BS: Language Pet Peeves

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 - 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: 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: 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: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Sep 23 - 01:22 AM

“A tad bit”. Aaaarrgghh!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 23 - 07:31 PM

:-)

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 - 04:50 PM

It's minUscule, Bill... :-)

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 PeevesI
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Sep 23 - 02:16 PM

I wondered where Rumpole got it.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 10:36 AM

Yeah, that's not bad!

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 04:00 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: BobL
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 03:51 AM

How about "other half", whether "my" or "the"?

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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 - 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 - 09:04 AM

I agree, BWM. "The wife" is an object; "my wife" is a person.

DC

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: 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 - 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 - 07:22 AM

Spot-on, Doug.

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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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?).