BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 06:11 PM

I always use whom with a silent m.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 06:05 PM

Lighter: To my ear, "that is/her/its" is not another possessive of "which", but a construction in which "that" = "such that". It is nonstandard English but standard Hebrew.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 02:29 PM

While so many are fretting about "albeit" and "whom," millions of your fellow native speakers of English are replacing inanimate "whose" ("of which") with "thats," "which's" (or "whiches"), and even "which."


It's based on a superstition that "whose" can only refer to people and animals.

I first noticed this forty years ago, when I was teaching at a large American university. Back then, fewer than half of undergraduates polled could correctly fill in the blank: "It's an idea _______ time has come."

It's found mostly in "folk" writing, even of people who are otherwise literate.

Here's an excellent example from the 'Net:

"Seems like a shame when so much bad material is rushed to DVD. 20th Century Fox should do something about this. After all they have released A YANK IN THE R.A.F which main claim to fame is Betty Grable and Tyrone Power."

"That his/ her/ its" is commonly used in speech:

"This is the lady that her car was towed."

"Which is the novel that its [or "thats"] hero turns out to be the killer?"

I'm peeved.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 01:46 PM

I think it does! Certainly in speech, and, if I wanted to express that in writing, I'd reconstruct the sentence. You're not wrong to use/defend it, of course, but, by the same token, we have people here who defend "albeit!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 12:20 PM

.... and I recalled the words of my mother, from whom I'd learned everything about playing the washboard.

'from who' just doesn't work in this example.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 12:09 PM

I can't think of an instance in which "whom" couldn't be replaced by "who" in speech, and instances in the written word would be confined to crusty grammarians who would be far better off rebuilding their sentences.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 11:39 AM

> Two times

Hear, hear. A related annoyance is abuse of percentages: when an advert says "200% bigger", do they mean it's been doubled or trebled? place your bets, mesdames et messieurs. (I even saw "Reduces [the board area used] by 150%" in an advert about printed circuit board interfaces, which if taken literally meant said interface took up negative area.)

I'll pass over percentages per se, as that's a mathematical peeve which merely enables the aforesaid abuse by advert.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 11:29 AM

Reinhard:
Suck sinked!

Oh, sorry, 'succinct'

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Reinhard
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 11:20 AM

"Whom" is to "who" what is "him" to "he" - an excellent pronoun, albeit out of fashion in informal speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 11:20 AM

Who/whom
Whom is used to refer to the object (rather than the subject) of a sentence.

An elderly queer from Khartoum
Took a lesbian up to his room.
They lay on the bed, 'til he finally said:
"Who does what, with what, and to whom?"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 11:10 AM

Whomever. This is surely a purely comic word in the same mould as octopi, fora and viri.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 11:06 AM

"Whom are you?" he said, for he had been to night school.
                               -- George Ade

[Snoopy typing on top of his doghouse:]
    To whom it may concern:
[pause for one frame]
    Dear Whom,

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 04:57 AM

Whom. This terrible word gets my goat almost as much as "albeit." Unless it's the object of a preposition, it should never be used, ever. Even then, just rejig the sentence. Constructions such as "to whom it may concern" (which is horrible in itself) are the only ones in which "whom" is barely acceptable. I wish "whom" an early and horrible demise. I think I may have used it here once but (in the words of Basil Fawlty) I think I got away with it...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 23 - 05:51 PM

We've had three weeks of brilliant weather and Mrs Steve and I have already had a lot of barbecues (including tonight, when I successfully barbecued some wild sockeye salmon for the first time). But we have not had a single barbeque or a bar-b-q. I might tell my offspring in a WhatsApp that we've had a BBQ, otherwise it's a barbecue, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 23 - 05:32 PM

Dammit!

"...nothing more delicious in life that wannabe..."

That that should have been a than...

I could have been hoist by my own petard there had I not spotted it first...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Jun 23 - 11:19 AM

‘X-year Anniversary’. Aaaaaaarrgghh!

Xth Anniversary…

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Jun 23 - 08:33 AM

What is with all yhe commercials saying Two times? Twice!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 23 - 07:13 AM

Hmm. A person in another thread (Rain Dog shall remain nameless), in what was ostensibly an attempt to take the mickey out of me, typed this: "D..... did post a couple of jokes, albeit you might not have found them funny..."

Well if you insist on using the nonsensical word "albeit" (it's a free country and you have every right), then at least use it correctly. The construction quoted above is completely ungrammatical. There's nothing more delicious in life that wannabe pretentious types misusing their pretentious words...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 05:37 PM

I'm sure there are better b&bs in your area, Nigel! Just check prior to making your booking...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 05:29 PM

And don't get me started on "prior to."

I arrived at the abbey, and asked the prior to arrange a room for the night for me!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 05:27 PM

But it's a pet peeve of mine, Doug! What the thread's all about! I rail against this stuff on a daily basis!

Shit...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 05:05 PM

And don't get me started on "prior to."

Nobody asked you to. It's you who keeps bringing the subject up.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 04:54 PM

And don't get me started on "prior to." Yes, it's standard English. But it should never appear either in writing or the spoken word. It's a complete horror. It means "before," and I've never seen a single instance of "prior to" in which "before" wouldn't have cut it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 04:10 PM

Albeit: All be it? Although it be? Although be it? There's no way of extracting sense from this silly word. I'd sooner rip off me top and staple me tit to a beehive than be seen using this ludicrous word.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 10:35 AM

Oh, and I view use of "albeit" as often being for comic effect. Always look on the wry side of life.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 10:33 AM

OK, folks: here's a couple of curious facets of English as she is spoke that sort-of annoy me.

* If I ask someone "Are you feeling OK?" and they're not, the answer is "No". If instead I say "Are you not feeling OK?", logic suggests the answer would be "Yes", but it's understood that I'm asking "Are you feeling OK?" with the implication that I expect the answer to be "No".

* If I say "You're feeling OK, aren't you?" then neither "Yes" nor "No" is logically correct.

Happily, these two curiosities cancel out in practice in spoken English. They may well not appear in other languages; contributions, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 07:40 AM

Incidentally, I highly recommend Larry Trask's book "Mind the Gaffe." He was a mighty linguist and I don't care if I'm appealing to authority here. You won't like what he has to say about "albeit." He regards it as a pretentious and silly word, avoided by good writers and loved by bad writers who foolishly believe that using pretentious words makes bad writing good. And I heartily agree!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 04:52 AM

I wouldn't question your right, Doug, even if I were one of General Franco's grammar-police goons. I'd just politely request that you consider "though" next time...

Maybe it's because, as you know, I'm a very simple man...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 02:56 AM

Because variety is the spice of life. 'Albeit' is a perfectly good, unambiguos alternative and I reserve the right to use it whenever I want to.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 23 - 04:56 PM

But why use that silly word when a much simpler word, universally understood, will do just as well?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 01 Jun 23 - 04:22 PM

That makes "albeit" pretentious.

Spherical objects!

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 23 - 04:09 PM

We call it the greengrocers' apostrophe this end. You can buy a pound of potato's or half a pound of tomato's. And how about lending me some of your CD's?

"Albeit" doesn't offend me. It makes me smirk when I see it, because there are far more sensible alternatives (try "though" every time). That makes "albeit" pretentious. Same with "prior to" ("before" works every time) and "on a daily basis" (try "every day" every time). These three examples are all standard English, therefore not wrong, but they are decidedly not elegant English.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Jun 23 - 02:47 PM

I am understanding of people who misuse apostrophes when they can't tell possessives from contractions. But I WILL consider physical action if you've left up a sign with apostrophes for plurals.

I've rarely if ever used the word 'albeit' (allbeit?) and I know someone who really hates its use, but I have no understanding of where the hostility comes from. If it should offend me, I do not know why.

As for other sources of offense, most of them have been eroded over time. I saw a cute movie where a proper American teacher is explaining to the father o f the student how he's been marked down for not knowing the difference between 'can' and 'may', and it's plain to see the Jewish immigrant father has no idea of what he's talking about nor the difference. But his trusting attitude is comic.

I used to treat double negatives as anathema until I ran into foreign languages that simply don't care. I love that Russian has no definite article, though I suspect that is responsible for their long-time problems with democracy and the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 30 May 23 - 11:23 AM

There's a young woman with a youtube channel I watch sometimes. Now, she's clearly targetting a younger audience, and her talk is peppered with all the current fashionable slang, and sometimes I literally have no idea what she means by some apparently widely-known expression or turn of phrase. I have to remind myself that when I was young, our talk was full of hippie, biker, and ghetto argot, all mixed together, so maybe our elders were equally bemused. However, my suspicion is that the good ol' internet has exaggerated this phenomenon, as so many others.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 May 23 - 09:37 AM

What do these young whippersnappers mean using You in the singular? I tell thee, the world is ending.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 30 May 23 - 02:59 AM

Doug, that's true - fifty years ago! But Norfolk people still speak in the same accent, and always say, "Cheerio", not "See ya later", apart from the younger ones, which probably shows that 'cheerio' is on the way out.
Husband actually likes saying 'See ya later, alligator!' (in a strong French accent). He's taught me so say, "Eh boh da! Ee air-eh!" (a very rude f*** off type of rejoinder) in his native Malinke.)
I absolutely love languages, but some modern changes and usages make me growl. I reckon getting old means one dislikes change of any kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 May 23 - 06:11 PM

My grandad was involved with German prisoners of war in WW1. He claimed that he could speak three languages in a four-word sentence when he ordered them to go to get water: "Allez wasser, you buggers!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 May 23 - 02:23 PM

My bilingual niece... bonsoir, alligator!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 27 May 23 - 05:23 PM

The Singing Postman sang "Cheerio" in one of his songs, ("Hev yew got a loit boi?').

That was more than 50 years ago.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 27 May 23 - 11:52 AM

It's definitely ta-tah in Nottingham too, though we used to be also fond of 'I'll sithee',

Never heard of 'see you later, alligator', then just ask Bill.

After 'while. crocodile

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 May 23 - 09:44 AM

Ta-tah

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Stanron
Date: 27 May 23 - 07:02 AM

I just caught the end of an American episode doing a Lotus Elise with Ant Anstead. It sounded like 'Ta-la' to me.

So 'Ta-la', 'Ta-da' and 'Ta-ra'. Any others?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Stanron
Date: 27 May 23 - 06:23 AM

Or is Mike Brewer's version more like 'Ta-la'? There will probably be an episode of Wheeler Dealers on later today. I'll check.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Stanron
Date: 27 May 23 - 05:49 AM

Yes I've noticed Mike Brewer's 'Ta-da'. Where I'm from, The Wirral, it was always 'Ta-ra'. I wonder how many local variants there are of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 May 23 - 03:19 AM

Well Doug, here in deepest Norfolk, people always used to say things such as, "Oim orf now, so chair-ee-oh mawther!" The Singing Postman sang "Cheerio" in one of his songs, ("Hev yew got a loit boi?'). 'See ya later' is a new expression to me.
In West London as a child, I often heard people say, "Ta-da!" for 'goodbye'. On Wheeler Dealers (car programme on TV) Mike Brewer always ends the programme with that word.
Cool, eh? (hee hee)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 23 - 05:14 PM

Aye, tadah!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 May 23 - 05:07 PM

In my part of the Lincolnshire Backwoods, the usual expressions of farewell are “See you later” (often shortened to “Laters”) or, more frequently, “Cheers” (which I’m guessing is an abbreviation/corruption of “Cheerio”, although I could be wrong there).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 23 - 09:43 AM

"Selective"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 26 May 23 - 08:26 AM

Pretentiousness is your selective outrage.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 May 23 - 07:33 AM

And instead of 'goodbye' or 'cheerio'

'Cheerio' - seriously? Sounds like something out of Jeeves and Wooster.


DC