BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 21 - 04:59 PM

But Doug, it's ugly. That's me beef!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Mar 21 - 05:03 PM

That is back-ordering, not pre-ordering, to meeee.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 05 Mar 21 - 05:50 PM

But Doug, it's ugly.

To you, perhaps, but not to my ears.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 21 - 06:27 PM

One man's fish is another man's poisson, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 06 Mar 21 - 02:38 AM

Mrrzy, surely back-ordering would be placing an order (for the sake of keeping the paperwork straight) for something that had already been delivered?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 06 Mar 21 - 04:42 AM

That's not how I see it...

A back-order would be for an item that is temporarily out of stock. A pre-order would be for an item that is yet to be released.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 21 - 05:19 AM

But they're both just orders...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 Mar 21 - 05:24 AM

They are both types of order, just as an order is a type of transaction.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Mar 21 - 07:35 AM

Jon Freeman, yes, I do agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 Mar 21 - 07:50 AM

I agree with Mrrzy's agreement.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 21 - 07:53 AM

I agree with everyone and I agree with no-one (to misquote Inspector Clouseau).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 06 Mar 21 - 05:04 PM

The saying "champing at the bit" is ridiculous because what the horse is keen on is getting the damn bit out of its mouth!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Mar 21 - 05:09 PM

That is *why* they are champing. Now they stamp, now they champ, now they stand still.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 06 Mar 21 - 05:38 PM

Are you sure, Mrrzy/Mister Ed, the saying doesn't derive from so called "horse loving" humans thinking horses actually like been ridden somewhere - the weight on their back, being directed by the tugging on either side of their mouth and, in jump racing, the lovely scraping sensation on their stomachs..?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:57 AM

"Be ye not like unto horse and mule, which have no understanding.
Whose mouths must be held with bit and bridle else will they not come nigh you."
Or something like that. Book of Psalms, but I haven't checked which psalm.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 09:01 AM

And yes, that was related to the previous comments, and to the thread. Language pet peeves.
The "King James Bible" and the "Book of Common Prayer" had a lyrical language with which we were brought up. Modern translations just don't match them. That is one of my linguistic pet peeves.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 09:02 AM

And if people are still claiming multiples of 100 posts, that was in memory of the Great Fire of London. (1666)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 05:35 PM

"daylight savings time"
"a savings"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 08:58 AM

Today's Merriam-Webster word of the day is attitudinize.

What a terrible word, yanks. It's gotta be you, innit...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 09:16 AM

Since I repatriated in 1997, as part of the relentless promotion of diversity in England, those with clipped southern or, occasionally, northern accents have been replaced by continuity announcers saying "bovver" or "nuffin," e.g.; and, it seems, the broader the foreign accent, the better - as we slide ever further down the greasy pole.

(I haven't heard "innit" from them yet, but did far too often when I lived in London.)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 09:21 AM

We call your intolernce 'attitudespize'

I don't see the sense in 'late model'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 09:36 AM

WAV, That's Estuary English or Cockley and nothing to do with diversity.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 09:37 AM

*Cockney*

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 10:01 AM

I like cockley. It could mean "attitudinizing just like a cock." :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 10:11 AM

I'm definitely not against county (or similar) diversity - apparently at one stage in England every county had it's own type of bagpipes; I think now all that remains is the Leicestershire smallpipes & Northumbrian smallpipes (which I love hearing).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 11:07 AM

Cockley = 'rather like a cockle'?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 11:20 AM

Only lived there for a total of 4 years, but do know that many Cockneys love a plate of cockles.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 12:17 PM

Cockley Cley, just south of Swaffham in Norfolk, is the site of an Iceni village; a pleasant spot to visit.

The shellfish outlets in East London were generally known as whelk stalls which indicates the locals' preference. Cockles have a tendency to be a bit dodgy.

Back to the subject, has the truly awful 'reach out' been mentioned here?

As far as I'm concerned, the only people who can justifiably 'reach out' were The Four Tops.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 15 Mar 21 - 11:50 AM

Yes, Geoff, reach out has been mentioned.
===================
Recently we had an example of a kind of Mudcat post that irritates me. It's the precious post which assumes that everybody in the world knows the writer's world.

"I'm rewatching Jos Whedon's 'Firefly' and really enjoying it."

What's Firefly? We do have the clue that it's something one watches, but is it a film? TV show? Play? YouTube video? And who's Jos Whedon? script writer? producer? poet? singer?

Is Firefly from last year perhaps? Or from 1927 perhaps? Sure, I could Google it, but if the OP wants people to talk sense to him, he should talk sense too.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 21 - 12:02 PM

I fully get that, leeneia. I don't read fiction and watch only funny films, so a lot of the time I haven't a clue what people are talking about. I call it in-crowdery.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 15 Mar 21 - 12:20 PM

I thought as much, leeneia.

One of my current bugbears is the frequency in which newspapers diminish the power of the words 'fury' and 'rage' by inappropriate and/or lazy use in headlines.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Mar 21 - 09:32 PM

Ok, cops at the latest shooting were searching for ballistics... Um.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Mar 21 - 04:18 PM

Argh. Men, or other people, who refer to their share of the housework as Helping, as if it weren't their actual share of the actual work.

Men, or other people, who refer to taking care of their own children as Babysitting.

The phrase Stray Bullet. It is just as shot as the better-aimed bullets. It did not get out when you didn't latch the door! (This is an ongoing peeve.)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 03:36 AM

Stray Bullet seems OK to me Mrrzy. It has strayed from the intended path towards the target (assuming the shooter wasn't just blazing away at random).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 09:15 AM

"... attempt to try to ..."

"... the ability to be able to ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 10:50 AM

It has *not* strayed. It went, directly, where it was pointed to. The fact that the shooter aimed poorly does not make it the *bullet* that strayed. Calling it so makes the lousy shooter not responsible, *but they are.* That is EXACTLY my objection.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 12:30 PM

Misleading sentences:
In this country we don't deal in summary execution by a policeman without trial and conviction in the street, no matter what past offences we've committed.

Trials and convictions normally take place in the courts.

Let's also add in redundancy. If it is 'summary execution' then 'without trial and conviction' is redundant.

Also, we need consistency in the use of 'we' within the sentence. "We don't deal" appears to relate to the public, or this nation, but "past offences we've committed" appears to relate to the person 'executed' by the police.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 12:58 PM

In this country we don't deal in summary execution by a policeman without trial and conviction in the street, no matter what past offences we've committed.

Trials and convictions normally take place in the courts.

I think that is implied...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 01:36 PM

Yes, it may be implied, or what the writer intended, but it was not implicit in what was actually written: without trial and conviction in the street

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 01:40 PM

In a literal sense, the sentence implies that trials ARE held, and convictions arrived at, "in the street".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 01:41 PM

(Cross-post).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 01:44 PM

It has *not* strayed. It went, directly, where it was pointed to.

If the bullet reached its intended target but then ricocheted off a hard surface in some random direction, would that not then be a stray bullet?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 02:01 PM

If a carefully aimed bullet is heading directly where it was intended but then is blown off target by a sudden gust off wind, does that not become a stray bullet?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 02:53 PM

Getting out of my depth here but I'd read:

"In this country we don't deal in summary execution by a policeman without trial and conviction in the street"

As a whole. Meaning we don't go by that process.

It seems to differ if you split the without trial and convictions part?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 03:17 PM

"In this country we don't deal in summary execution by a policeman without trial and conviction in the street"

Punctuation would make the intended meaning clearer:

"In this country we don't deal in summary execution by a policeman, without trial and conviction, in the street"

Even then, the sentence is clumsy and would benefit from re-writing.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 03:40 PM

No, that's a ricochet.

Famous Irish marksman.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 09:53 PM

I do love being argued over. Far better than being ignored. Yes it wasn't a great sentence. "In the street" should have got in earlier. As for "summary" and "without trial or conviction" I'd contend that they don't necessarily mean the same thing. Many Guantanamo prisoners are incarcerated without trial or conviction but I don't think that "summary" fits the bill for the way they've been treated. I suppose you could accuse me of doubling up by using both, but I'd counter that by asserting that there's nothing wrong with that ploy if what you want to do is to strongly emphasise your point. The bottom line is that you knew what I meant, no bones about it. Watch your grammatical back, Nigel. You're under scrutiny.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 19 Mar 21 - 12:50 PM

Wait - did that sentence come from Steve? I assumed it had been written by a professional and had appeared in some ostensibly creditable publication; otherwise, I wouldn't have given it a thought - as he says, the meaning is clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 21 - 02:12 PM

Flattery will get you everywhere! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 19 Mar 21 - 03:39 PM

If it did come from Steve it must have been among the many deleted posts.
I can only find it being quoted by Nigel Parsons, followed by two or three other people.