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] [39]


BS: Language Pet Peeves

Steve Shaw 16 Nov 21 - 06:34 PM
Thompson 17 Nov 21 - 08:48 AM
Lighter 17 Nov 21 - 09:02 AM
Mrrzy 17 Nov 21 - 11:04 AM
meself 17 Nov 21 - 11:11 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Nov 21 - 01:24 PM
meself 17 Nov 21 - 04:17 PM
Thompson 17 Nov 21 - 04:39 PM
Steve Shaw 17 Nov 21 - 06:03 PM
Doug Chadwick 17 Nov 21 - 07:19 PM
Steve Shaw 17 Nov 21 - 07:50 PM
Steve Shaw 17 Nov 21 - 08:43 PM
Steve Shaw 17 Nov 21 - 08:47 PM
Lighter 18 Nov 21 - 09:21 AM
Steve Shaw 18 Nov 21 - 12:08 PM
Donuel 20 Nov 21 - 08:01 AM
Mrrzy 08 Dec 21 - 09:38 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Dec 21 - 10:00 AM
Doug Chadwick 08 Dec 21 - 04:22 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Dec 21 - 05:31 PM
Mrrzy 08 Dec 21 - 06:14 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Dec 21 - 07:35 PM
BobL 09 Dec 21 - 02:48 AM
Doug Chadwick 09 Dec 21 - 05:31 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Dec 21 - 06:16 AM
Doug Chadwick 09 Dec 21 - 08:05 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Dec 21 - 09:40 AM
Lighter 09 Dec 21 - 10:52 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Dec 21 - 11:15 AM
Lighter 09 Dec 21 - 11:20 AM
Doug Chadwick 09 Dec 21 - 11:38 AM
Mrrzy 09 Dec 21 - 11:55 AM
Mrrzy 31 Dec 21 - 08:40 AM
Mrrzy 05 Jan 22 - 11:38 PM
Tattie Bogle 06 Jan 22 - 07:02 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Jan 22 - 07:32 PM
Tattie Bogle 07 Jan 22 - 08:19 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Jan 22 - 09:18 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Jan 22 - 09:34 AM
Mrrzy 07 Jan 22 - 09:44 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Jan 22 - 10:36 AM
Mrrzy 07 Jan 22 - 11:13 AM
PHJim 09 Jan 22 - 05:59 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Jan 22 - 06:48 PM
Mrrzy 09 Jan 22 - 08:30 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Jan 22 - 09:01 PM
Lighter 10 Jan 22 - 07:49 AM
Senoufou 10 Jan 22 - 08:02 AM
weerover 10 Jan 22 - 08:28 AM
weerover 10 Jan 22 - 08:37 AM

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













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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 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: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 09:38 AM

Miss Manners Wins Again!

Dear Miss Manners: Please please PLEASE say something about the misuse of the word "literally" before it becomes accepted practice.

Too late.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 10:00 AM

You're too late. It's already accepted practice. It's fine to use "literally" in a non-literal sense, just as it is with things such as "decimate" and "unique." Sourpusses who continue to rail against these things have almost literally forgotten that language is what people speak, not what professors of English prescribe. Of course, you're not very unique in wanting to fight these lost battles, but don't worry, we're just going with the flow, not setting out to decimate the language.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 04:22 PM

I told myself that I shouldn't do it ...... that I was just being a pain in the arse, labouring the same old point ...... but ....... I just couldn't stop myself!

language is what people speak

People say "albeit"


(I promise that this will be the last time I mention it .... at least, until the next time)
;-)

DC


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 05:31 PM

Yebbut Doug, there's a difference. When people use words such as "unique," "decimate" and "literally" in the ways that Mrrzy possibly disapproves of (I could add "disinterested" and "alternate" to that list) they are using them casually without regard to traditional interpretations of their "correct" usage (which is a circumlocutory way of saying that they are, to the minds of conservative-minded professors of English, though not mine, er, "linguistically ignorant"). My beef against "albeit" (as well as horrors such as "prior to," "on a daily basis" and "at this moment in time") is that they are being used by people who are trying to be pretentious. A different issue.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 06:14 PM

Miss Manners' whole answer *was* Too late.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 07:35 PM

Yes, I did see that. I was glad to confirm. But rejoice in the evolution of language is my advice. .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 02:48 AM

I shall continue to maintain that unique is like dead, or pregnant: you either are or you aren't. Any others?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 05:31 AM

You can't have a semi-virgin.

DC


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 06:16 AM

Long-dead, dead from the neck up, heavily pregnant... (I know, I know...)

I'm still pondering the virgin one...I've pondered worse...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 08:05 AM

I know what it is, and how it varies from a product labelled "olive oil", but I have never understood the term "extra-virgin" olive oil.

DC


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 09:40 AM

Probably something to do with the fact that it is mechanically cold-pressed from olives with no chemical intervention, therefore it's unsullied (just like a virgin). Also, it must be very low in free acid, which can't happen if any chemical processes are used to extract it. The "extra" is added because there's a lower grade of olive oil called just "virgin." You may prefer virgins because they're pure and all that stuff, or you may prefer persons of experience who could show you a better time. But with olive oil, avoid all except extra virgin!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 10:52 AM

Merriam-Webster defines "extra-virgin" as "being a virgin olive oil that is lowest in acidity and highest in quality."

So it essentially means "better than virgin," rather than "more virgin than virgin."

"Virgin," btw, is defined as "(of a vegetable oil): obtained from the first light pressing and without heating."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 11:15 AM

Virgin olive oil has a higher acid level than is permitted in extra virgin (up to 2% free acid as opposed to maximum 0.8%). It may also have minor flaws in texture or flavour, not allowed in extra virgin oil. I can't remember ever having seen "virgin olive oil" in any shop. Only extra virgin ever crosses my threshold!

As far as I know, olive oil is the only kind of oil that is subject to these kinds of official standards. Even so, there is a lot of fake extra virgin stuff around. If it's in a plastic bottle or in clear glass, it's fake!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 11:20 AM

I've never seen "virgin olive oil" in America either.

Maybe it was a 19th century standard.

(Of course, there's always Olive Oyl....)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 11:38 AM

As far as I know, olive oil is the only kind of oil that is subject to these kinds of official standards.

Extra-virgin coconut oil is also available.

DC


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 11:55 AM

Ok, saw this for the first time this morning, but have now seen in many times, is this a thing?

I was today years old when I found out (something you found out today, I guess).

Eww.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Dec 21 - 08:40 AM

Nothing like we've seen in the recent future, said NPR about the virus...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Jan 22 - 11:38 PM

Ok, I can't even:

They’re not necessarily significant enough to prevent the various tragedies that have occurred...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 06 Jan 22 - 07:02 PM

Seen in an online news article on “Edinburgh Live” - not one, not two, but three instances of it’s when it should have been its, followed by a caption regarding a shop closing - Stationary Supplies. The article is illustrated by a picture of the doomed shop, with the correct spelling, so why couldn’t the sodding journalist get it right??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 22 - 07:32 PM

If that bugs you, Tattie, I strongly suggest that you never read the Bude And Stratton Post...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 07 Jan 22 - 08:19 AM

Never likely to, Steve! The farthest west we ever get is Devon!

2 things that bug me, and given the length of this thread may well have been mentioned before.....
People who say incredulous when they mean incredible.
People who mix up complement and compliment: it happens so often on restaurant menus, not that I've been to restaurant in a long time - only once since Covid struck!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 22 - 09:18 AM

Two pretentious words on menus that annoy me are "compote" and "medley." There will be others. And don't get me started (in the M&S food hall especially) on "goujons," "flatties" and "tenders"...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 22 - 09:34 AM

Oh, and "jus." How could I have forgotten "jus"!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Jan 22 - 09:44 AM

Jus is ok *if* it is -in the phrase au jus and not With au jus, -actually the mean juice and not some form of gravy.

Compote? Not so much.

How about confit?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 22 - 10:36 AM

"Au jus" and "jus" don't mean the same thing.

I'll be making confit potatoes this weekend. I find it a useful term which hasn't got any easy substitutes.

I'm not against foreign terms in cookery per se. I mean, where would we be without al dente, soufflé, rágù, soffritto and the rest? Pass the corkscrew!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Jan 22 - 11:13 AM

Right. That is why I accept Jus only in the phrase Au jus... Not with au jus, or served au jus, just au jus.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: PHJim
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 05:59 PM

A phrase that always bothers me is "To form a more perfect Union" from the preamble to the United States Constitution.

Perfection is absolute. If something is perfect, it has no flaws and cannot be improved upon. Words like "perfect" or "unique" cannot be modified with "more" or "less".
If something can be made more perfect, then it wasn't perfect in the first place.
If something can be made less perfect, then you must introduce flaws which will render it no longer perfect.
The same is true of "unique".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 06:48 PM

Reluctantly, Jim, I disagree. So many people these days use constructions such as "more unique", "somewhat unique" and "very unique" and so on. Like you, I don't care for these constructions, but if you research the history of its usage (which is fairly modern), you'll find that objections to the use of "unique" with modifiers come mostly from, er, grammar police.

I think you've got even less of a case with "perfect." Usages such as "more perfect, "less perfect" or "less than perfect" (I like that one...) and so on are so common that they have become standard English. You and I can bemoan to our hearts' content the fact that these undesirable expressions have wheedled their way sneakily into our language, but, as I always say, language it what we speak, not what grammar professors say we should speak. But we don't have to use things that we dislike, and you'll never hear me say, or see me type, "more unique."

Or albeit, or prior to...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 08:30 PM

I'm with Jim. Pregnant, unique, [statistically] significant, worthy, are all terms that combination with modifiers like "very" or "enough" makes me cringe.

You are either worthy, pregnant, or unique, or you're not. There is no such thing as Worthy enough. There is worthy.

A difference is either [statistically] significant or not. It can be a trivial difference, an unimportant difference, but the use of significant *in jargon, rather than in English* refers not to importance, but to a probability of being wrong if you attribute the difference to your manipulation, when it might have been random variation.

I realize people misuse these frequently, but that doesn't make the misuse proper use. Literally still literally means literally, not figuratively.

I fight a rearguard action in some ways, but then again, the singular they is my only correct pronoun.

A foolish consistency is not my issue.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 09:01 PM

Then you are of the grammar police, and I feel you need to relax more. You yourself use expressions such as "yum" and "marvy." And so you should if you want to, and the rest of us have the choice as to whether we clench our buttocks or not when you do. The "literally" battle was lost years ago. It no longer means what you think it means, but feel free to cling on. You accuse people of misusing words. They don't. They use words, perhaps in ways you don't approve of. That's tough, but the tide is flowing against you. And against me, in many cases, but I'm fine with it.

I try to write decent English on this board, complete with appropriate grammar, spelling and punctuation, knowing that I can still be casual if I want to be. But I don't expect the same from everyone else. I enjoy the different styles here and I appreciate that good grammar and punctuation are less of a priority to some whose main aim is to get their point across. The main problem for me is pretentiousness in the use of words. Albeit, prior to, at this moment in time, going forward, I have to say. I can put up with it, grinning through gritted teeth, but anyone having a pot at me for the way I use English had better beware! Let's never forget that language is all about communication. I can think of a couple of people here who think it's about being over-clever and deliberately obscurantist. No names, no pack drill!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Jan 22 - 07:49 AM

Actually literally can still mean what it always did. It just has an additional, annoyingly contrary meaning as well.

Big deal. What about "cleave?" You can "cleave together" or "cleave people apart." Nobody seems to object, because so few use the word in ordinary speech or writing that there's no fun in feeling superior to them.

The same is true for both "perfect" and "unique." The original meanings still obtain, but they also mean "nearly unique" and "nearly perfect."

As in the other cases, and unless the speaker or writer is very sloppy, context will tell. Minimal context, however, can lead to the annoying or dangerous ambiguities people dread. (Think about labels that used to say nothing but "inflammable," which had to be changed to "flammable" because the unread might think it meant just the opposite.

Context is quite as important to understanding as are dictionary definitions. It's all that hat makes figures of speech comprehensible.

Dictionary definitions provide allow people to assert that newly familiar words and meanings are "just wrong." However, the first, brief, monolingual English dictionary didn't appear till 1604.

Chaucer and the youthful Shakespeare, for example, did all right without one by using whatever words that seemed fitting to them.

Context, context, context.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 10 Jan 22 - 08:02 AM

I agree with Steve. Language is fascinating in all its diversity.It gives a clue about the speaker's origin, experiences and educational progress. I adore accents, and have quite a bit of talent for learning foreign languages. I can imitate many accents, and have done so since I was about two years old. I also accept that all languages evolve over time. We no longer speak as if we were Tudors!
However, having been a teacher for all my working life, I find myself bristling at poor grammar, cringing at 'dropped aitches' (or 'haitches', which seems to be the new pronunciation!) and stopping myself firmly for having the cheek to correct someone's speech (particularly here in Norfolk, the dialect of which I adore)
As I've said on here before, my favourite 'new' word is innit. Innit eh?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: weerover
Date: 10 Jan 22 - 08:28 AM

Apologies if I am repeating anything already posted, but I don't have the inclination to read all of the thread.

"I was thinking to myself...": there is no solid evidence for telepathy, so far as I am aware.

"Building to a crescendo...": crescendo is the process of approaching a peak, not the peak itself.

wr


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: weerover
Date: 10 Jan 22 - 08:37 AM

"Acronym" as a term for any abbreviation.

"Appraised" when it should be "apprised": heard last night on the TV police drama "Vera".

"Precarity": there is no such word but I have encountered it twice in recent weeks, in the Guardian newspaper and on a BBC radio discussion, in both cases by trade union representatives.


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: 21 January 8:32 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.