 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Language Pet Peeves
|
|
|
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:
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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 06 Sep 23 - 10:17 PM .... why *do* so many people lack daisies? |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 20 Sep 23 - 03:51 AM How about "other half", whether "my" or "the"? |
|
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: 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: Stanron Date: 11 Sep 23 - 06:11 AM Why bring me into this? |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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. |
