BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: ripov
Date: 13 Nov 20 - 02:39 PM

"x times cheaper than"-when what is meant is "1/xth of the cost"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Nov 20 - 01:43 PM

Never met a noun I couldn't verb.

PC mealymouthiness is another peeve.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 11 Nov 20 - 05:29 AM

Have to say I'm fond of a little light verbing now and then.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 20 - 06:05 PM

I'm afraid that to criticise people who allegedly misuse "gift" is something that is not within my gift.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 09 Nov 20 - 04:59 PM

But those all make the point: "gifted with second sight" is gifted as a verb, yes, but gifted in the sense of having a natural gift, rather than of receiving a birthday present; the other two are gifted as a verb in legal contexts.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Reinhard
Date: 09 Nov 20 - 02:58 PM

The OED defines gift as a verb too besides the noun and gives as examples:
P.G. Wodehose: She was gifted with a sort of second sight.
Daily Telegraph: You can be ... gifted up to £90,000 before you become liable to tax.
J.C. Lees: The Regent Murray gifted all the Church Property to Lord Sempill.

A friend from Edinburgh, who is a singer/songwriter and speaks very precise, uses gift as a verb regularly; so I'm quite accustomed to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 09 Nov 20 - 12:17 PM

"in my [or his, her, their, etc.] DNA"
when used about something that is obviously not in DNA, such as saying of a film director: "Cinema was in his DNA".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Nov 20 - 11:39 AM

Gift = that which has been given, and is thus a noun.

Ask is a verb. If you have a big favor to ask, it is the favor which is big.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 06:02 PM

Tits like coconuts.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 04:18 PM

Ah, and we come to a linguistic example I love:
Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 01:48 PM

Ladies! Please! Tow the line!

Ladies often please, whether they're towing a line or knot.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 01:16 PM

I must say, this misuse of words is a very interesting phenomena...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 12:16 PM

Ladies! Please! Tow the line!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 10:17 AM

Why isn't the opposite of tuition, intuition? Or is it?
Without established knowledge all we can do is make fuzzy guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 09:57 AM

Hmm. Or is that a mute point? Or simply beyond the pail?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 09:33 AM

I use X for Xian but $ for $mas.

Raised to the ground reminds me of Reign in, which should be rein in.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 07:04 AM

That may be so, Nigel, but it's a good bet that most people who use "Xmas" use it as a convenient shorthand, or just a lazy one, and are unaware of that Greek origin. As an atheist I have no dog in the fight as to whether it's offensive or not to believers, but a quick google revealed that there are plenty of Christians who find it offensive (try Quora for example). As it takes about 0.568 seconds longer to write the word in full, and as I have many Christian friends, I'll carry on choosing to avoid the short form.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 06:39 AM

I am a practising Christian, and I've no problems with "Xmas". "X" (chi) was an early symbol used by Christians to identify themselves.
Xmas has a long history of use.
"Xtian" however is a neologism which I strongly dislike.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 06:22 AM

Or the outrageous "Xtian"...

Any more xs exes?

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

And even though I'm a damned atheist, I will never write "Xmas."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 06:18 AM

How's about "razed to the ground" (terrible) or even "raised to the ground" (very terrible indeed)?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 06:15 AM

Ah cool your jexts.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 06:10 AM

Yep, and all the other variants. I think it's to do with that letter x at the end, which isn't even a part of the full word. It fills me with angxt. I'll get over it...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 05:53 AM

Surely you mean "Tx", you prolix bollix?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 04:57 AM

Unless it's in a text message, "Thx."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 04:36 AM

"A crisis situation". A crisis is a crisis. You don't need to add "situation" to elucidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 03:17 AM

Silly question: "Are they both the same?"
Silly answer: "No, only one of them is."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 07 Nov 20 - 06:38 PM

Another long-lost cause: "Both of them were talking with each other." "Both" properly implies "Not just one, but...". Since it is impossible for one to talk with each other, the emphasis of "both" is absurd.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Nov 20 - 04:49 PM

. . .said he wanted as many people to donate to the poppy appeal.
Not having seen the report I can't tell what was intended. But context is everything. If it was preceded by a comment about last year's supporters then the partial sentence makes sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 06 Nov 20 - 01:37 PM

I keep hearing people saying 'as many ...' without continuing with 'as ...'.
I heard an example just know in a local television report about an installation consisting of giant soldier figures to represent those who had died fighting in wars.
Its creator was interviewed, and said he wanted as many people to donate to the poppy appeal. Did he mean as many people as there were giant figures in the display? Or as many as died in the two world wars? He probably meant 'as many as possible', but why not say so?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Nov 20 - 10:02 AM

As Woody Guthrie would say to the question "Why, oh why, oh why, oh why,...why, oh why, oh why?"


"Because, because, because, because...goodbye, goodbye goodbye."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 20 - 06:22 AM

And why use five exclamation marks when one is perfectly sufficient?????

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 06 Nov 20 - 05:33 AM

Possibly mentioned above, but the inclusion of an aggressive "right" at the end of a sentence is beyond fuckdom!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 06 Nov 20 - 03:46 AM

A tick is a positive sign - but it puts a different slant on "uptick" if it's the parasitic sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 05 Nov 20 - 07:57 PM

Back in the day, I never heard anyone say, 'Back in the day' - then all of a sudden everyone was saying it - how come?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 20 - 05:41 PM

It was a delight, Jennie, so no worries!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 05 Nov 20 - 04:09 PM

I've noticed recently that when people are talking about numbers, instead of saying there has been an increase they often say there has been an 'uptick'. Is this because so many statistics these days are bad news?
A tick is a positive sign so this could be an attempt to make the larger numbers seem less unwelcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 05 Nov 20 - 03:42 PM

Steve - "no worries" is an Ozzie-ism that has been around for many years. Back in the day when I was a Sweet Young Thing people - always blokes, women weren't supposed to know such things - would sometimes say "no wucking forries".

Another dating back a very long time, and still in use today, is "she'll be right". It can also be combined with "no worries" to make the compound phrase "no worries, mate, she'll be right".

Once again, a bloke thing. Women have their own Womenspeak. There is also Familyspeak.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 05 Nov 20 - 05:20 AM

There seems to be widespread confusion between 'reticence' and 'reluctance'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Nov 20 - 02:21 AM

theivery instead of theft, some illiterate republican politician

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Nov 20 - 02:48 PM

And all those sugary crap things shelved under Nutrition. Shudder.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 03 Nov 20 - 06:39 PM

There is usually an aisle in a (U.S.) supermarket labeled "International". In fact, most of the offerings in that aisle came from the U.S., and many of the other commodities in the rest of the place were imported. It is stupid to use "international" to mean "foreign", and stupid stupid to use either to mean "ethnic".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 03 Nov 20 - 06:16 AM

'awesome' - reminds me of the television coverage of the Jubilee celebrations a few years back. I remember thinking "What large crowds, what small vocabularies."
Almost everyone asked what they thought of it said either "It's amazing" or "It's a once-in-a-lifetime-opper'uni'y."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 20 - 05:30 AM

When we visited Perth (the Aussie one) we were tickled by how frequently we heard assistants in shops, cafes, etc., replying to each and every step in the transaction with "no worries!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 03 Nov 20 - 02:33 AM

"What block is it that blockbusters bust?"

The block where the movie is screening, where the theatre is located.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 02 Nov 20 - 10:04 PM

Well, if we're going to get into that - how about "awesome"?

Waitress: Would you like some more coffee?

Me: Sure.

Waitress: Awesome!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 02 Nov 20 - 08:28 PM

"Incredibly" is no longer just an exaggeration for "surprisingly". It may mean "very" or nothing at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Nov 20 - 06:17 PM

Right, Nigel. Psychologists use affect as a noun to mean emotion.

Also, I can effect a change.

What's wrong with contact as a verb when I don't wish to specify the method? If I tell my assistant to contact a vendor, s/he may write, telephone, text, fax, send an e-mail or visit the firm.
==========
It's my own fault, but I can never remember what a meme or a trope is.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Nov 20 - 11:47 AM

"Impact"
saves the trouble of deciding whether to say "affect", "effect",

Yes, always a difficult choice. A writing guide used in HMRC stated that the correct usage should be easy, as "affect is a verb and effect is a noun".

Unfortunately that isn't always the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Nov 20 - 10:09 AM

What happened to the word Widow? I keep wincing at headlines about Sean Connery's, but they all say Wife.