BS: Language Pet Peeves

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...