 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Language Pet Peeves
|
|
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Mrrzy Date: 04 May 23 - 09:03 AM We got bretheren and cistern, here... |
|
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: 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: Mrrzy Date: 02 May 23 - 10:24 PM Fraught. With what? |
|
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: 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: 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: 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 |
|
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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:13 PM Very civilised, Doug, you ould contrarian you! |
|
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 - 12:02 PM Dominatrix. :-) |
|
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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Lighter Date: 21 Apr 23 - 01:19 PM We had a notable one as 45th president. |
|
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: Mrrzy Date: 21 Apr 23 - 11:29 AM And what ever happened to Bully for you? |
|
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: 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: 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: 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. |
