BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Dec 21 - 08:40 AM

Nothing like we've seen in the recent future, said NPR about the virus...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 11:55 AM

Ok, saw this for the first time this morning, but have now seen in many times, is this a thing?

I was today years old when I found out (something you found out today, I guess).

Eww.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 11:38 AM

As far as I know, olive oil is the only kind of oil that is subject to these kinds of official standards.

Extra-virgin coconut oil is also available.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 11:20 AM

I've never seen "virgin olive oil" in America either.

Maybe it was a 19th century standard.

(Of course, there's always Olive Oyl....)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 11:15 AM

Virgin olive oil has a higher acid level than is permitted in extra virgin (up to 2% free acid as opposed to maximum 0.8%). It may also have minor flaws in texture or flavour, not allowed in extra virgin oil. I can't remember ever having seen "virgin olive oil" in any shop. Only extra virgin ever crosses my threshold!

As far as I know, olive oil is the only kind of oil that is subject to these kinds of official standards. Even so, there is a lot of fake extra virgin stuff around. If it's in a plastic bottle or in clear glass, it's fake!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 10:52 AM

Merriam-Webster defines "extra-virgin" as "being a virgin olive oil that is lowest in acidity and highest in quality."

So it essentially means "better than virgin," rather than "more virgin than virgin."

"Virgin," btw, is defined as "(of a vegetable oil): obtained from the first light pressing and without heating."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 09:40 AM

Probably something to do with the fact that it is mechanically cold-pressed from olives with no chemical intervention, therefore it's unsullied (just like a virgin). Also, it must be very low in free acid, which can't happen if any chemical processes are used to extract it. The "extra" is added because there's a lower grade of olive oil called just "virgin." You may prefer virgins because they're pure and all that stuff, or you may prefer persons of experience who could show you a better time. But with olive oil, avoid all except extra virgin!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 08:05 AM

I know what it is, and how it varies from a product labelled "olive oil", but I have never understood the term "extra-virgin" olive oil.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 06:16 AM

Long-dead, dead from the neck up, heavily pregnant... (I know, I know...)

I'm still pondering the virgin one...I've pondered worse...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 05:31 AM

You can't have a semi-virgin.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 02:48 AM

I shall continue to maintain that unique is like dead, or pregnant: you either are or you aren't. Any others?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 07:35 PM

Yes, I did see that. I was glad to confirm. But rejoice in the evolution of language is my advice. .

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 06:14 PM

Miss Manners' whole answer *was* Too late.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 05:31 PM

Yebbut Doug, there's a difference. When people use words such as "unique," "decimate" and "literally" in the ways that Mrrzy possibly disapproves of (I could add "disinterested" and "alternate" to that list) they are using them casually without regard to traditional interpretations of their "correct" usage (which is a circumlocutory way of saying that they are, to the minds of conservative-minded professors of English, though not mine, er, "linguistically ignorant"). My beef against "albeit" (as well as horrors such as "prior to," "on a daily basis" and "at this moment in time") is that they are being used by people who are trying to be pretentious. A different issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 04:22 PM

I told myself that I shouldn't do it ...... that I was just being a pain in the arse, labouring the same old point ...... but ....... I just couldn't stop myself!

language is what people speak

People say "albeit"


(I promise that this will be the last time I mention it .... at least, until the next time)
;-)

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 10:00 AM

You're too late. It's already accepted practice. It's fine to use "literally" in a non-literal sense, just as it is with things such as "decimate" and "unique." Sourpusses who continue to rail against these things have almost literally forgotten that language is what people speak, not what professors of English prescribe. Of course, you're not very unique in wanting to fight these lost battles, but don't worry, we're just going with the flow, not setting out to decimate the language.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 09:38 AM

Miss Manners Wins Again!

Dear Miss Manners: Please please PLEASE say something about the misuse of the word "literally" before it becomes accepted practice.

Too late.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeved
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 21 - 08:01 AM

Like hateful father like drunken son absent comprehensive news, the son does not know the depth of his drunken hate and fundamental ignorance, we nonetheless wish him a nary Christmas and 'snile'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 21 - 12:08 PM

I've never heard that one and I don't want to hear it ever again!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Nov 21 - 09:21 AM

Steverino, if you hate "albeit," you'll probably loathe "absent" in the sense of the likewise repellent "sans":

"Absent a solution, people like Sue Godfrey will just keep on fighting."
(Collins Dictionary).

OED finds it used solely in U.S. law for nearly 100 years; then, suddenly....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 08:47 PM

Dunno how that stupid line break got in there. It wasn't in my preview!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 08:43 PM

"Just because you say a word is pretentious, Steve, doesn't make it so."

Well I could agree somewhat with that. Just as a song doesn't exist until is sung, a word only exists when it's spoken aloud (or written), and, as ever, con
text is all. The words we are argue about are ancient, which puts me on the back foot somewhat. But we don't know in any kind of detail how our ancients used them in speech, do we? I can't see much extra-rich colour in albeit instead of though, or about prior to instead of before, or about at this moment in time instead of now, or about on a daily basis instead of each day. If you think that such things add richness, then I think you need to listen harder. They hardly add much poetry to English, do they? But I'd never prescribe the dropping of them, as I don't believe in grammar police, and I'm not bothered when I hear them used. Maybe bothered more when I see them in print... The true essence of any language is clear, simple communication. The poetry can come later.

(Dunno whether "poetry" counts as three syllables, but all of the above, with the singular exception of "communication," is in words of no more than two syllables...)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 07:50 PM

"One of my pet peeves is people who try to limit me to a self-appointed list of approved words."

Well, Doug, as the essence and spirit of my last post is that anything goes, I can only assume that you are a little incapable of understanding plain English...

If you are able to apprise me of any "self-appointed list" [sic] I've suggested, do let me know. I assume that it wasn't the list itself that was self-appointed, by the way. Most lists I've ever perused, being inanimate constructions, might have needed at least some human intervention in order to get themselves "appointed..."

It's a hard life, this business of picking folks up on their use of English, eh, Doug... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 07:19 PM

My two main grouses are about .........................
............ and about pretentiousness. Which is why horrors such as ................. and (the crowning glory...) albeit give me such unalloyed joy.


Spherical objects!

Just because you say a word is pretentious, Steve, doesn't make it so. Of course there are other words that mean the same as "albeit" but it is a perfectly valid alternative. The English language is full of synonyms which give richness and variety to we say and write.

One of my pet peeves is people who try to limit me to a self-appointed list of approved words.

It is not the first time that I have disagreed with you on this point and it won't be the last, so long as you keep repeating what I consider to be nonsense.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 06:03 PM

All I was saying, meself, is that the majority of gripes referred to in this very entertaining thread are not, in fact, "incorrect." They may be inelegant, vulgar, ignorant and going against the grain, and may even be seen to be degrading the language, but if enough people use the vexatious expressions in question they become the currency of English and fighting it all is pointless. That's why I said that the best thing would be to seethe internally, as moaning aloud about "errors" would not only likely put you in the wrong but also make you look like a bit of an arse. Sarcasm is always useful, of course, as long as your audience is receptive to it. My two main grouses are about people who affect to correct others yet pepper their own posts with mistakes (that has me rubbing my hands with glee, frankly...) and about pretentiousness. Which is why horrors such as prior to, going forward, at this moment in time, on a daily basis and (the crowning glory...) albeit give me such unalloyed joy...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 04:39 PM

Bored of was the normal usage when I was a child. It's not logical, but then a lot of English isn't.
There's another one that gets me (I may have posted this already further up): the increasing use of "than" when "as" or other forms are meant, in comparative sentences.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 04:17 PM

How can you have a thread on "pet peeves" if you just "suck'm up"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 01:24 PM

Well suck 'em up, good people. The bald fact is that bored of, different to, different from and different than are all standard English - at least somewhere.

"Bored of" is now extremely common in speech, if not in written text. Most Brits are fine with both "different to" and "different from," but "different than" makes most of us shudder. Standard English comes about by usage, not by rules set by grammarians. What annoys a yank or an Aussie might not raise an eyebrow in the UK and vice versa. It's a very democratic process (and a process it is...), and I suppose we should celebrate that and learn to seethe inwardly only.

I can (and do) protest 'til I'm blue in the face about uninterested and disinterested, alternative and alternate and other such usages that originated in confusions, and I can rail to my heart's content about silly things such as "albeit, "on a daily basis" and "prior to." But everything I've mentioned in this post is "correct," in that millions use the expressions and that there's nowt that the grammar police can do about it.

And there's no such thing as a split infinitive. The concept is based on a misunderstanding of what an infinitive is. I urge everyone to boldly go and have an entertaining google...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 11:11 AM

I haven't heard "on accident" yet - but if it's out there, I'm sure it won't be long before I do. There must be some law of linguistics about this, but once the erroneous usage becomes established among a small number of key people, it seems to suddenly spread exponentially, even when there is no apparent advantage to it. For example, remember 'way back a few years ago when nobody ever got "bored of" anything? "Bored of" isn't significantly easier to say than "bored with" - so why has "bored of" taken over? (Rhetorical question!)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 11:04 AM

I am plenty peeved by On accident.

On a separate note, from what I hear on the radio (NPR / BBC], Americans say different from, Brits, different to.

From makes sense. To does not. To me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 09:02 AM

"Purposely" and "on purpose" are both perfectly normal in the U.S.

But within the past couple (i.e., "two or three") of years I've begun to hear a new antonym: "on accident."

What say y'all?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 08:48 AM

No, it's "purposefully" that's used in place of the correct "purposely" - the two words mean different things. Purposely is an Irish usage, certainly; didn't know it was uncommon in the UK.
Another one that puts my teeth on edge is the way people mix up discrete and discreet.
And don't get me started on people who peddle along before putting their breaks on!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 21 - 06:34 PM

Very interesting. I've just spent a few minutes looking up "purposely" in various dictionaries and on grammar websites. It's definitely a perfectly good word. However, I've yet to stumble on a single instance of its use in an example sentence where it couldn't be replaced perfectly by "intentionally," "deliberately," or, depending on syntax, "on purpose." I think that these alternatives sound more idiomatic in English English. I can well imagine that "purposely" may sound more idiomatic to an American speaker than to an English speaker (aka the man on the Clapham omnibus).

A smallish matter...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Nov 21 - 04:33 PM

‘Purposely’, in the sense of ‘on purpose’, is in common usage here in the Backwoods. Likewise ‘purposefully’ meaning ‘with purpose’, ‘determinedly’…

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 21 - 01:47 PM

Well that's interesting. I'll ask around...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 16 Nov 21 - 12:40 PM

Never uncommon in my neck of the woods (Canada). ("Purposely", that is).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 16 Nov 21 - 12:34 PM

I've heard purposely before. "He purposely fell into the pond, trying to get a laugh."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Nov 21 - 09:47 AM

Thanks, meself! In other words... No.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 15 Nov 21 - 07:49 PM

According my TV news, just now: "Biden and Xi will both be meeting each other ...." Good to know it's not just one of them meeting each other, or both of them meeting the monolithic, collective other, I suppose ... !

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 21 - 06:52 PM

"Purposefully" has a strong ring of intent or determination about it. "He was hell-bent on finishing painting the room before dark so he set about the task purposefully." I can't remember ever hearing anyone say "purposely" this end and I think it could be a bit of an eyebrow-raiser, though* its antiquity can't be denied. I think we tend to say "on purpose" or "deliberately." I've seen "sewerage" on my annual bills from the water company but I haven't heard anyone saying it (in which case it would almost certainly be being used in error). Sewage is always in the news here as a scandalous item, and we have Surfers Against Sewage, who are very high-profile, so that's the word we're all conditioned to use this end.

*I could have said "albeit" there, I s'pose... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 15 Nov 21 - 05:03 PM

I'm enraged by ladylike incorrectness, like people who say 'purposefully' when they mean 'purposely' because, I suppose, it sounds more Mrs Bouquet so must be the correct form; and 'sewerage' instead of 'sewage' ditto.
But then at this stage of the day I'm so old-fashioned that, with Yeats, I say I have a FANatic heart.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Nov 21 - 04:14 PM

I ask, is rarely said that way. People most often say I assed or I axe.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 21 - 04:40 AM

"Altogether now!"

Heheh...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 14 Nov 21 - 09:33 PM

Altogether now! Come on! Everybody! Charge! Shall we? Heave away, haul away! Last one in's a rotten egg!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Nov 21 - 01:01 PM

Is there a way of kind of having 1st-person imperatives in English without using Let's? As in, the French Allons-y?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 21 - 08:52 AM

The MP Barry Gardiner, speaking about his pride in being Scottish, has just been saying that he nevertheless married an English wife.

I hope he's happy to be married to a bigamist...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 10 Nov 21 - 02:57 PM

Donuel, I noticed your post about "not." This thread is about language, so I'll share a language thought.

I don't like it when people talk about what isn't true and then put NOT in. Like this:

    Do NOT lay a little baby on its side or its stomach. Its face can get
    pressed into the bedding, and the baby might suffocate.

In my opinion, one should write about what's right. You want the reader to make a mental picture of the right thing to do. Like this:

    Always put a little baby down on its back.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 09 Nov 21 - 08:04 PM

'Peace keepers' is a little catchier than 'peace maintainers'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Nov 21 - 07:56 PM

Peace keepers don't give peace. Peace makers spread peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Nov 21 - 06:01 PM

Those "peacekeepers" were an ad-hoc multinational UN force created under the UN Charter to help implement and protect cease-fires in local conflicts.

They were (and are) not combat soldiers, and they fired only if fired upon - if then.

The phrase "United Nations peacekeepers" seems to have supplemented "United Nations peace-keeping force" in the early '60s. Their first deployment was in 1948.

In the 1980s, of course, there were the Peacekeeper ICBMs.

In the spirit of Mutually Assured Destruction, they really were intended to keep the peace.

And, in service from 1986 to 2002, they apparently helped do just that.