 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Language Pet Peeves
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Doug Chadwick Date: 30 Sep 23 - 05:43 PM I would argue the point with you, Steve, but there is no point once you have made up your mind. Others can read the words and decide for themselves. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Doug Chadwick Date: 30 Sep 23 - 10:28 AM It was in the quote from the Guardian, talking about Lady Gaga. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Doug Chadwick Date: 29 Sep 23 - 07:19 PM ... any more than your name is Doug da Ashton-under-Lyme or wherever it is you come from. The surname Chadwick comes from the "village of Ceadda (or Chad)" and originates in the parish of Rochdale, Lancashire (now Greater Manchester). The name has spread over the centuries but is still well represented in the North West of England. I think the parallels with "Da Vinci" are quite strong. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Doug Chadwick Date: 29 Sep 23 - 06:31 PM Leonardo's name was Leonardo. "Da Vinci" means "of the village Vinci," which thousands of denizens of that village could have used. If I read a report where the name Leonardo is used on its own, it could be Leonardo Da Vinci, Leonardo DiCaprio or one of a host of other well known Leonardos. If the report uses Da Vinci on its own, I would immediately think of Leonardo Da Vinci. I would not imagine it would be Giuseppe Da Vinci, Leonardo's neighbour from next door but one, nor Giovanni Da Vinci who opened a pizzeria in the town long after Leonardo died. If "Da Vinci" is used on its own, do you understand what is meant? In reality, is there any possible ambiguity? If the answers are "Yes" and "No", then it meets all the requirements for good communication. To take a couple of quotes from upthread: The evolution of meanings of words is time-honoured and is healthy; Language is wot people speak, not wot professors of language profess. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Doug Chadwick Date: 20 Sep 23 - 04:37 AM I thought we had drawn a line under it, Steve. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Doug Chadwick Date: 20 Sep 23 - 04:11 AM "My car" as opposed to "the car"; "I'll be coming in the car". "The car" doesn't imply taking without consent. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Doug Chadwick Date: 20 Sep 23 - 04:00 AM does the usage of "the wife" imply that one is treating the seventh commandment lightly? In what way? DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Doug Chadwick Date: 19 Sep 23 - 05:38 PM Let's just agree to disagree. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Doug Chadwick Date: 19 Sep 23 - 01:27 PM No Steve, I'm not competing with you. I am not claiming to be more woke than you - just that you are not more woke than me as your choice of referring to a spouse is no better than others available. Your objection to the term "my wife" as implying inequality, condescension or property-owning is, frankly, nonsense. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Doug Chadwick Date: 19 Sep 23 - 09:31 AM Seems that I'm a bit more woke than you pair of hubbies... No you're not, Steve. "Mrs Steve" is no better. In fact, to use your word, I would go as far as to describe it as 'twee'. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Doug Chadwick Date: 19 Sep 23 - 09:04 AM I agree, BWM. "The wife" is an object; "my wife" is a person. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Doug Chadwick Date: 19 Sep 23 - 07:12 AM "Mrs Steve" may be jocular, but at least it indicates that we are a married couple and there's no hint of inequality, condescension or property-owning there (as in "my wife," etc.). "My wife" is no more possessive than "my brother / sister / mother / father / aunt or uncle". It shows a relationship, not a possession. "Mrs" is almost always adopted alongside a change in surname to that of the husband. In formal terms, the couple would be addressed as "Mr and Mrs Joseph Bloggs". How much more unequal amd condescending can you get? DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Doug Chadwick Date: 19 Sep 23 - 06:10 AM Have you considered that "significant other" may be considered jocular by some and it's "Mrs Steve" that is twee? DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Doug Chadwick Date: 17 Sep 23 - 09:36 AM It's pretentious, ... HA! I had a little bet with myself that that would be your response. PRETENTIOUS definition: Any word that others use but Steve doesn't. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Doug Chadwick Date: 17 Sep 23 - 07:22 AM "Have a connection to" is a bad example, as this is more to do with "related" rather than "relatable". Instead, consider "has parallels with". DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Doug Chadwick Date: 17 Sep 23 - 06:47 AM "Relatable", in the sense of "have a connection to" or "empathetic" seems like a perfectly good word to me, unless you have some examples of its misuse. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Doug Chadwick Date: 09 Sep 23 - 04:12 PM I don't know if anyone's yet brought up the way "than" is increasingly, senselessly, being used in place of "as"? Could you give an example or two, please? DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Doug Chadwick Date: 07 Sep 23 - 04:07 AM Dammit, man, it's "lackadaisical"! I never knew that. All theses years I've been been saying wrong. You learn something every day! - mind you, I can't think of the last time I used it, rightly or wrongly. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Manitas_at_home Date: 30 Sep 23 - 11:44 AM I think it does imply just that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Manitas_at_home Date: 30 Sep 23 - 07:43 AM Artiste is not the feminine form of artist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Raggytash Date: 17 Sep 23 - 08:58 AM Someone once accused me of being pretentious .... I said Moi? pretentious! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Joe_F Date: 07 Sep 23 - 06:31 PM Steve: Right. The choice is between "restaurateur" (the correct French form) and "restauranter" (a regular English form). Both are awkward; usage has chosen the first. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Mrrzy Date: 21 Oct 23 - 10:24 AM Right. You can disprove, or provide support for. The headline had read Judge killed by suspect, but before I could complain, it was changed to Suspect in judge's killing... Someone else was faster. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Mrrzy Date: 19 Oct 23 - 07:10 PM Right on about the after thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Mrrzy Date: 17 Oct 23 - 09:04 AM No, the data beg to differ. A 3yo has language but not complex rational thought. A 3yo has the Agency fallacy. This is the birth of Faith. You can have language and an earlier form of intelligence. Anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Mrrzy Date: 16 Oct 23 - 03:11 PM From an evolutionary perspective, faith *preceded* intelligence. The Agency fallacy is something 3-year olds go through on their way to developing 5-yo thinking, following the likely development of human intelligence from more primitive (meaning closer to the point of origin) cognitive abilities. People who believe in anythingsupernatural fail to outgrow it, is all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Mrrzy Date: 13 Oct 23 - 05:55 PM Um, sorry, Steve Shaw, the a- root of a-theism does, precisely, mean lack of. Lack of theism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Mrrzy Date: 10 Oct 23 - 02:00 PM I thought adviser was just misspelled... Still working on eliminating Stray Bullet. Still working on atheism being an absence of belief in diety, not a faith-based position that no gods *can* exist. Both of those came up recently. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Mrrzy Date: 02 Oct 23 - 09:46 PM Hmmm on widow/widower. Both are widowed, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Mrrzy Date: 29 Sep 23 - 11:47 AM Oh, yeah, that use of Innocent bugs me too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet PeevesI From: Mrrzy Date: 24 Sep 23 - 02:16 PM I wondered where Rumpole got it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Mrrzy Date: 22 Sep 23 - 08:40 AM Meself... I loved Rumpole! My radio station has started saying Area has (temp) instead of It is (temp) in Area. No, Charlottesville does not have 25 degrees. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Mrrzy Date: 09 Sep 23 - 01:26 PM I saw a poater that said Smoking is so ... debonair! and it took me a while to wrap my brain around that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Mrrzy Date: 04 Sep 23 - 06:25 PM I figured out why I don't like "I appreciate you" when expecting Thank you. You appreciate * what* I did, but you thank *me* ... It is ungrammatical and robs me of my due of gratitude, while lowering me to the level of the inanimate hand I gave you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Mrrzy Date: 28 Aug 23 - 08:36 AM A headline read something like DC fails to house 98% of homeless... Um, aren't 100% of homeless people homeless? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: gillymor Date: 06 Oct 23 - 08:40 AM Trump as Speaker would be like pouring gasoline on an already blazing dumpster fire. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Bill D Date: 19 Oct 23 - 07:29 PM "Full stop" and "period" are just conventions. Neither one is 'right'. I know what either one means, and I HAVE heard "full stop" over here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Bill D Date: 16 Oct 23 - 01:27 PM "It's a word necessitated by their delusion." I totally understand how & why our remote ancestors 'delusion' was necessitated by so many things they could not comprehend. Human minds, once they could reason, however vaguely and wrongly, sought for answers. Lightning, seasons, death, etc... were much easier to relate to by reference to unseen entities, and once prettier and more complex stories about those entities were developed, along with human interpreters, it became 'simpler' to accept the given stories rather than to continue wondering and questioning. (and Today, genuine atheism is pretty rare in societies with authoritarian regimes. In my case, I have turned down a job offer in Texas because I knew I'd eventually say the wrong thing to the wrong people at the wrong time. My habit from childhood was to question strange authoritarian assertions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Bill D Date: 11 Oct 23 - 06:29 PM "So "Do you believe in God?" is a pet peeve of mine!" Oh yes! Phrased that way, it assumes a "God" in the very construction. A better question is, "Do you believe in some sort of god or gods?" Either way, I can only shrug and say, "I have no personal experience with any." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Bill D Date: 10 Oct 23 - 04:59 PM Well, we philosophers will always point out differences between atheism, 'faith based' assertions of the impossibilities of 'gods', militant agnosticism and simple refusal to think about it all. A long thread on 'creationism' awhile back added another idea to the burbling pot... and now a few cosmologists want to re-introduce the idea that our 'reality' is merely a projection from another realm of being! (One more level above quarks and Higgs bosons, electrons and positrons, atoms, molecules, animal, vegetable and mineral, consciousness...etc...) There is a tendency to assume that if there is a noun, it must refer to 'something'. Bah! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Bill D Date: 08 Oct 23 - 03:55 PM Ha! I yell at them every chance I get...And I remember a Brit news guy talking about Nic-uh-RAG-you-uh. And everyone in Australia pronouncing 'pain' and 'pine' the same way. No wonder the English language bewilders foreigners. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Bill D Date: 08 Oct 23 - 03:22 PM I just watched a YouTube thing where some guy was telling about a man who suffered ridicule when you was young... he was reading from some script, and he pronounced it re-DIC-you-el!| |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Bill D Date: 08 Oct 23 - 10:02 AM My spellchecker just follows me around and beeps at me. It can be added to or corrected to MY choices. It recognizes both advise and advice, so I can use either...depending on context. https://tinyspell.com/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Bill D Date: 24 Sep 23 - 06:07 PM Um.. a "teensy tiny minuscule small little" mistake." Now, should I add commas? ;>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Bill D Date: 24 Sep 23 - 04:39 PM Anyone who says "small little" Why not "teensy tiny miniscule small little"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Mrrzy Date: 28 Oct 23 - 10:17 AM I catch myself saying was, like, instead of said. Awful. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Oct 23 - 01:21 PM It may not be real life, but it's life like (see what I did there?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Lighter Date: 27 Oct 23 - 12:52 PM I first met "to be like" = "to think or say" in NYC in 1984. (Part of my job was to notice such things.) It isn't the "like" that Steve is thinking of: not a pause but part of a novel verb phrase. Compare: "I was, like, really surprised. Like, what do you think?" (= pause or "well.") "I was like 'Want to eat?' and she was like 'OK.'" (= "said.") Don't care for it myself, but that's life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Oct 23 - 05:43 AM It might amaze you to hear that I'm fine with "like." It's in the same linguistic family as "well," "know what I mean?" "so..." and "er..." (eh bien? alors??). Such things have a time-honoured home in spoken language, though not in writing I think. They enable the speaker to lubricate their sentences without resorting to awkward pauses while they collect their thoughts. I've corrected and adjusted several things so far in this typed message as I've gone along that you don't see, because all you're getting is the finished product. You can't do that in speech when you're thinking on your feet. Know what I'm sayin'? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: BobL Date: 27 Oct 23 - 04:24 AM If B thinks doing X will help A, then discusses it with A before doing it, this is, I suggest, co-operation. |
