BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 02:39 PM

Mrrzy, I think it's past your bedtime.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 06:26 PM

Oh, sooo true!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: PHJim
Date: 29 Jun 20 - 09:29 AM

From: Mrrzy- PM
Date: 21 Jun 20 - 12:35 PM

Using definitions instead of the word so defined.

Using initials as in The w-word when avoiding saying Walk in front of your dog is fine, but doing that with any human over the age of spelling is infantilizing, condescending, and patronizing/ paternalistic. Either use the word or don't.
***************************************************************

Mrrzy - There are words that I don't feel comfortable saying, like "the N word". In that case, I will use the initial.

While that's the only one that comes to mind right now, I know that my dear departed grandmother would say "the F word" rather than "fuck" when she was quoting someone and I'm glad she did.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jun 20 - 10:29 AM

If you're quoting someone who said "nigger" or "fuck," your choice should be either to not quote them at all or to say/type exactly what they said/typed. Putting in asterisks or saying things like "the n-word" is both pusillanimous and not quoting accurately. You can have fun with asterisks, on the other hand, as in "...and then I told the b*ast*ard to f*uck off..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jun 20 - 06:35 PM

I note that Jay Rayner, my very favourite restaurant critic, is trying to be kind to restaurants during their troubled times in the pandemic, because, as he says, only an ars*ehole would give a bad review at the moment.

"ars*ehole." Ideal!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 30 Jun 20 - 02:15 AM

"Using initials as in The w-word when avoiding saying Walk in front of your dog is fine, but doing that with any human over the age of spelling is infantilizing, condescending, and patronizing/ paternalistic. Either use the word or don't."

In Canada, we just had a popular, respected TV journalist have to abase herself before the nation, apologize, and present a Red-China-style self-criticism for having, within a planning meeting with her fellow journalists, uttered the title of an important book in Quebec politics that has the notorious, um, "n-word", in its title. So ....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Jun 20 - 11:59 AM

I'm with Steve Shaw, or he's with me, on this one.

I had to watch a CNN clip just to find out what the "m-word" was.

Spoiler alert:






It was Mask.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jun 20 - 01:27 PM

Interesting piece in the Guardian from ten years ago, making some apposite points, and including an extract from their style guide:

"We are more liberal than any other newspapers, using language that our competitors would not. But even some readers who agree with Lenny Bruce that "take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government" might feel that we sometimes use such words unnecessarily.

The editor's guidelines are as follows:

First, remember the reader, and respect demands that we should not casually use words that are likely to offend.

Second, use such words only when absolutely necessary to the facts of a piece, or to portray a character in an article; there is almost never a case in which we need to use a swearword outside direct quotes.

Third, the stronger the swearword, the harder we ought to think about using it.

Finally, never use asterisks, which are just a cop-out.

As Charlotte Brontë put it: "The practice of hinting by single letters those expletives with which profane and violent people are wont to garnish their discourse, strikes me as a proceeding which, however well meant, is weak and futile. I cannot tell what good it does – what feeling it spares – what horror it conceals."

If the author of Jane Eyre had been a tabloid reader, she might also have observed that asterisks actually draw attention to swearwords, as well as offering readers the challenge of working out the difference between, say, ****s and ******s."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 01 Jul 20 - 01:10 PM

Most of the time when a person uses a foul word s/he's just being lazy.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Jul 20 - 02:22 PM

For once I seem to be in agreement with The Guardian (albeit from 10 years ago).
First, remember the reader, and respect demands that we should not casually use words that are likely to offend.
Second, use such words only when absolutely necessary to the facts of a piece, or to portray a character in an article; there is almost never a case in which we need to use a swearword outside direct quotes.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Jul 20 - 02:27 PM

Chitten the chat shootin the breeze
ticklin the ribs inventin degrees
piled higher and deeper BS is cheaper
Than Harvard, Wheaton or Yale

Learning to cook by hook or by crook
is like stealing from out of print books
The art of cuisine is almost obscene
in textures tastes and smells

Who puts the shish on your kabob
or relish on your hot dog
Who puts a pinch of salt on your egg
or sauce on your gonzofazoul

The Randy man can
he has a secret rhthym
that you can't understand
but the randy man knows

Who shaves so close his cheeks glow
it almost feels like peachy fuzz
What the randy man does with a can of
whipped cream very few have known

Who uses all the ice cream
to turn to steam when its on you
if he spills chocolate syrup
you can be sure he'll clean it all up

The randy man knows
all the perfect ways
to cure your weary woes
with hot buttered rolls

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Jul 20 - 02:32 PM

You can do better than dirty words

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jul 20 - 06:00 PM

Albeit, Nigel? You did that on purpose, didn't you! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Jul 20 - 06:04 PM

Where is the African man from the Tavern? Bet he'd like the hot buttered tootsie rolls!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jul 20 - 06:21 PM

Well now. One says dirty words, one says foul words. I don't use fuck, cunt or several other such words on this website (though I certainly do when I'm in my car stuck behind some bellend or other who needs to learn to drive, for example). But they are not dirty words, nor are they foul words. That's just your judgement, and it isn't mine. In fact, they go back many hundreds of years, they are incredibly descriptive in a very direct way and fashion dictates that they are, at this time, slightly less acceptable than arsehole, dick, fanny, shit, piss, wank and the rest. You call them foul or dirty. Unfortunately for you, masses of people use these words every day, often incredibly effectively and with colour. Thinking people of a sensitive nature will consider the context in which one may be tempted to use them. I use these words every day, but there has been many an occasion on which I've winced at their use by someone who has shown no regard as to the setting they find themselves in. Not in front of the children, formal situations, etc. You may hate the fact, but, like any other words in common currency, they are standard English, and you simply have to get over that indigestible fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Jul 20 - 08:14 PM

The best words

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Jul 20 - 02:31 PM

Albeit, Nigel? You did that on purpose, didn't you! :-)
I did it on purpose as that was the sentence which came to me. I did not do it deliberately to annoy you.
You have made your dislike of the word known.
I said: For once I seem to be in agreement with The Guardian (albeit from 10 years ago).
I could have said For once I seem to be in agreement with The Guardian (although it is from 10 years ago).
But why use three words when one will do?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Jul 20 - 05:29 PM

Steve, I don't grok your comment:

But they are not dirty words[...]. In fact, they go back many hundreds of years [...]

How does the age of a word relate to its foulness? Fuck used to be the *polite* word; when the Norman term became polite, the previously-polite Saxon word became rude, and the rude Saxon term was lost to English. It seemed you were arguing that if a word is old its usage can't be rude...?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jul 20 - 07:15 PM

That was in no way an argument that I was making. Reread my comments about fashion.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 03 Jul 20 - 01:07 AM

Another peeve I just noticed: I don't want to hear the phrase 'perfect storm' ever again.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Jul 20 - 10:06 AM

Then what did you mean by Actually they go back?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jul 20 - 06:21 PM

They have been in common usage for hundreds of years is what I meant. That isn't to say that they have to be regarded as words that are in good taste, but they are standard English whether you like it or not. The whole point about what you regard as contentious words is that context is everything. Grand in the pub with your session mates, not grand in front of Grandma, your five-year-old or your maiden aunts. I don't use fuck and cunt here because I don't want to cause the kind of shock or offence among people I don't know that I see others here indulging in. But that's just me, and I care not a jot about other posters using those words. I'm kind of vaguely aware that there are some people who might take offence, and I only want to cause offence to people I intensely dislike. I have better ways of doing that than by resort to fuck and cunt.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jul 20 - 06:22 PM

And I didn't say "Actually they go back". Actually...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Jul 20 - 10:11 AM

You said In Fact where I quoted you, right, sorry.

Ok, question: in the phrase "long-lived" does the "live" syllable rhyme with give or hive?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Jul 20 - 10:33 AM

Also this

https://humanparts.medium.com/the-most-mispronounced-word-in-the-world-20dcad2a6735

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 04 Jul 20 - 11:31 AM

In that article, the author nominates 'karaoke' as the most mispronounced word in the world. This, surely, is a case of misplaced priorities. I would of thought that how it is pronounced is the least of the problems associated with karaoke.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jul 20 - 12:04 PM

I know someone who is fairly fluent in Spanish who still manages to pronounce chorizo "churitso."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Jul 20 - 03:43 PM

So, the "i" in long-lived, pronounced like the "i" in give, or hive?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 04 Jul 20 - 05:36 PM

Mrrzy: The "hive" vowel is better. "-Lived" there comes from the noun "life", not the verb "live". In America, we can still use the proper pronunciation, tho I think we are in a minority. In Britain, I gather, it has died out entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 04 Jul 20 - 06:03 PM

I'd say long-livved, because we're talking about the person's action, though I suppose you could say long-lie-ved in the sense that they'd had a long life. It'd make me shudder, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 04 Jul 20 - 06:18 PM

I prefer the long i. If you have legs, you can be long-legged, and if you have a life, you are long-lived.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 05 Jul 20 - 02:45 AM

Shouldn't that be long-lifed?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Jul 20 - 08:17 AM

My take exactly, Bobl.

But I was curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 05 Jul 20 - 06:27 PM

BobL: Compare the plural noun "lives".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 05 Jul 20 - 07:43 PM

Perhaps it should have been, but it is not, and if you use long-lifed, people will assume you can't spell.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 06 Jul 20 - 05:21 AM

Centre around. No. You can't centre something around. You can centre something on something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Jul 20 - 03:53 PM

And when did every single use of the word "black" become racist? We are diurnal animals. Night is scary. Nothing to do with skin color.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Jul 20 - 08:21 PM

PBS, talking of the Vikings, called something "unprecedented for its time" and I instantly forgot what the something was.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 08 Jul 20 - 10:04 AM

Would America work better if it was unpresidented?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Jul 20 - 10:38 AM

Groan, Nigel Parsons.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 08 Jul 20 - 12:06 PM

Mrzzy, I agree with you about black.

I just noticed another pet peeve I have: using reference as a verb. Take these three sentences:

He referenced the book of Ecclestiastes.
He referred to the book of Ecclestiastes.
He cited the book of Ecclestiastes.

I prefer the second or the third, depending on meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Jul 20 - 12:45 PM

Just heard a Brit use the adjective Swish, which apparently does not mean what Americans use that word for...

Separated by a common language, again.

I had a British boss for a while, we once had a long talk about that. It was the qualifier Quite that got her into trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 08 Jul 20 - 01:02 PM

"Reference" is a noun.

"Refer" is a verb. So is "cite".

Nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 08 Jul 20 - 02:17 PM

"He referenced the book of Ecclestiastes."
Unless of course it is used to mean that he catalogued the book, and created an index. Then it wouldn't seem too wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jul 20 - 03:38 PM

Some mixed metaphors are better than others but I have heard some that are incomprehensable. "You can't unring the bell of the crazy uncle locked in the cellar"
"The White House is an infected Cruise Ship without a propeller"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jul 20 - 06:29 PM

You may not like "reference" as a verb, but you're fighting a lost cause. You are fighting what is now standard English. It's up there with "Will she medal at the Olympics?" "I will access the information by googling it" "She authored the article on global warming." And will you book a holiday next year?

I like these things. They represent evolution in our language and there is no degradation going on. What a contrast with horrid things such as "alternate" instead of "alternative" and "disinterested" used ignorantly instead of "uninterested." Now they really do represent degradation.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Jul 20 - 09:44 PM

Ah, yes, verbing nouns. Love that. But not when there's already a perfectly good word.

What bugs me is inventing words like Authenticness. No, authenticity.

Or Worthiness. It's just worth.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jul 20 - 04:39 AM

Or two words that seem to be more popular across the water, "normalcy" and "societal."    And I must confess that I've never properly got my head round "existential" so I never use it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jul 20 - 06:08 AM

And there are perfectly good words available which enable the more enlightened among us to avoid such horrors as "albeit," "prior to" and "on a daily basis."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Jul 20 - 06:26 AM

You may not like "reference" as a verb, but you're fighting a lost cause. You are fighting what is now standard English.
Can you accept the same argument about 'albeit'?


900