Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]


BS: Language Pet Peeves

Donuel 20 Nov 21 - 08:01 AM
Steve Shaw 18 Nov 21 - 12:08 PM
Lighter 18 Nov 21 - 09:21 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Nov 21 - 08:47 PM
Steve Shaw 17 Nov 21 - 08:43 PM
Steve Shaw 17 Nov 21 - 07:50 PM
Doug Chadwick 17 Nov 21 - 07:19 PM
Steve Shaw 17 Nov 21 - 06:03 PM
Thompson 17 Nov 21 - 04:39 PM
meself 17 Nov 21 - 04:17 PM
Steve Shaw 17 Nov 21 - 01:24 PM
meself 17 Nov 21 - 11:11 AM
Mrrzy 17 Nov 21 - 11:04 AM
Lighter 17 Nov 21 - 09:02 AM
Thompson 17 Nov 21 - 08:48 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Nov 21 - 06:34 PM
Backwoodsman 16 Nov 21 - 04:33 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Nov 21 - 01:47 PM
meself 16 Nov 21 - 12:40 PM
leeneia 16 Nov 21 - 12:34 PM
Mrrzy 16 Nov 21 - 09:47 AM
meself 15 Nov 21 - 07:49 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Nov 21 - 06:52 PM
Thompson 15 Nov 21 - 05:03 PM
Donuel 15 Nov 21 - 04:14 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Nov 21 - 04:40 AM
meself 14 Nov 21 - 09:33 PM
Mrrzy 14 Nov 21 - 01:01 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Nov 21 - 08:52 AM
leeneia 10 Nov 21 - 02:57 PM
meself 09 Nov 21 - 08:04 PM
Donuel 09 Nov 21 - 07:56 PM
Lighter 09 Nov 21 - 06:01 PM
leeneia 09 Nov 21 - 01:17 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Oct 21 - 11:27 AM
Mrrzy 30 Oct 21 - 09:51 AM
Donuel 30 Oct 21 - 08:46 AM
Donuel 30 Oct 21 - 08:30 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Oct 21 - 07:44 AM
BobL 30 Oct 21 - 04:19 AM
Donuel 29 Oct 21 - 11:47 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Oct 21 - 08:34 PM
Donuel 29 Oct 21 - 08:10 PM
Donuel 29 Oct 21 - 08:01 PM
Lighter 28 Oct 21 - 02:46 PM
Mrrzy 28 Oct 21 - 09:59 AM
Senoufou 27 Oct 21 - 06:31 AM
Donuel 26 Oct 21 - 09:48 PM
Joe Offer 26 Oct 21 - 08:48 PM
leeneia 26 Oct 21 - 05:42 PM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeved
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 21 - 08:01 AM

Like hateful father like drunken son absent comprehensive news, the son does not know the depth of his drunken hate and fundamental ignorance, we nonetheless wish him a nary Christmas and 'snile'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 21 - 12:08 PM

I've never heard that one and I don't want to hear it ever again!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Nov 21 - 09:21 AM

Steverino, if you hate "albeit," you'll probably loathe "absent" in the sense of the likewise repellent "sans":

"Absent a solution, people like Sue Godfrey will just keep on fighting."
(Collins Dictionary).

OED finds it used solely in U.S. law for nearly 100 years; then, suddenly....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 08:47 PM

Dunno how that stupid line break got in there. It wasn't in my preview!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 08:43 PM

"Just because you say a word is pretentious, Steve, doesn't make it so."

Well I could agree somewhat with that. Just as a song doesn't exist until is sung, a word only exists when it's spoken aloud (or written), and, as ever, con
text is all. The words we are argue about are ancient, which puts me on the back foot somewhat. But we don't know in any kind of detail how our ancients used them in speech, do we? I can't see much extra-rich colour in albeit instead of though, or about prior to instead of before, or about at this moment in time instead of now, or about on a daily basis instead of each day. If you think that such things add richness, then I think you need to listen harder. They hardly add much poetry to English, do they? But I'd never prescribe the dropping of them, as I don't believe in grammar police, and I'm not bothered when I hear them used. Maybe bothered more when I see them in print... The true essence of any language is clear, simple communication. The poetry can come later.

(Dunno whether "poetry" counts as three syllables, but all of the above, with the singular exception of "communication," is in words of no more than two syllables...)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 07:50 PM

"One of my pet peeves is people who try to limit me to a self-appointed list of approved words."

Well, Doug, as the essence and spirit of my last post is that anything goes, I can only assume that you are a little incapable of understanding plain English...

If you are able to apprise me of any "self-appointed list" [sic] I've suggested, do let me know. I assume that it wasn't the list itself that was self-appointed, by the way. Most lists I've ever perused, being inanimate constructions, might have needed at least some human intervention in order to get themselves "appointed..."

It's a hard life, this business of picking folks up on their use of English, eh, Doug... :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 07:19 PM

My two main grouses are about .........................
............ and about pretentiousness. Which is why horrors such as ................. and (the crowning glory...) albeit give me such unalloyed joy.



Spherical objects!

Just because you say a word is pretentious, Steve, doesn't make it so. Of course there are other words that mean the same as "albeit" but it is a perfectly valid alternative. The English language is full of synonyms which give richness and variety to we say and write.

One of my pet peeves is people who try to limit me to a self-appointed list of approved words.

It is not the first time that I have disagreed with you on this point and it won't be the last, so long as you keep repeating what I consider to be nonsense.

DC


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 06:03 PM

All I was saying, meself, is that the majority of gripes referred to in this very entertaining thread are not, in fact, "incorrect." They may be inelegant, vulgar, ignorant and going against the grain, and may even be seen to be degrading the language, but if enough people use the vexatious expressions in question they become the currency of English and fighting it all is pointless. That's why I said that the best thing would be to seethe internally, as moaning aloud about "errors" would not only likely put you in the wrong but also make you look like a bit of an arse. Sarcasm is always useful, of course, as long as your audience is receptive to it. My two main grouses are about people who affect to correct others yet pepper their own posts with mistakes (that has me rubbing my hands with glee, frankly...) and about pretentiousness. Which is why horrors such as prior to, going forward, at this moment in time, on a daily basis and (the crowning glory...) albeit give me such unalloyed joy...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 04:39 PM

Bored of was the normal usage when I was a child. It's not logical, but then a lot of English isn't.
There's another one that gets me (I may have posted this already further up): the increasing use of "than" when "as" or other forms are meant, in comparative sentences.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 04:17 PM

How can you have a thread on "pet peeves" if you just "suck'm up"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 01:24 PM

Well suck 'em up, good people. The bald fact is that bored of, different to, different from and different than are all standard English - at least somewhere.

"Bored of" is now extremely common in speech, if not in written text. Most Brits are fine with both "different to" and "different from," but "different than" makes most of us shudder. Standard English comes about by usage, not by rules set by grammarians. What annoys a yank or an Aussie might not raise an eyebrow in the UK and vice versa. It's a very democratic process (and a process it is...), and I suppose we should celebrate that and learn to seethe inwardly only.

I can (and do) protest 'til I'm blue in the face about uninterested and disinterested, alternative and alternate and other such usages that originated in confusions, and I can rail to my heart's content about silly things such as "albeit, "on a daily basis" and "prior to." But everything I've mentioned in this post is "correct," in that millions use the expressions and that there's nowt that the grammar police can do about it.

And there's no such thing as a split infinitive. The concept is based on a misunderstanding of what an infinitive is. I urge everyone to boldly go and have an entertaining google...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 11:11 AM

I haven't heard "on accident" yet - but if it's out there, I'm sure it won't be long before I do. There must be some law of linguistics about this, but once the erroneous usage becomes established among a small number of key people, it seems to suddenly spread exponentially, even when there is no apparent advantage to it. For example, remember 'way back a few years ago when nobody ever got "bored of" anything? "Bored of" isn't significantly easier to say than "bored with" - so why has "bored of" taken over? (Rhetorical question!)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 11:04 AM

I am plenty peeved by On accident.

On a separate note, from what I hear on the radio (NPR / BBC], Americans say different from, Brits, different to.

From makes sense. To does not. To me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 09:02 AM

"Purposely" and "on purpose" are both perfectly normal in the U.S.

But within the past couple (i.e., "two or three") of years I've begun to hear a new antonym: "on accident."

What say y'all?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 17 Nov 21 - 08:48 AM

No, it's "purposefully" that's used in place of the correct "purposely" - the two words mean different things. Purposely is an Irish usage, certainly; didn't know it was uncommon in the UK.
Another one that puts my teeth on edge is the way people mix up discrete and discreet.
And don't get me started on people who peddle along before putting their breaks on!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 21 - 06:34 PM

Very interesting. I've just spent a few minutes looking up "purposely" in various dictionaries and on grammar websites. It's definitely a perfectly good word. However, I've yet to stumble on a single instance of its use in an example sentence where it couldn't be replaced perfectly by "intentionally," "deliberately," or, depending on syntax, "on purpose." I think that these alternatives sound more idiomatic in English English. I can well imagine that "purposely" may sound more idiomatic to an American speaker than to an English speaker (aka the man on the Clapham omnibus).

A smallish matter...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Nov 21 - 04:33 PM

‘Purposely’, in the sense of ‘on purpose’, is in common usage here in the Backwoods. Likewise ‘purposefully’ meaning ‘with purpose’, ‘determinedly’…


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 21 - 01:47 PM

Well that's interesting. I'll ask around...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 16 Nov 21 - 12:40 PM

Never uncommon in my neck of the woods (Canada). ("Purposely", that is).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 16 Nov 21 - 12:34 PM

I've heard purposely before. "He purposely fell into the pond, trying to get a laugh."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Nov 21 - 09:47 AM

Thanks, meself! In other words... No.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 15 Nov 21 - 07:49 PM

According my TV news, just now: "Biden and Xi will both be meeting each other ...." Good to know it's not just one of them meeting each other, or both of them meeting the monolithic, collective other, I suppose ... !


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 21 - 06:52 PM

"Purposefully" has a strong ring of intent or determination about it. "He was hell-bent on finishing painting the room before dark so he set about the task purposefully." I can't remember ever hearing anyone say "purposely" this end and I think it could be a bit of an eyebrow-raiser, though* its antiquity can't be denied. I think we tend to say "on purpose" or "deliberately." I've seen "sewerage" on my annual bills from the water company but I haven't heard anyone saying it (in which case it would almost certainly be being used in error). Sewage is always in the news here as a scandalous item, and we have Surfers Against Sewage, who are very high-profile, so that's the word we're all conditioned to use this end.

*I could have said "albeit" there, I s'pose... ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 15 Nov 21 - 05:03 PM

I'm enraged by ladylike incorrectness, like people who say 'purposefully' when they mean 'purposely' because, I suppose, it sounds more Mrs Bouquet so must be the correct form; and 'sewerage' instead of 'sewage' ditto.
But then at this stage of the day I'm so old-fashioned that, with Yeats, I say I have a FANatic heart.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Nov 21 - 04:14 PM

I ask, is rarely said that way. People most often say I assed or I axe.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 21 - 04:40 AM

"Altogether now!"

Heheh...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 14 Nov 21 - 09:33 PM

Altogether now! Come on! Everybody! Charge! Shall we? Heave away, haul away! Last one in's a rotten egg!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Nov 21 - 01:01 PM

Is there a way of kind of having 1st-person imperatives in English without using Let's? As in, the French Allons-y?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 21 - 08:52 AM

The MP Barry Gardiner, speaking about his pride in being Scottish, has just been saying that he nevertheless married an English wife.

I hope he's happy to be married to a bigamist...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 10 Nov 21 - 02:57 PM

Donuel, I noticed your post about "not." This thread is about language, so I'll share a language thought.

I don't like it when people talk about what isn't true and then put NOT in. Like this:

    Do NOT lay a little baby on its side or its stomach. Its face can get
    pressed into the bedding, and the baby might suffocate.

In my opinion, one should write about what's right. You want the reader to make a mental picture of the right thing to do. Like this:

    Always put a little baby down on its back.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 09 Nov 21 - 08:04 PM

'Peace keepers' is a little catchier than 'peace maintainers'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Nov 21 - 07:56 PM

Peace keepers don't give peace. Peace makers spread peace.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Nov 21 - 06:01 PM

Those "peacekeepers" were an ad-hoc multinational UN force created under the UN Charter to help implement and protect cease-fires in local conflicts.

They were (and are) not combat soldiers, and they fired only if fired upon - if then.

The phrase "United Nations peacekeepers" seems to have supplemented "United Nations peace-keeping force" in the early '60s. Their first deployment was in 1948.

In the 1980s, of course, there were the Peacekeeper ICBMs.

In the spirit of Mutually Assured Destruction, they really were intended to keep the peace.

And, in service from 1986 to 2002, they apparently helped do just that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 09 Nov 21 - 01:17 PM

A newspaper article had a language thing I dislike. I've named it 'the noun chain.' The article was about the arrest of two men who were stealing guns out of parked cars and selling the guns on Facebook (thanks, Facebook).

Here's the noun chain:

Authorities allege the men were identified as subjects of interest in
a larger stolen-gun trafficking conspiracy investigation...

"stolen-gun trafficking conspriracy investigation" Now that's too many nouns in a row. Amateur writers think that being concise means using as few words as possible, so they produce these noun chains. But if the reader has to stop and untangle them, it's irritating and bad for circulation.

My husband, a senior geologist, has mentioned how he had to tell younger staff to make explanations longer, to put more words in. He always got a surprised look in return. =


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 21 - 11:27 AM

Er, because you bragged about your proofreading prowess! :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Oct 21 - 09:51 AM

They started calling soldiers peacekeepers back in the 80's, and I remember thinking It isn't even 1984 yet!

And Steve Shaw, you have picked on me for typos, so kettle, pot.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Oct 21 - 08:46 AM

edit
but they are not deliberate.
thats another gripe, those three letters of 'not' can overturn everything and if accidentaly absent it can cause disaster.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Oct 21 - 08:30 AM

George Orwell is an excellant example Bob. We are actually living an example of an attempt to follow the Big Trump.
On another note on language as thought tools, you have watched your pets dream which are absract thoughts of things that do not exist but they are deliberate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 21 - 07:44 AM

1984 is the only novel I've ever read end-to-end since I left school (I was forced to read a couple at school in order to pass my Eng Lit 'O' Level). I've started a few others but generally found that once I'd put them down I couldn't pick them up again. 1984 is a good read...very prescient...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 30 Oct 21 - 04:19 AM

I thought that language as a tool of thought was pretty well covered by George Orwell in 1984. But that's only a second-hand opinion, I've not read it myself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Oct 21 - 11:47 PM

silence?

The previous rant was a paraphrased Noam Chomsky although he is a bit mechanistic from my POV. The process of the miraculous thought is elegantly derived from the quantum universe as well as the megaverse.
In a sense we are practically halfway between both.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 21 - 08:34 PM

"Language as a tool of thought is wasted on many. They focus on the typo and not the thought."

Bullshit. That's just your excuse, and you're attacking people who think that your posts are just bollocks, an entirely respectable point of view. On this forum, very few people focus on typos, and, if you want to be honest with yourself, your "typos" are the result of sheer hurried, careless, unthinking, unreviewed typing. You also hide behind your alleged dyslexia, yet you can post pretty articulately when you want to. Odd, that. What I'd like to suggest to you is that good communication requires that you express yourself in simple, plain English. It's easy if you try. Still, if you'd rather disappear up your own obscurantist arsehole, as you frequently appear to do, don't let us stop you. It's nothing if not entertaining.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Oct 21 - 08:10 PM

I believe there is even an invisible inner subconscious language that is shared by many and is called ESP because we don't know exactly what it is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Oct 21 - 08:01 PM

My pet peeve is that language itself is a tool of thought. It appeared accidentally around 300,000 years ago. It is more than communication. Even bacteria and insects communicate. We have two voices the inner subconscious voice and the conscious voice. We don't seem to be able to access subconsious thought but it leaves a trace as real as dark matter leaves a gravitational trace. As a tool of thought we can describe things we can not see like the future. With this tool we no longer think by ourselves. We can obviously access knowledge from the living or dead. We can modify language with metaphor, thought and imagination.
Language as a tool of thought is wasted on many. They focus on the typo and not the thought. We may not have non human language concepts that can get us beyond the 2% of the known universe we live inside of. I've tried to demonstrate thinking outside the box which is naturally not understood by people devoted to use language only for communication and not a tool for thought. Perhaps we need another evolutionary accident.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 28 Oct 21 - 02:46 PM

I heard 'puter here in the U.S.A. in the early '80s.

The same doctoral candidate also used to say, "I'm Audi!"

For "Goodbye! I'm outta here!"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Oct 21 - 09:59 AM

Tu l'as dit, bouffi!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 Oct 21 - 06:31 AM

Norfolk-Speak is so full of malapropisms that it's best to enjoy them. But being a retired teacher, I have to bite my tongue before starting to correct them.
Chester drawers. He dew or he dornt. Sustificate. TV Licence defective van. Puter. Git yer winter draws on, cos winter draws on.
I spend most of my time here surreptitiously giggling.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Oct 21 - 09:48 PM

Owned
Example: Patriots owned the libs on Twitter.
Translation: White Nationists harrased and scared off Democrats.
What do you call it when a person litterally owns another person?

Sports example: The Astros owned the Red Sox.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Oct 21 - 08:48 PM

Leeneia - Sacramento got more rainfall in one day that it has had in any one-day period in recorded history - it was a three-day storm that is still going on, and Northern California does not have the infrastructure to handle that sort of storm. And before that, Sacramento had more than 200 days without any rainfall at all. There has been localized flooding, but it's certainly not the worst I have experienced - the worst was 1986.


https://www.sacbee.com/news/weather-news/article255268351.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 26 Oct 21 - 05:42 PM

California got a sizeable storm, and they don't call it a storm, they call it a bomb cyclone. Hearing that on the news will help little children sleep at night - I don't think.

Kids pick up on this stuff. When I was six or seven, I noticed headlines in the newspaper box about the Army. The army, the army. I asked my mother - are we having a war? What a relief- she said no. Much later I realized the headlines were about the Army-McCarthy hearings.

The "bomb cyclone" brought 5.4 inches of rain. In 1977, Kansas City had a storm that brought 16 inches of rain. Twenty-five people died. The weather service refers to it as a rainstorm.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 30 November 5:15 AM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.