BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Annoying Language Differences
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 07:03 AM

It is defined as a typo

Subject: RE: BS: Annoying Language Differences
From: Jos
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 06:47 AM

Well, 'defininiation' is a rather lovely word I have never come across before ...

Subject: BS: Annoying Language Differences
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 16 Apr 21 - 06:30 AM

UK and USA have often been described as two great nationals divided by one language.

There are a number examples where the same word is used in UK and US, but in a different way. One that grates on me is the word ALREADY, where in UK it refers to something that has happened and in US to something that someone wants to happen.

For example:

UK: Johnny has already finished his dinner.
US: Johnny, will you hurry up and finish your dinner already.

This is clearly contradictory as the word refers to both something that has happened, and something that hasn't happened.

I am sure a linguist can find the point where the meaning of the word diverged, and which defininiation came first.

Do any other annoying (or even wonderful) differences spring to Mind?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 29 Mar 21 - 12:45 PM

I'm reminded of the young woman who was so roundly mocked on the internet a year ago or so, for answering the game-show question, "What is Popeye's favourite food?", as "Fried chicken" - being of the generation she was, she was thinking of a popular fast-food chain rather than the cartoon character it's named after. The question was ambiguous, and her answer reasonable, so she should have been awarded the point(s) and spared the ridicule - but they didn't ask for my judgement ... !

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 29 Mar 21 - 02:59 AM

My dictionary (Chambers) gives gives "backdoor" as an adjective meanin "Unworthily secret" or "Clandestine".

I usually watch Pointless at tea time and they often have a round where contestants have to think of a single word meeting a certain condition (eg, ending in ious). I am often uncertain (with my own ideas as well as answers by contestants) as to what is one word, what is two words and what is hyphenated. I've also been proved wrong a few times when I've felt sure an answer is/isn't a single word.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 29 Mar 21 - 02:12 AM

Regarding meaning and stress, the way I would say these words is:

backFIRE (a verb)
BACKlash (a noun)

BACK door (not the front door)
back DOOR (not the back window)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 21 - 06:46 PM

Back passage... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 28 Mar 21 - 06:05 PM

Most people seem to think that every noun phrase starting with "back" is a compound noun: backdoor, backseat, backyard. These should be "back door" etc. Nobody writes "frontdoor". Probably the mistake results from the existence of many true compounds with "back": backfire, backlash, etc. Notice the difference in stress on saying those out loud.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 28 Mar 21 - 11:59 AM

"Splendid"? Naw - a simple "Okay" would suffice - or a "Here ya go" - or a snort - or even a sigh, with or without an eye-roll .....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 21 - 10:56 AM

Or in Oz ad nauseam, "no worries!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 28 Mar 21 - 09:58 AM

Would "splendid" be any better?

Heh.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 26 Mar 21 - 09:44 PM

'Would you like some more coffee?'

'Sure.'

'Awesome!'

A common bit of dialogue in these parts ....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Mar 21 - 03:31 PM

I am with you too, Doug Chadwick! But is it the *language* that is peeving you, or their opinion of it? If their opinion, that is a separate thing, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 21 - 02:50 PM

Yep, there's a lot of that perfection around. I've had it from the person taking my blood for a blood test and from my back surgeon. Another one coming from this ilk of otherwise admirable people is "could you just roll your sleeve up for me?" "Just keep your arm still for me..." etc. And such personages here in Cornwall are rapidly picking up the habit of calling me "my lovely." You'd realise how inappropriate this is if you could only catch a glimpse of me...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: mayomick
Date: 26 Mar 21 - 01:11 PM

"perfect" as said by dentists and opticians after asking your details. The optician asked me today , what's your date of birth , Michael?
23rd of the second fifty two.
Perfect
I got the same from the dentist two weeks ago.I'm going to ask you to rinse again, is that ok?
yes
Perfect

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 21 - 10:22 AM

It's not perfectly good if there are perfectly good and time-honoured unpretentious alternatives, Doug. "Albeit" has become a real fad in recent decades (it almost completely died out in Victorian times). I don't have many REAL peeves, but that one, along with "prior to", "going forward" and "on a daily basis", do get my goat, especially when I see them in print. I don't mind "so...", which is generally used to allow the speaker an extra nanosecond to prepare mentally what they're going to say. It's not so different to "well..." or "eh bien..." really, and all are better than "er...". We should also cut each other a fair amount of slack when it comes to the spoken word created on the hoof, but when you type or write something you have all the time in the world, relatively speaking, to review it and use your imagination to come up with a more elegant and unpretentious (and plain - there's nothing wrong with plain...) way of putting it. Bad writing often involves sticking blindly to your first idea as though it was your cherished baby.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 Mar 21 - 09:35 AM

Jos, Mrrzy
What if someone else's pet peeve gives rise to a peeve of my own? I am peeved to be told that a perfectly good and useful word, such as "albeit", makes me sound pompous and I reserve the right to make an objection. My peeve is as good as anyone else's.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 26 Mar 21 - 08:42 AM

More and more, recently ,I have noticed in the UK, that so many people start a sentence with 'So' or 'Well basically'. for example this happens often on TV quiz programmes when contestants are asked 'What do you do'? to find out their employment they reply 'So..... I am a whatever' or 'Well basically, I am a whatever. This seems to me to be a total waste of words where a concise answer will do.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 26 Mar 21 - 08:24 AM

It may be amusing the first time, maybe the second. When you hear it or read it over and over again it can be very irritating.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 21 - 07:53 AM

I tend to be more amused than peeved by the absurdities that people come out with.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Mar 21 - 07:45 AM

Jos, I am with you. If it peeves, this is the thread for you. If it doesn't peeve someone else that is irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Mar 21 - 07:30 AM

In that case, should I get peeved when people say that they are going to put the kettle on to boil. I can't even get mine to melt.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 25 Mar 21 - 07:14 AM

But this thread is about "Language peeves" - and it peeves me, so I'm allowed to tell you about it.
If you don't mind it, that's just fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Mar 21 - 06:20 AM

Jos, you seem, to my mind, to be putting too much thought into this. It's just an expression, not meant to be taken literally.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 25 Mar 21 - 06:09 AM

PS: "He just stood up an said" would be more likely alternative.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 25 Mar 21 - 06:06 AM

In that instance, Freddie might have turned round. It could equally be an example of the use that often sounds so ridiculous - but something was needed there to make the line the right length.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Mar 21 - 07:22 PM

Freddy was a fine young man, a fine young man was he
He built himself a little house up in an apple tree.
One day when he was in his house up in the apple tree
The limb his house was on did break and to the ground fell he.
Now Freddy didn't cry at all, just turned around and said
I've lost my taste for apples, I'll take a peach instead.

Ed McCurdy taught me that.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 24 Mar 21 - 01:36 PM

He/she "turned round and said ...".

             - - - - - - : : - - - - - - -

That sounds like southern American idiom


It's an expression that I am familiar with here in the UK. In fact, it's so run-of-the-mill that I wouldn't know whether I have heard it recently or not.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 24 Mar 21 - 11:29 AM

That sounds like southern American idiom ... don't know if it is, it just sounds like the kind of turn of phrase, so to speak, that would be favoured in the South.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 23 Mar 21 - 06:51 AM

This morning I heard an expression that's been around for some years but I hadn't heard recently:
He/she "turned round and said ...".
This is usually used in recounting a conversation, rather than the person who "turned round" having previously had their back turned.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 21 Mar 21 - 10:30 AM

Whenever I hear "These kind of ..." I feel most uncomfortable.
It has to be either "These kinds of ..." or "This kind of ...".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 21 - 04:23 PM

Got it. It was in the Brexit and other UK topics thread on 14 March. I hereby claim ownership of this ignominy!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 21 - 04:03 PM

Was it in a different thread? I'm pretty sure it was me!

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.

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: 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: 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: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 03:40 PM

No, that's a ricochet.

Famous Irish marksman.

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: 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 - 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: 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: meself
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 01:41 PM

(Cross-post).

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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).