BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Aug 19 - 11:13 PM

Jeri, those all seem to be *during* the landing, but yeah, taxi to gate then crash into terminal, ok. But I would day Crashed taxiing, not crashed after landing...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jeri
Date: 07 Aug 19 - 07:51 AM

I was thinking of "landing" as touching down. Coming to land (the ground). Cambridge English Dictionary: "1. the fact of an aircraft arriving on the ground or a boat reaching land".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Aug 19 - 10:32 AM

It is interesting, as an aside, that in French one only lands (aterrir) on land. You sea on water (amerrir) and moon (alunir) on the moon...
Hey double entendre!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Aug 19 - 04:47 PM

Mrzzy:
If you 'moon' on the moon your suit will quickly run out of breathable air. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Aug 19 - 06:04 PM

Never said it was smart...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 08 Aug 19 - 06:56 AM

Talking of 'mooning': Never said it was smart...

I know, "no-one likes a smart arse", although I did agree with Kylie Minogue winning "Rear of the year".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 10 Aug 19 - 08:50 PM

Here's a peeve of mine: baby-talk conjunctions in professional writing.

"The cause might be heavy rainfall or impervious surfaces or poorly-designed revetments."

instead of

"The cause might be heavy rainfall, impervious surfaces or poorly-designed revetments."

To me, the first way is how children talk. They start a sentence, then they add elements with "or" or "and" as they think of them. A professional should think ahead.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 19 - 10:09 AM

Well I sometimes use that construction for emphasis. Nowt wrong with it in m'humble.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Aug 19 - 10:29 AM

Oxford comma arguments, anyone?

I agree about the baby talk. Ever heard a small child run out of breath midsentence?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: kendall
Date: 12 Aug 19 - 04:36 PM

People who don't know the difference AMONG to, two and too.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Aug 19 - 06:43 PM

Apparently, kendall, it's ok to use "between" there. I don't like that and I'm with you, but we can't stop the tide...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Aug 19 - 09:40 PM

Cop talk... "At that point in time, the intoxicated individual exited the vehicle."

Why not "Then the drunk got out of the car"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 13 Aug 19 - 01:43 AM

people who mix up:

reticent and reluctant
vice and vise
definite and definitive
untangle and unravel

There's another one going around, but I can't think of it right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 13 Aug 19 - 03:51 AM

Insure and ensure?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 19 - 04:32 AM

Expresso. Heheh...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Aug 19 - 10:49 AM

Their, they're. Feel better?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 13 Aug 19 - 11:25 AM

Sorry, Mrrzy. It's not they're and their. That is a perfectly natural mistake caused by fingers going too fast. I do it myself, though I try to fix it each time.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Aug 19 - 12:02 PM

That was the joke. They are both There's.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 13 Aug 19 - 02:13 PM

How about, the worse the crime, the more respectfully the suspect/convict is spoken of: "the gentleman bit the dog repeatedly", "Mr Epstein trafficked minors", "President Trump had the children taken from their mothers and put in cages"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Aug 19 - 01:22 PM

Ok, in today's search for mussels recipes, one said to add a bay leave. Sigh.

Did I mention I am craving mussels?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Aug 19 - 11:34 AM

Today; grounding when they meant grinding. Yes, if you grind it, it's ground, but you didn't ground it. Sigh.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Aug 19 - 01:07 PM

An interesting article of relevance. I particularly liked the comments on being disinterested.

Perhaps it is important to keep peevishness in perspective!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Aug 19 - 03:39 PM

My peevishness is in perfect, 3D perspective. Ha! Now to read the article.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 19 - 04:00 PM

DMcG, I've earmarked that for a good read tonight once Mrs Steve's hit the sack. I'm a bit ambivalent about the way language seems to change so fast, but I'm also fairly relaxed about it. My command of speling, grammer and punkchewasian is pretty good but I'm a bit of a lingo-liberal at heart. But I love it when resident mudcat twits try to pick me up on the niceties of English. That's when I'm at my best and worst.

And "ambivalent"...anyone else hear that superb Radio 4 programme?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Aug 19 - 09:35 AM

Good article. I peeve about what I read in newspapers, not what those kids say. So grammar, such written, wow.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 16 Aug 19 - 11:56 AM

No matter how many people (read men) tell me that my opinions about English have no foundation, I don't pay attention to them.

Language is important. It can be dishonest, manipulative, or insulting if we let it. It can also waste our time. And so we have every right to pay attention to it and talk about it.

Here's an example of a major language problem that bothers me. I love geology, and recently I borrowed a book on the geologic history of the Alps. Ordinarily, this would be right up my alley - an exciting tale of collisions and destruction.

Unfortunately, the book had been published by the Cambridge University Press (or similar), and its prose was absolutely stultified. You know, the kind of writing you get when a down-to-earth (no pun intended) man thinks, "O god, I've got to write so as to sound intellectual."

The result was that I could not keep awake while reading the book. The struggle to find the message amidst a tangle of over-decorated clauses was too much for me.

If I (who can sleep all I want) can't keep awake while reading it, how can an over-worked student be expected to? What about the person for whom English is not the native language? Why should such a reader have to beat the way through 18th-Century sentence structures?

Writing like that defeats the purpose of the book. That's why I said language can waste our time.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Aug 19 - 11:59 AM

"We dispatched a contingency of Marines to quell the uprising."

I have heard that usage several times by military personnel.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Aug 19 - 12:53 PM

"Comprised of." Grrr...

And I can't say it often enough: never say "prior to" or "albeit" within my earshot...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Aug 19 - 01:05 PM

I remember the cachets of arms in Iraq. It was funny, then.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Aug 19 - 03:12 PM

Here's a new one: stealing dog puppies. Not cat puppies or elephant puppies...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 16 Aug 19 - 04:33 PM

Here's a new one: stealing dog puppies. Not cat puppies or elephant puppies...

Dog (male) as against bitch (female) puppies.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 16 Aug 19 - 09:34 PM

Steve, I'm with you on comprised. This word has become so misused that I don't use it at all. And if you don't like "prior to", you probably share my distaste for "subsequently" when "after" would do.

Today I remembered another mixed-up word pair:

Gourmet (having to do with fine cooking) vs gourmand (a glutton)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Aug 19 - 11:36 PM

My current pet peeve is the growing practice, especially by BBC presenters, of referring to “The x-year anniversary”. Why introduce the redundant ‘year’? What’s wrong with “The xth anniversary”?

And I was gobsmacked recently to hear a radio presenter refer to ‘the three-month anniversary’. WTAF?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 17 Aug 19 - 02:48 AM

Obviously never heard of a luniversary...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Aug 19 - 04:49 AM

And the first decade of this century referred to as the noughties. Grrr again...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Aug 19 - 06:13 AM

"On a daily basis." Argh.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Aug 19 - 08:09 AM

I kinda liked the Aughties...

Black boots held at gunpoint turned out to be black boys, but that's just bad proofreading.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Aug 19 - 12:19 PM

Black boy is the name the Aussies give to a big tufted wild plant, at least in WA. Not nice, I told 'em...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Aug 19 - 08:02 PM

"This program was previously recorded earlier.".. and variations on the theme.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Aug 19 - 11:50 PM

A live audience. What, other shows are filmed before corpses?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 05:50 AM

Pre-order. Pre-book. Pre-select. Pre-choose. Presuppose. Pre-grrr.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 08:50 AM

Ha ha. I've just posted a joke in the recession thread that contains the word "pre-declined"...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 10:19 AM

Thinking about "prior to" and "subsequently", I really can't see what there is to object to. They are, in turn, perfectly understandable and unambiguous alternatives to "before" and "after". Life would be pretty boring if communication was restricted to an approved list of basic words. Variety is the spice of life.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 11:36 AM

I have never seen a case of "prior to" in which it couldn't have been perfectly well replaced with "before." Likewise, I've never seen "albeit" used where "though" wouldn't have been just as good. "Subsequently" can carry nuance that makes it useful, but generally I share Leeneia's objection to it. The objection isn't that they're not standard English, rather that they are used in order to make the user sound clever. In fact, they make the user sound pompous.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 12:16 PM

Subsequently, to me, means After and because of, whereas after means After.

Saw "due" for Do today. Subsequently, I was annoyed.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 03:11 PM

In fact, they make the user sound pompous.

Not to me, they don't. You might as well object to someone saying "pail" when they mean "bucket" but that, of course, would be nonsense.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 08:12 PM

Not exactly a comparable case, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: michaelr
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 08:21 PM

I was recently informed that one should not begin a statement with "Actually" because it makes one sound like a know-it-all. I was referred to an article that said "Actually is the word that you use when you're actually saying, 'You are wrong, and I am right, and you are at least a little bit of an idiot.'"

I'm inclined to call BS on that. What do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 08:31 PM

When you start a sentence with 'actually', you usually are indicating that your interlocutor is wrong, or at least lacking in information. It may well mean "'You are wrong, and I am right, and you are at least a little bit of an idiot.'" So - what's wrong with that? Are you supposed to refrain from correcting others - or are you supposed to come right out and call them 'idiots' while you're doing it?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 08:42 PM

Well I must admit that I use "actually" quite a lot. I'll try harder...