especially the 'your call is important to us' aaaah!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST,Dáithí
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 09:19 AM

My current pet hate...

refute when they mean deny... and from journalists, usually1
D

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST,Songbob
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 04:34 PM

If I'm not mistaken, some software packages allow the user to choose 'British English' vs. 'American English' for their documents. But what I haven't seen so far is an Operating System with the same choices. Perhaps those choices are there when you install the damned thing, I don't know. In any case, you could type 'colour' in Word and have it right, but in a chat room (or on the Mudcat, for that matter) it gets flagged as incorrect.

Someone needs to invent a universal "universe setting," that applies language rules to all the content, no matter the source. Now that would be handy!

Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 04:53 PM

I hate the phrase
ONE HUNDRED!"!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 05:04 PM

Both my 'on-the-fly' spell checker and the one in my Opera browser allow ME to add words to their list, so I don't get 'beeped' at when I decide to type thru instead of through.

As to UK spelling vs. American...we in the colonies are fairly thrifty, and so many of our spellings are shorter....(leaving out that 'u' must save...oh...tons (not tonnes)..of printing ink and megabytes of HD space every year... ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Anne Lister
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 05:04 PM

I'm another wincer every time someone confuses few and less ... but the other irritant, which has me reaching for something to throw at the radio (which tends to be where I hear it most) is the phrase "mitigate against". Must be confusion with "militate against" but it makes no sense at all.
Oh, and the almost universal misuse of the phrase "beg the question".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 05:19 PM

and.... it's **wreak havoc, not 'wreck' havoc.......arrrggghhhhh

(you want fun? Ask folks to provide the present tense of 'wrought'.
The are 2, depending on whether it's about God or material ...(wrought iron)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 06:26 PM

Gosh yes, beg the question. Awful. Unfortunately, the sense in which it is now commonly used, to raise the question (why can't people just say that!), is so prevalent that it is now recognised as acceptable by certain authorities. Degradation rules OK...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Wesley S
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 06:48 PM

Any establishment that offers "homemade" food. Unless the person who made the apple pie lives there it's not "homemade".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 06:53 PM

affect & effect....if you do not know the difference, please look it up. Like insure & ensure,it is NOT irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 08:07 PM

Stores that advertise fresh products....only to find they were "previously frozen", or "freshened", whatever that means. Fresh does not mean anything anymore?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 02:50 AM

The use of "anyone?" ~~ as in, "Let's have a thread about language. Pet-peeves, anyone?"

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:18 AM

The café across the way from me, has paninis on the menu !!!!

Man went to see his doctor. He said, "Doctor, I've got a 'orrible 'eadache"
The doctor said, "I suggest you take a couple of aspirates"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Anne Lister
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:19 AM

Now you've got me started ... "Sea change"/ "Step change".
Sea change must have started with Ariel's song in The Tempest but what it has to do with change generally I don't know, but now we also have "step change". Surely it's all just changes? Permanent changes, transient changes, small changes ...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 05:16 AM

Indeed, Ariel's 'sea change' in The Tempest has been greatly misunderstood and over-interpreted to mean 'a profound change'.

No such thing. In its context in the play, it simply means 'a change into something connected with the sea': as Ferdinand's father lies "full fathom five", Ariel sings, his bones are turned to coral, his eyes to pearls, and everything else about him suffers a similar 'sea change'. But the phrase sounds sorta romantic, don't it eh?; so has been over-defined to death.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 06:35 AM

I get annoyed by "fresh" milk, that's been pasteurised and homogenised. If had fresh milk and it's had nothing done to it, and probably still warm.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 07:32 AM

People who say "decayed"(sic) when they mean "decade".

It's a noun so the stress is on the first syllable (very few exceptions in English). Other words that get mangled in the same way include "project" which often gets incorrectly pronounced the same way as the verb "to project" with the stress on the second syllable.

Rule of thumb: noun - stress first syllable, verb stress second syllable.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:43 AM

Two of my favourites: "a quantum leap" - you mean we have made the smallest possible leap?

And an apostrophe one, such as I saw at the weekend "Coffee's and Teas"
If you can't decide whether there should be an apostrophe or not, at least have the courage to go one way or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Sarah the flute
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:44 AM

My pet hates are....

Use of the word "There" by broadcasters. Why do they have to say at the end of the reporters piece ..."Fred Bloggs there" why not "Thankyou Fred Bloggs in Afghanistan" or wherever.

Use of the phrase "Give it up for....." Give what up ? Why not just say a round of applause for.

Weather forecasters using the phrase "as the day goes along" where is it going and along which route!!!

Sarah

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 10:44 AM

Something else about 'decade.' It's fuzzy and pretentious.

Why are journalists so in love with the word? They are supposed to get the facts.

So why do they write "Almost three decades have passed since Joe Blow was tried for the murder of Jim Dokes?" Why not say "Joe Blow was tried 28 years ago?" Even better, "in 1982."

That way, we know the reporter has checked the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 09:36 AM

Adverts for special collections of CD'S in particular for a certain Rock compilation set and I wouldn't be surprised if the classic ones were similar. They insist that you can ONLY BUY IT HERE! surely that must be untrue when I know that I've had nearly every track on so many other compliations that I have either bought or have ever had bought for me. I think I must have about 5 or 6 albums with Boston's More than a Feeling and Free's Alright Now.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST,greymaus
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 09:45 AM

MY pet peeve? Everyone's apparent confusion when dealing with their/they're/there or whose/who's or your/you're.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 10:01 AM

"People who say "decayed"(sic) when they mean "decade"."

Misuse of Latin words or phrases, particularly where their use is superfluous. Omission of italics and square brackets where required.


Heheh. That's the beauty of threads like this. You gotta be so careful...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 04:26 PM

"apparent confusion when dealing with their/they're/there or whose/who's or your/you're..."

I think most people understand these forms. Mistakes happen because people are typing fast.

John MacKenzie: I just got your joke about the aspirates.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 05:30 PM

"Adverts for special collections of CD'S"

Tee hee. Watch those damned apostrophe's now!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Crowhugger
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 06:04 PM

Yes, Songbob, and there's even Canadian English option sometimes. It accepts labour and neighbour as correct, but also realize, digitize etc. And it won't object to the nouns pretence, defence and practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 May 19 - 12:06 PM

Ok:

There is no such thing as a stray bullet. It's not as if you left the door open and it got out.

NPR has started saying "in about 10 mn from now" -- pick one, people.

Merde alord I had several more in mind when I refreshed this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 May 19 - 12:06 PM

(alors)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 22 May 19 - 12:42 PM

One that always irks me is the way the news media, at least in North America, use the noun 'suspect'. It originally meant, 'a person suspected of having committed a certain crime'; now it would seem to mean, 'a person who has definitely committed a certain crime but who has not yet been convicted in a court of law' - so you get reports such as, 'The suspect broke into the house and killed two people. Police arrested the suspect, John Smith, yesterday." Kinda defeats the purpose of using the term 'suspect', doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 22 May 19 - 01:14 PM

For a dyslexic there are no pet peeves with language. It is more like a painful aneurism. We have to give 400% effort 25% of the time just to be average.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 May 19 - 02:22 PM

What word would you suggest instead of "suspect," meself? Seems to me, that until a person is proved guilty, he/she is still a suspect and should not be assumed to be the perpetrator. That's why we have courts.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 22 May 19 - 02:52 PM

Is there a rule that all American films (and it's beginning to infest others) must have the line "Listen up"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 22 May 19 - 03:01 PM

So the report should say "The perpetrator broke into the house and killed two people. Police arrested the suspect ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 22 May 19 - 03:05 PM

... and as a contribution:

I am getting increasingly fed up with the use, in plays, soaps, and such like, of "Well good luck with that ...".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 22 May 19 - 03:08 PM

Exactly, Jos. (Did you read what I wrote, Joe?). The 'unknown' (or at least, unconvicted) perpetrator is the - wait for it - 'perpetrator' (or 'offender' or 'criminal'). The 'suspect' is the person suspected of having been the perp. As I say, if you are saying that the suspect committed the crime, you are saying that the suspect committed the crime - so it defeats the purpose of calling them the 'suspect', which would be presumably to allow for the presumption of innocence.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 May 19 - 03:28 PM

Law and Order does not punish the offenders, as they claim, boom boom, but the suspects.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 May 19 - 03:50 PM

Exactly, Jos. (Did you read what I wrote, Joe?). The 'unknown' (or at least, unconvicted) perpetrator is the - wait for it - 'perpetrator' (or 'offender' or 'criminal'). The 'suspect' is the person suspected of having been the perp. As I say, if you are saying that the suspect committed the crime, you are saying that the suspect committed the crime - so it defeats the purpose of calling them the 'suspect', which would be presumably to allow for the presumption of innocence.

If the 'suspect' is unconvicted, then it isn't reasonable to describe them as the 'perpetrator', as that has yet to be confirmed.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 May 19 - 04:00 PM

Going back even further:
"apparent confusion when dealing with their/they're/there or whose/who's or your/you're..."
I think most people understand these forms. Mistakes happen because people are typing fast.
NO! people don't type 'fast', they type quickly.
'Fast' is an adjective (he was a fast runner) not an adverb (he ran fast).
It may only be used as an adverb when given the meaning "firm" or "solid", as in to "stand fast" or to "hold fast". Biblically "He hath made the round world so fast that it cannot be moved"

Yes, I know the language moves on, but changing the meaning of words dilutes the ability to make clear, unambiguous comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 22 May 19 - 05:17 PM

"If the 'suspect' is unconvicted, then it isn't reasonable to describe them as the 'perpetrator', as that has yet to be confirmed."


You're missing the point - which I realize I muddied with my parenthetical "(or at least, unconvicted)", but we don't have an 'edit' feature. The point is, if you say that a suspect broke in and killed somebody, and that John Smith is the suspect in question, you are saying that John Smith broke in and killed somebody. So much for 'presumption of innocence". It completely defeats the purpose of using the term 'suspect'. At the same time, you're saying, nonsensically, that whoever may have committed the murder is merely a 'suspect'. If, however, you say that a perpetrator/offender/assailant/criminal broke in and killed someone, and John Smith is the suspect, there is no confusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 May 19 - 08:02 PM

"Is there a rule that all American films (and it's beginning to infest others) must have the line "Listen up"?"

Dunno, but there does seem to be a rule that any rudely interrupted steamy sex scene in an American film betrays the fact that the woman is still wearing bra and knickers and the man is still wearing underpants...

Back to the topic...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 May 19 - 09:26 PM

There is a lot of overuse of "alleged" too. If you're caught doing it you are no longer the alleged doer.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 22 May 19 - 09:36 PM

Re: "Listen up!". These are among the first words spoken in The Revanant - set in the later 1700s. In fact, the expression has not been traced back to any earlier than 1930s, as far as I know.

Of course, the same movie gave us a fiddler playing Ragtime Annie - which has been traced all the way back to 1923, according to The Fiddler's Companion.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 May 19 - 02:34 AM

Oh, let's not start with movie anachronisms. In Amadeus, Mozart had an American accent that wouldn't develop for a century. (I didn't say let's not *continue* with the anachronisms...)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 May 19 - 02:51 AM

There seems to be a growing practice, among BBC presenters, to pronounce a leading ‘s’ as though it was followed by ‘h’ - so, ‘shtrong’, ‘shtudent’, ‘shchool’, etc.

Drives me nuts. Anyone else noticing it?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: DMcG
Date: 23 May 19 - 05:07 AM

A growing one for me is statement as an adjective, as in a recent John Lewis advertisement for 'a statement sofa'. My sofa can keep its statements to itself, thank you. The only statement I am happy for it to make is that I like to sit down occasionally.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 23 May 19 - 06:10 AM

Mrzzy is not a suspect. He is a person of interest, in a good way.
bearded bruce is a 'person of interest' in a bad way.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 23 May 19 - 06:33 AM

One that gets me here in the UK is the pronunciation of the 'oo' vowel sound. When I was growing up (in the South East anyway) it was like 'oooh', whereas now it is commonly like the French 'y' or the German 'u-umlaut' sound. So for example 'food' sounds more like 'feud'.
This seemed to start about 20 years ago with young females - perhaps they thought they were sounding sexy, I don't know. But now it has spread - you hear it all the time on TV.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 May 19 - 11:23 AM

Misuse of "after" as in They died after being hit by a train. No, they were killed by a train. If you survive for a while you can die after. If you die right then, it isn't after.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 19 - 11:45 AM

What about the tendency for young people to fail to open their mouths properly when enunciating a word such as "book," thereby rendering it "berk"...and altering the short "i" sound at the end of words to "ee" as in "monee" and "societee" and industree"... And politicians who say "...going forward" deserve to be twatted right on the nose!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 23 May 19 - 12:11 PM

Using definitive when definite is meant.
Unravel when untangle is meant.
"The next level" What is that supposed to be?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 23 May 19 - 01:23 PM

...and altering the short "i" sound at the end of words to "ee" as in "monee" and "societee" and industree

But it IS "monee", "societee" and "industree", at least where I come from. I can't recall anyone saying "moni".

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 23 May 19 - 01:42 PM

'Misuse of "after" as in They died after being hit by a train'

The version of this (often heard in regional television news bulletins) thst worries me is: "They were killed after being hit by a car" - as if they were lying in the road in pain and somebody came along and finished them off.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 19 - 01:45 PM

I'm a northerner, Doug. We talk proper up yon.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 23 May 19 - 02:24 PM

I'm a northerner, Doug.

So am I.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: saulgoldie
Date: 23 May 19 - 03:24 PM

Well, for better or for worse (or worser) language is dynamic. Sometimes the new usages can be interesting and enriching. Others, they just represent devolution. We all have our favorites on either side.

A couple of my own "faves" are--
Raising one's pitch toward the end of a statement as if it is were question.
Inserting a letter "h" where it does not belong (mentioned earlier).
Dropping a "d" or a "t" Where it DOES belong.
These two seem to be some sort of affectation more prevalent among young women.
Extraneous or missing apostrophes, check.
Extraneous or missing commas, check.

Now, this is my YUGE big cahuna of all word misuses. It is YUGE not because it sounds stupid/lazy/whatever. But because Its misuse f-u-n-d-a-m-e-n-t-a-l-l-y changes the meaning. That is the use of "can't." Look, if you "can't" do something, it is something that you are INCAPABLE of doing. You do not have the physical strength or coordination to do whatever it is. It does NOT mean that you do not have PERMISSION.

If you are physically CAPABLE of doing something but there are consequences that you do not like, then you must acknowledge that you CHOOSE to not do it, rather than that you "can't" do it. People say "can't" so they can avoid taking responsibility for the CHOICE that they make to avoid the consequences.

This misuse is an example of devolution. This misuse does not clarify anything, and does not provide some new and novel way of illuminating a point.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 19 - 04:04 PM

You could be Yorkshire, though, Doug. It's not proper north tha knows...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 23 May 19 - 05:08 PM

No, never Yorkshire but I have moved across the country from the Mersey to the Humber, via Manchester.

On reflection, my grandson, who was brought up in South Yorkshire, calls my wife "Granneh" and would probably say "moneh". I've never stopped to think about it - it's just the way he talks.

There was one TV advert, for gas central heating I think, that used the Carol King song "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow" which opened with the line "Tonight you're mine completeleh" ARRRRG!

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 May 19 - 06:28 PM

Jos... Exactly.

People are hanged. Pictures are hung.

In that vein (sorry) the widow, not the wife, files for death benefits or whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 23 May 19 - 07:57 PM

"vocal fry"

I was aware of it before I ever heard it explained. People make excuses for it and justify it in various ways, but it really wears on me.

As to usage: Certain military usages..like using 'contingency' when they mean 'contingent'... "To put down the uprising, we sent in a contingency of peace keepers." arrrgghh...

And media people who will NOT learn how celebrities pronounce their names.. It's Michael COHEN.. not 'Cone' or 'Cohn'. They are studying how to say 'Buttigieg', but can't say Cohen?

Also, media people who refuse to pronounce, as closely as possible, the names of foreign cities & countries. Some are very difficult, but Nicaragua has 4 syllables, not 5. The 'u' and 'a' are not separate syllables. Simply stating "that's how we've always said it." is not much of a defense. Yes, I'm aware my opinion is not likely to alter anyone's habits.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 May 19 - 09:52 PM

Well, when I am speaking English I pronounce things, like foreign things, in English. When I speak French it's PaREE, in English PAriss.
People's names are another thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 May 19 - 09:57 PM

Also pronouncing cache like cachet, as in, there was a cachet of arms. No, there wasn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 23 May 19 - 10:25 PM

No.. a cachet of arms would mean something like "my bomb is bigger than your bomb"...not something we want to test..

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 May 19 - 10:42 PM

Meself, I'll stick with "suspect." After all, the crime itself has not been proved until the trial. So, it is a "suspected" or "alleged" crime until the court has proved it.
But I'll still respect you in the morning....

-Joe-

And yes, I did read what you wrote. I just disagreed.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 24 May 19 - 01:09 AM

Do you really not see a significant difference between:

1) The suspect killed Bill Jones. The suspect is John Smith.

and

2) The assailant killed Bill Jones. The suspect is John Smith.

?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 May 19 - 01:57 AM

Hi, Meself - I will agree that assailant is a better term, but I think that "suspect" works reasonably well.
I'm a member of the "whatever works as long as it doesn't sound stupid" school. "Suspect" is common usage, and it doesn't sound particularly stupid. I'm not bound to pedantry, but I have to admit that your choice of the word "assailant" is damn good.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: DMcG
Date: 24 May 19 - 02:36 AM

media people who will NOT learn how celebrities pronounce their names

Not always as easy as it seems. My daughter was at school with Gemma Arterton, who pronounced her name A - er - t'n at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 19 - 03:14 AM

"She married her husband in 2017." Considering how expensive weddings are, what a waste of money doing it twice...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 24 May 19 - 03:41 AM

"She married her husband in 2017."

Unless she was a vicar, registrar or other such appointed official, she got married to someone in 2017.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 24 May 19 - 07:40 AM

Doug, doesn't that make a nonsense of the well known question:

"Will you marry me?"

Somehow, "Will you get married to me?" doesn't have that special something ...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 19 - 07:59 AM

"Romeo, Romeo, where art thou Romeo?"

"Money is the root of all evil."

"Theirs but to do or die!"

"Beam me up, Scotty!"

"Elementary, my dear Watson."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: DMcG
Date: 24 May 19 - 08:10 AM

Quoting Shakespeare can be tricky:

"Uncle me no uncle" -- Richard II, Act 2 Scene 3.

I an not quite sure what part of speech that first 'uncle' is...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 19 - 08:55 AM

"Crisis? What crisis?"

"Let them eat cake."

"Not tonight, Josephine."

"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 May 19 - 09:22 AM

Not as we know it, not as we know it. Great video, that.

I saw a headline (clickbait) that said Groom cries as bride reveals love for his spouse. What? Bigamy?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 24 May 19 - 09:31 AM

"Romeo, Romeo, where art thou Romeo?"

I'm not picking on you, Steve. It's just by chance that you are the one I keep disagreeing with - nothing personal - but the quote is:-
"Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?"

Wherefore, in this case, means "why". Why did you have to be a Montague?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 19 - 09:46 AM

Er, I did know that, Doug. Are you sure you're getting me drift?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 24 May 19 - 09:49 AM

Doug, doesn't that make a nonsense of the well known question:

"Will you marry me?"

Somehow, "Will you get married to me?" doesn't have that special something ...

Of course, in every day usage, only a pedant would make the difference between the passive form of being married and the active form of officiating at the ceremony. However, we are in a thread called "Language Pet Peeves" where the distinction is being made between the status of the groom before and after the nuptials.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 24 May 19 - 09:51 AM

OK Steve! I'm easily confused.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 24 May 19 - 10:04 AM

Tautologies.

Today's irritant: "fellow classmates".

Aaaaargh!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 May 19 - 10:35 AM

Ooh yeah!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 19 - 06:27 PM

Me too, Doug. I'm thinking of getting meself analysed some time in the next thirty or forty years... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Raedwulf
Date: 24 May 19 - 07:32 PM

"Step foot". With apologies to the American contingent here, stupid Americanism!! Because it has been creeping into British English these last several years, I believe, from American English.

Step doesn't work like that. You can step up, step out, step back, step on; you step in a direction. You can take a step, and a foot is also a measure of length. But you don't "step inch / metre / whatever". You can set foot; you are putting your foot somewhere (in it, possibly...). But you don't "step foot". Stupid, meaningless, idiotic misuse of the English language, whether it's the American or British version!!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 24 May 19 - 07:56 PM

Interesting... I've been an adult American for 60 years, and I have never heard "step foot". I suppose it occurs when someone just doesn't hear 'set foot', but it's a new one to me. Next time, ask them where they got it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 19 - 08:03 PM

Don't worry, Bill. Raedwulf will quite likely elucidate once he's had a good night's kip...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 24 May 19 - 08:17 PM

There are mornings I step foot
first in fresh cat puke stink
My tell tale foot steps lead to the sink
But I've never heard of step foot.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 25 May 19 - 02:34 AM

Reminds me of Teresa May at (I think) the last general election, who had been 'knocking on doorsteps'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 25 May 19 - 02:45 AM

I have been increasingly annoyed by politicians going on about Brexit and what they think is the need to "get it over the line". Are they playing rugby, or American football, or shove ha'penny - who knows?
You would think the future of the country is too important to be reduced to a game.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 19 - 06:04 AM

"Delivering brexit" is almost as bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: DMcG
Date: 25 May 19 - 06:37 AM

Heard on Radio 4 this morning that some sportsperson's hand is "slightly fractured". A small fracture I understand...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 27 May 19 - 07:17 AM

In the last 60 years.... What used to be 'Would have.....could have.... and.... should have which when shortened became would've, could've and should've...........have become would of... could of and should of in the UK..... How on earth did we get there??? Poor teaching in schools to put it bluntly.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 27 May 19 - 08:44 AM

Georgiansilver, you have a good one there. This form of words is also dealing the last blow to the subjunctive of "have": "If she would of gone home on time ..."

While we're here, let's all yell Boo and Sucks to people who insist on using phrases from foreign languages without knowing how to pronounce them. Every time I hear "coo de grah" where "coup de grace" is meant, I wince rather too visibly and hiss rather too loudly.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 May 19 - 09:08 AM

Yes, the correct usage of foreign phrases is, for me, a sine qua non.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 27 May 19 - 10:09 AM

Three annoying/confusing ways in which people begin the answer to a question:

So ...

Yes no ...

The point is is ... (heard on Radio 4 only this morning)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 27 May 19 - 10:18 AM

People who say "If I would have ..." when they mean "If I had ...".


And in describing amounts:

"the most number of" instead of "most of"

and, for example:

"half of all the people in the country ..." instead of "half the people in the country ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 May 19 - 11:19 AM

Coo de gras, ew. Also bon appetiT.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 27 May 19 - 12:01 PM

'bonn zhaw'

'merci bokew'

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 27 May 19 - 01:48 PM

"Gunman." Just because some brute shoots somebody doesn't make him a gunman.

If I use a pair of scissors, do I become a scissorwoman? No, I'm still just a woman.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 27 May 19 - 03:22 PM

Not really a peeve, but interesting regarding guns, was an occasion some years ago when I heard a news report of the same incident on three BBC radio stations. On Radio 3 (mainly classical music), listeners were told that a man had been 'shot and killed'. On Radio 4 (news, documentaries, plays), the man had been 'shot dead'. On Radio 1 (pop music aimed at younger listeners), he had been 'gunned down'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 27 May 19 - 08:47 PM

I lived in St. Louis for 6 months. There were several streets I was familiar with that had interesting names I'd never have encountered in Kansas: It took awhile for me to connect the spelling on maps & signs with how the locals referred to them.

Cabanne Place where I lived was 'Cabbany'

DeBaliviere was 'De Boliver'

Gravois was 'Gra-voys' (as near as I could tell)

There were others, all sounding as if they were being pronounced by someone from The Bronx. I...umm.. adapted

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 May 19 - 08:46 AM

Well near me there's a village called Wolfardisworthy. It's pronounced "Wolsery." The ancient capital of Cornwall, Launceston, is "Lanson" unless you're an emmet. Half a mile from my house there's Widemouth Bay. Say "Wide Mouth" if you want to provoke a splutter. It's "Widmuth."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: DMcG
Date: 28 May 19 - 08:53 AM

The comedian Dave Gorman in one of his shows says there is a sign on his station for "Loughborough University." He claims he is often asked how is is pronounced and says "Low-brow University" which he finds pleasing because "it is true and false are the same time.'

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 May 19 - 10:30 AM

New UVa grad students in psych had a whole orientation on pronunciation and language... Rio Rd is Rye-oh, not Ree-oh. Monticello is chello, not sello. Grounds, not campus; first second etc -years, not freshmen sophomores. The Corner is a neighborhood. I got used to the pronunciation, but still thought of my students as juniors. There was more...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 28 May 19 - 01:51 PM

That's a good observation about the shooting, Jos.
===========
There's a pompous habit that gets on my nerves. Example:

phone rings

Leeneia: Hello
Pompous twit: Leeneia? Arthur Fotheringay.

Not "This is Arthur Fotheringay." or "My name is Arthur Fotheringay, and I'm calling about..."

Apparently I am supposed to be so focused on the incredible Arthur Fotheringay that all he has to do is utter the two words, and I'm completely absorbed in his personality. Also, I am so unimportant that he cannot waste a few polite syllables on me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 May 19 - 04:19 PM

Tommy Cooper:

The phone rang so I picked it up and said "Who's speaking, please?"

A voice said "You are."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 28 May 19 - 04:36 PM

Here's another language peeve of mine: people who put others down using the lingo of psychiatry or psychology when the situation doesn't merit it and they lack the qualifications to assess others.

In a thread about chords, somebody started a post with "The fixation on chord names..." Now a fixation is a serious problem in a damaged mind. Telling the world that So-And-So has a fixation is arrogant and uncalled for. Naturally the post was not well-received.

We hear other examples often. Calling somebody paranoid because they're more fearful than most. Calling somebody a nympho when she's sexier than most. It's dishonest, and I dislike it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 May 19 - 05:55 PM

Yeah, as a psychologist I find the misuse of my jargon annoying.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 May 19 - 06:07 PM

Psychiatrist to neurotic patient "You have acute paranoia"

Neurotic Patient "I came here to be treated, not admired"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 May 19 - 09:38 AM

Tommy Cooper:
The phone rang so I picked it up and said "Who's speaking, please?"
A voice said "You are."


So, in effect they were both wrong.
At the time Tommy asked "Who's speaking", he was speaking.
At the time the caller said "you are" the caller was also incorrect.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 29 May 19 - 05:08 PM

"Would of" and "Could of" and of course "Off of" were the common usage in Somerset schools in the 1960s despite constant corrections from the teachers.

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 May 19 - 06:09 PM

You really do have a problem, don't you, Nigel? :-) :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 May 19 - 08:00 PM

Strangled means dead, also.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 May 19 - 10:00 PM

And if your spouse is dead you're the widow(er), not the wife/husband.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 30 May 19 - 11:13 AM

Hello, Mrrzy. I'm glad to hear that someone else gives thought to the bullying power of psych terms used carelessly.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 30 May 19 - 12:22 PM

Language is about communicating ideas. If someone pays too much attention to how "correctly" a communication is worded, then he/she is probably paying too little attention to the thought being communicated. It's analogous to valuing the packaging more than what's in the box.

Having said that, it still grates when my step-son tells a waiter he's going to "do" whatever dish he's ordering. I'm not sure if he's going to eat it, shoot it dead, or fuck it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 30 May 19 - 01:22 PM

Don't blame the younger generation - AFAIK, that use of "do" emerged from hippy culture in the '60s, when people started to "do" rather than "take" drugs. That's when I first encountered that word-use; I remember the time and place ....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 30 May 19 - 08:21 PM

Mis-placed/unnecessary apostrophes are top of my list, or not using them when they should be there.
Dey-ja voo (already you) instead of dey-ja vyu (already seen) for the other language ones. (phonetic spelling there!)
Complimentary and complementary: so often confused/used incorrectly.
Your and you're.
There, they're and their.
And, of course, could of, would of, should of.

There are a few Scots peculiarities too, such as people saying, and spelling the following word as definATEly. And it's quite commonplace to hear "he has went" instead of "he has gone".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 May 19 - 09:53 PM

Voo, not vyu, is how I have always heard it...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 30 May 19 - 10:37 PM

Tattie, you must have learned your French in a different ecole from moi ... !

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: michaelr
Date: 30 May 19 - 11:24 PM

One that always gets to me is "one of the only..." No, it's either one of the few, or it is The Only.

Another is the misplacement of the word just, as in "You just can't come barging in here" when what's meant is "You can't just come barging in here".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 May 19 - 08:09 AM

One that always gets to me is "one of the only..." No, it's either one of the few, or it is The Only.

It depends on the missing part of the sentence. e.g. "This is one of the only seven known to exist." would appear to be a correct use of the words.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 May 19 - 09:04 AM

One of the 7, I would think. I just am lovin' this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 31 May 19 - 10:00 AM

It's not a peeve, but I'm amused by the word "ones." Example: He's one of the ones who trampled Mrs. Hardwick's petunias.

How can there be more than one one?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: beachcomber
Date: 31 May 19 - 10:02 AM

Politicians, in particular, but many other people use "grow" incorrectly, eg Some say "We will grow our economy...!"

I would like to ask the opinions of Mudcatters on the use of an "R" sound between a word that ends in a vowel and one that commences with a vowel, such as "Aston Villa (r) are the new Champions. Is this a correct figure of speech ?? I've even heard "I saw (r) him do it" ???

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: DMcG
Date: 31 May 19 - 10:25 AM

Just read on a tour guide leaflet :
"Here they stage traditional dance shows, local handicraft workshops and mythical ceremonies"

I might be interested in seeing a mythological ceremony. I think I would feel conned to pay to see a mythical one.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: John P
Date: 31 May 19 - 12:15 PM

I'm tired of being asked for detes.

Light isn't spelled "Lite". I even had a gas stove with "Lite" on the dial.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 May 19 - 02:30 PM

I am reminded of a friend who had a sign over his sink that said THINK! There was also a sign above the stairs that said THTAIRS!...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 19 - 04:42 PM

Well I'm a stickler for the use of good English, but I must say that many of the complaints here remind me of King Canute. Language is wot people speak, not wot professors of language profess. Whether we like it or not, what we often regard as linguistic outrages generally end up as standard English. "Begging the question," for example, which started out as one thing has become entirely another, and, as such, will be regarded even by naysayers as standard English in its new meaning. If we don't accept the changes we become as the dinosaurs did....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 May 19 - 07:27 PM

What, birds? Ahahahaha sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 31 May 19 - 08:00 PM

@mrzzy and meself: it is déjà vu, not déjà vous. Malheureusement, too many people pronounce the "vu" wrongly. The French pronunciation is definitely not "voo" as in "vous". There is not an exact English equivalent, but it is closer to "view" than "voo".
I learned my French at school, yes, but also by staying with a French family for several months; they would not have said "déjà vous"!!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: michaelr
Date: 31 May 19 - 09:33 PM

Nigel Parsons -- in that case it should be "one of only seven" - "the" is superfluous.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Neil D
Date: 31 May 19 - 10:58 PM

Mrrzy said: "People are hanged. Pictures are hung."
Reminds me of the scene from "Blazing Saddles" when Bart, who had recently been spared hanging and appointed sheriff, runs into an old acquaintance who says : "Bart, they told me you was hung". Bart responds "and they was right".

My pet peeve is intentionally misspelled word in products or company names. When I used to make meat deliveries in Cleveland, the two big grocery chains on the East Side were Bi-Rite and Sav-Mor. It drove me to distraction.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 01 Jun 19 - 03:04 AM

And what about "very unique". How can you have degrees of uniqueness?

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Jun 19 - 03:21 AM

Steve is right about how language evolves and changes, but it can be confusing. A moment ago I read Pixar has dropped a trailer for a new film. In 'old-think' that means the trailer has been cancelled, removed, has gone. In 'new-think' it means it is now available.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 01 Jun 19 - 05:43 AM

"People are hanged. Pictures are hung."

It is particularly grating in My Fair Lady, a film specifically about the correct use of English, when Rex Harrison sings (or, rather, says)

By law she should be taken out and hung,
For the cold-blooded murder of the English tongue.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Jun 19 - 09:13 AM

English-speakers can't pronounce the French "u" of vu, but nobody I've heard say it [Yogi Bera] pronounces it with a y (vyu). They [English speakers] do not differentiate vous (voo) and vu (voo).

As a native French speaker I have no problem with that. See Paris, above.

Maybe Higgins was singing tongue in cheek?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 01 Jun 19 - 09:24 AM

As far as I can see from Chambers and the Oxford Dictionary Online, people may be “hung” or “hanged” but the latter is rather more common.

The Oxford one goes on to explain:   

The reason for this distinction is a complex historical one: hanged, the earlier form, was superseded by hung sometime after the 16th century; it is likely that the retention of hanged for the execution sense may have to do with the tendency of archaic forms to remain in the legal language of the courts

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mr Red
Date: 01 Jun 19 - 10:55 AM

'The suspect broke into the house and killed two people. Police arrested the suspect, John Smith, yesterday." Kinda defeats the purpose of using the term 'suspect', doesn't it?

Yes and No. Languge is fluid and meanings morph.

Gay has meant, over a period of several hundred years, variously sexually active as in "brisk young widow" to happy about life with no sexual connotations, to the modern appropriation.

As Nigel Rees was won't to say in his books: "bad meanings drive out good"

Hung is ambiguous without context (sexual connotations rear up (sic) again), whereas hanged is more specific. And I am hanged if I know why!
I know which I prefer to be!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 01 Jun 19 - 01:39 PM

I don't usually take any notice of sports results, but I have noticed lately that instead of winning cups and trophies teams 'lift' them. It sounds as if they stole them.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Jun 19 - 04:58 PM

How can there be more than one one?
In binary notation numbers are represented by a series of ones and zeros

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 19 - 05:45 PM

You're all worrying far too much. What you should be worrying about is the fact that Nigel failed to insert a full stop in his last post.. Cheers! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Jun 19 - 09:12 PM

I despise the trend of *verbing* nouns... :"Our staff has surfaced some new data."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 19 - 02:12 AM

Like when an Olympic athlete fails to medal...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jun 19 - 02:20 AM

Sort of, Bill. I would say it is one of the glories of the English language that we can use pretty much any word as a noun, verb, adjective, adverb ... and bring out a 'tone' that would otherwise go unnoticed. In the hands of a skilled poet or writer this can be wonderful.

Most of us, though, are not skilled poets or writers...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 02 Jun 19 - 03:10 AM

Maybe Higgins was singing tongue in cheek?

I think you are being too generous, Mrrzy. In any other film, poetic licence would allow the rhyming of hung with tongue - but not this one. The lyricist simply got it wrong and the director didn't pick it up.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Jun 19 - 08:15 AM

Well, for off rhymes, Tom Lehrer wins. Uncut, and unsubt [riff] tle.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mr Red
Date: 02 Jun 19 - 10:47 AM

Mispronunciation and enjambed rhymes for comic effect are all the funnier. Mind you Cole Porter did it all the time to make the yric more fluid and flowing.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 02 Jun 19 - 06:41 PM

OK, Mrzzy, I did qualify my last post by saying that the French 'Vu" is not the same as "view". How we were taught to say it requires considerable oral contortions: put your lips forward as if you were going to say a "oo" sound, but then say "ee" instead, and you'll get that odd cross between the 2 sounds, for which there is no English comparison!
Parfait, ou non?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Jun 19 - 07:37 PM

Nice! Turlututu chapeau pointu! (That was the exercise for the English speakers)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 03 Jun 19 - 07:31 AM

Many newsreaders here add an extra syllable to words beginning with 'thr', perhaps for emphasis.....for example, "three" becomes "the-ree" and "threat" is now "the-reat", etc.

It is annoying. I have become one of those Olde Phartes who yells at the TV because of things such as this.

Also - when did a sporting match become a "clash"? Something else to yell about......

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 03 Jun 19 - 07:41 AM

Another that has been really getting on my nerves is "from the get-go"

(often pronounced "from the gecko").

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Jun 19 - 08:58 AM

That extra syllable is highly folksong-y (the t-uh-rain pulled away on that g-uh-lorious night)... I have not yet had to yell at my radio over it. Yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 03 Jun 19 - 01:39 PM

@Jos: and if they don't win their match they "crash out"! (No, they just lost a game!!)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 03 Jun 19 - 04:56 PM

When the news is sung they can add as many extra syllables as they like.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Jun 19 - 07:23 PM

"Pet Peeves"?
You can't, he's a poltergeist, so incorporeal. (at least according to J K Rowling)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 19 - 01:45 AM

You may as well give up on things such as get-go. It's standard English now. As a matter of fact, though I'd never write it, I quite like it and I use it all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Jun 19 - 10:47 AM

Yeah, I remember my dad saying get-go, and I'm old. Ish.

This reminds me of my sisters quizzing mom on modern (in the 60's) slang, and after each phrase, mom said That's over my head. Then they said something (I forget what) and mom says wait, I don't understand that one. "Went over her head" went over her head! We died laughing.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 10:09 AM

Also why does ouster mean ousting?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 11:18 AM

"From the get-go" does not appear in print until the 1960s, apparently. Some think it morphed from the expression, "From the word 'go'"; personally, I think the similarity is coincidental (due to the opposing rhythmical stresses in the two expressions; 'the GET-go' would not naturally emerge from 'the word GO').

Another theory is that it is an abbreviated version of "Get ready, get set - GO!"

Yet another theory has it as coming from the clunky formation "getting going" - I think "get going" more likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 07:19 PM

Thing is, with us old fogies we'd tend to think that the old is better than the new. Therefore "from the word go" is better than "from the get-go." But I'm not so sure. Looked at utterly objectively, which is a very bad thing to do, both expressions are equally bad, or equally good. So I'm going with the flow. And you know me...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: SamStone
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 10:48 PM

luv it when the eastenders say "neiver" for neither

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: lefthanded guitar
Date: 08 Jun 19 - 02:11 AM

Prefacing a sentence with the inane phrase "Not for nothing, but......" Whatever the f*** does that mean?! I've even asked people who say it, and they don't know.


This is seconded in irritating language by the phrase " Not to talk about it... but...." And then, of course, they talk about it.

Shaddup. ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 08 Jun 19 - 06:04 AM

Similarly Whatever the f*** does that mean? is just a longer way to ask "What does that mean?"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jun 19 - 06:23 AM

No it doesn't. At least in the written word, one is a neutral request for an explanation. The other is highly-nuanced, and, depending on context, might imply surprise, derision, shock or outrage. In the spoken word, much would depend on how you express either.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jun 19 - 06:24 AM

I meant "No it isn't." Grr.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jun 19 - 06:30 AM

And if you want to know one of my pet peeves it's the use of asterisks in swear words. Even The Guardian doesn't permit them. I sometimes use them sarcastically, for example in the expression "Trump is a complete and utter b*ast*ard." That method also comes in handy on those websites that automatically replace your swear word with a different word.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 08 Jun 19 - 06:45 AM

I do wish people would say 'inspiring' instead of 'inspirational'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Jun 19 - 03:03 PM

There was a thing for awhile where one said So (something that can't be so), such (something that can't be such), wow. Took me forever to get it right. So effort, such wrong, wow. But now nobody uses it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 08 Jun 19 - 07:58 PM

Well where have I been hiding? I have NEVER EVER in ma puff heard ANYONE say "from the get-go"! And yet you say it's commonplace?
Yes, I have heard, and would use myself "from the word go" or "from the off" but no, nay, never "from the get-go". Could be a song in that?.......

And it's no, nay, never, - - -
No, nay from the get-go
Will I play the go-getter
In your game of get-go

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 10 Jun 19 - 02:28 AM

A turn of phrase which is cropping up more and more - here in Oz, at least - is "forced to do such and such". A news item yesterday about a boat sinking was "survivors forced to cling to wreckage". This morning's local rag has a front page story "police forced to taser man involved in brawl". That's just two instances of what are becoming more and more usages of "forced to".

The stories would be more succinctly told "survivors cling to wreckage" and "police taser man" but perhaps they would then lack a little drama, and some folk like to milk all the drama they can from their stories.

I know language is a living thing, constantly changing and evolving.....and while I do enjoy some current terms and words, I don't have to always like where it is going or some of the stops along the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Jun 19 - 08:51 AM

And what about starting an answer with "So..........."

I find it distracting, in a way that "Ah" or "Well",** and "yes" isn't off-putting. Yet they serve the same purpose, a delay while the answerer (sic) can collect their thoughts - usually on a subject they know well.

So........... it is a modern affectation, and as Folkies, Traditionalists,** and old Fogies we find strange on our ears.

Language morphs all the time. Consider words for being "in fashion/good", hip, hot, cool,** and wicked - all words with contra contexts.

** Pedants'*** corner - note use of the Oxford comma.

*** note use of the Oxford Grocer's**** apostrophe.

****yes, yes. There are more than one Oxford Grocer, but only one who misspells "'" AFAIK.





So.......... I'll get my côte

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Jun 19 - 09:06 AM

I don't worry at all about my spelling and grammar on Mudcat - I am not producing a work of literature, after all. But I do expect professional documents to be to higher standard. I got a bit of sales promotion that said this:

"Cruises here bring to your holiday a balance of both nature and elegant grounds."

There is *some* semblance to English...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: weerover
Date: 10 Jun 19 - 10:17 AM

I agree with DMcG on mistakes in general, we all make them, but I frequently find basic errors in textbooks intended for the teaching of English in schools, which I consider unforgiveable.

I am somewhat surprised that Tattie Bogle has never encountered "the get-go". I believe we are fairly close geographically, and I have heard it many times, though usually on TV.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 10 Jun 19 - 06:01 PM

This is more than a peeve. i am dismayed at parents of young children who are so absorbed in their electronics or their own conversations that they completely ignore their young child.

The process by which a little one (age one to five) acquires language is one of the most amazing things in all of nature. In addition it's interesting, gratifying or adorable to participate in.

Two days ago I pre-boarding an airplane, and two parents with a little girl were getting aboard just ahead of me. Her parents allowed her to step on the jetway, with its slope and its sudden steep ramps while staring at a small electronic screen. Soon she stopped looking at held up a hot pink teddy bear. Three times she asked, "Is this a stuffed toy?" Nobody answered the first two times. Finally her mother said yes.

If a parent had simply said "Don't interrupt" that would have been better than pretending she doesn't exist. And really, what is so important that you can't stop yacking long enough to see your child safely down a jetway and into the plane?

Then she asked three times, "What animal is it?" Her mother said "You figure it out." That's not going to teach her anything.

As we approached the door into the plane, they allowed her to pull on a metal bar covered with a bright yellow coating. Didn't observe what she was doing, didn't tell her to stop. Didn't explain that parts of an aircraft are not toys and are not to be touched. In short, no parenting was going on.
===============
Ya know, a lot of people are irritated by teen-agers' "up-talk." I think up-talk reflects the insecurity of young people who do not feel confident that an adult is listening to them. They put a question in every utterance because they are unconsciously asking "Are you paying any attention? Do you hear me? Are you there?"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mr Red
Date: 11 Jun 19 - 03:52 AM

I see it all the time on buses. Pushchair facing the front and the mother behind, fixed on the phone.
Less than half of them put the chair facing back, which is the correct way in case of a sudden stop. And it affords eye contact parent & child.

As a non parent, I once read that engaging in what the child is interested in allows them to learn faster. Ignoring or deflecting them with other things, doesn't. When in the company of a toddler I tend to follow their interest, now.

Some understand, some don't. As Winston Churchill said "The two most important jobs in life are given to amateurs, parenthood & citizenship"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 11 Jun 19 - 10:58 AM

Excellent points, Mr. Red.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 11 Jun 19 - 12:25 PM

Many years ago when I used to push a child along in a pram, the pram was designed so that the child would sit facing me, but did he want to sit and look at me? No, whenever possible (that is, when it wasn't raining) he liked to have the hood down so that he could turn round and see where we were going.

(There were no portable phones or electronic devices in those days, but even now I do not use one while walking along.)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 13 Jun 19 - 03:53 AM

"Get-go": I don't watch much TV which is maybe why I haven't heard it.
I prefer " My get-up-and-go has got up and went"!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Jun 19 - 12:51 PM

Tattie, this is now a music thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 13 Jun 19 - 05:30 PM

I have no pet peeve with that!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Jun 19 - 11:01 AM

Fox News, reporting on an awful incident where a pregnant woman was murdered and the fetus[before]/baby[after] was kidnapped, used the term "womb-raider" in headlines when the baby died.

I was horrified and kinda impressed at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 15 Jun 19 - 10:17 PM

I dislike that, Mrrzy. "Womb-raider" sounds too much like a term from science fiction. What a horrible crime, made slightly worse for the family when Fox News tries to be trendy about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Gurney
Date: 16 Jun 19 - 12:49 AM

BBCWrestler (if I may call him that)up there picked one of mine. I watch American Pickers on the TV, and Mike Wolfe often says "Very Unique."
It is or it isn't unique. There aren't degrees of uniqueness.

Another term that I thought was peculiar to Americans was the use of the term 'Careen' when they mean 'Career." One means to clean a ship, the other (among other meanings) to move erratically. I just checked on Wordweb, the (possibly American) computer dictionary, and even that useful application doesn't know the difference, although it claims both words to the 'move erratically' meaning. Also, it has jammed up on me for asking!

Many English speakers often use 'an' before a word that begins with 'H,' such as 'An horrific accident, An herb garden.'

Books generally have dispensed with speech marks " in favour of quotation marks '.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 16 Jun 19 - 02:04 AM

Not only Americans, Gurney......Ozzies use 'career' meaning to move erratically, as in 'the car went careering down the hill'. 'Careen', not so much.

Considering that much of our speech patterns came from various parts of Great Britain rather than the U.S., it could point to an origin on the British side of the pond.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Jun 19 - 09:02 AM

We call those single quotes and double quotes. They are used for different things. I have not seen singles used instead of doubles. I would object.

Leeneia, yes indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 17 Jun 19 - 12:58 AM

This sentence describes how I've always known the word 'careen.'

" Whether it's an unsteady ship, a speeding bus, or a person who is woozy, use the verb careen to describe something that's teetering from side to side."

I particularly think of a running person careening down a hill.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 17 Jun 19 - 03:36 AM

Is that rule about single and double quotes being for either speech or quotations an American rule? It might work in a novel or story, but otherwise what happens if you are quoting what someone said?

All the publishers I have come across require either consistent use of double quotes, but with single for a quotation within a quotation, or consistent use of single quotes, but with double for a quotation within a quotation - this is more common with UK publishers.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Jun 19 - 09:33 AM

Never heard of speech v. quote.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 17 Jun 19 - 11:26 AM

My rule is that my little fingers are quite small, and the double quote, which requires use of the shift key, is to be avoided. This is a new rule, and I'm not consistent.

Therefore, I should type:

The word "reticent" is often misused for "reluctant." [I do this to make the words qua words really stand out.]

However, quotations are usually self-evident, so I type

He exclaimed, 'You're not just beautiful, you're amazing.!'

I can make up rules just as well as the next guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jun 19 - 11:36 AM

When typing in a forum such as this, my personal rule is to use standard quotation marks "...." for known exact quotes, but when there is a phrase I am not sure of, or that *I* claim as my own creation, I like to use single quote apostrophes '....'.

It's just my attempt to indicate in print what I would try to show in speech. Mudcat is great in allowing various HTML code to allow ^rising and _falling inflection etc....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 Jun 19 - 03:41 AM

There aren't degrees of uniqueness.

I would agree lexicographically, but real life ain't binary. A standard Ford car might come in yellow, or red (please) or any colour as long as it's black. But if you paint it in psychodelia then it is unique, but you can still get the same tyres or windscreen wiper blades for it, which means it isn't (ha - hide yer eyes) that unique!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 18 Jun 19 - 04:54 AM

A standard car with unique features.

It takes very little effort to get it right.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jun 19 - 05:35 AM

There's more than a whiff of grammar policing going on here. A few decades ago, gay meant one thing. Now it means two things. That's language evolution for you. I'm quite happy to see people saying quite unique or fairly unique, etc, and would never insist on their rebuilding their sentence. What you're missing is the gentle morphing of the word into two forms. The one won't damage the other, so stop fretting!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 Jun 19 - 09:14 AM

A standard car with unique features.

Don't think I am being overly pedantic but.......

A standard car with unique decoration/colouring/appearance/presentation

A feature is functional and I can only think of one function for psychodelic appearance, and that is ego, or corporate identity if you are Mr Red.

Getting it right ain't so easy for pedant in the real non-binary world. Trust me, (:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 18 Jun 19 - 09:35 AM

Editor here. I do this for a living, and have for (literally) decades.

I have considerable patience with new meanings for old words (e.g., gay), but very little for self-inflicted grammar injuries (e.g., if I would of known). The former is evolution in the language; the latter is the bastard child of ignorance of verb forms and refusing to revise after writing by ear.

The great glory of English is its bewildering variety of vocabulary, so I shake my head in pity over a text that confuses "decimate" and "annihilate", "substitute" and "replace", "flaunt" and "flout". Today, I read in the Globe & Mail about a new law in the Province of Quebec that "bans public servants from" wearing outward and visible signs of religious belief -- irritating to me because one bans things (automatic weapons, for example) and activities (such as pissing in the gutter), not people. People are "forbidden to" do something, or "prevented from" doing it.

For the advanced class, we also have the gradual disappearance of the preposition "of" (representing the genitive or possessive case), now being overtaken by "for" (traditionally used to translate the dative case, and to indicate purpose or advantage). We used to have "centres *of* excellence", but we are now seeing "centres *for* excellence". In my youth, the oldies radio station in Ottawa would have been called "Ottawa's home *of* rock music", but lately it has become the "home for rock music". Why does that matter? Well, to me, the form using "of" indicates the actual presence of rock music, but the form using "for" indicates only the intention of providing rock music, but not necessarily the actuality. That distinction (admittedly subtle) has apparently disappeared while I was not looking.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jun 19 - 09:43 AM

The modern usage of decimate is perfectly fine. Only pedants are insisting on its one-in-ten meaning. You've lost that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 18 Jun 19 - 10:14 AM

I think that switch from 'of' to 'for' is deliberate. 'Excellence' isn't just sitting there, static; it's to be created (re: "to indicate purpose or advantage") - 'Centre for Excellence' is an abbreviated way of saying 'Centre for the Creation or Discovery of Excellence'. Similarly, 'the home for rock music' suggests more dynamism than does 'the home of rock music'; it conflates the sense of rock music coming to the station to find a home - rather than already being there sitting by the fire - and listeners coming to the station to find rock music.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 18 Jun 19 - 10:25 AM

"one bans ... activities" - To say that banning people from wearing something is 'banning people' rather than banning an activity ('wearing') may be correct in a strictly grammatical sense, I don't know - but, boy, it sure is subtle. Good luck with that one.

I do agree that 'forbidding' would be better, and it has a more menacing connotation, which suits the fascistic law it refers to.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 18 Jun 19 - 11:48 AM

Although people who use 'decimate' do not usually mean 'to destroy one in ten', they do not usually mean 'annihilate', meaning 'to reduce to nothing' (Latin 'nihil'). They may, however, mean 'to destroy a large proportion' such as nine out of ten.

I am annoyed by people saying 'just because [...] doesn't mean ...', when what they should be saying is 'just because [...] it doesn't mean ...' or 'just because [...] that doesn't mean ...'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: robomatic
Date: 19 Jun 19 - 12:54 AM

using an apostrophe before the s in order to make a plural.

using any modifier to the word 'unique'. (Although apparently my position is hopeless "'very unique' is here to stay".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mr Red
Date: 19 Jun 19 - 02:58 AM

using an apostrophe before the s in order to make a plural.

yea, it is gross, can't think of anything grocer ..................



I'll get my thesaurus.....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 19 Jun 19 - 03:07 AM

Unique is like dead or pregnant - either you are or you aren't. Same qualifiers, more or less, can be applied to each.

However, one thing that really bugs me is people saying "quantum leap" (by definition, the smallest possible change) when they mean something more like a paradigm shift.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jun 19 - 09:08 AM

Or a sea change...

Now on the matter of unique, get a grip, chaps. I should think that a majority of people (only guessing) who use unique in everyday parlance add a modifier. What they are doing is using the word in a different sense to the one you wish to cling to. They are not saying the only one of a kind. They are saying special, different, outstanding, all words that can take a modifier. The word is undergoing a dichotomy of meaning. That's how language evolves and we should cheer it on. So far it's only a nice distinction (see what I did there...?), but you won't stop it growing.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Jun 19 - 10:12 AM

Assonance means getting the rhyme wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Jun 19 - 01:17 PM

Today there was a headline about a woman being killed to death.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jun 19 - 01:44 PM

Was she razed to the ground? Or, worse (and I assure you I've seen it), raised to the ground?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jun 19 - 01:58 PM

A beauty spotted in the Guardian just now:

"Backers of Dominic Raab...flocked almost en masse to Johnson."


"almost"?? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jun 19 - 02:26 PM

...en masse lite??

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Jun 19 - 03:20 PM

There was a cartoon with a barbarian wedding, and the caption read It's about time they settled down and razed a village, and I laughed out loud in the doctor's office.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jun 19 - 03:53 PM

Did the doc have his hand under your t*est*ic*les at the time? Weren't you supposed to cough?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 20 Jun 19 - 10:09 AM

Calling a soldier a troop, as in "Insurgents attacked a truck and one troop died." A troop is a group, not a person.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Jun 19 - 10:16 AM

Ooh I was just about to post that one!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 20 Jun 19 - 12:59 PM

Similarly, an "elite" now can mean a single person who presumably belongs to an elite group, just as a "minority" can mean a single person who belongs to a larger minority. Those battles are lost, I'm afraid.

Although, I always did find the usage of "troop(s)" awkward - never used it to refer to one soldier, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mr Red
Date: 20 Jun 19 - 01:15 PM

call me an old fashioned pedant but

a troup is the group and troops is (sic) the soldiers therein. I make a distinction. A troup of soldiers (could be circus performers though) we treat as an entity. Troops is, in my parlance, any agglomeration of (pretty much exclusively) soldiers.

Dare I throw designer in to the ring, and watch the ripples?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Jun 19 - 11:37 PM

Groom cries as bride confesses love for his spouse. Bigamy?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mr Red
Date: 22 Jun 19 - 02:28 AM

I am no expert but isn't bride or groom only applicable before the vicar pronounces "husband & wife"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 22 Jun 19 - 02:58 AM

The happy pair continue to be bride & groom throughout the wedding, presumably right until they leave the reception. They cease, however, to be affianced.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 22 Jun 19 - 03:59 AM

Groom cries as bride confesses love for his spouse.

He was married to a narcissist?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Jun 19 - 12:08 PM

I am still trying to figure out how a groom (not of horses) can have a spouse at all...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 22 Jun 19 - 12:23 PM

Perhaps the groom lives in a Muslim-majority country where polygamy is legal and he is taking wife number 2, 3 or 4.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Jun 19 - 01:34 PM

And his new bride is gay? Yeah, that would work.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 22 Jun 19 - 01:35 PM

My poem on American spelling, "For Better Or Worse"
.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Jun 19 - 05:23 PM

I doubt it too!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 23 Jun 19 - 10:27 PM

This is not a peeve.

It has rained and rained here. The streams are rushing, farmers are worried that they will lose their crops, the tomato plants are half-drowned. People who used to end conversations with "Take care" or "Stay safe" are now saying "Keep dry."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Jun 19 - 12:10 PM

Free reign, or reign in. Internet sight. There are more...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 24 Jun 19 - 12:19 PM

I call that "writing by ear", Mrrzy. Spell-check doesn't care about homonyms.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Jun 19 - 03:13 PM

And why do Americans call football soccer?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 24 Jun 19 - 06:12 PM

“Soccer” derives from the “association” part of Association Football.

We have too many kinds of footie over here to let the kind you play without a helmet be called just “football”.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 24 Jun 19 - 06:36 PM

It's not only Americans who refer to association football as soccer. The term may also be used for football in the UK if there is need to distinguish it from rugby.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mr Red
Date: 25 Jun 19 - 05:24 AM

continue to be bride & groom throughout the wedding - so bride/groom/intended coexist with husband/wife/spouse for as long as they await a formal reception?

I can live with that. But I couldn't live with my ex-wifey. Though I did not divorce, I was divorced against.

Free reign, or reign in - Well free reign would make sense referring to someone "lording" it around, the case for reign in is far more tenuous.

in the UK if there is need to distinguish it from rugby - in NZ there is only one type of football - and it is "All Blacks". Soccer is played by the "All Whites".

And what about the Yorkshire** use of while in the context of until? Can easily cause confusion.

** other colours of rose are available.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Jun 19 - 09:03 AM

It didn't phase him.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Jun 19 - 09:12 AM

The principle sat in their cubical.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mr Red
Date: 25 Jun 19 - 05:02 PM

Well you can stand on your principles.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 25 Jun 19 - 06:52 PM

From Facebook today: someone talking about whiskey, when they mean whisky, then going on to talk about whisky's (plural, so drop the e and add an apostrophe??)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Jun 19 - 04:00 PM

Also worthy/sufficient *enough* - just a redundancy but in news or science writing...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 01 Jul 19 - 06:13 AM

'like' But maybe it's to avoid saying 'er' or stammering.

This like bus came round the like corner and like stopped.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Jul 19 - 08:33 AM

I actually saw childs instead of children in a headline yesterday. Sigh.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: clueless don
Date: 02 Jul 19 - 07:12 AM

I'm rather late to this party, but ...

It has actually been a number of years since I first encountered it, but a usage I despise is to use the verb "to plate" to mean "to put food on a plate", as in "Your meal will be quickly plated and served to you." Are they going to coat the food with gold?

Now I'll open myself to the collective abuse of the forum: I have long thought that if there were only two of something in the world (e.g. two surviving individuals if a species of animal), each one of those two could be correctly described as "almost unique". Yes, yes, I know that this idea could be expressed in some other way in order to avoid this usage of "unique", but that doesn't make this usage wrong. Let the flaming begin!

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 02 Jul 19 - 07:21 AM

I do get annoyed by people using a noun as a verb, of which this is a good example. Also airline pilots using route as a verb. Route is a now, root can be used as a verb. But mostly in Australia.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 02 Jul 19 - 09:20 AM

Clueless Don, if I were writing about the world's last two anything, that fact about them would surely be worth a comment more precise than "almost unique". For example: "The last two white rhinoceroses in the world met yesterday in Kruger National Park. Unfortunately, both of them are male."

The French loan word "route" generates other problems in Canada, where we live with inexorable cultural pressure from our southern neighbours. We still use the French pronunciation, a homonym of the verb "root", as noted by David Carter(UK). Americans pronounce it as a homonym of "rout", which I understand as a verb that means "scour", "extract" or "put to flight" and is most often applied to defeated armies.

A piece of computer equipment called a "router", so called because it directs wireless signals to the correct receiving device, is American in origin (like most computer equipment), and is therefore pronounced like what happens to defeated armies. Unfortunately, this confuses people (like me) who (a) know what the thing does; and, (b) know about power tools, including the machine carpenters use to make fancy edges on boards and molding.

I wish that were my only problem with the United States of America.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Jul 19 - 11:29 AM

Charmion, me too.

Speaking of there being only two of things, it bugs me if people use Both or (N)Either for larger groups. As in, both rhinos, deer and goats have horns. Argh.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 03 Jul 19 - 12:39 AM

Many people are inconsistent in their pronunciation of "route." On YouTube videos about pronunciation, they say that a highway is called a "root", but that in the stock phrase "If you want to go that route..." they make it rhyme with "out".

Such people are from both sides of the pond. I do it too.

Long ago there was a TV show called "Root 66." I bet its theme song had a lot to do with the preference for the oo sound today.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Jul 19 - 09:29 AM

I remember someone asking me out loud How do you pronounce root? I said root. Turned out she meant route, which I pronounce rout.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 04 Jul 19 - 04:05 PM

Using the terms former and latter, so I have to re-read to see which is which. Like Rabbit, who got frustrated trying to count how many pockets he would need to carry his young in, I haven't the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 04 Jul 19 - 04:07 PM

'respectively'

Jack fell down and broke his crown,
and Jill came tumbling after, respectively.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Jul 19 - 05:13 PM

Leenia, I am so with you on former/latter. Violates the Don't Make Your Reader Work rule.

And I don't mind language changing, I just wish somebody had told me when edgy went from meaning nervous to pushing the envelope (an expression I hate but what is better?)!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 04 Jul 19 - 06:06 PM

Heard on Radio Scotland tonight, said by a senior health (infection control)official: "It is absolutely incredulous that we would open this hospital....."
It is incredIBLE
I am incredULOUS

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jul 19 - 06:27 AM

Some time in the 1960s, my school's prize night, Bolton town hall, pompous mayor of Bolton in closing speech (imagine broad Bolton accent): "I've found this evenin' to 'ave bin most educative..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 05 Jul 19 - 01:42 PM

He was brung up proper then!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Jul 19 - 03:42 PM

Oh, and the terms vulva and vagina are neither synonymous nor interchangeable.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jul 19 - 04:55 PM

Why are you fannying around with stuff like that, Mrrzy? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Jul 19 - 08:47 PM

Hah!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: mayomick
Date: 08 Jul 19 - 09:25 AM

My neighbour and his friends were out camping in the Dublin mountains last week .They all got eaten alive by midgets .

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 08 Jul 19 - 11:10 AM

I was listening to a podcast about philosophy the other day, but turned it off the third time the reader said "tenants" when the script (I hope) meant "tenets".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 08 Jul 19 - 06:32 PM

Anatomical misnomers: as described by Mrzzy above, and also the common misuse of the other part of female anatomy, so often these days erroneously applied to anyone of either gender that one does not like/agree with one's own views: i.e. that one which rhymes with a certain PM candidate. Cannae bring masel' tae type it oot, but ye'll ken whit ah mean!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jul 19 - 08:50 PM

Are you talking about the man who's his own Cockney rhyming slang? As with James Blunt??

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 10 Jul 19 - 05:38 PM

Probably, but then there is a possible un-scanning rhyme with Boris!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Jul 19 - 11:01 AM

Staunch is not stanch, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Jul 19 - 08:59 AM

The phrase "the cold vacuum of space" in any article on science.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Jul 19 - 12:31 PM

Video shows Coast Guard leaping onto submarine carrying 17,000 pounds of cocaine

Wow.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Jul 19 - 09:04 AM

Today incent was a verb.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 16 Jul 19 - 02:42 AM

I didn't even know it was a word.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Jul 19 - 10:56 AM

Newsies make things up to peeve me. Watch me verb that noun.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 16 Jul 19 - 11:23 AM

"Newsies"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Jul 19 - 02:38 PM

Newspapers, radio news. Not those of us who read/listen to them!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 16 Jul 19 - 11:18 PM

It just seemed a little ironic in the context.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Jul 19 - 01:29 PM

I first heard to "incent" in 2006.

It's all too real.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 19 Jul 19 - 09:32 PM

Revolver words

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Jul 19 - 10:21 PM

Ooh JoeF, excellent. Also all other psychological jargon being misused.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 20 Jul 19 - 03:37 AM

I'm getting tired of massive

massive landslide
massive attack
massive explosion.

'Massive' seems to have replaced 'awesome' as the adjective meaning 'rather noticeable'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 20 Jul 19 - 03:48 AM

And the sappy language of the pet-rescue world.

mom, dad = owner
sister = fellow female dog
forever home

Ten years ago the house next door had a bad fire. A neighbor pounded on our door in the middle of the night and woke us up. Our houses are only eight feet apart, and the smoke and flames were terrifying. I called the cat, but she had hidden herself somewhere. I had to leave her.

I never would have left a child, but the cat was not my child, and I wasn't her mom.

After half an hour, the firefighters told me I could go back in my house, and I found the cat, put her in a crate, and sat in the car with her on my lap till it was almost over.

When people refer to me as my cat's mom, I wonder if they have any idea of the dedication which parenthood demands.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 19 - 05:24 AM

Speaking of massive, a much-misused word is "enormity." And what about "epoch-making"? And don't get me started on alternative/alternate. I blame the Monkees.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 21 Jul 19 - 02:31 AM

And the way parts of speech are leaking, so people who mean respectful say respectable, and similar leaks across other words.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 21 Jul 19 - 04:03 PM

Leeneia, ever hear "fur child," "fur kid," or "fur baby"?

I suppose they could be applied to hamsters and the like as well as to cats and dogs.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 22 Jul 19 - 12:21 AM

Yes, I believe I have. I suppressed the memory.
==================
I have decided to ignore the experts who distinguish meteors, meteorites and meteoroids.

From now on, for me a rock that you see in the sky or a rock that has fallen from the sky is a meteor.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 19 - 06:24 AM

But that isn't right. The distinctions are useful. A meteoroid is a small lump of rock in the solar system. How small? "Anything smaller than an asteroid" is as close as you'll get. A meteorite is one of those lumps of rock that has made it as far as the ground. A meteor is the same thing as a shooting star, the momentary streak of light from a small lump of rock, more likely a grain or speck of dust, that we see burning up as it rushes into the atmosphere. There is no such thing as a meteor on the ground or in a museum. They're meteorites every time.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Jul 19 - 08:38 AM

Ok check this: puppie. Really. As in the singular of puppies.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Jul 19 - 11:22 AM

Someone scrawled an explicative on the statue of Lee in Charlottesville...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Jul 19 - 06:30 PM

Leeneia, I wish you hadn't mentioned Massive. It is *everywhere,* I now see.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 25 Jul 19 - 02:40 PM

I don't buy it, Steve. Wherever it is, it's the same thing, a lump of rock. Using all those different names for meteors is like using different names for a horse that's in the stall, a horse that's galloping, and a horse in a photograph.
==========
I have another peeve. Words like (gawd I can hardly type it) labradoodle. i.e., hybrid names for crosses between dog breeds which never should have been crossed. Peekapoo, for heaven's sake!

My brother once owned a dog which was a cross between two kinds of spaniel. One was bred to point game birds, the other to jump into water and retrieve game birds. The result was that when the dog saw a bird, it suffered something like a mild seizure, unable to figure out what to do - to point or to jump.
=============
Mrzzy, thanks for the confirmation.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Jul 19 - 05:52 PM

Welcome, but sorry sweetie, a meteor is in the air and a meteorite is on the ground, Steve is right about that. Jargon rather than English...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 26 Jul 19 - 12:23 PM

Don't you grasp the concept of rebellion? I am rebelling against the pointless distinctions. I have the right - I have a meteor in my rock collection.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 27 Jul 19 - 03:26 AM

Like many technical terms, the fine differences are perhaps unimportant outside the discipline concerned. Short, long and metric tons. Dray, cart and race horses. And you'd be surprised how many different versions of the mile there are.

But did the Gloster Meteor jet aircraft become a Meteorite if it crashed?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jul 19 - 05:24 AM

Pointless distinctions are only pointless if they're pointless, not if they're useful.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Jul 19 - 10:06 AM

You go, leeneia!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 27 Jul 19 - 12:47 PM

Thanks!

I just learned about the Great Meteor Hotspot. How exciting to learn that a hotspot, which I usually associate with faraway places and tropical climes, has left volcanic remnants and low mountains across eastern Canada and New England, then gone across the northern Atlantic.

The name is flashy, but it turns out to come from the name of the German research vessel which discovered the last seamount in the chain. The vessel was named the Meteor.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Jul 19 - 12:26 PM

Ooh and how about people writing dialect phonetically... She died of a fever and noone could save her rhymes because fever as pronounced... Not written... Fayver.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 19 - 12:34 PM

Had she been overweight at her funeral they could have made it rhyme: "She died of the fever and no-one could heave her..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 31 Jul 19 - 02:33 PM

She died of a fever and noone could save her rhymes because fever as pronounced... Not written... Fayver.

When I sing it, I sing it as written and make no attempt to force a rhyme by pretending I am "oirish".    -ver and her are enough of a rhyme for me.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Jul 19 - 03:09 PM

I can't help but sing in the accent I heard...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 01 Aug 19 - 12:43 AM

I have a song book published in Ireland which says

She died of a fever
and none could relieve her...

I like it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 01 Aug 19 - 02:59 AM

And in the Sans Day Carol we find cross/grass and coal/all, which only rhyme in the West Country.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Aug 19 - 09:50 AM

Fever rhymes with relieve her in an Orosh accent too... Nice.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 03 Aug 19 - 01:26 AM

"Journey" when no one is going anywhere. Started with "your credit journey" from my bank. I just noticed a video on "My ear-stretching journey." I didn't watch; I didn't want to know.

I think I've seen "journey" in other places, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Aug 19 - 10:02 AM

Orosh. People who don't proofread, argh!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 19 - 11:28 AM

People who say "Is it wine o'clock yet?" when what they really mean is "Is the sun below the yardarm yet?""

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Aug 19 - 10:07 PM

Um, above the yardarm?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Monique
Date: 04 Aug 19 - 02:56 AM

The sun is over the yardarm.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 19 - 03:47 AM

The sun over the yardarm indicates that it's time for the first morning drink. Here in Bude were a moderate lot who don't drink until evening, therefore the saying is modified in order to give us permission for the first evening drink.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Aug 19 - 11:08 AM

Ah. Posh lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 19 - 01:00 PM

Ah, 6 PM I see. It's gin o'clock...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 05 Aug 19 - 11:43 AM

Back to pet peeves:

The lack of understanding that:
"ALL the idiots aren't in the U.S." is not the same as "not all the idiots are in the US".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 06 Aug 19 - 02:42 PM

Thank you, Nigel - I thought I was the only one in the world who was seriously bugged by that one. (It seems to have become widespread only in the last few years, hasn't it?)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Aug 19 - 03:12 PM

I am wondering about that difference. Latest misuse of After is The plane crashed after landing.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jeri
Date: 06 Aug 19 - 03:54 PM

Not to nitpick, but...aw hell, to nitpick:
A plane can certainly crash after landing. Plane lands, careens off the runway, and BOOM! Plane lands, flips over, and BOOM! Plane lands, fails in the attempt to perform the Chatanooga double-shuffle, and BOOM!

On the other hand, crashing before landing would be a bit more complicated.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Aug 19 - 04:17 PM

Plane crashing after landing could be with a tree, or a building.
Similarly plane crashing before landing could be with a flock of birds, a drone, or another plane.

But these are exceptions, and rarely what is meant by someone trying to avoid saying either "the plane crashed" or "the plane crash-landed".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Aug 19 - 11:13 PM

Jeri, those all seem to be *during* the landing, but yeah, taxi to gate then crash into terminal, ok. But I would day Crashed taxiing, not crashed after landing...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jeri
Date: 07 Aug 19 - 07:51 AM

I was thinking of "landing" as touching down. Coming to land (the ground). Cambridge English Dictionary: "1. the fact of an aircraft arriving on the ground or a boat reaching land".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Aug 19 - 10:32 AM

It is interesting, as an aside, that in French one only lands (aterrir) on land. You sea on water (amerrir) and moon (alunir) on the moon...
Hey double entendre!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Aug 19 - 04:47 PM

Mrzzy:
If you 'moon' on the moon your suit will quickly run out of breathable air. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Aug 19 - 06:04 PM

Never said it was smart...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 08 Aug 19 - 06:56 AM

Talking of 'mooning': Never said it was smart...

I know, "no-one likes a smart arse", although I did agree with Kylie Minogue winning "Rear of the year".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 10 Aug 19 - 08:50 PM

Here's a peeve of mine: baby-talk conjunctions in professional writing.

"The cause might be heavy rainfall or impervious surfaces or poorly-designed revetments."

instead of

"The cause might be heavy rainfall, impervious surfaces or poorly-designed revetments."

To me, the first way is how children talk. They start a sentence, then they add elements with "or" or "and" as they think of them. A professional should think ahead.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 19 - 10:09 AM

Well I sometimes use that construction for emphasis. Nowt wrong with it in m'humble.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Aug 19 - 10:29 AM

Oxford comma arguments, anyone?

I agree about the baby talk. Ever heard a small child run out of breath midsentence?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: kendall
Date: 12 Aug 19 - 04:36 PM

People who don't know the difference AMONG to, two and too.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Aug 19 - 06:43 PM

Apparently, kendall, it's ok to use "between" there. I don't like that and I'm with you, but we can't stop the tide...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Aug 19 - 09:40 PM

Cop talk... "At that point in time, the intoxicated individual exited the vehicle."

Why not "Then the drunk got out of the car"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 13 Aug 19 - 01:43 AM

people who mix up:

reticent and reluctant
vice and vise
definite and definitive
untangle and unravel

There's another one going around, but I can't think of it right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 13 Aug 19 - 03:51 AM

Insure and ensure?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 19 - 04:32 AM

Expresso. Heheh...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Aug 19 - 10:49 AM

Their, they're. Feel better?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 13 Aug 19 - 11:25 AM

Sorry, Mrrzy. It's not they're and their. That is a perfectly natural mistake caused by fingers going too fast. I do it myself, though I try to fix it each time.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Aug 19 - 12:02 PM

That was the joke. They are both There's.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 13 Aug 19 - 02:13 PM

How about, the worse the crime, the more respectfully the suspect/convict is spoken of: "the gentleman bit the dog repeatedly", "Mr Epstein trafficked minors", "President Trump had the children taken from their mothers and put in cages"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Aug 19 - 01:22 PM

Ok, in today's search for mussels recipes, one said to add a bay leave. Sigh.

Did I mention I am craving mussels?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Aug 19 - 11:34 AM

Today; grounding when they meant grinding. Yes, if you grind it, it's ground, but you didn't ground it. Sigh.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Aug 19 - 01:07 PM

An interesting article of relevance. I particularly liked the comments on being disinterested.

Perhaps it is important to keep peevishness in perspective!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Aug 19 - 03:39 PM

My peevishness is in perfect, 3D perspective. Ha! Now to read the article.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 19 - 04:00 PM

DMcG, I've earmarked that for a good read tonight once Mrs Steve's hit the sack. I'm a bit ambivalent about the way language seems to change so fast, but I'm also fairly relaxed about it. My command of speling, grammer and punkchewasian is pretty good but I'm a bit of a lingo-liberal at heart. But I love it when resident mudcat twits try to pick me up on the niceties of English. That's when I'm at my best and worst.

And "ambivalent"...anyone else hear that superb Radio 4 programme?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Aug 19 - 09:35 AM

Good article. I peeve about what I read in newspapers, not what those kids say. So grammar, such written, wow.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 16 Aug 19 - 11:56 AM

No matter how many people (read men) tell me that my opinions about English have no foundation, I don't pay attention to them.

Language is important. It can be dishonest, manipulative, or insulting if we let it. It can also waste our time. And so we have every right to pay attention to it and talk about it.

Here's an example of a major language problem that bothers me. I love geology, and recently I borrowed a book on the geologic history of the Alps. Ordinarily, this would be right up my alley - an exciting tale of collisions and destruction.

Unfortunately, the book had been published by the Cambridge University Press (or similar), and its prose was absolutely stultified. You know, the kind of writing you get when a down-to-earth (no pun intended) man thinks, "O god, I've got to write so as to sound intellectual."

The result was that I could not keep awake while reading the book. The struggle to find the message amidst a tangle of over-decorated clauses was too much for me.

If I (who can sleep all I want) can't keep awake while reading it, how can an over-worked student be expected to? What about the person for whom English is not the native language? Why should such a reader have to beat the way through 18th-Century sentence structures?

Writing like that defeats the purpose of the book. That's why I said language can waste our time.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Aug 19 - 11:59 AM

"We dispatched a contingency of Marines to quell the uprising."

I have heard that usage several times by military personnel.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Aug 19 - 12:53 PM

"Comprised of." Grrr...

And I can't say it often enough: never say "prior to" or "albeit" within my earshot...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Aug 19 - 01:05 PM

I remember the cachets of arms in Iraq. It was funny, then.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Aug 19 - 03:12 PM

Here's a new one: stealing dog puppies. Not cat puppies or elephant puppies...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 16 Aug 19 - 04:33 PM

Here's a new one: stealing dog puppies. Not cat puppies or elephant puppies...

Dog (male) as against bitch (female) puppies.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 16 Aug 19 - 09:34 PM

Steve, I'm with you on comprised. This word has become so misused that I don't use it at all. And if you don't like "prior to", you probably share my distaste for "subsequently" when "after" would do.

Today I remembered another mixed-up word pair:

Gourmet (having to do with fine cooking) vs gourmand (a glutton)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Aug 19 - 11:36 PM

My current pet peeve is the growing practice, especially by BBC presenters, of referring to “The x-year anniversary”. Why introduce the redundant ‘year’? What’s wrong with “The xth anniversary”?

And I was gobsmacked recently to hear a radio presenter refer to ‘the three-month anniversary’. WTAF?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 17 Aug 19 - 02:48 AM

Obviously never heard of a luniversary...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Aug 19 - 04:49 AM

And the first decade of this century referred to as the noughties. Grrr again...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Aug 19 - 06:13 AM

"On a daily basis." Argh.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Aug 19 - 08:09 AM

I kinda liked the Aughties...

Black boots held at gunpoint turned out to be black boys, but that's just bad proofreading.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Aug 19 - 12:19 PM

Black boy is the name the Aussies give to a big tufted wild plant, at least in WA. Not nice, I told 'em...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Aug 19 - 08:02 PM

"This program was previously recorded earlier.".. and variations on the theme.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Aug 19 - 11:50 PM

A live audience. What, other shows are filmed before corpses?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 05:50 AM

Pre-order. Pre-book. Pre-select. Pre-choose. Presuppose. Pre-grrr.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 08:50 AM

Ha ha. I've just posted a joke in the recession thread that contains the word "pre-declined"...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 10:19 AM

Thinking about "prior to" and "subsequently", I really can't see what there is to object to. They are, in turn, perfectly understandable and unambiguous alternatives to "before" and "after". Life would be pretty boring if communication was restricted to an approved list of basic words. Variety is the spice of life.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 11:36 AM

I have never seen a case of "prior to" in which it couldn't have been perfectly well replaced with "before." Likewise, I've never seen "albeit" used where "though" wouldn't have been just as good. "Subsequently" can carry nuance that makes it useful, but generally I share Leeneia's objection to it. The objection isn't that they're not standard English, rather that they are used in order to make the user sound clever. In fact, they make the user sound pompous.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 12:16 PM

Subsequently, to me, means After and because of, whereas after means After.

Saw "due" for Do today. Subsequently, I was annoyed.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 03:11 PM

In fact, they make the user sound pompous.

Not to me, they don't. You might as well object to someone saying "pail" when they mean "bucket" but that, of course, would be nonsense.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 08:12 PM

Not exactly a comparable case, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: michaelr
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 08:21 PM

I was recently informed that one should not begin a statement with "Actually" because it makes one sound like a know-it-all. I was referred to an article that said "Actually is the word that you use when you're actually saying, 'You are wrong, and I am right, and you are at least a little bit of an idiot.'"

I'm inclined to call BS on that. What do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 08:31 PM

When you start a sentence with 'actually', you usually are indicating that your interlocutor is wrong, or at least lacking in information. It may well mean "'You are wrong, and I am right, and you are at least a little bit of an idiot.'" So - what's wrong with that? Are you supposed to refrain from correcting others - or are you supposed to come right out and call them 'idiots' while you're doing it?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 08:42 PM

Well I must admit that I use "actually" quite a lot. I'll try harder...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 08:46 PM

"Actually" is often used in an apologetic way, as in "Actually, I never did put gas in the car." But I do hear people use it to soften a factual statement.

"The capital of New York state is Albany, actually."

==============
fortunate (lucky) vs. "fortuitous" (coincidental)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 08:54 PM

Actually and Just (actually, he's just being ignorant) do kinda sound smarmy, now that you point it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Aug 19 - 08:03 AM

I put ‘actually’ and ‘basically’ in the same category - they are ‘starter-words’ intended to put the other party(ies) in a conversation on the back foot.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Aug 19 - 09:54 AM

Also, Technically.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 08:13 AM

And, I just read, "with all due respect" usually means the opposite. I have never liked that phrase.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 02:35 PM

"Basically" is awful. I've just thought of something else: pretentious gits who begin their opinion-expressing with "I have to say..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 04:21 PM

This is turning into Monty Python. But do carry on .....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 05:50 PM

"At the end of the day..." - heheh!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 05:51 PM

"If I'm honest"...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 09:56 PM

Right, "to be honest" = "I will now lie."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 02:48 AM

"Going forward..." Grrr...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 03:46 AM

IMHO

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 05:00 AM

IMNSHO. At least that's a bit more honest. I rather like "in m'humble...". Very Stephen Fry-like!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 10:46 PM

Ooh love Stephen Fry.

Today someone said Toleration, and several of us asked, Tolerance? Apparently, not necessarily. Phooey. I am intolerational of toleration.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 23 Aug 19 - 11:12 AM

"and I use the term advisedly..."

I never have understood that phrase.

another one is "as it were"

What does that mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Aug 19 - 05:57 PM

Now come on, yanks: "If you will..." :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Aug 19 - 02:08 AM

Also for you Epstein-story watchers, there is no such thing as a "doctoral-level psychologist" - either you are a doctoral- level *grad student* in psychology, or you have a doctorate and are a psychologist. If it was a grad student, just say so. If it was a psychologist, don't hedge. My guess is it was a grad student and they are hedging because it should have been a psychologist.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 11:58 AM

Ok, let's talk about Injury vs. Wound. They are not synonymous to me. There are two dimensions: on purpose, and openness. So if I fall and break my arm, I am injured, not wounded. If I am shot, I am wounded (and also injured). This came up when the headline was about lighning "wounding" rather than "injuring" people. What do y'all think?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 12:38 PM

I agree, Mrrzy. For me, a wound involves a break in the skin and bleeding.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Stanron
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 01:04 PM

There is an interesting interplay between using language precisely and using it as creative tool. Language changes. Our language is a cobbled together mish mash of Celtic. Latin, Early German (?) Norse and not a little French thrown in as well. If we could time travel 500 years we would struggle to understand and be understood. Apparently there are Asian versions of English that we would struggle to understand today.

On a slightly different tack on one Mudcat thread there was an anecdote where Peggy Seeger was amused by some one singing an American song with a Cockney accent. It probably wasn't Railroad Bill, but for the sake of argument let's pretend it was. What amuses me is the fact that back in the 19th Century Railroad Bill himself might have been born a Cockney and might have spoken with a Cockney accent. OK he might equally have been from Ireland or Scotland or France or Germany, but my point is that what now passes as as American accent may not have even existed back then. Language changes and accents change. Viva the whateveryoucallit.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 02:55 PM

This came up when the headline was about lighning "wounding" rather than "injuring" people

Being struck by lightning is quite likely to cause severe burns. Even if the skin remains intact, if the burn is sufficient to cause blistering, I would count that as a wound.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 03:17 PM

Yeah, see, I wouldn't. An injury can be severe (compound fractures come to mind) without being a wound, which to me involves intent. People wound; objects injure. Did I make that distinction up out of whole cloth? Not that I'd be surprised if I did...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 05:07 PM

For me, a wound involves a break in the skin and bleeding.

According to my first aid manual, wounds can be open or closed.

Open wounds include:- puncture wounds; incisions; thermal, chemical and electrical burns; bites and stings; gunshot wounds; abrasions; lacerations; skin tears.

Closed wounds include:- contusions (eg bruising); blisters; seroma; haematoma (blood blisters); crush injuries.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 06:26 PM

DC, what about injuries?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 Aug 19 - 04:15 AM

My manual isn't specific about injuries. An on-line US site MedilinePlus gives:

An injury is damage to your body.

Wounds are injuries that break the skin or other tissues.

"Other tissues" would allow for bruises, blood blisters and the like. Whether bone counts as tissue is up for discussion.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 19 - 05:12 AM

Bone is definitely tissue.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Aug 19 - 08:37 AM

If nothimg is broken, not skin nor other tissue, what is injured?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 Aug 19 - 11:14 AM

Strains and sprains may involve the the tearing of muscle or ligaments but could involve only stretching, without tearing. This would still be an injury, and very painful at that.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Aug 19 - 03:21 PM

Just noticed in an advert that some supplement or other had been 'Scientifically researched'.

That's nice.

Scientifically proven? ... "we don't claim that."
Scientifically demonstrated to be safe? ... "We only researched it. Maybe, maybe not."
Or,at least as good as a placebo? "Not telling you"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 27 Aug 19 - 10:36 AM

Good point, DMcG.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Aug 19 - 10:41 AM

Man-bag or man-bun. It's a bag or a bun, no matter what the shape of the skin between your legs. If you carry a purse it's a purse, regardless of gender. Of the carrier thereof.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 27 Aug 19 - 10:45 AM

I sometimes dislike the common names which the American Ornithological Union assigns to birds.

Northern cardinal. Why? There is no southern cardinal. There's pyrroluxia, (sp) which could quality as a southern cardinal, but as far as I know, they haven't even given poor pyrroluxia a name.

House finch. A delightful little bird, brave and chipper. The male has a lovely wash of rosy pink on his breast. Why such a prosaic name? I have a friend who calls them raspberry sparrows.

Yellow-rumped warbler. We still call them myrtle warblers. I have a deal with the birds that I won't talk about their rumps if they won't talk about mine. In Florida, where they are rather common, I have heard them called butterbutts.
=========
Gotta go.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 19 - 04:50 PM

Well, speaking as a botanist and wildflower man, I appreciate the urge to impose vernacular names on wild animals and plants. We try to make the distinction between old country names and invented ones, but it's a distinction that can get blurred. Quite often, invented names are very attractive, and, let's face it, the alternative can be rather arcane Latin nomenclature, which few people appreciate and which, though scientifically invaluable, can sound pretentious and jargonistic. So I'm defending friendly-sounding made-up names for birds, beasts and wildflowers. And I do have a degree in botany...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 11:52 AM

The Union meets every five years and standardizes the vernacular names of birds. This is nothing to do with scientific name versus vernacular name.

It peeves me that some of the names they assign are ugly or illogical.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 12:39 PM

I suppose we don't have to use them. I know the Latin names of most of our wild flowers but even professional botanists, generally averse to jargon, often resort to to folk names or invented names. There are exceptions in the bird world. The wren will always be Troglodytes troglodytes to me, and the blackbird, even better, is Turdus vulgaris... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 12:42 PM

Logic is a little bird tweeting in the wilderness. Logic is a bunch of flowers, which smell *bad* [I paraphrase]...

Sorry, I could not help it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Aug 19 - 11:51 AM

Ooh and the way the media are still treating Puerto Rico as if it were not just as American as whatever states are about to have hurricanes.
When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 May 20 - 10:16 PM

IMDB description includes: okay western with a theme that's been done before in other films, namely "Duel at Diablo" several years later.

Time travel?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 May 20 - 11:44 AM

but sometimes both names are wonderful, eg birds foot trefoil and eggs and bacon.
the use of the words fucking and cunt unless you are derek and clive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYGy-j_oH5Q

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 05 May 20 - 12:37 PM

This isn't a peeve, just a confusion.

My church is having services via computer, and I just bought a micrunophone for that purpose. Meanwhile, we've all got used to the use of "un" as the all-round prefix to mean the opposite of an action.

So the screen had an icon of a microphone to show the mic is on. Good, so far. Under the mic is says Mute, meaning turn it off. Later it says Unmute meaning to turn off having the microphone turned off.

Then they drew a slanting red line through all that, apparently meaning Do Not Touch the thing that turns off the turning-off. in which case, why buy a mic?

I had to wait for a non-sacred moment to barge in and ask if people heard me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Barb'ry
Date: 05 May 20 - 02:16 PM

Probably already been mentioned but 'at this moment in time' drives me mad. We aren't (usually) talking about a moment in a circle. Then there is 'could of, would of' instead of 'have' and people saying, 'she gave it to myself'.
I could go on...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 May 20 - 02:40 PM

Well, Barb'ry, I've said it many times before, but if you're ever in my presence do NOT utter "prior to", "on a daily basis" or the shocking "albeit"... And as for "going forward"...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Reinhard
Date: 05 May 20 - 02:54 PM

Uh, Steve I was just going forward to confess that prior to your rant I was using proper grammar on a daily basis, albeit marred by not being a native English speaker. So there.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 May 20 - 04:05 PM

Some NPR people have stopped saying In 10 mn from now, which somehow makes those that still do more infuriating.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 May 20 - 04:16 PM

You're a genius, Reinhard! :-)

Now don't get me started on "paradigm shift", "touching base" and "low-hanging fruit"...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 05 May 20 - 09:21 PM

Just to be sure all those who share concerns about usage stay busy...

https://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=89383

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Reinhard
Date: 06 May 20 - 01:41 AM

Sorry Steve, can't and won't do that. I already picked all the low-hanging fruits in my last post. Now I would have to be touching base with my severely lacking creativity to achieve a paradigm shift to intelligently worded sentences. So I'd better stop here before I get in over my head.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 May 20 - 02:43 AM

has anyone heard the phrase.. going backwards

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 May 20 - 02:48 AM

Get in over your head, Reinhard? D'ye mean that this is above your pay grade?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 May 20 - 04:54 AM

Any mangling of the correct way of stating numbers and amounts.
This is not thread half-a-thousand.

It is FIVE HUNDRED

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 May 20 - 07:01 AM

It's a bit complicated is that one. It's less than four hundred miles from Bude to Manchester: good. Mrs Steve walked four miles yesterday but I walked only three, so I walked less miles than she did. Not so good...?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 May 20 - 08:53 AM

....so I walked less miles than she did

...so I walked fewer miles than she did, I would have thought.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 May 20 - 08:58 AM

yes, or, I walked less than she did. How about this Potato's

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 May 20 - 09:10 AM

I agree with you, Doug, more or fewer... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 May 20 - 09:20 AM

This is not thread half-a-thousand.

It is FIVE HUNDRED

And yet,
       "He bought a house for half a million pounds"
and
       "He bought a house for five hundred thousand pounds"
are equally acceptable.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 May 20 - 09:40 AM

Never thought about that but you're right, half a thousand is not a number but half a million is. Half a hundred is poetic (never saw a door shut so tight...)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Reinhard
Date: 06 May 20 - 09:40 AM

No Nigel, this is thread 132499, see the url. Your posting in this thread may have been number five-hundred.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 06 May 20 - 09:41 AM

I'm an editor, so my peeves are cast in bronze and carved in stone. Never cast in stone.

I guess my current biggest language peeve is the ubiquitous "passed away" and its even mincier little brother "passed". "In the midst of life we are in death," wrote dear old Tom Cramner, but not any more if you're a "nice" person.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 May 20 - 09:56 AM

... half a thousand is not a number but half a million is

The eggs that I buy in the supermarket come in boxes of 6 or 10. If I wanted someone to get me a small box, I would ask them to get me half a dozen. If I wanted a large box, I would ask for a box of ten, never half a score.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 06 May 20 - 01:08 PM

1) decade. I see sentences like this in the media all the time:

"Slightly less than two decades ago, she was the happy mother of four..."

The writer is a journalist and presumably has the facts. If it was 19 years, say so. Better yet, say "In 2001, she was the happy mother..."

2) Most where almost should be used. "Most everybody enjoys ice cream." arrgh!   

3) Alright instead of all right. I guess alright was born of its visual similarity to already, but already isn't the same as all ready.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 May 20 - 02:47 PM


"Slightly less than two decades ago, she was the happy mother of four..."

The writer is a journalist and presumably has the facts. If it was 19 years, say so. Better yet, say "In 2001, she was the happy mother..."

It might not have been 19 years ago. 18 yrs and 9 months would still qualify as "slightly less than 2 decades". It might not have been 2001. Anything after June 2000 would be less than 2 decades.

Our language is full of synonyms. Just because you prefer one doesn't make the others wrong. As I said somewhere up-thread, life would be pretty boring if communication was restricted to an approved list of basic words. Variety is the spice of life.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: weerover
Date: 06 May 20 - 05:11 PM

"cast in stone" works for me. The mould could be carved from stone and molten metal poured into it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 06 May 20 - 09:43 PM

leeneia: "Alright" has been made into a mark of illiteracy, but this IMO is one case where the illiterates have the better of the argument. Just as "already" is not the same as "all ready", so "they were alright" (they were acceptable) is not the same as "they were all right" (all of them were right). Note the difference in pronunciation.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 May 20 - 11:23 PM

Good point about half a dozen v score!

There's a limerick there but that would be thread drift.

Anyway, also visualize is not see, it is imagine you see, or use technology to see. But seeing is seeing, not visualizing.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: robomatic
Date: 07 May 20 - 01:05 AM

I'm not sure what is wrong with half-a-thousand.

On the other hand, if you say thousand and a half, do you mean:
1,500.
Or
1,000.5

???

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 May 20 - 01:31 AM

I wouldn’t say “A thousand and a half”, I’d say “One-and-a-half-thousand”.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 20 - 05:10 AM

I find the confusion between singulars and plurals to be a very disturbing phenomena.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 07 May 20 - 05:21 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 20 - 05:47 AM

Was it I who rendered you speechless, Doug?

Don't get me started on the gross misuse of "alternate" when what is meant is "alternative." It's become so common that dictionaries are even including it as valid. I blame The Monkees. Them and their "Alternate Title"...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 20 - 05:48 AM

Or is that a mute point?


Grrr...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 May 20 - 09:44 AM

Since the dictionary decided to define literal as figurative rather than list that as a common misuse, I don't trust dictionary definitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 20 - 10:57 AM

It's not the role of dictionaries to decide what is correct usage or misuse. They are there to reflect how people use language. They may refer to slang or colloquialism or informal use of words, but no decent dictionary ever passes judgement on what is "correct usage."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 May 20 - 11:13 AM

It *is* the job of a dictionary to define words correctly. They can say "often used to mean Literally" but not define it as such.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 07 May 20 - 11:22 AM

This one really is a "pet" peeve, as I suspect that it is me that is out of step, rather than everyone else, but it still irritates me when I hear it:-

If the Bank of England announces an interest rate rise from, say, 2.25% to 2.5%, I would say that there has been a rise of a quarter of a per cent. The BBC would announce that there has been a rise of a quarter of one per cent. All the other TV channels do the same, which makes me think that I am wrong but I don't care - I am going to carry on saying it the way I want to.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: robomatic
Date: 07 May 20 - 11:23 AM

There was a series of highly popular and historically well loved detective books following the career of highly sequestered master solver Nero Wolfe. They were written during his lifetime by Rex Stout, and in one of them, Wolfe is tearing apart a newly released dictionary for confusing 'infer' with 'imply'. He is then feeding it to his wastebasket in which he has a small fire. I'm pretty sure it was a real dictionary, a real conflation, and Rex Stout was putting his opinion into his work, probably justifiably (other than the indoor fire aspect).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 07 May 20 - 12:07 PM

This may already have been mentioned - I haven't read through the whole thread. But it always makes me smile when people use the word 'literally' in the wrong context.
For example, "She was literally on fire with anger."
Or, "He must literally have been turning in his grave..."
Makes me literally foam at the mouth!!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 20 - 12:37 PM

Yes but Doug, there is no such thing as "a per cent." "A quarter of a per cent" simply doesn't make grammatical sense. I know it's used, and we're accustomed to it. Saying "a quarter of one per cent" may sound like a lugubrious way of putting it, but at least it's grammatically correct. And I'm certain of that one hundred and ten percent...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 May 20 - 02:10 PM

Robomatic:
You're probably right: "They were written during his lifetime by Rex Stout," I don't believe he wrote anything posthumously.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 08 May 20 - 03:23 AM

Referring back to earlier posts, "half a thousand" may well mean five hundred, but to an engineer, "half a thou" doesn't!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 08 May 20 - 05:53 AM

What about people who say 'fine toothcomb', with the stress on 'tooth', as if it were a device for combing teeth! What they mean is 'fine-toothed comb', with the stress on 'comb'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: weerover
Date: 08 May 20 - 06:19 AM

G-Force, this used to be one that really grated on me, but when I looked up Chambers Dictionary to prove my point I found it does have the word "toothcomb", defined as "a fine-tooth(ed) comb".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 May 20 - 08:48 AM

They keep reporting on coronavirus being in men's semen. I guess women's semen is still safe, and children's?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 08 May 20 - 10:37 AM

Me, I'm sick of the phrase "tough love." It's been around since 1968, and I suspect it's used to disguise mean and immature behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 May 20 - 08:54 AM

That it is. Right along with This hurts me more than it does you.

Also correcting use of regular English to mean only what a jargon term means. For instance anyone in armed forces is, in plain English, a soldier, but in military jargon that term excludes the navy, air force, marines and coast guard.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 11 May 20 - 09:42 AM

Tough love is usually torture

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 May 20 - 10:35 AM

I thought tough love was when you couldn't win any points in tennis for ages.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 12 May 20 - 03:46 AM

... anyone in armed forces is, in plain English, a soldier ...

In plain English, a soldier is not a sailor and a sailor is not a soldier.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 12 May 20 - 07:13 AM

I’m with Doug on the soldier/sailor thing. Some sailors are civilians, otherwise known as merchant mariners or yachtsmen.

Ain’t no such thing as a civilian soldier.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 12 May 20 - 07:19 AM

In the US, right wing armed militias are citizen soldiers of sorts.
but point taken

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 May 20 - 07:47 AM

If I refer to someone in the military as a soldier, I am not *wrong* even if they are in some other branch of the military than specifically in the army.

I may be imprecise, but not incorrect.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 12 May 20 - 08:18 AM

If I refer to someone in the military as a soldier, I am not *wrong* even if they are in some other branch of the military than specifically in the army.

I may be imprecise, but not incorrect.

That is a matter of opinion. As far as I am concerned, you are wrong. For me, "soldier" only means someone in the army, not any other branch of the armed forces. The imprecise nature of the information leads to confusion and, thus, fails the basic requirements of communication.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 20 - 08:38 AM

I've been accused of coming the old soldier when I've suffered from man flu. I've never been in the armed forces.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 12 May 20 - 09:27 AM

I'm sorry, Mrrzy, but it is indeed wrong to apply the word "soldier" to any member of the armed forces without distinction.

Every European language, without exception, has specific words to distinguish soldiers from sailors, even those serving in warships, and I'll bet money that Asian and Semitic languages do, too. The line between soldiers and airmen is a bit fuzzy, but only a bit; it is, after all, only a century since the first air forces were split off from their parent ground forces. But seamen have never been soldiers, even in antiquity.

We Canadians are rather more aware of the nomenclature issue that most people. Between 1964 and 1968, our armed services were first integrated and then unified to form the Canadian Armed Forces as they exist today, and the old rank and trade structure and terminology were swept away with the stroke of Parliament's pen. The Royal Canadian Navy was severely discombobulated; suddenly, no one knew what to call the person in command of the ship because, suddenly, a captain was a junior officer. I have a lovely photograph from 1965, showing a bearded man in a sailor suit with the crossed anchors of a Petty Officer 2nd Class on the sleeve as he hoists the new flag (the Maple Jack, as my Dad always called it) at HMCS Gloucester, a shore station. The caption, written in the politically correct form of the time, identifies the bunting tosser as Sgt(S) -- that is, Sergeant (Sea) -- John Doe.

Of course, it did not last. Most of the naval ranks never went away in real life -- by 1972, when I joined up, Petty Officers were Petty Officers again -- but ships never got their captains back; they had morphed into Commanding Officers, and their First Lieutenants had become Executive Officers, as in the U.S. Navy.

By the way, the fact that matelots of the Royal Navy (British, that is) were occasionally organized to fight more or less as infantry or artillery only proves the rule. There's a famous print from the Illustrated London News (I think) showing sailors in square rig attacking the walls of Lucknow ... with naval guns that they had hauled all the way from Calcutta.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 12 May 20 - 09:52 AM

Okay, Donuel, now it's your turn.

The armed yahoos you referred to as "citizen soldiers" are neither militia nor soldiers; they're wannabe Rambos who lack the discipline and good will to get through boot camp in the flipping National Guard.

The expression "citizen soldier" was coined in Britain early in the 20th century to get people used to the idea of the Territorial Army. Here's an example: "Working and Shirking" by Bernard Partidge

It means a Reservist, a person with a civilian job, or perhaps a student, who is also a signed-up, sworn-in member of the Army and subject to its discipline. A true citizen soldier would find himself in a heap of trouble if he pulled an idiot stunt like that demonstration in Michigan.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion's brother Andrew
Date: 12 May 20 - 01:58 PM

Members of Canada's Regular Force are barred from participation in party politics: "We're here to protect democracy, not practice it!" Members of the Reserve Force may take part, but they should try hard not to be noticeable. Our brother, a reservist on full-time duty, was a paid-up member of the Liberal Party and had a membership card, but did not sign it. (That did not stop Charmion and me from teasing him about it.) Participation in "an idiot stunt like that demonstration in Michigan" would get you shown the door if not tried for "conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 May 20 - 04:30 PM

I grew up using, and hearing other people use, the word soldier for any military person, sorry all. Vernacular, not jargon. Only people *in* the military differentiated soldiers by branch of military (jargon, not vernacular). The first time I was corrected was in the aughties, so for 40 years, and probably decades if not centuries before that, soldier was the accepted generic used by civilians.

As a non-military person I wonder, do y'all in the military have a generic word for person in armed forces? If not, then soldier it still is.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 12 May 20 - 05:44 PM

I am a non-military person but I would use "servicemen" as the generic term. If I wanted to be fully inclusive, I might say service men and women or, alternatively, service personnel.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 May 20 - 07:31 PM

So no single word. I'll stick with soldier, then.

Also an individual is not a troop. I hear on the news Three troops died when they mean three nembers of the armed forces (see, I did not say soldier!).

How many are in a brazillion again?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 12 May 20 - 09:21 PM

Mrrzy, you won’t be told, will you? You remind me of my Uncle who used the pronoun “she” for all cats, including the tabby tomcat who slept on his bed every night, and English people of my grandparents’ generation who insisted Irish people are British.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Gurney
Date: 12 May 20 - 11:43 PM

The members of a troop of service-men are troopers, not troops. They were still called that when I was one. -Good grief, 60 years ago.

A TV programme which I watch now and then is named 'Mysteries at the Museum (or its variant ...at the Monument')and I hope all we contributors to this thread will watch it. and hurl abuse at the presenters for their misuse of language. Some of them think a skeleton is an artifact. None of them seem to use the term 'exhibit.'

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 13 May 20 - 01:45 AM

I just googled "maps of the British Isles", and google brought up 20 maps. Ireland was in every one.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 May 20 - 02:11 AM

Geographically, The British Isles include Ireland. You seem to be confusing The British Isles with The United Kingdom. If you google ‘maps of the United Kingdom‘, the island of Ireland will be included, but the ROI will be indicated as separate from the UK- often by the absence of detail.

From britannica.com

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 May 20 - 07:57 AM

Sorry, Leeneia, I should have said, “Are you sure you aren’t conflating The British Isles with The United Kingdom?”.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 May 20 - 09:35 AM

Yeah, no, I'm way better at being explained to than being told!

The English language needs a one-word word for something as common as "member of the armed forces" - if we can't use Soldier any more, what is being proposed? Warrior doesn't work as it includes fighters who aren't in the armed forces. Patsy is an opinion, not a descriptor. So...?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 13 May 20 - 10:27 AM

Mrzy, just wondering where you grew up, hearing "soldier" as such a generic term? I've never encountered it that way, so I'm assuming it is, to some degree, a regional usage ... ?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 May 20 - 10:35 AM

Mrrzy, I think our common language is dividing us again, and you’re assuming that US-ian practices and standards apply elsewhere outside the US.

Sorry, but it just ain’t so! I can assure you that, in the UK, a soldier is a member of the army - the army only. Nobody here would call a member of the RN or the RAF a ‘soldier’ - it would be thought of as ridiculous. We would most likely use the term ‘Servicemen/women’ as a global descriptor for members of the armed forces.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 13 May 20 - 11:11 AM

Mrrzy, look at it this way.

Cats and dogs and budgerigars and hamsters are all pets. No one says hamsters are cats because it's easier.

Jenovah's Witnesses and Amish and Mennonites and Doukhobors have an important thing in common: they believe that war is always wrong and refuse military service. No one uses the word "Quaker" to refer to them all collectively; we say "conscientious objector" or "pacifist".

So soldiers, sailors, aviators and marines are all ... what? Members of the armed forces. Military personnel (although sailors who studied Latin in school will wince at that). Service personnel. In French, des militaires.

If you know someone well enough to comment on her occupation, you know if she's a soldier or a sailor or a wrench-bender in the Air Force. If you don't, but still wish to comment, you say "She's in the forces, but I'm not sure what she does."

If it's the 11th of November and you're in Ottawa, and it's not raining too hard, you go to the Cenotaph for the ... military parade. The sailors are at the front, because the Navy takes the right of the line in a mixed contingent (NB: in British and Commonwealth forces).

But on the first Sunday in May, the people holding up traffic on Confederation Square are all in dark blue uniforms because it's Battle of the Atlantic Sunday. So it's a ... naval parade.

Journalists who don't know any better occasionally refer to a "military ship". Their editors, who do know better, promptly change that to "naval vessel" or "warship", depending on whether it's a destroyer or a diving tender.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 May 20 - 11:37 AM

I grew up overseas, mostly in African ex-French colonies, 60's and 70's. The English speakers did not distinguish among the various armed forces. We had Marines guarding the embassy (and partying, shooting pool, going to beaches), but they did not argue terminology when lumped in with other members of other armed forces if we used the term Soldier as a generic. Like I said, the first time I was corrected was in the aughties, in NC.

The French speakers also used "soldat" for any military person. Newspapers did not use "troop" to mean individual member of armed forces. That is newspeak, like the horribly oxymoronic, or just moronic, term Peacekeepers. Requiring a civilian (whether Quaker or other conscientious objector, or just ignorant -or uncaring- of details of uniforms) to know which branch some rando is in before referring to them is just plain silly.

Like I said, English (US, UK or whatever) needs a one-word, simple, generic term for "member of the armed forces" -so does French, and so do all languages whose speakers want to talk about those waging war. So if y'all don't want people to use the word Soldier, please propose something.

Next I'll be hearing that continuing to use Literally to mean Not Figuratively is incorrect. Sorry, but it's not, even though enough people use it to mean Figuratively that it's gotten into the dictionary. It may be common usage, but it is still wrong.

Now my use of Soldier may be common but still wrong, sure. What I ask is, what is right?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 May 20 - 11:49 AM

This from an old dictionary, online: look at def 1, first two clauses: A man engaged in military service, one whose occupation is military. Then yes in army, then back to just being anyone in the military.

SOLDIER, noun soljur. [from Latin solidus, a piece of money, the pay of a soldier ]

1. A man engaged in military service; one whose occupation is military; a man enlisted for service in an army; a private, or noe in the ranks. There ought to be some time for sober reflection between the life of a soldier and his death.

2. A man enrolled for service, when on duty or embodied for military discipline; a private; as a militia soldier

3. Emphatically, a brave warrior; a man of military experience and skill, or a man of distinguished valor. In this sense, an officer of any grade may be denominated a soldier

So, um, yeah. It really did not used to be limited to *army* military people. I am not making it up! It could, in usage, apparently exclude officers, but not, say, Marines.

If it is to become limited to army, what is the new generic? If nobody volunteered we could use Draftee, but that doesn't work right now.

I am *old* eh.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 13 May 20 - 11:55 AM

In English, there is no collective generic noun *at present* to match the French "militaire". The American singular usage of "troop" is a good example of how some English speakers are still struggling to find one, and I imagine that a word will emerge to do the job sometime before I die.

Or maybe not. English is weird in many ways, and this is one.

(BTW, "soldat" is not generic in most of the Francosphere; it is the ground-pounding counterpart of "matelot". The accepted generic in French Canada is "militaire".)

In Canada, where the armed services have been a singular since 1968, the adjective "military" is approaching the status of collective noun for the services themselves, as in "the military is the biggest source of government spending", or, "he's in the military so he's never home". But we have no accepted generic noun for individual persons. "Serviceman" was the word in 1950, but that doesn't work any more with so many women in the ranks.

I don't like "in the military", but I'm an Olde Pharte and an editor at that. At least it's better than using "soldier" for everybody who wears the National Tweed.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 May 20 - 12:08 PM

Serviceman/Servicewoman?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 13 May 20 - 12:14 PM

Since we're doing etymology, take a look at "military". It derives from miles, militis, a soldier.

Nautical or navy arise from nauta, nautae, a sailor.

Why did the word for a coin give us the word for "soldier"? Because back in the day, a soldier was a warrior who accepted his recompense (salary, from the soldier's ration of salt) from the state through his commander; all the other warriors got theirs in the form of loot.

In the British tradition, the personnel of the Navy remained ad hoc far longer than that of the Army -- well up into the 19th century, in fact -- hence the whole thing of the press gang. Soldiers did go to sea, but their status was so different that the language quickly acquired a special word for them: Marines. And they are not sailors, and never have been. (Just ask one.)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 13 May 20 - 12:19 PM

Miriam-Webster dictionary gives Serviceperson as a member of the armed forces.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 13 May 20 - 12:40 PM

Most people in Canada, I believe, simply use "in the forces" (or "farces", depending on the mood); e.g., "he's in the forces, so they move around a lot". It would be rare to hear, "he's a soldier ...."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 May 20 - 12:56 PM

Serviceman/woman requires looking under, not just at, the uniform.

Matelot is sailor whether in the military or not, I thought...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 May 20 - 01:12 PM

Serviceperson doesn’t, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 13 May 20 - 01:25 PM

Matelot is a sailor whether in the NAVY or not.

Like I said, way up thread, a sailor can be a civilian, as in a merchant mariner or a yachtsman.

Meself is correct. Canadians tend to recast the sentence, saying "he's in the forces". Or "farces", depending on their experience of life in The Mob.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 May 20 - 05:46 PM

Yeah, I don't like -person as a gender-neutral (and this from a non-binary human!) - I say Chair, not Chairperson, for instance. Chairperson just sounds made-up and lip-service-y. Serviceperson is ok as invented terms go, but we already *have* soldier as an organic, gender- and service-neutral term...
I gather it's not neutral to people *in* the services but I'm not, so I'm ok with that.

I'm a pain. I want to be referred to in the 3rd person as They, which isn't going over well either...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 13 May 20 - 08:54 PM

Mrrzy, you’re paddling upstream on that one. English doesn’t go there yet.

If that’s the hill you’ve chosen to die on, you may have to move to a place where German or Spanish is spoken.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 20 - 09:06 PM

We have lady policemen in Cornwall.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Gurney
Date: 13 May 20 - 09:16 PM

Isn't this good!   The English language, in terms of number of accepted words, is by far the largest in the world. There are more words therein than there are in the next TWO largest languages, French and German.

And here we are, lumbered with a population hell-bent on adding to it!

Such a shame that these lumberers aren't lexicographers reviving currently semi-forgotten words. In my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 May 20 - 01:21 PM

German has neuter but then doesn't use it for neuter things. Table is masculine. Sun is feminine. Maiden is neuter. Sigh.

Spanish and French have masculine and feminine but no neuter. I use both in written French, e.g. je suis content(e). Spoken is more difficult... I tend to pause after Content, then pronounce the T.

In Spanish the noun Mar (sea) is masculine unless you are a sailor, when it becomes feminine.
In French, the noun Amour (love) is masculine in the singular and feminine in the plural. Now *that* tells you something!

The funniest was someone appropriately using They (referring to me) at which point I almost said No, that was me. Learning curves all around.

I wonder what people thought while You, originally plural (thee was the singular), was shifting to mean the singular as well...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 14 May 20 - 01:57 PM

GB Shaw, said (as you are all aware): "In German, a turnip has sex but a woman does not."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 14 May 20 - 06:37 PM

Mrrzy: In Bible English, the singular forms were thou, thee, thy, thine, and the plural forms were ye, you, your, yours. However (as in many European languages), it was considered polite to use the plural form in addressing a superior. That worked its way down to addressing equals, and by Shakespeare's time it was getting to be an insult to "thou" someone (other than God).

In other languages the process has not gone so far; it is a sign of intimacy to use the "thou" forms. In German, there is actually a ceremony for that: you drink a toast while linking elbows, and thereafter you are buddies or sweethearts and call each other du instead of sie. When I studied Russian we learned an amusing list of persons whom one still called "ty" instead of "vy": family, close friends, children, animals, God, and the Tsar.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 May 20 - 01:10 AM

Fascinating , i must remember that ,next time i talk to the Tsar

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 15 May 20 - 05:00 AM

The English singular form can still be heard in the Yorkshire dialect.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 15 May 20 - 05:45 AM

Indeed. I can still remember my university digs landlord in Sheffield saying " A tha goin' to't match?" (Definitely the Blades, not the Owls).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 May 20 - 07:35 AM

Quakers like my grandpa said Thee to family and other Quakers.
I still wonder what people thought as You took over from Thee. Whippersnappers being cold and distant, probably.
Hungarian has 4 grammatical levels of politeness: regular conjugation 2nd person singular (like Tu) for peers, children, animals, gods; a self-type of conjugation (like And how is himself today?) for showing respect to social inferiors like street sweepers; regular 3nd person conjugation for kids-to-adults or work colleagues etc, and a "pleases" 3rd person like Does it please to come this way) for old folks. I have gotten into trouble with these.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe MacGillivray
Date: 15 May 20 - 10:34 AM

In regards to some of these recent posts: Soldier; in Gaelic, Soldier is saighdear which would come from archer.

Thu is singular and sibh is plural for you and youse respectfully. It also applies to age, how well you know the person or an authority figure. To keep it basic, I made it on singular and plural. The concept in Nova Scotia remains with some using youse as the plural.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 May 20 - 11:08 AM

I like the Southetn (US) y'all, for general plural, and All y'all for more inclusive plural.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 May 20 - 04:43 PM

my wife and me went for a walk, and i didnt say nothing

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 20 - 06:29 PM

"my wife and me went for a walk, and i didnt say nothing"

Get a grip, Dick. You mean:

my wife and me, like, went for a walk, and i didnt say nothing, innit"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 16 May 20 - 06:42 PM

A wise man once said nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 May 20 - 05:10 AM

Let me make it absolutely clear. The Government's policy is that both my wife and I should be able to take exercise whenever and wherever we choose and that our chosen form of exercise is walking. Current scientific evidence suggests that face masks could provide a barrier to communication but wearing one, together with social distancing, gives me increased confidence that my wife has received all the useful information I have to give at this time.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 May 20 - 06:52 AM

Let me say this about that...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 May 20 - 08:42 AM

I have to say...


(Not if you don't want, you don't have to!)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: weerover
Date: 17 May 20 - 09:12 AM

Watching a documentary about emergency services this morning, The commentator said one crash victim had damaged vertebrae "in her back" (actually it sounded like he said "vertebra" as the plural, but can't be sure).

I have a number of everyday ones that bug me inordinately, such as "I thought to myself": don't know who else you could think to.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 May 20 - 09:16 AM

I thought to myself

.. as against thinking out loud.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 May 20 - 09:27 AM

Thinking IS to oneself, yeah! That's why you have to say Out Loud when talking and not just thinking.
Thinking out loud is oxymoronic. Thinking to oneself is redundant.
I love this thread. I hadn't noticed either of those before.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 May 20 - 10:41 AM

Pleonasms can be quite entertaining. Our local BBC weatherman speaks of "dawn tomorrow morning" just about every day. Not quite as funny as DCI Grimm in the Thin Blue Line with his "8 AM in the morning hundred hours." "Tuna fish" is another belter. "ATM machine." HIV virus." A good Cloughie one: "In actual fact...". My much reviled "On a daily basis." Though I suppose Shakespeare might have done it on purpose in Julius Caesar when he had Mark Antony, standing over Caesar's bloodied body, saying that it was "the most unkindest cut of all."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 May 20 - 10:43 AM

"PIN number."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 May 20 - 12:01 PM

Rushing to catch the train, my umbrella fell out of my pocket.

Throwing the bread into the pond, the ducks ate it all up.

After spending decades in the attic, I uncovered my childhood school exercise books.

I chased the cat in my pyjamas out of the garden.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 May 20 - 01:39 PM

Love dangling participles.

I fell in love with a weather forecaster when they read the teleprompter which said Ground Fog, stopped, turned to the camera and said Well of course it's *ground*! If it weren't on the ground it'd be up in the air and be *clouds*!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 May 20 - 07:02 PM

Which is it, You and *what* army or Tou and *whose* army? They are differently disdainful to me. I would think England v. US but I've heard both from both.
Shrek comes to mind, American movie but nonAmerican English-speaking ogre.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 May 20 - 07:42 PM

If anyone has translator notes for that last post, please forward....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 18 May 20 - 11:25 AM

In my part of the world, Mrrzy, it's "you and whose army?"

Shrek is voiced by an English-born Canadian actor, Mike Myers, whose family emigrated from Liverpool to Scarborough, a suburb of Toronto, when he was a child.

George MacDonald Fraser quotes "you and whose army" in one of his short stories about life in a post-war Scottish infantry regiment, collected in one volume as The Complete MacAuslan. If I recall correctly, Shrek has a Scottish accent, and Myers (or the scriptwriter) may have added the insult because it is a typical bit of Glaswegian repartee.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion's brother Andrew
Date: 18 May 20 - 12:39 PM

Mike Myers was born in Scarberia, not Liverpool. ("Scarberia" is the nickname given to the dreary suburb of Toronto that is known for too much asphalt and too few trees.) His reputation for being "difficult to work with" comes in part from the making of "Shrek." He recorded the voice in his Canadian accent, was not happy with the result and asked to re-record it. The second go at it he did with his "Scots" accent.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 May 20 - 12:53 PM

Shrek said "...and what army?" but Dick Francis wrote "...and whose army?" so given the clarification (of my definitely unclear post, speaking of peeves) I think What may be North American and Whose from (geographically if not politically) Europe.

Imma switch to Whose. It means to me that even *with* an army *you* couldn't do it. I love the added layer of sneer.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 18 May 20 - 12:53 PM

..... because it is a typical bit of Glaswegian repartee.

I agree that it is "You and whose army" but it is not limited to Glasgow. It was a common bit bravado when I was growing up in Liverpool. If the actor's family came from Liverpool, maybe that's where he picked it up.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 May 20 - 01:12 PM

Ok different peeve: when someone is killed BY something, say so, newspaper folk. Headlines saying Woman killed after being run over makes it sound like she survived being run over only to be shot or something afterwards.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 20 - 03:56 PM

"The widow of the late Mr Smith...". :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 May 20 - 04:46 PM

At least they said Widow. I watch a lot of murder mysteries where they say Wife or Husband of (murder victim). Yes, that peeves me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 18 May 20 - 08:50 PM

On the subject of untimely death, I am always irked when I read that someone has been shot “by a gun”.

Latin has this neat thing where you put the noun in a special form (or “case”) to indicate whether it is the direct object (accusative), indirect object (dative), or something else but still related to the verb (ablative). One of the several things the ablative does is indicate that a thing is the agent through which an action happens, and you translate it using the preposition “with”.

I really wish English had an ablative case so journalists would write “by a bad guy with a gun”.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 May 20 - 09:03 PM

Or just say shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 18 May 20 - 09:55 PM

Mrrzy: When I was a kid in southern California (1940s), my mother made it "You and what troop of Marines?". I don't know where she got it from. She came from the Middle West.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 18 May 20 - 10:14 PM

When I was growing up in south-western Ontario, "you and whose army?" was a question I was often asked, so I don't associate it with Liverpool or Glasgow or anywhere else. As for Mike Meyers, he came along a little later, so it might have a different association for him; I don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 May 20 - 11:00 PM

Fascinating geographical study there.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 May 20 - 05:37 AM

On the subject of untimely death, I am always irked when I read that someone has been shot “by a gun”.

-------- : --------

Or just say shot.


OK, it should be shot "with a gun" rather than shot "by a gun" and, normally, "shot" would do without further qualification; but - just to be picky - it could have been "shot with a crossbow" or "shot with an arrow". In fact, though it might be technically incorrect, I think I would accept "shot by an arrow" without flinching.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 20 - 05:45 AM

I saw this beauty somewhere once, possibly an obituary in the local rag (made-up names inserted): "Albert married the late Margaret in 1949..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 20 - 05:50 AM

Helen Willetts, a BBC weather presenter, once informed us that " the overnight rain had washed the humidity out of the air." :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 May 20 - 08:51 AM

In the US at least, shot defaults to gun. You would specify if a bow were used.

Note I would say shot with a bow, not with an arrow, as I would say gun, not bullet.

Here's one that bugs me: stray bullet. No, it didn't get out the side door while the shooter wasn't paying attention. The vic was just not the *intended* target.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 19 May 20 - 09:59 AM

"Stray bullet" is one of those phrases that contains a whole 'nother story. Like "collateral damage".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 19 May 20 - 10:40 AM

He got shot so he got his shots, became blood shot and now he is totally shot after drinking 17 shots.

I shot a 'bow' in the air where it landed I know not where?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 20 - 11:33 AM

Heheh. Nice one, Donuel. :-)

I'm feeling a little shot at this afternoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 May 20 - 11:53 AM

But did you get shot of your ex?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 20 - 11:57 AM

Up north we'd often say get shut of something rather than get shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 19 May 20 - 01:09 PM

I took a shot of Ms. Lohan but it was overexposed.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 19 May 20 - 01:31 PM

The word viri did not go viral but how about virosphere

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 20 - 02:49 PM

It didn't go viral because it isn't the plural of virus. There are also no hippopotami, octopi or fora.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 May 20 - 05:55 PM

Waitri. Mattri. Stewardi.

But ... Octopodes.

Please don't say "face to face" when you mean on video.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 20 May 20 - 12:19 AM

I hate the word 'gunman.' I even wrote to the customer liason at my paper about it. For one thing, when a word comes in only one sex (because we never speak of gunwomen), there is probably something wrong with the word. The only exceptions are obviously sex-linked things such as breastfeeding or donating sperm.

I hate the thought that the press is leading fools and thugs who shot defenseless people to strut around thinking, "Yeah, I'm a gunman." The term gives them dignity they don't deserve.

And it's not logical. If I use my electric mixer, do I become a mixerwoman? No, I am not changed. Neither does a man who fires a gun become a gunman.
====================
Mrrzy, I agree with you 100% about 'stray bullet'. As my husband says, "Every person who pulls a trigger knows a bullet is going somewhere."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 20 May 20 - 02:47 AM

Except, Leeneia, the word "man" has at least two different meanings: (1) the animal species homo sapiens or a member thereof, man as opposed to beast, and (2) an adult male human, man as opposed to woman or child. OED lists about a dozen more I believe. Confusion arises because one definition includes the other. Some of us primary school kids found the idea of (say) a lady chairman a bit bewildering, but we got used to the idea.

So "gunman" is 1st meaning - inclusive - because we don't have gunwomen. But we do have gun dogs and, once upon a time, had gun mules.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 20 May 20 - 03:29 AM

A pronunciation which has been creeping for some time now, used by female TV news presenters, is adding an extra syllable to words such as 'three' and 'thread' - so they become 'the-ree' and 'the-read'. Perhaps it's done for emphasis, or perhaps it's because they never learned the correct pronunciation in the first place. (I am inclined to believe the latter)

Interestingly, the blokes don't do it. It seems to be girl thing.

Either way, it gives me a strong does of the irrits.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Peter the Squeezer
Date: 20 May 20 - 05:09 AM

The one that really makes me cringe, is when paying by credit / debit card, being asked to enter my "PIN number".

Does this refer to my "Personal Identification Number Number"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 May 20 - 11:53 AM

Today a headline said Trump has a real shot of winning.

No, he may have good odds of winning, but he has a shot AT winning.

And barf, but that's not a language peeve.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 20 May 20 - 12:09 PM

Might as well give up on prepositions now, and be right with the times. I advise you to start deliberately using the wrong prepositions, just to get used to it. Anyway: I'm getting bored of this discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 20 May 20 - 06:55 PM

"Rolling gun battle". Like gunman, this is a journalist expression which gives false dignity to abhorrent behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 20 - 09:36 AM

In today's Bude and Stratton Post: "The funeral for the late Lucy Williams was held on February 6th..."

Nice to know she was definitely dead...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 May 20 - 10:53 AM

If she liked motorboats she could also have a wake.

Um, read today in an advice column: ...it is normal to feel lost, depressed and hatred after...

The "lost, depressed and hatred" bugs me. Is there actually anything wrong with it?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 21 May 20 - 11:29 AM

Not sure it's "wrong", but it's exceedingly awkward. The weakness is that "lost" and "depressed" are adjectives, while "hatred" is a noun, so the construction is inconsistent; however, all three words work with the verb "feel", so I would not be confident calling it "wrong".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 21 May 20 - 11:33 AM

Actually, I'm sure it is "wrong", but I lack the grammatical sophistication to explain why beyond what I said in my previous post.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 21 May 20 - 11:36 AM

Yes, Mrrzy, there is something actually wrong with it.

I will now dispense a crumb of editorial information. I normally charge for this service, but I like you.

Most highly literate readers are bothered by lists in which one of the things is not like the others. The person who wrote "It is normal to feel lost, depressed and hatred" chose those three words because s/he thought, "These are all things people feel". But "lost" and "depressed" are adjectives, and "hatred" is a noun, and that is the source of your bug.

To avoid irking the readership, that sentence should run, "It is normal to feel loss, depression and hatred after ...", or "It is normal to hate, and to feel lost and depressed, after ..."

This bug can be a feature in the hands of a master:

"She lowered her standards by raising her glass,
Her courage, her eyes, and his hopes."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 May 20 - 11:42 AM

I like you too!

Yeah, it was the asymmetry (if you will) of adjective adjective noun, even though all could be "felt" ...

But I wasn't sure if there were an actual grammatical *rule* about it.

So, thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 21 May 20 - 11:46 AM

Further to my last, it is "wrong" because the reader is jolted out of the flow of the message to think about something else. That is an error because the writer's first priority is to keep the reader engaged with the message; as soon as readers are wondering what is hinky here, the writer may never get them back to the message.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 20 - 12:04 PM

It is wrong. Try removing one of the two adjectives: "It is normal to feel lost and hatred"; It is normal to feel depressed and hatred..." See what I mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion's brother Andrew
Date: 21 May 20 - 12:11 PM

I am always up for some Flanders, Swann and Madeira, M'Dear.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 21 May 20 - 12:31 PM

Leeneia, I am in the middle of editing a bit, fat book (not my first by a long shot) that is full of gun battles, but I have never seen or heard one described as "rolling".

If the combatants are moving while fighting -- for example, a convoy of vehicles is ambushed on the road, and the drivers try to escape the attack but the ambush force chases them -- the fight could be described as a "running" gun battle. Another form of running battle is one in which one group follows another, attacking whenever the target group moves into an area that gives the attackers some advantage and laying off when the target group finds cover.

"Rolling" gun battle sounds like a journalist messing with "running" battle, probably out of ignorance.

Your post raises a bigger issue, however. In your last line, you imply disapproval of any description of abhorrent behaviour that does not state that it is abhorrent. As an editor who specializes in military subjects, I must disagree.

When discussing abhorrent behaviour, the good writer does not write, "This was awful". It is far more effective to describe the event and let the readers figure out for themselves just how abhorrent it was. (Journalists say, "Show, don't tell.") The book I'm working on right now is about the war in Afghanistan, and it is full of bombs that killed civilians, including children. If the author wrote, in every mention of an IED strike (there are hundreds) that it is a heinous act of indiscriminate cruelty, readers would quickly get the idea that the author's first priority is to demonizing the IED-layers. Frankly, that is not interesting. Also, it's not the point.

I don't read much about the Holocaust any more -- I think I know enough about it after more than 50 years of studying war and its effects -- but, even when I was young and revelations of the Nazi program still had some novelty, the accounts that dwelt on the heinousness of the whole thing were the weakest. The most effective works focussed on why it happened and how, and discussed the cost to the perpetrators and those who supported them as well as the victims.

Of course, even the most abhorrent events must still be reported and studied, although it is difficult to read about them. Otherwise, they would slip into the rear-view mirror of our culture and we might forget all about them.

Writing about violence is very difficult. It is easy to slip into gore-porn, or to indulge in propaganda and fantasies of revenge -- that's the big challenge of both war journalism and military history. An account written while the memory is fresh will be full of passion, and the purple prose that comes from it, but opinions change as time passes, the emotions may seem inappropriate, and the purple prose can become distasteful.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: weerover
Date: 21 May 20 - 01:57 PM

"I feel lost, depressed and hatred" is a rhetorical device called syllepsis.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 May 20 - 02:39 PM

Ooh it has a name, cool.

Ran across this reading an old English novel: usen’t to have.

I would say Didn't use to have.

But I kinda like Usen't to. I think I'll try to adopt it.

Now off to research that new word you taught me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 21 May 20 - 03:14 PM

I would say that 'syllepsis' is a 'rhetorical device' only when it is being used as a rhetorical device; i.e., for effect. In Mrzy's quotation, this does not appear to be the case. No doubt it could still be called 'syllepsis', but it is not syllepsis as a rhetorical device or figure of speech, but rather as careless writing, if not outright error.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 21 May 20 - 03:16 PM

Mrzy: I do hope you would say, "Didn't useD to have"!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 21 May 20 - 03:16 PM

I word that detest is "gobsmacked". It is an ugly word which gets my hackles up whenever I hear it.

Before posting, I checked back through this thread to see if anyone else had raised it as a pet peeve but what I found was quite the opposite. Someone had used it to complain about his own pet peeve.
Grr!

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 21 May 20 - 03:40 PM

I should explain that "rolling gun battle" is an American journalist's cliche for when criminals shoot at each other from moving cars. Obviously the potential for hitting the innocent is enormous.

Such a thing occurred in front of my grocery store yesterday. One passerby was injured, we don't know how seriously. Both cars crashed, something which comes as no surprise in a neighborhood of old, narrow and curving streets. The police rounded up the participants.

===========
About "feeling lost, hatred, and depression": this list suffers from a lack of parallelism. There might not be a rule about parallelism, but it contributes to grace and smoothness. (I learned about parallelism in high school English class.) As someone pointed out, changing "lost" to "loss" would create three nouns, a nice case of parallelism.

As it stands, the sentence is so awkward that I'm sure the t on lost was a typo, not a conscious choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 21 May 20 - 04:22 PM

" ... loss, depressed and hatred" is no better.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 20 - 04:52 PM

Dunno, Doug. I don't use gobsmacked much meself, but I think it's quite a useful word. It replaces longer phrases quite nicely, thinking of "well you could have knocked me over with a feather" or "well bugger me sideways with a fishfork" sort of thing. And "gobshite" is an exceptionally useful word, I find... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 21 May 20 - 05:56 PM

I object to "gobsmacked" in the same way as you object to "prior to" and "albeit", Steve. You think they make the user sound pompous. I find it jarring when otherwise articulate people resort to street slang. For you, "prior to" should not replace "before". For me, "gobsmacked" should not replace "amazed".

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 20 - 06:13 PM

I don't think we do object in the same way, Doug. "Gobsmacked" is succinct yet admittedly vulgar. I haven't done its etymology, but I imagine it's something to do with suddenly clasping a hand to the mouth following confrontation with shock or something at least seriously unexpected. It's vulgar but there's some colour there. "Albeit", "prior to" and "on a daily basis" are just pretentious. In each case there's a clearer and simpler normal alternative that the user has eschewed in their quest to impress. Those of us who prefer clarity and simplicity are not impressed, except that we're impressed as to what a twit the employer of these terms truly is.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 May 20 - 06:27 PM

meself, I dithered over used v. use in that phrase!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 23 May 20 - 12:44 AM

You've reminded me that "subsequent to" irritates me every time. What's wrong with "after."

And I think I want to smack the next featherbrain who says "O my God!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 May 20 - 01:23 AM

Always seems to me that the kind of people who habitually use, “Oh My God” as an expression of surprise are the least likely to have faith in any kind of Deity.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 23 May 20 - 03:41 AM

Worse than "oh my God" is "oh my gosh".

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 20 - 05:58 AM

"Well f***ing stroll on..." - one of my favourites!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 23 May 20 - 02:50 PM

Backwoodsman, I agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 23 May 20 - 03:05 PM

Always seems to me that the kind of people who habitually use, “Oh My God” as an expression of surprise are the least likely to have faith in any kind of Deity.

That's because they the most confident that they won't get struck by lightning for doing it.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 May 20 - 06:16 PM

Does anyone else get grief for writing moslem instead of muslim?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 May 20 - 11:52 AM

From a news story about a black man killed by a white cop:

Squads were called to the 3700 block of Chicago Avenue South shortly after 8 p.m. on reports of a forgery in progress.


What?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 26 May 20 - 01:50 PM

Yes, Mrrzy, it seems unlikely.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 26 May 20 - 03:39 PM

I always say 'Muslim', but what is very annoying is the tendency for rather racist anti-Muslim people to call them 'Mozzies'. I use that word only for 'mosquitoes'.
I've heard younger people say " O-M-G!!" "ASAP!" and "LOL!" as if they're texting not speaking!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 May 20 - 08:46 AM

Aha forgery in progress meant guy trying to use fake id or counterfeit money or something.

Still sounds wrong but ok.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 27 May 20 - 10:11 AM

In Canada, a "forgery in progress" would mean the perp has been caught in the act of making the fake ID. Using the fake ID is "uttering a false document", "impersonation" or "misrepresentation", depending on the circumstances.

Senoufou, you have opened the door to the MOST IRRITATING SPEECH HABIT EVER, by which I mean the tic of using acronyms and initialisms instead of REAL WORDS (shouting intended). Having spent my entire sentient existence in or near the armed forces, I have a thick callus around that particular peeve, but it twinges worse with every passing year.

Now I am an Olde Pharte, I feel entitled to look busy young folks in the eye and say, "And what's that in real English?" or words to that effect. The bank is the Bank of Montreal, not Bee Mow. The noisy machine that makes the house tolerable in summer is the air-conditioner, not an Eh Cee. The car is a Volkswagen, not a Vee Double You.

I know where it comes from. When your working life is full of things like the mine-detection vehicles collectively known as an Expedient Route-Opening Capability (!), the only sane reaction is to call it Eee-Rock and consider yourself lucky that you don't have to talk like that at home. But alas, many people think it's cool to turn their conversation into a big, fat guessing game.

That's my spleen vented for today. Or for now, at least.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion's brother Andrew
Date: 27 May 20 - 10:57 AM

And that, Ladies and Germs, is a sister well and truly language-peeved.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 May 20 - 11:39 AM

Haha Charmion, I'm an Olde Pharte too, and my lovely neighbours' two 'children' (now twenty one and seventeen) are barely intelligible in full spate. I merely blink and smile benignly and look a bit senile/simple.
I've always said on here that language evolves and changes. After all (sadly) we no longer speak like characters in a Shakespeare play. But I find many of the changes intensely irritating. I must be a Grumpy Olde Pharte.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 May 20 - 11:53 AM

Whether you like it or not, it's VW here. You'd hear far more VW Golfs than Volkswagen Golfs this end. And that's the point really. Once an expression largely supersedes its older or "more acceptable" version, you might as well give up the fight. "VW Golf" is standard English, because it's what standard English speakers say. You might as well still be telling us to not split infinitives.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 May 20 - 01:09 PM

It is not CCR. Nor BTO. Creedence. Bachman Turner Overdrive. Crosby Stills Nash & Young, not CSNY.

But it *is* REM.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 May 20 - 01:30 PM

I always say "Volkswagen" in my best German accent. But we both say 'Beamer' for BMW. I do find some of the youngsters' short texty-type speech amusing. My niece (not all that young, but very trendy) always types 'soz' for 'sorry', which makes me smile.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 27 May 20 - 01:31 PM

An early example of redundancy for me is "Forty Days AND Forty Nights". We have gone through 40 days and 40 nights of self isolation and piled another 40 days and 40 nights on top of it today.
Some of us will be doubling the 80 days and nights of more self isolation. Some of us won't.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jeri
Date: 27 May 20 - 01:49 PM

Don, ir makes snse to me. You can do 40 days and 39 nights, or 39 days and 40 nights.

Mistake seen somewhere else on Mudcat: "gain the system"
It's "GAME the system".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 27 May 20 - 02:32 PM

Jeri you remind me of Data, the Star Trek character.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 May 20 - 02:32 PM

I like 'Chester drawers' (chest of drawers hee hee). But the expression 'bored of...' enrages me. It's universal now. I'm used to saying 'bored with...'. Ah well.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jeri
Date: 27 May 20 - 02:40 PM

Not complicated enough for Data. It's the sort of thing most people would've thought of.

The isolation thing: it's just norma around here. The only difference is that there's no place to escape to. Which has nothing to do with language.

I kept thinking it would make a good TV car insurance commercial, if the spokesperson said "And there you have it, straight from the gecko ("get-go"). If they go for it, I want a percentage.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 May 20 - 02:40 PM

Tired of. Bored with. Yeah.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jeri
Date: 27 May 20 - 02:47 PM

Every time someone says "bored of", I realize some folks are just not that educated. (I say this, meaning ANY education. I don't have a pile of degrees.)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 27 May 20 - 04:26 PM

Tired of, bored with. How hard can this be?

"Chester drawers" is a new one to me -- possibly because the only Ontarians who say "chest of drawers" were carefully trained by their socially aspiring mothers to enunciate with exquisite care. I speak from personal experience here.

Everybody else says "dresser". Sixty years ago, you would hear "bureau" in the Ottawa Valley and around Montreal, but that now seems as antique -- and probably regional -- as "chesterfield".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 May 20 - 05:39 PM

"Bored of" is fine. That's what lots of people say, so object if you like but it's a fight you'll lose. If you can be tired of you can be bored of. Come on, let's see you arguing that one. What I don't like is the degradation of language by the ditching of really useful distinctions. I can't accept "alternate" instead of "alternative" because these words have distinct meanings that are worth preserving. I feel the same about "uninterested" and "disinterested" and will continue to use them my way, but I know I've lost that fight. Shame really, but language is wot people speak, not wot academics decide we should speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion's brother Andrew
Date: 28 May 20 - 09:17 AM

Donuel, "Forty Days and Forty Nights" is the first line of a Palm Sunday hymn in /The Book of Common Praise/. Anyone who has dealt with the "hospitality industry" knows that it was 39 nights and it wasn't on the European plan.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 May 20 - 05:14 PM

Also I am getting used to the more-British-than-American "different TO" where murricans say Different FROM.

I am *not* getting used to "on accident" instead of By accident, however.

Also some regions of the States equate the terms Anymore and Nowadays, while I use them differently:

I (verb noun) nowadays. Means I usen't* to but I do now.
I don't (verb noun) anymore. Means I used to but now no longer do.

I (verb noun) anymore just clashes.

*See, I remembered!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 28 May 20 - 06:02 PM

I really like regional vocabulary and dialect differences around the world (and around the UK) They're not the same thing as grammatical errors and rather ignorant misuses.
Having been born in West London, lived in Edinburgh and Glasgow and now Norfolk, I've thoroughly enjoyed the variations in speech, accent and dialect.
I can't explain why some utterances irritate me nowadays.
I should try harder to accept them I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 May 20 - 06:18 PM

You can say different to or different from. Only nitpicking grammar police will pick you up for that. I do sort of object to "anymore" as, to me, it's two words, not one, but I won't lose sleep over it. What we should always remember is that, in everyday speech and when we're typing on Mudcat, we're allowed to be casual in order to avoid erecting barriers. In more formal writing you should ideally know the rules and try to stick to them. If you don't know the rules, you might get away with it if you know a good copy editor and/or proofreader. And even they should remember that we're in the 21st century and that a touch of indulgence could be in order.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 28 May 20 - 09:51 PM

I posted some 'concerns' way back in the thread... but when doing a search for an official answer on some, I stumbled on this:

....dumb-things-people-should-stop-saying-and-writing.

Have fun!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 29 May 20 - 12:32 AM

These are written rather than spoken, but they still irritate:

Using 'draw' instead of drawer. Do not do it. The word is 'drawer'.

'Walla' instead of 'voila'.

This one has been seen on many a quilting page - sewing a 'boarder' instead of a 'border' around your quilt.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 May 20 - 12:47 AM

Oh, that *was* fun!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 29 May 20 - 01:26 AM

"Anymore" is an interesting word. Sometimes it needs to be two words:

    I don't want any more deviled eggs.

Or it can be an adverb meaning "at this time and into the future":

    I don't play the bagpipe anymore.

When I moved to Missouri, I learned a new sense, namely "nowadays."

    It seems like anymore nobody knows how to make head cheese.
====
I'd find it hard to explain to anyone how we got the second two meanings from the two words any and more.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 29 May 20 - 02:35 AM

Didn't Edgar Allan Poe write a poem in which one line says:-
Quoth the raven "Nevermore!" (all one word)
And I had to look up 'head cheese'leeneia!! It sounded like a rather nasty form of dandruff, but I see it's a sort of brawn!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 29 May 20 - 04:00 AM

From what I have tasted, head cheese isn't a sort of brawn. It is brawn.

I'm not much fussed if people say "different to" or "different from" but, personally, I always try to use "different from".

As an aside to people saying drawer when they mean draw: I always say draw but, when I was an apprentice, it was pointed out that there was no "r" in the middle of the word "drawing". Since then, I have made a conscious effort not to say "drawring" but, even after these many years, it doesn't come naturally.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 May 20 - 04:25 AM

No need to get peeved. Just be amused. I love it when supposedly well-educated folks, newsreaders or reporters for example, say things such as "seckertry", "priminister", "Febry"and "deteriate". But let's reign ourselves in from being too critical. Alright? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 29 May 20 - 04:44 AM

An interesting list from Bill D's link but many of the explanations should have been prefixed with "In my opinion ..." . I had to check to check back to see who the author was. I thought that it might have been Steve. ;-)

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 29 May 20 - 07:51 AM

And 'criteria' used as a singular. Criterion, please! And 'may' used when 'might' would be clearer.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 May 20 - 09:37 AM

Yeah, bacterium, too. And datum.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 29 May 20 - 11:06 AM

Tentative conclusion based on posts to this point: if an 'incorrect' usage annoys you, those who perpetrate it are contemptible; if an 'incorrect' usage does not annoy you, or if you even perpetrate it yourself, then anyone who is annoyed by it is contemptible. Agreed?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 29 May 20 - 12:03 PM

Absolutely, meself! That goes without saying.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 May 20 - 12:28 PM

Not so. We should be relaxed about the ways in which we use English casually in everyday life. We should reserve our ire or scorn or derision for those who would be pompous or self-regarding, and, of course, for those who get it wrong in supposedly serious, formal written English. When it comes to Mudcat, nothing fills me with glee more than someone who criticises MY English. Their own efforts are invariably peppered with errors, and I love to point them out as scornfully as I can manage.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 May 20 - 12:32 PM

”As an aside to people saying drawer when they mean draw: I always say draw but, when I was an apprentice, it was pointed out that there was no "r" in the middle of the word "drawing". Since then, I have made a conscious effort not to say "drawring" but, even after these many years, it doesn't come naturally.“

And my hackles rise when people write ‘draw’ instead of ‘drawer’ - Aaaaaaarrrgghh!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 29 May 20 - 12:50 PM

I've just been wasting time on YouTube, and it has reminded me of something that always irritates me: when adults adopting a foreign child refer to it as Gotcha Day.

To me, there's something predatory about it. I picture a harrier's bloodthirsty swoop onto a hapless chipmunk. Will the child have any individuality left after this family engulfs it?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 May 20 - 01:01 PM

Also, remember the vulva. People frequently say vagina when they mean vulva. That bugs me. Many people don't even know the word vulva.

Vulva vulva vulva it is such a great word, too.

What's worse is vagina means "sheath" - androcentric, eh.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 29 May 20 - 01:06 PM

Here's one I'm trying not to let become a pet peeve: for the past six months or so, I see the - not sure what to call it - utterance? interjection? vocable? - "ugh" in posts all over the internet. I'm never sure what it's supposed to mean, at least, until I've read into the posts; even then, I'm not always certain. I realize that "ugh" is not new, but its widespread use is. Anyone know how this recent phenomenon got started? Who was the "influencer"?

Here's one I just read on thesession (yes, I do have too much time on my hands, as a matter of fact): "Ugh! The bent thumb!" (relating to holding the violin bow).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 29 May 20 - 02:35 PM

I recall it took me 2 years to correct my collapsed thumb to the proper bent thumb. Old habits die hard.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 29 May 20 - 03:56 PM

I was reading the article/list that Bill D. linked to, and I got as far as: "Why are you guys so big on pronouncing aunt as ahnt, which sounds incongruously like aristocratic putting on airs to me." We're supposed to take linguistic advice from that illiterate buffoon? This, btw, is taken from a rant aimed at the way "blacks" pronounce certain words, apparently, and is followed by a gratuitous reference to Aunt Jemima. I invite John T. Reed to go away and have carnal relations with himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 May 20 - 07:39 PM

My whole family (sibs parents parents' sibs their kids) says ant. My kids both say awnt. Weirdoes.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 30 May 20 - 02:33 AM

In my part of the world "aunt" and "aren't" are homophones. Not everywhere. Problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 30 May 20 - 04:02 AM

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/people-have-been-saying-ax-instead-ask-1200-years-180949663/

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 20 - 05:23 AM

I suppose that "ugh" is an attempt to render a common interjection in writing, a bit like "arrgh." I'd say that's unobjectionable. As for "aunt," just do what we northerners do and say "auntie" every time. Viola!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 30 May 20 - 05:35 AM

George Formby used to sing about "Auntie Maggie's Homemade Remedy", pronounced 'anti'.
I've heard 'antie' but never 'ant' opp north. People would think one was referring to an insect!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 May 20 - 06:40 AM

Sen, here in the North Lincolnshire Backwoods, ‘Aunt’ is pronounced ‘Ant’, and ‘Auntie’ is ‘Anti’. Also ‘Bath’ and ‘Path’ have no ‘r’, we use the flat ‘a’.

We also pronounce ‘up’ as ‘up’, we don’t say either the Satherner’s ‘app’, or the non-existent (except in the minds of Satherners) ‘oop’! ;-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 30 May 20 - 10:34 AM

Manitas: the "ask/ax" business was just another annoyance from that John T. Reed person - the fool clearly knows nothing about the language he is bloviating on, and is displaying his ignorance in the furtherance of some kind of racist agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 30 May 20 - 03:48 PM

My sister-in-law said "ax," and she was a white person from Tennessee. It's strange how self-appointed language experts haven't traveled enough, and haven't listened enough notice that Southern speech and black speech might sometimes be the same, sometimes be different.

And they don't touch the issue that many people are partly white, partly black.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 May 20 - 10:34 PM

Upon which he is bloviating? Bwahaha!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 31 May 20 - 12:13 AM

Yes, you could put it that way, I suppose ... !

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 May 20 - 12:01 PM

Also, remember the vulva. People frequently say vagina when they mean vulva. That bugs me. Many people don't even know the word vulva.
Vulva vulva vulva it is such a great word, too.
What's worse is vagina means "sheath" - androcentric, eh.

Yes, 'Vulva' is a good word. I like the term 'pudenda'.
And if you think 'vagina' is androcentric, there's always 'cervix'. I've never worked out why 'cervical cancer' seems to be pronounced 'cervical' ('vic' as in 'victor') when related to the entrance to the womb, but 'cerv-eye-cal' when referring to the vertebrae at the top of the spine.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 May 20 - 12:04 PM

I suppose that "ugh" is an attempt to render a common interjection in writing, a bit like "arrgh." I'd say that's unobjectionable. As for "aunt," just do what we northerners do and say "auntie" every time. Viola!

Ah, trying to bring music back in ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Jun 20 - 10:08 AM

I was not taught to pronounce the word cervical differently for the two ends. Have never heard it with the Eye pronunciation, and I have seen a *lot* of spinal professiinals over the years. Could that be British?

Also, cervix means Neck. Hardly androcentric.

On the other hand you have the mammilary bodies in the brain. They looked like tits to the guy who named'm. Nothing to do with mammilary function.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Jun 20 - 08:24 AM

No, 'cervix' is not androcentric. I was pointing it out as a suitable, 'non-androcentric' replacement for 'vagina'.

Seeing Mrrzy was unaware of the different pronunciations , I thought I'd dig a little deeper. Pronunciation here . Admittedly, that page does not seem to show that either pronunciation is associated with a particular variant meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Jun 20 - 09:57 AM

Wow! Thanks! Great link!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 20 - 11:17 AM

The only trouble with all this is that the vulva is not the vagina is not the cervix. They just happen to be next to each other. Ish.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 02 Jun 20 - 01:53 PM

I've never worked out why 'cervical cancer' seems to be pronounced 'cervical' ('vic' as in 'victor') when related to the entrance to the womb, but 'cerv-eye-cal' when referring to the vertebrae at the top of the spine.
I think you'll find that most medics in the UK pronounce both the same way: cerv-eye-cal. it's just TV news journalists who don't!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Jun 20 - 03:02 PM

Nope. See my comment above. I have seen chiropractors, physical therapists, orthopedists, neurosurgeons, general practitioners, and others for my vertebral issues, as well as gotten a doctorate in physiological psych, and nobody, no medical or professorial professional, has ever in my hearing pronounced cervical (referring to neck vertebrae) with an Eye in the middle. I think that is likely British... All my English-language studies and medical confabs have been in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Jun 20 - 05:37 PM

Ah yes, creeping pronunciations. To "proTEST" has become to "PROtest", the verb pronounced the same as the noun, and in various other words I can't now place but which make my flesh creep when I hear them, the emphasis has sneaked back to the first syllable.
Then there's all the pronunciations where people have seen the word written but have never heard it used - albeit "Al Bate"; segue rhyming with vague, etc.
And place names: when they're pronounced wrong once, that's it, the pronunciation changes forever. Hubert Butler has a wonderful article where he's raging about Dublin placenames like those correctly pronounced DorSETT Street and WESTmoreland Street being pronounced DORset and WestMOREland nowadays. And of course Louth in Ireland - always correctly pronounced with a hard 'th' like 'the' - is more and more horribly often pronounced like the English town of Louth, which has a soft 'th' like 'commonwealth'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 02 Jun 20 - 06:17 PM

Thompson: comPACT (adj) vs COMpact (n) is anther pair that has been leveled by the vulgar. By now, "a comPACT car" (or "disc") would sound hopelessly la-di-da.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 02 Jun 20 - 07:00 PM

"a hard 'th' like 'the' - is more and more horribly often pronounced like the English town of Louth, which has a soft 'th' like 'commonwealth'."

When you get into pronunciation, bear in mind that this is an international forum. As a Canadian, I have no idea how the 'th' in 'the' could be any different from that in 'commonwealth' ... !

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 20 - 07:01 PM

Grr. You said albeit, Thomson. Grr. Another changed stress that's creeping in is REsearch. It was always reSEARCH when I was at university. And for donkey's yonks I've railed at Mrs Steve saying ICE cream. It's bloody ice CREAM! It will never be a divorce issue, however, as we both happen to love the frozen article in question...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 02 Jun 20 - 08:07 PM

Mrrzy, the first part of my last post (re pronunciation of cervical) was quoting what Nigel said, only I forgot to put in quote marks.
The second part, "I think you'll find....." was me, and I DID specifically say "in the UK". I respect your multiple qualifications and painful experiences, but I spent a lot of my working life looking at cervices as well as dealing with pains in the neck and have a long string of hard-earned letters after my name, including FFFPRCOG (I know we all love acronyms here!) To me and my UK medical colleagues it is Cerv-eye-cal, whether "down below" or "up above" the waistline.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 20 - 08:11 PM

I have never said "Cerv-eye-cal." I don't say "Eye-ran" or "Eye-talians" either.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Jun 20 - 12:10 AM

New word: antiquainted. Outmoded, but still cute.

Today's oxymoron: a fixed glance. I had to put the book down and untangle my mind (ooh it's a music thread now).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 03 Jun 20 - 04:29 AM

New word: antiquainted.

It has been round a long time for a new word. Anyway, what makes "outmoded" a better alternative. I would choose "dated" or "outdated" over "outmoded".

My mother and her friends, born in Liverpool before World War One, would describe unfashionable clothes using the made-up word "antwacky". This managed convey a real distaste for anything antiquated.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 03 Jun 20 - 05:26 AM

Eye-dyllic. Aaaaarrrrrggggghhhhhh!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 03 Jun 20 - 05:34 AM

Mrrzy, I have just seen this on another thread.

Antiquated is the old word. No second "i" in it.
The new one I am stealing is antiQUAINTed.


Not having read the most recent posts to the other thread, I just assumed you had made a spelling mistake here and let that pass.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 03 Jun 20 - 09:24 AM

Yes, yes, reSEARCH, and for that matter, fih (not fie) NANCE. Not sure if it's actually correct, the latter, but it's how it was said.
I like antiquainted. Old friends are always the best, they say, new friends you can find every day…

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 03 Jun 20 - 12:24 PM

Now that you point it out, Thompson, both of those words may be pronounced either way, even by the same person (me).

He's a REsearch specialist at Marquette University.
He's the head of virus reSEARCH at Marquette University.

She's the FInance officer at Security Bank.
She's the chief officer for fiNANCE at International Widget Corporation.

============
I never noticed that before.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 03 Jun 20 - 12:28 PM

And words in other languages that acquire weird versions in English: what the Japanese call meezoona, in the west becomes mizzOOna; encente for pregnant becomes oncynte in English…

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 03 Jun 20 - 12:46 PM

Maybe you haven't Steve, but, then as far as I know, you're not a doctor. (Cerv-eye-cal)
Just telling you how it is among doctors in the UK: not saying either is right or wrong, just happens to be what we say.
Oh, and there's another one...is it eether or eye-ther, neether or neye-there?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 20 - 03:14 PM

I think I always say eye-ther or neye-ther but I'm not that bothered. I may not be a medic but I am a biologist, which qualifies me to pontificate about pronunciation of body parts to the extent of zilch...

As for the plural of cervix, now I know that there are two alternatives. But if you insist on saying cervices, which sounds the same as services and which will sow nothing but confusion as a result, it marks you out as a bit of a clot. Only my opinion, of course. Thank goodness that that particular plural will be called for only rarely. Unlike kidneys, ovaries and testicles, for example. Cervixes does it for me every time, which isn't many times.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Jun 20 - 05:35 PM

Spelling mistake? Mmmoi?

Today I read that a cop was punched in the scuffle. Bet that hurt...!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 05 Jun 20 - 11:24 AM

Linguisticians are intrigued by "backshift", which is what they call a change of emphasis in a multi-syllable or compound word. It often indicates that a two-word phrase is becoming a one-word noun modifier (e.g., ICEcream cone, BACKseat driver). Hence Mrs Steve's pernicious habit.

But sometimes it indicates that the word you thought was a adjective or a noun is actually a verb in this context (e.g., COMpact, n. an agreement or cabal; COMpact, adj., small; comPACT, v., pack together). English has quite a few of these, and I'm pretty sure they all come from Latin/Old French roots. Think of COMbat and comBAT, where the Anglo-Saxon word "battle" always has the stress on the first syllable although it can be either a noun or a verb.

As for REsearch and FEYEnance, they are but more examples of American v. British usage. Put them on the list with LABratory (labORAtory) and CONtroversy (conTROversy).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 05 Jun 20 - 12:02 PM

Breaking news! I just came across a YouTube video with 4 items of new slang:

Entitled millennial snowflake gets owned by hotel owner

The only new insult the poster left out is "a Karen," but that's understandable. One can't be a millennial and a Karen at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Jun 20 - 01:24 PM

They are opening pools for lap swimming.

Lap dancing next!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 06 Jun 20 - 07:18 AM

Clot I am not, thanks for nothing for being your usual arrogant and insulting self, Steve.
Cervices is correct Latin plural as in indices.
I'm outa here.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 20 - 08:17 AM

Cor, that's a tad touchy considering what I actually said in my post. Lots of foreign words now in common use as adopted English words can take either an anglicised plural (hippopotamuses, rhinoceroses, forums) OR it's original-language plural. We should be guided by convention, as in those three, or by practicality. "Cervices" isn't incorrect, but, as it sounds like a word it could be confused with, it's far better to say cervixes. English with all its irregularities and anomalies is complicated enough without adding unnecessary layers of confusion. That's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Jun 20 - 08:42 AM

Cervices, indices, etc. are right. Cervixes, indexes are common, but so is using literally to mean figuratively. Doesn't make it right, just common.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 20 - 09:03 AM

It's not a matter of what's right or wrong. When it comes to English I've always held that it's wot people say wot's the clincher, even when it grates. Or peeves us.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 20 - 09:06 AM

The BBC Radio 4 newsreader has just said that the beaches in Portugal are once again reopening. No they're not. They are either once again opening or they're reopening.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Jun 20 - 11:09 AM

Beaches in Portugal may be closed for reasons other than Coronavirus. If so, it is possible for them to re-open. If they are then closed for Coronavirus then it is possible for them to be re-opened again.
38 beaches closed to the public

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 20 - 12:13 PM

Yes I know that, Nigel, but did you actually hear that 2 PM news bulletin? The context of the item was the pandemic and the lifting of the lockdown. Had there been additional reasons for opening and closing beaches, that would have been stated. I'm not aware that beaches in Portugal are routinely closed and opened on a whim. And you know how much I like whimsy...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 20 - 12:31 PM

Meant to mention that it didn't escape my attention that your item is two years old.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 06 Jun 20 - 12:46 PM

Here's a pet peeve of mine: literate authors who forget what tense they started in. Like this:

"Martha had gone to the supermarket for a few items, then she went to the pharmacy for aspirin, then she got gas."

Doggone it, if you're going to start in the past perfect, stay in the past perfect.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 20 - 01:38 PM

Sounds like she should have gone back to the pharmacy to get something for that gas...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Jun 20 - 02:23 PM

Doggone it, if you're going to start in the past perfect, stay in the past perfect.
Not necessary. The sentence seems to be progressing through tenses. It isn't a problem to say: "I had been to the doctors in the morning. I had faggots and mash for lunch. In the afternoon I went for a walk, and now I'm sitting down to enjoy a glass of beer.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Jun 20 - 02:30 PM

Those are all separate sentences.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 06 Jun 20 - 02:52 PM

I had been to the doctor in the morning, when he found that a Stetson hat was growing in my abdomen, which he would remove, he promised, the next day.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 20 - 03:58 PM

I must say, I have to agree with Nigel here. I read it a couple of times and couldn't see much to quibble about.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 06 Jun 20 - 06:48 PM

No: if you start in the past perfect, you would typically, and correctly, NOT stay in the past perfect. The reason you would start in the past perfect is because you are going to go on to talk about something in the more recent past, for which you use the simple past to clarify that it IS the more recent past. "Martha had gone to the supermarket for a few items, then she went to the pharmacy for aspirin .... " is correct, if that is the order in which the events occurred.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 20 - 07:29 PM

Just read it, and if it makes sense to you it's fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 07 Jun 20 - 03:29 PM

Would that anything made sense to me this summer!

As for COMpact and comPACT, aren't they different forms? I powder my nose using my gold COMpact, but the powder has become comPACTed from lack of use. I ride a COMpact little bicycle; I have made a COMpact never to drive again…

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 07 Jun 20 - 04:34 PM

And then there is the dreaded "haitch"!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Jun 20 - 09:00 AM

Is that something like the Groke?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 08 Jun 20 - 09:12 AM

"Haitch" is something like "feff" and "lell".

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jun 20 - 09:12 AM

There is no cure for an annoying irritating case of peeves but treatments may include aspirin, naproxin and zoloft.
I however have never heard of people turning peeves into pets.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 09 Jun 20 - 10:06 PM

Yes, Thompson, as I said above, the different pronunciation indicates a different part of speech.

I don’t know, but I’d love to — is English the only Indo-European language with this phenomenon?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 10 Jun 20 - 12:46 AM

That's a good question, Charmion. You've made me realize that I've never come across that phenomenon in any of my German classes.

Now I have another reason to sympathize with refugees trying to master English.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 10 Jun 20 - 01:53 PM

In today's newspaper I read that IBM is getting out of the facial recognition business, and the CEO wrote to lawmakers that IBM

"has sunset its...facial recognition software products."

Sunset? What exactly does it mean to sunset software? What is the relationship between a sunset (a pretty pattern of light and clouds at evening) and a set of procedures at a technology corporation?
==========
"Set" is one of those verbs whose past tense is the same at its present tense. Verbs like that can cause problems. For example, if an executive says "We sunset that," does he mean that "We did sunset that", last month, say? Or is it present tense and he means "We sunset that whenever the decision comes up?"

"Read" is another word like that. If I find a report and someone has written "read" on it, does that mean that they should read it, or does it mean they have already read it? Is "read" past tense or present?

They may seem trivial, but language problems like these can lead to expensive legal bills.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 10 Jun 20 - 02:25 PM

Anyone bugged by how "elite" and "minority" can be used to indicate individuals now: "She's an elite"; "He's a minority"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Jun 20 - 10:11 PM

Right. A minority of one.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jun 20 - 10:26 PM

Well... yesterday I tuned into the memorial service for George Floyd just in time to hear a speaker ask for God's help getting us through this time of "heart rendering" sadness.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 11 Jun 20 - 01:00 AM

Make no allowance for those speaking at funerals - a funeral is no time to forget your proper use of the English language! Stress, emotion, trauma - no excuse!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 11 Jun 20 - 08:12 AM

Pet peeves?
The use of 'if' in place of 'whether'.
"Can you tell me if it's going to rain today?"
If 'if' is being used correctly, and the intended meaning is "If it's going to rain today, please tell me" then no reply is required if it will not rain.
"Can you tell me whether it's going to rain today?" requires an yes/no answer ("yes, it will", or "no it won't", or even "I don't know")

Ok. For pedants a yes/no answer could be answering the question "Can you tell me?" so may not actually answer the intended question.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Jun 20 - 08:45 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: weerover
Date: 11 Jun 20 - 09:23 AM

Nigel, I shared your opinion on "if" but rather than correct anyone in such a situation I always check that hasn't become accepted. The very authoritative Chambers Dictionary gives one definition of "if" as "whether".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Jun 20 - 10:00 AM

Whether one possibility or another. If one possibility. No problem. Shorter to say if one than whether one or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Jun 20 - 09:27 AM

Pléionasme du jour:

Scientists Have Discovered Vast Unidentified Structures Deep Inside the Earth

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 12 Jun 20 - 12:07 PM

This thread is supposed to be about pet peeves, so it's all right to be trivial. One of my pet peeves is rock as a transitive verb. It is so over done.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 12 Jun 20 - 12:15 PM

I'm not sure what happened exactly, but my post about 'rock' is cut in half. Since the quarantine started, my hair has grown to twice as long as usual, and I've been looking at videos about hairstyles and personal appearance. In the course of that, I've grown really tired of the word rock. As in:

    She is really rockin' that ponytail!
    Ariana Grande rocks torn jeans at Coachella festival.
    etc etc

If the speaker is too lazy to say why he likes the ponytail, he puts the wearer in charge by saying she's rocking it. Duh.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Jun 20 - 12:28 PM

The headline I posted, I just realized, manages to be both oxymoronic and redundant.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 20 - 01:18 PM

"Ariana Grande rocks torn jeans at Coachella festival."

Well I might not want to hear that, but I wouldn't mind seeing it...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Vincent Jones
Date: 12 Jun 20 - 01:59 PM

I try not to let language peeves annoy me, as life's too short, although I can't stop myself from grunting "whom" when people use "who" as the object, or "fewer" when "less" is used incorrectly. And anyway, my English isn't so hot, despite a grammer skool educashun. I've also become used to the ubiquitous "hopefully", used instead of the more correct "I hope". Or, if you prefer it, "one hopes".

But I'll never get used to "proactive", which, as far as I am concerned, is a word invented for people who do not know the meaning of the word "active". Possibly this is a pet peeve because it was popular with people whom (who) I worked with in marketing (an industry from which I escaped), who also loved terms like "blue sky thinking", "ideas shower" and "brainstorming". At the end of one ideas shower I remarked that each and every idea in the shower was golden, but not one person picked up on it. Too subtle, me, by half.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 12 Jun 20 - 02:32 PM

I like rockin' used as an admiring term, havta say. As for whom, I have a strong suspicion it was imposed by those tight-assed 17th-century grammarians who tried to turn English into a branch of Latin.
No, I like a living language, but I like it precise. Or when it's not precise, at least colourful.
I particularly like new slang formations.
There's a great book called The Hacker's Dictionary (or maybe Hackers') about the new language used by hackers - that term used in its original sense of excellent coders.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jun 20 - 02:50 PM

?"Rock-a my soul in the bosom of Abraham."?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Jun 20 - 03:19 PM

”Well... yesterday I tuned into the memorial service for George Floyd just in time to hear a speaker ask for God's help getting us through this time of "heart rendering" sadness.“

At least he didn’t say it was ‘heart-wrenching’.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Jun 20 - 03:21 PM

That is rock as in cradle. Transitive.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 20 - 04:55 PM

Hey Vincent, I agree with most of what you say, but "hopefully" is beyond reproach. The other thing is that (minority of one stuff coming up...) I think that it won't be long before we lose "whom" almost entirely. The yanks love their awful "whomever," etc., I know. I reckon "whom" could be consigned to old literature before too long...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Jun 20 - 03:22 AM

“Thusly”. Aaaaaaaaaarrrggghhh!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 20 - 04:34 AM

"Normalcy." Aaaaaaargh!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 13 Jun 20 - 07:24 AM

A particularly weird Joycean weirdness for the week that's in it: people refer to the Greek hero Ulysses as YouLISSaise, but the novel Ulysses as YOUlissaise. No idea why, unless it was some un-Greek-learned scholar who started it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Jun 20 - 08:19 AM

NPR this morning: he once had two horses shot out from under him. No, he twice had one horse shot our from under him, I would bet.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 13 Jun 20 - 09:28 AM

.... unless it was some un-Greek-learned scholar who started it.

If is was some Greek-learned scholar, surely it would have been Odysseus rather than Ulysses.

Personally, I pronounce it as YOUliseese for both the hero and the book.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: gillymor
Date: 13 Jun 20 - 09:45 AM

I don't see language as something that needs to be placed under glass in a museum. I like it when it's free-flowing, improvisational and ever-evolving but one thing that grates on me is the way some news and sports commentators are not pronouncing t any more as in the word forgotten. It sometimes sounds like Valley Girl Speak is taking over.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 20 - 09:57 AM

My favourite sports commentator quote of all time was made by a diving commentator explaining why Tom Daley had scored below another diver even though Tom had done a good dive. We were informed that the other chap, in selecting a more technical dive, "had out-degree-of-difficultied" Tom. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 20 - 10:02 AM

And years ago we had a weather presenter, Helen Willetts (who's still on telly) informing us that a passing cold front with its rain belt "had washed the humidity out of the air." :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: gillymor
Date: 13 Jun 20 - 10:13 AM

Nobody tortures language like this nitwit.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 20 - 10:36 AM

Then there's the stating of the bleedin' obvious: way back in the annals, just as Jack Nicklaus was lining up a fairly short putt, the commentator declared in hushed tones: "Jack wants to hole this one..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Jun 20 - 02:45 PM

YouLISSaise, may be the pronunciation which goes down in history. As used by Allan Sherman:
All the counsellors hate the waiters
And the lake has alligators
And the head coach wants no sissies
So he reads to us from something called Ulysses
I can mentally 'hear' him singing it, with the emphasis on the second syllable.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Vincent Jones
Date: 13 Jun 20 - 05:10 PM

Steve, gotta disagree about "hopefully", e.g. "They'll get beaten tomorrow, hopefully." The word references the folk getting beaten, not the speaker. But what the hell... as mentioned above, language is not something under glass in a museum, innit?

Regarding "whom" disappearing. You may well be right in your prediction of the word disappearing in Britain, but in a country like, say, India, where the standard of English in all their English language newspapers is superior to that in any British news medium of any kind, "whom" will hang around a lot longer in such places.

Something that amused rather than peeved: The Daily Mail, when reporting things happening as a result of the eruption of Eyjafjallajokull in 2010, had a headline "British schoolgirls evacuated in their pyjamas as Iceland volcano erupts during school trip", to which I thought, the filthy beasts.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 20 - 06:43 PM

If you believe that standard English is wot people have been using for hundreds of years, you have to accept the use of "hopefully" in the sense we're arguing about. It's been used that way for at least three hundred years, though its use in that sense burgeoned in popularity in the 20th century. Here's an extract from Merriam-Webster's piece on the word:

Hopefully when used to mean "it is hoped" is a member of a class of adverbs known as disjuncts. Disjuncts serve as a means by which the author or speaker can comment directly to the reader or hearer usually on the content of the sentence to which they are attached. Many other adverbs (such as interestingly, frankly, clearly, luckily, unfortunately) are similarly used; most are so ordinary as to excite no comment or interest whatsoever. The "it is hoped" sense of hopefully is entirely standard.

I don't like it any more than you do, Vincent, but, hopefully, we can at least agree that the fight is lost...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Vincent Jones
Date: 14 Jun 20 - 05:43 AM

Ah, interesting, Steve (at least, I think so). And didactic. Ta. Your mention of Merriam-Webster made me reach for my Fowler, as I suspect what Fowler calls MWCDEU (Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage, 1995) is a little US-centric, possibly a prejudice of mine: Fowler treats it as an important resource. As you pointed out - MWCDEU's disjuncts (Fowler calls them sentence adverbs) are commonplace: actually, basically, usually, although thankfully and hopefully are contentious, perhaps because they differ in their formation, and in aspects of how they resolve grammatically.

Fowler's viewpoint (2013) differs from MWCDEU: in speech, "proceed with gay abandon" (I love Fowler!), but when writing or presenting then consider the audience, as rearguard actions exist against its use, not least by language faddists and by those who are simply irritated by it.

An even more authoritative resource, my missus, who teaches in one of the London University colleges, objects because it sounds ugly and can, on rare occasions, be ambiguous, and then she referred to the urban myth of it being a slapdash translation of the German "hoffentlich". Now, the good professor would not mark students down for using the word in that way, but she suspects that other academics may do so (presumably with a "see me" in red next to a mark out of ten at the bottom of the homework).

So I wouldn't agree (add sentence adverb of your choice here) that the battle is lost, but I wouldn't put money on a victory for the people who don't want it as a disjunct.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 14 Jun 20 - 06:49 AM

Ulysses S Grant? YOU or LISS?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 14 Jun 20 - 10:21 AM

Regarding 'hopefully', many years ago I invented the word 'hopedly' (to be pronounced with three syllables). But I don't think it's going to catch on.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 20 - 10:23 AM

My Fowler is from the early 1980s and I can't find any reference to hopefully or sentence adverbs... :-(

I have a few guides to English usage (my favourite is Mind The Gaffe by the late Larry Trask). Each one of them has the infuriating habit of not containing at least some contentious point or other that I want to look up, and each one has its own hobby horses and various idiosyncrasies. My starting point is whether the expression in question is in common use and for how long it has been so, then the decision has to be made as to whether a degradation has taken place. The distinction between disinterested and uninterested is a valuable one and I'll fight to my last breath to keep it. I can't abide the (mainly American) habit of confusing alternate and alternative, and it will never be alright on the night... But English is not determined by professors or grammar police, and never has been.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: gillymor
Date: 14 Jun 20 - 10:35 AM

Grant's childhood tormentors pronounced it "Useless".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Jun 20 - 11:39 AM

Gag me with a spoon, gillymor!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: PHJim
Date: 15 Jun 20 - 02:18 PM

"I could care less" instead of "I couldn't care less."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: gillymor
Date: 15 Jun 20 - 02:24 PM

Wha ever, Mrrzy.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jun 20 - 05:21 PM

"I could care less" instead of "I couldn't care less."

Well, most Brits would rail against the former. The trouble is that both expressions are in use and have been for many a decade, the latter for longer, admittedly, and they mean the same thing. It's a another battle that you'll lose if you can be arsed to join it. Whether we like it or not, both expressions are standard English. Let's just enjoy life.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Reinhard
Date: 15 Jun 20 - 06:39 PM

I absolutely hate it when someone wants to appear cute and learned by using the long s letter '?' in historic quotes but then actually substitues it with the letter 'f' ('eff'). For God's ?ake, it's a fake!

For example in the current thread 'Maritime work song in general', it's not

They which take fhippe, & inftead of paying their fare, do the duties of Mariners

but

They which take ?hippe, & in?tead of paying their fare, do the duties of Mariners.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Reinhard
Date: 15 Jun 20 - 06:43 PM

well, in the preview of my post the long s was shown correctly. But in my post it's been replaced with question marks. Does anybody know if there's a HTML entity code for the long s?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Reinhard
Date: 15 Jun 20 - 07:05 PM

Next try with that quote:

They which take ſhippe, & inſtead of paying their fare, do the duties of Mariners.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Jun 20 - 08:17 PM

But could and couldn't do *not* mean the same thing. What politician tried to argue that they did?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jun 20 - 08:41 PM

This is the trouble with grammar police who desperately try to cling to some past meaning that probably never existed anyway. Could care less and couldn't care less have nothing much to do with the individual words. You simply have to take the constructions as a whole. I won't dwell. The other thing is that both expressions are wot millions of people say. When millions of people say something, and have been doing so for a long time, then that something is standard English. Either live with it or make yourself miserable. Your choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 16 Jun 20 - 02:43 AM

Reinhard - same with Y and Þ (thorn), although that substitution can at least claim to be well established, dating back to Caxton's time.
Unforgivable though is printed cod Olde Englishe (Engli?he?) with a capital F - as in YE OLDE CURIOFITY FHOPPE...

You know you're getting into historic lettering when you read Psalm 8 with its reference to "sucking babes" and don't notice anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 16 Jun 20 - 05:48 AM

When millions of people say something, and have been doing so for a long time, then that something is standard English. Either live with it or make yourself miserable. Your choice.

So Steve, by that reasoning, will you accept 'prior to' and 'albeit' or are they still making you miserable?

Unlike physics, which is governed by laws, grammar is governed by rules. Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the adherence of fools. All that is required for good communication is that it is clear and unambiguous.

"I could care less" is the exact opposite of what is intended and is intrinsically wrong;

"British schoolgirls evacuated in their pyjamas ....", given above, is a good example of ambiguity. It seems to be a feature of headline writing;

Using 'who' instead of 'whom' is grammatically incorrect but the meaning would, in most cases, be perfectly clear

'Hopefully', for me, is a perfectly good alternative to 'it is hoped'.

Good communication should also be concise. Waffle and buzzwords suggests that the user doesn't understand the subject; deliberate obfuscation is the tool of the politician. Allowance should be made, however, for the poetry of the language. There is more than one way to skin a donkey and there are more ways to express ideas than being limited to a restricted set of approved words. Variety is the spice of life.

Having said all that, the thread title is "Language Pet Peeves" - it's all about the words and expressions that you can't live with, the one's that make you miserable.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 20 - 06:03 AM

I agree with most of that, but the point about "albeit" (when you think about it, and look at the word closely, the stupidest word in the language) and "prior to" is that they are pretentious. Not only that, they both have perfectly plain and clear alternatives that may be used in every case, namely "though" (or "although" if you like) and "before" respectively. Whenever I see either of these horrors in print I go straight into prize cock red alert.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 20 - 06:15 AM

As for "I could care less," if you preface that with "it isn't possible that...." it makes perfect sense. I see the expression as an economical way of saying just that, though, arguably, it would be linguistically more efficient, and less likely to have the recipient doing some puzzled mental processing, just to say "I couldn't care less." But here's the rub: both variants are informal and both are widely used, so we just have to suck it up. In formal writing you wouldn't use either unless you were quoting dialogue. We sometimes have to let the lingo take wings and fly, though I'll always argue against pretentious words when there are perfectly good plain alternatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Jun 20 - 06:19 AM

Doug:
Having said all that, the thread title is "Language Pet Peeves" - it's all about the words and expressions that you can't live with, the one's that make you miserable.

One of my pet peeves, which I share with many, is the misuse of apostrophes ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 20 - 06:24 AM

The thing on iPads that decides that it knows better than you do what you want to type often either inserts or omits apostrophes inappropriately, Nigel. Whether I spot such absurdities in my posts before sending them depends on whether or not I'm wearing my reading specs, which I oft misplace.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Jun 20 - 06:29 AM

Merriam-Webster on 'alright' Here
All right, everyone: listen up.
If you were listening when your English teacher said that, you probably learned that all right is the only way to write the word that is also sometimes spelled alright. Pete Townshend preferred the tighter version when he wrote the lyrics to The Who's famous song, The Kids are Alright, and James Joyce thought alright was better (in one instance out of 38) for Ulysses too.

Interesting that when they are trying to be correct they describe 'all right' as a word, rather than a phrase. Probably another example of variant American usage.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 16 Jun 20 - 06:31 AM

I don't see 'although' and 'albeit' as being direct equivalents. Depending on context, I feel that there are subtle differences. 'Although' acknowledges that there is an alternative or condition; 'albeit' is more of a reluctant acceptance of the same.

Even if the two words are directly equivalent, why is one better than the other. I do not accept that 'albeit' is pompous. Reverse snobbery is no justification.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 20 - 06:41 AM

I don't see snobbery of any kind in preferring plainer alternatives. Albeit stretches out to "athough be it," which we then have to rejig as "although it be," which isn't English at all. Whilst I acknowledge its antiquity (and regret that it didn't die out in Victorian times, as it threatened to), I can't excuse it on those grounds from being plain daft. They used to hang little boys for stealing sheep in those days too.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Jun 20 - 06:53 AM

"They gone done in Caesar, albeit he was getting to big for his boots".

Nah, doesn't have the same ring to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Jun 20 - 12:23 PM

They used to hang sheep, too.

I like (unpeeve, if you will), that people are hanged while pictures are hung.

And I don't mean During the time that.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: PHJim
Date: 18 Jun 20 - 10:41 AM

Steve,
If we preface anything with "it isn't possible that...." it could also care less.will change the meaning to the opposite, but we can't just assume that everything we say is understood to be prefaced by "it isn't possible that..." or what we say would have no meaning.

You know that literally, "could care less" tells us nothing about how much you care except that you do care. A person who cares deeply about something could care a bit or a lot less, but a person who cares just a little bit could also care less.
Someone who doesn't care at all, couldn't care less.

Many folks say, "I haven't got no bananas" when they mean, "I haven't got any bananas." It's in common usage and I know what they mean, but it still makes me cringe.
Many also say, "Give your report to John or I when it's finished," when they mean, "Give your report to John or me when it's finished."
I know what they mean, but it still doesn't sound right.

I guess what I'm saying is that although I know I'll never be able to change the way people misuse the language, it can still be a "BS:Language Pet Peeve"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jun 20 - 12:17 PM

Just take the expression as a single entity and don't over-analyse by breaking it into its individual words. We know that "well I'll go to the foot of our stair" hasn't got anything to do with stairs, or going anywhere at all. Just think of it as one big word that expresses utter gobsmackedness. I could care less, when you hear someone saying it, doesn't convey that they care quite a lot but that their caring might conceivably drop off, not to me anyway. I don't like it but there it is. Honestly, you really can't fight this stuff. If lots of people say it over a long period of time, then it's standard English. It's fine to say that you don't like it but there's not much point. I mention my hatred of albeit, prior to and on a daily basis only in these threads. They're all standard English and I use them excessively in knowing company with as much sarcasm as a I can muster.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Jun 20 - 12:59 PM

Caring less is less caring than carelessly ignoring the whole damn thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jun 20 - 01:18 PM

Anyway, people will continue to use very dodgy words irregardless of what we literate types might think... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 19 Jun 20 - 12:53 AM

It's easy to make fun of the language of people without much education. Yes, there are high-school dropouts who haven't thought through "I could care less." or "between you and I." Criticism of them is boring.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 19 Jun 20 - 07:56 AM

”dont overanalyze" you say,
"you really can't fight this stuff."

Yes, but

it really slows down my reading. I don't know how to skate over it.
On Facebook I'm getting so used to having to decide between there\their\they're ; your\you're ; to\too\two that when I read a perfectly well written piece I even find myself stopping to check - did they really mean 'their' or is there a different meaning to the sentence if they meant 'there' ?

I never(not for the last fifty years) used to think about it but now I even find myself writing a 'their', then stopping to check that I really did mean 'their'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jun 20 - 08:19 AM

Well, you could always stop reading Facebook... ;-)

I guess some people post quickly and don't review enough before posting. That never really bothers me. Unless the poster has set out to deliberately obfuscate, by trying to be too clever and tortuous with his words, (we have one egregious culprit here), the meaning is nearly always easy enough to glean. What peeves me is when mean-spirited people try to make hay over others' deficiencies (such as typos, spelling mistakes or punctuation errors). Invariably, the attacker makes plenty of errors themselves, and that's when I feel that it's legit to go to town on him.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jun 20 - 08:21 AM

And I made two errors in that post. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: PHJim
Date: 19 Jun 20 - 08:23 AM

My sister bought me a lovely coffee mug with "Grammar Police - Don't make me use my red pencil!"
She says, "Jim, You'll have to decide between correcting grammar and having friends."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Jun 20 - 09:07 AM

Eschew obfuscation!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jun 20 - 12:03 PM

I wasn't referring to you, but you might wish to consider whether there's anything wrong with saying things in clear, simple English.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 19 Jun 20 - 01:09 PM

Yesterday I listened to a YouTube on 10 Things Narcissicists Do. One thing was correct others' grammar and usage. (This would be in personal settings such as conversation or social media.)

However, I think that when a person writes a book, he ought to maintain a higher standard. For example, know the difference between "definite" and "definitive." Also, give enough thought so that he isn't parroting weasel words.
==================
I find that I, too, have to be care about their, there, and they're. For some reason, 'their' is the one that wants to come out first, and that's odd, because 'there' must be more common.

And why do we so often use 'it's'
where 'its' should be
when 'it's', with its apostrophe,
is harder to type?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Jun 20 - 02:52 PM

.... you might wish to consider whether there's anything wrong with saying things in clear, simple English.

I am not trying to be funny, Steve, but I had to look up "egregious" in a dictionary.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Jun 20 - 03:49 PM

> in clear, simple English.

Somewhere online (should be "on line," obviously), a filmgoer lamented that she couldn't fully enjoy the recent remake of "Emma" because it was too hard to "understand the old English dialogue."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jun 20 - 03:53 PM

I tend to use it in the sense of outstandingly bad, Doug. I hope your dictionary agrees!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Jun 20 - 04:18 PM

Yes, that's it. You learn something every day!

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jun 20 - 05:40 PM

I think I've used it a number of times before on Mudcat, Doug. I've known that word for many years. I hope that I'm generally seen as trying to express myself clearly. I don't mind being pulled up if my verbiage looks a bit too fancy...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Jun 20 - 12:35 PM

Using definitions instead of the word so defined.

Using initials as in The w-word when avoiding saying Walk in front of your dog is fine, but doing that with any human over the age of spelling is infantilizing, condescending, and patronizing/ paternalistic. Either use the word or don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Jun 20 - 01:12 PM

Also bad rap when what is meant is bad rep[utation].

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 22 Jun 20 - 02:58 AM

"Must of" for "must have". Spoken as "must've" I can accept, but written?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jun 20 - 09:59 AM

I must've typed that lots of times here. Are you now telling me that I shouldn't've done it? You haven't picked me up on it so I assume you can't've noticed... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 22 Jun 20 - 10:18 AM

Egregious -- ex gregis, or out of the flock. Latin. Now a secret code for Catholics, linguists and over-educated Olde Phartes.

Mrrzy, "bad rap" is not necessarily a corruption because it is also a colloquial phrase from the mid-60s, when the word "rap" acquired a whole host of odd extra meanings. (Remember :rap session"?) Among other things, it meant an accusation, so a criminal record became a "rap sheet". Thus, one might say that the "Access Hollywood" tape was a bad rap against Donald Trump, but unfortunately not bad enough.

But that usage of "rap" seems to exist now only in the phrase "rap sheet", so you're probably right that most people using it nowadays are confusing it with "bad rep".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Jun 20 - 10:29 PM

Fascinating. Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothing new to say... [And now it's a music thread.]

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 23 Jun 20 - 02:32 AM

Are you now telling me that I shouldn't've done it? No Steve, just being imprecise as usual.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jun 20 - 04:34 AM

I seem to remember a conversation on the Quora website about these multiple contractions. Someone posting an innocent question about them received a bollocking for putting an apostrophe in the wrong place.... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Jun 20 - 09:07 AM

I shouldn'ta oughta posted that?

I might could say something about living in Dixie?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 24 Jun 20 - 12:59 PM

I just watched a YouTube video about language things narcissicists do. Now, I'm not sure 'narcissists' is the word they want, but whatever term you wish to employ for a verbo-jerk, the list is helpful:

Corrects others' grammar (includes apostrophes, I'm sure.)

Borrows technical jargon, often incorrectly

Directs conversation to a topic known to himself and no one else present

Makes it seem that others lose all credibility because of small mistakes.

Pretends to understand everything.

Claims to be logical without actually using logic.

Commits to ideas and will not change despite evidence.
==========
There were other points, but they didn't strike home with me the way some of those above have.

Unless in a parental or classroom situation, a normal person does not correct another's usage or apostrophes.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 24 Jun 20 - 01:02 PM

I wonder what the critics would make of these apostrophes from lyrics by Peter Berryman:

'cause the girl you been cheatin' with's ridin' in the guy I been cheatin' with's truck.

I love this line, myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Jun 20 - 04:12 PM

Great line! Love English sometimes.

I like being corrected. How else can I learn?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 24 Jun 20 - 04:21 PM

Let's get serious, people.    (Note necessary comma.)

From a current, evidently expensive, American TV commercial. And yes, I   listened carefully several times:

"Including a full-size leave-in elixir which nine out of ten women said their hair appeared thicker and fuller in just one week!"

"Elixir" (hair goo) isn't the only problem here.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Jun 20 - 04:28 PM

I shouldn'ta oughta've told'ya'll but iffin I've said it once...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 24 Jun 20 - 06:01 PM

Lighter, I agree that advertisement is ignorant.
===========
I just saw a video that reminded me of two peeves:

crime spree: a spree is fun. Calling a series of crimes a spree minimizes the suffering of the victims, for whom it was not fun at all.

triggerman: Yuck. Instead of saying "Jones was the triggerman," say "Jones murdered Smith." Make the killer face what he did.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Jun 20 - 12:47 PM

Charlottesville now has a free bike rental program.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 26 Jun 20 - 04:40 PM

Charlottesville now has a free bike rental program.
Well, you wouldn't want to keep it in a cage. ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Jun 20 - 06:51 PM

Hah!

This should be sad but it's tragic: 16-year-old TikTok star dead at 16.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 02:39 PM

Mrrzy, I think it's past your bedtime.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 06:26 PM

Oh, sooo true!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: PHJim
Date: 29 Jun 20 - 09:29 AM

From: Mrrzy- PM
Date: 21 Jun 20 - 12:35 PM

Using definitions instead of the word so defined.

Using initials as in The w-word when avoiding saying Walk in front of your dog is fine, but doing that with any human over the age of spelling is infantilizing, condescending, and patronizing/ paternalistic. Either use the word or don't.
***************************************************************

Mrrzy - There are words that I don't feel comfortable saying, like "the N word". In that case, I will use the initial.

While that's the only one that comes to mind right now, I know that my dear departed grandmother would say "the F word" rather than "fuck" when she was quoting someone and I'm glad she did.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jun 20 - 10:29 AM

If you're quoting someone who said "nigger" or "fuck," your choice should be either to not quote them at all or to say/type exactly what they said/typed. Putting in asterisks or saying things like "the n-word" is both pusillanimous and not quoting accurately. You can have fun with asterisks, on the other hand, as in "...and then I told the b*ast*ard to f*uck off..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jun 20 - 06:35 PM

I note that Jay Rayner, my very favourite restaurant critic, is trying to be kind to restaurants during their troubled times in the pandemic, because, as he says, only an ars*ehole would give a bad review at the moment.

"ars*ehole." Ideal!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 30 Jun 20 - 02:15 AM

"Using initials as in The w-word when avoiding saying Walk in front of your dog is fine, but doing that with any human over the age of spelling is infantilizing, condescending, and patronizing/ paternalistic. Either use the word or don't."

In Canada, we just had a popular, respected TV journalist have to abase herself before the nation, apologize, and present a Red-China-style self-criticism for having, within a planning meeting with her fellow journalists, uttered the title of an important book in Quebec politics that has the notorious, um, "n-word", in its title. So ....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Jun 20 - 11:59 AM

I'm with Steve Shaw, or he's with me, on this one.

I had to watch a CNN clip just to find out what the "m-word" was.

Spoiler alert:






It was Mask.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jun 20 - 01:27 PM

Interesting piece in the Guardian from ten years ago, making some apposite points, and including an extract from their style guide:

"We are more liberal than any other newspapers, using language that our competitors would not. But even some readers who agree with Lenny Bruce that "take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government" might feel that we sometimes use such words unnecessarily.

The editor's guidelines are as follows:

First, remember the reader, and respect demands that we should not casually use words that are likely to offend.

Second, use such words only when absolutely necessary to the facts of a piece, or to portray a character in an article; there is almost never a case in which we need to use a swearword outside direct quotes.

Third, the stronger the swearword, the harder we ought to think about using it.

Finally, never use asterisks, which are just a cop-out.

As Charlotte Brontë put it: "The practice of hinting by single letters those expletives with which profane and violent people are wont to garnish their discourse, strikes me as a proceeding which, however well meant, is weak and futile. I cannot tell what good it does – what feeling it spares – what horror it conceals."

If the author of Jane Eyre had been a tabloid reader, she might also have observed that asterisks actually draw attention to swearwords, as well as offering readers the challenge of working out the difference between, say, ****s and ******s."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 01 Jul 20 - 01:10 PM

Most of the time when a person uses a foul word s/he's just being lazy.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Jul 20 - 02:22 PM

For once I seem to be in agreement with The Guardian (albeit from 10 years ago).
First, remember the reader, and respect demands that we should not casually use words that are likely to offend.
Second, use such words only when absolutely necessary to the facts of a piece, or to portray a character in an article; there is almost never a case in which we need to use a swearword outside direct quotes.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Jul 20 - 02:27 PM

Chitten the chat shootin the breeze
ticklin the ribs inventin degrees
piled higher and deeper BS is cheaper
Than Harvard, Wheaton or Yale

Learning to cook by hook or by crook
is like stealing from out of print books
The art of cuisine is almost obscene
in textures tastes and smells

Who puts the shish on your kabob
or relish on your hot dog
Who puts a pinch of salt on your egg
or sauce on your gonzofazoul

The Randy man can
he has a secret rhthym
that you can't understand
but the randy man knows

Who shaves so close his cheeks glow
it almost feels like peachy fuzz
What the randy man does with a can of
whipped cream very few have known

Who uses all the ice cream
to turn to steam when its on you
if he spills chocolate syrup
you can be sure he'll clean it all up

The randy man knows
all the perfect ways
to cure your weary woes
with hot buttered rolls

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Jul 20 - 02:32 PM

You can do better than dirty words

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jul 20 - 06:00 PM

Albeit, Nigel? You did that on purpose, didn't you! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Jul 20 - 06:04 PM

Where is the African man from the Tavern? Bet he'd like the hot buttered tootsie rolls!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jul 20 - 06:21 PM

Well now. One says dirty words, one says foul words. I don't use fuck, cunt or several other such words on this website (though I certainly do when I'm in my car stuck behind some bellend or other who needs to learn to drive, for example). But they are not dirty words, nor are they foul words. That's just your judgement, and it isn't mine. In fact, they go back many hundreds of years, they are incredibly descriptive in a very direct way and fashion dictates that they are, at this time, slightly less acceptable than arsehole, dick, fanny, shit, piss, wank and the rest. You call them foul or dirty. Unfortunately for you, masses of people use these words every day, often incredibly effectively and with colour. Thinking people of a sensitive nature will consider the context in which one may be tempted to use them. I use these words every day, but there has been many an occasion on which I've winced at their use by someone who has shown no regard as to the setting they find themselves in. Not in front of the children, formal situations, etc. You may hate the fact, but, like any other words in common currency, they are standard English, and you simply have to get over that indigestible fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Jul 20 - 08:14 PM

The best words

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Jul 20 - 02:31 PM

Albeit, Nigel? You did that on purpose, didn't you! :-)
I did it on purpose as that was the sentence which came to me. I did not do it deliberately to annoy you.
You have made your dislike of the word known.
I said: For once I seem to be in agreement with The Guardian (albeit from 10 years ago).
I could have said For once I seem to be in agreement with The Guardian (although it is from 10 years ago).
But why use three words when one will do?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Jul 20 - 05:29 PM

Steve, I don't grok your comment:

But they are not dirty words[...]. In fact, they go back many hundreds of years [...]

How does the age of a word relate to its foulness? Fuck used to be the *polite* word; when the Norman term became polite, the previously-polite Saxon word became rude, and the rude Saxon term was lost to English. It seemed you were arguing that if a word is old its usage can't be rude...?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jul 20 - 07:15 PM

That was in no way an argument that I was making. Reread my comments about fashion.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 03 Jul 20 - 01:07 AM

Another peeve I just noticed: I don't want to hear the phrase 'perfect storm' ever again.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Jul 20 - 10:06 AM

Then what did you mean by Actually they go back?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jul 20 - 06:21 PM

They have been in common usage for hundreds of years is what I meant. That isn't to say that they have to be regarded as words that are in good taste, but they are standard English whether you like it or not. The whole point about what you regard as contentious words is that context is everything. Grand in the pub with your session mates, not grand in front of Grandma, your five-year-old or your maiden aunts. I don't use fuck and cunt here because I don't want to cause the kind of shock or offence among people I don't know that I see others here indulging in. But that's just me, and I care not a jot about other posters using those words. I'm kind of vaguely aware that there are some people who might take offence, and I only want to cause offence to people I intensely dislike. I have better ways of doing that than by resort to fuck and cunt.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jul 20 - 06:22 PM

And I didn't say "Actually they go back". Actually...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Jul 20 - 10:11 AM

You said In Fact where I quoted you, right, sorry.

Ok, question: in the phrase "long-lived" does the "live" syllable rhyme with give or hive?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Jul 20 - 10:33 AM

Also this

https://humanparts.medium.com/the-most-mispronounced-word-in-the-world-20dcad2a6735

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 04 Jul 20 - 11:31 AM

In that article, the author nominates 'karaoke' as the most mispronounced word in the world. This, surely, is a case of misplaced priorities. I would of thought that how it is pronounced is the least of the problems associated with karaoke.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jul 20 - 12:04 PM

I know someone who is fairly fluent in Spanish who still manages to pronounce chorizo "churitso."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Jul 20 - 03:43 PM

So, the "i" in long-lived, pronounced like the "i" in give, or hive?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 04 Jul 20 - 05:36 PM

Mrrzy: The "hive" vowel is better. "-Lived" there comes from the noun "life", not the verb "live". In America, we can still use the proper pronunciation, tho I think we are in a minority. In Britain, I gather, it has died out entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 04 Jul 20 - 06:03 PM

I'd say long-livved, because we're talking about the person's action, though I suppose you could say long-lie-ved in the sense that they'd had a long life. It'd make me shudder, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 04 Jul 20 - 06:18 PM

I prefer the long i. If you have legs, you can be long-legged, and if you have a life, you are long-lived.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 05 Jul 20 - 02:45 AM

Shouldn't that be long-lifed?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Jul 20 - 08:17 AM

My take exactly, Bobl.

But I was curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 05 Jul 20 - 06:27 PM

BobL: Compare the plural noun "lives".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 05 Jul 20 - 07:43 PM

Perhaps it should have been, but it is not, and if you use long-lifed, people will assume you can't spell.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 06 Jul 20 - 05:21 AM

Centre around. No. You can't centre something around. You can centre something on something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Jul 20 - 03:53 PM

And when did every single use of the word "black" become racist? We are diurnal animals. Night is scary. Nothing to do with skin color.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Jul 20 - 08:21 PM

PBS, talking of the Vikings, called something "unprecedented for its time" and I instantly forgot what the something was.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 08 Jul 20 - 10:04 AM

Would America work better if it was unpresidented?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Jul 20 - 10:38 AM

Groan, Nigel Parsons.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 08 Jul 20 - 12:06 PM

Mrzzy, I agree with you about black.

I just noticed another pet peeve I have: using reference as a verb. Take these three sentences:

He referenced the book of Ecclestiastes.
He referred to the book of Ecclestiastes.
He cited the book of Ecclestiastes.

I prefer the second or the third, depending on meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Jul 20 - 12:45 PM

Just heard a Brit use the adjective Swish, which apparently does not mean what Americans use that word for...

Separated by a common language, again.

I had a British boss for a while, we once had a long talk about that. It was the qualifier Quite that got her into trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 08 Jul 20 - 01:02 PM

"Reference" is a noun.

"Refer" is a verb. So is "cite".

Nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 08 Jul 20 - 02:17 PM

"He referenced the book of Ecclestiastes."
Unless of course it is used to mean that he catalogued the book, and created an index. Then it wouldn't seem too wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jul 20 - 03:38 PM

Some mixed metaphors are better than others but I have heard some that are incomprehensable. "You can't unring the bell of the crazy uncle locked in the cellar"
"The White House is an infected Cruise Ship without a propeller"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jul 20 - 06:29 PM

You may not like "reference" as a verb, but you're fighting a lost cause. You are fighting what is now standard English. It's up there with "Will she medal at the Olympics?" "I will access the information by googling it" "She authored the article on global warming." And will you book a holiday next year?

I like these things. They represent evolution in our language and there is no degradation going on. What a contrast with horrid things such as "alternate" instead of "alternative" and "disinterested" used ignorantly instead of "uninterested." Now they really do represent degradation.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Jul 20 - 09:44 PM

Ah, yes, verbing nouns. Love that. But not when there's already a perfectly good word.

What bugs me is inventing words like Authenticness. No, authenticity.

Or Worthiness. It's just worth.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jul 20 - 04:39 AM

Or two words that seem to be more popular across the water, "normalcy" and "societal."    And I must confess that I've never properly got my head round "existential" so I never use it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jul 20 - 06:08 AM

And there are perfectly good words available which enable the more enlightened among us to avoid such horrors as "albeit," "prior to" and "on a daily basis."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Jul 20 - 06:26 AM

You may not like "reference" as a verb, but you're fighting a lost cause. You are fighting what is now standard English.
Can you accept the same argument about 'albeit'?


900

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jul 20 - 07:07 AM

Nah. I'm a fighter to the death against two things, Nigel: degradation of da lingo and pretentiousness in the use of words. I won't rest until albeit bites the dust. It's an abomination...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Jul 20 - 08:03 AM

How about Nevertheless? Unless you are Kate Hepburn in The African Queen, I mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 09 Jul 20 - 01:45 PM

Steve, I did say that using 'reference' as a verb was a pet peeve of mine. A pet peeve is not a clarion call for all mankind to conform to my preferences.

'Reference' used as a verb is an intelligible word, albeit an ungraceful one.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Jul 20 - 09:49 AM

Headline:
The rare fashion brand that’s beloved by the women of Trump world and not afraid to show it

What?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 15 Jul 20 - 01:04 PM

I agree, Mrrzy. That's baffling.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Reinhard
Date: 15 Jul 20 - 03:47 PM

Just desserts, as in the thread "Jolly Rogues of Lynn": " Whereas millers and weavers get their just desserts in the song, the tailor is too much of a rogue, so he ends up enjoying it."

No, they don't get sweets, they get their just deserts, i.e. what they deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 Jul 20 - 04:16 PM

And then there is the dreaded "woke" - which is what I did at 3am this morning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 16 Jul 20 - 04:02 PM

Reinhard, I agree.

Bonzo, you are right. I've never been confidant about woke, wake, and awaken.

Here's another peeve of mine: advisedly.

"This is a millenial dilemma, and I use the term advisedly." What is that supposed to mean? The speaker never mentions an advisor who okayed the term.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Jul 20 - 05:14 PM

It is not pronounced just deserts [DEZ-erts], it is pronounced just desserts [duh-ZERTS], but yeah, phrase origin is deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jul 20 - 10:06 PM

albeit... discussed in USENET https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.usage.english/jwJrs1rNN0g

My favorite philosophy prof. in college A.C "Tony" Genova, wrote a paper titled "What is existentialism>"

I still have a copy somewhere..which does not mean *I* can still explain it, but at one time I was clear on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Jul 20 - 06:00 PM

Yeah, for about 10 pages in Einstein's biography, I understood relativity.

Peeve: starting a story with This is the untold story of. Hitherto-untold, ok, but if you're telling it, not untold now, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Jul 20 - 05:08 AM

This is the untold story of. Hitherto-untold, ok, but if you're telling it, not untold now, eh I'd prefer 'previously' to 'hitherto'. Other than that, if the story is being told for the first time them I'm fine with "This is the untold story".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Jul 20 - 09:49 AM

WashPo, who should know better, spelled a word for bellybutton Naval. It bugs me more when coming from such a source.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Jul 20 - 11:29 AM

Same source: Portland mayor hit by tear gas deployed by federal troops, said the headline, and my immediate thought was, wait, the feds deployed the mayor?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Jul 20 - 06:35 AM

Next pet peeve: Using 'fast' as an adverb related to speed.
adjective: "He is a fast runner". Yes
adverb: "He runs fast". No, "He runs quickly."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Jul 20 - 07:12 AM

Oxford English Dictionary considers "fast," as an adverb meaning "quickly," to be perfectly acceptable, with numerous quotations back to the 13th century.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Jul 20 - 12:24 PM

I agree with Nigel Parsons on this one.

Dictionaries define Literal as Figurative and have lost all claim to correctness.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 20 - 01:14 PM

One more time, chaps. Dictionaries are not there to decide what is or isn't "acceptable." Their role is to reflect usage. And I can't see much wrong with "fast" as an adverb. In fact, it can be used to rather good effect I feel.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Jul 20 - 11:29 PM

Ok watching a cooking show and the cook pronounced Millet millÉ, as if she were Hyacinth keeping up appearances.

Reminded me of Dick Cheney and his "cachets" of arms.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jul 20 - 04:43 AM

If you object to run fast, surely you should also object to hold tight. Any takers?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 26 Jul 20 - 07:44 AM

I would prefer "hold tightly", but accept that "hold tight" is in general use, particularly on passenger transport.

Flanders and Swann: "Hold very tight please, ding ding!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jul 20 - 08:08 AM

Brits as old as me may recall the Milky Bar Kid ads on telly, which had the ditty ending in "...Nestle's Milky Bar!" - pronounced " Nessels." The other day I happened to remark that a certain breakfast cereal was made by "Nessel". I received a severe bollocking from Mrs Steve because I hadn't said "Nest-lay." Sheesh!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 26 Jul 20 - 08:18 AM

I don’t like “he ran fast” and would use “quickly” but I guess we can tie ourselves up in knots with all this.

Steve is right that dictionaries aim to reflect current usage and language moves on whether we like it or not. A pet hat of mine used to be my perceived Americanism of the (UK) language but I’m not even going to come up with examples now.

Perhaps the one thing I once had some linguistic ability with was writing in plain simple English. I was once asked to do that in a job (when I was “employable”) when we were going for the then BS5750 and tried to do some shop floor procedure manuals for our department. Simple, easy to follow, unambiguous language was the order of the day and I think that I could manage that then.

Of course the language here is, and should be, mostly conversational and that changes things until you get pedants complaining about correctness. At which point, and if I cared, I’d start worrying about how I express what I write…

Which on this one, sorry Steve, but I’m comfortable with albeit...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jul 20 - 09:06 AM

It has brilliant and unpretentious alternatives. If you say albeit instead of although, or though, and prior to instead of before (which is the perfect substitute every single time), you are trying to make yourself sound cleverer than you really are. If you're already clever enough you shouldn't need to do these daft things.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Jul 20 - 10:27 AM

I like that Jon Freeman had a pet hat...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jul 20 - 11:18 AM

"fast"... when people compliment me by saying, about something I have done, "Gee.. you are fast!".... I usually reply something like, "Oh well, I am usually called 'half-fast'."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 26 Jul 20 - 07:36 PM

Here's another journalist's phrase I dislike. "Left the road" Yesterday two people, one driving a Lexus and one on a motorcycle, lost their lives because their vehicles mutinied, apparently. The Lexus left the road, went through a guard rail, down a slope, and rolled over. The motorcycle left the road and slammed into a building, all on its own.

Terrifying, ain't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 02:31 AM

Likewise "the vehicle went out of control" rather than "the driver lost control". But in this case, the reporter is simply describing what happened, not the cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 04:20 AM

Here's another journalist's phrase I dislike. "Left the road"

There could be many reasons why the vehicle left the road: the driver might have been drunk; not paying attention; avoiding a stray animal; too fast round the bend; forced off the road by anther vehicle; a blow-out; a medical emergency.

The reasons ought to come to light during the subsequent investigation. The journalists are simply reporting the known facts and not dealing in speculation. They should be commended for their restraint.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 05:52 AM

Ah yes, the autonomous vehicle. More signs of absent drivers: "A pedestrian/cyclist was in collision with a car/van/truck/train". In the old days people were knocked down by drivers.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Jul 20 - 12:47 PM

In the old days people were knocked down by drivers.
That seems to pre-suppose that the 'driver' was at fault, and caused the accident with the pedestrian/cyclist. That is not always the case. If a cyclist smashes into the side of a car they can rarely be describes as "knocked down by the driver".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Jul 20 - 03:27 PM

And a lot of people are apparently murdered despite surviving these accidents, as in headlines like Pedestrian killed after being run over by steamroller.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 28 Jul 20 - 05:54 PM

Doug, I doubt if in hundreds of accidents there were no witnesses, no skid marks, no weather report, and nobody knows anything about what happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 29 Jul 20 - 01:59 AM

True. But if a court case ensues, a reporter who anticipates its findings by saying a particular person was at fault could be in trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 31 Jul 20 - 08:35 PM

Writing that says that something is not what it's not. A recent example:

"At this time, we don’t have any evidence indicating this is something other than a 'brushing scam' where people receive unsolicited items from a seller who then posts false customer reviews to boost sales,"

That's from the US Department of Agriculture, about people receiving unsolicited packages of seeds. Why don't they just say "This seems to be a 'brushing scam'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Aug 20 - 07:06 AM

Ooh I saw this there and thought it should be here!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 02 Aug 20 - 02:24 AM

In writing, I usually find that it's clearer to talk about things that are than things that are not. Now remember I said "usually."

Tax instructions used to be bad that way. "If line 48 is not less than $30,000, go to Section 4, unless AGI is no greater than $50,000."

I remember my confusion as a kid the first time I read, "He said, not unkindly."   What?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Aug 20 - 10:45 AM

> Why don't they just say "This seems to be a 'brushing scam'.

Because it's more definitive to say we have *no* evidence than possibly to imply, by omission, that we *might* have some, but if we do, we're ignoring it.

Compare:

1. "We have no evidence that alien spacecraft are real."

2. "Alien spacecraft seem not to be real."

The statements are not precisely equivalent - particularly if you're an official spokesperson (or a trial witness), whose statements may be scrutinized for weasel words.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 02 Aug 20 - 05:21 PM

The word "seems" covers a lot of things easily, in a manner that most people can understand. After all, the most frightened and suspicious people are the most likely to have poor reading skills and comprehension.
===================
Here's another peeve of mine. People who refer to the owner of a dog or cat as its mom or dad. No, a pet is an animal, and when push comes to shove, it is not as intelligent or valuable as a child.

Several years ago, the house next door to ours had a bad fire, and we had to get out of ours fast, because the houses are close together. I called to my cat, but she ran and hid somewhere. With flames shooting toward the sky and powerful fire engines rumbling in front of the house, I threw on a sweatshirt and fled, leaving her behind. I never would have done that with a child.

Fortunately, we all came out of it all right. We sustained some damage to our roof, and some plastic siding melted, but that was all.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 20 - 07:28 PM

Well we had cats for over forty years. We didn't replace our last one after he'd died as we had then both retired and wanted to be off on our travels, and we live miles from anyone who could see to our cats when we were away. But we always admonished our cats when they'd been "naughty" by threatening to tell "mummy" or "daddy" what they'd been up to. We'd pat our leg to invite the cat to "sit daddy's knee," etc. Bloody hell, we are both perfectly rational people! More like a nod and wink twixt me and the missus, it was. And we always had amazing relationships with every one of our cats down the years. Of course the daft talk was never serious and never intended to parallel human relationships. We are all different, leeneia, and I must say that you come across as rather stiff and judgemental about stuff at times...

By the way, when we were little up north in Lancashire, the older blokes and blokesses in the street, maybe your friends' parents or the people your mum worked with, we always called our aunties or uncles, even though we weren't related. I had an Auntie Hilda, Auntie Brenda, Uncle Charlie and Uncle Bill, among many others. None of them were remotely related! That tradition is maintained to this day, and long may it carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 20 - 07:20 AM

In writing, I usually find that it's clearer to talk about things that are than things that are not. Now remember I said "usually."
Tax instructions used to be bad that way. "If line 48 is not less than $30,000, go to Section 4, unless AGI is no greater than $50,000."

The wording, though, is precise. To re-word it (keeping the same meaning) you would need:
"If line 48 is more than $29,999.99, go to Section 4, unless AGI is less than $50,000.01."
As a retired civil servant (UK) I prefer the original formulation.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Aug 20 - 07:44 AM

Cats seems to bring out our humaness.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Aug 20 - 08:56 AM

The current U.S. President seems to have no pets.

BTW, the latest usage prefers "spacecrafts" to plural-in-sense-but-singular-in-form "spacecraft."

The same goes for "aircrafts," "water crafts," etc.

Probably influenced by "arts and crafts."

So at this point in my life, I could care less, plural-wise.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 03 Aug 20 - 01:39 PM

I've never heard anybody say aircrafts or spacecrafts. You know, sometimes a word occurs in the language in only one form. For example, "jiffy." We always say "in a jiffy." (I'm ignoring the brand Jiffy Mix for now.) We don't say "He came in five jiffies." Or "It took a long jiffy."

I think the --craft words are like that. We only use them one way. We can say we flew in a Boeing aircraft, or we can say there were about 30 aircraft on the field when the tornado hit.

For a couple years, the DH and I would do the crossword together, and we added interest by spotting words which only occur in one form or in one phrase. I wish I could think of more of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 03 Aug 20 - 01:45 PM

"you come across as rather stiff and judgemental about stuff at times..."

That's pretty rich, coming from the guy who thinks dried basil is going to destroy civilization.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 20 - 02:29 PM

That happens to be true. And you caught me just as I was going outside to pick some home-grown fresh basil. Fancy that!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Aug 20 - 10:33 PM

Scissors, never a knife, for basil chiffonade, my mom said and did.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 20 - 03:59 AM

Unless you're making pesto, all basil needs is fingers.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Aug 20 - 10:52 AM

From today's zoom meeting:

Unsuccessful aging -isn't that living? I mean, isn't unsuccessful aging called death?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 04 Aug 20 - 01:01 PM

Good question, Mrrzy. I suppose dementia, arthritis, obesity would be examples of unsuccessful aging, but still...

Success is something we work for and may obtain with a combination of effort and luck. Aging happens whether we want it or not, so I don't think it's reasonable to combine the two. In technical terms, the expression "unsuccessful aging" is whopperjawed.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 04 Aug 20 - 06:05 PM

What are you going to make with aforesaid fresh basil, Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Aug 20 - 07:15 PM

Imma use whopperjawed as soon as you tell me what it means, leeneia!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 20 - 07:59 PM

In a ragù with pasta. Torn big leaves in the sauce a minute before the end, then the baby leaves sprinkled on the final dish, along with freshly-grated Canossa dairy Parmesan and a drizzle of the finest olive oil. If you haven't got fresh basil, just leave basil out altogether. Since you ask.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 05 Aug 20 - 01:24 AM

1. Steve, sounds delicious.

2. Mrrzy, whopperjawed means crooked. Supposed you had a bookshelf and the shelves were slanted while the corners were not right angles. It would be whopperjawed.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Aug 20 - 08:00 AM

After being gob smacked he was whopperjawed.

Much of BS is about the 'price of tea in China'.
The phrase is believed to have begun in 19th century England where the actual price of tea in China was of interest. When someone in the British House of Commons said something others felt was irrelevant, it was met with this saying... meaning, the price of tea in China is a relevant topic, but yours is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Aug 20 - 08:29 AM

Ah, like my second set of Ikea shelves, when I thought putting the first ine together right meant I didn't need to read the instructions again.

From Slate, today: billboards in a near-empty Times Square are going to blare images of the Hindu deity Rama and the Ram Mandir.

I am still trying to figure out how to blare, which is auditory, an *image* which is visual.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Aug 20 - 10:00 AM

Seems like I've been familiar with "blaring headlines" (sensational ones) for decades.

As several people have observed, individual words commonly carry more than one meaning.

Nowhere does it say that images in a public space can't be blared.

Obviously a figurative usage, with the advantage of being brief and understandable.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Aug 20 - 02:13 PM

Only sounds can be blaring. Only sights can be glaring. Colors can be loud, though, and also run, and bleed...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 20 - 06:32 PM

Well I heard today that the civil rights hero John Lewis has been "funeralised."


"Funeralised."


Fer chrissake...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Aug 20 - 07:49 PM

Oxford provides a number of quotes for "funeralize," transitive and intransitive, back to 1859.

It's marked "Chiefly U.S. colloquial and regional."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 20 - 08:01 PM

Yes I know. I found that out too but that doesn't make it not shit, does it? The people of that era also almost wiped out the buffalo and sent little boys into flues to scrape off arsenic to send to America so that cotton plantation workers could be slowly poisoned...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 20 - 08:24 PM

Mind you, 1859 also saw On The Origin Of Species, the book that started civilisation and that began to see off God...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Aug 20 - 11:46 PM

From today's WashPo:

Many Lebanese have blamed the country’s political elite — widely seen as corrupt and mired in rampant corruption — for the economic collapse.

Have they also been corrupted?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 20 - 04:38 AM

I agree that that isn't a great construction, but I suppose that if all around you are corrupt whilst you yourself are honest and incorruptible, you could still say that you are mired in rampant corruption. I think I might have chosen another way of saying it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Aug 20 - 05:04 AM

Civilisation greatly pre-dates "On the origin of species".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 20 - 06:36 AM

Do I really have to tell you every time whether I'm being whimsical or not, Nigel, or d'ye think you could work that out for yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Aug 20 - 07:41 AM

I agree that "funeralize" is inelegant, and carries inappropriate connotations, and I'd avoid using it, but if other people want to say it all the time, that's fine with me.

"Funeralize" is briefer than the alternatives, as well as crystal clear. I have bigger things to worry about.

Many of the posts to this thread, I assume, are semi-humorous. Some seem to go out out their way to fail to understand what is obviously being said. They self-obfuscize (just made that one up).

However ("never use at the beginning if a sentence" said somebody in my schooling), statements that are obscure to their intended audience, or needlessly wordy or convoluted, or disorganized, or ambiguous, are clearly a nuisance - or worse.

I almost forgot another voice from my past: "Never place commas between phrases beginning with "and" or "or."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Aug 20 - 07:54 AM

Two very useful lessons I learned were "Know your audience" and "Omit needless words.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 20 - 08:02 AM

"Never place commas between phrases beginning with "and" or "or."

Do both phrases have to begin with "and" or "or"? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Aug 20 - 08:36 AM

Probably applies to "and/or" as well. :^}

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Aug 20 - 08:45 AM

> "funeralize" is inelegant, and carries inappropriate connotations

Perhaps I should have added, "for many language-oriented people, especially with degrees."

For the rest of the world, who knows?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jeri
Date: 06 Aug 20 - 12:15 PM

Somebody other than you said "Never place commas between phrases beginning with "and" or "or."

As you did with

"statements that are obscure to their intended audience, or needlessly wordy or convoluted, or disorganized, or ambiguous, are clearly a nuisance - or worse." (missed one).

Exactly where they SHOULD go, unless I misunderstood your meaning, which is entirely possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Aug 20 - 01:15 PM

Jeri, you evidently received different advice than I did - quite likely, since my memory goes back to the Eisenhower administration.

Commas ordinarily do go between items in a simple series:

"funeralize, aircrafts, blaring, and fast." (The last is allegedly optional.)

But ("never begin a sentence with 'but'") a series connected with coordinating conjunctions is (or was) for some mystical reason distinct:

"funeralize or aircrafts or blaring or fast."

I find the commas useful for emphasis, but those who never learned the "rule" of omitting them won't even notice.

For some perspective, imagine how they felt in the tenth and eleventh centuries, when all those grammatical endings were falling off their words. Chaos! (Or did people even care?)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 07 Aug 20 - 12:08 AM

I was just looking at YouTubes and came across another journalist's weasel word (phrase, actually.) The phrase is "designer drug." They make it sound like some illegal, unhealthful street drugs are high class and somehow better. They are not.

In the video, a man who had been using a designer drug was walking down a busy highway, confused and incoherent, convinced the cars on the highway were enemies following him. This was bad, but he was carrying a young baby as well. No diaper bag, nothing to care for the kid, and he had him slung carelessly across one arm, as if he had forgotten the kid was there.

I googled the drug (molly), and it's just another form of methamphetamine.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 07 Aug 20 - 05:03 PM

"Designer drug" sounds more dangerous to me.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Aug 20 - 05:35 PM

"Designer drugs" were named in the early '80s. They were analogs of widely used street drugs, like heroin, that were intentionally "designed" to be different enough chemically as to be entirely legal.

At least in the U.S., laws were overhauled to catch up.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 09 Aug 20 - 02:10 PM

I don't think so. Just as jeans are cheap, sturdy working-class denim, and designer jeans are expensive, upper-class denim, so designer drugs are supposed to be somehow nobler and classier than street drugs. But they are not, and it is irresponsible to go along with that idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Aug 20 - 09:34 AM

Some news source reported that someone strangled someone else till that someone else was unconscious. No. Choking someone means cutting off their airway; strangling means choking them *to death*.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 11 Aug 20 - 11:26 AM

Not all dictionaries would agree: Strangle:
Squeeze or constrict the neck of (a person or animal), especially so as to cause death. 'especially' so as to cause death is not exclusive.
If someone has another in a choke hold you might say "He's strangling her", but with a restricted meaning of 'strangle' you don't know whether that's true (prior to the outcome).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 11 Aug 20 - 01:43 PM

Mrrzy, I agree with you. We are so accustomed to media reporting on deaths that when we see 'strangled,' we assume the victim died. 'Choked' or 'started to strangle' would be better journalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 20 - 02:14 PM

I'm with Nigel on this one. And then, of course, there's strangling the turkey....

Another drastic thing that doesn't necessarily kill you is electrocution...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 11 Aug 20 - 02:50 PM

I'm with Nigel on this one. And then, of course, there's strangling the turkey....
Ah yes, "Parsons knows" best ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 20 - 04:21 PM

Very good, Nigel! Just a tiny cavil: it's the pope's nose on a turkey... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Aug 20 - 11:13 AM

Pope's nose on chicken, game hen, duckduckduckgoose in my family

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Aug 20 - 07:03 PM

A current news story refers to wild-boar piglets (or "boarlets") as "cubs."

Scandalous or so-what?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/wild-boar-stole-german-nudists-152429522.html

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Aug 20 - 07:33 PM

I started off to stuff half an avocado with crab salad, but it kinda took a sharp left... Now I have a big bowl of chopped lettuces tomato avocado celery dill parsley with crab and lemon on top, with vinaigrette and almonds. Yum.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Aug 20 - 07:35 PM

Oops wrong thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 15 Aug 20 - 11:40 PM

Well, let's make it relevant to a language thread.

Your avocado reminds me of a joke in the comic opera Fledermaus. The Italian tenor who's been trying to seduce the leading lady is in jail (I forget why) and he demands a lawyer (avvocato.)

A guard reports to the warden that the prisoner wants an avocado.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 16 Aug 20 - 01:30 AM

I really wish I'd been aware of the word "funeralize" in my younger days - I'm sure I would have been heard to say, "I'm going to funeralize that sonofabitch!" (I had a habit of announcing what I would - ideally, theoretically, hypothetically - enact.)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Aug 20 - 08:06 AM

I have long wondered why that food is named Advocate. The ancients probably beaned a miscreant with hard things but if you were on their side, you could demonstrate your support by using a hard thing wrapped in softer stuff?

Thanks for a creative way of repairing my, uh, boner!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 16 Aug 20 - 02:57 PM

You're welcome. You would do the same for me, I'm sure.

We had lentil soup last night, and for the first time I added some celery seed at the end. It was good.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Rusty Dobro
Date: 17 Aug 20 - 03:44 AM

The TV weather girl has just announced that we’re having literally every kind of weather thrown at us today!
I’m now preparing for deep snow, hurricanes, pea-soupers and a new ice-age. What an August this is turning out to be!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 17 Aug 20 - 01:22 PM

You forgot derecho, tornado, heat wave and haboob.

I was on the fringe of a derecho last week - the weather map showed a cone laid on its side, and inside the cone were tiny green dots, each one a thunderstorm. I think there were 524 in all. The cone extended from Nebraska to Indiana at the time I looked, and places had winds of 80 mph.

My sister called me from Wisconsin, upset and on-edge, just needing somebody to talk to, because she had non-stop thunder for an hour.
==========
Spellcheck in out-of-date. It doesn't like derecho or haboob.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Aug 20 - 03:25 PM

There are also "firenados." And "sharknados."

There's no limit to a wordnado. (Bigger than a "word cloud.")

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Aug 20 - 07:19 AM

According to the Charlottesville Police Department, the stabbing was the result of an unrelated incident that occurred on the UVA Corner, which sent me thinking, what?!?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 18 Aug 20 - 10:35 AM

The language of police and lawyers is one of the most fertile sources of language peeves. With cops, some of the worst tangles arise from an effort to avoid implying as a fact something that is not yet officially "true", such as the constant reiteration of the word "alleged", and others come from narrow special meanings, such as the "unrelated" incident in Mrrzy's example. I'll bet that actually means the stabbing and the "unrelated" incident were not committed by the same person, or were committed by the same person but not for the same reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 18 Aug 20 - 10:41 AM

Did they also state that the "suspect" stabbed the victim?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Aug 20 - 02:34 PM

I have no idea what they meant, even after reading the article! I just loved the "caused by" x "unrelated" oxymoron.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 18 Aug 20 - 05:28 PM

"Alleged" means that the person is suspected of a crime but has not been convicted. In fact, the person may be innocent. Both police and journalists use the term.

Cops have their jargon, all right. They never seem to drive or walk anywhere, they proceed. And why do they have to say that something "went down" when the rest of us say it happened?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 18 Aug 20 - 05:32 PM

The more heinous the crime, the more certain the perp will be referred to as "the gentleman".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Aug 20 - 06:00 PM

Ok now this:

each design includes a yellow diamond-shaped star

Again... What?!?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 Aug 20 - 05:22 AM

each design includes a yellow diamond-shaped star
I have no problems with that. a quick google will give pictures of such a display (as a 4-pointed star). Perhaps you were expecting the more common 5 pointed star.
A quick look at flags will show you stars with many differing numbers of points:
3: The international brigade (or, on cars, Mercedes Benz)
4: Aruba, Nato
5: USA, Tunisia
6: Israel, Morocco
7: Australia
8: Phillipines
And there are flags with even pointier stars.
But it is just a representation. Most pictures of our nearest start show it as being almost spherical, and not pointy at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Aug 20 - 05:54 AM

each design includes a yellow diamond-shaped star

If we are talking about the proposed Mississippi state flag, the yellow (5 pointed) star is made up of 5 diamond shapes, as against the solid, white or blue 5 pointed stars shown elsewhere in the designs.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Aug 20 - 07:32 AM

In any case, it truly is an example of incomprehensible writing.

The writer should have said, "a star consisting of five diamond shapes" or something like that.

The valuable principle of omitting needless words refers only to *needless* words.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Aug 20 - 09:42 AM

I worked for a woman once whose pet peeve was "pre-recorded earlier".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Aug 20 - 12:57 PM

You mean like "prepare in advance"?

Personally, I think such redundant phrases reflect a natural desire for emphasis and not the speaker's foolishness.

They make easy targets, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Aug 20 - 02:02 PM

Right, I finally found out they meant A star made out of diamonds.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 19 Aug 20 - 05:37 PM

This is pure peevishness on my part. I'm tired of clicking on YouTube videos that begin with an over-chirpy young person exclaiming "Hi guys! What's up?" The person is usually too close to the camera.

What's up is I was hoping for a good video.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Aug 20 - 07:19 PM

....pre-recorded earlier at a previous time before this... ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 20 - 07:35 PM

At the last school I taught in, we had a PE teacher who would round up his kids on the field of play by shouting "OK, listen up, guys!" notwithstanding that there were both boys and girls in the group! I fell out, temporarily, with the same bloke when, as as a form teacher collating subject reports, I sent one back to him in which he had written, about one of the many kids who understandably lack enthusiasm for enforced sportiness, "This boy is completely disinterested in PE." The dispute went as far as the headteacher (ironically, a graduate in English from Cambridge University), who overruled me! Good times though...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 19 Aug 20 - 09:20 PM

We are often addressed as “You guys” by chirpy young folks in service occupations. When I feel extra-curmudgeonly, I will stiffly inform these nice people that I am a woman, and no “guy”, thus earning a full dose of that whipped-puppy expression that I have learned to dread, for it means : “You are unhappy with me already and I don’t know *why*!”

Of course, my curmudgeonlyness just multiplies.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Aug 20 - 09:32 PM

> "OK, listen up, guys!" notwithstanding that there were both boys and girls in the group!

About the norm in the U.S. for 30 years or more. So no exclamation point is required in these parts.

The usage of "guy" is surprisingly nuanced.

Grown American women call each other "girls" or "gals," but "guys" may be even more common among females under fifty or so. But it would sound very weird to me to hear a lone female addressed as "guy" by anybody. Men and boys, of course, are often addressed as "guy." (I don't intend to get into the complications of "bud," "buddy," "bro," "brah," "boy," "dude," and earthier terms.)

"You guys" long ago became essentially the Northern equivalent of genderless Southern and African-American "y'all."

P.S. Plural "youse" seems to be on the way out. And I've never heard anybody say "youse guys" who wasn't on a movie screen, though I can easily imagine it being used occasionally for emphasis.

Neither of my middle-class grandparents, born in NYC in the 1880s, ever said "youse." Everybody was "you" (plurals: "both of you," "all of you.")

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 19 Aug 20 - 10:08 PM

It is ironic that at just about the point at which the universal "man" (i.e., as in "mankind") was fully purged from the language, the universal "guys" was gaining a firm foothold. For some reason, that one doesn't seem to bother the language police.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Aug 20 - 09:11 AM

Guys has been genderfree for a while now. Yeah, wonder why too.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 20 - 09:34 AM

It was about the "listen UP" just as much as it was about "guys."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 20 Aug 20 - 11:17 AM

It's the fake familiarity of "Hi guys!" in a video that irritates me. "Guys" as a vaguely non-gender term is okay, coming as it does from these obvious C-students, but I resent the way they sound like I'm their drinking buddy. They may not care about nuances in language, but they do know the difference between a buddy and a stranger.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 20 Aug 20 - 05:37 PM

Oh, yes, leeneia!

We are completely unknown senior citizens who might well part with a nice tip — why can’t we be Sir and Ma’am? Must we plunge into the deep waters of familiarity at very first contact?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 12:14 PM

Exactly!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 01:27 PM

"Guys" makes me feel like a teen again.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 04:27 PM

Guys are cords used to provide angular tension to support a tent.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 07:11 PM

That's not what the servers (i.e., waiters and waitresses) mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 08:34 PM

I don't like being chirpily addressed as "Hi, guys!" either. Anyone approaching us for a charity donation and addressing us in such a way gets short shrift and no money.

While we're at it, what's with "shut up!" in the context of "well, really?" I've seen it on TV a few times and, being an Olde Pharte as what I am, am totally puzzled by it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 11:53 PM

Hi, Jennie. I don't think I've heard the kind of "Shut up!" you mean. Is it an expression of incredulity? My mother-in-law went through a phase where everything anybody said was met with incredulity. A favorite response was "Get out!", which sounds like your "Shut up!"

I was grateful that as an in-law, I could just sit nearby and pretend none of this was happening. After a while I was reading a psychology book, and the author said that incredulity was a fad of the time, and it saved the speaker from having to listen and formulate an appropriate response to the other person. In time, people starting ignoring the MIL, and that broke her of the habit.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 23 Aug 20 - 01:09 AM

leeneia, your MIL's "Get out!" sounds very much like the context of "Shut up!" Yes, it was used in the context of incredulity and I can see it would get irritating very quickly.

I remember an Irish TV series from several years ago, 'Father Ted' (I just looked it up, it was in the late 1990s) in which the housekeeper kept repeating "ah, go on, go on, go on, go on......." to the point of irritation.

Speaking of irritation, a colleague in my last job used the expression "the irrits" meaning something which annoyed her - as in "it gives me the irrits". Or even "a strong dose of the irrits", if it was even more so. Far from bugging me I quite like it, and sometimes use it myself. She was from Victoria, Oz, so perhaps it was a Victorian thing; they are quite different to those of us who hail from New South Wales with different patterns of speech. My Posh Melbourne Grandmother's way of speaking was very Melbournian despite having grown up and married in N.S.W.; my grandparents moved to Melbourne, Victoria, upon marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 23 Aug 20 - 08:04 AM

When I was a lad, the expressions used were "Go way!" "Get outta here!" and "Are you kiddin'me?" "You're kiddin' me!" or "You gotta be kiddin' (me)!"

Since then, there's been "No way!" "Get out!" "Get outta town!" and "Shut up!"

In certain cirles, "F--- off!" has long been used instead of "Get outta here!" Also the substitution of "s---tin'" for "kiddin.'"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Aug 20 - 09:53 AM

Sir and Ma'am are now scary to some people because of the awkward transgender issue, which also, as a nonbinary person, bugs me. That is, if you look like a bloke, I don't think it's fair of you to chastise people who automatically Sir you.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 23 Aug 20 - 03:04 PM

I've been addressed as sir, although I don't try to look masculine at all. True, my hair is short, but I always tell the beautician, "Maximize the waves; I don't want to look like a boy."

When somebody calls me sir, we all pretend it didn't happen.

If somebody's gender is a mystery, don't use Sir or Ma'am. How about "my friend" instead?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 12:10 PM

If "Hi, guys" bugs you, what do Mudcatters think of "Latinx," a new, gender-neutral word for Hispanic persons.

It's becoming common among American academics, though not yet among the people it designates.

It's pronounced "LatEEn-ex," btw.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 09:42 PM

"Ex", not "equis"? What a bastard formation!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 25 Aug 20 - 12:22 AM

Thanks for the explanation about Latinx. I doubt if it will catch on. For one thing, x already means something else, so why should we all have to learn that it now means "gender unspecified"? For another thing, it sounds like something you use to clean the bathroom.
====================
I was just on YouTube, finally seeing who Lada Gaga is, when I came across this song by Weird Al Yankovic about grammar and usage. Everybody here would probably enjoy it.

grammar song

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Aug 20 - 06:01 AM

That's a brilliant song. But I'm still on a campaign to finally excise the silly word "whom" from the language. Fighting the good fight means being technically wrong a lot of the time but I couldn't care less. As for "whomever," help me somebody!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Aug 20 - 09:31 AM

> "Ex", not "equis"?

It's unwittingly language-inclusive too.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Aug 20 - 09:34 AM

"Whom" is a useful part of the language.
The fact that many people are confused by it, or unable to use it correctly is no reason to do away with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Aug 20 - 09:45 AM

Yeah, I like whom too.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Aug 20 - 10:01 AM

> no reason to do away with it

How *do* we do away with words and usages we personally dislike?

Last time I looked, "ain't" and "Between you and I" and "Me and him played ball" were still going strong.

In the words of Kafka, "In the fight between you and the world, bet on the world."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Aug 20 - 11:39 AM

"Whom" is used far less in speech than in (certainly more formal styles of) writing. I'd far rather rejig the sentence than write "whom." I may be technically incorrect in saying this, but the only time I feel uneasy about using "who" instead is when a quantity word precedes it, for example "many of whom." It will fade away, unfortunately not before I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 07:00 PM

I've just identified another peeve: insane. "Insane" seems to be the go-to adjective for lazy minds. In the last few days I've seen it used to describe the following:

- a photograph of Saturn and its rings
- the remarkable sight of 250,000 snow geese taking off for the south
- an airline insisting a passenger wear a mask

I think that insane is too valuable a word to be thrown around carelessly like this. We need a word which means "out of his mind but not medically mentally ill."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 07:06 PM

Quite possibly related to that I suppose is the use of the word "unreal."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 08:10 PM

Like, crazy, man!

In my youth I recall using "wild."

Must start again.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 10:05 PM

Insanity, fyi, is a legal rather than medical term.

Nuts.
Loony.
Bats, in the belfry or not
Cuckoo
Mad, as a hatter or not
That last is more Brit than murrican

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 27 Aug 20 - 10:09 AM

I get particularly annoyed by people who are injured after an accident, or are killed after a car crash. They should arrest the serial killer attacking poor accident victims.
Killed *in* a car crash, for goodness sake!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 27 Aug 20 - 11:42 AM

I agree, Steve. "Insane, unreal and surreal" merely seem to mean "unusual." I particularly dislike "surreal." It's used by people who think they are intellectual because they wear Van Gogh's Starry Night knee socks.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 20 - 12:14 PM

When my brother was about 3-4, he briefly adopted, as a way of showing displeasure with someone, the phrase "You oughta be in an insane-aylum!"

We never quite figured out where he got the original, but he dropped it after people laughed a few times.

I've always thought it could be a useful construction.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Aug 20 - 01:15 PM

Thompson, I totally agree. Adds insult to injury.

The origin of that phrase is interesting, the "sult" part relates to sauté and somersault, and has to do with not literally jumping on someone while they are down.

Note I didn't say After they are down!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 27 Aug 20 - 02:38 PM

I hear 'surreal' being used every day by people who I am quite sure have no intellectual pretensions whatsoever, and who quite possibly have never heard of Van Gogh. It has entered the general parlance, and there ain't nothin' no one can do about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 27 Aug 20 - 05:59 PM

Sauté in the sense of leaping?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 20 - 06:34 PM

"Nuts.
Loony.
Bats, in the belfry or not
Cuckoo
Mad, as a hatter or not
That last is more Brit than murrican"

Nutty as a fruitcake
Daft as a brush
Away with the fairies
Mad as a box of frogs
Barking
Doolally-tap
Crazy as Joe Cunt's cat

(Sorry about that last one but it ain't half good...)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Aug 20 - 09:21 AM

Yes, as in jump.

And I thought after 4 hours one sought medical attention...

From an advice column:
My husband has been having trouble sustaining an erection for over a year now.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 28 Aug 20 - 10:08 AM

In Canada, one is as crazy (or mad) as a bag of hammers.

"Away with the fairies" is heard without inverted commas only in the Atlantic provinces and among those of recent Irish descent. It usually means intoxicated or suffering from senile dementia, and applies only to those deemed harmless.

Canadians not only go mad (i.e., insane) like the Brits, we can also be mad (angry) like the Americans. Another aspect of our mixed-up culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion's brother Andrew
Date: 28 Aug 20 - 10:18 AM

I have always heard and used, "dumb as a bag of hammers." One is "as crazy as a shithouse rat."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 28 Aug 20 - 10:47 AM

I recall ""dumb as a rock" from NYC in the '50s. Also "dead as a doornail [or "doorknob"] and "deaf as a fencepost."

Others were more mundane: "sweat like a bull," "work like a dog," etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 28 Aug 20 - 11:31 AM

How could I have forgotten the shithouse rat?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Aug 20 - 03:08 PM

And I love all the [some part] short of a [whole] for Not All There:

A few fries short of a Happy Meal, e.g.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 20 - 03:38 PM

In the film "The Green Mile", Percy, the bad jailer, is 'infected' by John 'Coffee' and one onlooker says.. "I think that feller's cheese done slid off his cracker."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Aug 20 - 10:45 PM

Snicker.. Ok, these are language pets, rather than pet peeves, excellent veer.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 29 Aug 20 - 01:12 AM

Andrew - in Oz it's "as cunning as a shithouse rat". Our rats aren't crazy, but they are very cunning inded.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 20 - 05:18 AM

"A few fries short of a Happy Meal"

A few sandwiches short of a picnic
A few condoms short of an orgy
Not the sharpest knife in the drawer
I looked into his eyes. The lights are on but there's nobody driving

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 29 Aug 20 - 09:23 AM

A few bars short of a middle eight (well, it is a music forum).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 29 Aug 20 - 06:04 PM

A few roos (kangaroos) loose in the top paddock.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 02 Sep 20 - 07:37 PM

I have a relative rather near a big fire in California, so I'm keeping tabs on it. Fortunately, it seems to be waning, and evacuation orders have been lifted.

Today Calfire reported that "Fire personnel resources are beginning to return to their respected Units or reassigned to other incidents."

I don't like it that living, breathing firefighters are referred to as "fire personnel resources." These are people.

I say let's forgive them for mixing up "respected" and "respective." Calfire people are probably exhausted by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 02 Sep 20 - 10:19 PM

Leeneia - one of the best misuses (is there such a word? there should be) was several years ago at a citizenship ceremony, when we lived in the Big Smoke. Hizzoner the mayor was there, and assorted local dignitaries; it was Australia Day, so becoming an Ozzie citizen was a big deal that day.

Up steps Mr Mayor, resplendent in his red robe with chain of office around his neck (chain was later melted in a fire, a new one had to be made), and speaks of the vows our new Ozzies will be asked to make. He tells them they will be "required to swear allegiance to the queen and her excesses".

Himself and I couldn't stop sniggering......

These days our new citizens swear allegiance to the country of Australia, not to the queen. I'm sure her successors aren't bothered one way or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 03 Sep 20 - 11:16 AM

Good one, Jennie.

As an Australian, you probably are not aware of an American tax situation behind terms like "personnel resources." The tax code says that employees are entitled to have certain payments made on their behalf - social security, medicare, unemployment. Therefore, in a feeble dodge, employers call their employees something else.

Their housecleaner in an independent contractor. So is the babysitter.   For some years I worked for a national retail chain, and we were associates, then we were team members. This last was particularly pathetic, because no way was a billion-dollar outfit going to get away from its legal obligations just because it had thought of a cute new term for "employee."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Sep 20 - 11:20 AM

I remember when Personnel became Hunan Resources, as if people were now inanimate objects. I objected.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Sep 20 - 12:26 PM

Is that people in a Chinese province?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Sep 20 - 02:10 PM

Oops!

Also, "years young" - barf. Just don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 03 Sep 20 - 05:59 PM

Yes!! "Years young" presses my buttons every time - I have become one of those Olde Phartes who yells at the TV every time someone says it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 03 Sep 20 - 06:21 PM

IRRC, "human resources" was invented by Paul Goodman, who thought "personnel" was dehumanizing. You can't win.

"Personnel" comes from French, and contrasts with "materiel" (I don't know how to do the acute accent in this medium) = material resources. Thus, "human resources" is a pretty exact translation of it.

The original application of the pair seems to have been military.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Sep 20 - 05:01 AM

I suppose "fire personnel resources" was use to avoid complaints from those who object to the traditional "Firemen".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Sep 20 - 06:11 AM

Pet peeve number: . . .
Something is "three times smaller/lighter/cheaper".
When making comparisons the comparison is made in terms of the original. The original may be three times the size of the newer object, but that means the newer object can be described as "one third the size" of the original.

If something has a price, making it 'one times cheaper' reduces the price by 100%, making it free. To be "three times cheaper" they need to pay me double the original price in order to take it away!

I've just seen it in an online add for building bricks "eight times smaller than Lego". No, no, no! (one eighth the size)
Also they're referring to the volume. The bricks appear to be a 1:2 scale model of Lego bricks.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Sep 20 - 08:12 AM

"SALE - up to 70% off!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 04 Sep 20 - 10:14 AM

'Midnight on Saturday'. I've always had a problem with that. Is it midnight at the end of Friday or midnight at the end of Saturday? In any case, if it's midnight it's not any day, but a point in time between the two.

I must be in a bad way.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Sep 20 - 10:25 AM

Then you see the occasional "12 AM" or "12 PM." And our local telly weatherman is almost guaranteed to say "dawn tomorrow morning" in every bulletin. Tell 'im, somebody!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 04 Sep 20 - 11:47 AM

Today is my birthday, and if anyone congratulates me on being "66 years young!" I might forget myself and say something rude. Somebody has already called me "young lady" on Facebook today. He was being "funny", but I'm not amused.

As a recipient of the Old Age Pension, I am an official, government-certified Olde Pharte. What's more, I refuse to deny it; I earned every wrinkle, varicose vein and arthritic joint the hard way.

As for human resources, I remember when they were "staff", "the workforce" or "manpower". "Personnel" was a military term until about the mid-'70s; those who put it in context with "matériel" are correct.

English-speaking civilians puzzle me with their attachment to the 12-hour clock; what's so hard about 1200 hr and 2400 hr? If the French and the Germans can figure it out, and generations of barely literate soldiers, so can you!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Sep 20 - 02:07 PM

Then you see the occasional "12 AM" or "12 PM." And our local telly weatherman is almost guaranteed to say "dawn tomorrow morning" in every bulletin. Tell 'im, somebody!
The greatest problem with 12:00 hours is that it is frequently used to mean the exact opposite of what is intended.

For the morning you get 9.00 (am) 10.00 (am) 11.00 (am) followed by 12:00 (pm).
Although this is in common use, I disagree with it. 12pm should be one hour later than 11pm. If you must re-start counting at midnight (or noon for those on 12 hour clocks) then to name the hour after 11.00 the next hour needs to be 0:00. If you name it as 12:00 then it needs to be one hour later than 11:00, not 13 hours later.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Sep 20 - 03:55 PM

Hippo birdie, deer Charmion!

I never use am or pm with 12. I use 12:01 to avoid it. Or 11:59. But not 12:00.

I also normally use the European 24hr clock anyway, which Americans, to my dismay, refer to as "military" time.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 05 Sep 20 - 02:39 AM

Charmion, were I to address you as "young lady", from my 76-year-old perspective it would be merely a slight exaggeration rather than than a slight.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion's brother Andrew
Date: 05 Sep 20 - 09:41 AM

One can always use "noon" and thereby avoid confusion. The first moment of the day is 0000 hours and the last moment, 2400 hours.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Sep 20 - 05:46 PM

Noon and midnight, yeah.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Sep 20 - 05:59 PM

My son and I have this joke, after watching the Thin Blue Line many moons ago, in which the feckless DC Grimm once said "eight o'clock in the morning hundred hours." Ever since, it's been the way we always refer to the time of day...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Oct 20 - 08:49 AM

NRO reveals plans for previously-undisclosed SpaceX launch this month

Well, who reveals previously-disclosed news?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 06 Oct 20 - 10:04 AM

True.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 Oct 20 - 10:55 AM

Well, who reveals previously-disclosed news?


"NRO reveals plans for ...... SpaceX launch this month"


The proposal to launch a mission could have been disclosed previously, but the detailed plans may have only just been revealed. In this particular case, it would appear to be the first time that the general public has been given any information on the mission, detailed or otherwise.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Oct 20 - 03:01 PM

Right. Previously undisclosed. Like all revelations.

Also an actor "made a brief cameo" in my movie... Like, long cameos are a thing? I thought those were called Roles.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 06 Oct 20 - 03:34 PM

It is the launch that was 'previously-undisclosed' - and the plans that are being 'revealed'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Oct 20 - 02:08 AM

I did not go back and reread this whole thread- it has suddenly exploded in size, so here goes:

A peeve: the misuse of who's and whose. I've even seen it in official use. I see it everywhere, it seems, and I don't understand the problem.

Sometimes I think that all contractions should be disallowed for awhile- maybe we could finally grasp all of them for all time.

Who's = who is. Whose= it belongs to me. Or to you. Or some other idjit.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 07 Oct 20 - 05:14 AM

Who's = who is.

.... unless it is preceded by "The" (as used elsewhere in this thread), in which case it means "belonging to a well known British rock band formed in the 1960s".

Ebbie, you didn't have to reread the whole thread. A quick search on the word "who's" shows that your point was raised 10 years ago to the day, on 07 Oct 10.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 07 Oct 20 - 05:16 PM

It's an odd thing that when we make a mistake using its and it's, that we usually put the apostrophe in when it is not called for. Like this:

The cat landed on it's feet.

I consider that odd because it's is harder to type than its. It has one more character, the apostrophe, and the apostrophe is off to the right, calling for the use of the weak little finger.

It's the same with who's and whose. I see more cases where who's is used in the wrong place, even though who's is less natural to type.

But I also think that these are natural typos, merely the result of going too fast. I like to save my peeves for people I think are being deceptive or manipulative.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Oct 20 - 01:21 AM

leenia, that's what my sister in law does, just the opposite. Like I say: so close.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 08 Oct 20 - 11:50 AM

Do you mean she omits apostrophes that should be there?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 08 Oct 20 - 12:18 PM

On the radio this morning I heard (yet again!) someone being described as 'mischeevious'. Can people not understand that the word is 'mischievous' - meaning indulging in mischief - NOT indulging in 'mischeevy'?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Oct 20 - 01:27 PM

like, you know what i mean like you know that joe offer like he is a good egg like

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Oct 20 - 03:42 PM

I think the extra I in Mischievous came in on the same boat as Aliminum and just got lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 08 Oct 20 - 05:32 PM

I just encountered a peeve of mine - using 'of course' when stating some obscure fact.

"A red-cheek, of course, is merely a juvenile red-headed woodpecker."

It peeves me because it implies that everybody knows the obscure fact but me, who must be ignorant and shouldn't argue.

Ha!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Oct 20 - 05:16 AM

Yes, leenia, she omits apostrophes that should be there and inserts them where they should not be. For instance, she might write: Its not as colorful as it's neighbor. (And no, I have no idea what that sentence is conveying.)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 09 Oct 20 - 07:03 AM

People who don't know the difference between '... and I' and '... and me'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Oct 20 - 10:35 AM

Also, by accident, on purpose. Not on accident.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 09 Oct 20 - 10:53 AM

I can't say that I have ever heard anybody use "on accident".

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Oct 20 - 11:59 AM

Way to avoid the error '... and I' and '... and me,' always put the 'I' or 'me' FIRST. Unfortunately, 'proper' English requires putting the I or Me after the 'and,' which can cause momentary lapses, especially in oral communication. BTW, I often hear these mal-usages by lawyers commentators, and other supposed highly educated people, who would never do so in writing. Ergo the solution is evident...always say 'I' or 'Me' first, depending on whether both parties are acting or acted upon.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 09 Oct 20 - 12:13 PM

Another way people can check is by disregarding whoever is involved in the 'and'.
You wouldn't say 'Johnnie saw I going to the shop' [unless you were in the West Country, maybe], so don't say 'Johnnie saw my brother and I going to the shop'. He saw my brother and me.
In the same way, you wouldn't say 'Me went to the shop' [unless you were about three years old, possibly], so don't say 'My brother and me went to the shop'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Oct 20 - 07:13 AM

> Can people not understand that the word is 'mischievous' - meaning indulging in mischief - NOT indulging in 'mischeevy'?

Evidently not.

Oxford show they've been saying "mischievious" since before 1572.

And spelling it more or less that way too.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 10 Oct 20 - 10:20 AM

That's interesting, Lighter.

I have read a good many books on the English language (420's in the library), and some scholars talk about "drift", which are strong tendencies, perhaps unconscious, for us to talk a certain way. With the word "mischievious", we see drift which says that fancy adjectives ought to end in -ious, such as

obvious
devious
furious
curious
impecunious

The only other adjective I can think of right now which doesn't have the i is "larcenous."

I remember hearing a teacher in grade school telling us that the word is "mischievous." I believed her, but I thought it awkward.
==========
Re: impecunious. If I am pecunious, what am I like?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 10 Oct 20 - 10:28 AM

All those five words are related to another word using 'i' or 'y' -

obviate
deviate
fury
curiosity
pecuniary

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 10 Oct 20 - 06:28 PM

Mrzzy.......that extra "i" in aluminium is alive and well, and living in Oz.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Oct 20 - 06:37 PM

Oh yeah it is just the Murricans that say aluminum.

Interestingly enough, the original nomenclature had no I. The Brits changed the spelling to make it be like other elements, but the US uses the original, correct, spelling.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 10 Oct 20 - 09:10 PM

The Canadians use the US pronunciation, as we have found out on our visits.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 11 Oct 20 - 01:21 AM

In fact, we Canadians prefer to say that the Americans use the Canadian pronunciation.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Oct 20 - 09:12 AM

Canadians spell Canada with three letters: C eh? N eh? D eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Oct 20 - 12:35 PM

Ok forgot to get asparagus so there I was with my crab, and no crab and asparagus soup on this cold and rainy day. So farmers' market lettuce and tomatoes, crab, half an avocado, a handful of almonds and my vinaigrette made a great salad. But I am still cold, and it is still rainy. Poor Charmion.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 20 - 10:51 AM

"Sometimes I think that all contractions should be disallowed for awhile..."

Er, Ebbie... is that American?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 13 Oct 20 - 06:00 PM

It's a long-lost cause, but in my book "mayhem" does not mean disorder. It means the crime of depriving someone of the use of a body part.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Oct 20 - 08:14 PM

Canadians spell Canada with three letters: C eh? N eh? D eh?

Maybe that is why the group is called the BeeGees. When I was learning to read B G would be pronounced 'bugger' ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Oct 20 - 12:05 AM

My Greek Table just said Mykonos has nightlife 24/7. That takes some doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Oct 20 - 10:18 AM

Both from cnn this morning:

Remains of 59 bodies found in clandestine graves in Mexico - how about either 59 bodies, or remains of 59 individuals?

Newly discovered Triassic lizard could float underwater to pick off prey ... Well, if it is floating, it is not *under*water, now, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 29 Oct 20 - 10:33 AM

Well - the bodies are presumably not complete, so what you've got is what remains of what were once whole bodies, so, the 'remains of the bodies' - but it is awkward wording, because the term 'remains' is generally taken to mean 'all that remains' of that individual who we were chatting with the other day but whose soul has since gone on to Glory, while the body remains here below.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 29 Oct 20 - 10:35 AM

How about, in reference to a couple, "They/We are pregnant!" I've heard that one a few times lately. I've lived too long.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 29 Oct 20 - 12:44 PM

I like the "They are pregnant" usage. In a society where thousands of newborns go unacknowledged by their fathers, the usage gives the father credit for being involved with and caring for his child.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 29 Oct 20 - 05:59 PM

Another (very) long-lost cause: The feeling you have for something you want that somebody else has is *envy*. *Jealousy* is the feeling you have for something you have that might be taken away from you.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 20 - 06:53 PM

Apropos of pregnancy, two expressions that seriously get on me tits are "She fell pregnant" and "She was heavily pregnant".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 30 Oct 20 - 02:39 AM

Towards the end, a pregnancy can feel very heavy if you are the one lugging it around wherever you go.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Oct 20 - 11:40 AM

Oh and I am so old I didn't know that Pride is now, apparently, exclusively an LGBTQ word. I feel like some old curmudgeon asking why people are using gay to mean homosexual when they [the curmudgeon] are gay themselves but in the sense of Happy.

What happened was my undergraduate institution had online Homecoming so I signed for several things including Tufts Pride on opening day which I thought was going to be about pride *in* Tufts but was Pride *at* Tufts... Oh well. Being nonbinary puts me at Q so I was not at the wrong party, I just wasn't at the party I *thought* I was going to. But a good time was had by all.

Which is an expression I had trouble with in college, when I ran into someone senior year that I had been to a really fun party with freshman year but who had forgotten where we'd met, and I said at Roots and Growth, we had a good time, and he took several shocked steps backwards as I had apparently told him we'd had sex. Which we hadn't.

Got into trouble in French with Sortir Avec, which I thought meant Go Out With but apparently meant have sex with, so an odd conversation occurred with somebody who had had sex with a Marine in the pool once, but was denying Going Out with them.

Ah, youth.

And I'm not even going into my strenuous objections to claiming pride in anything you didn't actually *accomplish* - mom, holocaust survivor, refugee, could be *proud* to be American, it was a personal feat. I on the other hand was *born* American, so proud does not compute. I feel bloody lucky [present times excepted], sure, but never Proud. One cannot imosho claim *pride* in one's skin color, sexual orientation or gender identity, or birthright nationality.

You *can* be proud of getting out of a closet, though. Applies to atheists too, that last.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 30 Oct 20 - 06:32 PM

"... changed everything."

Nothing changes everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Oct 20 - 12:29 AM

All the ramifications too, or rather neither, JoeF.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 31 Oct 20 - 09:13 PM

"Blockbuster"
should make people imagine digging corpses out of rubble.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 01 Nov 20 - 10:24 AM

You're right, Joe. What block is it that blockbusters bust?
==============
Here's a peeve of mine, but it's not actually language. It's when somebody is leaving, and they point a finger at me and lower the thumb as if shooting me with a gun. Fortunately this fad seems to be over, but maybe it's not over. Maybe since I retired I have managed to exclude people like that from my world.

It was always done by people who live in neighborhoods where a sudden loud noise does not lead to saying "Was that a gunshot?"

Literary note: I remembered this gesture because it was in a detective novel about Spenser and Hawk.
================
Mrrzy:   Good points. What does imosho mean? Sounds Japanese.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Nov 20 - 10:54 AM


Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
. . .
Newly discovered Triassic lizard could float underwater to pick off prey ... Well, if it is floating, it is not *under*water, now, is it?

Well, actually, they can be 'floating'. It just means that they do not need to regulate the depth of their dive. Floating is being in a state of suspension due to the upthrust of the medium one is in matching the downthrust of ones weight/mass. Or, as our physics teacher had us memorise:
"When a body is wholly or partially immersed in a liquid or fluid it receives an upthrust equal in force to the mass of liquid or fluid displaced."
Hope I got that right, it's 50 years ago now, and a quote (in translation) of Archimedes.
Divers use weighted belts to offset the floatation effect of the sea-water surrounding them.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 20 - 11:23 AM

I think that should be the weight of fluid displaced, Nigel.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Nov 20 - 12:27 PM

Yes, it should, as we're talking forces rather than their components.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 01 Nov 20 - 01:11 PM

Would IMOSHO be 'in my oh-so humble opinion'?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 20 - 01:30 PM

"In m'humble" does it for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Nov 20 - 01:55 PM

Sen got it on the nose.

On NPR today (NPR!) on a science show (a *science* show!), something was "part and partial" of whatever they were talking about...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 01 Nov 20 - 02:36 PM

With half an ear on Countryfile this evening, I definitely heard one of the presenters say of some view or location that it "never fails to disappoint".
I really don't think that was what she meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 01 Nov 20 - 05:47 PM

"Impact"
saves the trouble of deciding whether to say "affect", "effect", or "influence". An app that would respond to "impact" with "BANG" would automatically make fun of semiliterates.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Nov 20 - 07:43 AM

So someone is a "semiliterate" for using "impact."

Fascinating.

My friend was clerk of the state supreme court for many years. The clerk's job (for those unfamiliar with the judicial system) is, essentially, to study the case, write a decision, and pass the decision on to the judge for approval or revision.

My friend had to revise just one decision in his career. He frequently uses "impact." And "irregardless," too.

Does that make him (and others who use these words) semiliterates?

When I was in high school, we were warned never to use "contact" as a verb, because it meant we were too lazy or tongue-tied to use "call," "phone," write," etc.

You can see how far that got.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Nov 20 - 10:09 AM

What happened to the word Widow? I keep wincing at headlines about Sean Connery's, but they all say Wife.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Nov 20 - 11:47 AM

"Impact"
saves the trouble of deciding whether to say "affect", "effect",

Yes, always a difficult choice. A writing guide used in HMRC stated that the correct usage should be easy, as "affect is a verb and effect is a noun".

Unfortunately that isn't always the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Nov 20 - 06:17 PM

Right, Nigel. Psychologists use affect as a noun to mean emotion.

Also, I can effect a change.

What's wrong with contact as a verb when I don't wish to specify the method? If I tell my assistant to contact a vendor, s/he may write, telephone, text, fax, send an e-mail or visit the firm.
==========
It's my own fault, but I can never remember what a meme or a trope is.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 02 Nov 20 - 08:28 PM

"Incredibly" is no longer just an exaggeration for "surprisingly". It may mean "very" or nothing at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 02 Nov 20 - 10:04 PM

Well, if we're going to get into that - how about "awesome"?

Waitress: Would you like some more coffee?

Me: Sure.

Waitress: Awesome!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 03 Nov 20 - 02:33 AM

"What block is it that blockbusters bust?"

The block where the movie is screening, where the theatre is located.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 20 - 05:30 AM

When we visited Perth (the Aussie one) we were tickled by how frequently we heard assistants in shops, cafes, etc., replying to each and every step in the transaction with "no worries!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 03 Nov 20 - 06:16 AM

'awesome' - reminds me of the television coverage of the Jubilee celebrations a few years back. I remember thinking "What large crowds, what small vocabularies."
Almost everyone asked what they thought of it said either "It's amazing" or "It's a once-in-a-lifetime-opper'uni'y."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 03 Nov 20 - 06:39 PM

There is usually an aisle in a (U.S.) supermarket labeled "International". In fact, most of the offerings in that aisle came from the U.S., and many of the other commodities in the rest of the place were imported. It is stupid to use "international" to mean "foreign", and stupid stupid to use either to mean "ethnic".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Nov 20 - 02:48 PM

And all those sugary crap things shelved under Nutrition. Shudder.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Nov 20 - 02:21 AM

theivery instead of theft, some illiterate republican politician

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 05 Nov 20 - 05:20 AM

There seems to be widespread confusion between 'reticence' and 'reluctance'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 05 Nov 20 - 03:42 PM

Steve - "no worries" is an Ozzie-ism that has been around for many years. Back in the day when I was a Sweet Young Thing people - always blokes, women weren't supposed to know such things - would sometimes say "no wucking forries".

Another dating back a very long time, and still in use today, is "she'll be right". It can also be combined with "no worries" to make the compound phrase "no worries, mate, she'll be right".

Once again, a bloke thing. Women have their own Womenspeak. There is also Familyspeak.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 05 Nov 20 - 04:09 PM

I've noticed recently that when people are talking about numbers, instead of saying there has been an increase they often say there has been an 'uptick'. Is this because so many statistics these days are bad news?
A tick is a positive sign so this could be an attempt to make the larger numbers seem less unwelcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 20 - 05:41 PM

It was a delight, Jennie, so no worries!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 05 Nov 20 - 07:57 PM

Back in the day, I never heard anyone say, 'Back in the day' - then all of a sudden everyone was saying it - how come?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 06 Nov 20 - 03:46 AM

A tick is a positive sign - but it puts a different slant on "uptick" if it's the parasitic sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 06 Nov 20 - 05:33 AM

Possibly mentioned above, but the inclusion of an aggressive "right" at the end of a sentence is beyond fuckdom!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 20 - 06:22 AM

And why use five exclamation marks when one is perfectly sufficient?????

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Nov 20 - 10:02 AM

As Woody Guthrie would say to the question "Why, oh why, oh why, oh why,...why, oh why, oh why?"


"Because, because, because, because...goodbye, goodbye goodbye."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 06 Nov 20 - 01:37 PM

I keep hearing people saying 'as many ...' without continuing with 'as ...'.
I heard an example just know in a local television report about an installation consisting of giant soldier figures to represent those who had died fighting in wars.
Its creator was interviewed, and said he wanted as many people to donate to the poppy appeal. Did he mean as many people as there were giant figures in the display? Or as many as died in the two world wars? He probably meant 'as many as possible', but why not say so?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Nov 20 - 04:49 PM

. . .said he wanted as many people to donate to the poppy appeal.
Not having seen the report I can't tell what was intended. But context is everything. If it was preceded by a comment about last year's supporters then the partial sentence makes sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 07 Nov 20 - 06:38 PM

Another long-lost cause: "Both of them were talking with each other." "Both" properly implies "Not just one, but...". Since it is impossible for one to talk with each other, the emphasis of "both" is absurd.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 03:17 AM

Silly question: "Are they both the same?"
Silly answer: "No, only one of them is."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 04:36 AM

"A crisis situation". A crisis is a crisis. You don't need to add "situation" to elucidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 04:57 AM

Unless it's in a text message, "Thx."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 05:53 AM

Surely you mean "Tx", you prolix bollix?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 06:10 AM

Yep, and all the other variants. I think it's to do with that letter x at the end, which isn't even a part of the full word. It fills me with angxt. I'll get over it...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 06:15 AM

Ah cool your jexts.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 06:18 AM

How's about "razed to the ground" (terrible) or even "raised to the ground" (very terrible indeed)?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 06:20 AM

And even though I'm a damned atheist, I will never write "Xmas."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 06:22 AM

Or the outrageous "Xtian"...

Any more xs exes?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 06:39 AM

I am a practising Christian, and I've no problems with "Xmas". "X" (chi) was an early symbol used by Christians to identify themselves.
Xmas has a long history of use.
"Xtian" however is a neologism which I strongly dislike.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 07:04 AM

That may be so, Nigel, but it's a good bet that most people who use "Xmas" use it as a convenient shorthand, or just a lazy one, and are unaware of that Greek origin. As an atheist I have no dog in the fight as to whether it's offensive or not to believers, but a quick google revealed that there are plenty of Christians who find it offensive (try Quora for example). As it takes about 0.568 seconds longer to write the word in full, and as I have many Christian friends, I'll carry on choosing to avoid the short form.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 09:33 AM

I use X for Xian but $ for $mas.

Raised to the ground reminds me of Reign in, which should be rein in.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 09:57 AM

Hmm. Or is that a mute point? Or simply beyond the pail?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 10:17 AM

Why isn't the opposite of tuition, intuition? Or is it?
Without established knowledge all we can do is make fuzzy guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 12:16 PM

Ladies! Please! Tow the line!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 01:16 PM

I must say, this misuse of words is a very interesting phenomena...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 01:48 PM

Ladies! Please! Tow the line!

Ladies often please, whether they're towing a line or knot.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 04:18 PM

Ah, and we come to a linguistic example I love:
Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 06:02 PM

Tits like coconuts.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Nov 20 - 11:39 AM

Gift = that which has been given, and is thus a noun.

Ask is a verb. If you have a big favor to ask, it is the favor which is big.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 09 Nov 20 - 12:17 PM

"in my [or his, her, their, etc.] DNA"
when used about something that is obviously not in DNA, such as saying of a film director: "Cinema was in his DNA".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Reinhard
Date: 09 Nov 20 - 02:58 PM

The OED defines gift as a verb too besides the noun and gives as examples:
P.G. Wodehose: She was gifted with a sort of second sight.
Daily Telegraph: You can be ... gifted up to £90,000 before you become liable to tax.
J.C. Lees: The Regent Murray gifted all the Church Property to Lord Sempill.

A friend from Edinburgh, who is a singer/songwriter and speaks very precise, uses gift as a verb regularly; so I'm quite accustomed to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 09 Nov 20 - 04:59 PM

But those all make the point: "gifted with second sight" is gifted as a verb, yes, but gifted in the sense of having a natural gift, rather than of receiving a birthday present; the other two are gifted as a verb in legal contexts.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 20 - 06:05 PM

I'm afraid that to criticise people who allegedly misuse "gift" is something that is not within my gift.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 11 Nov 20 - 05:29 AM

Have to say I'm fond of a little light verbing now and then.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Nov 20 - 01:43 PM

Never met a noun I couldn't verb.

PC mealymouthiness is another peeve.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: ripov
Date: 13 Nov 20 - 02:39 PM

"x times cheaper than"-when what is meant is "1/xth of the cost"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 13 Nov 20 - 08:39 PM

One that makes me shout at the TV - something is said to be "easy as." Or "cheap as".

Easy as what? Cheap as what?

A woman in my quilting group uses it, I suspect it may have come from her grandchildren. It is still irritating.

Irritating as........

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Nov 20 - 09:09 PM

Yeah, I saw that in a headline recently and bristled for both of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 13 Nov 20 - 09:50 PM

Thank you, Mrzzy! Like minds and all that......

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 20 - 06:45 AM

Easy as pie. Cheap as chips. Nothing wrong there!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Nov 20 - 09:44 AM

Abandoned Boat Was Found With A Missing Girl For 8 Years
Boy did that not make sense

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 18 Nov 20 - 07:13 AM

This is one which always makes me cringe: someone asks a question like 'Have you got ...' and the reply comes back 'Yes, I do' (or 'No, I don't'). You hear it all the time. Aaaarrrggghhh!!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 18 Nov 20 - 07:16 AM

Yesterday we received our paper TV Licence, and the schedule for Direct Debit payments.The wording in the opening paragraph made me fume. It said, "If you have already set up a Direct Debit arrangement then you're done." Eh? What? DONE???? Grrrrrr!!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 18 Nov 20 - 07:22 AM

When people are introducing two points, instead of listing them as first and second or 'A ... and B...' they often present them as:
A ... and secondly ...'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Nov 20 - 09:06 AM

This is one which always makes me cringe: someone asks a question like 'Have you got ...' and the reply comes back 'Yes, I do' (or 'No, I don't'). You hear it all the time. Aaaarrrggghhh!!

It is the initial questioner who is at fault for using 'got' in that manner. (unless it means 'have you been to collect . . .?')
The question could just as easily "Have you . . .?" Such as "Have you chips?". To which the answer would be either: "Yes. I have (chips)", or, if the question was taken as meaning "Do you have ...?" then an answer of "I do" would also be correct.

In my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 20 - 09:13 AM

"If you have already set up a Direct Debit arrangement then you're done."

Well I have some sympathy with organisations that are trying to be a bit less formal by ditching officialese. They do go a bit over the top at times. I've just had some protracted email correspondence (concerning a rather large financial matter - no criminality involved! - which took months to resolve) with a solicitors' firm hundreds of miles away. The person who finally managed to sort it out for me signed off her final email "With kind regards, Imogen." I'm OK with that. In my (separate) dealings with my late mum's affairs, I'm on first-name terms with my solicitor (who I've only ever met once, briefly, twelve years ago). Among several doctors and other medics who have worked on my ailments over the years there's been Adam, Dave, Charlie, Rob and Gretel. There's nothing to say that due deference can't still be afforded simply because we use first names or less formal language in m'humble...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 20 - 09:16 AM

I can't imagine my asking anyone "Have you chips?" I'd be far more likely to say "Give us a bloody chip, you tight arse!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 18 Nov 20 - 09:36 AM

I'd be more likely to say "Have you any chips?"
(Assuming I'm not in a chip shop. They would have chips, wouldn't they?)

Something that makes me uncomfortable is people who write, for example, "See the below list" or "See the below link". When I first came across this in emails I reported them as spam, as they contained what to me was suspect English.
I don't know why it seems wrong though, as "See the above link" sounds fine, and of course "See the link below" is as good as "See the link above".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 20 Nov 20 - 04:31 AM

Oh God. "Absent" meaning "without". Without is a perfectly good word. "Absent a policy to do yadayada…" No!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 20 Nov 20 - 12:13 PM

Another peeve of mine: 'shout out', as in "Let's give a shout out to John Jones for his generous donation to Children's Hospital."

I think a kind donation deserves gracious words of thanks, not a shout, as if we were all at a football game.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Nov 20 - 12:52 AM

From cooking shows: This dish [nobody ever heard of] is a new tradition. You can't know that, ya know.

This is an authentic recipe. An authentic what recipe? All recipes are authentic *recipes* eh.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 21 Nov 20 - 03:44 AM

Authentic - there are as many authentic recipes for ragù alla bolognese as there are housewives in Bologna.
Mine, derived from that of the late great and not entirely unlamented Fanny Cradock, isn't one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 20 - 04:59 AM

My first Bol recipe came from Katharine Whitehorn's "Cooking in a Bedsitter." Anyone else remember that? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 21 Nov 20 - 05:31 AM

I particularly hate people who shout "Come on!" like a bullying PE teacher faced with reluctant children who have no interest in getting a ball into whatever variety of hole or goal the game requires.

Jamie Oliver does it in nearly all his cookery programmes (at which point I switch off).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 21 Nov 20 - 05:43 AM

Use of the word "chair" for chairman and chairwoman or chairlady - hideous unnecessary neuterisation.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 21 Nov 20 - 07:22 AM

Calling them 'chairholders' would solve that problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 21 Nov 20 - 07:31 AM

I have just heard someone on BBC Radio 4 describing financial problems resulting from Covid 19 as "the biggest cause of mental health ...".
Not "mental illness", or even "mental problems".

Shouldn't we be encouraging anything that is a cause of mental health?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Nov 20 - 08:18 AM

Ooh, I *like* chair and such as gender-neutral titles. Necessary, I would say. Silly to have to specify genitalia, and hyphen-person is awkward.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 20 - 09:38 AM

If I'm in a meeting and the person chairing it is a woman, I'm perfectly fine with Chairwoman. Likewise, Chairman if it's a bloke. I'm fine with Chairperson or just Chair in either case. But if we're just talking about meetings in general, we may need something generic. In that circumstance I'm fine with Chair or Chairperson. Shouldn't be saying Chairman if I don't know the gender of the person in the chair or if I know it's a woman. It isn't hard, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 21 Nov 20 - 11:52 AM

Not a pet peeve, but I heard this on the radio this morning: "If we do that now, it will come back and bite us in the end."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Nov 20 - 01:55 PM

Lol!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 22 Nov 20 - 03:46 AM

I'm happy with "lady chairman" (and so is the lady chairman of our local Country Dance club).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 20 - 04:50 AM

Here in Bude we have a lady policeman and a lady postman. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 22 Nov 20 - 07:20 AM

If 'chair' is considered preferable to 'chairman', shouldn't we be using the term 'hu beings' ?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Nov 20 - 10:20 AM

I have been stymied by humanity in my endeavor to use neutral terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 22 Nov 20 - 11:46 AM

"hupersonity", obviously!

Back when women in hitherto 'men's jobs' was new, my father referred to their female letter-carrier as 'the femailman' - or 'femaleman' - not sure of the spelling ... !

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 22 Nov 20 - 11:57 AM

In England (probably in other parts of the UK as well) the person who delivers the post isn't called the 'mailman' (or 'mailwoman'). Some people try to call them 'posties' but that sounds Australian.
If calling the chairman (or woman) the chair is now widely regarded as normal, why not call him/her 'the post'? We do say 'Has the post come yet?'

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 23 Nov 20 - 01:22 PM

Another peeve of mine: "categorically" as in "It is categorically untrue that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves in 1832."

Apparently the word is substituted for "absolutely" or "completely", but every time I hear it, I wonder what unstated category the speaker has in mind. It doesn't help that those who use it often sound like they are trying to put over a snowjob.
==============
Re: the mail. In the U.S. we call them letter carriers.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 20 - 05:57 PM

It's VACCine fer chrissake. Not vaccINE!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 23 Nov 20 - 10:06 PM

Jos: When I was in Scotland in 1959, I received an anonymous valentine whose envelope was inscribed

Postie, postie, dinna falter.
This may take me to the altar.

So "postie" must be Scottish as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 24 Nov 20 - 06:20 AM

Elvis's 'Return to Sender' begins 'I gave a letter to the postman ...'.

So at one time in America the person who both collected and delivered letters was called the 'postman'.

'Letter carriers' sounds like the homing pigeons that carried messages in wartime.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 20 - 06:44 AM

We give letters to our postman. It's like that round here.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 24 Nov 20 - 06:54 AM

"The Postman Always Rings Twice" is a 1946 American film noir based on a 1934 novel of the same name, by an American author James M Cain.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Nov 20 - 10:55 AM

VaccINE.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 24 Nov 20 - 11:49 AM

VACCine - Edward Jenner was English. He invented it, so the English pronunciation is correct.
Here's a little BBC film about it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p015gmdn


And while we're about it, it's conTRIBute, not CONtribUTE, and disTRIBute, not DIStribUTE.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 20 - 12:46 PM

Well I'm pretty tolerant when it comes to variations in pronunciation, but vaccINE seems to have caught on like an infection. Until the last couple of weeks I have never heard that pronunciation in this country (and I am 69...). A few of our telly commentators, after hearing reports from the US, have slipped into saying it then corrected themselves. I regard vaccINE as a horror no less vile than albeit, prior to and on a daily basis. It's just wrong. It comes from the Latin word for cow, vacca, fer chrissake.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 24 Nov 20 - 12:47 PM

"He invented it, so the English pronunciation is correct." Thanks for my morning chuckle.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 20 - 12:54 PM

Yeah, and the French invented champagne, and we in Europe respect that and refrain from calling our sparkling wines champagne. Not so in America, eh? If vaccination was invented here and we've been saying VACCine for 200 years, well just behave yourselves and talk proper!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Nov 20 - 05:00 PM

Ford has ordered freezers to vaccinate their employees. Took me a while to place that missing comma!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 20 - 06:29 PM

Would that be vaccINate? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 24 Nov 20 - 11:57 PM

about six months ago, the DH and I got interested in a British TV show about archeology. The name of the show is Time Team, and although it's been off the air a long time, we still enjoy it.

Watching the show has cause me to hear many different pronunciations between English English and American English. It's a funny thing, because the books I read about English don't mention them.

It's late at night and I'm tired, so I'm not going to try to list them. Nonetheless, there are so many of them that railing against them is like telling the waves not to come in.

We do smile at all the extra r's in the British speech:

arear
Carenzer (Carenza)
dramer (drama)

We think they're cute.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 25 Nov 20 - 04:19 AM

Leeneia, you'll find many (slightly) different pronunciations across England, mainly between North & South although there are other regional accents. There are also local dialects like Geordie or Black Country, quite unintelligible to an outsider if the speaker so chooses.

Steve, I seem to remember that "champagne" was once a generic term for sparkling wine. However, that changed when we joined the Common Market.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 20 - 06:01 AM

Champagne is not a generic term for sparkling wine. Champagne is a fairly small region of France north-east of Paris. It has a particular climate and terroir and there are strict regulations as to its sparkling wine production methods. The wine we call champagne has been produced there for centuries (for long before there was a USA). The Champagne region has long battled to preserve its name for its sparkling wine, and most countries in the world, including China, Brazil and the EU countries, all abide by the legal requirement to not call any wine not from that region champagne. Some winemakers in the US persist, via a loophole in the law, to dishonestly use the word champagne on their labels. If you call a wine Rioja, it has to come from that part of north-east Spain. Likewise, Napa Valley, Porto, Chianti Classico, among many others. We can't call a cheese Stilton unless it comes from a very restricted area of the English Midlands, and it has to be made a certain way. You can't call a pork pie a Melton Mowbray pie unless that's where it comes from. Prosecco has to come from the Veneto in northern Italy, from nowhere else. Routinely, these are not just place names but also reflect strict rules with regard to local and often highly traditional production methods. By any measure you look at this, the regulations are entirely moral. Of course, we've lost a few battles, Cheddar for example, though some of us, me included, will not buy any cheese calling itself "Cheddar" unless it comes from that small part of the Westcountry (wot pfr calls Scrumpyshire). I've just sampled a superb cheese from south-east England called Sussex Charmer, in every regard very like a superior cheddar, but it refrains from using that word on its label. Let's hang on to and celebrate regionality, say I!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Nov 20 - 06:20 AM

Democrats are rhetorical wimps. Republicans can demonize the conceptual name ANTIFA but Democrats can not bring themselves to call the gun toting white supremacists PRO FASCISTS.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 20 - 06:23 AM

As for Cheddar, we have at least got legal protection for the term West Country Farmhouse Cheddar, thus:

"Cheese can only be called ‘West Country Farmhouse Cheddar’ if:

It is made using milk from local herds reared and milked in the counties of Somerset, Dorset, Devon or Cornwall. This ensures that the cheese has a particular texture and flavour.

It contains no colouring, no flavouring and no preservatives.

It is made in these four counties to traditional methods. These methods include the cheese being made by hand and the unique process known as ‘cheddaring’.

It is made and matured on the farm and aged for at least 9 months. Authentic Farmhouse Cheddar doesn’t leave the farm from the moment the milk arrives from the parlour until it’s ready to cut and pack. This means the Cheddar remains in the care of the farmer who can ensure that it is produced and stored to the very highest standards required of a premium cheese."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 25 Nov 20 - 08:33 AM

There were objections some years back concerning 'elderflower champagne', which is usually made by people in their own homes for their own use, using bunches of elderflowers, water, sugar and lemon juice. Problems arose when someone produced it commercially and in 1993 large champagne houses took the case to court, but failed. This report is from The Independent:

"Although a product sold as 'elderflower champagne' constitutes a misrepresentation in that it indicates that it contains 'champagne' and is likely to deceive a small section of the public, it is unlikely that the champagne houses' reputation and valuable goodwill in the name champagne will be substantially affected by the small-scale sale of elderflower champagne. Since there was no likelihood of substantial damage to the champagne houses' business, reputation or goodwill, the champagne houses' passing off claim failed.

Sir Mervyn Davies dismissed the plaintiffs' passing off claim for damages and an injunction to restrain the defendants from selling elderflower champagne."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 20 - 09:21 AM

Well I take the point about its not being especially harmful to Champagne's reputation, and I admit to having made it meself and called it elderflower champagne, I do have to ask meself though why that company decided to be so provocative. Sparkling elderflower wine does it for me.

One elderflower bush in eight produces flowers that smell of cat's piss, so beware...

I'd generally rather drink a sparkler that's cheaper than champagne myself (something very nice with Parma ham, a little drizzle of aceto balsamico di Modena and a nibble of parmigiana reggiano - there I go again!). Some are a third the price and much better value. There are some lovely vintage cavas around, and we've been enjoying a bottle or two of the new-fangled rosé Prosecco from the Cantine Maschio (£6.50 at Morrison's). Don't knock it 'til you've tried it. It's a lovely drop!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 20 - 09:45 AM

Even the French winemakers outside the Champagne region don't call their fizz champagne. They make wines they call "crémants," made in exactly the same way and with similar strict regulation. They are much cheaper and some can be pretty good, as good as champers in m'humble.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 25 Nov 20 - 10:12 AM

I thought the commercial elderflower champagne makers could have simply called it 'Elderflower Shampagne', and the rest of us usually don't have a reason to write it down anyway so everybody would have been happy.

PS If you look for recipes on the internet you will find some that tell you to add yeast. You don't need to - there are natural yeasts on the flowers.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Nov 20 - 05:25 PM

I was watching a documentary on the horrors of some island during some war where one side had prisoners-of-war whom they hunted, for sport and for dinner. I kept cracking up because the British [English?] narrator pronounced CANnibalism caNIBBLEism.
Like, they ate them daintily, with pinkies sticking out. And tea and crumpets.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 20 - 07:13 PM

You will never hear that pronunciation here.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Nov 20 - 08:09 PM

Or here.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: LilyFestre
Date: 25 Nov 20 - 08:41 PM

My clients often talk about their "baby daddy."

It. Makes. Me. CRAZY.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 20 - 05:31 AM

And that reminds me of that inane bit in She's Leaving Home:

"She breaks down and cries to her husband
Daddy our baby's gone..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 26 Nov 20 - 06:08 AM

I don't think I have EVER heard "caNIBBLEism". It's the sort of thing you sometimes hear from people whose first language isn't English.

Leeneia, have you ever heard a Bristol accent - I think you'd love it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 26 Nov 20 - 06:20 AM

I think "baby daddy" is really a pronunciation of "baby's daddy". It doesn't bother me.

What I really hate is cat or dog owners being referred to as the animal's mummy or daddy - yuck.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 26 Nov 20 - 06:42 AM

Doesn't baby daddy suggest a father who's absent and flaky?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 26 Nov 20 - 07:21 AM

"Doesn't baby daddy suggest a father who's absent and flaky?"

Not necessarily. It's just that that is often the case.
But he could just be living elsewhere but keeping in touch and being supportive.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 26 Nov 20 - 12:38 PM

Jos, I'm with you on the pets. I am my cat's owner, not her mother.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 26 Nov 20 - 01:06 PM

When I had cats I thought of them as friends, rather than possessions.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Nov 20 - 03:02 PM

Dogs have owners. Cats have staff.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 20 - 03:26 PM

Fur-weather friends, Jos? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Nov 20 - 04:55 PM

Ok, this from Newsweek:

Child Dragged From House As California Highway Patrol Evicts Families From Vacant Homes

Um, if they are vacant, nobody can be dragged out of them, child or no, as nobody is *in* them.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 20 - 05:08 PM

Boy trapped in refrigerator eats own foot

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 27 Nov 20 - 04:12 AM

"Hailed" used without "as", for instance "He was hailed a hero". Makes me crill.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 27 Nov 20 - 04:33 AM

I've heard of 'krill' but I don't suppose you mean you are a tiny sea creature.
Maybe 'crill' should be added to the 'New words / usage' thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 29 Nov 20 - 10:19 AM

I keep hearing, for example, "If I [or you, they, etc.] had done something ..." replaced by "If I'd 've done something ...", "If you'd 've done something ...".
It was used on the radio this lunchtime when a professor, who was talking about how the virus would look in a few months' time, included the phrase "if we'd 've been a bit more careful in December ...".
Did he think he was saying "if we had have been ..." (or "if we had of been", even)?
Or was he saying "if we would have been ..." (or "if we would of been")?

Or do the people who use this expression not think at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 29 Nov 20 - 12:08 PM

The 'proper' phrasing would be, I suppose, "if we were to have done ... ", but "if we'd've done" ("if we had have done ... " or "if we would have done ... ") strikes me as acceptable colloquial English, even for academics. YMMV.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 29 Nov 20 - 01:30 PM

If the professor has been researching Covid, he may be absolutely exhausted and can be forgiven a lapse in diction, perhaps a reversion to his childhood speech. There's no reason to accuse him of not thinking.

I believe a simple "If we had taken precautions in December..." would convey what he meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 29 Nov 20 - 02:11 PM

The problem isn't whether he said "If we had taken precautions" or "If we had been a bit more careful" - it's whether he said "If we had taken precautions ..." (I'm happy with that), or "If we'd've taken precautions ..." (which is not the English I learned many years ago).

Strangely, that construction sounds OK to me in French or Spanish.
English: "If I had done ..." (good), "If I would have done ..." (not so good), but it seems OK translated as: "Si j'aurais fait ..." and "Si hubiera hecho ...".

Did it come in with the Common Market, perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Nov 20 - 03:16 PM

It shouldn'ta oughto've...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Dec 20 - 08:40 AM

INCREDIBLE
It means impossible to believe.
I have always felt the word is mostly misused.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 02 Dec 20 - 09:07 AM

"set to"

It's everywhere:

Debenhams stores are set to close ...
The covid19 vaccine is set to be rolled out ...
The queen is set to spend Christmas at Windsor ...

It makes me think of a long row of up-ended dominoes, all set up and waiting for somebody to give the one at the end a push.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Dec 20 - 11:05 AM

Ooh unpeeve... NPR just said And Trump lied and said x instead of Trump claimed x without evidence. Good on NPR.

Meanwhile WashPo is touting recipes for potato latkes. How about fried potato latkes, eh.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: ripov
Date: 03 Dec 20 - 09:01 AM

"play sport"
play football, yes
play baseball, yes,
but play sport, no,
you can sport(and play)on Flora's holiday
historically sport refers to amusement, or entertainment in the song            Wednesbury Cocking (I think Wednesbury is correct,it's in th right area but I've never heard of Wedgebury)in th DT)it refers to placing bets, a very healthy pastime

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Dec 20 - 04:22 PM

What does one do with sports if not play them? Or is it ok in plural?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Dec 20 - 07:06 PM

In my day, you "played" specific sports, like baseball, but you "participated" or "took part in" sports generally.

I first noticed teens talking about "playing sports" in the late '70s.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Dec 20 - 11:32 PM

Alot of people are saying they are peeved bout the way I talk I talk lika stable gene yus I talk like bing bing bong bong and they complain they complain about cohesion coherent sea and comprehenchmen but you understand zackly what I'm sayin I tell ya it drives them crazy cuz you unerstand what I'm sayin. See you get it. Those fake news light wait journalists don't getit but you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 20 - 06:12 AM

I try to TYPE decent English on this board. I review what I've typed in the hope that any errors or absurdities that get through are solely down to the fact that I mislaid my reading specs or down to an undetected bit of "assistance" from predictive text or spellchecker. I'm not bothered about anyone else's foe passes :-) as long as they don't challenge mine. Spoken word is not the same. We shouldn't be quick to pick up on what people say off the cuff. Let's celebrate colour in the way people express themselves informally. Let's cringe and delight in equal measure, preferably silently...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Dec 20 - 06:31 AM

Steve writes from the throne, Trump talks from a barstool and can't write.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 20 - 06:46 AM

People who write ex cathedra don't have to be careful. Bragging that I take some care isn't bragging at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 04 Dec 20 - 11:21 AM

"Let's celebrate colour in the way people express themselves informally."

That's a beautiful thought, Steve. Good for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Dec 20 - 01:38 PM

Its the difference between being on the A list or the B list on the talk circuit. When the highest executive in the world is incapable of formal speech it is pathetic. Trump jibberish proved untranslatable into Japanese. Japan has a fairly formal culture.

My Asian friend makes himslf understood despite some very strong accents. But I know I am missing up to half of what he is saying. I think it is likely he's missing half what I say.
1/2+1/2=1 understanding

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Dec 20 - 01:41 PM

Foe, snicker...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Dec 20 - 10:37 PM

Not a *pet* peeve as I never saw it before, but how can a *movie* have a guest star?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 05 Dec 20 - 04:20 AM

......how can a *movie* have a guest star?

Perhaps when it is part of a series - "The Movie"; "Return of the Movie"; "Movie III, the Next Generation" - with a regular cast. The guest star would be someone well known, but not for that genre, who joins them for one film.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 05 Dec 20 - 09:26 AM

I keep coming across people using 'whereby' when they mean 'where'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 20 - 09:38 AM

If they say "whereby" just butt in quickly and say "Tesco..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 05 Dec 20 - 10:22 AM

Good idea, but I gave up Tesco a while ago. They kept overcharging me and refusing to honour their policy of refunding double when a customer is overcharged.

But I have an Aldi on one side of the road and a Lidl just opposite it on the other side. Maybe I'll pick one of those.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 05 Dec 20 - 11:50 AM

One that's become prevalent, in North America, at least: "on behalf of" meaning "on the part of"; e.g., "there was a great deal of nonsense on behalf of Giuliani" meaning "there was a great of nonsense on the part of Giuliani [on behalf of someone else]".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 05 Dec 20 - 01:26 PM

"Begs the question." I looked it up.
==========
Begging the question means "to elicit a specific question as a reaction or response," and can often be replaced with "a question that begs to be answered." However, a lesser used and more formal definition is "to ignore a question under the assumption it has already been answered." The phrase itself comes from a translation of an Aristotelian phrase rendered as "beg the question" but meaning "assume the conclusion."
===========
Hmm. All this time I thought "beg the question" meant "ignore the question." Now I see that the phrase means so many different things that from now on I intend not to use it.


Meself, whatever people are saying, "on behalf of" means for the benefit of, or in the place of.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Dec 20 - 01:56 PM

Doug Chadwick no, it was just a movie. Weird, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 20 - 03:59 PM

Begging the question in its original meaning refers to a circular argument, one in which the conclusion is assumed to be true even before the question is asked, thus: "God exists because it says so in the Bible. And the Bible is the word of God." Petitio principii, an informal logical fallacy. Unfortunately, you'll raise an eyebrow these days if you use the expression in that way. Today, most people use it pretentiously to mean raising the question, to the extent that this degraded usage is now standard English. A battle lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 05 Dec 20 - 04:08 PM

"Meself, whatever people are saying, "on behalf of" means for the benefit of, or in the place of." ... um .... Why are you telling me that? Was there something I said that led you to believe I was unaware of that?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 05 Dec 20 - 05:17 PM

I'm still a lone voice fighting the 'begging the question' battle.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 20 - 07:38 PM

I still fight that one, Jos. Not because I think I can win it back, but because the people who use it when they mean "raise the question" are just pretentious and pig ignorant! !

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 Dec 20 - 04:40 AM

.....how can a *movie* have a guest star?

Could it be someone who is well known but contracted to a different studio. A commercial arrangement may have been made for this production only?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Dec 20 - 10:34 AM

"Beg the question" as I have heard it means that one question, or answer, immediately raises another which should (possibly) have been dealt with first.
This is the same (prime) meaning which the online Cambridge dictionary gives:

beg the question

If a statement or situation begs the question, it causes you to ask a particular question:
Spending the summer travelling around India is a great idea, but it does beg the question of how we can afford it.
To discuss the company's future begs the question of whether it has a future.
It also gives a secondary meaning:
to talk about something as if it were true, even though it may not be

So although comments about "talking about something as if it were true" may describe the situation in which someone then uses the phrase, the person using the phrase is pointing out that there is an underlying question which also needs to be answered.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 20 - 12:43 PM

The second of your meanings is closer to the original meaning. Begging the question in that sense involves unjustifiably claiming, via faulty, circular reasoning, that the conclusion is true (though, of course, it may well be). The first of your meanings is a modern, regrettable, phenomenon. It could be that "beg the question" comes from "beggar the question," which means to render the question pointless as the conclusion (the answer to the question) has already been assumed via faulty reasoning to be true.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 06 Dec 20 - 02:35 PM

When the meaning of a term becomes seriously muddied in common parlance, I stop using it. 'Begs the question' is such a term. 'Comprise' is another. English is so rich and adaptable that we don't have to use unclear language.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Dec 20 - 02:42 PM

Steve:
It could be that "beg the question" comes from "beggar the question,"
If the origin of the phrase is uncertain, it could just as easily come from "begets the question" which would agree with the first meaning I gave.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 20 - 02:46 PM

As I said, your first meaning is modern.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Dec 20 - 03:34 PM

Nowadays to "beg the question" almost exclusively means to "unintentionally raise a question that should be answered."

At least on *all* American cable and broadcast news networks, including NPR.

Daily.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 06 Dec 20 - 04:03 PM

I wouldn't necessarily regard cable and broadcast networks, in America or elsewhere, as reliable authorities on the use of the English language.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 20 - 04:57 PM

He's merely reflecting modern usage, Jos (though I dunno what "unintentionally" is supposed to mean, and he's got hold of the wrong end of the stick in any case).

Here's unpretentious: "Arsenal's recent poor form raises the question as to whether they should strengthen their attack."

Here's pretentious: "Arsenal's recent poor form begs the question as to whether they should strengthen their attack."

Now why would any rational person use the latter construction? It's right up there with saying "albeit" instead of "though" or "prior to" instead of "before." Frankly, such things are not big and they're not clever...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Dec 20 - 06:42 PM

> reliable authorities on the use of the English language.

And who is that authority, pray tell?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 20 - 09:23 PM

Generally speaking, authorities on the English language are self-appointed. The best authority is wot people actually say or write. That isn't to say that there aren't many ignoramuses. English is an amazingly unfettered language both in writing and, more especially, in speech. We should celebrate that. However, and this is very much my personal view, we should always be vigilant in never allowing degradation of nuance to pass. There really IS a useful difference between disinterested and uninterested, and we should fight to maintain that difference. Alternate and alternative are not words that can be used interchangeably. It's VACCine, never vaccINE. Stuff like that. There's definitely a fight to be had, but not against misuse of apostrophes or typos or dodgy spelling. It's usually against pretentiousness or jargonistic bullshit. .

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Dec 20 - 09:41 PM

Another new one, from a letter to wjat I have read are called agony aunts, which is superb:
[Embedded in a litany of complaints] ...he had granchildren out of wedlock...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 07 Dec 20 - 07:49 AM

Gridlock. Will people, especially young journalists on TV and radio, please stop using 'gridlock' to mean any old traffic congestion. It has a very specific meaning. I heard recently that the M4 was supposedly gridlocked. How can a 100-mile long straight line motorway be gridlocked?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Dec 20 - 08:30 AM

There are incomprehensible signs in DC that say Don't Block The Box that I think refer to actual gridlock.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 07 Dec 20 - 09:01 AM

The best authority is wot people actually say or write

That would be OK if it was said as it was written. Unfortunately what is often said is "The best authori'y is wo' people actually say or wri'e"

If it was limited to teenagers chatting informally with their friends then I could ignore it but my 35 year old, well educated daughter seems to use only 25 letters of the alphabet in coversation. It can be heard more and more from TV continuity announcers. I find it most annoying.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 07 Dec 20 - 09:07 AM

I would have expected "Don't Block The Box" to mean "Don't censor television".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 07 Dec 20 - 09:16 AM

The BBC used to have a Pronunciation Unit that ensured that news readers knew how to pronounce things like foreign words and names correctly.
I knew things had gone wrong when announcers were struggling to say MaastrICKT instead of MAAstricht.
Then it occurred to me that they had been instructed to say '...icht' (with the ch as in loch) rather than '...ickt', and had misinterpreted the instruction as referring to the stress instead of the consonants.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Dec 20 - 09:39 AM

> please stop using 'gridlock' to mean any old traffic congestion.

Hyperbole. The Greeks used it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Dec 20 - 09:49 AM

In the '50s, one said "HiroSHEEma" and "CaribBEan."

Then everyone switched to "HiROshima" and "CaRIBbean."

Later they switched back.

Albany, N.Y., is "AWLbunee."

Albany, Ga., is "ALbunee."

The Arkansas River is the "ARkinsaw" in Arkansas.

In Kansas and Colorado it's "ArKANziss."

Mildly diverting.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 07 Dec 20 - 11:01 AM

"Then everyone switched to "HiROshima" and "CaRIBbean."

I assume you are talking about "everyone" where you live.
Where I live, or at least among the people I live with, "HiROshima" and "CaribBEan" have remained unchanged, along with the "HimaLAYas" rather than the "HimAHHlias".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Dec 20 - 12:00 PM

I am old and pronounce things in English when speaking English. I say noter daym not notra dahm when referring to the Parisian cathedral. I pronounce it in French when speaking French. And so on.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Dec 20 - 05:49 PM

I forgot "HimaLAYaz" switching to "HimALyuz" and back again.

By "everyone," I mean seemingly everyone who had or has occasion to use these words in public fora in the U.S. But maybe the flip-flop is just confirmation bias, and all these pronunciations have long coexisted.

I've never changed. I have bigger things to worry about than how other people pronounce a few words.

As long as I know what they're talking about, I'm fine.

If I don't, I ask.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 20 - 08:41 PM

But you just said fora, Lighter. Fer chrissake, it's forums, and you know it...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 08 Dec 20 - 02:26 AM

"HimALyuz" is the proper South Asian (Hindi etc.) pronunciation / the pronunciation of the people who live near/in Himal(a)ya, so perhaps people are starting to actually listen to how foreign words are said, rather than looking at a spelling in Roman character and making it up.

(The first "a" is long and like in "father," the second is a short schwa, like in "about." There being no schwa symbol in the standard Latin alphabet, both, very different vowels have been doomed to be represented with "a," or else the latter is written with "u" [cf. "Punjab"] and causes other problems. None of these vowels are foreign to English, however, so it's just a matter of spelling, and pronouncing from spelling without listening, that screws things up. No language training, just listening is all it takes.)

My peeve is the spellings of familiar Cantonese items like the foods haa gaau ?? (shrimp dumpling) and caa siu ?? (BBQ pork). A casual "phonetic" rendering might give "ha gow" and "cha siu."

But more often than not one sees "har gow" and "char siu." I assume the British in Hong Kong / Canton stuck an "r" in there -- though there is no R sound in the Cantonese language -- as one of those "silent Rs."

But if so, being a foreign word, why add it at all? What do Britons with a non-rhotic accent get out of "har" rather than "ha" or "haa"? And, as a result, everyone else in the world seeing the words in Roman character has now to assume there is some functional R in there, and we sound ridiculous ordering dim sam saying "harrr gow" etc.!

See also "Burma" / "Myanmar."

It's a wonder we don't spell India as "Indier"...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 08 Dec 20 - 06:15 AM

Fair enough. But I don't think calling Paris 'Paree' will catch on for a while. At least not while speaking English, even though Lyon has taken over from 'Lyons'.
And I am not expecting the French to stop calling London 'Londres' any time soon.
I should add that I have no problem with 'Londres'.

And what of all those Flemish towns with two spellings and pronunciations, such as Bruges/Brugge?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Dec 20 - 08:01 AM

Both are acceptable according to Merriam-Webster (US) and Collins (UK), but I knew "fora" would drive at least one person krazy.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Dec 20 - 08:40 AM

"Gay Paree" was a cliche' back in the days when "gay" was expected to have its earlier meaning.

Dallas Morning News (DEc. 7, 1885), . 3:

"If you seek that Gay Paree,
Board that ship upon the sea."


Oregonian (Portland) (Sep. 10, 1998), p.54:

"The...gleaming gay Paree of the 1930s."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Dec 20 - 09:25 AM

Belgium spells in Flemish and French, and they are different. No problems there.

Also to my mind there is no incorrect spelling when rendering foreign words from other writing systems into English or French. So Qadafi quadaffi ghadaffi arguments... irrelevant when the "correct" spelling us squiggle dot backwards anyway.

And if there is no correct *spelling* as the original language is pictographic anyway I worry even less. The whole point of a pictophraphic writing system is that it is divorced from pronunciation. That is why for Chinese, for instance, no matter what language you *speak* - Cantonese, Mandarin - you all *write* the different words for, say, dog chien Hunt kutya, the same. Mutually incomprehensible *spoken* languages share the same *written* language. Arguing about how to write all those pronunciations in English is, to me, well, silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Raedwulf
Date: 08 Dec 20 - 09:26 AM

I am old and pronounce things in English when speaking English.

You do? I've already been corrected for getting your gender wrong, don't tell me you're English as well? I thought you were a Yank!* ;-)







* In which case, you don't speak English. So there! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Dec 20 - 11:50 AM

Hi, Gibb.

A.A. Milne, Winnie the Pooh (1926):

"He's Winnie-ther-Pooh. Don't you know what 'ther' means?"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 08 Dec 20 - 12:41 PM

How much time of our lifespan should we devote to learning the 'correct' native pronunciation of every foreign word we might find ourselves inclined or required to utter? You know, my parents had a lot on their plates - I can't fault them for neglecting to learn and pass on the 'correct' pronunciation of 'Himalayas' ....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Dec 20 - 01:16 PM

Snicker, Raedwulf.

I wish the people reporting on those weird metal structures put together of several parts would stop referring to them as monoliths. They are not unitary, nor are they stone.

I wish BBC would stop calling the new vaccine Completely Tested.

And I am not sure it would be nice if the dialects of English spoken around the world were called something other than English. Unification > division.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 08 Dec 20 - 07:36 PM

I am old and pronounce things in English when speaking English.

One area of Grimsby, England, is written, for the most part, as Scartho but it is carved in stone on the church hall as Scarthoe. Some people living in the area call it "Scartho" while the rest call it "Scather". As most of these people are English, who would you suggest is right and who is wrong?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Dec 20 - 09:29 PM

The locals.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 09 Dec 20 - 01:56 AM

Wow, some people thought I was prescribing how you should say things? huh?

I made two points.
1) It was pointed out that some people seem to be pronouncing "Himalayas" in (as I read it to be implied) either an odd or incorrect way. I pointed out that that is in fact the proper way. The point is, therefore, that one might accept that way as equally good as how *you* pronounce it. And I opine that maybe more people are catching on to the correct way, as general knowledge proliferates — as, for example, English speakers at the home office come into direct contact with the colonial, not just see their words written. Not that the correct native way is how you must pronounce it, and certainly not to imply some grander recommendation that you must endeavor to pronounce all foreign words as they are in the foreign language. Sheesh.

2) The Cantonese example, a peeve (isn't that what this thread is about, peeves?), is that the Britishers needlessly rendered an English spelling that isn't helpful at all, including *to English speakers.* A simple English phonetic rendering of "ha," "haa", or "hah" would have sufficed for the Cantonese word for "shrimp" (for example). Yet we've ended up with "har". It's just silly and misleading. Whom does this spelling help to pronounce the word? (I ask this not rhetorically, but as a sincere question.) It's a peeve and a curiosity. Again, not a prescription for ordinary people to be super linguists with the mastery or the orthography of every language.

Differences will exist. Accidental butchering happens. Yeah, no big deal. It hurts no one, however, to attempt to butcher less -- or rather, no one gains by butchering more. If you were pronouncing Paris as "Pariz" and someone one told you, "Dude, actually it's Paris," I should think you'd say "OK, cool, I'll try that!" Or, 'hmm, interesting. I wonder where I got Pariz from." Rather than "Oh well how can you expect me to be perfect? And how dare you question my Englishman's right to pronounce however I feel like!" Just take the info, move on, and next time you're with Indians or ordering at a Chinese restaurant you might just find people appreciate your knowledge. And don't worry, your English friends won't think you're a pretentious homosexual or less of a true blue Englishman for "kowtowing" to bloody foreigners ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Dec 20 - 03:07 AM

Currently, on Zo-Bo’s Breakfast Show, followed by Ken Bruce’s show (BBC Radio 2) I’m being driven nuts by some twerp called Richie Anderson, who does the travel announcements, pronouncing ‘st’ with an ‘h’ - so, ‘street’ becomes ‘shtreet’, ‘student’ is pronounced ‘shtudent’, etc. This sloppiness seems to be a creeping affectation amongst BBC presenters.

But good old Richie’s Coup de Grâce (that’s ‘coo der grass’, Mrrzy, not ‘coop di grayce’) is to pronounce ‘bus’ as ‘buzz’ - so “The 08:37 train from Lincoln Central to Sheffield is cancelled and has been replaced by a buzz service”.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 20 - 06:48 AM

"Buzz" is what we called a bus in Radcliffe in my childhood. Any other pronunciation would have had you branded a posh snob. If you didn't want to get the Ribble buzz to Blackpool you could always go on Mills and Seddon's sharrer...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 09 Dec 20 - 06:49 AM

Isn't the 'buzz' for 'bus' and 'uzz' for 'us' just a Midlands accent?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 20 - 06:58 AM

My favourite TV/radio announcer sloppinesses are "deteriate," "priminister" and "seckertry." Many years ago, when Sir Francis Chichester was doing his round-the-world stuff, we often smirked when the plummy-voiced newsreaders of the time regaled us with "S'Frornsus Chishhter..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 20 - 07:01 AM

Now just watch yerself there, Jos. I will NOT be called a Midlander. That would be as grievous as calling me a Y*rkshireman...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 09 Dec 20 - 07:08 AM

I do apologise, Steve.
(But I think maybe they do it in the Midlands as well.)

As for your favourite sloppinesses, I rather like "plittickle snario".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Dec 20 - 07:26 AM

...and my old (Texan) boss, when I worked for a Houston TX -based company, used to amuse me when he asked me to review a set of accounts and investigate s’nificant movements and differences.

He also used to refer to my company car, a Peugeot, as a ‘Pew-go’. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Dec 20 - 07:26 AM

We got people in Detroit and Chicago that almost say "black" for "block" and "boss" for "bus."

Scary, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 20 - 09:15 AM

Heheh, I like that one, Jos. And apology accepted!

Personally, I have to hand a big box of ping pong balls ready to chuck at the telly every time I hear a politician say "...going forward." And what about yanks who end a sentence with "...if you will"? I mean, how bloody daft is that! And doesn't Boris get on yer tits every time he describes something that is, at best, a mild positive as "fantastic"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Dec 20 - 11:19 AM

> "...going forward."

I give in. This drives me nuts too.

Whenever possible, they used to say "at this point in time" instead of "right now." After a while it mostly went away.

A long, long while.

But these are problems of tedious excess, not of novelty or pronunciation.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Dec 20 - 11:41 AM

“At that price-point”. Aaaarrrrrrrggghhh! At that price! :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 09 Dec 20 - 12:05 PM

I suppose there was a time when - I mean, "at which" - people like us were grumbling about the trend of saying "right now" instead of just "now" .....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Dec 20 - 01:32 PM

> people like us were grumbling about the trend of saying "right now" instead of just "now."

Coverdale Bible (1535), John IX, 27: "He answered them I tolde you right now."

There were few style/grammar cops in the 16th century, so I doubt anyone was grumbling.

OED shows related uses of "right" as far back as Old English, so "right now" must have been well established by 1500.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Dec 20 - 05:06 PM

Yeah Backwoodsman! There is a Havre de Grace (hay-ver duh grayce] in MD. Drove my mom nuts to hear it pronounced the way it is pronounced.
Not that is was a long drive...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Dec 20 - 05:45 PM

LOL! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 20 - 08:11 AM

Oi, yanks, what's with this "normalcy"? What's wrong with "normality"? Huh??

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 13 Dec 20 - 06:24 PM

"Normalcy" was popularized by Calvin Coolidge, tho he did not invent it. Democrats picked it up and used it to ridicule Republicans; in my youth I would never have used it otherwise than snidely. Now, apparently, the joke has become a blunder again.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 13 Dec 20 - 06:31 PM

It was Warren Harding in 1920.

It's better than "normality," because it takes less time to say it, and there aren't so many sounds to remember.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 14 Dec 20 - 11:31 PM

Look, fellas. "Normalcy" was beaten to death 50 years ago.

Here's a new peeve. "Reach out". I read a newsletter from Doctors without Borders today, and though they are a fine outfit, they reached out to somebody on every second page. It began to get on my nerves.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 04:13 AM

I heard a doc on the radio declaring that dealing with the latest coronavirus spike will need "a whole raft of measures" (he said it twice).

"Raft?" I'm afraid that this daft expression definitely doesn't float my boat...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 04:55 AM

Perhaps he meant it in its civil engineering sense - such measures as are necessary will need to be put together on a solid foundation.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 05:03 AM

Civil engineers regard a raft as 'a solid foundation'?

Really?

That is worrying.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 05:54 AM

Unfortunately, this inanity is spreading like a plague among politicians and others (especially politicians) who like to think they're sounding clever when they are actually sounding like pretentious eejits. People of similar ilk are also fond of saying "going forward..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 07:27 AM

What is this word "eejits"?

Can today's Britons neither pronounce nor spell?

The correct word is "idiots."

IDD-ee-uts.

America got away from that decadent nation in the very nick of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 08:24 AM

Deputy governor of Kabul slain in targeted killing

What is wrong with Assassinated? Too many S's?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 08:46 AM

That reference to 'assassination' reminds me of a day some years ago when, listening to BBC Radio 3, I heard a news summary reporting that someone had been 'shot and killed'.
Later that day, Radio 4 reported that he had been 'shot dead'.
Later still, I heard on another station (either Radio 1 or a commercial channel, I can't remember which) that the man had been 'gunned down'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 08:47 AM

Deputy governor of Kabul slain in targeted killing

Did you understand it? Was there any possible ambiguity?

If the answers are "yes" and "no", respectively, then what is wrong with it? It meets the necessary requirements for communication.

English is a rich language with many different ways of saying the same thing. We should be celebrating that, not complaining about it. If we are going to be limited to a set list of approved words, how long will it be before we arrive at Newspeak?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 01:06 PM

"Eejit", both written and spoken, is a popular rendition of "idiot" by some Irish people and some beyond-Irish. Lighten up, Lighter. Years ago, Jeremy of TheSession website managed to install a fix whereby swear words were automatically replaced by something euphemistic. Unfortunately, it meant that you could never again type "Scunthorpe" in your posts, the word always rendered from then on "Seejithorpe."

And well said Doug, though you won't stop me moaning about "albeit" going forward.

Oops...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 03:56 PM

Doug Chadwick, one of my pet peeves is using multiple-word phrases to explicate things we have words for. Even more so in headlines.

Another is redundancy.

That headline had all of those things wrong with it.

I didn't say it was unclear. Just full of my peeves.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 04:05 PM

Perhaps you should have a pet peeve with yourself for misusing (or, at best, using in a completely obscurantist way) the word "explicate."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 16 Dec 20 - 02:14 AM

I think you'll find that headlines are one place where brevity is essential. "Slain" is a good headline word, shorter than "killed" or "murdered" (let alone "assassinated").

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 16 Dec 20 - 05:01 AM

There are some words that I never see or hear anywhere but in news headlines, just because they are shorter than the usual term.
Such as "boffin".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 20 - 06:57 AM

To be politically incorrect for a sec, one of my favourite headlines of all time, heading a report into Elton John's wedding, said ELTON TAKES DAVID UP THE AISLE.

Sorry about that!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Dec 20 - 08:54 PM

Right, so slain in a killing is redundant, and slain in a targeted killling is a lot longer than assassinated. My points exactly.

I was hoping someone would rise to my dangled bait of Explicated!

I love this place.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Dec 20 - 09:19 PM

Gibb, I still don't know how to pronounce the true name of the country Hungary.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Dec 20 - 06:13 AM

...... slain in a targeted killing is a lot longer than !.

True, but what difference does it make? I read the headline and instantly understood its meaning. I didn't need top stop and think "do they mean assassinated?". If it hadn't been posted here as an example, I suspect my mind would have passed over the word 'slain' and taken it in as part of the complete phrase.

I accept that some phrases, such as "at this moment in time" for "now", can be annoying but the peeve should be with its overuse rather than its word count. When it was first coined it would have sounded fresh, and possibly, even poetic.

Unless there is a world shortage of printing ink, the headline writer should be free to choose how the available space is filled, so long as the meaning remains clear.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Dec 20 - 06:17 AM

I don"t know where that exclamation mark came from. What I actually copied and tried to paste was:

.... slain in a targeted killing is a lot longer than assassinated.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Dec 20 - 09:09 AM

Doug has the right idea about overuse.

Has anyone mentioned "in real time"?

It can mean "as it's happening," "expeditiously," or "now."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Dec 20 - 10:23 AM

Doug Chadwick, you seem to be berating me because they aren't *your* peeves. Please desist.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 17 Dec 20 - 12:16 PM

To quote Priti Patel on BBC Radio 4 a few moments ago, regarding a dinner attended by 27 people:
"I don't know the details of where this happened, or the location ..."

Woolly thinking at the very least.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Dec 20 - 12:20 PM

OK Mrrzy, point taken.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Dec 20 - 01:44 PM

Mwah.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 19 Dec 20 - 01:23 AM

In this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_sYUN5p-ks

we see Michael Flynn, a Trump hanger-on, saying "He [Trump] could put military capabilities in each of those swing states and basically re-run an election in those states."

I'm not going to address the evil of this. I'm going to point out the weasel words "military capabilities." What are these capabilities? They're armed fighters, weapons, drones, spy equipment - equipment to injure, kill and intimidate Americans.

There's a word for that language trick - it's called nominalization.

(Good thing our military hates his guts.)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 19 Dec 20 - 01:51 AM

Several TV presenters here add an extra syllable to words so that 'three' becomes 'the-ree', 'threat' becomes 'the-reat', etc.

It is annoying and irritating. Perhaps it's done for emphasis, but it just sounds sloppy to me. It's mostly done by women, but the occasional bloke has a go too.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 20 - 04:52 AM

"Can't" is replacing "mustn't" this end, as in "you can't underestimate the crucial importance of these measures..." You can if you want!l

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 19 Dec 20 - 11:45 AM

I've grumbled about that one before on here - that error turns the literal meaning completely on its head: "You can't underestimate the crucial importance ... " would mean that there is no bottom to the estimation of the unimportance of the "crucial importance", which is nonsensical as well - whereas "you mustn't ... " emphasizes how "crucial" the "importance" is.

One I've noticed lately that amuses me is the frequent "it's going to be much bigger than we expect", or variations thereof - which could be re-worded as, "we expect it to be much bigger than we expect it to be" ... !

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 19 Dec 20 - 05:49 PM

In my book, "account for" is not a synonym of "take account of" or "tke into account". Properly it means "explain".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Dec 20 - 11:25 AM

Yes, usually to someone waiting for that explanation with arms akimbo and a frown.

I wish, fervently, that media like CNN would stop giving a planetary phenom to the Xians. Yes, I refer to tonight's Grand Conjunction.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 22 Dec 20 - 02:34 AM

I presume you are referring to a possible similar event being behind the Biblical account of the Star of Bethlehem? More likely the triple conjunction of 8 BC had something to do with it. I further conjecture that the "star" was a cover story made up by the Magi to protect their sources of information from Herod's goons.

Missed the conjunction - cloudy all evening here in the UK (this corner at least).

Apologies for the thread drift - let's get back to being peeved.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 22 Dec 20 - 04:11 AM

Cloudy here too, in spite of one of Radio 4's thought spots ('Prayer for the Day' or 'Thought for the Day', I forget which) telling listeners that everyone in the world had a chance to see it.

Last week, not long after it was announced that man-made structures now weigh more than all life on Earth, one of these 'thoughtful people' declared that man-made structures now weigh twice as much as all life on Earth.

Statistical inflation, or just another example of woolly thinking?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 20 - 04:14 AM

"a planetary phenom to the Xians."

Interesting that one of the most linguistically peeved persons here can type a thing like that...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Dec 20 - 03:45 PM

I'm a swinger, or something, maybe?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 22 Dec 20 - 04:04 PM

A swinger? Do you have a clump of pampas grass growing in your front garden?
Or was that just in the 1970s?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: mayomick
Date: 23 Dec 20 - 02:16 PM

Nano
It used to be ‘back in two shakes of a nanny goats tail’ in Ireland that’s now been replaced by ‘ back in a nano –second’.
I heard ‘only a nano-step away’ two days ago

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 23 Dec 20 - 04:21 PM

We had "two shakes of a nanny goat's tale" in NYC as well, decades ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Dec 20 - 04:45 PM

Tail?

A person who went to work while sick is likely the cause of two separate Covid-19 outbreaks in Oregon.

Um, no. If one person caused them both, they are not separate.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 20 - 05:56 PM

It's always been two shakes of a donkey's doodah where I come from.

You're nitpicking, Mrrzy. You're objecting to things that are unobjectionable to all except you, I reckon.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Rain Dog
Date: 23 Dec 20 - 07:08 PM

And more than two shakes?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 20 - 08:33 PM

More than two shakes is a w*an*k, mate, and you know it!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Dec 20 - 03:03 PM

That is why they are *pet* peeves, Steve Shaw. They need not be anybody else's pet, or even peeve.

But you are the second person to reprimand me for being peeved by things that don't peeve *you* ... I find that odd. *All* of this thread is about nitpicking. If anything peeving anybody in any language were actually objectively reprehensible, nobody would do it and the whole thread would never have happened.

So what, exactly, is your problem with *my* nitpicking, that is not wrong with *your* nitpicking?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Dec 20 - 09:16 PM

Why do you suppose that I have a problem with your nitpicking? Frankly, I care not a jot. When it comes to the use of language, etc., I'm a fairly erudite sort of chap (disagree at your peril...), but, at the same time, I'm pretty indulgent when it comes to what people say or type informally, as I've said a number of times in this thread. You do seem to pick up on things that are fairly unobjectionable, yet you post things yourself that are frequently quite buttock-clenching (see recipes thread for example, what with your yum-yum stuff) and, even in this thread, you are not exactly exempt from that accusation, as I've pointed out. You're exactly the sort of chap that gets my antennae a-waggling. Once you start to criticise others for their lack of linguistic precision, you open yourself up to having your own contributions a bit more closely analysed than perhaps would make you comfortable. Summat to do with pedestals, I think...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Rain Dog
Date: 24 Dec 20 - 09:21 PM

Merry or happy?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Dec 20 - 01:09 AM

It's difficult to tell who is following whom, but some of you are doing far more bickering through the thread than is seemly, it contributes nothing, and if you don't knock it off you're going to find a BONK next time you try to log on. Capiche?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Dec 20 - 06:15 AM

Merry or happy?

Christmas and New Year are often linked in a common greeting, in which case, it is'merry' for Christmas and 'happy' for New Year. Taking this as the precedent, I would stick with 'merry' for Christmas even when it is used on its own.

Personally, I prefer 'bah' to go with humbug.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Dec 20 - 10:52 AM

I didn't suppose, you said so.

The poem said Happy Christmas but that always sounds British to me. The only time I've heard Merry New Year is in Trading Places. Which is a *great* $mas movie.

Today on PBS one of my fave pet peeve redundancies, village razed to the ground.

Yes, I use fave pet in an ironical sense.

Good Will Hunting reference, there.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Dec 20 - 11:50 AM

OED has "raze to the ground" from 1574, and "razed to the earth" from 1523.

Historically "raze to the ground" is more common than simple "raze."

Emphasis and all, don't you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Dec 20 - 09:03 PM

Historical or not, razed to the ground is illiterate nonsense. Claiming ancient usage doesn't cut it. It simply demonstrates that the ancients could be just as illiterate as we are.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 26 Dec 20 - 03:46 AM

Razed to the ground as opposed to raised to the heavens?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Dec 20 - 05:40 AM

I'll raze a glass to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Dec 20 - 06:56 AM

Talking about redundancies, a nice example that infests a lot of writing and broadcasting these days is "reaching a crescendo" or "building up to a crescendo" when a better word would be "climax." Like a lot of things, this has achieved common currency via ignorance, a bit like "disinterested," "epicentre" and "alternate." They are defended by dint of the fact that they ARE now in common use and have become standard English (in their degraded usages). We have to accept that, but not without a wrestling match...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 26 Dec 20 - 09:06 AM

Several times on BBC Radio news summaries yesterday I heard the Brexit described as acceptable 'as an option to' no deal.
I just wanted to shout at them.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Dec 20 - 09:22 AM

Ok, question: is the phrase Face Mask redundant? I mean, if you cover your belly, it is not with a mask, is it?

No idea why this just occurred to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Dec 20 - 10:13 AM

Well.... some things can be 'masked' without referring to a physical object. In current context, 'face mask' is technically redundant, but it's not a big issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 27 Dec 20 - 10:39 AM

Headbutt / head-butt / head butt


In a street fight, can you butt your opponent with anything other than your head?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Dec 20 - 12:16 PM

I suppose it's a head-butt if you butt someone's head. I just looked up the incident in the 2006 World Cup Final in which Zidane "head-butted" Materazzi (after much earlier needling, Materazzi had pulled Zidane's shirt. Zidane told him that he'd give him his shirt later, to which Materazzi replied that he'd rather have his sister, hence the butt). However, the butt was to Materazzi's chest, in spite of which most reports stated that it had been a head-butt. So you may have a point there, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 27 Dec 20 - 12:48 PM

For Mrrzy: I now have a mental image of you trying to mask your belly button with a face mask.

For the Americans among you: Can you butt something/somebody with your butt?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Dec 20 - 01:11 PM

Ok, so is head-butt redundant? Seems so.

As a *verb* mask works for things other than faces (view masked by trees, etc). But as a noun, a mask covers the face, I maintain.

Jos, um, enjoy?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Dec 20 - 01:16 PM

Ok rethink: a butt is *with* the head but a head-butt is *to* a head.

Thus head-butt is *not* redundant. Unless misused as in He headbutted him in the stomach.

Gavem drip. I meant gavel drop but kinda like the typoes...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 27 Dec 20 - 01:39 PM

Two more examples of garbled English on Radio 4 this morning.
I heard someone describing women as “having a most important place to play in being able to show a different type of leadership”. I really don’t think “place to play” meant an area set aside for them to play chess, or netball.
Then later in the same programme someone talked about “donning on PPE”. Well, Mr whoever-you-are: “donning” MEANS “putting on”.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 27 Dec 20 - 02:43 PM

"Butt me" means "Give me a cigarette (a "butt," even if fresh).

If your smart phone is in your back pocket, you can inadvertently "butt-dial" a phone number.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 27 Dec 20 - 03:13 PM

Jos:
As you're mentioning PPE. One of my peeves is the expression "PPE Equipment".
This is an example of RAS syndrome (Redundant acronym syndrome (syndrome)). Other examples are "ATM machine" and "TSB Bank".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 27 Dec 20 - 03:18 PM

At least, in spite of saying 'donning on', he managed not to say 'PPE equipment'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Dec 20 - 10:59 AM

Ah, yes, the department of redundancy department.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Dec 20 - 11:32 AM

"Enamoured with"

"Acquiesce to"

Two things to not do!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 29 Dec 20 - 12:08 PM

There is much confusion between 'a fascination with' and 'a fascination for' regarding who or what is fascinating and who is fascinated.

And I wish people wouldn't talk about laying and laying down when they mean lying and lying down.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 21 - 01:10 PM

Not so much a peeve, more an amusing and surprising find, in an email from Coopers of Stortford:

Purchase of Sharp Implements/Dangerous Goods:

When ordering a sharp implement/dangerous good you are....

(Steve's in a hardware shop):

Assistant: How may I help you, sir?

Steve (holding machete picked up from shelf): Can you tell me if this is a dangerous good?

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Jan 21 - 04:46 PM

Assistant (a D&D player): It's dangerous, but I don't know its 'alignment'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Jan 21 - 01:26 PM

Chaotic neutral.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 04 Jan 21 - 05:30 PM

Why are so many people unable to understand the difference between ancestors and descendants?
The latest edition of our local parish magazine has a page about the census, which will happen in March this year. It urges people to answer the questions truthfully because "in 2122 your answers will be available to your ancestors and they'll be using that information to try and understand how we lived our lives a hundred years in the past".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 21 - 06:51 PM

That's an easy one: there's no chance that your descendants will leave you money.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Jan 21 - 06:55 PM

Visalia (Calif.) Daily Times, Aug. 23, 1926, on the death of Robert Tod Lincoln:

"The passing, last week, of the last remaining direct ancestor--by the
name of Lincoln--of the great Civil war [sic] President occasioned modest mention in the telegraphic news of the country."

(With thanks to my colleague, Garson O'Toole.)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 04 Jan 21 - 08:56 PM

1926?? Isn't that back when everyone's English was perfect? Oh, dear - when, praytell, when was this Golden Age of grammatical fastidiousness?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 05 Jan 21 - 05:02 AM

That's an easy one: there's no chance that your descendants will leave you money.

So, if your child is an adult who has established a separate, single person, household and remains unmarried and childless, what will happen to their estate if they die before you without leaving a will?

DC8

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 21 - 05:55 AM

As likely as a duff bottle of Hirondelle, Doug, but touché anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 05 Jan 21 - 05:14 PM

For most of my life, 'wafer' has been pronounced 'wayfer' and I was happy with that. I had ice cream wafers, church Communion services used communion wafers, and anything sliced very thinly was 'wafer-thin'.
Then a few years ago, when I watched television cookery programmes, I started to hear Jamie Oliver talking about slicing food 'waffer-thin'. I laughed at him, thinking he had met the word when reading cookery books and just guessed at the pronunciation - and none of his friends had put him right. But now other people are doing it, cutting 'waffer-thin' slices.
Are churches now using communion 'waffers', as well? Are children buying ice cream 'waffers'?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 05 Jan 21 - 11:07 PM

Think of Monty Python's M. Creosote and his 'waffer-thin mint's.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Jan 21 - 01:51 AM

One of my peeves is careless errors to be published. There is just now excuse for it.

For instance, I have seen in a newspaper: Wanted: On Sight Manager.

(site and sight are frequent offenders.)

And just now I read the filing by Orange tRump's lawyers petitioning the court to toss Mary Trump's lawsuit against the family, and here is:" "Plaintiff makes outlandish and incredulous accusations in her complaint,..."

Incredulous??

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Jan 21 - 12:24 PM

This is why I post all those headlines that made some folks accuse me of quibbling. It is worse in a published source, to me too.

Besides, they could hire me to proofread and save themselves the embarrassment!

I often tell the reporter whose byline was mis-headlined. They are sometimes grateful.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 06 Jan 21 - 12:27 PM

I've been rather surprised at the number of 'mechanical' and usage errors in the legal documents I've read since trump took over, particularly in documents produced by trumpian lawyers, for some reason. You would think it would be second-nature for any lawyer to proofread his own legal writing ... ?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 21 - 08:52 PM

"Besides, they could hire me to proofread and save themselves the embarrassment!"

Gosh, you'd be the very last person I'd hire as my proofreader, what with your yum, evvver, zucch and marvy nonsense (see recipes thread). I would prefer someone with a reasonable command of the kind of unaffected English wot we Brits tend to cherish...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 21 - 10:31 AM

Spotted a word on the BBC news website that I've never seen before, describing children from poorer backgrounds who don't have laptops at home for schoolwork as "laptopless." In light of this, I should like to propose a new noun to characterise laptopless people: they are in a state of laptoplessness. I did consider "laptoplessnessitudinousness," but I decided to go for concision, as ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 07 Jan 21 - 10:47 AM

So would providing them with laptops be 'laptopisation' or 'laptopisition'?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Jan 21 - 10:47 AM

None of my language usages prevent me noticing *other's* mistakes, eh! I was a jolly good proofreader when I was a proofreader... Using language creatively [like accentuating the v in marvvy] is hardly error, anyway. What is wrong with Yum, may I ask?

I gather that the folks who make up the headlines, though, are not the same folks who write the articles, so letting the actual journalist/reporter/byline person know when the headline given their article makes them (the writer) look illiterate, is usually appreciated.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 21 - 11:24 AM

It's a bit puerile. Also, your apostrophe is in the wrong place there, Mr Superproofreader. :-)

I like the concept of an erstwhile laptopless child having being laptopised, Jos... or, I suppose, laptopized in USAville...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 07 Jan 21 - 02:41 PM

I believe the term is, "laptopisized" (UK: "laptopicised").

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Jan 21 - 03:25 PM

"Laptopisized": about 12" * 9" * 1"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 07 Jan 21 - 05:03 PM

Is the whole process 'laptopicity'

And if gardeners are given laptops will that be 'laptopiary'??

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 07 Jan 21 - 05:05 PM

[Apologies for the double question mark. I wasn't being pretentious - just a wobbly thumb.]

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 21 - 05:27 PM

Hmm. That's a small one you've got there, Nigel. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 08 Jan 21 - 02:06 AM

Surely someone would be laptopicised only if they had a laptopectomy?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jan 21 - 07:10 AM

If you unfairly diss laptops in favour of iPads, does that make you a laptopist? Guilty of laptopism?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Jan 21 - 01:23 AM

Laptopotomy? Sounds raparian...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 21 - 06:11 AM

What if AI-bolstered laptops went all wild west on us, terrorising the planet and indulging in mass repression of the people? Would that be dyslaptopia?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 21 - 06:17 AM

"Raparian?" I can find no sensible reference to such an English adjective in any dictionary. Either you meant something else or you're induging in deliberate obscurantism...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 09 Jan 21 - 07:14 AM

From the publishers blurb for a book titled "Raparian Station":

"Riparian Station is an acid trip away from a universe ordered by God into the recesses of nihilism finding a surf film, good fishing, and meaning in being a one of in a chaotic universe rather than a step in a cycle."

I'm none the wiser.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 09 Jan 21 - 07:57 AM

I should point out that the illustration showing the book cover spells it "Raparian". The blurb writer must have been writing it on a device using Autocorrect.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Jan 21 - 10:58 AM

I learned that term from Hyacinth ["it's pronounced Bouquet!"] Bucket, on Keeping Up Appearances, for the philistines. Yes, it was deliberately obfuscating. Which I normally eschew. I guessed at the spelling.

But the word Laptopotomy made me think of the great, grey-green greasy Limpopo River, all set about with fever trees. That is a literary reference. Crossed with Ptolemy, which made me think of the Nile.

And so from the rivers we get to the word riparian, which means relating to riverbanks. Or did at some point.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 21 - 12:02 PM

The word used by Hyacinth was riparian.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 09 Jan 21 - 12:37 PM

If I had seen the correct spelling - riparian - I wouldn't have spent time searching for raparian. I could have bypassed the great grey green greasy Limpopo with its fever trees and jumped straight to the river bank via "hippopotami".

[And, yes, I do know it's hippopotamuses.]

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Jan 21 - 01:53 PM

[And, yes, I do know it's hippopotamuses.]
Most online dictionaries (at a quick glance) seem to accept either plural.

Flanders & Swann: "A regular army of hippopotami"!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 21 - 02:47 PM

Rhymers' licence, Nigel. You'll be singing the praises of octopi, viri and fora next...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 21 - 03:07 PM

And I do find the confusion between singulars and plurals to be a very strange phenomena...


Come on, folks, it's Saturday night!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Jan 21 - 06:56 AM

Rhymers' licence, Nigel. You'll be singing the praises of octopi, viri and fora next...

Steve, no rhymers' licence required.
I have now extended my search beyond just 'general online dictionaries'.
My Collins Dictionary, and my 'Shorter Oxford' both give the two options for the plural, as do the online entries from those publishers:
Collins Dictionary .com
Oxford learner's dictionary

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 21 - 07:58 AM

Dictionaries merely reflect usage, Nigel, and they don't pass judgement. Clearly, "hippopotami" is in currency so dictionaries would report it. What dictionaries won't tell you is that you might look a bit of a twit if you use "hippopotami" in anything other than a humorous context, for example, if you were writing a treatise on the biology of, er, hippopotami... I do that fun thing meself, frequently, whenever more than one hippopotamus is on the radar.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Jan 21 - 10:57 AM

Dictionaries pass judgment all the time.

First they decide what they think is worth entering.

Then, if they like, they apply such labels as "colloquial," "informal," "slang," "nonstandard," "archaic," "obsolete," "regional," "U.S.," "Brit.," "Austral.," and occasionally "substandard."

"Hippopotami" bears no label.

One label rarely seen is "Not in technical use." That covers things like "virus" used to mean "any illness." No professional epidemiological discussion would use "virus" that way, even though millions of people do and would, because technically it is wrong.

"Hippopotami," presumably, is likewise "not in technical use," though it's a stylistic rather than a terminological issue.

OED accepts without comment "Plural unchanged, hippoppotamus, hippopotami."

"An Account of Several Late Voyages and Discoveries to the South and North" (1694) tells of "Hippopotami" at the Cape of Good Hope.

Among other serious users of "hippopotami" was David Livingstone in 1865.

Sounding funny doesn't make it essentially humorous.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 21 - 12:00 PM

Dictionaries don't pass judgement in the sense that they don't tell you what's right or wrong. It is their job to define words, to include all words that are in common usage and to interpret contexts in which words may be used. Of course, the latter requires judgement, but not in the sense you meant.

As for hippopotami, it's plainly not wrong, but as for how its usage is regarded it all depends on where you look it up. For example, from lexico.com:

"Other words ending in -us show a very varied pattern. Like octopi, the plural hippopotami is now generally taken to be either funny or absurdly pedantic, and the usual plural is hippopotamuses."

We can all indulge in confirmation bias.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 10 Jan 21 - 01:22 PM

I was told that the plurals depend on whether the word is based on Latin, as in fungus/fungi, or Greek as in hippopotamus, meaning 'horse of the river' [hippos = horse; potamos = river], and octopus [okto = eight; pous = foot].
This is confirmed by my Concise Oxford Dictionary.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 11 Jan 21 - 03:00 AM

I'm no polyglot, but other languages fascinate me. English has plenty of Latin plurals, correct and incorrect, but for some reason no Greek, which I understand would be hippopotamoi, octopoi.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 11 Jan 21 - 09:41 AM

Steve,
Dictionaries don't pass judgement in the sense that they don't tell you what's right or wrong. It is their job to define words,

Surely, by your reasoning, it is not their job to define words, but to state what definitions are being given (by users) to the words.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 21 - 09:48 AM

If I'd said they give the definitions of words, would that've been all right? And don't call me Shirley...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 11 Jan 21 - 11:02 AM

Yes, they give the definitions of words is more accurate.
And the "Don't call me Shirley" quip only works in the spoken language.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 21 - 01:56 PM

Then do what I do and read out the posts out loud in your head.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 21 - 03:24 PM

I outed once too often there. The spuds were done.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Jan 21 - 04:00 PM

Yeah it worked for me but my whole life happens out loud in my head...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Jan 21 - 11:23 AM

Hee her headline reads Grandparents have been [complaint] my 6-year old behind my back for years!

How long had their kid been 6?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jan 21 - 12:27 PM

Apart from the fact that your sentence doesn't make much sense, I can't see much wrong with the construction you appear to be complaining about.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Jan 21 - 04:18 PM

Steve Shaw, I thought my peeves didn't have to be your peeves. Are you starting that up again?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jan 21 - 06:13 PM

I'm suggesting that you state your case with clarity. It's hard to discuss your peeves with you when you type an incomprehensible sentence (and I recall that you regard yourself as a rather good proofreader. It wouldn't have taken much for you to have reviewed that sentence, would it?)

"My 70-year-old aunt has been telling me for years that I can't bake a decent cake." Perfectly good English in m'humble...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 12 Jan 21 - 07:40 PM

Mrrzy,
I'm not trying to pick a fight - just pointing out:


Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy - PM
Date: 24 Jun 20 - 04:12 PM

..................................

I like being corrected. How else can I learn?


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 13 Jan 21 - 02:18 AM

If we all learnt from our mistakes, I'd be a genius by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 21 - 04:34 AM

Yep, we'd all be genii!

Er...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Jan 21 - 09:37 AM

But it *wasn't* MY sentence. It was the headline that peeved me! So it peeved you too! So why, again, exactly, are you picking on my peeves?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 21 - 10:46 AM

"Hee her headline reads Grandparents have been [complaint] my 6-year old behind my back for years!"

1. What does "Hee her" mean?

2. Who is this "her?"

3. What does "[complaint]" in the middle of an alleged headline mean?

4. "have been"??

5. Whose "6-year old [sic]"?

6. Behind WHOSE back?

Tell us where you saw this headline. I'd love to look it up. I have no peeve with the sentence, but, in general, I do have peeves when it comes to obscurantist writing that requires me to do a lot of unnecessary mental processing before I can see the light. It's far more polite to express things in simple, clear language.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Jan 21 - 02:18 PM

Ooh typoed hee hee. How rude of me, you are so right. I obviously do these things specifically to upset you.

My use of square brackets to avoid detailing the complaint is standard.

All your other quibbles are with the headline. It did not make sense. That is what peeved me. And you apparently agree with me in that.

You want to see the source, look it up yourself. That is what the google is for.

Again. Why do you quibble with my peeves? And when it is pointed out to you that what you are quibbling with isn't even me, why do you double down instead of apologizing and backing off?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 13 Jan 21 - 02:21 PM

But what DOES "hee her" mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 13 Jan 21 - 02:44 PM

I did google the headline. I didn't find anything with that exact headline, but I did find a story about a mother being upset because her child's grandparents, who had been looking after the child for the whole of the summer, had taken the child with them to church.
Was that the complaint you were referring to? If so, why the square brackets, which lead the reader to imagine all kinds of appalling behaviour.
I was taken, and later sent, to church as a child. I don't think it did me any harm although I am no longer a believer (if I ever really was). But as so much of our history, music, literature and so on has been influenced by the church and its beliefs, I appreciated having some knowledge of what that basis consists of.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Jan 21 - 03:25 PM

My peeve wasn't about the grandparents taking the kid to church, which was indeed the complaint. That is why I didn't specify the complaint. Hee her is a) obviously a typo and b)had been explained already.

Sigh.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 13 Jan 21 - 04:52 PM

How long has the kid been 6 years old?

Good question, Mrrzy.

I have my own question. The grandparents probably wanted to go to church themselves. What were they supposed to do with the child during the service, leave it at home to play with matches?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 21 - 06:11 PM

Hee hee...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 13 Jan 21 - 06:46 PM

That should be "hee HER", Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 21 - 07:27 PM

I stand corrected. -)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: mayomick
Date: 14 Jan 21 - 01:35 PM

The word "so" when used needlessly as the first word in reply to a question . As in:
Journalist :"How much longer are we likely to be on lockdown, Dr Holohan"?

De Holohan : "So, it really depends on how we manage to suppress the virus over the coming days"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 21 - 02:05 PM

Or even "So, it really depends on how we manage to suppress the virus over the coming days, going forward". Arrgh!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 14 Jan 21 - 02:30 PM

I seem to be getting used to "So," now, though I hated it at first.

But I am still bewildered by people beginning their answer to a question with "Yes-no".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Jan 21 - 03:44 PM

Thanks for the grin, meself/Steve Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 14 Jan 21 - 04:50 PM

I seem to be getting used to "So," now, though I hated it at first.

There are some expressions that go the opposite way for me. I don't mind them at first but grow to dislike them.

I realise that it is one of Steve's favourites and I accept that he has every right to use it wherever and whenever he wants but, the more I see "in m'humble", the more I hate it.

Sorry Steve

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 21 - 05:11 PM

I got that from a mate of mine many years ago. You may or may not have noticed that I never use those internet shortenings such as ROTFLMAO, LOL and the like. "In m'humble" avoids my having to type the pretentious IMHO, or, worse, IMNSHO. I suppose that you could accuse "in m'humble" of being pretentious, but it's so daft that I feel that the pretentiousness gets washed away in a tide of self-deprecation. YMMV.


Shit...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 21 - 08:18 PM

We have a new weather lady who is prone to pronouncing temperature "temmricher." And I wish weather presenters wouldn't say daft things such as "the temperature will be below where it should be for the time of year," and "the temperature will reach five degrees today but it will feel more like minus one in that breeze," and "the showers will already be moving their way in." And, being the time of year it is, we're starting to get the usual spate of Febyouerries and Febrys. Why can't people just talk proper!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 04:25 AM

"the temperature will reach five degrees today but it will feel more like minus one in that breeze,"

I think that is one of the most useful parts of the weather forecast. I don't have to worry about slipping on a frozen puddle right outside my door but I should wrap up in warm clothes if I am going to walk around the playing fields.

I don't mind the chatty form of the weather presenters. Not everything has to be read out in the measured tones of the shipping forecast. I do agree with you, though, on the horrors of "temmricher" and "Febyouerry/Febry".

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 06:36 AM

The occasional slip when speaking is understandable. We can't always think fast enough to get it right. But I hate to see basic errors in writing.

A recent caption on a TV programme talked about 'a vertebrae'!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 06:51 AM

I don't want to go off at too much of a tangent, but the topic of the public perception of broadcast weather forecasts is quite interesting and has been a matter of concern for forecasters. Here's a link that could be worth a read (you'll have to copy and paste it): https://doi.org/10.1080/00046973.1969.9676566

I'm an amateur member of the Royal Meteorological Society and have been subscribing to their in-house mag for decades. A few years ago there was a discussion of how well the public were able to concentrate on forecasts, and it came up that many people switch on the forecast but have drifted off well before the end. I suppose that we often want to tease out the bits relevant to our own region, but that can seem to be quite an effort when things such as "tomorrow will be dry and bright in the south and east but it will be more unsettled in the north and west." There's a lot to process in that, especially if, like me, you live in the south and west :-) , and by the time the presenter gets to that bit I've probably fallen asleep anyway. I think that the best two communicators on the telly are Susan Powell and Sarah Keith-Lucas, both confident, clear, map-savvy and able to hold the attention for the required two minutes. I struggle with Helen Willetts and body-builder Tomasz Schafernaker. If Mrs Steve asks me what the forecast is if I've listened to either of those two, I realise that I haven't listened properly...

I've posted this before, but my favourite weather forecast ludicrosity was Helen Willetts telling us that "At least last night's rain has washed the humidity out of the air..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 06:52 AM

That when was meant to be a with.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 07:46 AM

I usually find television weather forecasts easier to concentrate on than radio as they are visual. You can see the weather moving across the country, see which direction it is going in (easier than remembering that an easterly wind is coming from the east, not going in an easterly direction).
The only problem is that you have to remember that the design of the map varies according to which channel you are watching. One will use pale green for clear skies and darker green for overcast, while another uses pale green to suggest a cloudy sky, and darker green to mean the sky will be clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 08:03 AM

My favourite weather forecast was a few years ago when it was just cloudy for weeks on end, no rain, no sun, no heat, no cold.
For some reason the radio weather forecaster wasn't available one morning, so the presenter just announced that "Today, the weather will be boring."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 08:13 AM

Reminds me of a week-long biology field course in north Wales I was on when I was at university. I think it was in April 1970. During that whole week there was no sun, no wind, no rain and the temperature hovered within a degree of 7C, day and night. We were supposed to be measuring the effect of the weather on evapotranspiration. We returned to college unenlightened! We did learn quite a bit about mosses and liverworts, however, with the most inspirational teacher I've ever had, so all was not lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 09:16 AM

An advert came on the TV recently for a mattress. I wasn't paying all that much attention until the person talked about 'laying' on it.
I bristled (typical retired teacher).
I've noticed that these days, 'lay' is often misused for 'lie'.
One lays eggs and bricks, or in the past one lay down.
"I was laying there" sounds to me as if a chicken is speaking!
I wonder if people dislike 'lie' because it also means to tell a lie?
Anyone else hate the misuse of 'lay'?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 09:24 AM

I think I may have mentioned it somewhere earlier in the thread - but it is so common it does no harm to bring the subject up at regular intervals.

Maybe it's all Dylan's fault:
"Lay lady, lay ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 09:36 AM

I once rather fell for a weatherforecaster whose teleprompter said something about "ground fog" and right after saying that he stopped, looked offscreen, and said Ground fog? Of course it's GROUND fog! If it weren't on the ground, it'd be up in the air and be CLOUDS!

(Did you notice how neatly this came back to language peeves?)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 09:40 AM

Er, there is such a thing as hill fog.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 09:49 AM

I wanted to lay the duvet in the bed.

So I made the duvet lie on the bed.

The duvet lay on the bed.


Dylan wanted the lady to lie across his big brass bed. She was a bit reluctant, so he gently laid her across his big brass bed. And then he... (stoppit, Stephen...)

I hope he'd laid a comfortable mattress on the bed first and made sure it was lying on it properly. I won't lie to you, it isn't my favourite song, so just lay off, will you...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 09:54 AM

Which reminds me of a modern irritant that's spreading like a virus: "I won't lie to you..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 11:09 AM

And there is sea fog, of course.
Sometimes the sea fog drifts inland.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 11:38 AM

Perhaps Dylan was actually talking to a hen, exhorting it to produce an egg on his bed?
I suppose quite a few people haven't studied languages/grammar at any depth, so the words 'transitive' and 'intransitive' wouldn't mean much to them.
I'm always put on alert when someone says, "I don't mean to be rude but..." or "I'm not going to lie to you but...". The 'but' means they jolly well do and will!
Weather forecasters - oh yes! "Wrap up warm" er... are you my mum? And it's 'warmly' - adverb please.
"The weather out there..." Where else would it be? Inside my house?
The older I get, the more crotchety I become. I should wrap up warm and lay down.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 12:30 PM

I think "wrap up warm" is fine, actually. There's no rule that sez that an adverb has to end with -ly, or that one that does end with -ly can't evolve into one that doesn't. I'm only guessing, but I suspect that the injunction "wrap up warm" is commoner than "wrap up warmly." In that context, "warm" is still an adverb. If enough people use a construction for long enough, it becomes standard English whether we like it or not. Another battle lost, I fear!

And I'd far sooner hear a weather presenter advising me to wrap up warm than telling me that "five degrees will feel more like minus one in that breeze" which is just gibberish! How many people have an accurate and objective understanding of what "five degrees" or "minus one" feels like? Is that with your coat on or off? When you're wet or dry? Felt on your hands, your feet or your face? Whether you're fat or thin? With your thermal knickers on or off?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 12:34 PM

"Wrap up warm" er... are you my mum? And it's 'warmly' - adverb please.


In my post above (15 Jan 21 - 04:25 AM), I wanted to write "wrap up warm" but, knowing this is a thread about language, I thought someone might pick up the need for the adverb. Still, "wrap up warmly" seemed clumsy. In the end, I chickened out and wrote "wrap up in warm clothes".

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 12:46 PM

Many years ago, I was listening to late night radio, when the host read the local weather report. It contained a reference to "a patchy fog". (get it? Apache?)

The guy stopped in mid-sentence and mumbled something about.."what happens if there's a 'Navaho fog' or a 'Comanche fog'... and he started giggling at his own joke... then completely lost it and began sputtering and choking in an effort to STOP laughing. It must have taken him several minutes to compose himself and get back to whatever he was supposed to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 01:01 PM

We have lots of "patchies" in our weather forecasts. Patchy fog, patchy rain, patchy drizzle, even patchy frost. It's the non-committal way of saying that, in spite of the fact that we have the world's finest computers and the most talented modellers, we can't tell you whether you'll get these types of weather or not where you live. We also have "chance of...", "scattered showers," "sunny spells/periods/intervals/breaks" and "possibly with the odd rumble of thunder."

One dictionary I just consulted referred to ""wrap up" as a phrase verb. That makes a qualifying word following it an adverb, I guess. It may be informal, but "wrap up warm" is clear and effective in its message!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 01:03 PM

That should have been phrasal. Don't you just love text prediction that knows better than you!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 05:32 PM

Hee hee [I proofread!] there is a great Irish song about the weather, patchy fog fog fog patchy fog fog fog patchy fog fog foooooog, rise and follow Charlie...

Here, if it's over water, it is usually called mist, rather than fog.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 05:54 PM

Yebbut you get sleet and hail hopelessly mixed up. Do try to learn from your colonial masters.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 06:38 PM

"Apache fog".
Is that a weather condition seen following an "Indian Summer"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 06:38 PM

Fifteen Hundred!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 21 - 07:56 PM

"there is a great Irish song about the weather, patchy fog fog fog patchy fog fog fog patchy fog fog foooooog, rise and follow Charlie..."

That's a Scottish song, not Irish. It's called Sound the Pibroch. Do try to get at least something right.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 16 Jan 21 - 02:48 AM

Way back in my student days, we had a big red "GO SLOW" road sign on the wall.
It took a visiting Japanese student to ask whether it should not read "GO SLOWLY".
It took the rest of us a while to come up with a grammatically sensible explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 21 - 05:20 AM

No need. Go slow is perfectly good English, "slow" serving as the adverb.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 16 Jan 21 - 05:37 AM

The best road sign I have seen was in Ireland. On the approach to a bend, painted in big white letters on the road, was the word SLOW. Further round the long bend was the word SLOWER.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 21 - 07:31 AM

Of course, we frequently encounter horrors such as "more slower..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Jan 21 - 07:48 AM

Some years ago, in a lane near Cardiff, there were multiple bends with "SLOW" painted before each bend.
Some wag added "QUICK, QUICK" before the third "SLOW"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Jan 21 - 10:10 AM

I have that song by the Clancy Brothers. Glad to give you a nit to pick!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 21 - 10:59 AM

Yes, and we have English opera singers singing Mozart. We're good internationalists here. By the way, be careful what you see as nitpicking if you ever come over here: never, for example, casually confuse Yorkshiremen with Lancashire lads such as myself. We may sound alike to the uninitiated, but we're chalk and cheese, and getting us mixed up will earn you a sharp, non-socially-distanced rebuke. You can distinguish the Yorkshireman quite easily, by the way, because his wallet pocket is sewn up. Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Jan 21 - 07:23 PM

Oh, totz!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 21 - 08:05 PM

"oh, totz."

Translator's note, please...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 17 Jan 21 - 04:49 AM

"oh, totz!" clearly means the same as "glory". If in doubt, refer to Humpty Dumpty.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Jan 21 - 09:58 AM

Is totz not a word outside the US?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 17 Jan 21 - 10:12 AM

It hadn't reached my bit of the UK. I looked it up, and according to the Urban Dictionary website, it is:

"Totz toht-z
–adverb
1. wholly; entirely; completely.
2. Slang for totally

etymology:
Originates out of Reed college in Portland, Oregon."

It isn't a word I am likely to use any time soon. It seems to be a rough equivalant of "defo" - another word I am not in the habit of using.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Jan 21 - 10:29 AM

The spelling might be different outside of the US.

I have heard as part of "totes amaze" for "totally amazing" but I wouldn't expect to hear it used by anyone who consiiders themself to be an adult.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 21 - 11:46 AM

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 18 Jan 21 - 08:18 AM

A phrase I really despise is "in terms of". People seem to use it at random instead of thinking about what they really mean. Usually they just mean "in" or "on".
For example, in an interview on Radio 4 yesterday, discussing American–British relations, Dominic Raab said:
“I think we’ve seen some pretty shocking scenes in terms of Capitol Hill ...”.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Jan 21 - 09:16 AM

Freshman essays are also full of 'in terms of isms'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Jan 21 - 11:31 AM

Here is a weirdly ambiguous headline:

Fort Bliss Soldier Charged with Raping Fellow Soldier a Year Before Her New Year's Eve Death

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 21 - 08:10 PM

All that was needed there was to leave "New Year's Eve" out of the headline. I did find one source that actually did just that. A good copy editor would have pointed out that the New Year's Eve bit wasn't at the essential core of the story (which is what headlines are supposed to throw at us) and could easily have been included in the body of the report.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Jan 21 - 04:14 AM

It is not "New Year's Eve" that causes the ambiguity. Was the soldier charged a year before her death, for a rape that took place earlier, or did the alleged rape take place a year before her death?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 21 - 04:40 AM

I see what you mean. But if she'd died on New Year's Eve, and he'd been charged a year before that, the charging would hardly have been "news," would it? I suppose that I subconsciously processed that possibility out of it. But it is a bit of a rubbishy headline, with which we can probably agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 Jan 21 - 05:40 AM

But it is a bit of a rubbishy headline, with which we can probably agree.

No, I can't agree with that headline.
Or did you mean that we can probably agree that it is a rubbishy headline?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 21 - 05:49 AM

Yes, I realised that I wasn't happy with my post but I realised it only after I'd sent it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 26 Jan 21 - 03:02 PM

People now rarely use 'thrice', but lately I often read or hear 'two times'.

Let's not let 'twice' go the way of 'thrice'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 26 Jan 21 - 05:48 PM

At the same time, let's not lose 'multiply'.
Too often I have heard "times it by" rather than "multiply it by".
I thought it was a linguistic aberration by the children until, in a parent/teacher evening (early 1990s) I was told "The test was scored out of fifty, so we had to times it by two to get the percentage"! . . .Cringe!. . .

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jan 21 - 08:24 PM

I disagree, Nigel. I can't see anything wrong with that. Like you, I imagine, I chanted my times tables in primary school ad nauseam: one times two is two, two times two is four, three times two is six (I'll let you argue the "is/are" there, but I'm sticking with "is")... I'm pretty sure that the expression "times tables" and the verb "to times" are natural derivatives of that. And there isn't much point arguing against them: their usage is so common that you'd really have to admit that they're standard English. I rather like both, actually. I like the informality, and I'm sure that they are friendlier means of expression to small children for teachers to use. If you don't like them, I fear you'll have to consider it another battle lost...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Jan 21 - 10:00 PM

I have not heard times used for multiply. Multiplied by, yes, as in six times six. But not Times six by six to get 36.

I get the same Not on your Nelly to the phrase "on accident" (*by* accident!)...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 27 Jan 21 - 02:49 AM

I have never heard 'on accident'.
I really dislike 'on the weekend'. It's 'at the weekend', with 'on' being used for a particular day: 'on Friday', 'on Saturday' etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 27 Jan 21 - 03:01 AM

When I was at school we didn't clutter up our times tables by saying 'times' every time. It was 'Once two is two, two twos are four, three twos are six ... all the way to 'twelve twelves are a hundred and forty-four'.
No stopping at 'ten times' when you had to learn to calculate in pounds, shillings and pence.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jan 21 - 04:25 AM

I seem to recall that we moved to that more economical version as we got a bit older, Jos, eight or nine perhaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Jan 21 - 05:12 PM

I have a lycée-aged memory of going behind the little kids' classes to sneak cigs, hearing a familiar tune, going over to listen and realizing they were singing the multiplication table.

When I learned that song, I did not yet speak French. I thought I was in music class.

No wonder I still don't know my multiplication table.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Jan 21 - 06:02 PM

Ooh today a NYT headline read Treat yourself to a Parisian apéritif that is easy to make at home.

But it was about an *appetizer* -not an apéritif, which is a before-dinner drink.

The NYT! I expect better from them.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 29 Jan 21 - 06:24 PM

"Militia" used for any group of fruitcakes who buy soldier's garb.

I have a friend who is well-read about history, warfare, weapons, etc. I mentioned that a video on YouTube said that on Jan 6th, rioters were within 60 feet of the Senators and Representatives in hiding. He told me not to worry - that if the "militia" had got too close, the cops in suits with the automatic handguns would have mowed them down, Walmart helmets and all.

See what I mean? The so-called militia was under-armed, had made no plan, didn't know what they were up against, and were risking their lives for nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 21 - 06:28 PM

But your constitution permits them, according to your gun lobby.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 30 Jan 21 - 07:29 AM

Merriam-Webster definition number 3:

"a private group of armed individuals that operates as a paramilitary force and is typically motivated by a political or religious ideology"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 30 Jan 21 - 07:33 AM

Remember the "Christian militias" in Lebanon and the "Baath Party militias" in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 21 - 07:38 AM

It's just that damned Second Amendment again...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 21 - 08:15 AM

Several terms have come into vogue in the last few months which are chucked around with loose abandon.

"Pandemic": it's a pandemic if you are talking about the global situation. It's an epidemic if you're talking about the situation just in your own country: "The coronavirus epidemic in the UK is part of the global pandemic." You can't say "The pandemic in the UK has resulted in one of the world's worst death rates." But people do!

"Lockdown": an irritating word which doesn't convey anything about the restrictions in force.

"Social distancing": I have no idea why we need "social" in there...

"Jab": not descriptive of what the nurse or doc does at all.

"Self-isolating": just a really stupid expression.

"Covid": an unclever word used to make you sound clever. When I challenged someone who kept referring to "covid" he told me that "coronavirus" is too vague because there are lots of coronaviruses. I had to tell him that the ugly, confected word "covid" is merely short for "COronaVIrus Disease." There's nothing wrong with calling the current disease "coronavirus." It's a real word and everybody knows what it refers to in the current context. Likewise, "Covid-19." I asked my family in a Zoom last night what they thought it meant. Not one of them knew that the "19" stood for the year 2019. Just call the bloody thing coronavirus! And don't get me started on ridiculous constructions such as "pre-covid" and " post-covid"...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 30 Jan 21 - 10:02 AM

You can't say "The pandemic in the UK has resulted in one of the world's worst death rates."
Why can't you say that?
The 'pandemic' relates to a global event, and 'in the UK' has resulted in one of the world's worst death rates.
It may not be the clearest of sentences, but it isn't necessarily misleading.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 30 Jan 21 - 11:47 AM

I've got one.

Don't you just hate it when people misuse "pet peeve"? Don't they know that words have meanings?

A "pet peeve" is an established source of aggravation that one perversely enjoys complaining about, but posters here often use it to mean "a usage I object to that I just noticed recently."

I blame the schools.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 30 Jan 21 - 12:09 PM

I blame the parents.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Jan 21 - 02:56 PM

The pandemic has resulted, in the UK, in one of the worst death rates?

Just because something is new to me does not mean it can't be one of my pets, or do I have to be peeved over a period of time for it to become a pet?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 21 - 03:38 PM

The pandemic is not what has resulted in one of the worst death rates. The sheer incompetence of our government has done that. Wrong thread, etc., but just sayin'...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Jan 21 - 06:40 PM

Steve, y'all got nothin on us!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 21 - 08:46 PM

Yes we have: we have a worse death rate than you.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 31 Jan 21 - 03:29 AM

"We did everything we could" said Boris. Unfortunately, true.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 31 Jan 21 - 01:31 PM

One of my pet peeves – "an established source of aggravation" that I come across almost every day – is:

"Just because ... doesn't mean ..."
instead of
"Just because ... it doesn't mean ...", or "Just because ... that doesn't mean ...".

[Sorry, Mrrzy]

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 21 - 01:56 PM

Careful, Jos. He's an established proofreader... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 31 Jan 21 - 01:58 PM

Well, me too, and I don't let my authors get away with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 21 - 05:26 PM

Well me to Jos, and I dont let my author's get away with it neither...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Jan 21 - 08:01 PM

Mwah, Jos and Steve Shaw!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 03 Feb 21 - 11:57 AM

I wouldn't use the "just because" construction if writing a book, but I believe it's all right for everyday use. The ""just because" part is a noun clause which functions as the subject of the sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 03 Feb 21 - 12:11 PM

My problem, Leeneia, is that it leaves me feeling very insecure, as if I was driving across Tower Bridge just as it opened to allow a ship to pass through, and I am left hanging in the air ... with no way of getting to the other side.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 04 Feb 21 - 02:03 PM

I used to have dreams like that, but in my case the bridge collapsed beneath me. Then one night the bridge was collapsing, and I thought, "I'll be all right. I can swim." After that, I never had another nightmare about a bridge.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 04 Feb 21 - 02:08 PM

Back to peeves.

I saw a YouTube video where a major network referred to the "unrest" at the Capitol. I posted "Five people are dead, including one trampled to death, one shot and one brained with fire extinguisher," and you call that UNREST?

Unrest is when people are marching and shouting.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 07 Feb 21 - 10:07 AM

The pronunciation of "efficacy" is changing. Until recently I had only ever heard "EFFicacy". Recently I have heard people being interviewed whose first language was clearly not English, who talked about a vaccine's "effICKacy".
Yesterday I heard the change taking place on air, as someone with a southern English accent who was being interviewed on Radio 4 began to say "EFFic...", then hesitated, started again, and this time said "effICKacy".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 21 - 11:00 AM

On yesterday's Radio 4 one o'clock news, the newsreader just managed to rescue herself from calling Jeremy Hunt "Jeremy C***", sounding like "Jeremy Ker-Hunt..."

(I don't like using asterisks like that, but I decided that this thread is a family show, folks).

It's been a common error, even having investigated by psychologists who decided that it's not a Freudian slip. To some of us, it has seemed oddly appropriate...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Feb 21 - 12:08 PM

Freudian slip: when you mean to say one thing and accidentally say a mother.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 08 Feb 21 - 11:16 AM

Jos:
I think 'efficacy' is probably not a common word in peoples vocabularies.
The accent on "eff" may be a hold-over from Scaffold and "Lily the Pink". "Most efficacious in ev'ry case"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 08 Feb 21 - 12:43 PM

I bet people base their pronunciation of efficacy on similar words such as proficiency and effiency and deficiency, all of which have the accent on the FI.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 08 Feb 21 - 02:06 PM

I rather think they base their pronunciation on whatever they have heard most recently (which will probably not be 'Lily the Pink').

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 08 Feb 21 - 11:55 PM

Efficacy: Both the OED and the AHD give only the first-syllable stress, which is what comes natural to me. The analogy with -ciency words seems to me a poor one. However, I do not blame people for trying their luck with efFIcacy; the orthodox pronunciation leads to three unstressed syllables in a row, which English usually avoids.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 03:14 AM

If 'effICacy' catches on everywhere, will 'diffICulty' be next?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 06:46 AM

Another pronunciation that annoys me is 'pasTORal'. It sounds really awkward, and 'PAStoral' sounds so much more peaceful.

But sometimes the newer versions can be more expressive - 'haRASSment' sounds much more aggressive than 'HARassment'.

And such controversies are not new. Years ago, my mother used to get very annoyed when she heard someone say 'CONtroversy' instead of 'conTROVersy'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 07:35 AM

Like "laBORatry"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 08:01 AM

Good point. (But I would avoid 'lABorat'ry' as it can too easily be misheard, and mistaken for 'lavatory'.)

And then there are 'aLUminum' and 'aluMINium', where even the spelling changes.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 09:57 AM

I think you'll find that the American "aluminum" has the greater claim to be the "correct" spelling. However, if it's wot millions say...

Another weird one is licorice/ liquorice, (or, up north, liquorish ("lickerish!"). I suspect that the spelling more popular in the US, licorice" is "more correct" if the etymology is consulted, but in the UK it's more likely to be rendered "liquorice." The vulgar-sounding "liquorish/lickerish" actually goes back hundreds of years. If enough people use them, they're all "correct," though some raise hackles more than others. It pays to be not too imperialistic when claiming correctness in a spelling...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 10:01 AM

In the U.S. we say "LAvatohry" and "LAbratohry"

But since we don't usually say "lavatory" ("rest room" is preferred) *or* "laboratory" ("lab" is preferred) the chance for genuine mishearing is about nil.

Context is a big clue.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 10:10 AM

Most Brits will use a word other than lavatory...

"Rest room" seems a bit over-polite. Your visit there might be anything but restful...

And tell me about "bathrooms" that don't have a bath...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 10:34 AM

I used to be very confused by talk of bathrooms in trains or aircraft, until I realised what was meant.
And as for people taking their dog out so that it can 'go to the bathroom' ...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 01:46 PM

Guilty. We say those things too.

Well, some of us.

When I was in England, I found use of the phrase "go to the toilet" a little embarrassing.

Here, a "toilet" is specifically the commode, rarely the little room.

It's often heard in the phrase "on the toilet."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 01:58 PM

Going for a lash

Off to point Percy at the porcelain

Off to drain the spuds

Off to shake hands with the unemployed

Off to shake hands with the wife's best friend


You can't beat a good euphemism, mate...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 02:15 PM

My father's generation used to say they were 'going to see a man about a dog'.

Most people I know these days call it 'the loo'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 03:39 PM

Loo is way too twee. As are poo and pee, now seen, annoyingly, on every medical website. Give me bog, dump and wee any time.. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 03:52 PM

Twee would be 'little boys' room' or 'little girls' room'.

A female equivalent of 'I'm going to see a man about a dog' would be 'I'm going to powder my nose'. Do people powder their noses any more? It makes me think of Barbara Cartland.

'Bog' and 'dump' are too blokey.

'Loo' seems to me to be fairly neutral.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 04:36 PM

Wait - "pee" is more "twee" than "wee"? Well, learn sumpm every day ....

Reminds me, though. One time, late at night, I was in the company of the poet Al Purdy, who, I daresay, prided himself in being salt of the earth. The others in our party were a young-ish, upper-crust couple, connected with some publishing house. At one point, the woman said, "Where's Al?", and the guy said, "He's peeing on a tree". Al's voice boomed indignantly out of the dark: "I'm not 'peeing' - I'm pissing!"

Maybe you have to be Canadian to get it; I don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 04:46 PM

Maybe you nave to be a poet ...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 05:05 PM

Where did that 'n' come from? Maybe you HAVE to be a poet.

When I was a child we went to the lavatory, and what we did there was 'spend a penny'. It never occurred to me that this was odd - it would only cost a penny if you were to use a 'public convenience'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 05:38 PM

I once emailed the great flute player, Harry Bradley, to ask him what he'd thought of a particular book on traditional Irish music. He replied that the best use he could find for it was to drill a hole in the top left corner and suspend it from string in his lavatorium...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 21 - 05:49 PM

Pee more twee than wee? Heheh. Gee...

Here in Britlandia, "Begod, I just have to nip out for a wee..." is now in common parlance, even among the hunkiest of alpha males, ladies too. I like that. One day, we'll all be able to say "Hey, I just need to nip out to take a shit/dump/Tom tit/Eartha Kitt", male or female, without anyone raising an eyebrow. I look forward...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 06:22 AM

"Going to the little boys' room"
or,
"Going for a pony!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 06:42 AM

"I'll be five minutes - I just have to go and crimp off a length..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 06:49 AM

"Where have you been?"

"I've just been upstairs dropping the shopping. I'd give it twenty minutes if I were you..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Feb 21 - 09:48 AM

Grandmother was suffering from digestive woes and someone asked where she was and grandfather said, she's sitting down upstairs.
Decorum, indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 11 Feb 21 - 07:43 PM

An expression read in American books is "going potty".....as in, "the dog went outside to go potty".

No, it didn't. It went outside to urinate. It didn't sit on its little potty like a toddler being toilet trained. Likewise when the term is used about an adult.

A library where I worked in the mid-late 1990s was upstairs, above a staff room (in a school). We had our own little cubicle, loo, dunny, whatever you call it, tucked away in a corner. The library staff referred to it as "the corner office"......"Is Pat here?" "In the corner office" would be the reply.

It's a term I still use.......

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 21 - 07:59 PM

"Going potty" in English English means going a bit loopy, becoming prone to doing daft things, going a bit mad, barking, losing it in a sort of frantic way, going nutty. Becoming a crackpot.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 21 - 08:21 PM

When we were little there was no bathroom in our house. There was a row of brick shithouses for the houses in the block which you had to cross an unlit dirt communal yard to reach. The lavvy had a high level cistern with a metal chain and ceramic handle. It would flush only if you "took it by surprise." Bad on a winter's night and impossible for kids after bedtime, so we always had a guzunder, a potty, a po ("goes under" the bed). More politely, a chamber pot, the bedroom ware, a vase de nuit or a pot de nuit.. I think "po" came from the French "pot." In our house it was always the potty. When talking politely about the setup in others' houses we'd say "guzunder." It was regarded as extreme bad form to employ said item for anything other than a "number one", especially in a shared bedroom...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 14 Feb 21 - 03:34 PM

Another pet peeve of mine: litany

A litany is a list of petitions in a church service. The minister asks the Lord for something, and the congregation responds with a phrase such as "Hear our prayer." Another use: when I was attending Catholic church, we sang a beautiful "Litany of the Saints" which named ancient saints and our own dead, followed by "Pray for Us." Like the lullabies I mentioned in a different thread, that song seemed designed to soothe a person and bring inner peace.

My peeve occurs when somebody uses "litany" to mean any old list. I just heard a lawyer say that people arrested for attacking the Capitol on Jan 6 can face a litany of charges. Pfui. It's just a list of charges.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 21 - 03:50 PM

Litany has evolved to mean a long (and possibly tedious) list of things. Lengthy could be a better word than long. A litany of grievances. A litany of complaints. I think it's commoner used in this sense now than it is in its liturgical sense. Another battle lost, I'm afraid. It's standard English in the sense you are complaining about!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 15 Feb 21 - 10:57 AM

Actually, standard English isn't good enough for most Mudcatters. We're a literate and literary group.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 21 - 11:57 AM

Well my gripe is with degradation - stuff such as alternate for alternative, or the terminal blurring of uninterested and disinterested. I don't think we necessarily have to reserve litany for churchy use. It's perfectly good in that context, but the more modern expansion into tedious lists of things (it's already acquired that nuance of tediousness when it's used that way: "I don't want to hear your litany of complaints...") is colourful. What's more, it doesn't degrade the liturgical context for the word. So it's fine by me!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Feb 21 - 01:00 PM

Yeah, it isn't just any list. It's a long or tedious list, especially if spoken aloud.

I don't write out a grocery litany, for example, or a to-do litany.

Nor do I think that Mudcat is likely to have a litany of members.

For fans of group designators (like a "clowder" of cats), a "litany" is now pretty much the inevitable term for a number of complaints.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Feb 21 - 04:42 PM

Right, to me too, it isn't a litany if it isn't being tediously listed *out loud*.

But it does not have to be in worship.

I agree with Steve Shaw on degradation. I also mind backformations, I think the term is, for words like Worthiness. The word is worth. Worthy, the adjective, does not need a -ness added to form the noun. The noun is already there.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Feb 21 - 05:43 PM

Oxford shows "worthiness" from 1372.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 21 - 05:55 PM

Worth and worthiness mean two different things to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 21 - 08:38 PM

The first-up online dictionary gives two distinct meanings for the adjective "worthy," viz:

1. having or showing the qualities that deserve the specified action or regard.
"these issues are worthy of further consideration"

2. characterised by good intent but lacking in humour or imagination.
"worthy but tedious advice"

That second meaning is common in the UK, but, oddly, when I looked it up in Merriam-Webster online it wasn't there. It sort of means competent enough but just dull and uninspiring. The point is, to extend that into a noun you would say "worthiness." Which is what I meant in that earlier post. I'd be interested to know if the word "worthy" is ever used in that sense your end.

It might be worth adding (see what I did there?) that we also have a noun "worthy," as in "The public meeting was attended by the town's ceremonial bigwigs and quite a few other local worthies."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 16 Feb 21 - 04:54 AM

A vehicle that is maintained to a sufficiently high standard to be used legally on a public road is road-worthy. The quality that it possesses is that of 'road-worthiness', not 'road-worth'.



Steve, your second definition conflates two separate ideas:

2. characterised by good intent but lacking in humour or imagination.
"worthy but tedious advice"
.............
.............
It sort of means competent enough but just dull and uninspiring.


So,
"worthy": characterised by good intent; (sort of means) competent enough
but
"tedious": lacking in humour or imagination; (sort of means) just dull and uninspiring.



DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 16 Feb 21 - 11:47 AM

The quotation reveals a lack of faith in the definition: "worthy but tedious" is otherwise redundant, if worthy already means "worthy but tedious" .....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Feb 21 - 01:04 PM

Grammar is important. Capital letters are the difference between "helping your Uncle Jack off a horse" and "helping your uncle jack off a horse"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 16 Feb 21 - 03:02 PM

..... if worthy already means "worthy but tedious"

But "worthy" doesn't already mean "worthy but tedious". I could donate money to a "worthy and inspirational" charity.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 21 - 05:24 PM

Worthy does not necessarily imply tedious. In most cases it takes more than one word to define a word (otherwise your definition would merely be an unenlightening synonym). Let's just say that "worthy" in the second sense can mean competent and/or having good intent, but dull and/or tedious and/or boring and/or unimaginative and/or uninspiring (etc.). Your precise intended meaning depends on nuance and context. Move "dull" into the middle of that to give it an and/or get-out, by the way. To add spice to the conversation, "tedious" is also a word ripe for nuance. English is so lovely. No sweat, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Feb 21 - 05:58 PM

My latest bete noir is cleave:

Which is it:

Cleave to? or
Cleave asunder?

Which is it Clive?

It's worse than flammable, inflammable and imflammable.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 21 - 06:06 PM

It's both. Context is everything!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Feb 21 - 10:31 PM

Cleave on, MacDuff!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 17 Feb 21 - 03:48 AM

It's either - "cleave" is a contranym, a word with two opposite meanings.
As to whether they are actually the same word, or different but identical words, is something I'll leave to the wordsmiths amongst us.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 21 - 05:52 AM

Convergent evolution...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Feb 21 - 06:30 AM

"cleave" is a contranym, a word with two opposite meanings.

Another example is:
       "fast" - moving quickly;
and
       "fast" - securely tied.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 17 Feb 21 - 07:51 AM

Another is 'sanction' - permit or authorise an action, or impose penalties for an action.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 21 - 09:42 AM

I dusted the top of the cake with cocoa powder (added dust)

I dusted my windowsills (took away dust)

We began to execute the plan (started it)

I executed the bluebottle with my electrified swatter (ended it)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Feb 21 - 07:42 AM

I wish to nominate a new word to be added to the lexicon of what we call standard English.


Yebbut.



This word has been used here frequently by Dave the Gnome and myself, but what's tipped me is the way my five-year-old grandson has adopted it, completely independently.

"Yebbut" means "I hear you, guv, though not necessarily actually listening, and I'm not with you on this one."

When little Sonny Jim uses it, he cannot be turned. He has found your suggestion to be one hundred percent disagreeable to him and nothing will persuade him to take your stance on board (stubborn little bugger). He's been using it so often in our FaceTime calls that it's rubbed off on me and Mrs Steve something rotten, and we now use it all tbe time.

It's very annoying, of course, which is why I feel it has a home in this thread. And in all respectable dictionaries...

It's superbly succinct and I'm going to be using it a lot more from now on. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Feb 21 - 08:00 AM

I see that it's already inveigling its way into wider usage. Here's one from Twitter this week:

"Yebbut we need the PCs [pharmaceutical companies] solvent to keep at the expensive research so that vaccines be updated in response to virus mutations. Not to mention the next pandemic.
Happy for a tax on ( fill in your own choice) to pay for global roll-out."

And I spotted an example of Kate Humble using it in 2009! I rest my case!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 23 Feb 21 - 09:23 AM

Im only aware of it from Vicky Pollard, "Yebbut, nobbut, yebbut, nobbut ...".
I'll keep an ear out for other examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 23 Feb 21 - 10:20 AM

For many decades I've heard the response ""Yeah-but the rabbut," which is probably best explained by an example.

Teenager: Yeah, but I couldn't put gas in the car because the station was closed.

Parent: Yeah-but the rab-but! You should have got gas earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Feb 21 - 10:55 AM

Ah, I forgot about Vicky Pollard! The more examples of the word's usage by high-flying literati such as her, the better!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Feb 21 - 05:59 PM

And in tonight's FaceTime, Sonny Jim came out with two new variants: "yeah ok but...". And "yebbut no." Good to see him adding nuance as his language skills develop!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: michaelr
Date: 24 Feb 21 - 09:23 PM

I may have posted this before. It remains a burr under my saddle.

"One of the only"

NO. It's either "the only" or it's "one of several".

Don't make me tell you again.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 25 Feb 21 - 12:22 AM

I'm tired of the expression "go-to." It used to refer to somebody important, as in:

"Doc Vollmer was Nero Wolfe's go-to medical man when an associate was injured."

Now it's used for any old thing.

"Garam marsala is his go-to spice for almost all dishes."
"Pink platforms are her go-to footwear for evening occasions."

Ugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 25 Feb 21 - 02:19 AM

Along with "one of the only" there is "half of all the ...".
It isn't incorrect but it is unnecessary.

And then there are "the single largest ..." and "the largest single ...".
Both just mean "the largest".

I think people use them to try to make what they are saying sound more impressive.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 25 Feb 21 - 02:34 AM

"One of the only"

But "only" can refer to a plurality, as in "one of the only six remaining."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 21 - 04:39 AM

I think go-to is fine, a good example of how a nifty casual expression has gained currency because it's concise, clear in its meaning and popular. Just don't use it in your next legal document. We really can't fight all these things.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 21 - 05:59 AM

I often think that many of these little linguistic foibles should be let go when they're spoken but should be more inclined to cause a raised eyebrow when put in writing. I simply can't be judgemental about all the little strategies people use in order to get their point across in conversation. After all, in this age of faces glued to phone screens we should be encouraging each other to talk more among ourselves. Little slips or grammatical solecisms should maybe be excused...

A newsreader one that I have trouble picking the bones out of is "a half of one percent."   I know they can't really say "0.5 percent" and that "half a percent" and "a half percent" are just nonsensical. I think we have a clumsiness here that humanity has yet to elegantly resolve. Most of the time we can just say "one in two hundred," I suppose. Not so easy if it's a quantity that can't be rendered in discrete numerical entities: "half of one percent of a pile of manure" can hardly be put into numbers...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Feb 21 - 10:57 AM

One of the only 6 is redundant. One of the 6.

I never thought of Go-to as referring only to important people, but I did get in trouble once for using -esque with someone unexceptional, and was told that wasn't appropriate. A movie can be Felliniesque but a meal cannot, say, be McDonaldsesque.

I rebelled, of course, in my Mrrzyesque way.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 25 Feb 21 - 12:30 PM

I rather like 'MacDonaldsesque' - it wouldn't be a compliment.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 21 - 12:42 PM

At least 20-odd years ago I caused some amusement on a harmonica forum by referring to Bob Dylan's God-awful harmonica playing as "Dylanesque." I've heard that word a good few times since.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Feb 21 - 05:16 PM

To go into a McDonalds to go to the toilet but not buy anything: "go for a McShit."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Feb 21 - 07:33 PM

Oh I *love* the Mc prefix... McJob, McMansion, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 21 - 12:29 PM

Principle/principal is a common and annoying mix-up. And one that screws up many a Brit but leaves yanks completely untouched is practice/practise. I do like the difference...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 28 Feb 21 - 08:15 AM

I heard a new variation on "begging the question" on the radio this morning, when a speaker said of something that happened: "it begs the idea ...".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 21 - 10:20 AM

Begging the question in its circular-argument form is another lost cause. It's a shame, because in that form it serves a useful function, but, as almost no-one understands that form any more... I still find myself pulling people up who use it for "raise the question." To me, using it that way sounds both pretentious and ignorant at the same time. I'm simply going to have to get over it. But not yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 28 Feb 21 - 04:25 PM

Another variation I hadn't heard before was from one of the expert valuers on the Antiques Roadshow this evening, who said:

"So, you know, that beggars the question ...".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 21 - 05:17 PM

I heard ages ago that "beggaring the question" was an early manifestation of "begging the question," implying that you are sort of trashing, or ridiculing it (beggaring it). I've tried looking into that but I need to have another go...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 01 Mar 21 - 03:22 AM

Perhaps "beggars" was a euphemism...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 01 Mar 21 - 08:33 AM

Headline in the paper the other day: 'Like Lady Gaga, my dog was stolen'.

Now help me out here. Are they saying Lady Gaga is a dog, or that she was stolen?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Mar 21 - 07:22 AM

Is it just me? The term Air Fryer. It is an oven. There is no such thing as frying in air.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 21 - 07:33 AM

Well I haven't got one, and I won't be getting one, but don't they require a little bit of oil to air-fry the grub?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Mar 21 - 08:09 AM

I don't (intentionally) eat grubs. Not enough meat on them.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 03 Mar 21 - 08:26 AM

"Air fryer" doesn't bother me - isn't it just a pan or similar device containing fat or oil and the bubbles in it, nothing else? Just frying the air?

What bothers me is the sight of packets of crisps labelled "Hand fried". Ouch!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: mayomick
Date: 03 Mar 21 - 09:31 AM

"beggaring the question" - well it was the Antique Roadshow .

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Mar 21 - 04:43 PM

Advice columnist told someone to perseverate.

But I persevere.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Mar 21 - 07:19 PM

It buggers the imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 21 - 10:16 AM

"Pre-"

I've just heard that the cheeky Greek Prince Phil is being treated for a "pre-existing" heart condition. Well I think that's ugly English. I think that the "pre" could usefully be dropped. He's being treated for an existing heart condition, not one that's just come on. Seems OK to me. I get fed up of being invited to "pre-order" this, that or the other, or to "pre-book" tickets for some event or other. I can just order or book, can't I? I note also that second-hand cars (a useful and honest expression) are now "pre-owned," or, even worse, "pre-loved" (shall we clench buttocks in unison?)

Anyway, must dash. I have to have a pre-look at the schedules to see what time the big match is on tonight...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Mar 21 - 11:16 AM

Sorry Steve, I tend to agree with the use of "pre-existing" in this context, but not necessarily "pre-ordering".
I would hope that hospitals would only tend to treat patients for 'existing' conditions (unless in a preventative way).
"Pre-existing" seems to add that not only this is a condition which needs treating, but that it is a condition which it was already known the patient had before any current decision to seek treatment.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 21 - 12:44 PM

I only slightly take your point. What a shame we can't use very nice English instead, existing conditions and new conditions. You're arguing for a clarity that we've only managed to achieve via ugly language. The Bard would be appalled. I've been unable to find a decent and elegant synonym to fit the bill. Can we at least agree that the hyphen is required? These bloody yanks with their "preexisting..." what DOES that look like!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 04 Mar 21 - 01:14 PM

Doesn't 'pre-ordering' just mean "You can order it now, but you're not going to get it for - oh, ages."

What I hate is "post" as a separate word when used instead of "after", as in "post the election", or "post the current situation".
[Sorry if I've said this already.]

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 21 - 01:46 PM

Agreed. As with "prior to." I've definitely said that already...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Mar 21 - 09:07 AM

Pre-existing is insurance-speak for Existing.

My family used to have the word pre-dread, which we knew was redundant, but referred to a decision to worry-a-lot-about-how-awful-it-would-be so that when it happened, if it was only bad, bad would be a pleasant relief.

Mostly applied to family get-togethers after daddy was killed, but it works for most situations...

Actually the more I think of it the less pre- is useful or not redundant, with a verb. Pre-noun, like the pre-dawn hours, is ok. Hmmm. Good point.

I have not yet seen post to mean after.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 05 Mar 21 - 10:34 AM

Then there's 'pre-recorded'. As opposed to what, 'post-recorded'?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 05 Mar 21 - 11:40 AM

Well, G-force, I belong to a music club which is now meeting on Zoom. If I say merely that a performance is recorded, I might mean that it was recorded before the meeting, or it could mean it will be recorded during the meeting. But if I say "pre-recorded," it definitely means before the meeting.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 21 - 11:58 AM

I even heard "pre-teach" a while back. I had to look it up. It means to teach something to prepare for an upcoming test. I can't get me head round that...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 05 Mar 21 - 12:23 PM

I see a difference between "order' and "pre-order". If I want something that is held in a warehouse then I would place an order for it and expect delivery within a relatively short time. If, however, an item is being developed and orders are being taken even though it is not currently available on the market, I think that this could reasonably be described as pre-ordering.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 21 - 04:59 PM

But Doug, it's ugly. That's me beef!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Mar 21 - 05:03 PM

That is back-ordering, not pre-ordering, to meeee.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 05 Mar 21 - 05:50 PM

But Doug, it's ugly.

To you, perhaps, but not to my ears.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 21 - 06:27 PM

One man's fish is another man's poisson, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 06 Mar 21 - 02:38 AM

Mrrzy, surely back-ordering would be placing an order (for the sake of keeping the paperwork straight) for something that had already been delivered?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 06 Mar 21 - 04:42 AM

That's not how I see it...

A back-order would be for an item that is temporarily out of stock. A pre-order would be for an item that is yet to be released.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 21 - 05:19 AM

But they're both just orders...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 Mar 21 - 05:24 AM

They are both types of order, just as an order is a type of transaction.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Mar 21 - 07:35 AM

Jon Freeman, yes, I do agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 Mar 21 - 07:50 AM

I agree with Mrrzy's agreement.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 21 - 07:53 AM

I agree with everyone and I agree with no-one (to misquote Inspector Clouseau).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 06 Mar 21 - 05:04 PM

The saying "champing at the bit" is ridiculous because what the horse is keen on is getting the damn bit out of its mouth!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Mar 21 - 05:09 PM

That is *why* they are champing. Now they stamp, now they champ, now they stand still.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 06 Mar 21 - 05:38 PM

Are you sure, Mrrzy/Mister Ed, the saying doesn't derive from so called "horse loving" humans thinking horses actually like been ridden somewhere - the weight on their back, being directed by the tugging on either side of their mouth and, in jump racing, the lovely scraping sensation on their stomachs..?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:57 AM

"Be ye not like unto horse and mule, which have no understanding.
Whose mouths must be held with bit and bridle else will they not come nigh you."
Or something like that. Book of Psalms, but I haven't checked which psalm.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 09:01 AM

And yes, that was related to the previous comments, and to the thread. Language pet peeves.
The "King James Bible" and the "Book of Common Prayer" had a lyrical language with which we were brought up. Modern translations just don't match them. That is one of my linguistic pet peeves.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 09:02 AM

And if people are still claiming multiples of 100 posts, that was in memory of the Great Fire of London. (1666)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 05:35 PM

"daylight savings time"
"a savings"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 08:58 AM

Today's Merriam-Webster word of the day is attitudinize.

What a terrible word, yanks. It's gotta be you, innit...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 09:16 AM

Since I repatriated in 1997, as part of the relentless promotion of diversity in England, those with clipped southern or, occasionally, northern accents have been replaced by continuity announcers saying "bovver" or "nuffin," e.g.; and, it seems, the broader the foreign accent, the better - as we slide ever further down the greasy pole.

(I haven't heard "innit" from them yet, but did far too often when I lived in London.)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 09:21 AM

We call your intolernce 'attitudespize'

I don't see the sense in 'late model'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 09:36 AM

WAV, That's Estuary English or Cockley and nothing to do with diversity.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 09:37 AM

*Cockney*

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 10:01 AM

I like cockley. It could mean "attitudinizing just like a cock." :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 10:11 AM

I'm definitely not against county (or similar) diversity - apparently at one stage in England every county had it's own type of bagpipes; I think now all that remains is the Leicestershire smallpipes & Northumbrian smallpipes (which I love hearing).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 11:07 AM

Cockley = 'rather like a cockle'?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 11:20 AM

Only lived there for a total of 4 years, but do know that many Cockneys love a plate of cockles.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 12:17 PM

Cockley Cley, just south of Swaffham in Norfolk, is the site of an Iceni village; a pleasant spot to visit.

The shellfish outlets in East London were generally known as whelk stalls which indicates the locals' preference. Cockles have a tendency to be a bit dodgy.

Back to the subject, has the truly awful 'reach out' been mentioned here?

As far as I'm concerned, the only people who can justifiably 'reach out' were The Four Tops.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 15 Mar 21 - 11:50 AM

Yes, Geoff, reach out has been mentioned.
===================
Recently we had an example of a kind of Mudcat post that irritates me. It's the precious post which assumes that everybody in the world knows the writer's world.

"I'm rewatching Jos Whedon's 'Firefly' and really enjoying it."

What's Firefly? We do have the clue that it's something one watches, but is it a film? TV show? Play? YouTube video? And who's Jos Whedon? script writer? producer? poet? singer?

Is Firefly from last year perhaps? Or from 1927 perhaps? Sure, I could Google it, but if the OP wants people to talk sense to him, he should talk sense too.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 21 - 12:02 PM

I fully get that, leeneia. I don't read fiction and watch only funny films, so a lot of the time I haven't a clue what people are talking about. I call it in-crowdery.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 15 Mar 21 - 12:20 PM

I thought as much, leeneia.

One of my current bugbears is the frequency in which newspapers diminish the power of the words 'fury' and 'rage' by inappropriate and/or lazy use in headlines.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Mar 21 - 09:32 PM

Ok, cops at the latest shooting were searching for ballistics... Um.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Mar 21 - 04:18 PM

Argh. Men, or other people, who refer to their share of the housework as Helping, as if it weren't their actual share of the actual work.

Men, or other people, who refer to taking care of their own children as Babysitting.

The phrase Stray Bullet. It is just as shot as the better-aimed bullets. It did not get out when you didn't latch the door! (This is an ongoing peeve.)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 03:36 AM

Stray Bullet seems OK to me Mrrzy. It has strayed from the intended path towards the target (assuming the shooter wasn't just blazing away at random).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 09:15 AM

"... attempt to try to ..."

"... the ability to be able to ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 10:50 AM

It has *not* strayed. It went, directly, where it was pointed to. The fact that the shooter aimed poorly does not make it the *bullet* that strayed. Calling it so makes the lousy shooter not responsible, *but they are.* That is EXACTLY my objection.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 12:30 PM

Misleading sentences:
In this country we don't deal in summary execution by a policeman without trial and conviction in the street, no matter what past offences we've committed.

Trials and convictions normally take place in the courts.

Let's also add in redundancy. If it is 'summary execution' then 'without trial and conviction' is redundant.

Also, we need consistency in the use of 'we' within the sentence. "We don't deal" appears to relate to the public, or this nation, but "past offences we've committed" appears to relate to the person 'executed' by the police.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 12:58 PM

In this country we don't deal in summary execution by a policeman without trial and conviction in the street, no matter what past offences we've committed.

Trials and convictions normally take place in the courts.

I think that is implied...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 01:36 PM

Yes, it may be implied, or what the writer intended, but it was not implicit in what was actually written: without trial and conviction in the street

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 01:40 PM

In a literal sense, the sentence implies that trials ARE held, and convictions arrived at, "in the street".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 01:41 PM

(Cross-post).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 01:44 PM

It has *not* strayed. It went, directly, where it was pointed to.

If the bullet reached its intended target but then ricocheted off a hard surface in some random direction, would that not then be a stray bullet?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 02:01 PM

If a carefully aimed bullet is heading directly where it was intended but then is blown off target by a sudden gust off wind, does that not become a stray bullet?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 02:53 PM

Getting out of my depth here but I'd read:

"In this country we don't deal in summary execution by a policeman without trial and conviction in the street"

As a whole. Meaning we don't go by that process.

It seems to differ if you split the without trial and convictions part?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 03:17 PM

"In this country we don't deal in summary execution by a policeman without trial and conviction in the street"

Punctuation would make the intended meaning clearer:

"In this country we don't deal in summary execution by a policeman, without trial and conviction, in the street"

Even then, the sentence is clumsy and would benefit from re-writing.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 03:40 PM

No, that's a ricochet.

Famous Irish marksman.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 09:53 PM

I do love being argued over. Far better than being ignored. Yes it wasn't a great sentence. "In the street" should have got in earlier. As for "summary" and "without trial or conviction" I'd contend that they don't necessarily mean the same thing. Many Guantanamo prisoners are incarcerated without trial or conviction but I don't think that "summary" fits the bill for the way they've been treated. I suppose you could accuse me of doubling up by using both, but I'd counter that by asserting that there's nothing wrong with that ploy if what you want to do is to strongly emphasise your point. The bottom line is that you knew what I meant, no bones about it. Watch your grammatical back, Nigel. You're under scrutiny.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 19 Mar 21 - 12:50 PM

Wait - did that sentence come from Steve? I assumed it had been written by a professional and had appeared in some ostensibly creditable publication; otherwise, I wouldn't have given it a thought - as he says, the meaning is clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 21 - 02:12 PM

Flattery will get you everywhere! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 19 Mar 21 - 03:39 PM

If it did come from Steve it must have been among the many deleted posts.
I can only find it being quoted by Nigel Parsons, followed by two or three other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 21 - 04:03 PM

Was it in a different thread? I'm pretty sure it was me!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 21 - 04:23 PM

Got it. It was in the Brexit and other UK topics thread on 14 March. I hereby claim ownership of this ignominy!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 21 Mar 21 - 10:30 AM

Whenever I hear "These kind of ..." I feel most uncomfortable.
It has to be either "These kinds of ..." or "This kind of ...".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 23 Mar 21 - 06:51 AM

This morning I heard an expression that's been around for some years but I hadn't heard recently:
He/she "turned round and said ...".
This is usually used in recounting a conversation, rather than the person who "turned round" having previously had their back turned.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 24 Mar 21 - 11:29 AM

That sounds like southern American idiom ... don't know if it is, it just sounds like the kind of turn of phrase, so to speak, that would be favoured in the South.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 24 Mar 21 - 01:36 PM

He/she "turned round and said ...".

             - - - - - - : : - - - - - - -

That sounds like southern American idiom


It's an expression that I am familiar with here in the UK. In fact, it's so run-of-the-mill that I wouldn't know whether I have heard it recently or not.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Mar 21 - 07:22 PM

Freddy was a fine young man, a fine young man was he
He built himself a little house up in an apple tree.
One day when he was in his house up in the apple tree
The limb his house was on did break and to the ground fell he.
Now Freddy didn't cry at all, just turned around and said
I've lost my taste for apples, I'll take a peach instead.

Ed McCurdy taught me that.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 25 Mar 21 - 06:06 AM

In that instance, Freddie might have turned round. It could equally be an example of the use that often sounds so ridiculous - but something was needed there to make the line the right length.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 25 Mar 21 - 06:09 AM

PS: "He just stood up an said" would be more likely alternative.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Mar 21 - 06:20 AM

Jos, you seem, to my mind, to be putting too much thought into this. It's just an expression, not meant to be taken literally.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 25 Mar 21 - 07:14 AM

But this thread is about "Language peeves" - and it peeves me, so I'm allowed to tell you about it.
If you don't mind it, that's just fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Mar 21 - 07:30 AM

In that case, should I get peeved when people say that they are going to put the kettle on to boil. I can't even get mine to melt.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Mar 21 - 07:45 AM

Jos, I am with you. If it peeves, this is the thread for you. If it doesn't peeve someone else that is irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 21 - 07:53 AM

I tend to be more amused than peeved by the absurdities that people come out with.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 26 Mar 21 - 08:24 AM

It may be amusing the first time, maybe the second. When you hear it or read it over and over again it can be very irritating.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 26 Mar 21 - 08:42 AM

More and more, recently ,I have noticed in the UK, that so many people start a sentence with 'So' or 'Well basically'. for example this happens often on TV quiz programmes when contestants are asked 'What do you do'? to find out their employment they reply 'So..... I am a whatever' or 'Well basically, I am a whatever. This seems to me to be a total waste of words where a concise answer will do.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 Mar 21 - 09:35 AM

Jos, Mrrzy
What if someone else's pet peeve gives rise to a peeve of my own? I am peeved to be told that a perfectly good and useful word, such as "albeit", makes me sound pompous and I reserve the right to make an objection. My peeve is as good as anyone else's.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 21 - 10:22 AM

It's not perfectly good if there are perfectly good and time-honoured unpretentious alternatives, Doug. "Albeit" has become a real fad in recent decades (it almost completely died out in Victorian times). I don't have many REAL peeves, but that one, along with "prior to", "going forward" and "on a daily basis", do get my goat, especially when I see them in print. I don't mind "so...", which is generally used to allow the speaker an extra nanosecond to prepare mentally what they're going to say. It's not so different to "well..." or "eh bien..." really, and all are better than "er...". We should also cut each other a fair amount of slack when it comes to the spoken word created on the hoof, but when you type or write something you have all the time in the world, relatively speaking, to review it and use your imagination to come up with a more elegant and unpretentious (and plain - there's nothing wrong with plain...) way of putting it. Bad writing often involves sticking blindly to your first idea as though it was your cherished baby.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: mayomick
Date: 26 Mar 21 - 01:11 PM

"perfect" as said by dentists and opticians after asking your details. The optician asked me today , what's your date of birth , Michael?
23rd of the second fifty two.
Perfect
I got the same from the dentist two weeks ago.I'm going to ask you to rinse again, is that ok?
yes
Perfect

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 21 - 02:50 PM

Yep, there's a lot of that perfection around. I've had it from the person taking my blood for a blood test and from my back surgeon. Another one coming from this ilk of otherwise admirable people is "could you just roll your sleeve up for me?" "Just keep your arm still for me..." etc. And such personages here in Cornwall are rapidly picking up the habit of calling me "my lovely." You'd realise how inappropriate this is if you could only catch a glimpse of me...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Mar 21 - 03:31 PM

I am with you too, Doug Chadwick! But is it the *language* that is peeving you, or their opinion of it? If their opinion, that is a separate thing, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 26 Mar 21 - 09:44 PM

'Would you like some more coffee?'

'Sure.'

'Awesome!'

A common bit of dialogue in these parts ....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 28 Mar 21 - 09:58 AM

Would "splendid" be any better?

Heh.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 21 - 10:56 AM

Or in Oz ad nauseam, "no worries!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 28 Mar 21 - 11:59 AM

"Splendid"? Naw - a simple "Okay" would suffice - or a "Here ya go" - or a snort - or even a sigh, with or without an eye-roll .....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 28 Mar 21 - 06:05 PM

Most people seem to think that every noun phrase starting with "back" is a compound noun: backdoor, backseat, backyard. These should be "back door" etc. Nobody writes "frontdoor". Probably the mistake results from the existence of many true compounds with "back": backfire, backlash, etc. Notice the difference in stress on saying those out loud.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 21 - 06:46 PM

Back passage... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 29 Mar 21 - 02:12 AM

Regarding meaning and stress, the way I would say these words is:

backFIRE (a verb)
BACKlash (a noun)

BACK door (not the front door)
back DOOR (not the back window)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 29 Mar 21 - 02:59 AM

My dictionary (Chambers) gives gives "backdoor" as an adjective meanin "Unworthily secret" or "Clandestine".

I usually watch Pointless at tea time and they often have a round where contestants have to think of a single word meeting a certain condition (eg, ending in ious). I am often uncertain (with my own ideas as well as answers by contestants) as to what is one word, what is two words and what is hyphenated. I've also been proved wrong a few times when I've felt sure an answer is/isn't a single word.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 29 Mar 21 - 12:45 PM

I'm reminded of the young woman who was so roundly mocked on the internet a year ago or so, for answering the game-show question, "What is Popeye's favourite food?", as "Fried chicken" - being of the generation she was, she was thinking of a popular fast-food chain rather than the cartoon character it's named after. The question was ambiguous, and her answer reasonable, so she should have been awarded the point(s) and spared the ridicule - but they didn't ask for my judgement ... !

Subject: BS: Annoying Language Differences
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 06:30 AM

UK and USA have often been described as two great nationals divided by one language.

There are a number examples where the same word is used in UK and US, but in a different way. One that grates on me is the word ALREADY, where in UK it refers to something that has happened and in US to something that someone wants to happen.

For example:

UK: Johnny has already finished his dinner.
US: Johnny, will you hurry up and finish your dinner already.

This is clearly contradictory as the word refers to both something that has happened, and something that hasn't happened.

I am sure a linguist can find the point where the meaning of the word diverged, and which defininiation came first.

Do any other annoying (or even wonderful) differences spring to Mind?

Subject: RE: BS: Annoying Language Differences
From: Jos
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 06:47 AM

Well, 'defininiation' is a rather lovely word I have never come across before ...

Subject: RE: BS: Annoying Language Differences
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 07:03 AM

It is defined as a typo

Subject: RE: BS: Annoying Language Differences
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 07:19 AM

He's a regular guy = US compliment, UK insult [capital G guy]

Quite good = very good US, not very good UK [we had a British biss who wondered why managers kept insulting their own staff]

Interestingly if you are Deaf then referring to someone as "very hard of hearing" means describing them as having better hearing than someone who is only a little hard of hearing...

Subject: RE: BS: Annoying Language Differences
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 07:21 AM

I am expecting the mudelves to add this conversation to the language peeves thread...

---

Good call, Mrrzy! ---mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: Annoying Language Differences
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 07:45 AM

I cannot recall hearing "he's a regular guy" ever being used in the UK. I don't think anyone here would imagine it as an insult.

I am curious as to why Mrrzy thinks it's an insult here.

The use of "quite good" in my experience means exactly that, it is quite good, not too bad, acceptable.

Again I wonder why Mrrzy thinks otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Annoying Language Differences
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 08:36 AM

”I cannot recall hearing "he's a regular guy" ever being used in the UK. I don't think anyone here would imagine it as an insult.”

Me neither, Raggy. It’s simply not a part of the UK lexicon.

The one that grates with me is, “I couldn’t care less” (UK) v. “I could care less” (US). The US version clearly doesn’t mean what they think it means!

And the strangest expression I’ve heard from an American in recent times was ‘deplane’, meaning to disembark from an aircraft.

Subject: RE: BS: Annoying Language Differences
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 08:36 AM

I've not heard "regular guy" in the UK either.

I think "quite good" can vary depending on context and tone of voice. "I think I did badly here"/ "no, what you did was quite good" would be complimentary and encouraging".

Subject: RE: BS: Annoying Language Differences
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 08:41 AM

SPB I respect you and your posts, but to me this OP comes off as more pique than pick.

There is no difficulty in understanding the use of the word 'already' in your OP. It may have some immigrant history in the way other languages express when their users switch to English. It may be related to the German 'waiting for the verb' phenomenon.

Whereas, in my experience we have this.

I don't know if UK or Canada or the many English speaking parts of the world have figured out a way to fix this, but it is my constant reminder to not be too proud of my wonderful English language.

Subject: RE: BS: Annoying Language Differences
From: G-Force
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 09:03 AM

In the UK, 'he's a regular guy' means he shits every day.

Subject: RE: BS: Annoying Language Differences
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 09:06 AM

I very seldom have heard 'already' used as a future tense in the U.S. It seems more like a term used by some ethnic group(s) Jewish use? If someone did use to to me, I'd have no problem understanding....but....


It would be far more common to hear "He has already finished...X"

Subject: RE: BS: Annoying Language Differences
From: Charmion
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 10:15 AM

Taking off editor hat and calmly leaving to do something else ...

Subject: RE: BS: Annoying Language Differences
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 10:44 AM

Nipping out to roll a fag always causes problems...

Subject: RE: BS: Annoying Language Differences
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 10:47 AM

US: Johnny, will you hurry up and finish your dinner already.

It means the same thing, it's an ironic use of the word, wishing the meal was finished. Already.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 10:56 AM

Anyone know how far back we need to go to find the OPs for the 'regular guy' and 'already' contentions?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 12:24 PM

Now that Amazon Prime has put out a new series about Leonardo, here we go again with the "da Vinci" nonsense. It's in the headline of the news item about it on the BBC website and it's repeated throughout the article. "Da Vinci" is not his surname. It refers only to the place he comes from. Calling him "da Vinci" is as daft as calling Henry VIII "the Eighth" or Eric "the Red." Leonardo will do fine...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 12:39 PM

A regular Guy, capital G, (I *did* specify) means -or meant, in my youth and folly- poorly dressed, hair like straw, and otherwise unpresentable-looking. When did that go away?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 01:41 PM

Hmm ... I always heard 'regular guy' as meaning somebody unremarkable, but dependable, trustworthy, unpretentious, and 'one of the boys'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 02:56 PM

... poorly dressed, hair like straw, and otherwise unpresentable-looking.

Boris the regular Guy?


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 05:22 PM

Guy Fawkes effigy-looking, quoi.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 08:56 PM

The use of "already" as a tag at the end of a request, indicating impatience, is indeed a Jewish importation into American English, representing the Yiddish "shoin".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Apr 21 - 04:00 AM

For me, the name Guy would only bring the effigy to mind in the phrase "Penny for the Guy", when kids in the street are trying to extract money from me in the early days of November.

Even if someone was alluding to a person's scruffy appearance, I would never expect "Guy" to be attached to "regular". They would more likely say "He looks a right scarecrow".

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Apr 21 - 11:32 AM

I guess I am old. Or the books I read are...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Apr 21 - 12:19 PM

Twee words get my goat. My two most detested are hubby (Mrs Steve is banned from using that) and sarnie. I'm clenching my buttocks here, even thinking about those two. It's a sandwich if you must. But in reality it's a butty. Egg butty. Bacon butty. Dripping butty. Fish finger butty. Cheese butty. Chip butty. You may call it a sandwich if it's toasted or if you bought it at Marks and Spencer. At a stretch, it can be a ham sandwich. There is no "chip sandwich" and there never has been. And my mum ran a chippy for ten years. Almost as bad as hubby are the related terms "my better half" or "my significant other." "The missus" is just about OK but "the wife" is not. I can just about take "'er indoors."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 17 Apr 21 - 02:53 PM

And here I thought a sarnie was something to do with sardines.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 17 Apr 21 - 03:00 PM

It could be, if you made a sardine sarnie.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Apr 21 - 06:08 PM

I had one of those cases where my mind is thinking something that 'I' am merely listening to. On awakening. So on this awakening my mind was telling me type:

"I have some issues with a language which occasionally puts a 'p' in front of a word and then fails to pronounce it."

I say 'ptooie' to that!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 18 Apr 21 - 03:16 AM

I reached middle age before I even heard of a chip butty. It struck me as a strange idea, but tried it and it was OK, though I haven't bothered since. I have also heard people say 'bacon butty' and maybe 'jam butty' - but never 'egg butty' or any of the others. I think it is a North / South thing, to do with where you grew up, not where you live now.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 18 Apr 21 - 03:55 AM

I thought "sarnie" was probably a scouse thing but its origins are uncertain. Some answers I found point to the OED which apparently indicates that the use of "sarnie" popped up in 1961 and is believed to be from a northern England dialectical pronunciation of "sand" from "sandwich."

I was familiar with both this and "butty" from my years in North Wales, I'm not sure about Norfolk where I've lived my last 20.

I think my choice of word usually depends on the filling, eg. a cheese sandwich but a chip (or bacon) butty.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Apr 21 - 05:10 AM

Y'all. - you all; you people, usage southern US
Perhaps its fading out like 'race creed or color'
I am not sure if can be used both affectionately or aggressively but it is a southern thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 21 - 05:55 AM

"...but tried it and it was OK, though I haven't bothered since."

You must be doing it wrong. For a start, you need chip shop chips. They must be overloaded with salt 'n' vinegar. Take one slice of terrible white bread. Butter it thickly (when you bite into the butty your teeth should be leaving little cliff edges). Stork will do at a pinch. Load one half with chips then fold it over. Tommy K optional. Two basic rules should be followed: sit over your plate (or newspaper wrapping) to avoid buttery drips on the trousers, and make sure you've had five pints before you eat it. Viola!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 18 Apr 21 - 06:45 AM

1. I don't like vinegar on my chips.
2. I don't like tomato ketchup (it ruins the taste of tomato for no good purpose).

3. Five pints? Yes, especially after a good long walk finishing in a decent pub. But would I want a chip butty afterwards? It probably wouldn't occur to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Apr 21 - 06:57 AM

"Y'all" means "the two or more of you" or, sometimes, "the one of you as a representative of a group."

Period. And it's useful.

It's used in speech every day by everybody who grew up in the South, regardless of education, class, or ethnicity. Not even the most pedantic Southern English teacher takes notice - because they use it too.

It's definitely not fading out. It might even be spreading northward.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Apr 21 - 07:56 AM

You used to be plural only when Thee was the singular.

You is now ambiguous, could be plural or singular.

Y'all is plural, leaving You as an unambiguous singular. Useful.

Also Southern US- here is where I am, there is where you are, yonder is somewhere else. Also useful.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 18 Apr 21 - 08:27 AM

I'll leave Y'all to you Yanks (British usage of "Yanks" there...).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 21 - 09:15 AM

When I were a student, Jos, we thought nothing of downing six pints of Bank's bitter and then going for a biryani with extra fried rice and two poppadoms...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 18 Apr 21 - 10:08 AM

New peeve: push back. A vague phrase used by TV journalists who are too lazy or busy to be specific.

"Today Matt Gaetz pushed back against charges that he had [insert name of criminal or inappropriate thing to do]."
===============
I don't know what a poppadom is, but that would be a cute name for a small, fuzzy dog.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Apr 21 - 10:56 AM

From: Steve Shaw
"...but tried it and it was OK, though I haven't bothered since." . . .

. . . to avoid buttery drips on the trousers, and make sure you've had five pints before you eat it. Viola!

Nice try, but mentioning one musical instrument is not enough to make this a music thread ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Apr 21 - 11:38 AM

No vaguer than "resist" or "react."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 18 Apr 21 - 12:15 PM

I believe "y'all" is becoming more popular due to - wait for it ... the internet. Some years back, it would be a clear indication of a Southern American; now, not so much. Where I grew up (Central/Eastern Canada), "you all" was not uncommon, but "y'all" unheard of. "Yous(e)" is common where there was significant Irish settlement.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 21 - 12:20 PM

I always do the same deliberate mistake of typing "Viola!" for that exclamation, Nigel. It's a kickback against the pretentiousness of some people for whom using unnecessary foreign phrases is a sine qua non...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 19 Apr 21 - 11:48 AM

A few years ago there was a long and worthy mudcat thread about all the variants we have created of the missing second-person plural. Y'all, you all, youse, all y'all, etc.

In Scotland I encountered something that sounded like "yiz". Is that plural?

Now what we need is a pronoun which means "he, she or it" depending on circumstance.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 19 Apr 21 - 11:49 AM

Steve: we are not deceived. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 19 Apr 21 - 12:38 PM

Not a peeve. I've learned a new word. Those banners that we see at the bottom of newscasts, usually unrelated to the story being discussed, are called chyrons.

Learn all about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKx5TzW0URo

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Apr 21 - 02:04 PM

That is what They is for... He, She or It, depending on context. Repurposing a plural into a singular. You have seen that before, haha!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Apr 21 - 03:33 PM

It was repurposed thus at least six hundred years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Apr 21 - 03:42 PM

Yes, and know-it-alls are still objecting.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 May 21 - 04:36 PM

Ok the headline was about the 6yo shot in a road rage incident by "another driver" - was the baby at the wheel?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 22 May 21 - 05:03 PM

The little boy was a car driven by his mother, the first driver. He was shot by a person driving a different car - another driver.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 May 21 - 03:48 PM

If that had been the headline I would not have been peeved. I know what they *meant* - I objected to what they actually wrote.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jul 21 - 05:52 AM

"England football fans have been celebrating the team reaching their first European Championship semifinal for 25 years..." (BBC Radio 4 news this morning).

Cor, just think how long we'll be celebrating for if we get to the final...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 15 Jul 21 - 03:59 PM

Yesterday I saw a video of a man named Donald Trump at a podium and he spoke of kicking ass against his opponents. He used some other vulgar phrase, but I can't recall it.

It's vulgar.
It's dangerously vague. What's he inspiring this time?
It insults the listener, as if to "You aren't important enough to hear good English."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jul 21 - 04:46 PM

George HW Bush publicly used the words kick ass referring to what he would do to Saddam. His son relied on lawyers to make the courts determine his election instead of voters. Trump uses the f word and tried to overthrow Congress via violence to declare election victory. He put well placed loyalists in the Pentagon, FBI and CIA to improve his chances of a coup.

We carp about it now but even the Romans wrote letters of the downhill decorum in the quality of leadership. power corrupts etc.

The main difference between Hitler and Trump is that Hitler ordered mass murders of disloyal dissidents. Trump only instigated riots, assaults and kidnapping. He wanted officers to shoot demonstrators in the legs at the border and on our streets but there was resistence.

Today we are not all using the words treason, sedition and insurrection correctly.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Aug 21 - 08:02 PM

From buzzfeed:

People Are Spilling The Secrets They'll Take To Their Grave

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Aug 21 - 07:39 AM

I want a pet peeve! Where do you get them? Are they like cats?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 19 Aug 21 - 09:23 AM

No, they are like mice. You see them out of the corner of you eye when you are doing something else, and they're irritating. In the case of language, the "something else" is reading or talking.

If I haven't said it already, a peeve of mine is "pushback." As in
"Rep. Max Gaetz pushes back on sex charges." Meaning what?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Aug 21 - 05:33 PM

Ahhhhh. Got it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Aug 21 - 12:44 PM

In a TV commercial, I heard a young woman get 4 syllables into "manganese".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 21 Aug 21 - 02:41 AM

I don't know even 4 syllables of Manganese.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Aug 21 - 03:55 AM

Oh, I speak fluent Manganese. Lovely people, the Mangans.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 21 - 04:18 AM

I thought Mangania was now known as Personland?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Aug 21 - 07:34 AM

I am not sure why this is so wrong but you just can't use By the time this way:

He was a baby when his dad died in Afghanistan. By the time he turned 18, the war still wasn’t over.

When would be ok, but this is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Aug 21 - 08:18 AM

'Through put' sounds odd to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 25 Aug 21 - 11:31 AM

People using black lingo then forgetting about it. For example, they make a video and give it a title like this:

New Yorkers be makin' fake pizza

Then they forget all about talking that way in the rest of the video.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Aug 21 - 01:06 PM

> you just can't use By the time this way

I worked like hell to get a doctorate in English decades ago, and this usage seems absolutely normal to me.

In "theory" (which I've only just now discovered online - or, I should say, "on line"), "by the time" should only be used with a past perfect verb.

But the sad, or totally innocuous, fact (depending on one's prejudices) is that the simple past often - very, very often - replaces the past perfect in other than very formal usage, especially when context makes the distinction immaterial. The meaning in the given example couldn't be clearer.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 25 Aug 21 - 03:12 PM

Well, in matters of the English language, grammar and usage thereof, the distinctions between "right" and "wrong" are malleable - but the term "awkward" often applies in doubtful cases - as in this one. The expression "by the time" conventionally signals allusion to an event that has occurred or conditions that have changed or reached some point of finality between a previously referenced time and the time in question. If not "wrong", it can be "awkward" to use "by the time" to signal allusion to stasis. No doubt there are exceptions, and the context may make a difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 25 Aug 21 - 03:16 PM

And the idea of "by the time" having to do with a completed event or change would explain the "rule" regarding its necessitating the past perfect.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 25 Aug 21 - 04:32 PM

Then again, it can be used to a speculative future, as in, "By the time I get to Phoenix, she'll be rising", which technically should be, "By the time I will have got[ten] to Pheonix, she will have arisen".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 21 - 05:44 AM

Absolutely with you there, Lighter.

Here's a couple that are so awful that I've decided to use them all the time from now on:

"I'm not quite ready yet: just bear with..."

"I'm a bit busy just now: can I call you back in ten?"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Aug 21 - 07:38 AM

Nice point, Meself.

In U.S. English, the future perfect is even more moribund than the past perfect.

While I recognize "will have got/gotten (U.S.)/reached/arrived at," etc.," as absolutely correct, I honestly doubt that I've ever used that tense, even in writing - at least not since translating Vergil/ Virgil in high school.

Steve, "five" and "ten" used this way have been ridiculously (viz., "extremely") common in America for many decades (though I assume you've guessed that).

Adverbial "with" ("go with," "come with") is, I believe, mainly a Midwestern habit but must be spreading.

Have we mentioned positive, utterance-initial "anymore"?:

"Anymore, social media is [sic] a menace."

See https://ygdp.yale.edu/phenomena/positive-anymore

I feel sure you will want to start using this as well. ASAP.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 Aug 21 - 09:00 AM

When watching the UK Channel 4 coverage of the Formula 1 Grand Prix qualifying, I often hear the commentator, when referring to a driver having improved his lap time by 0.15 of a second, say "He's improved by a tenth and a half".

A tenth and a half equals three fifths, not three twentieths. If they must insist on using fractions instead of decimal notation, then it would be better to say fifteen hundredths.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Aug 21 - 11:40 AM

Thanks, meself.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Sep 21 - 02:11 PM

We've just had a correspondent on our regional news programme pronouncing the word "annually" "anyullee" (twice!): aargh!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Oct 21 - 11:07 PM

Reading a fascinating article on dinosaurs with graphics and one said Click here for full-size image, and I was instantly afraid to click it.
Then I realized a) they didn't say *life*sized and b) idiot...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 22 Oct 21 - 05:54 AM

Every time I see 'This door is alarmed' I think in that case I'm bloody terrified!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 22 Oct 21 - 06:01 AM

And when I see the instruction 'Keep away from children' I think 'I do, if I can help it'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 21 - 06:18 AM

At the foot of the escalator the sign said "Dogs must be carried." So I couldn't use it because I didn't have a dog...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 21 - 06:56 AM

I bought a gizmo for descaling teeth the other day. It takes a single AAA battery. The "instruction manual" that was in the box (a piece of paper as big as a sheet of toilet paper) warned me that I mustn't mix old and new batteries...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 21 - 08:55 AM

Sign in the gents' toilet in Bude:

DUE TO THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK PLEASE KEEP A 2-METRE DISTANCE WHEN USING THESE TOILETS

Well I tried, dammit, but I couldn't make it go that far...

(And underneath that it said "Sorry for the inconvenience...")

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Oct 21 - 08:56 AM

Also dumb, that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 21 - 12:43 PM

From the minute-by-minute match report on the BBC website just now:
Man Utd 0-4 Liverpool
I'm looking at a stunned United fan, stroking his chin. He has tears in his eyes.

Well if MY team were losing 4-0 and you came up to me to stroke my chin, I'd be bloody annoyed !

It's 5-0 as I type..:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 21 - 02:46 PM

Following on from that, at the end of the match the BBC radio commentator said "In the first half, United had their trousers pulled down by Liverpool. In the second half, they just toyed with 'em..."

Bwahahaha!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Oct 21 - 07:36 AM

Good'n!

I had been dogsitting for 2 weeks and the owners were coming home, and texted me I bet you're looking forward to sleeping in your own bed! I know I am!

Prompting me to ask why they wanted to sleep in my bed...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 26 Oct 21 - 12:07 PM

From the movies - and, I suppose, real life:

A: I love you!
B: Me, too!

A: I really want to see you!
B: Me, too!

Etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 26 Oct 21 - 12:42 PM

Ha! This reminds me of my husband. A couple of nights ago I screamed blue murder at the sight of a huge spider in the bathroom. My hero rushed forward and dispatched it bravely. The following exchange was in French:
Me (sobbing with gratitude): You are the most amazing man!
Him:(grinning broadly) So are you darling!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 26 Oct 21 - 04:17 PM

Now that is funny ... !

I remembered that the one I'm always hearing in movies is: "I['ll] miss you!" - "Me, too!" ... try to work that one out.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 26 Oct 21 - 05:42 PM

California got a sizeable storm, and they don't call it a storm, they call it a bomb cyclone. Hearing that on the news will help little children sleep at night - I don't think.

Kids pick up on this stuff. When I was six or seven, I noticed headlines in the newspaper box about the Army. The army, the army. I asked my mother - are we having a war? What a relief- she said no. Much later I realized the headlines were about the Army-McCarthy hearings.

The "bomb cyclone" brought 5.4 inches of rain. In 1977, Kansas City had a storm that brought 16 inches of rain. Twenty-five people died. The weather service refers to it as a rainstorm.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Oct 21 - 08:48 PM

Leeneia - Sacramento got more rainfall in one day that it has had in any one-day period in recorded history - it was a three-day storm that is still going on, and Northern California does not have the infrastructure to handle that sort of storm. And before that, Sacramento had more than 200 days without any rainfall at all. There has been localized flooding, but it's certainly not the worst I have experienced - the worst was 1986.


https://www.sacbee.com/news/weather-news/article255268351.html

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Oct 21 - 09:48 PM

Owned
Example: Patriots owned the libs on Twitter.
Translation: White Nationists harrased and scared off Democrats.
What do you call it when a person litterally owns another person?

Sports example: The Astros owned the Red Sox.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 Oct 21 - 06:31 AM

Norfolk-Speak is so full of malapropisms that it's best to enjoy them. But being a retired teacher, I have to bite my tongue before starting to correct them.
Chester drawers. He dew or he dornt. Sustificate. TV Licence defective van. Puter. Git yer winter draws on, cos winter draws on.
I spend most of my time here surreptitiously giggling.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Oct 21 - 09:59 AM

Tu l'as dit, bouffi!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 28 Oct 21 - 02:46 PM

I heard 'puter here in the U.S.A. in the early '80s.

The same doctoral candidate also used to say, "I'm Audi!"

For "Goodbye! I'm outta here!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Oct 21 - 08:01 PM

My pet peeve is that language itself is a tool of thought. It appeared accidentally around 300,000 years ago. It is more than communication. Even bacteria and insects communicate. We have two voices the inner subconscious voice and the conscious voice. We don't seem to be able to access subconsious thought but it leaves a trace as real as dark matter leaves a gravitational trace. As a tool of thought we can describe things we can not see like the future. With this tool we no longer think by ourselves. We can obviously access knowledge from the living or dead. We can modify language with metaphor, thought and imagination.
Language as a tool of thought is wasted on many. They focus on the typo and not the thought. We may not have non human language concepts that can get us beyond the 2% of the known universe we live inside of. I've tried to demonstrate thinking outside the box which is naturally not understood by people devoted to use language only for communication and not a tool for thought. Perhaps we need another evolutionary accident.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Oct 21 - 08:10 PM

I believe there is even an invisible inner subconscious language that is shared by many and is called ESP because we don't know exactly what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 21 - 08:34 PM

"Language as a tool of thought is wasted on many. They focus on the typo and not the thought."

Bullshit. That's just your excuse, and you're attacking people who think that your posts are just bollocks, an entirely respectable point of view. On this forum, very few people focus on typos, and, if you want to be honest with yourself, your "typos" are the result of sheer hurried, careless, unthinking, unreviewed typing. You also hide behind your alleged dyslexia, yet you can post pretty articulately when you want to. Odd, that. What I'd like to suggest to you is that good communication requires that you express yourself in simple, plain English. It's easy if you try. Still, if you'd rather disappear up your own obscurantist arsehole, as you frequently appear to do, don't let us stop you. It's nothing if not entertaining.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Oct 21 - 11:47 PM

silence?

The previous rant was a paraphrased Noam Chomsky although he is a bit mechanistic from my POV. The process of the miraculous thought is elegantly derived from the quantum universe as well as the megaverse.
In a sense we are practically halfway between both.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 30 Oct 21 - 04:19 AM

I thought that language as a tool of thought was pretty well covered by George Orwell in 1984. But that's only a second-hand opinion, I've not read it myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 21 - 07:44 AM

1984 is the only novel I've ever read end-to-end since I left school (I was forced to read a couple at school in order to pass my Eng Lit 'O' Level). I've started a few others but generally found that once I'd put them down I couldn't pick them up again. 1984 is a good read...very prescient...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Oct 21 - 08:30 AM

George Orwell is an excellant example Bob. We are actually living an example of an attempt to follow the Big Trump.
On another note on language as thought tools, you have watched your pets dream which are absract thoughts of things that do not exist but they are deliberate.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Oct 21 - 08:46 AM

edit
but they are not deliberate.
thats another gripe, those three letters of 'not' can overturn everything and if accidentaly absent it can cause disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Oct 21 - 09:51 AM

They started calling soldiers peacekeepers back in the 80's, and I remember thinking It isn't even 1984 yet!

And Steve Shaw, you have picked on me for typos, so kettle, pot.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 21 - 11:27 AM

Er, because you bragged about your proofreading prowess! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 09 Nov 21 - 01:17 PM

A newspaper article had a language thing I dislike. I've named it 'the noun chain.' The article was about the arrest of two men who were stealing guns out of parked cars and selling the guns on Facebook (thanks, Facebook).

Here's the noun chain:

Authorities allege the men were identified as subjects of interest in
a larger stolen-gun trafficking conspiracy investigation...

"stolen-gun trafficking conspriracy investigation" Now that's too many nouns in a row. Amateur writers think that being concise means using as few words as possible, so they produce these noun chains. But if the reader has to stop and untangle them, it's irritating and bad for circulation.

My husband, a senior geologist, has mentioned how he had to tell younger staff to make explanations longer, to put more words in. He always got a surprised look in return. =

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Nov 21 - 06:01 PM

Those "peacekeepers" were an ad-hoc multinational UN force created under the UN Charter to help implement and protect cease-fires in local conflicts.

They were (and are) not combat soldiers, and they fired only if fired upon - if then.

The phrase "United Nations peacekeepers" seems to have supplemented "United Nations peace-keeping force" in the early '60s. Their first deployment was in 1948.

In the 1980s, of course, there were the Peacekeeper ICBMs.

In the spirit of Mutually Assured Destruction, they really were intended to keep the peace.

And, in service from 1986 to 2002, they apparently helped do just that.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Nov 21 - 07:56 PM

Peace keepers don't give peace. Peace makers spread peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 09 Nov 21 - 08:04 PM

'Peace keepers' is a little catchier than 'peace maintainers'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 10 Nov 21 - 02:57 PM

Donuel, I noticed your post about "not." This thread is about language, so I'll share a language thought.

I don't like it when people talk about what isn't true and then put NOT in. Like this:

    Do NOT lay a little baby on its side or its stomach. Its face can get
    pressed into the bedding, and the baby might suffocate.

In my opinion, one should write about what's right. You want the reader to make a mental picture of the right thing to do. Like this:

    Always put a little baby down on its back.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 21 - 08:52 AM

The MP Barry Gardiner, speaking about his pride in being Scottish, has just been saying that he nevertheless married an English wife.

I hope he's happy to be married to a bigamist...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Nov 21 - 01:01 PM

Is there a way of kind of having 1st-person imperatives in English without using Let's? As in, the French Allons-y?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 14 Nov 21 - 09:33 PM

Altogether now! Come on! Everybody! Charge! Shall we? Heave away, haul away! Last one in's a rotten egg!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 21 - 04:40 AM

"Altogether now!"

Heheh...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Nov 21 - 04:14 PM

I ask, is rarely said that way. People most often say I assed or I axe.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 15 Nov 21 - 05:03 PM

I'm enraged by ladylike incorrectness, like people who say 'purposefully' when they mean 'purposely' because, I suppose, it sounds more Mrs Bouquet so must be the correct form; and 'sewerage' instead of 'sewage' ditto.
But then at this stage of the day I'm so old-fashioned that, with Yeats, I say I have a FANatic heart.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 21 - 06:52 PM

"Purposefully" has a strong ring of intent or determination about it. "He was hell-bent on finishing painting the room before dark so he set about the task purposefully." I can't remember ever hearing anyone say "purposely" this end and I think it could be a bit of an eyebrow-raiser, though* its antiquity can't be denied. I think we tend to say "on purpose" or "deliberately." I've seen "sewerage" on my annual bills from the water company but I haven't heard anyone saying it (in which case it would almost certainly be being used in error). Sewage is always in the news here as a scandalous item, and we have Surfers Against Sewage, who are very high-profile, so that's the word we're all conditioned to use this end.

*I could have said "albeit" there, I s'pose... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 15 Nov 21 - 07:49 PM

According my TV news, just now: "Biden and Xi will both be meeting each other ...." Good to know it's not just one of them meeting each other, or both of them meeting the monolithic, collective other, I suppose ... !

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Nov 21 - 09:47 AM

Thanks, meself! In other words... No.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 16 Nov 21 - 12:34 PM

I've heard purposely before. "He purposely fell into the pond, trying to get a laugh."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 16 Nov 21 - 12:40 PM

Never uncommon in my neck of the woods (Canada). ("Purposely", that is).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 21 - 01:47 PM

Well that's interesting. I'll ask around...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Nov 21 - 04:33 PM

‘Purposely’, in the sense of ‘on purpose’, is in common usage here in the Backwoods. Likewise ‘purposefully’ meaning ‘with purpose’, ‘determinedly’…

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 21 - 06:34 PM

Very interesting. I've just spent a few minutes looking up "purposely" in various dictionaries and on grammar websites. It's definitely a perfectly good word. However, I've yet to stumble on a single instance of its use in an example sentence where it couldn't be replaced perfectly by "intentionally," "deliberately," or, depending on syntax, "on purpose." I think that these alternatives sound more idiomatic in English English. I can well imagine that "purposely" may sound more idiomatic to an American speaker than to an English speaker (aka the man on the Clapham omnibus).

A smallish matter...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 08:48 AM

No, it's "purposefully" that's used in place of the correct "purposely" - the two words mean different things. Purposely is an Irish usage, certainly; didn't know it was uncommon in the UK.
Another one that puts my teeth on edge is the way people mix up discrete and discreet.
And don't get me started on people who peddle along before putting their breaks on!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 09:02 AM

"Purposely" and "on purpose" are both perfectly normal in the U.S.

But within the past couple (i.e., "two or three") of years I've begun to hear a new antonym: "on accident."

What say y'all?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 11:04 AM

I am plenty peeved by On accident.

On a separate note, from what I hear on the radio (NPR / BBC], Americans say different from, Brits, different to.

From makes sense. To does not. To me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 11:11 AM

I haven't heard "on accident" yet - but if it's out there, I'm sure it won't be long before I do. There must be some law of linguistics about this, but once the erroneous usage becomes established among a small number of key people, it seems to suddenly spread exponentially, even when there is no apparent advantage to it. For example, remember 'way back a few years ago when nobody ever got "bored of" anything? "Bored of" isn't significantly easier to say than "bored with" - so why has "bored of" taken over? (Rhetorical question!)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 01:24 PM

Well suck 'em up, good people. The bald fact is that bored of, different to, different from and different than are all standard English - at least somewhere.

"Bored of" is now extremely common in speech, if not in written text. Most Brits are fine with both "different to" and "different from," but "different than" makes most of us shudder. Standard English comes about by usage, not by rules set by grammarians. What annoys a yank or an Aussie might not raise an eyebrow in the UK and vice versa. It's a very democratic process (and a process it is...), and I suppose we should celebrate that and learn to seethe inwardly only.

I can (and do) protest 'til I'm blue in the face about uninterested and disinterested, alternative and alternate and other such usages that originated in confusions, and I can rail to my heart's content about silly things such as "albeit, "on a daily basis" and "prior to." But everything I've mentioned in this post is "correct," in that millions use the expressions and that there's nowt that the grammar police can do about it.

And there's no such thing as a split infinitive. The concept is based on a misunderstanding of what an infinitive is. I urge everyone to boldly go and have an entertaining google...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 04:17 PM

How can you have a thread on "pet peeves" if you just "suck'm up"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 04:39 PM

Bored of was the normal usage when I was a child. It's not logical, but then a lot of English isn't.
There's another one that gets me (I may have posted this already further up): the increasing use of "than" when "as" or other forms are meant, in comparative sentences.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 06:03 PM

All I was saying, meself, is that the majority of gripes referred to in this very entertaining thread are not, in fact, "incorrect." They may be inelegant, vulgar, ignorant and going against the grain, and may even be seen to be degrading the language, but if enough people use the vexatious expressions in question they become the currency of English and fighting it all is pointless. That's why I said that the best thing would be to seethe internally, as moaning aloud about "errors" would not only likely put you in the wrong but also make you look like a bit of an arse. Sarcasm is always useful, of course, as long as your audience is receptive to it. My two main grouses are about people who affect to correct others yet pepper their own posts with mistakes (that has me rubbing my hands with glee, frankly...) and about pretentiousness. Which is why horrors such as prior to, going forward, at this moment in time, on a daily basis and (the crowning glory...) albeit give me such unalloyed joy...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 07:19 PM

My two main grouses are about .........................
............ and about pretentiousness. Which is why horrors such as ................. and (the crowning glory...) albeit give me such unalloyed joy.


Spherical objects!

Just because you say a word is pretentious, Steve, doesn't make it so. Of course there are other words that mean the same as "albeit" but it is a perfectly valid alternative. The English language is full of synonyms which give richness and variety to we say and write.

One of my pet peeves is people who try to limit me to a self-appointed list of approved words.

It is not the first time that I have disagreed with you on this point and it won't be the last, so long as you keep repeating what I consider to be nonsense.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 07:50 PM

"One of my pet peeves is people who try to limit me to a self-appointed list of approved words."

Well, Doug, as the essence and spirit of my last post is that anything goes, I can only assume that you are a little incapable of understanding plain English...

If you are able to apprise me of any "self-appointed list" [sic] I've suggested, do let me know. I assume that it wasn't the list itself that was self-appointed, by the way. Most lists I've ever perused, being inanimate constructions, might have needed at least some human intervention in order to get themselves "appointed..."

It's a hard life, this business of picking folks up on their use of English, eh, Doug... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 08:43 PM

"Just because you say a word is pretentious, Steve, doesn't make it so."

Well I could agree somewhat with that. Just as a song doesn't exist until is sung, a word only exists when it's spoken aloud (or written), and, as ever, con
text is all. The words we are argue about are ancient, which puts me on the back foot somewhat. But we don't know in any kind of detail how our ancients used them in speech, do we? I can't see much extra-rich colour in albeit instead of though, or about prior to instead of before, or about at this moment in time instead of now, or about on a daily basis instead of each day. If you think that such things add richness, then I think you need to listen harder. They hardly add much poetry to English, do they? But I'd never prescribe the dropping of them, as I don't believe in grammar police, and I'm not bothered when I hear them used. Maybe bothered more when I see them in print... The true essence of any language is clear, simple communication. The poetry can come later.

(Dunno whether "poetry" counts as three syllables, but all of the above, with the singular exception of "communication," is in words of no more than two syllables...)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 08:47 PM

Dunno how that stupid line break got in there. It wasn't in my preview!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Nov 21 - 09:21 AM

Steverino, if you hate "albeit," you'll probably loathe "absent" in the sense of the likewise repellent "sans":

"Absent a solution, people like Sue Godfrey will just keep on fighting."
(Collins Dictionary).

OED finds it used solely in U.S. law for nearly 100 years; then, suddenly....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 21 - 12:08 PM

I've never heard that one and I don't want to hear it ever again!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeved
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 21 - 08:01 AM

Like hateful father like drunken son absent comprehensive news, the son does not know the depth of his drunken hate and fundamental ignorance, we nonetheless wish him a nary Christmas and 'snile'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 09:38 AM

Miss Manners Wins Again!

Dear Miss Manners: Please please PLEASE say something about the misuse of the word "literally" before it becomes accepted practice.

Too late.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 10:00 AM

You're too late. It's already accepted practice. It's fine to use "literally" in a non-literal sense, just as it is with things such as "decimate" and "unique." Sourpusses who continue to rail against these things have almost literally forgotten that language is what people speak, not what professors of English prescribe. Of course, you're not very unique in wanting to fight these lost battles, but don't worry, we're just going with the flow, not setting out to decimate the language.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 04:22 PM

I told myself that I shouldn't do it ...... that I was just being a pain in the arse, labouring the same old point ...... but ....... I just couldn't stop myself!

language is what people speak

People say "albeit"


(I promise that this will be the last time I mention it .... at least, until the next time)
;-)

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 05:31 PM

Yebbut Doug, there's a difference. When people use words such as "unique," "decimate" and "literally" in the ways that Mrrzy possibly disapproves of (I could add "disinterested" and "alternate" to that list) they are using them casually without regard to traditional interpretations of their "correct" usage (which is a circumlocutory way of saying that they are, to the minds of conservative-minded professors of English, though not mine, er, "linguistically ignorant"). My beef against "albeit" (as well as horrors such as "prior to," "on a daily basis" and "at this moment in time") is that they are being used by people who are trying to be pretentious. A different issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 06:14 PM

Miss Manners' whole answer *was* Too late.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 07:35 PM

Yes, I did see that. I was glad to confirm. But rejoice in the evolution of language is my advice. .

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 02:48 AM

I shall continue to maintain that unique is like dead, or pregnant: you either are or you aren't. Any others?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 05:31 AM

You can't have a semi-virgin.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 06:16 AM

Long-dead, dead from the neck up, heavily pregnant... (I know, I know...)

I'm still pondering the virgin one...I've pondered worse...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 08:05 AM

I know what it is, and how it varies from a product labelled "olive oil", but I have never understood the term "extra-virgin" olive oil.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 09:40 AM

Probably something to do with the fact that it is mechanically cold-pressed from olives with no chemical intervention, therefore it's unsullied (just like a virgin). Also, it must be very low in free acid, which can't happen if any chemical processes are used to extract it. The "extra" is added because there's a lower grade of olive oil called just "virgin." You may prefer virgins because they're pure and all that stuff, or you may prefer persons of experience who could show you a better time. But with olive oil, avoid all except extra virgin!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 10:52 AM

Merriam-Webster defines "extra-virgin" as "being a virgin olive oil that is lowest in acidity and highest in quality."

So it essentially means "better than virgin," rather than "more virgin than virgin."

"Virgin," btw, is defined as "(of a vegetable oil): obtained from the first light pressing and without heating."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 11:15 AM

Virgin olive oil has a higher acid level than is permitted in extra virgin (up to 2% free acid as opposed to maximum 0.8%). It may also have minor flaws in texture or flavour, not allowed in extra virgin oil. I can't remember ever having seen "virgin olive oil" in any shop. Only extra virgin ever crosses my threshold!

As far as I know, olive oil is the only kind of oil that is subject to these kinds of official standards. Even so, there is a lot of fake extra virgin stuff around. If it's in a plastic bottle or in clear glass, it's fake!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 11:20 AM

I've never seen "virgin olive oil" in America either.

Maybe it was a 19th century standard.

(Of course, there's always Olive Oyl....)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 11:38 AM

As far as I know, olive oil is the only kind of oil that is subject to these kinds of official standards.

Extra-virgin coconut oil is also available.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 11:55 AM

Ok, saw this for the first time this morning, but have now seen in many times, is this a thing?

I was today years old when I found out (something you found out today, I guess).

Eww.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Dec 21 - 08:40 AM

Nothing like we've seen in the recent future, said NPR about the virus...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Jan 22 - 11:38 PM

Ok, I can't even:

They’re not necessarily significant enough to prevent the various tragedies that have occurred...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 06 Jan 22 - 07:02 PM

Seen in an online news article on “Edinburgh Live” - not one, not two, but three instances of it’s when it should have been its, followed by a caption regarding a shop closing - Stationary Supplies. The article is illustrated by a picture of the doomed shop, with the correct spelling, so why couldn’t the sodding journalist get it right??

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 22 - 07:32 PM

If that bugs you, Tattie, I strongly suggest that you never read the Bude And Stratton Post...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 07 Jan 22 - 08:19 AM

Never likely to, Steve! The farthest west we ever get is Devon!

2 things that bug me, and given the length of this thread may well have been mentioned before.....
People who say incredulous when they mean incredible.
People who mix up complement and compliment: it happens so often on restaurant menus, not that I've been to restaurant in a long time - only once since Covid struck!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 22 - 09:18 AM

Two pretentious words on menus that annoy me are "compote" and "medley." There will be others. And don't get me started (in the M&S food hall especially) on "goujons," "flatties" and "tenders"...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 22 - 09:34 AM

Oh, and "jus." How could I have forgotten "jus"!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Jan 22 - 09:44 AM

Jus is ok *if* it is -in the phrase au jus and not With au jus, -actually the mean juice and not some form of gravy.

Compote? Not so much.

How about confit?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 22 - 10:36 AM

"Au jus" and "jus" don't mean the same thing.

I'll be making confit potatoes this weekend. I find it a useful term which hasn't got any easy substitutes.

I'm not against foreign terms in cookery per se. I mean, where would we be without al dente, soufflé, rágù, soffritto and the rest? Pass the corkscrew!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Jan 22 - 11:13 AM

Right. That is why I accept Jus only in the phrase Au jus... Not with au jus, or served au jus, just au jus.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: PHJim
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 05:59 PM

A phrase that always bothers me is "To form a more perfect Union" from the preamble to the United States Constitution.

Perfection is absolute. If something is perfect, it has no flaws and cannot be improved upon. Words like "perfect" or "unique" cannot be modified with "more" or "less".
If something can be made more perfect, then it wasn't perfect in the first place.
If something can be made less perfect, then you must introduce flaws which will render it no longer perfect.
The same is true of "unique".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 06:48 PM

Reluctantly, Jim, I disagree. So many people these days use constructions such as "more unique", "somewhat unique" and "very unique" and so on. Like you, I don't care for these constructions, but if you research the history of its usage (which is fairly modern), you'll find that objections to the use of "unique" with modifiers come mostly from, er, grammar police.

I think you've got even less of a case with "perfect." Usages such as "more perfect, "less perfect" or "less than perfect" (I like that one...) and so on are so common that they have become standard English. You and I can bemoan to our hearts' content the fact that these undesirable expressions have wheedled their way sneakily into our language, but, as I always say, language it what we speak, not what grammar professors say we should speak. But we don't have to use things that we dislike, and you'll never hear me say, or see me type, "more unique."

Or albeit, or prior to...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 08:30 PM

I'm with Jim. Pregnant, unique, [statistically] significant, worthy, are all terms that combination with modifiers like "very" or "enough" makes me cringe.

You are either worthy, pregnant, or unique, or you're not. There is no such thing as Worthy enough. There is worthy.

A difference is either [statistically] significant or not. It can be a trivial difference, an unimportant difference, but the use of significant *in jargon, rather than in English* refers not to importance, but to a probability of being wrong if you attribute the difference to your manipulation, when it might have been random variation.

I realize people misuse these frequently, but that doesn't make the misuse proper use. Literally still literally means literally, not figuratively.

I fight a rearguard action in some ways, but then again, the singular they is my only correct pronoun.

A foolish consistency is not my issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 09:01 PM

Then you are of the grammar police, and I feel you need to relax more. You yourself use expressions such as "yum" and "marvy." And so you should if you want to, and the rest of us have the choice as to whether we clench our buttocks or not when you do. The "literally" battle was lost years ago. It no longer means what you think it means, but feel free to cling on. You accuse people of misusing words. They don't. They use words, perhaps in ways you don't approve of. That's tough, but the tide is flowing against you. And against me, in many cases, but I'm fine with it.

I try to write decent English on this board, complete with appropriate grammar, spelling and punctuation, knowing that I can still be casual if I want to be. But I don't expect the same from everyone else. I enjoy the different styles here and I appreciate that good grammar and punctuation are less of a priority to some whose main aim is to get their point across. The main problem for me is pretentiousness in the use of words. Albeit, prior to, at this moment in time, going forward, I have to say. I can put up with it, grinning through gritted teeth, but anyone having a pot at me for the way I use English had better beware! Let's never forget that language is all about communication. I can think of a couple of people here who think it's about being over-clever and deliberately obscurantist. No names, no pack drill!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Jan 22 - 07:49 AM

Actually literally can still mean what it always did. It just has an additional, annoyingly contrary meaning as well.

Big deal. What about "cleave?" You can "cleave together" or "cleave people apart." Nobody seems to object, because so few use the word in ordinary speech or writing that there's no fun in feeling superior to them.

The same is true for both "perfect" and "unique." The original meanings still obtain, but they also mean "nearly unique" and "nearly perfect."

As in the other cases, and unless the speaker or writer is very sloppy, context will tell. Minimal context, however, can lead to the annoying or dangerous ambiguities people dread. (Think about labels that used to say nothing but "inflammable," which had to be changed to "flammable" because the unread might think it meant just the opposite.

Context is quite as important to understanding as are dictionary definitions. It's all that hat makes figures of speech comprehensible.

Dictionary definitions provide allow people to assert that newly familiar words and meanings are "just wrong." However, the first, brief, monolingual English dictionary didn't appear till 1604.

Chaucer and the youthful Shakespeare, for example, did all right without one by using whatever words that seemed fitting to them.

Context, context, context.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 10 Jan 22 - 08:02 AM

I agree with Steve. Language is fascinating in all its diversity.It gives a clue about the speaker's origin, experiences and educational progress. I adore accents, and have quite a bit of talent for learning foreign languages. I can imitate many accents, and have done so since I was about two years old. I also accept that all languages evolve over time. We no longer speak as if we were Tudors!
However, having been a teacher for all my working life, I find myself bristling at poor grammar, cringing at 'dropped aitches' (or 'haitches', which seems to be the new pronunciation!) and stopping myself firmly for having the cheek to correct someone's speech (particularly here in Norfolk, the dialect of which I adore)
As I've said on here before, my favourite 'new' word is innit. Innit eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: weerover
Date: 10 Jan 22 - 08:28 AM

Apologies if I am repeating anything already posted, but I don't have the inclination to read all of the thread.

"I was thinking to myself...": there is no solid evidence for telepathy, so far as I am aware.

"Building to a crescendo...": crescendo is the process of approaching a peak, not the peak itself.

wr

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: weerover
Date: 10 Jan 22 - 08:37 AM

"Acronym" as a term for any abbreviation.

"Appraised" when it should be "apprised": heard last night on the TV police drama "Vera".

"Precarity": there is no such word but I have encountered it twice in recent weeks, in the Guardian newspaper and on a BBC radio discussion, in both cases by trade union representatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 22 - 08:51 AM

Agreed about acronym. Very often, the misusers of this word think they're being clever as they're using such a sophisticated-sounding word. Instead, they are simply showing themselves to be complete asses.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: weerover
Date: 10 Jan 22 - 02:05 PM

On this evening's radio news, the sports commentator said that Novak Djokovic could be "the first male tennis player to win 21 Grand Slams". In fact, that would be 21 major tournaments, each of which would have been a single leg of a clean sweep of all major tournaments, which is what a Grand Slam actually means. This flawed terminology has become a regular feature of commentary on tennis and golf, and for me somewhat devalues the achievement of anyone who has actually swept the boards.

wr

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Jan 22 - 02:33 PM

”Precarity": there is no such word but I have encountered it twice in recent weeks, in the Guardian newspaper and on a BBC radio discussion, in both cases by trade union representatives.”

It exists, according to the Cambridge English Dictionary…

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/precarity

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: weerover
Date: 10 Jan 22 - 02:47 PM

Thanks, Backwoodsman, before posting I checked with the Shorter Oxford Dictionary and Chambers Dictionary (of which I have five editions) and found no trace, but it appears I may be wrong after all. I suspect it could be a fairly new development.

wr

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Jan 22 - 09:23 PM

Is the verb crescendo also? The music crescendoed?

I like precarity. Unlike Voltaire, if it hadn't existed, it would have been necessary to invent it.

Totz agree [see what I did there?] With Thinking to myself. That is exaxctly how I feel about the term bucket list. I mean, when would you do things, *after* you died?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 11 Jan 22 - 04:32 AM

I have another list, of things that came off the bucket list because I can't now be bothered to do them.
Guess what it's called.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Jan 22 - 10:11 AM

Bet it rhymes!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jan 22 - 07:18 AM

To be pseudo-philosophical for a moment, I think it's possible to lament some word evolutions without actually castigating the kind of modern usage which may seem to us to be predicated on ignorance. There are shades: I'm not bothered at all by the way people use "unique," "literally" and things like that. I think that objectors to the modern usage of "decimate" are just plain wrong. It's hard to continue criticising the flexibility that's crept in with "uninterested" and "disinterested," even though I think the distinction is useful. In fact, that distinction is quite modern; it was not forever thus in any case. "Alternate" instead of "alternative" really gets my goat (I blame the Monkees), though it's now become unarguable. We need to do a bit more lamenting and a bit less criticising!

What grate are things that just look or sound stupid. "At the end of the day..." (I've just used that in another post and regret the lack of the ability to edit...we can all get sucked in...), "basically," "prior to," "on a daily basis," "going forward," "I have to say," "listen up," "with all due respect..."




"Albeit"...   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Jan 22 - 09:37 AM

Wot, no "in real time"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jan 22 - 10:06 AM

Definitely that one too. Many another: keep 'em coming!

I never did get "existential" and I don't know how to use it.

And don't get me started on "begs the question." Almost everyone who uses this means "raises the question," which is elegant and normal English. If I hear someone saying "it begs the question..." who ISN'T referring to a circular argument, I consider them to be a pompous arse. Unfortunately, they've won - it's now standard English even in its corrupted sense, irregardless of what I may think (see what I did there?)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Jan 22 - 12:00 PM

I love Irregardless.

I use this thread to list things that bug me. Not things I correct people for using. That last would be policing. Here, I just complain.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Jan 22 - 04:53 PM

How about "irregoddamnless." More emphatic.

I suspect the modern use of "beg the question" is older than most of us think - even if it only became visible recently.

After all, the orginal, highly idiomatic phrase has to be explained at some point to most people. Just knowing the meaning of each word isn't much help.

But the newer sense (not in OED, by the way) is easy to grasp as short for "begs that the question be asked."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Jan 22 - 05:15 PM

Dig this, from the St. Louis Republic of January 4, 1904 p.8:

"With reference to the act of recognition, the President begs the question of whether or not Panama by its own uninfluenced action established a complete independence."


Or the Morning Chronicle (London, Eng.) of October 30, 1838 [!], p. 2:

"The complaint we made against The Post on Saturday will equally apply to the Herald of Monday, viz., that it begs the whole question whether Mr TURNER'S discourses were soctrinal or moral."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Jan 22 - 05:18 PM

No, not "soctrinal."

"Doctrinal."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jan 22 - 06:20 PM

I take your point about the antiquity of the "modern" manifestation of "begs the question." I think the point is that saying "it begs the question" rather than the far plainer and more explicit "it raises the question" is unnecessary, pretentious and an attempt to sound clever. Not wrong, but all those things. I feel the same way about "albeit," which is correct and equally ancient (though it almost died out before its unfortunate twentieth-century resurgence). But it has plainer and more honest alternatives that, unlike "albeit," don't make you sound as if you're trying put sounding sophisticated ahead of making your honest argument. Try "though" every time...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Jan 22 - 07:25 PM

I concur that pomposity is abominable* (especially when wed to foolishness), but if you were to spend as much time as I once did reading academic prose in the lit-crit line, I think you'd find many of the annoying usages discussed here plain enough and positively refreshing.

Check this out. The learned author is discussing Charlie Chaplin in "Shoulder Arms: (1918):

"Because such moments of interpretive perception in 'Shoulder Arms' frequently take the literal form of one character seeing one thing *as* another, they provide a useful test case for the idea that the concept of aspect perception, as Wittgenstein understood it, may have interpretive rather than simply theoretical use, that this concept has to do with the surprising conjunction of perceptual agility, knowledge of the world, and ethical understanding. Whereas most film theoretical accounts of aspect perception use Wittgenstein's concept as a means of thinking through the phenomenology of vision. 'Shoulder Arms' suggests that aspect perception is of importance for its articulation of value and mutuality."

I believe this means in English that "characters in 'Shoulder Arms' often mistake one thing for another. The movie, however, suggests that everyone may profit from seeing objects as they are."

Wow! Insights worthy of Wittgenstein, not to mention Socrates.

____

*See what I did there?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jan 22 - 08:00 PM

Brilliant! Doesn't that sort of thing get your goat? We have such a lovely language, full of what perplexed scholars call "irregularities," whilst the truth is that the intricacies, the colour and the nuance of English ironically (ironically in some people's view only) allow us to express ourselves so clearly, flexibly and simply. Yet there are people, the over-clever who aren't clever at all, who prefer to use long words where a shorter word would work better and multiple words where a single word would be just fine. My aim is always to try to make sure that, whatever the victims of my posts think of my opinions, I express myself in a way that doesn't require a ton of mental processing in order to understand what I'm on about. Mistakes, typos, grammatical inelegance and the occasional spelling error don't count for much. Language is all about the clarity of communication.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Jan 22 - 08:05 PM

I'm wit' yoo, pal.

Lucidity, not stupidity!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 13 Jan 22 - 12:42 AM

I've noticed another peeve of mine - using "place" to mean something more complicated.

Like this: "At that time I was with an abuser who was also highly manipulative. I was in a very bad place." That speaker went on the use "place" 3 or 4 times, as if it were particularly clever.

The person wasn't in a place; she was in a marriage, or a relationship, or a cult or something similar. And getting out of it was far more complicated than simply leaving a place.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 22 - 05:51 AM

Dunno about that one: I think I quite like it. The meaning is clear and obvious, taken in context, and it's one of those things that seem to add colour to the language without resort to big or obscure words. As ever, one man's fish is another man's poisson...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 13 Jan 22 - 08:47 AM

You mean "One person's..." ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 22 - 10:15 AM

Tends to take the edge off the maxim somewhat! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Jan 22 - 12:53 PM

Ok this one bugged me but not grammatically:

12-year old boy died with his mother and 2 sisters.

How did the one male become the person and the others the mere relatives? How about Woman dies with 3 children? How about Family dies, including (12-yo boy if he was the youngest by a large margin maybe?)?

Anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 13 Jan 22 - 01:53 PM

Yes, Mrrzy, that is odd. Why not "Three die in..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 22 - 01:58 PM

Reminds me of a headline (possibly apocryphal) many years ago, when we still thought that Britain ruled the waves:

FOG IN ENGLISH CHANNEL: CONTINENT CUT OFF

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 13 Jan 22 - 02:22 PM

Could it be that they just discovered that the 12-year-old was also the victim of a previously reported fire?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jan 22 - 05:02 PM

I understand someone being the splitting image of their mom.
I don't get 'spitting' image.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 14 Jan 22 - 01:46 PM

I should obviously have said "was an additional victim of..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 15 Jan 22 - 03:50 AM

Not so apocryphal: when the diggers of Channel Tunnel met in the middle, the Times' headline was

CONTINENT NO LONGER ISOLATED

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Jan 22 - 08:31 AM

Spitting image is the same in French, oddly enough (portait craché). I never got that either.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Jan 22 - 10:29 AM

Brace yourselves for this, straight from Oxford.

"Spitting image" is a now standard phrase that was originally a hypercorrection of...

"Spittin' image," which was a hypercorrection of...

"Spitten image," which the OED regards as "nonstandard," and which was a misconstrual of...

"Spit and image," which the editors consider perfectly standard, and which was a variation of the seminal and equally standard "very spit of."

Why exactly "spit" should have been used this way is uncertain, though uncouth possibilities do come to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Jan 22 - 10:54 AM

Thanks! Etymology rules, spit drools!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 16 Jan 22 - 03:33 PM

Hi, Mrrzy. My dictionary says that spit can mean 'exact likeness or image,' and merely notes that it is dialect. No origin. Spitting image used to be spit and image, as the OED observes.
=========
Here's a word I'm tired of: passion. So many people nowadays seem to be looking for their passion, blah blah blah. I have a lot of interests and causes, but I don't believe I've ever had a passion for anything.

What would I have to do if I had a passion for something? Stay up night and day doing it? Spend all my money on it? Roam the world seeking it? I have better ways to spend my time.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Jan 22 - 05:39 PM

As someone prone to mania, I try to avoid passions.

That said I am up to 3x mahjongg a week...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Feb 22 - 07:52 PM

I have complained before about the phrase Stray Bullet.

I write newspapers when I see it.

Reporting that *this* time I heard back from a Washington Post reported that he promises (his word) to avoid it.

Yay, the power of the pen.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 22 - 08:25 PM

To "gift" someone instead of to give them something. It's spreading like a horrible rash...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 13 Feb 22 - 03:38 AM

A verb used as a noun is becoming quite popular. For example, 'I got an invite...'.
But as you have said on here in the past Steve, language evolves and new ways of expressing oneself emerge. I agree with you - we no longer speak as we did in medieval times.
Obviously, modern media swiftly disseminates these new language forms.
I waver between being peeved and being entertained and amused. ("Innit?")

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 13 Feb 22 - 04:56 AM

"Gift" was discussed in November 2020. Your comment at the time, Steve, included:
       .......... people who allegedly misuse "gift" ............
Perhaps you weren't as peeved back then.

A post from Reihard, on the subject, included:
The OED defines gift as a verb too besides the noun and gives as examples:
..............................................
Daily Telegraph: You can be ... gifted up to £90,000 before you become liable to tax.
J.C. Lees: The Regent Murray gifted all the Church Property to Lord Sempill.


"Give" and "gift" are not interchangeable

To "gift", as a short form of to "give as a gift", is a specific form of to "give", meaning "give of your own volition, without expecting recompense".

A sportsman who, for whatever reason, decided not to challenge for first place could be said to have gifted his opponent the win.

To "give", as in the sense of "pass to me" something that I already owned, such as:
      "Could you give me my coat, please"
would not be to "gift".

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 22 - 06:13 AM

You are an erudite man, Doug, and I take your point, as ever. However, the distinction between the two senses is getting blurred, and therein lies my peeve. But I'm not that bothered. As Eliza says, it's more a source of amusement than irritation, generally earning a smirk and a tapping on the temple with one's index finger.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 22 - 06:38 AM

I see that the British athletes at the Winter Olympics, at least up to yesterday, had failed to podium... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 13 Feb 22 - 06:45 AM

A young mother in my village told me she'd 'breakfasted the kids a bit earlier than usual.'. That made me smile I must say.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 22 - 06:53 AM

Reminds me of when I read about some dead bloke in America who'd been funeralised...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 13 Feb 22 - 11:10 AM

One mistake I have seen several times recently is “reign(s)” when it should be “rein(s)”, e.g “Joe Bloggs took the reigns”, or “I’ll have to reign him in”.

And a peeve while watching an episode of “Hope Street” last week (BBC TV drama series based in N Ireland) - investigating the death of a person called Donal - which is correctly pronounced like Donald, but without the second D. All characters except one pronounced it that way, but the lovely Leila persistently called him Dohnal. No need, she had a neutral English accent. Why didn’t the producer, continuity person, or even the bluntly-spoken other characters ever correct her? It stuck out like a sore thumb!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 22 - 11:15 AM

Nucular. I mean, what's so hard about saying "nuclear"??

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 13 Feb 22 - 01:18 PM

'Invite' has been around a long time as a perfectly justifiable noun.

See Words at play.

In Ireland the name Dónal is usually pronounced to rhyme with 'tonal', though parts of Belfast may be an exception.

My personal bugbear is the often inappropriate use of the word 'fury' in newspaper headlines when mere 'anger' or 'concern' may be more appropriate. I'm also not fond of the increasing use 'outlined' in newspaper reports instead of the perfectly adequate and more accurate 'described'.

Ta-ta.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 22 - 01:50 PM

Howdy, Geoff!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Feb 22 - 02:07 PM

I mind the reign/rein confusion too.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 14 Feb 22 - 03:47 PM

Thanks for the explanation, Geoff, but it still doesn’t explain why all N Irish characters, including the actress playing his own sister, called yon man “Donnle” and the England-based detective stuck religiously to Dohnal!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 22 - 04:07 PM

Coh-lin Powell vs Collin Powell...?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Feb 22 - 11:25 PM

However he pronounces it. That one's easy.

Between means there are 2; if there were more, it'd be Among. So between both is redundant, and redundancy is my pet peeve of mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 14 Feb 22 - 11:38 PM

It's not a peeve for me, but I too often see authors using "vice" when they mean "vise." Example: He could hardly breathe; he felt as if he were being crushed in a vice.

About "nucular." The average person uses patterns and resemblances in language. Think how many words we have with "ular" in them:

regular
molecular
jugular
scapular
macular
spectacular

Right now, I can't think of any other word that has the -ear of nuclear.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 15 Feb 22 - 01:19 AM

Clear, fear, dear, near, sear, hear..
All quite common words unlike the live the 'ular' list.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 15 Feb 22 - 02:37 AM

It's not a peeve for me, but I too often see authors using "vice" when they mean "vise."

"vise" is a North American spelling of "vice". I (UK) would use and mean "vice".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mr Red
Date: 15 Feb 22 - 03:16 AM

SOED CD ROM (20 yrs old) re precarity - not in

precarium /prI"kE:rIm/ n. Pl.
[L, use as n. of neut. of precarius: see PRECARIOUS.] Rom. & Sc. Law. A loan granted on request but revocable whenever the owner may please.

But instantiate is:
Represent by an instance.

though it would seem in code writing the meaning doesn't now imply as an example. ie it was used before (≈ precedent set)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mr Red
Date: 15 Feb 22 - 03:35 AM

Right now, I can't think of any other word that has the -ear of nuclear.
Quite a few. the SOED CD ROM includes, in the phonetic search, "ere", and "ia". But if "clear" was the arbiter then only "clear" & expansions of "nuclear"

fan bloody tastic
is that anyones' pet peeve? - an example of tmesis I just found out.

Dare we mention Gazpacho police? MTJ's delightful malapropism.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 22 - 04:41 AM

I've never seen "vise" outside an American context.

You are wrong about "between" and "among." Again, language is what people use, not what grammarians dictate. It's a distinction that I try to maintain myself, but there's also a distinction to be made between "it's wrong" and " I don't like it."

Ahem: a treaty between western nations, or a treaty among western nations...?

Between you, me and the gatepost, or among you, me and the gatepost?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Feb 22 - 11:01 AM

The Tween of Between means 2.

The misuse of literal to mean figurative does not change the meaning of literal to figurative.

Between you and me. Not between you and I, which also bugs me. Adding the lamppost I will allow, but as literary.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 15 Feb 22 - 11:46 AM

'Gazpacho police' is just a polite way of saying, 'Soup Nazi'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 22 - 12:26 PM

It doesn't matter what you think "tween" means. "Albeit" means "all be it" or "although be it," both of which are absolute nonsense, but even I know that it's a standard English word. The danger with hanging on to things that you haven't noticed have evolved is that you're going to criticise people who have not done anything wrong. They've merely gone with the flow, which Canute demonstrated that we all have to do. Take a tip from him.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 15 Feb 22 - 12:32 PM

Steve, what do you call a device that's clamped to a workbench and has two jaws and a handle? When an item if placed between the jaws and the handle is turned, the item is eventually clamped in place.

Something cute: I was just watching a video on how to cook pork ribs, and the cook said, "Now put on some W sauce. This stuff. (displays a bottle of Worcestershire sauce) Pronounce it however you want."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Feb 22 - 12:33 PM

Here's what Merriam-Webster says:

"There is a persistent but unfounded notion that between can be used only of two items and that among must be used for more than two. Between has been used of more than two since Old English...."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/between

Oxford concurs.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 22 - 12:56 PM

A vice. I'm a big fan of American English, but I can't think that I've ever seen "vise" used in an English-English context.

Cheers, Lighter. I also checked that source. I don't want anyone thinking that I make stuff up... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 15 Feb 22 - 01:02 PM

Leeneia. The device you describe is a “vice” in British English.

Looking through the Chambers dictionary App on my phone, I find 2 entries for “vice” with different roots.

#1 (which has the Latin “vitis” – "vine" referenced) Has meanings including the tool.
#2 (“vitium” – "defect") has the immoral meanings.

You in the US appear to spell #1 as “vise”.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 22 - 01:03 PM

Unfortunately, leeneia, many a telly chef over here refers to "Worcester sauce." That's very annoying.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 22 - 06:25 AM

"Influencer." Grr. I know it's an ancient word, but its modern manifestation, mainly it seems in social media contexts, gets right on my nerves, it does. It's become flavour of the month, all over the place like a rash. I'll swear I hardly ever heard it used until six months ago but now I can't avoid it. Daft if you ask me (you won't).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 15 Mar 22 - 07:40 AM

I'm rather addicted to Dr Pimple Popper on TV, and am amused by some of the words/pronunciations used. For the word 'pouch' she says 'pooch' (which is a pet dog here in UK!) And any tumours, spots etc are referred to as 'bumps'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 22 Apr 22 - 08:07 PM

I've learned something new.

A woman talked to me recently about joining my early-music group, and I was about ready to send out e-mails to the gang. The following came into my Inbox from the new person:

Leeneia, Recorder information? How often? How long do you plan? How many in group?

I was irritated! How rude! I was trying to think of a good lie to make her go away, but then I showed it to the DH, and he said that that is considered normal writing for a person on a phone. Well, okayeee.

I think that is a heck of way to ask a person for a big favor. And it is a big favor - I find and arrange music, I've bought a projector and screen, we have snacks and tea ....

I hope she doesn't keep this up.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 23 Apr 22 - 02:22 AM

Being completely ignorant of terms connected to technology, I'm often flummoxed by my neighbour's son and daughter (they're in their early twenties) when chatting with them. They usually forget that I don't possess a fobile moan, and have remarked many times, "You need a nap!" I think this means an App (whatever that is). I always reply, "Thanks, but I've already had one today."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Apr 22 - 04:18 PM

I didn't understand the app concept till I saw a New Yorker cartoon with cavemen sitting around a fire, and one is exclaiming I love this stuff! It's got a heating app, a light app, a cooking app...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Apr 22 - 02:20 AM

Hahahaaaaagh Mrrzy!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 24 Apr 22 - 03:13 AM

Then there is the cartoon where Tarzan is saying to Jane "I've got an ape for that..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 27 Apr 22 - 04:07 PM

That's a good one, Mrrzy.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 22 - 06:55 AM

This exchange between Donuel and me took place on the Roe v. Wade thread, where it was out of place, so I've edited it extremely heavily in order to remove abrasiveness and moved it over here. It all started when he misused the word "supersedes," compounded by his rather perverse misspelling of it:

ME: "Supercedes" [sic]??

HE: “Sic” is an adverb that means “thus” in Latin, but writers and editors can also use it to highlight grammar errors in quoted text. Learn the proper way to use “sic” and useful alternatives.

It would be better to use "recte" and write the word correctly spelled if you want to correct spelling...

ME: [sic] means that I have quoted your rendering of the word in question exactly, even though I know it to be incorrect. For five hundred years the word has been "supersede," and you won't find many authorities that don't regard "supercede" as either perverse or ignorant.

...And it was the wrong word to use in any case.

HE: Please continue to use [sic] incorrectly, "recte" is more correct for a single word.
A spelling error, horrific, hoisted by ones own petard, devine.

ME: The phrase is from Hamlet, and the correct version is hoist with his own petard. I use it quite a lot, only ever that way, the right way, just as I use [sic].

                                                             .........................

I've never used, let alone heard of, "recte," and the examples of its use that I looked up all look cumbersome and somewhat obscurantist. I think that [sic] is perfectly good for both single words and for phrases and I can find no objection to that anywhere. Feel free to demur!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Jul 22 - 09:31 AM

‘Devine’?

Any ideas, anyone? (Other than it being the obvious mis-spelling of ‘divine’?).

”Before you start pointing fingers, make sure your hands are clean” - James Marshall Hendrix (allegedly).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 06 Jul 22 - 11:42 AM

Sic transit gloria mundi .... ?

I'll get mi dictionary

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 06 Jul 22 - 11:46 AM

From Merriam-Webster:

su·?per·?cede
Definition of supercede
disputed spelling variant of SUPERSEDE

Supercede vs. Supersede: Usage Guide
Supercede has occurred as a spelling variant of supersede since the 17th century, and it is common in current published writing. It continues, however, to be widely regarded as an error.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 22 - 02:39 PM

Exactly. To the point at which it's perverse to spell it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 Jul 22 - 02:41 PM

Sic transit gloria mundi .... ?

Gloria threw up in the van at the beginning of the week.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 06 Jul 22 - 03:36 PM

Oil on Troubled Waters Dept: I thought "supercede" was the correct spelling too, but Wictionary corrects me (and provides the even more interesting misspelling "superseed" --- definite comic mileage there). I'll need to remember to think of "supersession", using the mental image of Lennon and Hendrix jamming in the recording studio next to the Pearly Gates.

Another that I can only get right by brute force is "desiccate", which still looks wrong to me; mayhap it's the insidious influence of my father's disparaging term "desecrated coconut". At least now I'm not in paid employment which involves distributing software to users, I don't have to worry about distinguishing between "license" (verb) and "licence" (noun), of which the latter spelling seems to not have made it across the Puddle.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 22 - 04:28 PM

I like the distinction between licence and license, but, as most Brits get it wrong whenever they use it as a verb, I've given up on that one. Maybe I'm a secret yank.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 22 - 04:31 PM

Caesar adsum iam forte
Pompey aderat
Caesar sic in omnibus
Pompey sic in hat

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 06 Jul 22 - 04:47 PM

Steve Shaw: The use of [sic] to highlight an error is vulgar. The proper scholarly use is to reassure the reader that you, the writer, have *not* made an error, but have written the preceding intentionally. The usual reason for needing it is that a quotation contains an error that you have quoted faithfully; but quotation need not be involved. For example, I once wrote (describing a dream) "ate some candles [sic]"; without that warning, anyone might reasonably suspect I meant to write "candies".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 22 - 05:11 PM

It isn't necessarily to highlight and thereby expose someone's error. Were I to quote someone whose words include an error and I corrected that error, that would be patronising in the extreme. If I were to quote someone, knowing that the quote included an egregious error but I didn't point out the error via [sic], it could look like I was condoning the error, or worse, didn't know that the error was there. [sic] is relatively subtle, is time-honoured and is not at all vulgar.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 06 Jul 22 - 05:28 PM

.... I used to use "licence" for both noun and verb, until I had to deal with licences and licensing (and Murrkin software) a lot.

Meta-peeve: Old English was (approximately) the result of mixing Anglo-Saxon with Old Norse, then there was a violent collision with Norman French; then Dr Johnson and co-conspirators overlarded it heavily with late Latin (including the wrong sort of grammar); and only then did spelling start settling down. Then the language pedants started making educated mistakes, like never permitting one to boldly split an infinitive; and we started picking up words from all over the Empire, and getting those wrong too. And you expect such a magpie language to be consistent? humph.

End of core dump.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 22 - 06:00 PM

I must have posted dozens of times with the expressed sentiment that language is fluid, should be allowed to be fluid, must not be in the hands of grammar police and must go with the popular flow. It's wot the people say, not wot grammarians dictate. You hit on a classic example in your post. The people who like to constantly rail against "splitting the infinitive" are not only wrong (people have chosen to routinely "split the infinitive" for hundreds of years with impunity), but they don't actually know what an infinitive is. The scholarly take is that a true infinitive is a single word, and you can't exactly split that. You'll have to look that up if you're bothered.

However, the sentiment that language should be fluid and allowed to evolve in no way excuses blatant errors and sloppiness. Ignorance should not be the driver of language evolution. Claiming that your misspelled word or inelegant phrase is all part of the language evolving is both ignorant and vexatious. It's hard to know where the dividing line is.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 07 Jul 22 - 02:09 AM

.... Apologies: I should have added that I was distracting myself from the dire news, so may have been inadvertently firing off my mouth from the hip (again). As for said dividing line, it's even harder to know where it is if you don't know the reader's context; so I suggest we say "everybody has their own line in the sand", and (erm) draw a line under it. I will now go and write "I will always take an hour extra before I click Submit" four hundred times.

"Quick, Jeeves! my asbestos mail-reading long johns!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 07 Jul 22 - 02:22 AM

I've mentioned on here before how much I love that word 'innit?'. (Used at the end of seemingly irrelevant statements, for example: "He looks cool in them trousers, innit?" I suppose it could be 'translated' as 'Is that not so?'.
Well, I've got to know a black chap who lives down my road with his white wife. He's of Caribbean origin but lived most of his life in West London, where I spent my childhood. (We discovered we'd been born in the same hospital in Hillingdon!) He uses 'innit' without let or hindrance, and has me in stitches! I think it's my favourite word, innit?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 07 Jul 22 - 03:40 AM

Better "innit" than "right", especially when giving directions - "then you take the next left, right?"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 07 Jul 22 - 01:01 PM

When I was growing up in Milwaukee, many working-class people said 'aina?', short for 'ain't it?.' These did not seem to be American country people (users of ain't), and I thought that 'aina' was a replacement for the German 'nicht wahr?" Thus it would resemble England's 'innit?'.

I haven't lived there for a long time, so I don't know if it has died out.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 07 Jul 22 - 02:34 PM

Among large swathes of Canadians, "eh?" used to be common - now you'll find Canadians who claim they've never heard it (which I don't believe), let alone used it. In the past decade or so, "right?" has largely replaced "eh?".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jul 22 - 04:21 PM

Know wot ah mean, like?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: weerover
Date: 07 Jul 22 - 04:58 PM

Steve says you can't split a single word. Abso-fucking-lutely you can: it is called "tmesis" and is a recognised rhetorical device, like many such from Greek.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 07 Jul 22 - 05:28 PM

Steve Shaw: I think, in the situation you describe, I would correct the error but enclose the corrected words in square brackets.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jul 22 - 06:47 PM

Well I use the time-honoured method, chiefly for brevity and clarity. I mean, it isn't exactly as if I made up the ploy...

You say that I should make a huge and polite effort to correct an error. In the case in question, I'd suggest that the perpetrator of the error made that error lazily, and does not deserve the time and effort it would take for me to do that. I mean, has he not heard of dictionaries? Dunno about you, Joe, but if I'm ever unsure about a word, I look up the spelling. That's why you won't find spelling errors in my posts. It's not that I'm incredibly clever or anything, it's more that I make the effort to get it right. The man who types "supercede" and "supream" clearly doesn't do that. Shoot at the right target, Joe!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jul 22 - 06:50 PM

Do that with an infinitive, weerover. There's a challenge for you!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 08 Jul 22 - 06:57 AM

That's why you won't find spelling errors in my posts.

Is that a challenge? It's certainly a very bold statement.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jul 22 - 07:31 AM

I was told, very early in my engineering apprenticeship, that, “Him what never makes a mistake never does sod-all”. Even with the double-negative, I think the message is pretty clear…

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jul 22 - 05:30 PM

Doug, I edit my posts before hitting send. I hate spelling errors. If I'm not sure, I check with a dictionary. I do that every day. If you find a spelling error in my posts, let me know. I regard it as only polite to do my best to express myself clearly and avoid mistakes. That does not mean that I'm excessively clever. It means that I want to be represented by clear and accurate posts. My opinions, on the other hand, are another matter...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 08 Jul 22 - 06:46 PM

I'm sure that most of us try to avoid spelling errors, Steve, but mistakes slip through. I'm thinking of Senoufou's recent efforts to correct a mis-spelling of "iridescent" in the "BS: Mad Swans, blue tits, and others" thread. She knew perfectly well how to spell it but somehow her brain wasn't connected to her fingers. It can happen to the best of us.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jul 22 - 07:21 PM

And the ould spellchecker can trip one up, especially when you're not wearing your reading glasses. Insertion of unwanted apostrophe's is one it's worst traits.

I say, to he'll with spellcheckers!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 09 Jul 22 - 03:03 AM

Hee hee Doug, I was thoroughly ashamed of myself. Maybe it was 'karma'. When I was a primary schoolteacher, if a pupil made a spelling mistake I often made them write the word down correctly perhaps twenty times.
Now that my husband and I don't live together, we communicate in French via e mails. My laptop doesn't seem to accept this, and every single word I type is underlined in red. It makes the text look as if it's covered in blood! Also, my keyboard doesn't 'do' accents such as acute, grave, cedilla etc. It looks like the composition of a 'bottom-group' first-year pupil to me!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 09 Jul 22 - 03:49 AM

Would an AZERTY keyboard help?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 09 Jul 22 - 04:07 AM

Sorry Bob, I don't know what that is. I'm the biggest idiot where Internet technology is concerned!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 09 Jul 22 - 04:19 AM

AZERTY. You could probably tell your computer that your existing keyboard has an AZERTY layout but I think you would need to be able to touch type with that layout to use it.

Your email program may well allow you to add a French dictionary for spelling checks.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 09 Jul 22 - 04:43 AM

Sen,
Try typing it in Microsoft Word, if you have it, then copy and paste into your email. The proofing language can be selected and accents are easily entered using keyboard shortcuts. I could send you the list of keyboard shortcuts by PM if that would help.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 09 Jul 22 - 05:02 AM

You're all very kind, but it's all I can manage to turn the blooming laptop on! Funnily enough, my errant husband, who is very techno-savvy, types without using accents, and his French isn't as good as mine (boast). But as his first language is Malinke, I use that as well. (My Malinke vocabulary is rather limited, but I manage.)
I'm far too pedantic, without starting on other languages as well.
Thank you all for your offers of technological help, but it would be like trying to teach a dog to quote Shakespeare!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 10 Jul 22 - 01:11 AM

In what I believe the TV newspeople call "the crawl" - that moving strip of text at the bottom of your screen on some news shows - an item today on one of our (Canadian) national broadcasters began as follows: "61% of Canadians think Canada is on the wrong track, as opposed to the right one, when it comes to ...." I, for one, appreciated that clarification!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Jul 22 - 06:02 PM

Still snickering over Steve Dhaw and his secret yank.

"Woman dies after drowning." No, woman drowns.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jul 22 - 06:14 PM

I often read stuff such as "he married his wife in 1982...". So he married her twice then...just to make sure...?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 12 Jul 22 - 07:43 AM

Right, then, a fresh peeve: the use of "best ever" when what is meant is "best yet", notably in the context of the first James Webb telescope picture. The expression "best ever" is two-sided, and suggests there'll never be another one at least as good, let alone even better, in due course.

I accuse NASA, in the press release, with an advertising meme.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 22 - 08:58 AM

You've clearly never eaten an M&S Best Ever prawn sandwich...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Jul 22 - 10:23 AM

Don't confuse "best ever known" with "eternally best."

Oxford recognizes no less than eight numbered senses of the word "ever."

Fascinating.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 12 Jul 22 - 01:15 PM

.... On reflection, perhaps someone conflated "best yet" with "first ever"; quite possibly me. I've got chronically mischievous ears, which are an everlasting source of amusement and material for a punslinger (and hell on wheels to anybody else in range).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Jul 22 - 07:43 AM

And firsts aren't firsts till there is a second.

Right now we have a Pope Francis. When there is a second one, this one will become Francis I.

As Encyclopedia Brown pointed out, it wasn't the first battle of Bull Run till there was a second one.

What you have, until there is a second, is an Only.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 14 Jul 22 - 11:59 AM

How about "The First Annual ..."? And, perhaps, not quite as black-and-white, but news reports are always telling us about 'historic' events that happened five minutes ago or are about to happen - seems a little unfair not to let History decide what is historic ....

"until there is a second, is an Only" - That thought always crosses my mind when there is a report of "the first woman to be appointed ... ", etc. ... but I think we've lost that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 14 Jul 22 - 02:10 PM

So "the only woman to be appointed" doesn't imply anything about the future, but the "first woman..." does?

By the reasoning in previous posts, "only" should imply there'll never be another.

Just as "first" allegedly implies there will be another.

I say we can't tell the future and both words are equally (il)logical and (in)correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 15 Jul 22 - 02:13 PM

I was doing a crossword this morning and one of the answers was 'dado'. It started me off giggling because I remembered a friend many years ago at a village bingo. All of us ladies were sat round a table, and during the interval, she announced loudly, "My husband has been putting up a DILDO rail in the hall!" There were shrieks of laughter all round, and someone had to explain to her what a dildo was.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 16 Jul 22 - 11:44 AM

This is so embarrassing, I hate to report it, but it just shows what can happen.

My grandmother was born in NYC in the 1880s. When she was in her 70's, she'd usually call the store to have groceries delivered.

When she talked to the butcher, she'd usually ask if the meat was "well hung."

This meant nothing to me as a child, but I was curious about what it meant.

She said that when she was a girl (around 1900) someone had told her that "You should always ask the butcher if his meat is well hung."

Decades later, I still cringe for her. I wish I could have croaked out a warning!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 16 Jul 22 - 06:23 PM

Oh, no! Now I'm thinking of things my grandparents would say that were double-entendres to the debauched generation of their grandchildren ... and wondering if they too were the victims of cruel pranks ... ! For that matter, I'd better review my own habitual turns-of-phrase ....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 17 Jul 22 - 03:00 AM

My generation held that there were two hymns unsuitable for weddings, one being "Fight the Good Fight."
The other, now consigned to history, was an advent hymn based on the parable in Matthew 25 of the wise & foolish bridesmaids:
"Behold the Bridegroom cometh in the middle of the night..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 28 Jul 22 - 04:36 PM

New topic. I just came across a YouTube video on the deaths of organized criminals, and the video proved to be a treasure trove of a particular peeve of mine - mealy-mouthed euphemisms that cover up the horror of crimes. Here's a list; I don't think I need to explain.

hit
hitman
rackets
took him for a drive
capo
lieutenant
enforcer
outfit
gunman
crime boss
took out
protection

============
To back up some, after an animal is butchered, it needs to be hung up for a while under refrigeration.

https://greatbritishmeat.com/blogs/butchers-blog/hanging-meat

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 28 Jul 22 - 07:52 PM

I wouldn't call those "mealy-mouthed euphemisms" - some of them are just underworld slang, and some are just - well, what's a better term for "crime boss"? "Former president", maybe? Or for "gunman" - "Second Amendment Activist"?

However, it does bring to mind a peeve of mine: journalists using underworld or street slang in otherwise straight-ahead reporting; e.g., "The bust went down this morning ..." (yes, I heard that on TV news).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 29 Jul 22 - 02:54 AM

BobL you really made me laugh with those two hymns which aren't suitable for weddings! I nearly choked on my morning cup of tea! Haahaaahaaaaaaagh!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 30 Jul 22 - 02:16 PM

On American news shows, which I've watched far too much of over the last six years or so, far-right Democrats like Manchin and Sinema are called 'moderate Democrats' - so what are Democrats like Biden: 'extremists'? 'radicals'? 'militants?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 08:57 AM

Ok, the Queen's ceremony cannot culminate in something that is to be followed by something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 11:42 AM

And we've had quite a lot of "And now the coffin is lying at rest." Gosh, it must have been exhausting for the poor old coffin, lugging the Queen around for days and getting stared at!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 11:57 AM

Quote from Liz Truss's Bible reading at THAT funeral: "If ye hath seen me, ye hath seen my Father also..."

Well I didn't know that his father was called Also! Makes sense, as Zarathustra's first and middle names were Also and Sprach. Also Sprach Zarathustra! I know this because I saw it on an album sleeve AND on the credits after 2001: A Space Odyssey!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Sep 22 - 08:32 PM

And it was a coffin. Not a casket. Apparently this matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 22 Sep 22 - 08:52 PM

Matters to to whom? As it was covered by the royal standard, not many people would know which one it was.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 23 Sep 22 - 05:16 AM

After grinding my teeth at the words 'chester draws' on a website for mums, I've now just seen 'I need a rest bite' !!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Sep 22 - 06:18 AM

”And it was a coffin. Not a casket. Apparently this matters.”

Aaaahh, the old issue of ‘two nations divided by a common language’ rears its head once more! In the UK, where we tend to be less squeamish than the US about such things, the wooden box which contains the corpse is usually referred to as a ‘coffin’ - I don’t ever recollect hearing anyone here refer to it as a ‘casket’.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 22 - 06:47 AM

I'm very old-fashioned. I still call it a cist.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 23 Sep 22 - 06:56 AM

"It's not the cough that carries you off. It's the coffin they carry you off in."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 23 Sep 22 - 10:58 AM

I've just been looking at that website again, and now some woman has written "I'm playing devil's avocado." That made me giggle.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 22 - 06:54 PM

"Will glass coffins ever catch on?"

"Remains to be seen..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Sep 22 - 01:24 AM

The answer to the ‘coffin or casket’ conundrum seems to be explained here…

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: mayomick
Date: 21 Apr 23 - 07:32 AM

Dominic Raab's "bullying" of senior civil servants. Bullying transformed from something kids do or have done to them in the playground and applied nowadays to professional boxers, policemen   members of the armed forces etc. when suing for compensation . Sergeant Major X, for instance , complaining to the employment tribunal about how he was constantly bullied while going about his duties.(I'm not trying to defend Dominic Raab's intimidation of civil servants).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Apr 23 - 11:29 AM

And what ever happened to Bully for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 21 Apr 23 - 12:58 PM

> Bullying transformed from something kids do or have done to them in
> the playground

Some playground bullies never grow up. Belittle it not: I've been on the receiving end in my working life.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 21 Apr 23 - 01:19 PM

We had a notable one as 45th president.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Apr 23 - 10:39 PM

Sweet dreams are made of this
Who am I to disagree?
I travel the world and the seven seas
Everybody's looking for something

[Verse 1]
Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused

[Chorus]
Sweet dreams are made of this
Who am I to disagree?
I travel the world and the seven seas
Everybody's looking for something

[Bridge]
(Hold your head up, keep your head up) movin' on
(Hold your head up) movin' on, (keep your head up) movin' on
(Hold your head up) movin' on, (keep your head up) movin' on
(Hold your head up) movin' on, (keep your head up)

Churlish bullies have an intent to cause harm. I know one frustrated by his inability to cause harm.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Apr 23 - 03:35 AM

Your silly and sad obsession is what's causing you the most harm, old chap.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Apr 23 - 05:09 AM

"Filmic." Just heard a radio pundit describing a piece of music thus. What a horribly pretentious word!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: weerover
Date: 22 Apr 23 - 05:42 AM

"Filmic" is a word whose meaning (and sometimes nuances) are clear, and it does appear in Chambers Dictionary, which I consider a reasonable authority. I am a retired high school teacher of English and some neologisms (and non-words) make me squirm, but I think this one works.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Apr 23 - 05:58 AM

The meaning of ‘Filmic’ is very easy to work out. It is defined also in M-W and the Cambridge Dictionary. Good enough for most people, I would imagine. Certainly good enough for me…

Merriam-Webster

Cambridge University Press

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 22 Apr 23 - 05:58 AM

What a horribly pretentious word!

I agree that "filmic" is an ugly word but why pretentious? Filmic simply means related to films whereas "cinematic" expresses the feeling of film as an art form. Surely this would be the more pretentious word.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Apr 23 - 07:28 AM

Well we'll have to agree to differ on this one. Perhaps one day someone will tell me what music is filmic and what isn't. Rach 2 was used all through Brief Encounter but it wasn't written to go with a film. So is it filmic, and, if so, what makes it so? Mozart, Piano Concerto no 21, Elvira Madigan? Beethoven 9, Clockwork Orange? On the surface of it, the words meaning is clear, as you've both said. It's not the definition, it's the application. Now tell me what criteria are used to apply it to music...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Apr 23 - 07:33 AM

By the way, I never use "cinematic" either. I can agree on that one. Another daft word is "biopic." And I don't get "best picture" at the Oscars either. It's a film, or, far better, a movie. (I'm on your side there, yanks - Mrs Steve isn't!). And oop north, we'd go to the flicks, but we didn't say "I'm going to see a flick."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 22 Apr 23 - 08:35 AM

Peeve Alert: "iconic". I take the view that something so described has been painted over so many times to refresh the colours that the original is completely obscured.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Apr 23 - 09:44 AM

Speaking of the Oscars, I note that they still use the outmoded and sexist word "actress." It's about we dragged ourselves into the 21st century and dropped all these "esses." Hostess, waitress, stewardess...yuk! And while we're at it, heroine!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Apr 23 - 11:19 AM

Executrix. Murderess. Indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Apr 23 - 12:02 PM

Dominatrix. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 22 Apr 23 - 12:05 PM

And oop north, we'd go to the flicks

I was brought up in Liverpool but I never went to the flicks. I went to the pictures. So the 'Best Picture' Oscar seems perfectly sensible to me.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Apr 23 - 12:13 PM

Very civilised, Doug, you ould contrarian you!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 22 Apr 23 - 12:20 PM

> Speaking of the Oscars, I note that they still use the outmoded and
> sexist word "actress."

I heard complaints that females never featured in the "Directors" category for maybe a decade after it was introduced. Swings and roundabouts, an' all that. FWIW I still find "actor" jarring when applied to females, and so does Herself.

I won't drag Dame Edna into this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Apr 23 - 01:53 PM

Ha, I see what you did there :-)

The Guardian style guide has been insisting on "actor" for males and females for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Apr 23 - 02:08 PM

Out of interest, here's the Guardian style guide entry on "actor":

actor
Use for both male and female actors; do not use actress except when in the name of an award, eg Oscar for best actress. The Guardian’s view is that actress comes into the same category as authoress, comedienne, manageress, “lady doctor”, “male nurse” and similar obsolete terms that date from a time when professions were largely the preserve of one sex (usually men). As Whoopi Goldberg put it in an interview with the paper: “An actress can only play a woman. I’m an actor – I can play anything.”

There is normally no need to differentiate between the sexes – and if there is, the words male and female are perfectly adequate: Lady Gaga won a Brit in 2010 for best international female artist, not artiste, chanteuse, or songstress.

As always, use common sense: a piece about the late film director Carlo Ponti was edited to say that in his early career he was “already a man with a good eye for pretty actors ...” As the readers’ editor pointed out in the subsequent clarification: “This was one of those occasions when the word ‘actresses’ might have been used”


Incidentally, another of my pet peeves pops up a bit lower down that Guardian page, the word "advisor" (as in Trip). It grates whenever I see it spelled with an o. To me, it's adviser and always will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Apr 23 - 09:12 PM

The man who does my massages is often misidentified as a masseuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 28 Apr 23 - 11:17 AM

Peeve Time: In a news article, use of "reached out to" to mean "tried to contact" makes the offending journalists sound, well, needy. When and where did this affectation affliction start? *grrr*.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 30 Apr 23 - 03:40 PM

As with most, um, 'buzz words', at least part of the reason it has caught on is because it has connotation that is lacking in other common terms - 'reaching out' is familiar, friendly, and casual; 'tried to contact' is cold, business-like, and possibly hostile. Not saying that you should like it, but just recognizing that there is some legitimate(?) rationale for its early use at least.

Speaking of buzz words - or 'jargon', if you would prefer - my mother would laugh about a meeting she attended in which the term 'parameters' was being bandied about; she finally asked what 'parameters' were, and, of course, no one could tell her.

On the same subject, I remember back in the '80s talking to a colleague just back from a conference: "'Stakeholders'", he said, "that's the latest buzz word; you'll be hearing that one a lot before long!" And he was right. Although I can't swear he used the term 'buzz word'; maybe that one was the next buzz word to come along.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 May 23 - 01:11 PM

I'm detecting a trend among pundits of pronouncing the name of our beloved Wembley stadium "Wemberley." Almost as bad as Dubya with his "newcular." Yes, pronounciation is deferably deteriating...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 02 May 23 - 06:56 PM

Dwight Eisenhower also said "nucular."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 May 23 - 10:24 PM

Fraught. With what?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 May 23 - 04:33 AM

I wouldn't quibble over "fraught." If I ever use that word it stands alone without "with...". "Fraught with..." has gained currency in recent years. I don't care for that construction myself and would choose a different way of expressing it, but, as I've always said, language is wot people use, not what some grammar dictator wants us to use. "Fraught with..." is the more common usage. They're both OK but we have a choice!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 03 May 23 - 05:40 AM

We have a Scottish weather woman who pronounces Northern as Notheren and Southern as Southeren..I find it annoying.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 May 23 - 09:03 AM

We got bretheren and cistern, here...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 15 May 23 - 02:23 PM

Just heard this on my local news, about a labour dispute: "Both sides are far apart" - as opposed to that more common phenomenon of only one side being far apart, I suppose .... I hear these kinds of illogical constructions more and more these days, not only in impromptu oral news reports, which is forgivable, but also in written news reports (being read aloud), which is unforgivable.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 16 May 23 - 03:16 AM

If I am ever asked, in any context, "are they both the same", I am tempted to reply "No - only one of them is."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 16 May 23 - 06:17 AM

Buzz word (n): a polite way of saying "*bzzt* Wrong!".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 May 23 - 07:48 AM

A few weeks ago we had a bit of a beef about three-word slogans. Two more annoying buggers: the first, chuntered out routinely, presumably under orders, by government ministers when they're defending their paltry pay offers, "fair and reasonable." The other one, referring to discussions about food supply and prices, is "farm to fork." I get this subliminal feeling from that one that I should be cutting out the middle man and going straight into the field to take a chunk out of a cow with my fork...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 May 23 - 10:57 AM

Hmmmm. As me owd mother used to say, “Them buggers say owt but their prayers”.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 May 23 - 08:56 AM

Alleged.

When someone is caught in flagrante delicto, red-handed, in the act, they are not the alleged driver / shooter / whatever. They are the driver / shooter. What is alleged is that what happened was *criminal* -- not whether they did it.

Alleged murderer, ok. Alleged driver? No.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 19 May 23 - 08:49 AM

Methinks the late Douglas Adams may have spotted this tendency for reporters to pebble-dash any pre-trial reportage with the word "alleged", Just In Case. In The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul, the protagonist had been up before the beak on a traffic charge, during which her somewhat ramshackle vehicle had been called "the alleged car" by the constable giving evidence; this expression thereafter becomes a term of endearment for said vehicle.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 19 May 23 - 08:09 PM

We've had a labour issue involving an airline company dominating our local news for the past week or two - and spokespersons from said company keep expressing concern and sympathy for their "guests". A "guest", apparently, is what was once known as a "customer" or, to be slightly precious, a "patron". If I'm a "guest", why are you charging me for every little convenience?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 May 23 - 03:09 AM

I feel the same about 'from farm to fork'. There's a large sign outside a farm shop near here with those words on it. My husband asked me if it might be better to slaughter the animal first!
And in the McDonalds in Wroxham, they always call out, "Guest number four!" etc when someone's order is ready to be eaten. We sit at a table there and wait to be called, but sadly, we had to pay first! Odd way to treat guests eh?
My pet hate at the moment is that bloomin' word 'woke'. Have we therefore been fast asleep all these years?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 May 23 - 09:29 AM

Oh, yes, guest. When they say Can I help the next guest, and it's me, I assume they are buying my coffee or whatever, and sart to leave without paying.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 23 May 23 - 11:34 PM

"Surreal." I'm so sick of hearing anything mildly unusual being described as surreal. Ditto "insane."

One autumn recently, about one million snow geese which were migrating south had stopped to rest at a wildlife refuge near me. At about five pm, thousands of them would lift off in a great cloud, somehow knowing where to go and how to keep families together. It's hard to imagine wild animals doing anything more organized, but some tourist from New York commented to a reporter that it was "insane." Phooey.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 24 May 23 - 03:31 AM

Literally. As when an actress at some awards show was described as having "literally pole-vaulted down the stairs".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 23 - 04:47 AM

You're on a hiding to nothing when you criticise the "misuse" of literally. Your example is clearly ludicrous, but using the word in that outrageous sense can be a good instrument of humour. Mrs Steve is a stickler for being on time whereas I'm late for everything. I might be just stepping out of the shower when I call downstairs "I'm literally in the car!" in order to mollify her (it doesn't work). Literally in that exaggerated or "incorrect" sense has been in use for about 300 years. Even Charlotte Brontë did it. It's standard English, and if you criticise it you're literally up sh*t creek without a paddle.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 25 May 23 - 01:47 PM

It's kinda specialized, because I love early literature and music, but one peeve of mine is the the misuse of "willy-nilly." People use it to mean hurriedly or carelessly, but it actually means whether he wanted to or not.   Will-he or Not-will-he.

The hill was steeper than he thought, and he pelted down it willy-nilly.

Often when people use willy-nilly, they should use helter-skelter, meaning in hurried disarray.
======
Steve, no matter how many other people goof it up, up I will not accept the substitution of literally for virtually.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 23 - 04:39 PM

Well the thing with our cherished language is that, once a word or expression becomes common currency, used by thousands of people over a considerable period of time, it has evolved into standard English, whether we like it or not. I'm very indulgent in these matters, but I can never accept "albeit", "prior to" or "on a daily basis". Grr.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 26 May 23 - 03:00 AM

I'm obviously turning into a typical grumpy old cow. Nowadays I find the word 'cool' very irritating. I realise it means 'good', but why cool? And why do people here in my traditional Norfolk village always greet me with "Hiya!"? And instead of 'goodbye' or 'cheerio', they say "See ya later!"
But, having studied languages, phonetics, linguistics etc., I do see that all languages change and develop over the years. If not, we'd all still be talking like Shakespeare!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 23 - 06:05 AM

I think that a cardinal linguistic sin is pretentiousness, and I love it when the pretentious slip up. Then there's obscurantism. The whole purpose of language is to communicate, and it behoves us to do it in a way that makes it easy for the recipient to grasp our meaning. If we have to wrestle with what someone has said or written before we can understand it, the perpetrator has simply been rude. Obviously, in some fields of human endeavour it's necessary to use technical terms or words that are unfamiliar to most, which is fine and not what I'm talking about, though occasionally I suspect that legalese is used more as an attempt to confuse than to communicate ideas clearly....

This little beauty popped up here recently:

"Art, independent of the artist, can supersede the sublime."

Well no amount of anguished mental processing by me revealed what was meant by that. Maybe I'm just thick!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 May 23 - 07:33 AM

And instead of 'goodbye' or 'cheerio'

'Cheerio' - seriously? Sounds like something out of Jeeves and Wooster.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 26 May 23 - 08:26 AM

Pretentiousness is your selective outrage.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 23 - 09:43 AM

"Selective"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 May 23 - 05:07 PM

In my part of the Lincolnshire Backwoods, the usual expressions of farewell are “See you later” (often shortened to “Laters”) or, more frequently, “Cheers” (which I’m guessing is an abbreviation/corruption of “Cheerio”, although I could be wrong there).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 23 - 05:14 PM

Aye, tadah!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 May 23 - 03:19 AM

Well Doug, here in deepest Norfolk, people always used to say things such as, "Oim orf now, so chair-ee-oh mawther!" The Singing Postman sang "Cheerio" in one of his songs, ("Hev yew got a loit boi?'). 'See ya later' is a new expression to me.
In West London as a child, I often heard people say, "Ta-da!" for 'goodbye'. On Wheeler Dealers (car programme on TV) Mike Brewer always ends the programme with that word.
Cool, eh? (hee hee)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Stanron
Date: 27 May 23 - 05:49 AM

Yes I've noticed Mike Brewer's 'Ta-da'. Where I'm from, The Wirral, it was always 'Ta-ra'. I wonder how many local variants there are of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Stanron
Date: 27 May 23 - 06:23 AM

Or is Mike Brewer's version more like 'Ta-la'? There will probably be an episode of Wheeler Dealers on later today. I'll check.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Stanron
Date: 27 May 23 - 07:02 AM

I just caught the end of an American episode doing a Lotus Elise with Ant Anstead. It sounded like 'Ta-la' to me.

So 'Ta-la', 'Ta-da' and 'Ta-ra'. Any others?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 May 23 - 09:44 AM

Ta-tah

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 27 May 23 - 11:52 AM

It's definitely ta-tah in Nottingham too, though we used to be also fond of 'I'll sithee',

Never heard of 'see you later, alligator', then just ask Bill.

After 'while. crocodile

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 27 May 23 - 05:23 PM

The Singing Postman sang "Cheerio" in one of his songs, ("Hev yew got a loit boi?').

That was more than 50 years ago.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 May 23 - 02:23 PM

My bilingual niece... bonsoir, alligator!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 May 23 - 06:11 PM

My grandad was involved with German prisoners of war in WW1. He claimed that he could speak three languages in a four-word sentence when he ordered them to go to get water: "Allez wasser, you buggers!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 30 May 23 - 02:59 AM

Doug, that's true - fifty years ago! But Norfolk people still speak in the same accent, and always say, "Cheerio", not "See ya later", apart from the younger ones, which probably shows that 'cheerio' is on the way out.
Husband actually likes saying 'See ya later, alligator!' (in a strong French accent). He's taught me so say, "Eh boh da! Ee air-eh!" (a very rude f*** off type of rejoinder) in his native Malinke.)
I absolutely love languages, but some modern changes and usages make me growl. I reckon getting old means one dislikes change of any kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 May 23 - 09:37 AM

What do these young whippersnappers mean using You in the singular? I tell thee, the world is ending.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 30 May 23 - 11:23 AM

There's a young woman with a youtube channel I watch sometimes. Now, she's clearly targetting a younger audience, and her talk is peppered with all the current fashionable slang, and sometimes I literally have no idea what she means by some apparently widely-known expression or turn of phrase. I have to remind myself that when I was young, our talk was full of hippie, biker, and ghetto argot, all mixed together, so maybe our elders were equally bemused. However, my suspicion is that the good ol' internet has exaggerated this phenomenon, as so many others.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Jun 23 - 02:47 PM

I am understanding of people who misuse apostrophes when they can't tell possessives from contractions. But I WILL consider physical action if you've left up a sign with apostrophes for plurals.

I've rarely if ever used the word 'albeit' (allbeit?) and I know someone who really hates its use, but I have no understanding of where the hostility comes from. If it should offend me, I do not know why.

As for other sources of offense, most of them have been eroded over time. I saw a cute movie where a proper American teacher is explaining to the father o f the student how he's been marked down for not knowing the difference between 'can' and 'may', and it's plain to see the Jewish immigrant father has no idea of what he's talking about nor the difference. But his trusting attitude is comic.

I used to treat double negatives as anathema until I ran into foreign languages that simply don't care. I love that Russian has no definite article, though I suspect that is responsible for their long-time problems with democracy and the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 23 - 04:09 PM

We call it the greengrocers' apostrophe this end. You can buy a pound of potato's or half a pound of tomato's. And how about lending me some of your CD's?

"Albeit" doesn't offend me. It makes me smirk when I see it, because there are far more sensible alternatives (try "though" every time). That makes "albeit" pretentious. Same with "prior to" ("before" works every time) and "on a daily basis" (try "every day" every time). These three examples are all standard English, therefore not wrong, but they are decidedly not elegant English.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 01 Jun 23 - 04:22 PM

That makes "albeit" pretentious.

Spherical objects!

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 23 - 04:56 PM

But why use that silly word when a much simpler word, universally understood, will do just as well?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 02:56 AM

Because variety is the spice of life. 'Albeit' is a perfectly good, unambiguos alternative and I reserve the right to use it whenever I want to.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 04:52 AM

I wouldn't question your right, Doug, even if I were one of General Franco's grammar-police goons. I'd just politely request that you consider "though" next time...

Maybe it's because, as you know, I'm a very simple man...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 07:40 AM

Incidentally, I highly recommend Larry Trask's book "Mind the Gaffe." He was a mighty linguist and I don't care if I'm appealing to authority here. You won't like what he has to say about "albeit." He regards it as a pretentious and silly word, avoided by good writers and loved by bad writers who foolishly believe that using pretentious words makes bad writing good. And I heartily agree!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 10:33 AM

OK, folks: here's a couple of curious facets of English as she is spoke that sort-of annoy me.

* If I ask someone "Are you feeling OK?" and they're not, the answer is "No". If instead I say "Are you not feeling OK?", logic suggests the answer would be "Yes", but it's understood that I'm asking "Are you feeling OK?" with the implication that I expect the answer to be "No".

* If I say "You're feeling OK, aren't you?" then neither "Yes" nor "No" is logically correct.

Happily, these two curiosities cancel out in practice in spoken English. They may well not appear in other languages; contributions, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 10:35 AM

Oh, and I view use of "albeit" as often being for comic effect. Always look on the wry side of life.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 04:10 PM

Albeit: All be it? Although it be? Although be it? There's no way of extracting sense from this silly word. I'd sooner rip off me top and staple me tit to a beehive than be seen using this ludicrous word.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 04:54 PM

And don't get me started on "prior to." Yes, it's standard English. But it should never appear either in writing or the spoken word. It's a complete horror. It means "before," and I've never seen a single instance of "prior to" in which "before" wouldn't have cut it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 05:05 PM

And don't get me started on "prior to."

Nobody asked you to. It's you who keeps bringing the subject up.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 05:27 PM

But it's a pet peeve of mine, Doug! What the thread's all about! I rail against this stuff on a daily basis!

Shit...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 05:29 PM

And don't get me started on "prior to."

I arrived at the abbey, and asked the prior to arrange a room for the night for me!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 05:37 PM

I'm sure there are better b&bs in your area, Nigel! Just check prior to making your booking...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 23 - 07:13 AM

Hmm. A person in another thread (Rain Dog shall remain nameless), in what was ostensibly an attempt to take the mickey out of me, typed this: "D..... did post a couple of jokes, albeit you might not have found them funny..."

Well if you insist on using the nonsensical word "albeit" (it's a free country and you have every right), then at least use it correctly. The construction quoted above is completely ungrammatical. There's nothing more delicious in life that wannabe pretentious types misusing their pretentious words...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Jun 23 - 08:33 AM

What is with all yhe commercials saying Two times? Twice!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Jun 23 - 11:19 AM

‘X-year Anniversary’. Aaaaaaarrgghh!

Xth Anniversary…

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 23 - 05:32 PM

Dammit!

"...nothing more delicious in life that wannabe..."

That that should have been a than...

I could have been hoist by my own petard there had I not spotted it first...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 23 - 05:51 PM

We've had three weeks of brilliant weather and Mrs Steve and I have already had a lot of barbecues (including tonight, when I successfully barbecued some wild sockeye salmon for the first time). But we have not had a single barbeque or a bar-b-q. I might tell my offspring in a WhatsApp that we've had a BBQ, otherwise it's a barbecue, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 04:57 AM

Whom. This terrible word gets my goat almost as much as "albeit." Unless it's the object of a preposition, it should never be used, ever. Even then, just rejig the sentence. Constructions such as "to whom it may concern" (which is horrible in itself) are the only ones in which "whom" is barely acceptable. I wish "whom" an early and horrible demise. I think I may have used it here once but (in the words of Basil Fawlty) I think I got away with it...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 11:06 AM

"Whom are you?" he said, for he had been to night school.
                               -- George Ade

[Snoopy typing on top of his doghouse:]
    To whom it may concern:
[pause for one frame]
    Dear Whom,

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 11:10 AM

Whomever. This is surely a purely comic word in the same mould as octopi, fora and viri.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 11:20 AM

Who/whom
Whom is used to refer to the object (rather than the subject) of a sentence.

An elderly queer from Khartoum
Took a lesbian up to his room.
They lay on the bed, 'til he finally said:
"Who does what, with what, and to whom?"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Reinhard
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 11:20 AM

"Whom" is to "who" what is "him" to "he" - an excellent pronoun, albeit out of fashion in informal speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 11:29 AM

Reinhard:
Suck sinked!

Oh, sorry, 'succinct'

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 11:39 AM

> Two times

Hear, hear. A related annoyance is abuse of percentages: when an advert says "200% bigger", do they mean it's been doubled or trebled? place your bets, mesdames et messieurs. (I even saw "Reduces [the board area used] by 150%" in an advert about printed circuit board interfaces, which if taken literally meant said interface took up negative area.)

I'll pass over percentages per se, as that's a mathematical peeve which merely enables the aforesaid abuse by advert.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 12:09 PM

I can't think of an instance in which "whom" couldn't be replaced by "who" in speech, and instances in the written word would be confined to crusty grammarians who would be far better off rebuilding their sentences.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 12:20 PM

.... and I recalled the words of my mother, from whom I'd learned everything about playing the washboard.

'from who' just doesn't work in this example.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 01:46 PM

I think it does! Certainly in speech, and, if I wanted to express that in writing, I'd reconstruct the sentence. You're not wrong to use/defend it, of course, but, by the same token, we have people here who defend "albeit!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 02:29 PM

While so many are fretting about "albeit" and "whom," millions of your fellow native speakers of English are replacing inanimate "whose" ("of which") with "thats," "which's" (or "whiches"), and even "which."


It's based on a superstition that "whose" can only refer to people and animals.

I first noticed this forty years ago, when I was teaching at a large American university. Back then, fewer than half of undergraduates polled could correctly fill in the blank: "It's an idea _______ time has come."

It's found mostly in "folk" writing, even of people who are otherwise literate.

Here's an excellent example from the 'Net:

"Seems like a shame when so much bad material is rushed to DVD. 20th Century Fox should do something about this. After all they have released A YANK IN THE R.A.F which main claim to fame is Betty Grable and Tyrone Power."

"That his/ her/ its" is commonly used in speech:

"This is the lady that her car was towed."

"Which is the novel that its [or "thats"] hero turns out to be the killer?"

I'm peeved.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 06:05 PM

Lighter: To my ear, "that is/her/its" is not another possessive of "which", but a construction in which "that" = "such that". It is nonstandard English but standard Hebrew.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 06:11 PM

I always use whom with a silent m.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 07:38 PM

Which reminds me of a joke (do forgive wrong-threadedness):

Why can you never hear a pterodactyl in the toilet?

Because, with a pterodactyl, the p is silent...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 10:38 PM

Be careful! I made a joke in another thread about 'rap' music starting with a silent 'c' and got told off for doing it.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 05 Jun 23 - 12:37 PM

Has the conjunction "data is" been dealt with already? I'm beginning
to see "data are" (which I now find makes my teeth ache worse than
"data is"); thankfully, I've not yet seen "data sunt" (Frank da Cruz:
Kermit: a File Transfer Protocol, p12, footnote 2). The
existence of Commander Data seems to also have, erm, played a
supporting role.

That battle's lost. But not yet a related source of toothache: The
Meeja haven't yet cottoned on that "medium" is the singular of
"media", possibly because paparazzi hunt in packs.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jun 23 - 05:58 PM

To me, the greatest Americans of the twentieth century (in the musical context) are George Gershwin, Lennie Bernstein and Woody Guthrie. Do not piss me off by typing "Woodie Guthrie," yeah?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jun 23 - 07:00 PM

I've done it again. And how. It's Lenny, not Lennie. When you consider that I excoriate people for typing Woodie instead of Woody, the error is especially egregious. Pass the bloody hair shirt.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 02:33 AM

It’s Leonard.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 03:43 AM

Or Len.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 04:16 AM

No it's not. He was born Louis Bernstein. "Leonard" was an adopted name (I know not why), but no-one ever called him Leonard. It was always Lenny, or occasionally Len, maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 04:20 AM

He legally changed his name to Leonard, but that was never a name used by the people who knew him.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 04:44 AM

He’s always been Leonard to me. Never seen him referred to in the press and media as ‘Lenny’ or ‘Len’, always ‘Leonard’. That’s good enough for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 04:53 AM

Exactly. That's the press and the media. As I said, to the people around him he was always just Lenny. With a y. Remember when the papers of lesser repute referred to Madeleine McCann as Maddie, a name never used by the people around her?

It sounds a bit twee calling him Lenny, I admit, and when I'm talking about him I'd probably just call him Bernstein. But calling him by a name that no-one around him ever used doesn't sit well with me..

Anyway, the point is that it's Woody.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 12:03 PM

I have no issues with who/whom, I/me and so forth. I grew up using them appropriately. I don't see the need to restructure sentences for folks who don't, especially. There is enough dumbing down going on already.

However, if you say your pronoun is He or She or They, there is no need to specify the other cases.

My 3rd person pronoun is They. I assume you know the objective pronoun is Them and the possessive one is Their. I don't see why some people have to specify them all. In fact, it's annoying, and smacks of down-dumbing.

On the other hand, I have had idiots try to use They as my 2nd person pronoun.

I know loads of people who have no clue what I just said. Sigh. Why can't Americans teach English the way the French teach French?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 02:38 PM

The point about revising and restructuring sentences is to make oneself clearer and to minimise the amount of mental processing required of your recipient. We've all written something that we then refuse to alter as if it's some kind of cherished and sacred possession. Better to ditch it and start again sometimes. And if you've written a sentence that has "whomever" in it, you're a clot if you leave it unaltered.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 03:13 AM

True. It should, perhaps, be "whomsoever"...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 04:00 AM

I think I'll add whomever/whomsoever to my anti-ugly-English campaign, right up there with prior to, on a daily basis and, of course, albeit...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 09:09 AM

What's with "moist"? (Sorry. Why do some people find "moist" rebarbitive? Just some Americans?))

I've been hearing bout this for ten years or more. It's said to be "creepy and queasy-making." (Sorry. Creepy and disturbing.)

Just yesterday a TV journalist apologized on the air for letting the word slip.

Sounds fine to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 09:54 AM

It's a compliment over here. When sampling someone's home-made cake, it's polite to say, "Mmm, very good cake. Really nice and moist."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 10:40 AM

2 nations divided by a common language again? :-D

I'm still recovering from going out to roll a fag in Chicago...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 12:09 PM

…and I’ve been suffering gender-confusion ever since a colleague in Houston, TX told me I had a big fanny.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 12:32 PM

> What's with "moist"?

Try asking Adora Belle Dearheart.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 01:22 PM

Aaaaahh, those old times… Moist muffins and Fanny…

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 01:35 PM

Ah, Sheldon's Lancashire oven bottom muffins...

"When you were little, did you like Muffin the Mule?"

"Dunno, never tried it..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 05:03 PM

The alleged explanation:


https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/64984/science-behind-why-people-hate-word-moist

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Stanron
Date: 11 Jun 23 - 05:01 AM

I can't remember if this has been done but is it two teaspoons full or two teaspoon fulls?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 23 - 06:39 AM

Why make life difficult? Two teaspoons full, or teaspoonsful (or whatever - who knows?) of sugar is exactly the same as two teaspoons of sugar. If your teaspoon isn't "full", you can say level teaspoon, or rounded teaspoon, or heaped teaspoon. Far more elegant, with the added bonus of avoiding ambiguity.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 23 - 06:47 AM

From your link, Lighter: People who found themselves particularly grossed out by thinking of things as moist may just be more likely to associate the word with sex, the researchers postulate. As one participant explained, “It reminds people of sex and vaginas.” No disrespect to either, of course, but we're pretty sure no one wants to think about those things when they're browsing the baked goods aisle.

I think about sex and vaginas (and other bits) all the time, no matter which aisle I'm browsing, and indeed when I'm doing anything else that allows my mind to be drifting along at about 50% capacity. And I find the association of the word moist with those thoughts to be particularly pleasurable. I can't begin to believe I'm alone in this.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Stanron
Date: 11 Jun 23 - 06:44 PM

There as a song wasn't there?

A spoonful a spoonful, a spoooooonful.

That'd be three spoonfuls.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 23 - 06:55 PM

Spoonsful is correct but it makes you sound like a twat. Spoonfuls is great. Just like bucketfuls and lots of others. English is always wot people speak. It's a good guide.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Jun 23 - 10:10 PM

In recipes, it's teaspoons. Not full. Full would be redundant.

A spoonfull, sure.
A teaspoon or a tablespoon is a precise amount.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 12 Jun 23 - 04:56 AM

Spoonsful is correct but it makes you sound like a twat. Spoonfuls is great. Just like bucketfuls and lots of others. English is always wot people speak. It's a good guide.

I am English and I would say 'spoonsful' and 'bucketsful'. 'Spoonfuls' sounds really ugly .... and I dare you to make your comments to my face. ;-)

I agree that '-ful' is not needed and 'spoons' and 'buckets' would do but it's nice to have the option. English is a rich and varied language.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Jun 23 - 05:31 AM

Spoonsful / Spoonfuls

A quick browse has Merriam Webster, and Cambridge org both giving both plurals.
Collins & Oxford both give 'spoonfuls' with no alternative.

My own preference would be spoonfuls. 'Spoonsful' always sounds to me as if more than one spoon is being used.

Strangely whatever spellchecker my computer is using picks up 'spoonfuls' as being the wrong spelling, although it is given in all four dictionaries that I checked.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 12 Jun 23 - 10:38 AM

On reflection, I don't find 'spoonfuls' that ugly. In fact, I think I probably use both constructions without thinking, though I would more likey drop the '-ful' and go for teaspoons/buckets. I like to pick and choose as the fancy takes me and am happy that they all exist.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 12 Jun 23 - 11:16 AM

Moving right along .... I'm finding that reporters increasingly are hedging their pronouncements and speculations, to the point that much of the time, they're uttering inanities. So this morning I hear, "There is a 60% chance we may see showers" - no! there is a 60% chance we WILL see showers!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Jun 23 - 11:22 AM

there is a 60% chance we WILL see showers!

Even that may be untrue. I'm planning on staying indoors. That makes it virtually Zero%

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Jun 23 - 11:27 AM

Then there are the radio travel presenters:
The M1 is heavy! Well, duh. it's made of rubble and concrete or asphalt. Of course it's heavy!

Traffic on the M1 is heavy!
Again, yes, and getting heavier with the switch to electric vehicles.

There are hold-ups on the M25
Well, apart from this not being news to anyone, are the hold-ups the Dick Turpin style, or belt & braces?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 23 - 02:03 PM

Are you sure they're not holds-up, Nigel? Have you consulted Doug? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 13 Jun 23 - 06:22 PM

Why is raising the thumb of one hand, to express approval, referred to as a 'thumbs-up' instead of a 'thumb-up'?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 13 Jun 23 - 11:28 PM

Good question, Doug. Maybe it started as a contraction of "thumb is up."
=======
On then, to another peeve of mine, and that's the use of the word "existential" merely to mean "actual." For example, referring to a living, breathing zebra as an existential zebra. I suppose in contrast to a metaphorical zebra, whatever that may be.

When I was in college, existentialism was a sort of philosophy, a philosophy I never actually understood. No wonder. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says:

... it is difficult to explain what the term “existentialism” refers to. The word, first introduced by Marcel in 1943, is certainly not a reference to a coherent system or philosophical school.[1] Indeed, the major contributors are anything but systematic and have widely divergent views, and of these, only Sartre and Beauvoir explicitly self-identified as “existentialists.”

Reading about it now, I realize that it was a the attempt of people bewildered and horrified by the atrocities of World War II to make sense out of human life.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 02:58 AM

Hee hee Nigel, 'hold-ups' on a road! There have been many hold-ups here in Norfolk on our country pot-hole-ridden roads. I now imagine a gang of Norfolk peasants waving pistols and holding up beleaguered motorists! "Gimme yer bank card yew fewl, or oi'll shoot yew dead bor!"
Regarding 'thumbs up', I've always put up both thumbs when signalling approval, not just one. (I don't do things by halves!)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 04:14 AM

Absolutely with you on existential, leeneia. It's a pointless, useless word which even dictionaries struggle to elucidate. As with albeit, on a daily basis and prior to, there is always a far more elegant and far less pretentious alternative. Let's start a campaign in which we automatically start a fifteen-second, hundred-decibel belly-laugh every time we hear "existential threat." Away with the damn thing!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 04:25 AM

For someone who hates the word albeit, you don't half say it a lot, Steve. I've lost count of how many times you have mentioned it in this thread. We get the message - let it go!

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 04:33 AM

Yes, Doug, mainly because I know how you hate it when I do. Anyway, I never use it in a sentence in which better alternatives are available, at least not prior to today, and certainly never on a daily basis, albeit that could change (note its ungrammatical use there, a mistake commonly made by the more pretentious among us!)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: weerover
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 07:32 AM

...there is a 60% chance we SHALL see showers (convention being "will" in 1st person denotes intention or determination).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 10:59 AM

Convention in North America, if we are to understand 'convention' as the customarily-accepted practice, is that 'shall' is not used at all, other than by the rare schoolteacher.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 11:17 AM

Technically ... Shall can really only be used with I. One can't speak for others.

Will means intend to.
Shall means actually going to do it, no hedging about intentions.

A parent can say You shall to a child, but the kid still might not. So, twchnically, not proper usage.

It shall rain? Hmmm. Presumptuous, kinda.

Not that this is common current usage, I do know.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Rain Dog
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 11:23 AM

"Shall we?"
"Let's shall."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 01:32 PM

I think I read that the rules for "will" and "shall" were invented by some pedant in the 1600's. He felt that since Latin used different forms of a verb for different persons, then English should too. It didn't work.

I believe the only time I use "shall" is in singing "He Shall Feed his Flock."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 03:23 PM

Another one that's been bugging me is news commentators' uncritical use of 'believe', as in, 'Donald trump believes the election was stolen' - no! it is highly unlikely that he 'believes' any such thing; he does, however, claim to believe the election was stolen.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: weerover
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 03:29 PM

Fowler's "Dictionary of Modern English Usage" and Harrap's "English Usage" both declare that "will" with the first person (singular or plural) denotes intention or determination. I am not usually pedantic but when someone else is being pedantic and gets it wrong I can't help it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Helen
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 03:48 AM

This is relevant to the topic:

A creepy, dirty old man thinking about sex in a normal, everyday environment near other people, including girls and women, just going about their daily business, oblivious to his creepy, dirty thoughts.

Maybe this is not unusual for some (or even most?) men, to think about sex in normal, everyday situations, but to crow about it and make it into a big joke on a public music-related forum, open to all people of all ages. Is that normal and healthy or is it creepy and dirty?

And then to act self righteous about the comments posted by other Mudcat members?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 04:32 AM

Aside from the fact that the link is dead, that doesn't seem to fit in this thread very well. Still, the poster has hedged their bets by sticking the post in two separate threads! :-)

My pet peeve of the day, very topical, is the misuse of "solstice." Even the weather forecaster on radio 4 this morning, a professional meteorologist, told us that today is the summer solstice. Well that's not right at all. The solstice occurs today, but it's an instant in time, not the whole day. For us Brits it occurs at 3.58 this afternoon. I'll stop digging my garden for a moment, look heavenwards and pretend I'm a Druid, just for a minute...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 04:57 AM

The solstice occurs today, but it's an instant in time, not the whole day.

That would also apply to 'anniversary'. If you were married at 3pm, then your wedding anniversary would occur at 3pm in each of the following years. Try getting away with not taking your wife a cup of tea in bed that morning, then come and remake your argument.

If a newsreader says "Today is the King's coronation", everyone would understand that what was meant was "Today is the King's coronation day". It would not need an explanation that the coronation is a moment in time, when the crown is placed on the King's head.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 05:19 AM

"Today is the King's Coronation"? Not a great example, maybe...

"Solstice" has a specific scientific meaning (sol=sun, stice=stasis or standing still). It's a momentary event, but I suppose we use it informally to mean the day on which the event occurs, and that's hard to fight. But it can still be a peeve!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 06:27 AM

Generally, Doug, dictionaries regard anniversaries as being a date on the calendar, not a moment in time. Same with birthDAY. A minute before the solstice (God, nearly said "prior to" there...), the northern hemisphere is still a fraction away from having the sun at maximum angle in the sky, and a minute after the sun is declining from that angle. The "-stice" part of the word only applies momentarily.

After today's moment in time, the sun's angle declines on a daily basis, albeit almost imperceptibly so unless observed over a week or two. Sorry, couldn't resist...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 06:35 AM

Hm: Knowing the *instant* when it's Solstice is a side-effect of modern astrophysical knowledge and instrumentation; but it's a stationary point on a gentle curve. Knowing the *day* would have been high-precision knowledge Way Back When. I'll settle for "longest day", and skip further astropedantry (unless severely provoked).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 06:55 AM

Fresh peeve: "key" used to describe some event which enables others to happen ("unlocking" them, if you will), and that's a vaguely tolerable metaphor; but "key" has been diluted by repetition into a synonym for "important".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 07:05 AM

I heard a newsreader say that today had more hours of sunlight than any other day. She should have said seconds, maybe.

It's a funny thing that, after the solstice, sunrise and sunset don't start to close in on each other equally. In Bude, sunrise today was at 05.04 BST and sunset is 21.35. By June 30 sunrise is four minutes later at 05.08 - but sunset is still at 21.35 (we won't quibble about seconds). Something to do with the Earth being a bit wobbly in its orbit. Maybe it needs its wheels balanced.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 09:43 AM

OK, I consider myself provoked:

The Wikipedia article on the Equation of Time is most enlightening. It's not the wobbliness of the Earth's rotation on its axis: it's that the Earth's axis isn't at right angles to the plane of its orbit (which gives us summer and winter), and that the orbit's slightly elliptical (we're closest to the Sun around Christmas, which helps make Northern hemisphere winters milder). This may help explain my personal observation that the earliest dawn, longest day, and latest sunset happen in that order, over about a week; were we on solar time instead of mean time, these may or may not coincide.

.... that's Quite Enough for now.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 10:08 AM

Aha, not wobbly then. Must've been the Ardbeg 10 making me THINK I was wobbling...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 10:20 AM

"Is" commonly designates "the day of" - as should be pretty obvious.
("Is today the exam?")

Those who assume, extralinguisticly, that the whole day is the solstice are just misinformed.

Their command of everyday English, however, is fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 11:00 AM

Well the solstice has just passed (and the sun was beaming out). Can't help noticing that the nights are already drawing in... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 07:35 PM

Your point, Lighter, may well be the one I've consistently made here over the years, that English is wot people say and not wot the grammar (etc.) police like to dictate. One might feel that it's a shame when nuance is lost, as with unique, literally, disinterested, alternative and the like. Even worse when pretentiousness is allowed to creep in, things like prior to, on a daily basis and the dreaded albeit. It can feel like we're kowtowing to ignorance by accepting the "misuses," but language belongs to the people, not to professors in ivory towers. It's about evolution, not dumbing down, and the bottom line is that language is all about communicating.

But none of that means that we can't have peeves. And I'm peeved when allegedly educated scientific types such as meteorologists don't know that the solstice is a moment in time, not a day.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 22 Jun 23 - 02:45 AM

The meteorologists don't even know when the seasons start and finish. They refer to the calendar months of March, April and May as 'meteorological' Spring and June, July and August as 'meteorological' Summer. If they can't get the seasons right, no wonder they're so bad at predicting the weather.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jun 23 - 04:56 AM

It's a matter of having statistics that can be compared year-on-year. From the Met Office website:
"The meteorological seasons consist of splitting the seasons into four periods made up of three months each. These seasons are split to coincide with our Gregorian calendar, making it easier for meteorological observing and forecasting to compare seasonal and monthly statistics. By the meteorological calendar, spring will always start on 1 March; ending on 31 May.

The seasons are defined as spring (March, April, May), summer (June, July, August), autumn (September, October, November) and winter (December, January, February)."

It might seem arbitrary, but so is defining the seasons as beginning and ending on solstices and equinoxes. Doing it that way, summer started yesterday. As we've had six amazing weeks of "summery" weather already, that seems slightly absurd, at least this year. Another issue is the actual dates on which solstices and equinoxes fall vary from year to year. It's arbitrary, but doing it in convenient three-month chunks is more consistent.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 22 Jun 23 - 05:47 AM

People who pretend to be Druids, and the like, don't celebrate the solstice. They are out there at sunrise on the day of the solstice. If they can pick and choose when they celebrate and the the meteorologists can mis-name the seasons for their own convenience, there doesn't seem to be a lot of point in getting peeved about a moment in time.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 22 Jun 23 - 07:02 AM

> we've had six amazing weeks of "summery" weather already

Shortly to be followed by another false autumn, like last year: trees can't move away from the Equator fast enough to avoid the heat stress. But that's a peeve for a different Thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jun 23 - 07:18 AM

You seem to be peeved that I'm peeved, Doug...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jun 23 - 09:14 PM

Next time you hear someone say "paradigm" or (especially) "paradigm shift" ask them what they mean. There's a one hundred percent likelihood that they won't have a clue.

And don't get me started on "ironically." Is this the most misused word in our beautiful language?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Jun 23 - 03:23 AM

Originally I was disgusted by the interjection of the word 'like' in statements such as, "I was like ..." which is heard everywhere nowadays. But I'm coming round to the opinion that it introduces a feeling or a reply in a rather neat way. I'm trying to accept that language evolves, and I must stop being critical of today's changes and usages.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jun 23 - 04:12 AM

"I'm not gonna lie..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 24 Jun 23 - 11:48 AM

I sympathise, Senoufou: I used to be more dischuffed than somewhat at his abusage of "like". But I've just realised it's because everything for youngsters is a simile rather than, like, a metaphor.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Jun 23 - 12:21 PM

Steve:
Next time you hear someone say "paradigm" or (especially) "paradigm shift" ask them what they mean. There's a one hundred percent likelihood that they won't have a clue.

On the basis of the above statement, either you don't know the meaning, or the probability is not 100%.
Were you deliberately setting up a paradox? Or were you 'literally' commenting on its use when spoken, rather than when in print?

A similar claim can be made for the expressions 'quantum shift' and 'quantum leap'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Jun 23 - 04:41 PM

Context suggests that what Steve really intends to say is that only he knows the "meaning."

He seems not to be, by implication, one of the 100% of those you might ask.

Fun fact: Context is as important as a dictionary definition to a word's meaning. Consider "cleave," which is its own antonym.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 12:04 AM

No, I don't know what it means, and I find myself to be incurious. Another silly one is sea change. Or a raft of measures. Daft expressions that are avoided by sensible people.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 04:59 AM

I thought that I knew what 'paradigm' and 'paradigm shift' meant but after Steve's assertion that nobody knows, I looked them up in the dictionary. It turns out that I do know what they mean, although there is a second definition for 'paradigm', to do with linguistics, that was new to me.

I can't recall ever having used it, other than in this discussion, and is unlikely that I will use it in the future, so nobody would ask me - thus maintaining Steve's 100%. Otherwise, its 99.9999 ...%.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 05:30 AM

A quantum leap is technically the smallest movement of an electron to another higher orbit. Too small to see unless a photon is released when a smaller orbit is achieved. BTW an electron orbit is stranger than you think.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 10:47 AM

I looked them up in several online dictionaries, Doug, and remained generally unlightened. Same problem with existential.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 11:08 AM

Oxford English Dictionary:

"paradigm shift noun a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions."

Merriam-Webster:

"paradigm shift noun formal an important change that happens when the usual way of thinking about or doing something is replaced by a new and different way."

As I believed, though admittedly I wouldn't have phrased it as clearly if asked.

"Existential," ditto.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 12:12 PM

Hm .... a "quantum leap" may be small in physics, but is usually large in public discourse. The common elements are getting from *here* to *there* all in one go, without pit stops, and it being a surprise. As a metaphor, I hereby declare it to be annoying but excusable .... though the expression happily seems to have fallen out of fashion amongst the chatterati.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Jul 23 - 08:27 PM

I haven't re-read this whole thread but I've never seen anyone mention one irritant: The difference between "in to" versus "into"

"I turned into the police station"- No, you didn't. Not likely, at all.

"I dropped the butter into the bowl with the flour." OK- I'll be right over.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 03:40 AM

As with one of our high street logos: "Poundland - amazing value everyday!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 05:47 AM

"Right up until his death, the late Duke of Edinburgh received a payment..."

Good old Nicholas Witchell, our long-standing royal sycophant, said this on the BBC news this morning. Well up until his death Phil The Greek wasn't "the late," was he, unless we were all fooled and he'd been a dead man walking...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 06:18 AM

That "into/in to" one: there are quite a few of those that confuse the semiliterate or the careless non-proofreaders. All together, altogether. For ever, forever. May be, maybe. Any way, anyway. And the worst of the lot, All right, alright. Stuff like that. For decades we had a telly programme called It'll Be Alright On The Night. Grr. Apropos of "into," we were told by our priests at school that "onto" is not a word and we should never write it (they also told us to never end a sentence with a preposition or to start one with "And" or "But"). They were just dead wrong, of course. I mean, "onto" has been an English word since at least 1518...

One thing that crops up a lot and which peeves me every time is "and therefore...". Pig ignorant!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 11:56 AM

I just looked up the word trope. Basically, a trope is a figure of speech. I just encountered a new trope. Florida governor Ron DeSantis has been labelled "thirsty" for desperately wanting publicity and attention.

Me, I think he wants power.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 01:16 PM

> "and therefore..."

I find that considerably less irritating than starting off a reply with "So". Those who use it by conditioned reflex should be obliged by law to replace it with the directly equivalent "Therefore", and to have to watch their listeners' faces.

Its original form, which seems to have died out, was short for "You didn't go to Stanford as I did, so let me rephrase it this way ...." This ex-cathedra prefix was followed by a three-second pause, during which one could hear the creaking as the speaker's language was wound down to street level.

--- Oops: *bzzt* "Repetition!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 02:23 PM

" ... and et cetera ...."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 04:05 PM

They say "so" partly because they were told not to say "like."

"Well" works for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 05:01 PM

"And therefore" has never needed "and" wherever I've seen it. And, irritating though it be to Filk, I think that that "so" is a much better alternative, though admittedly not in all cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 06:57 PM

"And therefore" is, tragically, standard English. As is "albeit" and the egregiously awful use of "alright," "alternate" and "disinterested." There are so many really good, simple alternatives to these horrors, but the semi-literate and pretentious insist on using them. Therein lies the degradation of our beautiful language. But it's a fight that the great and good are bound to lose in this philistine world of ours.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 07:20 PM

I hesitate to list this one because I don't know whose ox I am about to gore: "supposably".

Right off the top of my head I can name three (THREE!) well-educated, bright people I know that use that word.

Does it come from 'back in the day', like, during the time of Ben Franklin, the 1700s? That's what it sounds like to me. I have never commented on it to any speaker but I don't understand wherever they got it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 07:37 PM

And another one, highlighted today by my Word Of The Day by Merriam-Webster, is "comprised." I don't care what anyone thinks: "comprised of" is just plain wrong and plain ignorant, used by people who know that they have so many good alternatives but who would rather try to be pretentious instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 04:24 AM

As is "albeit" ....


    {{Yawn}}

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 05:36 AM

I'm beginning to think that "albeit" must be in the title of your autobiography, Doug...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 07:23 AM

The more you object to it, the more I feel inclined to use it.
;-)

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 09:02 AM

As it's standard English I can't object, Doug. But I can bemoan.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 09:43 AM

Oh boy, can you ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 10:55 AM

If anyone is walking on eggshells when it comes to trying to be clever about accuracy of expression, it's you.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Jul 23 - 01:34 PM

I first noticed "supposably" about fifteen years ago.

Oxford affords many examples from 1696 (before Ben Franklin) to 1995. It's labeled "Now chiefly U.S."

Oxford cites both John Ruskin and Mark Twain.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 23 - 12:06 PM

Getting a lot of this type of thing today: this morning I got a magazine in the post with a wrapper that said "I'm fully recyclable. Please don't put me in with your rubbish."

How bloody twee is that. I simply will not be spoken to by a magazine bag.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 19 Jul 23 - 12:20 PM

.... can't .... resist ....

Then don't listen to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 11:29 AM

Level. I'm sick of hearing that "This painting is on a new level," or "I want to take our relationship to the next level." What exactly is the speaker talking about? And I'm repelled by the idea of a universe divided into tidy, parallel levels, one above the other, like a parking building.

To me life seems more like hillsides with twisting trails, some easy, some hard, some which peter out, some which go back to where they started, and some which intersect with others, inviting an unexpected course.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 11:49 AM

Question and choice of responses that come up on the screen on the gas pump, after I've filled up: "Would you like a receipt?" "Yes, please." "No, thank you." It annoys me to no end that I'm not given the option of whether or not I want to use my best manners with a damn machine.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 12:19 PM

Every dog has its day.
Why only one?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 12:50 PM

leeneia> "level"

It's built in, sad to say:

* Hom Sap has difficulties with continuous change: remember what a journey of a thousand miles starts with.

* Hom Sap shows unidimensional thinking by default, cf "left" and "right" in politics [snip: the balance of that rant belongs elsewhere].

Add in the tendency to label abstract things to save having to think (I believe it's called "ontic dumping" in the linguistic trade), and ....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 01:06 PM

Jamie Oliver is forever burbling on about how his recipes take his dishes to the next level. And what about crime in multi-storey car parks, leeneia? Wrong on so many different levels...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 01:12 PM

Meself, my car's built-in satnav is really polite, as in "Please take the next left turn," etc. Grr. She does sound like a nice lady, though, and we do refer to her as "she."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 01:51 PM

It means levels or degrees of interest, intensity, etc.

Not horizontal planes of anything.

But you knew that.

How do you feel about "a high level of accomplishment"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 04:40 PM

Steve, I am totally opposed to crime in multi-level car parks.

Recently I had a dream where I was wandering around Hell (although it was not scary or hot), looking for the DH. Later I went to a doctor's appointment and realized that Hell in my dream looked a lot like a car park, especially the part that had some crusty cables and scaley drainpipes.

Whenever I have to use a car park, I head for the top level, so I can park in the sunshine.

One good thing about car parks. I read an article about a photographer who wanted to really experience a hurricane, so he took supplies and waited one out in a car park. I admit that a car park is one structure likely to withstand a hurricane, but I won't make your heart ache by detailing the reason why he later thought it had been a very bad idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 05:10 PM

> "I want to take our relationship to the next level."

Just realised: They're playing Rogue, and haven't yet found the Amulet of Yendor.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 05:47 PM

I agree with Steve Shaw in condemning the now common use of "please" to introduce advice given for the recipient's own good, rather than a request for a favor. Worst of all is "Please turn to page 69". As an attempt at politeness, that succeeds about as well as "Please kiss my ass". The only polite thing to do with jumps is avoid them.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 03:13 AM

To back up, I'm with Steve on "comprise." You use comprise with the small things, as in "Fifty states comprise the Union." The public is so mixed up about this word that I don't use it at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 06:37 AM

The problem with "comprise" comes when it's used in the passive sense, "...is comprised of...". There's no way you can leave out the "of" in that case. I just think it's awful and ungrammatical, and there are several good alternatives, "composed of," "consists of", "includes," "made up of..." The "of" is already contained in "comprises" so an extra "of" is both ignorant and ugly. When someone shuns the plethora of good alternatives and decides to write "comprised of" they think they're being clever in using a clever word, when the very opposite is the case.

Some dictionaries do point out how some usages are considered to be inadvisable, but dictionaries don't judge. "Comprised of" has been used for a couple of hundred years and it's so common that it has to be regarded as standard English. That doesn't mean that the more erudite among us have to like it or even reluctantly approve of it. A bit like "albeit" really. Have I ever mentioned that one?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 06:44 AM

Doug...?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 06:01 PM

"Comprise" might have been a useful word if we had kept it in the sense it once had -- as a synonym of "include" that differs in promising a complete list. However, I'm afraid that's a lost cause. For most people these days "comprise" is a fancy version of "compose" -- and the OED tells us that that sense it goes back to the 18th century. It still sounds like a malapropism to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 11:08 AM

Comprise means is composed of, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 07:16 PM

Comprises, maybe. I'm a bit with Joe on this. The word is so commonly misused that it has lost its usefulness. Unless you're absolutely rock-solid on how it should be used, it's best to pick one of the excellent alternatives. A bit like "albeit," I suppose.


Doug?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 08:48 PM

Comprise/comprises

Fifty states comprise the USA.
The USA comprises 50 states.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 23 - 04:20 AM

The US is comprised of 50 states. That's the problem, Nigel.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 25 Jul 23 - 11:04 AM

> That's the problem, Nigel.

Do you mean in linguistic or political terms :-) ?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 25 Jul 23 - 12:21 PM

Re machines saying "please": That to me is better than them ordering me about --- I refuse to be a cog in someone else's machine. If a computer is saying "please", I take it as some programmer somewhere being polite to me at one remove.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 23 - 05:55 PM

Well Hal was always very polite.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 23 - 06:02 PM

I'm getting irrationally very annoyed with all these reports on human-induced climate change referring to carbon dioxide being "pumped out" into the atmosphere. It is never "pumped out." Completely wrong words. When I was an 'A' level chief examiner in the early 90s we decided that any comment about pollutants being "pumped out" disqualified that marking point. Likewise, any reference to "fumes."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 26 Jul 23 - 11:55 AM

I tried to add this €0.02 of mine before, but the 'Cat had a nap, so apologies for firing off my mouth from the hip ....

"Pumping out" might originally have referred directly to removing polluted bilge water from an oil tanker; this would imply making the pollution in question Somebody Else's problem. Take that basic idea, apply it to the tailpipe of a rust bucket or a people carrier, and there y'go: instant cliché.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 03 Aug 23 - 08:22 PM

Here's another term that irritates me: "broken," when it's used to make sweeping discouraging claims.

Somebody has a YouTube about one psychologist at Harvard who supposedly faked some data, and the heading is "Academia is broken." I asked if the YouTuber actually knew everything about the hundreds of universities and thousands of teachers and students that constitute "academia," but I didn't get a response.

Then we find The South is Broken, and How to Fix the Broken Supreme Court.

Somebody started a thread saying the Mudcat is broken, yet here we are, chatting, and the DT is still working. Plus the Singaround has been going for about two years.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Aug 23 - 10:40 PM

Bully for the Singaround!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 10:51 AM

Leeneeia: it may sometimes be a case of "in spelchek veritas" or "typus autocompletus", when the little offender adds an extra letter to (eg) "Britain is broke". But *agree* about the overuse of "it doesn't work" (which gets boiled down to "it's broken" by lazy headline writers), when what the offender means is "I can't get it to work" or "it doesn't work the way I want it to", or even "I know it works as it's supposed to, but it's getting in my way".

There's also the matter of severity, which is often context-dependent. Brokenness can mean anything from a small chip on the edge of a plate or the lip of a wine glass to a pile of shards on the floor.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 12:53 PM

"When I was clearing up last night after you went to bed, a wine glass got broken."

"Really? Do you mean that you broke a wine glass last night?"

"Well, er... yeah..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 02:07 PM

Not necessarily, Steve. A third person who needs protection might have broken the wine glass.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 04:18 PM

Well, leeneia, we are the only two living here and, worse, 'twas I who broke the glass...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 06:22 PM

Pronunciations. Now before I rabbit on, I know that yanks might have different takes on these words, so this is a peeve aimed at Brits only.

It's "olmund" (almond). If you say "ahmund" you're being a pretentious prick. It's "garridge" (garage), never "gurrarge" with that stupid soft g at the end. You go to the beautiful city of Bath for the weekend (Mrs Steve worked there for several years before she and I met, and my son went to the university there, and not to Bath Spa before you say anything). It's Bath, not "Barth." There will be others.

But if you do happen to be a yank, do not say "tomayto" in my presence.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 06:47 PM

And yanks, if I said "Moss-cow," Eye-raq" or "Eye-ran" in this country, I'd be laughed out of the building.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 07:26 PM

..... you're being a pretentious prick

You seem to have some very odd ideas of what is 'pretentious', Steve. I am beginning to think that the term could most readily be attached to your good self.

I cannot agree with you on the pronunciation of 'almond'. Hearing it pronounced as "olmund" one of my pet peeves.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 07:52 PM

Good God, Doug, and here's me thinking you were a northerner - and you say "ahmund"...?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 08:24 PM

For me, the "alm" sound in 'almond' is the same as in 'balm', 'calm', 'palm' and 'psalm'.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 08:43 PM

So you say "ahmighty" too, huh? "Ahma mater?" "Ahmost"?? You'll be telling me next that you say "ahbeit!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 11:21 PM

True story .... Child goes to school in Nottingham, and picks up the local accent from his classmates.

Mother: Can you stop him speaking like that?
Teacher: But he's a Nottinghamshire lad.
Mother: He doesn't need to advertise the fact!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 Aug 23 - 02:27 PM

Do you pronounce the "l" in folk music, Steve? To me, that woolden't sound rigghut. Sorry, I mean it wouldn't sound right.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 Aug 23 - 04:07 PM

Shulled should rich people give "olms" or "ahms" to the poor?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 23 - 04:39 PM

But what IS folk music, Doug?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 07 Aug 23 - 06:02 AM

Folk cookery: 'armonizing a cake

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 23 - 11:06 AM

I've been watching the women's football World Cup recently. Great stuff. Bring back Kenneth Wolstenholme and Motty, say I. These current strident teams of commentators are doing me brain in: "What a goal!" "What a save!" "What a miss!" "What a player!" I know that Ken and Motty used to do it too, but this lot, knocking sparks off each other, never shut up! I prefer the Brazilian-style commentary, "GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!!!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Aug 23 - 02:55 PM

Steve,
There are buttons on the tv, or on the remote, to mute all sound from that all-pervasive machine.
It also makes the adverts more entertaining.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 23 - 04:35 PM

Yebbut I need atmosphere, Nigel!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Aug 23 - 08:43 PM

The oustER should be the person who did the oustING.

The oustING should be the event wherein someone got ousted.

Not the oustER.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 15 Aug 23 - 04:13 AM

The oustER should be the person who did the oustING.

The oustING should be the event wherein someone got ousted.

Not the oustER.

I agree with that, Mrrzy, but I don't think that I have ever heard it misused in that way. Can you give an example?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 15 Aug 23 - 10:05 AM

"After his ouster from the presidency, the criminal psychopath swore revenge on humanity."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Aug 23 - 10:30 AM

Oxford shows examples of "ouster" ('dismissal or expulsion') from 1531.

It is, in fact, the original meaning.

"Ouster" ('one who ousts') is recorded only since 1869.

And "ousting" as a noun doesn't appear till the 1850s.

Which is now quite a while ago, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 15 Aug 23 - 11:08 AM

I looked it up and it was suggested that it was mainly North American but another site identified the earlier, pre-USA usage and reckoned that anyone who was well-read enough would have encountered it. That put me in my place!

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Aug 23 - 08:07 PM

The ouster of the president of Niger...

...was the military leader [makes sense]

...occurred on [does not]

But the latter is the way it's used, not the former.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 23 - 08:10 PM

But why would anyone use that stupid word?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 18 Aug 23 - 08:49 PM

> But why would anyone use that stupid word?

Perhaps to minimise the word count? sounds like the sort of word a desperate sub-ed on a tight word-count budget might resort to. I remember having to compress already-tight pieces when practicing for my Eng Lang O-level.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 23 - 08:53 PM

"practicing"

Oi, you told me you were English!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Aug 23 - 08:55 PM

English is a neutral-ized language. English is constructed by a combination of Germanic Anglo-Saxon languages and French.
Whenever a German word like the sun, which is feminine and the French version is masculine, or vice versa with the word moon, the ENGLISH VERSION is neutral.
In Chinese, there are no masculine-feminine distinctions.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 23 - 09:02 PM

And what would you know about English?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 Aug 23 - 03:50 PM

"practicing"

Oi, you told me you were English!

Okay, I admit to sometimes having to check before using words of this format.
I always refer back to two differently pronounced words, 'advice' & advise'.
'Advice' is a noun, 'I offer advice'
'Advise' is a verb, 'I advise'
All the other 'ce' / 'se' words appear to follow the same rules.

A useful method of discriminating.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Aug 23 - 05:25 PM

When you put U into color and humor we don't care.
I'm listening to folk songs sung in the style of pure tone Gregorian chant. An old English style gives American songs a pleasant twist.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 23 - 06:06 PM

I have a copy somewhere of Dave Mallinson's melodeon tutor for absolute beginners. All through the book he urges us to "practice, and when you've finished practicing, practice some more..." sort of thing. It was typed out in the days before you could easily fix things, and at the beginning of the book he added a footnote apologising for typing "practice" so many times when he'd meant "practise."   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 23 Aug 23 - 03:46 PM

" ... surrounded on two sides" - been hearing variations on that from journalists lately.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Aug 23 - 04:23 PM

Rising to a crescendo...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Aug 23 - 08:36 AM

A headline read something like DC fails to house 98% of homeless...

Um, aren't 100% of homeless people homeless?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 23 - 09:39 AM

The much-hated Suella Braverman, our home secretary, used the word "operationalise" three times in a radio interview this morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 28 Aug 23 - 02:23 PM

Another one I've been hearing lately from TV/radio journalists: the confused use of "blamed on" for "blamed for", as in this, just heard: "Technical issues are blamed on the delay of the flight".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Sep 23 - 06:25 PM

I figured out why I don't like "I appreciate you" when expecting Thank you.

You appreciate * what* I did, but you thank *me* ...

It is ungrammatical and robs me of my due of gratitude, while lowering me to the level of the inanimate hand I gave you.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 06 Sep 23 - 07:12 PM

"Inflation has become the boogeyman - um - boogeyperson - ...."

A TV journalist yesterday. It's important that we recognize that women can have the quality of "boogey" just like men ...!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 23 - 07:33 PM

Some rugby bloke on the wireless this morning rattled on about the perils of "lacksadaisical" preparations for games. I've heard that so many times. Dammit, man, it's "lackadaisical"!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 06 Sep 23 - 10:17 PM

.... why *do* so many people lack daisies?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 23 - 03:57 AM

Dunno, but the other day I picked a buttercup. I thought, "I wonder who left this buttock lying around?"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 07 Sep 23 - 04:07 AM

Dammit, man, it's "lackadaisical"!

I never knew that. All theses years I've been been saying wrong. You learn something every day!
- mind you, I can't think of the last time I used it, rightly or wrongly.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Sep 23 - 04:35 AM

Heard these two chestnuts on TV recently - BBC TV in fact! Shameful!

“Pronounciation”. Aaaargh! It’s “Pronunciation”!

“Restauranteur”. Sod that, it’s “Restaurateur “!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 07 Sep 23 - 06:27 AM

> “Restaurateur“

Good grief: Collins's (the aforesaid first edition) and Wictionary both agree with you. The latter gives an interesting etymology, and the usage notes are, ahem, noteworthy.

Note to self: remember to distinguish between etymology (words) and entomology (eg insects). That's today's second embarrassing discovery, and it ain't even dinnertime yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 23 - 05:17 PM

Restauranteur vs restaurateur is a tough bugger. You'd think the former was perfectly logical, but it's, well, not right. If I see it in print, e.g. in the Guardian, I seethe. Otherwise, I get it, sort of, though I do wonder why anyone would choose to use it...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 07 Sep 23 - 06:31 PM

Steve: Right. The choice is between "restaurateur" (the correct French form) and "restauranter" (a regular English form). Both are awkward; usage has chosen the first.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Sep 23 - 02:43 AM

”The choice is between "restaurateur" (the correct French form) and "restauranter" (a regular English form). Both are awkward; usage has chosen the first.”

Except that it hasn’t. ‘Usage’ has chosen ‘restauranteur’, which is neither the correct French form nor a regular English form - it’s a bastardisation of both.

It’s true that language evolves, and I’m certainly not agin that, but this one drives me nuts, pure laziness. And don’t get me started on the current BBC pronunciation fad of pronouncing ‘st’ as though there’s an ‘h’ in there - ‘shtreet’, ‘shtudent’ etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Rain Dog
Date: 08 Sep 23 - 03:23 AM

"Some rugby bloke on the wireless this morning rattled on about the perils of "lacksadaisical" preparations for games. I've heard that so many times. Dammit, man, it's "lackadaisical""

Whoever coined the word was just too lazy to include the required extra s.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 08 Sep 23 - 03:48 AM

I suppose "lacksadaisical" could be considered a portmanteau of "lackadaisical" and "lax". This excuse also covers one of my pet hates, "irregardless".
I'm not adding either to the spellcheck list.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 23 - 10:47 AM

The root of the first part of the word lies in "alack," as in "alas and alack!" Therefore there's no room for the letter s in the first syllable of lackadaisical. It's amusing to see just how often ignorantes choose to use big words just to look clever - but slip up. Delicious. Your man could just as easily and far more economically referred to the "lax" preparation for games. Or poor, or sloppy, or casual.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 23 - 12:50 PM

Missed out a "have" there, before anyone accuses me of lacking daisies...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Rain Dog
Date: 08 Sep 23 - 02:41 PM

Things change. You don't. A sign of the times.

I still don't like the widespread misuse of decimate. That is just me.
Others are happy enough to use it as they so wish. It does not upset me.

Anyway, I am all set to watch the rugby. Enjoy your night.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Sep 23 - 01:26 PM

I saw a poater that said Smoking is so ... debonair! and it took me a while to wrap my brain around that.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 09 Sep 23 - 03:41 PM

I don't know if anyone's yet brought up the way "than" is increasingly, senselessly, being used in place of "as"?
Then there's pronunciation: I heard Gerry Adams referring to "the half-penny bridge" in Dublin. No one previously has ever pronounced it other than ha'penny (haypenny). Assassin of language!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 09 Sep 23 - 04:12 PM

I don't know if anyone's yet brought up the way "than" is increasingly, senselessly, being used in place of "as"?

Could you give an example or two, please?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Sep 23 - 01:22 PM

Has anyone mentioned "on accident," which I've heard a number of times recently, as though it's the latest thing?

(What the sudden frequency means is that it's been building under the radar for decades.)

It's the precise opposite of "on purpose" and a replacement for "by accident."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 10 Sep 23 - 01:52 PM

I'll have to wait till I hear the horror the next time, Doug. Basically, it's when people use a longish statement with a comparison that would normally use "as" in the second half of the phrase, but instead they say "than". Keep your ear open and you'll hear it.

Lighter, what about "purposefully" used incorrectly to mean purposely. Different words, different meanings, innit?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Sep 23 - 06:10 PM

More, Thompson, than you probably wish to know:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/purposely-purposefully-usage

Most interesting to me is the notion that many people don't think "purposely" is a "real word."

And here's my pet meta-peeve. Nearly everybody seems to think Trump used to say "bigly." In fact, what he was saying was "big-league." But you have to listen close.

He seems to have given up the habit, however, just like he gave up his previous trademark "huge."

(Gotta stay fresh.)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 10 Sep 23 - 07:17 PM

Much as it pains me to be seen to be defending trump in any way, I agree with Lighter on the matter of what trump said: in the interview in which he was alleged to have said 'bigly', it is hard to make it out precisely, but I saw another interview somewhere in which he clearly uses the term 'big league' in the exact same way, which convinced me that that is indeed what he said in the interview in question.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 23 - 08:11 PM

"Things change. You don't. A sign of the times [a reference to me, guys!].

I still don't like the widespread misuse of decimate. That is just me."

Well, Stanron, I've said so many times in this thread that wot people say a lot inevitably ends up being standard English. We don't have to like the evolution (some I love, some I don't), but the fight is always there to be lost. It's somewhat ironic that you accuse me, after all I've said, of being unable to change, when you make this comment about "decimate." Unfortunately for you, it's been used in what you see as its non-literal sense for hundreds of years. It's a very useful word that implies mass-destruction without putting numbers on it - or, alternatively, it's a virtually extinct word meaning the killing of one Roman soldier in ten. Well we don't have legions of Roman soldiers any more but we can still, if we want, hang on to a very colourful word. Or not. Don't use it if you don't like it. I do like it, so I'll carry on using it and ignore grammar curmudgeons such as your good self. I like "gay" too.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Stanron
Date: 11 Sep 23 - 06:11 AM

Why bring me into this?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Sep 23 - 12:54 PM

Oh bugger. It was Rain Dog, not you. A brain fart on my part. Sorry about that. That's a half I owe you...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 11 Sep 23 - 02:07 PM

Bigly, while rare, is a real word.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 12 Sep 23 - 04:07 AM

A recent decision by TfL in London has been described as 'incredulous'. So what's wrong with 'incredible'?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 12 Sep 23 - 07:12 AM

That's linguistic leakage, G-Force; another of these is "sewerage" (ie piping and other infrastructure used in the disposal of waste) being used when "sewage" is meant. I think it's a kind of ladylikeness, a fancier-sounding word making one seem (one might wrongly think) more educated.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 04:14 AM

I heard one of our dimmer ministers using "personable" when she meant "personal" the other day. Oh, God.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 04:46 AM

Speaking of personable, what about the ridiculous "relatable?"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 06:47 AM

"Relatable", in the sense of "have a connection to" or "empathetic" seems like a perfectly good word to me, unless you have some examples of its misuse.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 07:22 AM

"Have a connection to" is a bad example, as this is more to do with "related" rather than "relatable". Instead, consider "has parallels with".

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 07:26 AM

Not arguing that it's not a legitimate word, Doug. But it's become trendy and there are lots of very good synonyms that may be used instead. It's pretentious, in other words.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 08:58 AM

Someone once accused me of being pretentious ....

I said Moi? pretentious!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 09:18 AM

You're only relatable if you're leaning in.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 09:36 AM

It's pretentious, ...

HA! I had a little bet with myself that that would be your response.

PRETENTIOUS definition:    Any word that others use but Steve doesn't.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 12:45 PM

Oi, Doug, I use all sorts of words in my posts that I don't see others using. If you're going to make up non-dictionary definitions, here's one of mine:

PRETENTIOUS: of words designed to make you think (mistakenly) you look clever and super-educated but for which there are plenty of simple and common synonyms, e.g., "albeit" (pretentious and often misused); much better synonyms "though," "although." "Prior to" (pretentious); the synonym "before" works every time. "Relatable" (pretentious); plenty of synonyms which far more clearly express the intended meaning, such as "engaging," "sympathetic," "friendly," "collaborative," "approachable," "mutual understanding" (these especially with regard to people). Or get more colourful: "on the same page," "chimes with me."

Also worth avoiding: "end result"; "at the end of the day"; "in close proximity;" "I have to say...", "3 AM in the morning hundred hours."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 12:50 PM

That was the medallion man on Fawlty Towers, Raggytash, "Pretentious? Moi?" :-)

Commonly used in our house!

(Used? Utilised? Deployed? Heheh. Pretentious? Moi?).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 23 - 07:13 AM

"Heavily pregnant." I hate this. There's a frisson of the demeaning about it in my mind with regard to both mother and child. The child is burdensome somehow and the mother sounds tediously weighed down. In any case, "pregnant" is a sort of standalone word that shouldn't take an adverb qualifier. We don't say slightly pregnant or very pregnant; well I don't anyway. There are better ways of indicating the stage in pregnancy that's been reached.

Inconsistently mebbe, I'm fine with qualifying "unique," another allegedly standalone word, not because I've given up the fight but because the meaning of "unique" has drifted. The evolution of meanings of words is time-honoured and is healthy and democratic. A good example is how we now use "decimate." ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 18 Sep 23 - 08:12 AM

> Heavily pregnant

That's shorter than "very obviously about-to-pop-at-any-moment pregnant", and marginally less insensitive. It also acknowledges, and sympathises with, the extra strain on the mother-to-be's back and feet.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 23 - 08:30 AM

Well I can't agree with that. Perhaps we could stick with "great with child."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 18 Sep 23 - 11:49 AM

> Perhaps we could stick with "great with child."

Agreed: it has a subtle gentlemanly charm, with just a hint of eau de KJV.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 05:49 AM

Just heard a brainless radio presenter (on one of those cosy programmes that cost the Beeb next to nothing to make in which a couple of people talk giggly shite down microphones for fifteen minutes) referring to her "significant other." To me, that's in the same league as "my better half," "the wife" and, above all, the thoroughly detestable and utterly buttock-clenching "my hubby." For God's sake. I mean, what's wrong with "my partner," or, even better, the person's name!

I suppose that, as on here, you may not wish to reveal your partner's name. In private messages I always use her name, but in the open I've resorted to the jocular expression "Mrs Steve" for many years. I will not resort to the twee!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 06:10 AM

Have you considered that "significant other" may be considered jocular by some and it's "Mrs Steve" that is twee?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 06:35 AM

Yes I have, Doug, and I've considered that they're wrong. If you see anything amusing in "significant other" then you need to go and join hands with D****l on the joke thread. "Mrs Steve" may be jocular, but at least it indicates that we are a married couple and there's no hint of inequality, condescension or property-owning there (as in "my wife," etc.). "Significant other" is almost as nonsensical as "albeit," in m'humble. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 07:12 AM

"Mrs Steve" may be jocular, but at least it indicates that we are a married couple and there's no hint of inequality, condescension or property-owning there (as in "my wife," etc.).

"My wife" is no more possessive than "my brother / sister / mother / father / aunt or uncle". It shows a relationship, not a possession.

"Mrs" is almost always adopted alongside a change in surname to that of the husband. In formal terms, the couple would be addressed as "Mr and Mrs Joseph Bloggs". How much more unequal amd condescending can you get?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 07:22 AM

Spot-on, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 07:36 AM

Mrs Backwoodsperson prefers ‘my wife’ to any of the other appellations suggested above, and she refers to me as ‘my husband’. Nowt wrong with either of those.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 07:58 AM

The word "wife" is as perfectly fine as "husband," no argument there. But in many cultures in the past, and even in some today, the wife has been considered to be a possession of the man, subservient to the man, or both. Gosh, it isn't that long ago that we were saying "I now pronounce you man and wife." And there's a difference between using "my wife" informally, as when your introducing each other to someone ("this is Erica, my wife") and formalising it by typing it, on Mudcat for example. You can then make a slight effort to find a more egalitarian form of words that is difficult to do in informal, casual, spoken contexts. In the latter case, both partners are present, which adds an extra contextual dimension that doesn't happen in print. Makes all the difference.

It's also worth noting that many men make a laudable but clumsy effort to avoid the possessive sense of "my wife" by changing it to "the wife." Some people at least can still see the awkwardness of implying that, somehow, she belongs to you and would rather avoid the allusion, even if you two wouldn't.

She's not called Erica, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 08:14 AM

My wife’s opinion is that ‘the wife’ relegates her to the same category as ‘the car’, or ‘the fridge’ - i.e. to that of being simply a possession - whereas ‘my wife’, as Doug quite correctly pointed out, indicates a close relationship.

I agree with her.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 09:04 AM

I agree, BWM. "The wife" is an object; "my wife" is a person.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 09:20 AM

Well I did say it was clumsy and it's not a construction I'd use. Put it down as a valiant but misguided effort to dispense with the ownership allusion. A similar effort to avoid saying "my wife" is "the missus." We're not far removed historically from "man and wife" and, as I said, in olden times and even in some modern-day cultures the wife was right in there with the goods and chattels. Gosh, in some cultures you can even have more than one. Even Jesus was a bit one-sided on the issue. "Whosoever shall put away his wife, save for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." Shows who has to be the decision-making boss then!

I'll continue to avoid "my wife," in writing at least. Seems that I'm a bit more woke than you pair of hubbies...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 09:31 AM

Seems that I'm a bit more woke than you pair of hubbies...

No you're not, Steve. "Mrs Steve" is no better. In fact, to use your word, I would go as far as to describe it as 'twee'.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 10:11 AM

I've used it for years and it's a jocular means of avoiding displaying her name, which is respectful to her and which avoids the tired allusions I've been talking about. I can't help it if you want to continue to stubbornly misconstrue that.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 12:44 PM

And I'm amused by the fact that we're competing as to who enjoys the greater wokitudinousness...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 01:27 PM

No Steve, I'm not competing with you. I am not claiming to be more woke than you - just that you are not more woke than me as your choice of referring to a spouse is no better than others available. Your objection to the term "my wife" as implying inequality, condescension or property-owning is, frankly, nonsense.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 02:57 PM

I didn't say that "my wife" is "implying inequality, condescension or property-owning!" I said that (in line with the history of the associations with those things of the use of "wife"), the term "my wife," as used in print, has a hint (the word I used, not "implications") of those associations. It will always be undeliberate on the part of the writer, but, to me, it has that ring about it so I don't type it. To imply, Doug, is to make a deliberate point without putting it into precise words, which is completely different from what I was saying. "My husband" doesn't carry those historical associations because, as far as I'm aware, there haven't been cultures in which women "owned" men along with their goods and chattels. But if I see or hear "hubby" it takes me at least five minutes to unclench my buttocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 05:38 PM

Let's just agree to disagree.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 05:58 PM

Cloughie: "If I had an argument with a player, we'd sit down and talk about it for 20 minutes then decide that I was right." I liked Cloughie...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 06:04 PM

I hate asterisks in swear words. Is it f***, f**k, f#@§ - or fuck?

I know what I think when I see asterisks in that word. I think it's f*uck!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: HuwG
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 07:50 PM

"My wife" as opposed to "the wife"; does the usage of "the wife" imply that one is treating the seventh commandment lightly?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 03:51 AM

How about "other half", whether "my" or "the"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 04:00 AM

does the usage of "the wife" imply that one is treating the seventh commandment lightly?

In what way?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 04:11 AM

"My car" as opposed to "the car"; "I'll be coming in the car".

"The car" doesn't imply taking without consent.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 04:32 AM

So you're now including your wife with your goods 'n' chattels, Doug! What did I tell you!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 04:35 AM

It should be "the other half," as "my other half" implies that your body comes in two equal and separable pieces...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 04:37 AM

I thought we had drawn a line under it, Steve.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 06:36 AM

'I liked Cloughie... '

That'll be Mr. Clough to you, young man.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 09:35 AM

"I'm not saying that I'm the greatest manager, but I'm in the top one."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 10:21 AM

"My better half" is the U.S. form and is usually complimentary.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 10:36 AM

Yeah, that's not bad!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Stanron
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 12:13 PM

From UK TV;

'er indoors
She who must be obeyed
The Management

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 12:20 PM

How about "the ball and chain"? Or should it be "MY ball and chain"? Or, "she who must be obeyed"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Sep 23 - 02:55 AM

My husband has coined a new expression for this : "Madame Yapp-Yapp"!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 22 Sep 23 - 02:42 AM

In Ireland it's common enough for husbands to refer to wives, and wives to husbands, as "the boss" - eg, "What, you want me to keep that stray puppy? I'll have to check with the boss."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Sep 23 - 08:40 AM

Meself... I loved Rumpole!

My radio station has started saying Area has (temp) instead of It is (temp) in Area.

No, Charlottesville does not have 25 degrees.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Sep 23 - 03:06 PM

The original "She-who-must-be-obeyed" (thus punctuated) was the Queen Ayesha in H. Rider Haggard's "She: A History of Adventure" (1887).

The 1965 movie starred Ursula Andress as "She."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet PeevesI
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Sep 23 - 02:16 PM

I wondered where Rumpole got it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 23 - 04:39 PM

Anyone who says "small little"
Why not "teensy tiny miniscule small little"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 23 - 04:50 PM

It's minUscule, Bill... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 23 - 06:07 PM

Um.. a "teensy tiny minuscule small little" mistake."

Now, should I add commas? ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 23 - 07:31 PM

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Sep 23 - 01:22 AM

“A tad bit”. Aaaarrgghh!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 23 - 04:06 PM

Innocent. In conflicts we hear that innocent civilians are bombed. Today, we heard that an "innocent" 15-year-old girl was murdered by stabbing on her way to school. Why innocent? Are we saying that you especially don't deserve to die if you're "innocent" in unspecified ways? Where I come from, even the most evil bastards are regarded as undeserving of death, seeing that we did away with the death penalty decades ago. So don't say "innocent." It's a brainless and emotional addendum to descriptions of victims of horrors. Civilians were bombed. A 15-year-old girl was murdered on her way to school. Two powerful statements that don't require further characterisation of the victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 11:47 AM

Oh, yeah, that use of Innocent bugs me too.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 12:16 PM

I'm struggling here with that affectionate term used for girls/young ladies, "lass" or "lassie," the latter usually applied to younger girls. It's what plural to use. If you see a bunch of nine-year-old girls, especially in Scotland, you might say "Look at those lassies!" Logical, or does it sound like you're referring to a pack of collies? I saw that plural used in the Guardian this morning and it faintly rankled. But a bunch of mature young women might be "lasses," eh? Do we really need two separate plural spellings for a word that sounds identical? Every time I see "lassies" something visceral has me thinking that an ignorant mistake has been made...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 01:31 PM

Just heard this one in a radio discussion of some TV show (why are you promoting your competition?): "He's a widow". This was repeated a few times, with no one correcting the guy who kept saying it. Is "He's a widow" a 'thing' now??

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 03:05 PM

He wasn't talking about a male spider, was he? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 03:07 PM

Masculine "widows" *are* a thing now.

Have heard this several times over the last few years.

It's like replacing "actress" with "actor." It supposedly helps in degenderfying life.

If that's your bag.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 03:14 PM

The Guardian style guide on actor/actress:

actor
Use for both male and female actors; do not use actress except when in the name of an award, eg Oscar for best actress. The Guardian’s view is that actress comes into the same category as authoress, comedienne, manageress, “lady doctor”, “male nurse” and similar obsolete terms that date from a time when professions were largely the preserve of one sex (usually men). As Whoopi Goldberg put it in an interview with the paper: “An actress can only play a woman. I’m an actor – I can play anything.”

There is normally no need to differentiate between the sexes – and if there is, the words male and female are perfectly adequate: Lady Gaga won a Brit in 2010 for best international female artist, not artiste, chanteuse, or songstress.

As always, use common sense: a piece about the late film director Carlo Ponti was edited to say that in his early career he was “already a man with a good eye for pretty actors ...” As the readers’ editor pointed out in the subsequent clarification: “This was one of those occasions when the word ‘actresses’ might have been used”

Let common sense prevail!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 04:34 PM

Da Vinci. This is just nonsense. Leonardo's name was Leonardo. "Da Vinci" means "of the village Vinci," which thousands of denizens of that village could have used. Leonardo da Vinci is fine. But referring to him as though "da Vinci" is his surname, without Leonardo, is just pig ignorant. I saw this in the Guardian today, and, of course, there's "Da Vinci Code." It's just laughable.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 06:31 PM

Leonardo's name was Leonardo. "Da Vinci" means "of the village Vinci," which thousands of denizens of that village could have used.

If I read a report where the name Leonardo is used on its own, it could be Leonardo Da Vinci, Leonardo DiCaprio or one of a host of other well known Leonardos. If the report uses Da Vinci on its own, I would immediately think of Leonardo Da Vinci. I would not imagine it would be Giuseppe Da Vinci, Leonardo's neighbour from next door but one, nor Giovanni Da Vinci who opened a pizzeria in the town long after Leonardo died.

If "Da Vinci" is used on its own, do you understand what is meant? In reality, is there any possible ambiguity? If the answers are "Yes" and "No", then it meets all the requirements for good communication.

To take a couple of quotes from upthread: The evolution of meanings of words is time-honoured and is healthy; Language is wot people speak, not wot professors of language profess.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 06:48 PM

Well, Doug, feel free to call me Stephen da Radcliffe. The bald fact is that "da Vinci" without Leonardo is simply not his name, end of. He was an illegitimate child and, if you look him up, you'll find that he could have adopted another name to follow "Leonardo."

"If I read a report where the name Leonardo is used on its own, it could be Leonardo Da Vinci, Leonardo DiCaprio or one of a host of other well known Leonardos..."

Disingenuous nonsense, Doug. If you read a report where Leonardo is used on its own, and that report means to refer to Leonardo da Vinci, there will one hundred percent be a ton of context, art, sculpture, whatever, that will confirm to you that the reference is to the great artist and no-one else. No-one is going to mention Leonardo in isolation if they mean Leonardo diCaprio, yer daft bugger. The bottom line here is that his surname is not "da Vinci," any more than your name is Doug da Ashton-under-Lyme or wherever it is you come from.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 07:19 PM

... any more than your name is Doug da Ashton-under-Lyme or wherever it is you come from.

The surname Chadwick comes from the "village of Ceadda (or Chad)" and originates in the parish of Rochdale, Lancashire (now Greater Manchester). The name has spread over the centuries but is still well represented in the North West of England. I think the parallels with "Da Vinci" are quite strong.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 07:42 PM

Well Shaw means "copse" or "thicket" (shut up, Doug), and is related to Littlewood. I had a fiancée who lived in Shaw (coincidentally) and we nearly got married until she thought better of it. I used to visit her by riding my moped from Radcliffe, down Bury Old Road then down Sheepfoot Lane by Heaton Park. Eventually I graduated to my dad's Vauxhall Viva and got there via the M62 from Besses to the A627(M) turnoff. Ah, those were the days. But I digress. Back to the cheery fray, Doug!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 03:54 AM

It's a bit like Santa Claus. It drives me mad when people call him Santa as if that were his name. His name is Claus, (short for Nicholas), ferchrisake. Santa means Saint.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 06:55 AM

I suppose that if you just say "Claus" you might get the odd double-take as people think you're talking about something on a cat. "Santa" on its own nearly always means Father Christmas and has the convenience of not causing confusion. In Italy there are hundreds of churches called Santa-something, and there's Santa Lucia of course (which I once sang in a duet with a boatman just off Siracusa in Sicily), but the default understanding, in an appropriate context, of "Santa" is that you're talking about the Christmas chap.

Leonardo added "da Vinci" to his name himself in order to distinguish himself from other local Leonardos. In almost every case if you're talking about "Leonardo" (and, as I keep saying, context is everything), there's no need to add "da Vinci," though you can if you like. "Leonardo da Vinci" is unobjectionable, but referring to a chap called "da Vinci" without the Leonardo is just ignorant and wrong. Incidentally, Doug, it's only "Da Vinci" if you're starting a sentence with it, otherwise it's "da Vinci," never "Da Vinci," and fusing the two bits into a single word is just laughable.

Everybody knows who you mean if you say Michelangelo, and if you use his surname at all (it's Buonarroti plus a few other bits if you're a purist), you're just showing off. In other cases of less-eminent people, you might have to add a helpful bit on to the end on its first use, e.g. "Geoffrey of Monmouth." You wouldn't then go on to calling him just "of Monmouth," would you?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 07:10 AM

"via the M62 from Besses to the A627(M) turnoff"

Before some present-day local puts me right, it was the turnoff AFTER the A627M, for Shaw, A640. Don't like leaving chinks!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 07:43 AM

Artiste is not the feminine form of artist.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 09:25 AM

Nice one, Manitas!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 10:20 AM

Did anyone make that blunder here?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 10:28 AM

It was in the quote from the Guardian, talking about Lady Gaga.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 10:38 AM

”Lady Gaga won a Brit in 2010 for best international female artist, not artiste, chanteuse, or songstress.”

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 11:22 AM

The three of you need to read that Guardian quote again! In no way does it imply that artiste is the feminine form of artist. In fact, it specifically says not to use the word artiste in that way, so no blunder as far as I can see. I have to assume that you're all fans of the Daily Telegraph! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 11:44 AM

I think it does imply just that.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 04:09 PM

Well let's take another look, shall we? Here's the bit that you three have homed in on:

"Lady Gaga won a Brit in 2010 for best international female artist, not artiste, chanteuse, or songstress."

The Guardian is quite clearly steering its writers (it's their style guide, don't forget) away from outmoded sexist terms for women performers. It's telling its contributors not to lapse into sexist (chanteuse, songstress) or incorrect (artiste, which has nothing to do with "artist," and if you use that word for a female artist not only are you being sexist but you are also dead wrong). That's the sentiment of that sentence whether you like it or not. There is no hint in that sentence whatsoever that the Guardian thinks that "artiste" means, or has ever meant (it hasn't) "female artist." Two things. Look up the definitions of artist and artiste in a dictionary, and have a good read of the Guardian style guide. It's actually very entertaining and it fully reflects modern thinking on how we must be careful with terminology. Go on, I dare you.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 05:43 PM

I would argue the point with you, Steve, but there is no point once you have made up your mind. Others can read the words and decide for themselves.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 06:39 PM

Nonsense, Doug. I can't help it if I engage with the issue more than you do. I'm very flexible and quite indulgent when it comes to use of language, and I'm always firmly on the side of non-bullshitters.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 23 - 12:30 PM

A couple of days ago meself mentioned a bloke referred to as a widow. I looked this up and it seems that, in newspapers at least, "widow" crops up as much as 15 times more often than "widower." Am I being woke in suspecting that this reflects something unequal in the way we see women in relationships differently to the way we see men? Anyway, a good read, though more than ten years old, in the Guardian: "Women and men are still unequal – even when they are dead" [Matt Mills]

And men are not "widowered," are they?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 01 Oct 23 - 04:56 PM

'And men are not "widowered," are they?' I've found myself wondering that on occasion. It sounds clunky, but you would think there'd be a simple way to get that idea across ... ?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 23 - 07:33 PM

Pretentious foodie things. "Compote" (mushed up fruit). "A medley of vegetables" (a load of boiled broccoli, carrots and peas piled up in a dish). "Artisanal" ( same as your other stuff but at twice the price). "Fine dining" (fourteen courses of cold, tiny portions on huge plates, often with a "theme" - I once endured such a "feast" in which thinly sliced radishes appeared in at least half the dishes).

If you're somehow persuaded to go to a "fine dining" restaurant, take my advice and make sure that there's a good chippy on your way home.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 01 Oct 23 - 09:41 PM

Came across a use of "than" when "as" would be correct. It's in The Atlantic:

The cultivated apple-tree was first introduced into this country by the earliest settlers, and it is thought to do as well or better here than anywhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 04:15 AM

To my hearing, "as" has not been replaced by "than". It is simply missing. The correct form should be:

.... as well as or better than ....


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 04:23 AM

Mine too, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 05:52 AM

I can't see much wrong with the original sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 09:48 AM

After another look I kind of agree with Doug. Better still, a rebuild of the sentence might have worked. It's one of those things that wouldn't matter much if you said it but which looks awkward in print.

The cultivated apple-tree was first introduced into this country by the earliest settlers, and it is thought to do as well or better here than anywhere else.

"The cultivated apple tree, first introduced into this country by the earliest settlers, is thought to do at least as well here as anywhere else."

I left it in, but I'm not keen on "is thought..." as it's tantamount to weasel words (thought by who?) but hey ho, and "apple tree" does not need a hyphen.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 01:31 PM

There was a cartoon a few years ago in the "New Yorker" that showed a hip young couple passing a storefront advertising "Artisinal Kick in the Butt! Really Painful! Ruins Your Day!"

The young woman says, "Ooooh! Artisinal!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 09:46 PM

Hmmm on widow/widower. Both are widowed, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 23 - 05:56 AM

If you read the (rather old) Guardian piece, you'll see that bereaved men are far less likely to be referred to as widowers than bereaved women are referred to as widows.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 23 - 07:50 AM

Advisor. This is not the traditional spelling of this word, which should be spelled "adviser." I can't claim that "advisor" is incorrect, as it's used so much that it's now standard English, but it grates. Yanks may beg to differ, though even the NYT uses "adviser." I blame Trip Adviser.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Oct 23 - 08:01 AM

Merriam-Webster:

"[T]here are some cases in which one tends to be used more often than the other. Some people feel that 'advisor' is more formal, and it tends to be found more often when applied to official positions, such as an advisor to a president. When referring to someone who is serving in a military role, especially when using the term as a euphemism (as when claiming that troops are actually military 'advisers'), then 'adviser' is somewhat more common."

Makes sense. Not.

In my brain, an "adviser" simply advises, but an "advisor" occupies a paid position to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: gillymor
Date: 06 Oct 23 - 08:40 AM

Trump as Speaker would be like pouring gasoline on an already blazing dumpster fire.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 23 - 12:54 PM

But we don't need two words for it, Lighter. And you're talking American. Ever been called Lightor?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Oct 23 - 01:27 PM

Around here they're pronounced the same. Same word, alternative spellings.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 23 - 04:26 PM

Advise and advise, practice and practise, different words with different meanings. Advisor, adviser, same word, same meaning (whatever you say) so no need for two spellings. It's mostly an American thing, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 23 - 06:06 AM

Pee and poo. Just stoppit now. It's piss and shit, two beautiful words so redolent of the stuff/action involved. We've used them since the 1300s. Out with twee euphemisms, say I!

It's quite interesting, however, that grown men and women even in mixed company, even if they don't know each other very well, will often say things like "Hang on a minute, I just need to go for a wee," the norm round here. You don't hear "Hang on, I'm just going for a shit," presumably because most healthy adults will have dealt with that before leaving the house.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Oct 23 - 01:06 PM

Advise and advise, practice and practise

What is the difference between 'advise' and 'advise'?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 23 - 01:20 PM

Wow, didn't spot that. I meant advise and advice. It was the autocorrect thingie. It's just done it to me again in this post three times in a row! To he'll with spellcheckers!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Oct 23 - 10:02 AM

My spellchecker just follows me around and beeps at me. It can be added to or corrected to MY choices. It recognizes both advise and advice, so I can use either...depending on context.

https://tinyspell.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Oct 23 - 03:22 PM

I just watched a YouTube thing where some guy was telling about a man who suffered ridicule when you was young... he was reading from some script, and he pronounced it re-DIC-you-el!|

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 23 - 03:46 PM

Oi, Bill, we hear a lot from you guys talking about Eye-ran and Eye-raq, not forgetting Dubya with his "noo-queue-ler"!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Oct 23 - 03:55 PM

Ha! I yell at them every chance I get...And I remember a Brit news guy talking about
Nic-uh-RAG-you-uh.

And everyone in Australia pronouncing 'pain' and 'pine' the same way.

No wonder the English language bewilders foreigners.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Oct 23 - 04:20 PM

…and don’t well-known British TV and radio presenters talking about ‘Eye-bee-fah’

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Oct 23 - 04:36 PM

“…and don’t forget well-known…”

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 23 - 05:03 PM

I love Strictly (shoot...), but the judge Motsi, who is brilliant, has this irritating habit of prefacing her judgements with "For me,..." Grr!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Oct 23 - 02:00 PM

I thought adviser was just misspelled...

Still working on eliminating Stray Bullet.

Still working on atheism being an absence of belief in diety, not a faith-based position that no gods *can* exist.

Both of those came up recently.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Oct 23 - 02:21 PM

…or should that be ‘ætheism’, Mrrzy? ;-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 23 - 03:59 PM

Atheism is neither of those things. It's not an absence of anything (why should I be defined in the negative?), neither is it faith-based. It's a sort of shrug of the shoulders in the face of irrational affirmations.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Oct 23 - 04:59 PM

Well, we philosophers will always point out differences between atheism, 'faith based' assertions of the impossibilities of 'gods', militant agnosticism and simple refusal to think about it all.
   A long thread on 'creationism' awhile back added another idea to the burbling pot... and now a few cosmologists want to re-introduce the idea that our 'reality' is merely a projection from another realm of being! (One more level above quarks and Higgs bosons, electrons and positrons, atoms, molecules, animal, vegetable and mineral, consciousness...etc...)

There is a tendency to assume that if there is a noun, it must refer to 'something'. Bah!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 23 - 06:04 PM

Well I've seen cod-atheists asserting that God is impossible. Real atheists never say things like that. I think I know that there's no Loch Ness monster. Of that I'm pretty certain (did you notice the two caveats there?) Even Richard Dawkins says that he can't be absolutely sure that there's no God (as defined by the major religions). If you ask me if I believe in God and I answer no, you've hoodwinked me into allowing the conversation to move firmly on to your territory, and I'm not having it. The best answer is that you're asking me an illegitimate question. So "Do you believe in God?" is a pet peeve of mine!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 10 Oct 23 - 07:32 PM

.... simple refusal to think about it all.

To my mind, the most appropriate response to "Do you believe in God?" would be "Does it matter?". No matter how strong a mere mortal's belief may be, either for or against, it would have no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a supernatural being.

I don't know if it's a real word, but I describe myself as an apothet - it makes no difference one way or the other. I try to live my life as a polite, caring, socially aware and responsible citizen, not because I fear eternal damnation, but because it's the way I choose to live.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 23 - 08:09 PM

"Does it matter?" legitimises the question. Not only that (another peeve coming up...), the word "believe" is grossly overused. If you assert that you believe in something you're absolving yourself from being challenged for evidence. Especially if God is involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 04:07 AM

If you assert that you believe in something you're absolving yourself from being challenged for evidence.

Not at all, Steve. For example, I believe I truly am the natural-born son of the married couple by whom I was raised and whom I regarded as my parents. If necessary I could refer to my birth certificate in support of this belief, and would not object to a DNA test.

The evidence behind my religious beliefs is circumstantial and subjective, but it exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 05:13 AM

You are able to provide rock-solid evidence for your parentage, which no-one can deny. Whatever evidence you think you have for your religious beliefs may be sufficient for you and good luck with that. That's a respectable position. Air that evidence in public when there are a few thinking atheists around and not only would your evidence be in peril of being debunked but it would also likely be shown to not be evidence in the strict sense at all. Best to keep your belief private. I've been saying just that to folks of a religious persuasion for decades. ;-) So your parentage need not be stated as a belief at all. Morrisons are currently selling a highly rated Spanish red wine. Do you believe me? Well here's the wine with their logo on the label and here's the receipt I got for it this morning, and you can find its high score, the sum of thousands of customer reviews, on Vivino. You don't have to believe me. In fact, I'd rather you didn't say that you do!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 07:38 AM

If you have no principles, avoid moderation:


https://tinyurl.com/36b5kev8

"Republican state Rep. Craig Williams has been trying to build internal party support for an undeclared 2024 bid for Pennsylvania attorney general, but he got some unwelcome news when a powerful national party group [the Republican Attorney Generals Association] trashed him as dishonest and 'very moderate, unprincipled and opportunistic.'"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 12:09 PM

So whaddya think: is 'very moderate' an error - typo or misusage - or is being 'moderate' as egregious a characteristic as being 'unprincipled' and 'opportunistic' in the modern GOP? Hard to know ....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 12:24 PM

Errrrmmm…Language Pet Peeves????

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 01:07 PM

No, Steve, for the extreme populists of the Republican party (now about 90% of it) "moderation" in the pursuit of their version of liberty is, to paraphrase Barry Goldwater, "no virtue."

Moderates, in that view, are just fast-talking cowards.

Bonus peeve: "cowardly" being used as the preferred synonym for "treacherous" (no matter how daring) and "coward" for "miscreant" or "monster (ditto).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 04:08 PM

Oh dear. Even this thread had been captured.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 04:26 PM

Captured by what? Pejoration of "moderate" is a linguistic development explicable by politics.

Traditionally the word has had neutral or positive connotations.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 04:38 PM

Whaddya mean, Lighter, " No, Steve?" I haven't waded in on that one! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 05:27 PM

No "No, Steve," Steve. Obviously, I would have thought!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 06:29 PM

"So "Do you believe in God?" is a pet peeve of mine!"

Oh yes! Phrased that way, it assumes a "God" in the very construction.

A better question is, "Do you believe in some sort of god or gods?"

Either way, I can only shrug and say, "I have no personal experience with any."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 12 Oct 23 - 12:26 PM

Here's a peeve of mine: categorically, as in "I categorically deny that I broke the windows."

What is it supposed to mean? I believe the speaker wants to convey "emphatically" or "without a doubt," because how do categories enter into it?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 23 - 01:52 PM

"This new seasonal wine range is our biggest yet and …. means shoppers can get fantastic quality wines at accessible price points”. (from a website recommending some Aldi wines)


"Accessible price points?" What jargonistic mumbo-jumbo is this? Inexpensive? Cheap enough for the cash-strapped hoi polloi? Bargain basement? Pretentious nonsense!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 13 Oct 23 - 04:02 AM

One of my cookbooks contained a reference to a "very moderate" oven, no degrees or regulo number. Is that supposed to be hotter or cooler than just plain "moderate"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Oct 23 - 05:32 AM

Gosh, Bob, "regulo!" Haven't heard that for yonks. I'm putting it in the "words that should be reintroduced" thread! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Oct 23 - 05:55 PM

Um, sorry, Steve Shaw, the a- root of a-theism does, precisely, mean lack of. Lack of theism.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Oct 23 - 06:56 PM

Just a word, just a word, old chap. Words are wot people mean them to be, otherwise language collapses. "Atheist" is no more than a term of convenience, as it's such a hard concept for people of belief to get their heads round. And a lot depends on whoever it was who invented the word. I hate to be characterised by a single word, but, in modern parlance, I'm an atheist and there's no getting away from it. Once again, the "a" in atheist puts me in the negative, which I'm not having. "Atheist" wouldn't even be a word at all were it not for the highly-irrational billions who "believe in God." It's a word necessitated by their delusion. Think about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: PHJim
Date: 16 Oct 23 - 03:59 AM

I could care less.
Do you want to come with?
I blame John Dean for this during the Watergate hearings. "At this point..." or "At this time..." not "At this point in time..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Oct 23 - 01:27 PM

"It's a word necessitated by their delusion."

I totally understand how & why our remote ancestors 'delusion' was necessitated by so many things they could not comprehend. Human minds, once they could reason, however vaguely and wrongly, sought for answers.
Lightning, seasons, death, etc... were much easier to relate to by reference to unseen entities, and once prettier and more complex stories about those entities were developed, along with human interpreters, it became 'simpler' to accept the given stories rather than to continue wondering and questioning. (and often usually safer).

   Today, genuine atheism is pretty rare in societies with authoritarian regimes. In my case, I have turned down a job offer in Texas because I knew I'd eventually say the wrong thing to the wrong people at the wrong time. My habit from childhood was to question strange authoritarian assertions.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Oct 23 - 03:11 PM

From an evolutionary perspective, faith *preceded* intelligence.

The Agency fallacy is something 3-year olds go through on their way to developing 5-yo thinking, following the likely development of human intelligence from more primitive (meaning closer to the point of origin) cognitive abilities.

People who believe in anythingsupernatural fail to outgrow it, is all.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Paul Burke
Date: 17 Oct 23 - 06:17 AM

"From an evolutionary perspective, faith *preceded* intelligence."

Hmm, citation needed. Maybe you mean "developmental point of view". Or maybe faith in the soft sense, as distinct from Faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Oct 23 - 07:45 AM

Human intelligence is based on language.

You can't have conscious, reflective "faith" or "belief" without language.

Therefore both faith and intelligence "evolved" at about the same time. So did inductive logic. ("If such-and-such is true, so-and-so should be true too.")

Deductive logic, however, took millennia.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Oct 23 - 09:04 AM

No, the data beg to differ.

A 3yo has language but not complex rational thought.

A 3yo has the Agency fallacy. This is the birth of Faith.

You can have language and an earlier form of intelligence.

Anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 02:58 AM

I'm currently flinching every day by the misuse of the word 'after':

Woman Killed After Collision

Is there a serial killer going around killing helpless car crash victims?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 06:16 AM

There's a local farmer called Mr Bunkham who shows his prize cows. The caption under his photo in this week's local paper called him Mr Bunkum. :-) (the adjoining article spelled his name correctly several times). The paper is notorious for its amusingly-poor proofreading.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 07:57 AM

Have I mentioned "fact" for "notion, claim, or idea"?

I've been hearing it almost daily for decades: "What about the fact that...?" "As for the fact that...."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 10:06 AM

Point taken, but if it's a fact it's a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 01:57 PM

It's always a bit embarrassing on this side of the Atlantic (where we say "full stop" for the "." at the end of a sentence) when Americans make a strong declarative statement, and end it by saying "Period". Should we be offering Tampax?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 03:29 PM

I kinda like (potential pet peeve there) most American English, but "period" for full stop is just bloody silly. It doesn't mean anything, whereas "full stop" means what it says in unequivocal terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 05:53 PM

Here's a typical one from my files, from 2009:

"We can't be lulled into the fact that all the Al-Qaeda people are flubs....They are expert bombers."

From 1968:

"We're banking on the fact that Dr. Halvorsen's [crackpot] theory [that we don't believe] is correct."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 06:21 PM

You can't have a "correct theory." A theory is not a fact or a final conclusion. In its finest form, it's a concept that becomes ever stronger as evidence continues to accumulate, or it's a concept that may cheerfully be blown out of the water by powerful evidence that undermines it. The misuse of the word by non-scientists who are trying to look clever infuriates many a scientist. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 07:10 PM

Right on about the after thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 07:29 PM

"Full stop" and "period" are just conventions. Neither one is 'right'.

I know what either one means, and I HAVE heard "full stop" over here.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 07:33 PM

It's not about right or wrong, Bill. It's about irritants... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 20 Oct 23 - 01:30 AM

I've no objection to Americans calling a full stop a period. It's when the word is used as a bullying "And that's what I think, and that's right, so shut up" ending to a statement it makes me laugh. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 20 Oct 23 - 04:30 AM

"Correct theory"
Call me pedantic, but I would argue that you can have a correct theory. However, it shouldn't be called correct until proven so, at which point it ceases to be a theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 23 - 05:21 AM

You don't "prove" theories. That's not allowed for in the scientific method. It's all about accumulating evidence to get ever nearer to the truth. Theories are there to explain the phenomena we encounter, but science is humble enough to leave the quest for truth ever-open.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Oct 23 - 10:24 AM

Right. You can disprove, or provide support for.

The headline had read Judge killed by suspect, but before I could complain, it was changed to Suspect in judge's killing...

Someone else was faster.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 25 Oct 23 - 11:00 AM

> Whoopi Goldberg: "I’m an actor – I can play anything."

I'd like to see her play the young lad in Equus.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 25 Oct 23 - 11:41 AM

> You don't "prove" theories. That's not allowed for in the scientific
> method.

Correct. The word "proof", after all, originally meant "test", as in "degrees proof" of alcohol, and the true meaning of "proof of the pudding", and of "the exception proves the rule".

As it happens, I've just been re-reading Simon Singh's Fermat's Last Theorem, in which he points out that the scientific theory is the poor relation of the mathematical theorem. The latter is absolute (admittedly the underlying axioms are accepted as true).* The same is true for proofs.

* Shut up at the back there, Gödel.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 26 Oct 23 - 10:13 AM

Strictly speaking, this may not belong here,* but it peeves me summat rotten that I don't know the answer:

If B thinks doing X will help A, then discusses it with A before doing it, it's a conspiracy.

If B thinks doing X will help A, and does X anyway without asking, what is it? "Collusion" is a milder synonym for conspiracy, so it ain't that; the nearest I can get is "aiding without abetting", which is ugly, or "giving aid and succour", which is needlessly legalistic.

I open the query to the floor. Have at it, gentlecatters.

* And I may well have asked this elsewhere already. I blame bit rot in the wetware.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 Oct 23 - 07:26 PM

If B thinks doing X will help A, and does X anyway without asking, resulting in a positive outcome for A, then it is benevolence.

If B thinks doing X will help A, and does X anyway without asking but, in fact, hinders rather helps A then it is interference.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 Oct 23 - 07:39 PM

Even if B's actions achieved the outcome that A would have hoped for, left to themselves, it would still be interference if A would have preferred to get there by their own efforts.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Oct 23 - 10:56 PM

Um, no, it doesn't stop being a theory when (might as well be) proven. See relativity, gravity, evolution. All well-established, well-demonstrated, theories.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 Oct 23 - 03:01 AM

I expect this has been brought up before on this thread, but I just had to post this:-
Husband and I were in a Costa café yesterday having a nice cuppa. At the table next to us were two young women having a natter (rather loudly). What struck me was the incessant repetition of the word 'like'."I was ..like...why?" "So she was ...like...I don't know" etc etc ad nauseam. Wouldn't it be simpler to use the word 'said'? For example, "I said, "I don't know." and so on.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 27 Oct 23 - 04:24 AM

If B thinks doing X will help A, then discusses it with A before doing it, this is, I suggest, co-operation.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 23 - 05:43 AM

It might amaze you to hear that I'm fine with "like." It's in the same linguistic family as "well," "know what I mean?" "so..." and "er..." (eh bien? alors??). Such things have a time-honoured home in spoken language, though not in writing I think. They enable the speaker to lubricate their sentences without resorting to awkward pauses while they collect their thoughts. I've corrected and adjusted several things so far in this typed message as I've gone along that you don't see, because all you're getting is the finished product. You can't do that in speech when you're thinking on your feet.

Know what I'm sayin'? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 27 Oct 23 - 12:52 PM

I first met "to be like" = "to think or say" in NYC in 1984. (Part of my job was to notice such things.)

It isn't the "like" that Steve is thinking of: not a pause but part of a novel verb phrase.

Compare:

"I was, like, really surprised. Like, what do you think?" (= pause or "well.")

"I was like 'Want to eat?' and she was like 'OK.'" (= "said.")

Don't care for it myself, but that's life.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 23 - 01:21 PM

It may not be real life, but it's life like (see what I did there?)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Oct 23 - 10:17 AM

I catch myself saying was, like, instead of said. Awful.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 23 - 04:39 PM

Anyone who says "small little"
Why not "teensy tiny miniscule small little"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 23 - 06:07 PM

Um.. a "teensy tiny minuscule small little" mistake."

Now, should I add commas? ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Oct 23 - 10:02 AM

My spellchecker just follows me around and beeps at me. It can be added to or corrected to MY choices. It recognizes both advise and advice, so I can use either...depending on context.

https://tinyspell.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Oct 23 - 03:22 PM

I just watched a YouTube thing where some guy was telling about a man who suffered ridicule when you was young... he was reading from some script, and he pronounced it re-DIC-you-el!|

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Oct 23 - 03:55 PM

Ha! I yell at them every chance I get...And I remember a Brit news guy talking about
Nic-uh-RAG-you-uh.

And everyone in Australia pronouncing 'pain' and 'pine' the same way.

No wonder the English language bewilders foreigners.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Oct 23 - 04:59 PM

Well, we philosophers will always point out differences between atheism, 'faith based' assertions of the impossibilities of 'gods', militant agnosticism and simple refusal to think about it all.
   A long thread on 'creationism' awhile back added another idea to the burbling pot... and now a few cosmologists want to re-introduce the idea that our 'reality' is merely a projection from another realm of being! (One more level above quarks and Higgs bosons, electrons and positrons, atoms, molecules, animal, vegetable and mineral, consciousness...etc...)

There is a tendency to assume that if there is a noun, it must refer to 'something'. Bah!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 06:29 PM

"So "Do you believe in God?" is a pet peeve of mine!"

Oh yes! Phrased that way, it assumes a "God" in the very construction.

A better question is, "Do you believe in some sort of god or gods?"

Either way, I can only shrug and say, "I have no personal experience with any."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Oct 23 - 01:27 PM

"It's a word necessitated by their delusion."

I totally understand how & why our remote ancestors 'delusion' was necessitated by so many things they could not comprehend. Human minds, once they could reason, however vaguely and wrongly, sought for answers.
Lightning, seasons, death, etc... were much easier to relate to by reference to unseen entities, and once prettier and more complex stories about those entities were developed, along with human interpreters, it became 'simpler' to accept the given stories rather than to continue wondering and questioning. (and often usually safer).

   Today, genuine atheism is pretty rare in societies with authoritarian regimes. In my case, I have turned down a job offer in Texas because I knew I'd eventually say the wrong thing to the wrong people at the wrong time. My habit from childhood was to question strange authoritarian assertions.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 07:29 PM

"Full stop" and "period" are just conventions. Neither one is 'right'.

I know what either one means, and I HAVE heard "full stop" over here.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: gillymor
Date: 06 Oct 23 - 08:40 AM

Trump as Speaker would be like pouring gasoline on an already blazing dumpster fire.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Aug 23 - 08:36 AM

A headline read something like DC fails to house 98% of homeless...

Um, aren't 100% of homeless people homeless?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Sep 23 - 06:25 PM

I figured out why I don't like "I appreciate you" when expecting Thank you.

You appreciate * what* I did, but you thank *me* ...

It is ungrammatical and robs me of my due of gratitude, while lowering me to the level of the inanimate hand I gave you.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Sep 23 - 01:26 PM

I saw a poater that said Smoking is so ... debonair! and it took me a while to wrap my brain around that.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Sep 23 - 08:40 AM

Meself... I loved Rumpole!

My radio station has started saying Area has (temp) instead of It is (temp) in Area.

No, Charlottesville does not have 25 degrees.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet PeevesI
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Sep 23 - 02:16 PM

I wondered where Rumpole got it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 11:47 AM

Oh, yeah, that use of Innocent bugs me too.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 09:46 PM

Hmmm on widow/widower. Both are widowed, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Oct 23 - 02:00 PM

I thought adviser was just misspelled...

Still working on eliminating Stray Bullet.

Still working on atheism being an absence of belief in diety, not a faith-based position that no gods *can* exist.

Both of those came up recently.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Oct 23 - 05:55 PM

Um, sorry, Steve Shaw, the a- root of a-theism does, precisely, mean lack of. Lack of theism.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Oct 23 - 03:11 PM

From an evolutionary perspective, faith *preceded* intelligence.

The Agency fallacy is something 3-year olds go through on their way to developing 5-yo thinking, following the likely development of human intelligence from more primitive (meaning closer to the point of origin) cognitive abilities.

People who believe in anythingsupernatural fail to outgrow it, is all.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Oct 23 - 09:04 AM

No, the data beg to differ.

A 3yo has language but not complex rational thought.

A 3yo has the Agency fallacy. This is the birth of Faith.

You can have language and an earlier form of intelligence.

Anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 07:10 PM

Right on about the after thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Oct 23 - 10:24 AM

Right. You can disprove, or provide support for.

The headline had read Judge killed by suspect, but before I could complain, it was changed to Suspect in judge's killing...

Someone else was faster.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 07 Sep 23 - 06:31 PM

Steve: Right. The choice is between "restaurateur" (the correct French form) and "restauranter" (a regular English form). Both are awkward; usage has chosen the first.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 08:58 AM

Someone once accused me of being pretentious ....

I said Moi? pretentious!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 07:43 AM

Artiste is not the feminine form of artist.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 11:44 AM

I think it does imply just that.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 07 Sep 23 - 04:07 AM

Dammit, man, it's "lackadaisical"!

I never knew that. All theses years I've been been saying wrong. You learn something every day!
- mind you, I can't think of the last time I used it, rightly or wrongly.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 09 Sep 23 - 04:12 PM

I don't know if anyone's yet brought up the way "than" is increasingly, senselessly, being used in place of "as"?

Could you give an example or two, please?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 06:47 AM

"Relatable", in the sense of "have a connection to" or "empathetic" seems like a perfectly good word to me, unless you have some examples of its misuse.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 07:22 AM

"Have a connection to" is a bad example, as this is more to do with "related" rather than "relatable". Instead, consider "has parallels with".

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 09:36 AM

It's pretentious, ...

HA! I had a little bet with myself that that would be your response.

PRETENTIOUS definition:    Any word that others use but Steve doesn't.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 06:10 AM

Have you considered that "significant other" may be considered jocular by some and it's "Mrs Steve" that is twee?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 07:12 AM

"Mrs Steve" may be jocular, but at least it indicates that we are a married couple and there's no hint of inequality, condescension or property-owning there (as in "my wife," etc.).

"My wife" is no more possessive than "my brother / sister / mother / father / aunt or uncle". It shows a relationship, not a possession.

"Mrs" is almost always adopted alongside a change in surname to that of the husband. In formal terms, the couple would be addressed as "Mr and Mrs Joseph Bloggs". How much more unequal amd condescending can you get?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 09:04 AM

I agree, BWM. "The wife" is an object; "my wife" is a person.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 09:31 AM

Seems that I'm a bit more woke than you pair of hubbies...

No you're not, Steve. "Mrs Steve" is no better. In fact, to use your word, I would go as far as to describe it as 'twee'.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 01:27 PM

No Steve, I'm not competing with you. I am not claiming to be more woke than you - just that you are not more woke than me as your choice of referring to a spouse is no better than others available. Your objection to the term "my wife" as implying inequality, condescension or property-owning is, frankly, nonsense.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 05:38 PM

Let's just agree to disagree.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 04:00 AM

does the usage of "the wife" imply that one is treating the seventh commandment lightly?

In what way?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 04:11 AM

"My car" as opposed to "the car"; "I'll be coming in the car".

"The car" doesn't imply taking without consent.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 04:37 AM

I thought we had drawn a line under it, Steve.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 06:31 PM

Leonardo's name was Leonardo. "Da Vinci" means "of the village Vinci," which thousands of denizens of that village could have used.

If I read a report where the name Leonardo is used on its own, it could be Leonardo Da Vinci, Leonardo DiCaprio or one of a host of other well known Leonardos. If the report uses Da Vinci on its own, I would immediately think of Leonardo Da Vinci. I would not imagine it would be Giuseppe Da Vinci, Leonardo's neighbour from next door but one, nor Giovanni Da Vinci who opened a pizzeria in the town long after Leonardo died.

If "Da Vinci" is used on its own, do you understand what is meant? In reality, is there any possible ambiguity? If the answers are "Yes" and "No", then it meets all the requirements for good communication.

To take a couple of quotes from upthread: The evolution of meanings of words is time-honoured and is healthy; Language is wot people speak, not wot professors of language profess.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 07:19 PM

... any more than your name is Doug da Ashton-under-Lyme or wherever it is you come from.

The surname Chadwick comes from the "village of Ceadda (or Chad)" and originates in the parish of Rochdale, Lancashire (now Greater Manchester). The name has spread over the centuries but is still well represented in the North West of England. I think the parallels with "Da Vinci" are quite strong.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 10:28 AM

It was in the quote from the Guardian, talking about Lady Gaga.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 05:43 PM

I would argue the point with you, Steve, but there is no point once you have made up your mind. Others can read the words and decide for themselves.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 04:15 AM

To my hearing, "as" has not been replaced by "than". It is simply missing. The correct form should be:

.... as well as or better than ....


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 10 Oct 23 - 07:32 PM

.... simple refusal to think about it all.

To my mind, the most appropriate response to "Do you believe in God?" would be "Does it matter?". No matter how strong a mere mortal's belief may be, either for or against, it would have no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a supernatural being.

I don't know if it's a real word, but I describe myself as an apothet - it makes no difference one way or the other. I try to live my life as a polite, caring, socially aware and responsible citizen, not because I fear eternal damnation, but because it's the way I choose to live.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: HuwG
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 07:50 PM

"My wife" as opposed to "the wife"; does the usage of "the wife" imply that one is treating the seventh commandment lightly?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Oct 23 - 01:06 PM

Advise and advise, practice and practise

What is the difference between 'advise' and 'advise'?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Sep 23 - 01:22 PM

Has anyone mentioned "on accident," which I've heard a number of times recently, as though it's the latest thing?

(What the sudden frequency means is that it's been building under the radar for decades.)

It's the precise opposite of "on purpose" and a replacement for "by accident."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Sep 23 - 06:10 PM

More, Thompson, than you probably wish to know:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/purposely-purposefully-usage

Most interesting to me is the notion that many people don't think "purposely" is a "real word."

And here's my pet meta-peeve. Nearly everybody seems to think Trump used to say "bigly." In fact, what he was saying was "big-league." But you have to listen close.

He seems to have given up the habit, however, just like he gave up his previous trademark "huge."

(Gotta stay fresh.)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 10:21 AM

"My better half" is the U.S. form and is usually complimentary.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Sep 23 - 03:06 PM

The original "She-who-must-be-obeyed" (thus punctuated) was the Queen Ayesha in H. Rider Haggard's "She: A History of Adventure" (1887).

The 1965 movie starred Ursula Andress as "She."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 03:07 PM

Masculine "widows" *are* a thing now.

Have heard this several times over the last few years.

It's like replacing "actress" with "actor." It supposedly helps in degenderfying life.

If that's your bag.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 01:31 PM

There was a cartoon a few years ago in the "New Yorker" that showed a hip young couple passing a storefront advertising "Artisinal Kick in the Butt! Really Painful! Ruins Your Day!"

The young woman says, "Ooooh! Artisinal!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Oct 23 - 08:01 AM

Merriam-Webster:

"[T]here are some cases in which one tends to be used more often than the other. Some people feel that 'advisor' is more formal, and it tends to be found more often when applied to official positions, such as an advisor to a president. When referring to someone who is serving in a military role, especially when using the term as a euphemism (as when claiming that troops are actually military 'advisers'), then 'adviser' is somewhat more common."

Makes sense. Not.

In my brain, an "adviser" simply advises, but an "advisor" occupies a paid position to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Oct 23 - 01:27 PM

Around here they're pronounced the same. Same word, alternative spellings.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 07:38 AM

If you have no principles, avoid moderation:


https://tinyurl.com/36b5kev8

"Republican state Rep. Craig Williams has been trying to build internal party support for an undeclared 2024 bid for Pennsylvania attorney general, but he got some unwelcome news when a powerful national party group [the Republican Attorney Generals Association] trashed him as dishonest and 'very moderate, unprincipled and opportunistic.'"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 01:07 PM

No, Steve, for the extreme populists of the Republican party (now about 90% of it) "moderation" in the pursuit of their version of liberty is, to paraphrase Barry Goldwater, "no virtue."

Moderates, in that view, are just fast-talking cowards.

Bonus peeve: "cowardly" being used as the preferred synonym for "treacherous" (no matter how daring) and "coward" for "miscreant" or "monster (ditto).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 04:26 PM

Captured by what? Pejoration of "moderate" is a linguistic development explicable by politics.

Traditionally the word has had neutral or positive connotations.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 05:27 PM

No "No, Steve," Steve. Obviously, I would have thought!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Oct 23 - 07:45 AM

Human intelligence is based on language.

You can't have conscious, reflective "faith" or "belief" without language.

Therefore both faith and intelligence "evolved" at about the same time. So did inductive logic. ("If such-and-such is true, so-and-so should be true too.")

Deductive logic, however, took millennia.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 07:57 AM

Have I mentioned "fact" for "notion, claim, or idea"?

I've been hearing it almost daily for decades: "What about the fact that...?" "As for the fact that...."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 05:53 PM

Here's a typical one from my files, from 2009:

"We can't be lulled into the fact that all the Al-Qaeda people are flubs....They are expert bombers."

From 1968:

"We're banking on the fact that Dr. Halvorsen's [crackpot] theory [that we don't believe] is correct."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Rain Dog
Date: 08 Sep 23 - 03:23 AM

"Some rugby bloke on the wireless this morning rattled on about the perils of "lacksadaisical" preparations for games. I've heard that so many times. Dammit, man, it's "lackadaisical""

Whoever coined the word was just too lazy to include the required extra s.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Rain Dog
Date: 08 Sep 23 - 02:41 PM

Things change. You don't. A sign of the times.

I still don't like the widespread misuse of decimate. That is just me.
Others are happy enough to use it as they so wish. It does not upset me.

Anyway, I am all set to watch the rugby. Enjoy your night.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 12 Oct 23 - 12:26 PM

Here's a peeve of mine: categorically, as in "I categorically deny that I broke the windows."

What is it supposed to mean? I believe the speaker wants to convey "emphatically" or "without a doubt," because how do categories enter into it?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 09 Sep 23 - 03:41 PM

I don't know if anyone's yet brought up the way "than" is increasingly, senselessly, being used in place of "as"?
Then there's pronunciation: I heard Gerry Adams referring to "the half-penny bridge" in Dublin. No one previously has ever pronounced it other than ha'penny (haypenny). Assassin of language!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 10 Sep 23 - 01:52 PM

I'll have to wait till I hear the horror the next time, Doug. Basically, it's when people use a longish statement with a comparison that would normally use "as" in the second half of the phrase, but instead they say "than". Keep your ear open and you'll hear it.

Lighter, what about "purposefully" used incorrectly to mean purposely. Different words, different meanings, innit?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 11 Sep 23 - 02:07 PM

Bigly, while rare, is a real word.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 12 Sep 23 - 07:12 AM

That's linguistic leakage, G-Force; another of these is "sewerage" (ie piping and other infrastructure used in the disposal of waste) being used when "sewage" is meant. I think it's a kind of ladylikeness, a fancier-sounding word making one seem (one might wrongly think) more educated.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 04:14 AM

I heard one of our dimmer ministers using "personable" when she meant "personal" the other day. Oh, God.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 09:18 AM

You're only relatable if you're leaning in.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 22 Sep 23 - 02:42 AM

In Ireland it's common enough for husbands to refer to wives, and wives to husbands, as "the boss" - eg, "What, you want me to keep that stray puppy? I'll have to check with the boss."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 01 Oct 23 - 09:41 PM

Came across a use of "than" when "as" would be correct. It's in The Atlantic:

The cultivated apple-tree was first introduced into this country by the earliest settlers, and it is thought to do as well or better here than anywhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 04:08 PM

Oh dear. Even this thread had been captured.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 02:58 AM

I'm currently flinching every day by the misuse of the word 'after':

Woman Killed After Collision

Is there a serial killer going around killing helpless car crash victims?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 01:57 PM

It's always a bit embarrassing on this side of the Atlantic (where we say "full stop" for the "." at the end of a sentence) when Americans make a strong declarative statement, and end it by saying "Period". Should we be offering Tampax?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 20 Oct 23 - 01:30 AM

I've no objection to Americans calling a full stop a period. It's when the word is used as a bullying "And that's what I think, and that's right, so shut up" ending to a statement it makes me laugh. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: PHJim
Date: 16 Oct 23 - 03:59 AM

I could care less.
Do you want to come with?
I blame John Dean for this during the Watergate hearings. "At this point..." or "At this time..." not "At this point in time..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Paul Burke
Date: 17 Oct 23 - 06:17 AM

"From an evolutionary perspective, faith *preceded* intelligence."

Hmm, citation needed. Maybe you mean "developmental point of view". Or maybe faith in the soft sense, as distinct from Faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 06:36 AM

'I liked Cloughie... '

That'll be Mr. Clough to you, young man.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Sep 23 - 04:35 AM

Heard these two chestnuts on TV recently - BBC TV in fact! Shameful!

“Pronounciation”. Aaaargh! It’s “Pronunciation”!

“Restauranteur”. Sod that, it’s “Restaurateur “!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Sep 23 - 02:43 AM

”The choice is between "restaurateur" (the correct French form) and "restauranter" (a regular English form). Both are awkward; usage has chosen the first.”

Except that it hasn’t. ‘Usage’ has chosen ‘restauranteur’, which is neither the correct French form nor a regular English form - it’s a bastardisation of both.

It’s true that language evolves, and I’m certainly not agin that, but this one drives me nuts, pure laziness. And don’t get me started on the current BBC pronunciation fad of pronouncing ‘st’ as though there’s an ‘h’ in there - ‘shtreet’, ‘shtudent’ etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 07:22 AM

Spot-on, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 07:36 AM

Mrs Backwoodsperson prefers ‘my wife’ to any of the other appellations suggested above, and she refers to me as ‘my husband’. Nowt wrong with either of those.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 08:14 AM

My wife’s opinion is that ‘the wife’ relegates her to the same category as ‘the car’, or ‘the fridge’ - i.e. to that of being simply a possession - whereas ‘my wife’, as Doug quite correctly pointed out, indicates a close relationship.

I agree with her.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Sep 23 - 01:22 AM

“A tad bit”. Aaaarrgghh!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 09:25 AM

Nice one, Manitas!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 10:38 AM

”Lady Gaga won a Brit in 2010 for best international female artist, not artiste, chanteuse, or songstress.”

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 04:23 AM

Mine too, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Oct 23 - 04:20 PM

…and don’t well-known British TV and radio presenters talking about ‘Eye-bee-fah’

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Oct 23 - 04:36 PM

“…and don’t forget well-known…”

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Oct 23 - 02:21 PM

…or should that be ‘ætheism’, Mrrzy? ;-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 12:24 PM

Errrrmmm…Language Pet Peeves????

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 23 - 09:39 AM

The much-hated Suella Braverman, our home secretary, used the word "operationalise" three times in a radio interview this morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 23 - 07:33 PM

Some rugby bloke on the wireless this morning rattled on about the perils of "lacksadaisical" preparations for games. I've heard that so many times. Dammit, man, it's "lackadaisical"!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 23 - 03:57 AM

Dunno, but the other day I picked a buttercup. I thought, "I wonder who left this buttock lying around?"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 23 - 05:17 PM

Restauranteur vs restaurateur is a tough bugger. You'd think the former was perfectly logical, but it's, well, not right. If I see it in print, e.g. in the Guardian, I seethe. Otherwise, I get it, sort of, though I do wonder why anyone would choose to use it...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 23 - 10:47 AM

The root of the first part of the word lies in "alack," as in "alas and alack!" Therefore there's no room for the letter s in the first syllable of lackadaisical. It's amusing to see just how often ignorantes choose to use big words just to look clever - but slip up. Delicious. Your man could just as easily and far more economically referred to the "lax" preparation for games. Or poor, or sloppy, or casual.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 23 - 12:50 PM

Missed out a "have" there, before anyone accuses me of lacking daisies...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 23 - 08:11 PM

"Things change. You don't. A sign of the times [a reference to me, guys!].

I still don't like the widespread misuse of decimate. That is just me."

Well, Stanron, I've said so many times in this thread that wot people say a lot inevitably ends up being standard English. We don't have to like the evolution (some I love, some I don't), but the fight is always there to be lost. It's somewhat ironic that you accuse me, after all I've said, of being unable to change, when you make this comment about "decimate." Unfortunately for you, it's been used in what you see as its non-literal sense for hundreds of years. It's a very useful word that implies mass-destruction without putting numbers on it - or, alternatively, it's a virtually extinct word meaning the killing of one Roman soldier in ten. Well we don't have legions of Roman soldiers any more but we can still, if we want, hang on to a very colourful word. Or not. Don't use it if you don't like it. I do like it, so I'll carry on using it and ignore grammar curmudgeons such as your good self. I like "gay" too.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Sep 23 - 12:54 PM

Oh bugger. It was Rain Dog, not you. A brain fart on my part. Sorry about that. That's a half I owe you...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 04:46 AM

Speaking of personable, what about the ridiculous "relatable?"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 07:26 AM

Not arguing that it's not a legitimate word, Doug. But it's become trendy and there are lots of very good synonyms that may be used instead. It's pretentious, in other words.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 12:45 PM

Oi, Doug, I use all sorts of words in my posts that I don't see others using. If you're going to make up non-dictionary definitions, here's one of mine:

PRETENTIOUS: of words designed to make you think (mistakenly) you look clever and super-educated but for which there are plenty of simple and common synonyms, e.g., "albeit" (pretentious and often misused); much better synonyms "though," "although." "Prior to" (pretentious); the synonym "before" works every time. "Relatable" (pretentious); plenty of synonyms which far more clearly express the intended meaning, such as "engaging," "sympathetic," "friendly," "collaborative," "approachable," "mutual understanding" (these especially with regard to people). Or get more colourful: "on the same page," "chimes with me."

Also worth avoiding: "end result"; "at the end of the day"; "in close proximity;" "I have to say...", "3 AM in the morning hundred hours."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 12:50 PM

That was the medallion man on Fawlty Towers, Raggytash, "Pretentious? Moi?" :-)

Commonly used in our house!

(Used? Utilised? Deployed? Heheh. Pretentious? Moi?).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 23 - 07:13 AM

"Heavily pregnant." I hate this. There's a frisson of the demeaning about it in my mind with regard to both mother and child. The child is burdensome somehow and the mother sounds tediously weighed down. In any case, "pregnant" is a sort of standalone word that shouldn't take an adverb qualifier. We don't say slightly pregnant or very pregnant; well I don't anyway. There are better ways of indicating the stage in pregnancy that's been reached.

Inconsistently mebbe, I'm fine with qualifying "unique," another allegedly standalone word, not because I've given up the fight but because the meaning of "unique" has drifted. The evolution of meanings of words is time-honoured and is healthy and democratic. A good example is how we now use "decimate." ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 23 - 08:30 AM

Well I can't agree with that. Perhaps we could stick with "great with child."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 05:49 AM

Just heard a brainless radio presenter (on one of those cosy programmes that cost the Beeb next to nothing to make in which a couple of people talk giggly shite down microphones for fifteen minutes) referring to her "significant other." To me, that's in the same league as "my better half," "the wife" and, above all, the thoroughly detestable and utterly buttock-clenching "my hubby." For God's sake. I mean, what's wrong with "my partner," or, even better, the person's name!

I suppose that, as on here, you may not wish to reveal your partner's name. In private messages I always use her name, but in the open I've resorted to the jocular expression "Mrs Steve" for many years. I will not resort to the twee!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 06:35 AM

Yes I have, Doug, and I've considered that they're wrong. If you see anything amusing in "significant other" then you need to go and join hands with D****l on the joke thread. "Mrs Steve" may be jocular, but at least it indicates that we are a married couple and there's no hint of inequality, condescension or property-owning there (as in "my wife," etc.). "Significant other" is almost as nonsensical as "albeit," in m'humble. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 07:58 AM

The word "wife" is as perfectly fine as "husband," no argument there. But in many cultures in the past, and even in some today, the wife has been considered to be a possession of the man, subservient to the man, or both. Gosh, it isn't that long ago that we were saying "I now pronounce you man and wife." And there's a difference between using "my wife" informally, as when your introducing each other to someone ("this is Erica, my wife") and formalising it by typing it, on Mudcat for example. You can then make a slight effort to find a more egalitarian form of words that is difficult to do in informal, casual, spoken contexts. In the latter case, both partners are present, which adds an extra contextual dimension that doesn't happen in print. Makes all the difference.

It's also worth noting that many men make a laudable but clumsy effort to avoid the possessive sense of "my wife" by changing it to "the wife." Some people at least can still see the awkwardness of implying that, somehow, she belongs to you and would rather avoid the allusion, even if you two wouldn't.

She's not called Erica, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 09:20 AM

Well I did say it was clumsy and it's not a construction I'd use. Put it down as a valiant but misguided effort to dispense with the ownership allusion. A similar effort to avoid saying "my wife" is "the missus." We're not far removed historically from "man and wife" and, as I said, in olden times and even in some modern-day cultures the wife was right in there with the goods and chattels. Gosh, in some cultures you can even have more than one. Even Jesus was a bit one-sided on the issue. "Whosoever shall put away his wife, save for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." Shows who has to be the decision-making boss then!

I'll continue to avoid "my wife," in writing at least. Seems that I'm a bit more woke than you pair of hubbies...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 10:11 AM

I've used it for years and it's a jocular means of avoiding displaying her name, which is respectful to her and which avoids the tired allusions I've been talking about. I can't help it if you want to continue to stubbornly misconstrue that.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 12:44 PM

And I'm amused by the fact that we're competing as to who enjoys the greater wokitudinousness...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 02:57 PM

I didn't say that "my wife" is "implying inequality, condescension or property-owning!" I said that (in line with the history of the associations with those things of the use of "wife"), the term "my wife," as used in print, has a hint (the word I used, not "implications") of those associations. It will always be undeliberate on the part of the writer, but, to me, it has that ring about it so I don't type it. To imply, Doug, is to make a deliberate point without putting it into precise words, which is completely different from what I was saying. "My husband" doesn't carry those historical associations because, as far as I'm aware, there haven't been cultures in which women "owned" men along with their goods and chattels. But if I see or hear "hubby" it takes me at least five minutes to unclench my buttocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 05:58 PM

Cloughie: "If I had an argument with a player, we'd sit down and talk about it for 20 minutes then decide that I was right." I liked Cloughie...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 06:04 PM

I hate asterisks in swear words. Is it f***, f**k, f#@§ - or fuck?

I know what I think when I see asterisks in that word. I think it's f*uck!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 04:32 AM

So you're now including your wife with your goods 'n' chattels, Doug! What did I tell you!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 04:35 AM

It should be "the other half," as "my other half" implies that your body comes in two equal and separable pieces...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 09:35 AM

"I'm not saying that I'm the greatest manager, but I'm in the top one."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 10:36 AM

Yeah, that's not bad!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 23 - 04:50 PM

It's minUscule, Bill... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 23 - 07:31 PM

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 23 - 04:06 PM

Innocent. In conflicts we hear that innocent civilians are bombed. Today, we heard that an "innocent" 15-year-old girl was murdered by stabbing on her way to school. Why innocent? Are we saying that you especially don't deserve to die if you're "innocent" in unspecified ways? Where I come from, even the most evil bastards are regarded as undeserving of death, seeing that we did away with the death penalty decades ago. So don't say "innocent." It's a brainless and emotional addendum to descriptions of victims of horrors. Civilians were bombed. A 15-year-old girl was murdered on her way to school. Two powerful statements that don't require further characterisation of the victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 12:16 PM

I'm struggling here with that affectionate term used for girls/young ladies, "lass" or "lassie," the latter usually applied to younger girls. It's what plural to use. If you see a bunch of nine-year-old girls, especially in Scotland, you might say "Look at those lassies!" Logical, or does it sound like you're referring to a pack of collies? I saw that plural used in the Guardian this morning and it faintly rankled. But a bunch of mature young women might be "lasses," eh? Do we really need two separate plural spellings for a word that sounds identical? Every time I see "lassies" something visceral has me thinking that an ignorant mistake has been made...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 03:05 PM

He wasn't talking about a male spider, was he? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 03:14 PM

The Guardian style guide on actor/actress:

actor
Use for both male and female actors; do not use actress except when in the name of an award, eg Oscar for best actress. The Guardian’s view is that actress comes into the same category as authoress, comedienne, manageress, “lady doctor”, “male nurse” and similar obsolete terms that date from a time when professions were largely the preserve of one sex (usually men). As Whoopi Goldberg put it in an interview with the paper: “An actress can only play a woman. I’m an actor – I can play anything.”

There is normally no need to differentiate between the sexes – and if there is, the words male and female are perfectly adequate: Lady Gaga won a Brit in 2010 for best international female artist, not artiste, chanteuse, or songstress.

As always, use common sense: a piece about the late film director Carlo Ponti was edited to say that in his early career he was “already a man with a good eye for pretty actors ...” As the readers’ editor pointed out in the subsequent clarification: “This was one of those occasions when the word ‘actresses’ might have been used”

Let common sense prevail!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 04:34 PM

Da Vinci. This is just nonsense. Leonardo's name was Leonardo. "Da Vinci" means "of the village Vinci," which thousands of denizens of that village could have used. Leonardo da Vinci is fine. But referring to him as though "da Vinci" is his surname, without Leonardo, is just pig ignorant. I saw this in the Guardian today, and, of course, there's "Da Vinci Code." It's just laughable.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 06:48 PM

Well, Doug, feel free to call me Stephen da Radcliffe. The bald fact is that "da Vinci" without Leonardo is simply not his name, end of. He was an illegitimate child and, if you look him up, you'll find that he could have adopted another name to follow "Leonardo."

"If I read a report where the name Leonardo is used on its own, it could be Leonardo Da Vinci, Leonardo DiCaprio or one of a host of other well known Leonardos..."

Disingenuous nonsense, Doug. If you read a report where Leonardo is used on its own, and that report means to refer to Leonardo da Vinci, there will one hundred percent be a ton of context, art, sculpture, whatever, that will confirm to you that the reference is to the great artist and no-one else. No-one is going to mention Leonardo in isolation if they mean Leonardo diCaprio, yer daft bugger. The bottom line here is that his surname is not "da Vinci," any more than your name is Doug da Ashton-under-Lyme or wherever it is you come from.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 07:42 PM

Well Shaw means "copse" or "thicket" (shut up, Doug), and is related to Littlewood. I had a fiancée who lived in Shaw (coincidentally) and we nearly got married until she thought better of it. I used to visit her by riding my moped from Radcliffe, down Bury Old Road then down Sheepfoot Lane by Heaton Park. Eventually I graduated to my dad's Vauxhall Viva and got there via the M62 from Besses to the A627(M) turnoff. Ah, those were the days. But I digress. Back to the cheery fray, Doug!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 06:55 AM

I suppose that if you just say "Claus" you might get the odd double-take as people think you're talking about something on a cat. "Santa" on its own nearly always means Father Christmas and has the convenience of not causing confusion. In Italy there are hundreds of churches called Santa-something, and there's Santa Lucia of course (which I once sang in a duet with a boatman just off Siracusa in Sicily), but the default understanding, in an appropriate context, of "Santa" is that you're talking about the Christmas chap.

Leonardo added "da Vinci" to his name himself in order to distinguish himself from other local Leonardos. In almost every case if you're talking about "Leonardo" (and, as I keep saying, context is everything), there's no need to add "da Vinci," though you can if you like. "Leonardo da Vinci" is unobjectionable, but referring to a chap called "da Vinci" without the Leonardo is just ignorant and wrong. Incidentally, Doug, it's only "Da Vinci" if you're starting a sentence with it, otherwise it's "da Vinci," never "Da Vinci," and fusing the two bits into a single word is just laughable.

Everybody knows who you mean if you say Michelangelo, and if you use his surname at all (it's Buonarroti plus a few other bits if you're a purist), you're just showing off. In other cases of less-eminent people, you might have to add a helpful bit on to the end on its first use, e.g. "Geoffrey of Monmouth." You wouldn't then go on to calling him just "of Monmouth," would you?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 07:10 AM

"via the M62 from Besses to the A627(M) turnoff"

Before some present-day local puts me right, it was the turnoff AFTER the A627M, for Shaw, A640. Don't like leaving chinks!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 10:20 AM

Did anyone make that blunder here?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 11:22 AM

The three of you need to read that Guardian quote again! In no way does it imply that artiste is the feminine form of artist. In fact, it specifically says not to use the word artiste in that way, so no blunder as far as I can see. I have to assume that you're all fans of the Daily Telegraph! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 04:09 PM

Well let's take another look, shall we? Here's the bit that you three have homed in on:

"Lady Gaga won a Brit in 2010 for best international female artist, not artiste, chanteuse, or songstress."

The Guardian is quite clearly steering its writers (it's their style guide, don't forget) away from outmoded sexist terms for women performers. It's telling its contributors not to lapse into sexist (chanteuse, songstress) or incorrect (artiste, which has nothing to do with "artist," and if you use that word for a female artist not only are you being sexist but you are also dead wrong). That's the sentiment of that sentence whether you like it or not. There is no hint in that sentence whatsoever that the Guardian thinks that "artiste" means, or has ever meant (it hasn't) "female artist." Two things. Look up the definitions of artist and artiste in a dictionary, and have a good read of the Guardian style guide. It's actually very entertaining and it fully reflects modern thinking on how we must be careful with terminology. Go on, I dare you.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 06:39 PM

Nonsense, Doug. I can't help it if I engage with the issue more than you do. I'm very flexible and quite indulgent when it comes to use of language, and I'm always firmly on the side of non-bullshitters.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 23 - 12:30 PM

A couple of days ago meself mentioned a bloke referred to as a widow. I looked this up and it seems that, in newspapers at least, "widow" crops up as much as 15 times more often than "widower." Am I being woke in suspecting that this reflects something unequal in the way we see women in relationships differently to the way we see men? Anyway, a good read, though more than ten years old, in the Guardian: "Women and men are still unequal – even when they are dead" [Matt Mills]

And men are not "widowered," are they?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 23 - 07:33 PM

Pretentious foodie things. "Compote" (mushed up fruit). "A medley of vegetables" (a load of boiled broccoli, carrots and peas piled up in a dish). "Artisanal" ( same as your other stuff but at twice the price). "Fine dining" (fourteen courses of cold, tiny portions on huge plates, often with a "theme" - I once endured such a "feast" in which thinly sliced radishes appeared in at least half the dishes).

If you're somehow persuaded to go to a "fine dining" restaurant, take my advice and make sure that there's a good chippy on your way home.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 05:52 AM

I can't see much wrong with the original sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 09:48 AM

After another look I kind of agree with Doug. Better still, a rebuild of the sentence might have worked. It's one of those things that wouldn't matter much if you said it but which looks awkward in print.

The cultivated apple-tree was first introduced into this country by the earliest settlers, and it is thought to do as well or better here than anywhere else.

"The cultivated apple tree, first introduced into this country by the earliest settlers, is thought to do at least as well here as anywhere else."

I left it in, but I'm not keen on "is thought..." as it's tantamount to weasel words (thought by who?) but hey ho, and "apple tree" does not need a hyphen.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 23 - 05:56 AM

If you read the (rather old) Guardian piece, you'll see that bereaved men are far less likely to be referred to as widowers than bereaved women are referred to as widows.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 23 - 07:50 AM

Advisor. This is not the traditional spelling of this word, which should be spelled "adviser." I can't claim that "advisor" is incorrect, as it's used so much that it's now standard English, but it grates. Yanks may beg to differ, though even the NYT uses "adviser." I blame Trip Adviser.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 23 - 12:54 PM

But we don't need two words for it, Lighter. And you're talking American. Ever been called Lightor?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 23 - 04:26 PM

Advise and advise, practice and practise, different words with different meanings. Advisor, adviser, same word, same meaning (whatever you say) so no need for two spellings. It's mostly an American thing, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 23 - 06:06 AM

Pee and poo. Just stoppit now. It's piss and shit, two beautiful words so redolent of the stuff/action involved. We've used them since the 1300s. Out with twee euphemisms, say I!

It's quite interesting, however, that grown men and women even in mixed company, even if they don't know each other very well, will often say things like "Hang on a minute, I just need to go for a wee," the norm round here. You don't hear "Hang on, I'm just going for a shit," presumably because most healthy adults will have dealt with that before leaving the house.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 23 - 01:20 PM

Wow, didn't spot that. I meant advise and advice. It was the autocorrect thingie. It's just done it to me again in this post three times in a row! To he'll with spellcheckers!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 23 - 03:46 PM

Oi, Bill, we hear a lot from you guys talking about Eye-ran and Eye-raq, not forgetting Dubya with his "noo-queue-ler"!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 23 - 05:03 PM

I love Strictly (shoot...), but the judge Motsi, who is brilliant, has this irritating habit of prefacing her judgements with "For me,..." Grr!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 23 - 03:59 PM

Atheism is neither of those things. It's not an absence of anything (why should I be defined in the negative?), neither is it faith-based. It's a sort of shrug of the shoulders in the face of irrational affirmations.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 23 - 06:04 PM

Well I've seen cod-atheists asserting that God is impossible. Real atheists never say things like that. I think I know that there's no Loch Ness monster. Of that I'm pretty certain (did you notice the two caveats there?) Even Richard Dawkins says that he can't be absolutely sure that there's no God (as defined by the major religions). If you ask me if I believe in God and I answer no, you've hoodwinked me into allowing the conversation to move firmly on to your territory, and I'm not having it. The best answer is that you're asking me an illegitimate question. So "Do you believe in God?" is a pet peeve of mine!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 23 - 08:09 PM

"Does it matter?" legitimises the question. Not only that (another peeve coming up...), the word "believe" is grossly overused. If you assert that you believe in something you're absolving yourself from being challenged for evidence. Especially if God is involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 05:13 AM

You are able to provide rock-solid evidence for your parentage, which no-one can deny. Whatever evidence you think you have for your religious beliefs may be sufficient for you and good luck with that. That's a respectable position. Air that evidence in public when there are a few thinking atheists around and not only would your evidence be in peril of being debunked but it would also likely be shown to not be evidence in the strict sense at all. Best to keep your belief private. I've been saying just that to folks of a religious persuasion for decades. ;-) So your parentage need not be stated as a belief at all. Morrisons are currently selling a highly rated Spanish red wine. Do you believe me? Well here's the wine with their logo on the label and here's the receipt I got for it this morning, and you can find its high score, the sum of thousands of customer reviews, on Vivino. You don't have to believe me. In fact, I'd rather you didn't say that you do!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 04:38 PM

Whaddya mean, Lighter, " No, Steve?" I haven't waded in on that one! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 23 - 01:52 PM

"This new seasonal wine range is our biggest yet and …. means shoppers can get fantastic quality wines at accessible price points”. (from a website recommending some Aldi wines)


"Accessible price points?" What jargonistic mumbo-jumbo is this? Inexpensive? Cheap enough for the cash-strapped hoi polloi? Bargain basement? Pretentious nonsense!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Oct 23 - 05:32 AM

Gosh, Bob, "regulo!" Haven't heard that for yonks. I'm putting it in the "words that should be reintroduced" thread! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Oct 23 - 06:56 PM

Just a word, just a word, old chap. Words are wot people mean them to be, otherwise language collapses. "Atheist" is no more than a term of convenience, as it's such a hard concept for people of belief to get their heads round. And a lot depends on whoever it was who invented the word. I hate to be characterised by a single word, but, in modern parlance, I'm an atheist and there's no getting away from it. Once again, the "a" in atheist puts me in the negative, which I'm not having. "Atheist" wouldn't even be a word at all were it not for the highly-irrational billions who "believe in God." It's a word necessitated by their delusion. Think about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 06:16 AM

There's a local farmer called Mr Bunkham who shows his prize cows. The caption under his photo in this week's local paper called him Mr Bunkum. :-) (the adjoining article spelled his name correctly several times). The paper is notorious for its amusingly-poor proofreading.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 10:06 AM

Point taken, but if it's a fact it's a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 03:29 PM

I kinda like (potential pet peeve there) most American English, but "period" for full stop is just bloody silly. It doesn't mean anything, whereas "full stop" means what it says in unequivocal terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 06:21 PM

You can't have a "correct theory." A theory is not a fact or a final conclusion. In its finest form, it's a concept that becomes ever stronger as evidence continues to accumulate, or it's a concept that may cheerfully be blown out of the water by powerful evidence that undermines it. The misuse of the word by non-scientists who are trying to look clever infuriates many a scientist. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 07:33 PM

It's not about right or wrong, Bill. It's about irritants... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 23 - 05:21 AM

You don't "prove" theories. That's not allowed for in the scientific method. It's all about accumulating evidence to get ever nearer to the truth. Theories are there to explain the phenomena we encounter, but science is humble enough to leave the quest for truth ever-open.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 28 Aug 23 - 02:23 PM

Another one I've been hearing lately from TV/radio journalists: the confused use of "blamed on" for "blamed for", as in this, just heard: "Technical issues are blamed on the delay of the flight".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 06 Sep 23 - 07:12 PM

"Inflation has become the boogeyman - um - boogeyperson - ...."

A TV journalist yesterday. It's important that we recognize that women can have the quality of "boogey" just like men ...!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 10 Sep 23 - 07:17 PM

Much as it pains me to be seen to be defending trump in any way, I agree with Lighter on the matter of what trump said: in the interview in which he was alleged to have said 'bigly', it is hard to make it out precisely, but I saw another interview somewhere in which he clearly uses the term 'big league' in the exact same way, which convinced me that that is indeed what he said in the interview in question.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 12:20 PM

How about "the ball and chain"? Or should it be "MY ball and chain"? Or, "she who must be obeyed"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 01:31 PM

Just heard this one in a radio discussion of some TV show (why are you promoting your competition?): "He's a widow". This was repeated a few times, with no one correcting the guy who kept saying it. Is "He's a widow" a 'thing' now??

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 01 Oct 23 - 04:56 PM

'And men are not "widowered," are they?' I've found myself wondering that on occasion. It sounds clunky, but you would think there'd be a simple way to get that idea across ... ?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 12:09 PM

So whaddya think: is 'very moderate' an error - typo or misusage - or is being 'moderate' as egregious a characteristic as being 'unprincipled' and 'opportunistic' in the modern GOP? Hard to know ....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 12 Sep 23 - 04:07 AM

A recent decision by TfL in London has been described as 'incredulous'. So what's wrong with 'incredible'?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 03:54 AM

It's a bit like Santa Claus. It drives me mad when people call him Santa as if that were his name. His name is Claus, (short for Nicholas), ferchrisake. Santa means Saint.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Stanron
Date: 11 Sep 23 - 06:11 AM

Why bring me into this?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Stanron
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 12:13 PM

From UK TV;

'er indoors
She who must be obeyed
The Management

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 08 Sep 23 - 03:48 AM

I suppose "lacksadaisical" could be considered a portmanteau of "lackadaisical" and "lax". This excuse also covers one of my pet hates, "irregardless".
I'm not adding either to the spellcheck list.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 03:51 AM

How about "other half", whether "my" or "the"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 04:07 AM

If you assert that you believe in something you're absolving yourself from being challenged for evidence.

Not at all, Steve. For example, I believe I truly am the natural-born son of the married couple by whom I was raised and whom I regarded as my parents. If necessary I could refer to my birth certificate in support of this belief, and would not object to a DNA test.

The evidence behind my religious beliefs is circumstantial and subjective, but it exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 13 Oct 23 - 04:02 AM

One of my cookbooks contained a reference to a "very moderate" oven, no degrees or regulo number. Is that supposed to be hotter or cooler than just plain "moderate"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 20 Oct 23 - 04:30 AM

"Correct theory"
Call me pedantic, but I would argue that you can have a correct theory. However, it shouldn't be called correct until proven so, at which point it ceases to be a theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Sep 23 - 02:55 AM

My husband has coined a new expression for this : "Madame Yapp-Yapp"!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 06 Sep 23 - 10:17 PM

.... why *do* so many people lack daisies?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 07 Sep 23 - 06:27 AM

> “Restaurateur“

Good grief: Collins's (the aforesaid first edition) and Wictionary both agree with you. The latter gives an interesting etymology, and the usage notes are, ahem, noteworthy.

Note to self: remember to distinguish between etymology (words) and entomology (eg insects). That's today's second embarrassing discovery, and it ain't even dinnertime yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 18 Sep 23 - 08:12 AM

> Heavily pregnant

That's shorter than "very obviously about-to-pop-at-any-moment pregnant", and marginally less insensitive. It also acknowledges, and sympathises with, the extra strain on the mother-to-be's back and feet.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 18 Sep 23 - 11:49 AM

> Perhaps we could stick with "great with child."

Agreed: it has a subtle gentlemanly charm, with just a hint of eau de KJV.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Oct 23 - 10:56 PM

Um, no, it doesn't stop being a theory when (might as well be) proven. See relativity, gravity, evolution. All well-established, well-demonstrated, theories.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 Oct 23 - 07:26 PM

If B thinks doing X will help A, and does X anyway without asking, resulting in a positive outcome for A, then it is benevolence.

If B thinks doing X will help A, and does X anyway without asking but, in fact, hinders rather helps A then it is interference.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 Oct 23 - 07:39 PM

Even if B's actions achieved the outcome that A would have hoped for, left to themselves, it would still be interference if A would have preferred to get there by their own efforts.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 27 Oct 23 - 12:52 PM

I first met "to be like" = "to think or say" in NYC in 1984. (Part of my job was to notice such things.)

It isn't the "like" that Steve is thinking of: not a pause but part of a novel verb phrase.

Compare:

"I was, like, really surprised. Like, what do you think?" (= pause or "well.")

"I was like 'Want to eat?' and she was like 'OK.'" (= "said.")

Don't care for it myself, but that's life.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 23 - 05:43 AM

It might amaze you to hear that I'm fine with "like." It's in the same linguistic family as "well," "know what I mean?" "so..." and "er..." (eh bien? alors??). Such things have a time-honoured home in spoken language, though not in writing I think. They enable the speaker to lubricate their sentences without resorting to awkward pauses while they collect their thoughts. I've corrected and adjusted several things so far in this typed message as I've gone along that you don't see, because all you're getting is the finished product. You can't do that in speech when you're thinking on your feet.

Know what I'm sayin'? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 23 - 01:21 PM

It may not be real life, but it's life like (see what I did there?)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 27 Oct 23 - 04:24 AM

If B thinks doing X will help A, then discusses it with A before doing it, this is, I suggest, co-operation.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 Oct 23 - 03:01 AM

I expect this has been brought up before on this thread, but I just had to post this:-
Husband and I were in a Costa café yesterday having a nice cuppa. At the table next to us were two young women having a natter (rather loudly). What struck me was the incessant repetition of the word 'like'."I was ..like...why?" "So she was ...like...I don't know" etc etc ad nauseam. Wouldn't it be simpler to use the word 'said'? For example, "I said, "I don't know." and so on.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 25 Oct 23 - 11:00 AM

> Whoopi Goldberg: "I’m an actor – I can play anything."

I'd like to see her play the young lad in Equus.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 25 Oct 23 - 11:41 AM

> You don't "prove" theories. That's not allowed for in the scientific
> method.

Correct. The word "proof", after all, originally meant "test", as in "degrees proof" of alcohol, and the true meaning of "proof of the pudding", and of "the exception proves the rule".

As it happens, I've just been re-reading Simon Singh's Fermat's Last Theorem, in which he points out that the scientific theory is the poor relation of the mathematical theorem. The latter is absolute (admittedly the underlying axioms are accepted as true).* The same is true for proofs.

* Shut up at the back there, Gödel.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 26 Oct 23 - 10:13 AM

Strictly speaking, this may not belong here,* but it peeves me summat rotten that I don't know the answer:

If B thinks doing X will help A, then discusses it with A before doing it, it's a conspiracy.

If B thinks doing X will help A, and does X anyway without asking, what is it? "Collusion" is a milder synonym for conspiracy, so it ain't that; the nearest I can get is "aiding without abetting", which is ugly, or "giving aid and succour", which is needlessly legalistic.

I open the query to the floor. Have at it, gentlecatters.

* And I may well have asked this elsewhere already. I blame bit rot in the wetware.