BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 28 Aug 20 - 10:47 AM

I recall ""dumb as a rock" from NYC in the '50s. Also "dead as a doornail [or "doorknob"] and "deaf as a fencepost."

Others were more mundane: "sweat like a bull," "work like a dog," etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 28 Aug 20 - 11:31 AM

How could I have forgotten the shithouse rat?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Aug 20 - 03:08 PM

And I love all the [some part] short of a [whole] for Not All There:

A few fries short of a Happy Meal, e.g.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 20 - 03:38 PM

In the film "The Green Mile", Percy, the bad jailer, is 'infected' by John 'Coffee' and one onlooker says.. "I think that feller's cheese done slid off his cracker."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Aug 20 - 10:45 PM

Snicker.. Ok, these are language pets, rather than pet peeves, excellent veer.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 29 Aug 20 - 01:12 AM

Andrew - in Oz it's "as cunning as a shithouse rat". Our rats aren't crazy, but they are very cunning inded.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 20 - 05:18 AM

"A few fries short of a Happy Meal"

A few sandwiches short of a picnic
A few condoms short of an orgy
Not the sharpest knife in the drawer
I looked into his eyes. The lights are on but there's nobody driving

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 29 Aug 20 - 09:23 AM

A few bars short of a middle eight (well, it is a music forum).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 29 Aug 20 - 06:04 PM

A few roos (kangaroos) loose in the top paddock.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 02 Sep 20 - 07:37 PM

I have a relative rather near a big fire in California, so I'm keeping tabs on it. Fortunately, it seems to be waning, and evacuation orders have been lifted.

Today Calfire reported that "Fire personnel resources are beginning to return to their respected Units or reassigned to other incidents."

I don't like it that living, breathing firefighters are referred to as "fire personnel resources." These are people.

I say let's forgive them for mixing up "respected" and "respective." Calfire people are probably exhausted by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 02 Sep 20 - 10:19 PM

Leeneia - one of the best misuses (is there such a word? there should be) was several years ago at a citizenship ceremony, when we lived in the Big Smoke. Hizzoner the mayor was there, and assorted local dignitaries; it was Australia Day, so becoming an Ozzie citizen was a big deal that day.

Up steps Mr Mayor, resplendent in his red robe with chain of office around his neck (chain was later melted in a fire, a new one had to be made), and speaks of the vows our new Ozzies will be asked to make. He tells them they will be "required to swear allegiance to the queen and her excesses".

Himself and I couldn't stop sniggering......

These days our new citizens swear allegiance to the country of Australia, not to the queen. I'm sure her successors aren't bothered one way or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 03 Sep 20 - 11:16 AM

Good one, Jennie.

As an Australian, you probably are not aware of an American tax situation behind terms like "personnel resources." The tax code says that employees are entitled to have certain payments made on their behalf - social security, medicare, unemployment. Therefore, in a feeble dodge, employers call their employees something else.

Their housecleaner in an independent contractor. So is the babysitter.   For some years I worked for a national retail chain, and we were associates, then we were team members. This last was particularly pathetic, because no way was a billion-dollar outfit going to get away from its legal obligations just because it had thought of a cute new term for "employee."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Sep 20 - 11:20 AM

I remember when Personnel became Hunan Resources, as if people were now inanimate objects. I objected.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Sep 20 - 12:26 PM

Is that people in a Chinese province?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Sep 20 - 02:10 PM

Oops!

Also, "years young" - barf. Just don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 03 Sep 20 - 05:59 PM

Yes!! "Years young" presses my buttons every time - I have become one of those Olde Phartes who yells at the TV every time someone says it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 03 Sep 20 - 06:21 PM

IRRC, "human resources" was invented by Paul Goodman, who thought "personnel" was dehumanizing. You can't win.

"Personnel" comes from French, and contrasts with "materiel" (I don't know how to do the acute accent in this medium) = material resources. Thus, "human resources" is a pretty exact translation of it.

The original application of the pair seems to have been military.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Sep 20 - 05:01 AM

I suppose "fire personnel resources" was use to avoid complaints from those who object to the traditional "Firemen".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Sep 20 - 06:11 AM

Pet peeve number: . . .
Something is "three times smaller/lighter/cheaper".
When making comparisons the comparison is made in terms of the original. The original may be three times the size of the newer object, but that means the newer object can be described as "one third the size" of the original.

If something has a price, making it 'one times cheaper' reduces the price by 100%, making it free. To be "three times cheaper" they need to pay me double the original price in order to take it away!

I've just seen it in an online add for building bricks "eight times smaller than Lego". No, no, no! (one eighth the size)
Also they're referring to the volume. The bricks appear to be a 1:2 scale model of Lego bricks.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Sep 20 - 08:12 AM

"SALE - up to 70% off!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 04 Sep 20 - 10:14 AM

'Midnight on Saturday'. I've always had a problem with that. Is it midnight at the end of Friday or midnight at the end of Saturday? In any case, if it's midnight it's not any day, but a point in time between the two.

I must be in a bad way.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Sep 20 - 10:25 AM

Then you see the occasional "12 AM" or "12 PM." And our local telly weatherman is almost guaranteed to say "dawn tomorrow morning" in every bulletin. Tell 'im, somebody!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 04 Sep 20 - 11:47 AM

Today is my birthday, and if anyone congratulates me on being "66 years young!" I might forget myself and say something rude. Somebody has already called me "young lady" on Facebook today. He was being "funny", but I'm not amused.

As a recipient of the Old Age Pension, I am an official, government-certified Olde Pharte. What's more, I refuse to deny it; I earned every wrinkle, varicose vein and arthritic joint the hard way.

As for human resources, I remember when they were "staff", "the workforce" or "manpower". "Personnel" was a military term until about the mid-'70s; those who put it in context with "matériel" are correct.

English-speaking civilians puzzle me with their attachment to the 12-hour clock; what's so hard about 1200 hr and 2400 hr? If the French and the Germans can figure it out, and generations of barely literate soldiers, so can you!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Sep 20 - 02:07 PM

Then you see the occasional "12 AM" or "12 PM." And our local telly weatherman is almost guaranteed to say "dawn tomorrow morning" in every bulletin. Tell 'im, somebody!
The greatest problem with 12:00 hours is that it is frequently used to mean the exact opposite of what is intended.

For the morning you get 9.00 (am) 10.00 (am) 11.00 (am) followed by 12:00 (pm).
Although this is in common use, I disagree with it. 12pm should be one hour later than 11pm. If you must re-start counting at midnight (or noon for those on 12 hour clocks) then to name the hour after 11.00 the next hour needs to be 0:00. If you name it as 12:00 then it needs to be one hour later than 11:00, not 13 hours later.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Sep 20 - 03:55 PM

Hippo birdie, deer Charmion!

I never use am or pm with 12. I use 12:01 to avoid it. Or 11:59. But not 12:00.

I also normally use the European 24hr clock anyway, which Americans, to my dismay, refer to as "military" time.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 05 Sep 20 - 02:39 AM

Charmion, were I to address you as "young lady", from my 76-year-old perspective it would be merely a slight exaggeration rather than than a slight.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion's brother Andrew
Date: 05 Sep 20 - 09:41 AM

One can always use "noon" and thereby avoid confusion. The first moment of the day is 0000 hours and the last moment, 2400 hours.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Sep 20 - 05:46 PM

Noon and midnight, yeah.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Sep 20 - 05:59 PM

My son and I have this joke, after watching the Thin Blue Line many moons ago, in which the feckless DC Grimm once said "eight o'clock in the morning hundred hours." Ever since, it's been the way we always refer to the time of day...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Oct 20 - 08:49 AM

NRO reveals plans for previously-undisclosed SpaceX launch this month

Well, who reveals previously-disclosed news?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 06 Oct 20 - 10:04 AM

True.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 Oct 20 - 10:55 AM

Well, who reveals previously-disclosed news?


"NRO reveals plans for ...... SpaceX launch this month"


The proposal to launch a mission could have been disclosed previously, but the detailed plans may have only just been revealed. In this particular case, it would appear to be the first time that the general public has been given any information on the mission, detailed or otherwise.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Oct 20 - 03:01 PM

Right. Previously undisclosed. Like all revelations.

Also an actor "made a brief cameo" in my movie... Like, long cameos are a thing? I thought those were called Roles.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 06 Oct 20 - 03:34 PM

It is the launch that was 'previously-undisclosed' - and the plans that are being 'revealed'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Oct 20 - 02:08 AM

I did not go back and reread this whole thread- it has suddenly exploded in size, so here goes:

A peeve: the misuse of who's and whose. I've even seen it in official use. I see it everywhere, it seems, and I don't understand the problem.

Sometimes I think that all contractions should be disallowed for awhile- maybe we could finally grasp all of them for all time.

Who's = who is. Whose= it belongs to me. Or to you. Or some other idjit.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 07 Oct 20 - 05:14 AM

Who's = who is.

.... unless it is preceded by "The" (as used elsewhere in this thread), in which case it means "belonging to a well known British rock band formed in the 1960s".

Ebbie, you didn't have to reread the whole thread. A quick search on the word "who's" shows that your point was raised 10 years ago to the day, on 07 Oct 10.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 07 Oct 20 - 05:16 PM

It's an odd thing that when we make a mistake using its and it's, that we usually put the apostrophe in when it is not called for. Like this:

The cat landed on it's feet.

I consider that odd because it's is harder to type than its. It has one more character, the apostrophe, and the apostrophe is off to the right, calling for the use of the weak little finger.

It's the same with who's and whose. I see more cases where who's is used in the wrong place, even though who's is less natural to type.

But I also think that these are natural typos, merely the result of going too fast. I like to save my peeves for people I think are being deceptive or manipulative.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Oct 20 - 01:21 AM

leenia, that's what my sister in law does, just the opposite. Like I say: so close.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 08 Oct 20 - 11:50 AM

Do you mean she omits apostrophes that should be there?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 08 Oct 20 - 12:18 PM

On the radio this morning I heard (yet again!) someone being described as 'mischeevious'. Can people not understand that the word is 'mischievous' - meaning indulging in mischief - NOT indulging in 'mischeevy'?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Oct 20 - 01:27 PM

like, you know what i mean like you know that joe offer like he is a good egg like

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Oct 20 - 03:42 PM

I think the extra I in Mischievous came in on the same boat as Aliminum and just got lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 08 Oct 20 - 05:32 PM

I just encountered a peeve of mine - using 'of course' when stating some obscure fact.

"A red-cheek, of course, is merely a juvenile red-headed woodpecker."

It peeves me because it implies that everybody knows the obscure fact but me, who must be ignorant and shouldn't argue.

Ha!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Oct 20 - 05:16 AM

Yes, leenia, she omits apostrophes that should be there and inserts them where they should not be. For instance, she might write: Its not as colorful as it's neighbor. (And no, I have no idea what that sentence is conveying.)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 09 Oct 20 - 07:03 AM

People who don't know the difference between '... and I' and '... and me'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Oct 20 - 10:35 AM

Also, by accident, on purpose. Not on accident.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 09 Oct 20 - 10:53 AM

I can't say that I have ever heard anybody use "on accident".

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Oct 20 - 11:59 AM

Way to avoid the error '... and I' and '... and me,' always put the 'I' or 'me' FIRST. Unfortunately, 'proper' English requires putting the I or Me after the 'and,' which can cause momentary lapses, especially in oral communication. BTW, I often hear these mal-usages by lawyers commentators, and other supposed highly educated people, who would never do so in writing. Ergo the solution is evident...always say 'I' or 'Me' first, depending on whether both parties are acting or acted upon.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 09 Oct 20 - 12:13 PM

Another way people can check is by disregarding whoever is involved in the 'and'.
You wouldn't say 'Johnnie saw I going to the shop' [unless you were in the West Country, maybe], so don't say 'Johnnie saw my brother and I going to the shop'. He saw my brother and me.
In the same way, you wouldn't say 'Me went to the shop' [unless you were about three years old, possibly], so don't say 'My brother and me went to the shop'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Oct 20 - 07:13 AM

> Can people not understand that the word is 'mischievous' - meaning indulging in mischief - NOT indulging in 'mischeevy'?

Evidently not.

Oxford show they've been saying "mischievious" since before 1572.

And spelling it more or less that way too.