BS: Language Pet Peeves

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: 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: Thompson
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 09:18 AM

You're only relatable if you're leaning in.

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: 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: 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 - 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 04:46 AM

Speaking of personable, what about the ridiculous "relatable?"

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: 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: 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: 11 Sep 23 - 02:07 PM

Bigly, while rare, is a real word.

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: Stanron
Date: 11 Sep 23 - 06:11 AM

Why bring me into this?

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 23 Aug 23 - 04:23 PM

Rising to a crescendo...

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: 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: 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: 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 23 - 09:02 PM

And what would you know about 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 - 08:53 PM

"practicing"

Oi, you told me you were English!

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.