BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Dec 20 - 10:52 AM

I didn't suppose, you said so.

The poem said Happy Christmas but that always sounds British to me. The only time I've heard Merry New Year is in Trading Places. Which is a *great* $mas movie.

Today on PBS one of my fave pet peeve redundancies, village razed to the ground.

Yes, I use fave pet in an ironical sense.

Good Will Hunting reference, there.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Dec 20 - 06:15 AM

Merry or happy?

Christmas and New Year are often linked in a common greeting, in which case, it is'merry' for Christmas and 'happy' for New Year. Taking this as the precedent, I would stick with 'merry' for Christmas even when it is used on its own.

Personally, I prefer 'bah' to go with humbug.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Dec 20 - 01:09 AM

It's difficult to tell who is following whom, but some of you are doing far more bickering through the thread than is seemly, it contributes nothing, and if you don't knock it off you're going to find a BONK next time you try to log on. Capiche?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Rain Dog
Date: 24 Dec 20 - 09:21 PM

Merry or happy?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Dec 20 - 09:16 PM

Why do you suppose that I have a problem with your nitpicking? Frankly, I care not a jot. When it comes to the use of language, etc., I'm a fairly erudite sort of chap (disagree at your peril...), but, at the same time, I'm pretty indulgent when it comes to what people say or type informally, as I've said a number of times in this thread. You do seem to pick up on things that are fairly unobjectionable, yet you post things yourself that are frequently quite buttock-clenching (see recipes thread for example, what with your yum-yum stuff) and, even in this thread, you are not exactly exempt from that accusation, as I've pointed out. You're exactly the sort of chap that gets my antennae a-waggling. Once you start to criticise others for their lack of linguistic precision, you open yourself up to having your own contributions a bit more closely analysed than perhaps would make you comfortable. Summat to do with pedestals, I think...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Dec 20 - 03:03 PM

That is why they are *pet* peeves, Steve Shaw. They need not be anybody else's pet, or even peeve.

But you are the second person to reprimand me for being peeved by things that don't peeve *you* ... I find that odd. *All* of this thread is about nitpicking. If anything peeving anybody in any language were actually objectively reprehensible, nobody would do it and the whole thread would never have happened.

So what, exactly, is your problem with *my* nitpicking, that is not wrong with *your* nitpicking?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 20 - 08:33 PM

More than two shakes is a w*an*k, mate, and you know it!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Rain Dog
Date: 23 Dec 20 - 07:08 PM

And more than two shakes?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 20 - 05:56 PM

It's always been two shakes of a donkey's doodah where I come from.

You're nitpicking, Mrrzy. You're objecting to things that are unobjectionable to all except you, I reckon.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Dec 20 - 04:45 PM

Tail?

A person who went to work while sick is likely the cause of two separate Covid-19 outbreaks in Oregon.

Um, no. If one person caused them both, they are not separate.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 23 Dec 20 - 04:21 PM

We had "two shakes of a nanny goat's tale" in NYC as well, decades ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: mayomick
Date: 23 Dec 20 - 02:16 PM

Nano
It used to be ‘back in two shakes of a nanny goats tail’ in Ireland that’s now been replaced by ‘ back in a nano –second’.
I heard ‘only a nano-step away’ two days ago

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 22 Dec 20 - 04:04 PM

A swinger? Do you have a clump of pampas grass growing in your front garden?
Or was that just in the 1970s?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Dec 20 - 03:45 PM

I'm a swinger, or something, maybe?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 20 - 04:14 AM

"a planetary phenom to the Xians."

Interesting that one of the most linguistically peeved persons here can type a thing like that...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 22 Dec 20 - 04:11 AM

Cloudy here too, in spite of one of Radio 4's thought spots ('Prayer for the Day' or 'Thought for the Day', I forget which) telling listeners that everyone in the world had a chance to see it.

Last week, not long after it was announced that man-made structures now weigh more than all life on Earth, one of these 'thoughtful people' declared that man-made structures now weigh twice as much as all life on Earth.

Statistical inflation, or just another example of woolly thinking?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 22 Dec 20 - 02:34 AM

I presume you are referring to a possible similar event being behind the Biblical account of the Star of Bethlehem? More likely the triple conjunction of 8 BC had something to do with it. I further conjecture that the "star" was a cover story made up by the Magi to protect their sources of information from Herod's goons.

Missed the conjunction - cloudy all evening here in the UK (this corner at least).

Apologies for the thread drift - let's get back to being peeved.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Dec 20 - 11:25 AM

Yes, usually to someone waiting for that explanation with arms akimbo and a frown.

I wish, fervently, that media like CNN would stop giving a planetary phenom to the Xians. Yes, I refer to tonight's Grand Conjunction.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 19 Dec 20 - 05:49 PM

In my book, "account for" is not a synonym of "take account of" or "tke into account". Properly it means "explain".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 19 Dec 20 - 11:45 AM

I've grumbled about that one before on here - that error turns the literal meaning completely on its head: "You can't underestimate the crucial importance ... " would mean that there is no bottom to the estimation of the unimportance of the "crucial importance", which is nonsensical as well - whereas "you mustn't ... " emphasizes how "crucial" the "importance" is.

One I've noticed lately that amuses me is the frequent "it's going to be much bigger than we expect", or variations thereof - which could be re-worded as, "we expect it to be much bigger than we expect it to be" ... !

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 20 - 04:52 AM

"Can't" is replacing "mustn't" this end, as in "you can't underestimate the crucial importance of these measures..." You can if you want!l

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 19 Dec 20 - 01:51 AM

Several TV presenters here add an extra syllable to words so that 'three' becomes 'the-ree', 'threat' becomes 'the-reat', etc.

It is annoying and irritating. Perhaps it's done for emphasis, but it just sounds sloppy to me. It's mostly done by women, but the occasional bloke has a go too.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 19 Dec 20 - 01:23 AM

In this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_sYUN5p-ks

we see Michael Flynn, a Trump hanger-on, saying "He [Trump] could put military capabilities in each of those swing states and basically re-run an election in those states."

I'm not going to address the evil of this. I'm going to point out the weasel words "military capabilities." What are these capabilities? They're armed fighters, weapons, drones, spy equipment - equipment to injure, kill and intimidate Americans.

There's a word for that language trick - it's called nominalization.

(Good thing our military hates his guts.)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Dec 20 - 01:44 PM

Mwah.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Dec 20 - 12:20 PM

OK Mrrzy, point taken.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 17 Dec 20 - 12:16 PM

To quote Priti Patel on BBC Radio 4 a few moments ago, regarding a dinner attended by 27 people:
"I don't know the details of where this happened, or the location ..."

Woolly thinking at the very least.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Dec 20 - 10:23 AM

Doug Chadwick, you seem to be berating me because they aren't *your* peeves. Please desist.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Dec 20 - 09:09 AM

Doug has the right idea about overuse.

Has anyone mentioned "in real time"?

It can mean "as it's happening," "expeditiously," or "now."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Dec 20 - 06:17 AM

I don"t know where that exclamation mark came from. What I actually copied and tried to paste was:

.... slain in a targeted killing is a lot longer than assassinated.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Dec 20 - 06:13 AM

...... slain in a targeted killing is a lot longer than !.

True, but what difference does it make? I read the headline and instantly understood its meaning. I didn't need top stop and think "do they mean assassinated?". If it hadn't been posted here as an example, I suspect my mind would have passed over the word 'slain' and taken it in as part of the complete phrase.

I accept that some phrases, such as "at this moment in time" for "now", can be annoying but the peeve should be with its overuse rather than its word count. When it was first coined it would have sounded fresh, and possibly, even poetic.

Unless there is a world shortage of printing ink, the headline writer should be free to choose how the available space is filled, so long as the meaning remains clear.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Dec 20 - 09:19 PM

Gibb, I still don't know how to pronounce the true name of the country Hungary.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Dec 20 - 08:54 PM

Right, so slain in a killing is redundant, and slain in a targeted killling is a lot longer than assassinated. My points exactly.

I was hoping someone would rise to my dangled bait of Explicated!

I love this place.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 20 - 06:57 AM

To be politically incorrect for a sec, one of my favourite headlines of all time, heading a report into Elton John's wedding, said ELTON TAKES DAVID UP THE AISLE.

Sorry about that!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 16 Dec 20 - 05:01 AM

There are some words that I never see or hear anywhere but in news headlines, just because they are shorter than the usual term.
Such as "boffin".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 16 Dec 20 - 02:14 AM

I think you'll find that headlines are one place where brevity is essential. "Slain" is a good headline word, shorter than "killed" or "murdered" (let alone "assassinated").

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 04:05 PM

Perhaps you should have a pet peeve with yourself for misusing (or, at best, using in a completely obscurantist way) the word "explicate."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 03:56 PM

Doug Chadwick, one of my pet peeves is using multiple-word phrases to explicate things we have words for. Even more so in headlines.

Another is redundancy.

That headline had all of those things wrong with it.

I didn't say it was unclear. Just full of my peeves.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 01:06 PM

"Eejit", both written and spoken, is a popular rendition of "idiot" by some Irish people and some beyond-Irish. Lighten up, Lighter. Years ago, Jeremy of TheSession website managed to install a fix whereby swear words were automatically replaced by something euphemistic. Unfortunately, it meant that you could never again type "Scunthorpe" in your posts, the word always rendered from then on "Seejithorpe."

And well said Doug, though you won't stop me moaning about "albeit" going forward.

Oops...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 08:47 AM

Deputy governor of Kabul slain in targeted killing

Did you understand it? Was there any possible ambiguity?

If the answers are "yes" and "no", respectively, then what is wrong with it? It meets the necessary requirements for communication.

English is a rich language with many different ways of saying the same thing. We should be celebrating that, not complaining about it. If we are going to be limited to a set list of approved words, how long will it be before we arrive at Newspeak?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 08:46 AM

That reference to 'assassination' reminds me of a day some years ago when, listening to BBC Radio 3, I heard a news summary reporting that someone had been 'shot and killed'.
Later that day, Radio 4 reported that he had been 'shot dead'.
Later still, I heard on another station (either Radio 1 or a commercial channel, I can't remember which) that the man had been 'gunned down'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 08:24 AM

Deputy governor of Kabul slain in targeted killing

What is wrong with Assassinated? Too many S's?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 07:27 AM

What is this word "eejits"?

Can today's Britons neither pronounce nor spell?

The correct word is "idiots."

IDD-ee-uts.

America got away from that decadent nation in the very nick of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 05:54 AM

Unfortunately, this inanity is spreading like a plague among politicians and others (especially politicians) who like to think they're sounding clever when they are actually sounding like pretentious eejits. People of similar ilk are also fond of saying "going forward..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 05:03 AM

Civil engineers regard a raft as 'a solid foundation'?

Really?

That is worrying.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 04:55 AM

Perhaps he meant it in its civil engineering sense - such measures as are necessary will need to be put together on a solid foundation.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 20 - 04:13 AM

I heard a doc on the radio declaring that dealing with the latest coronavirus spike will need "a whole raft of measures" (he said it twice).

"Raft?" I'm afraid that this daft expression definitely doesn't float my boat...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 14 Dec 20 - 11:31 PM

Look, fellas. "Normalcy" was beaten to death 50 years ago.

Here's a new peeve. "Reach out". I read a newsletter from Doctors without Borders today, and though they are a fine outfit, they reached out to somebody on every second page. It began to get on my nerves.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 13 Dec 20 - 06:31 PM

It was Warren Harding in 1920.

It's better than "normality," because it takes less time to say it, and there aren't so many sounds to remember.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 13 Dec 20 - 06:24 PM

"Normalcy" was popularized by Calvin Coolidge, tho he did not invent it. Democrats picked it up and used it to ridicule Republicans; in my youth I would never have used it otherwise than snidely. Now, apparently, the joke has become a blunder again.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 20 - 08:11 AM

Oi, yanks, what's with this "normalcy"? What's wrong with "normality"? Huh??