 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Language Pet Peeves
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: leeneia Date: 14 Feb 22 - 11:38 PM It's not a peeve for me, but I too often see authors using "vice" when they mean "vise." Example: He could hardly breathe; he felt as if he were being crushed in a vice. About "nucular." The average person uses patterns and resemblances in language. Think how many words we have with "ular" in them: regular molecular jugular scapular macular spectacular Right now, I can't think of any other word that has the -ear of nuclear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Manitas_at_home Date: 15 Feb 22 - 01:19 AM Clear, fear, dear, near, sear, hear.. All quite common words unlike the live the 'ular' list. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Jon Freeman Date: 15 Feb 22 - 02:37 AM It's not a peeve for me, but I too often see authors using "vice" when they mean "vise." "vise" is a North American spelling of "vice". I (UK) would use and mean "vice". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Mr Red Date: 15 Feb 22 - 03:16 AM SOED CD ROM (20 yrs old) re precarity - not in precarium /prI"kE:rI [L, use as n. of neut. of precarius: see PRECARIOUS.] Rom. & Sc. Law. A loan granted on request but revocable whenever the owner may please. But instantiate is: Represent by an instance. though it would seem in code writing the meaning doesn't now imply as an example. ie it was used before (≈ precedent set) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Mr Red Date: 15 Feb 22 - 03:35 AM Right now, I can't think of any other word that has the -ear of nuclear. Quite a few. the SOED CD ROM includes, in the phonetic search, "ere", and "ia". But if "clear" was the arbiter then only "clear" & expansions of "nuclear" fan bloody tastic is that anyones' pet peeve? - an example of tmesis I just found out. Dare we mention Gazpacho police? MTJ's delightful malapropism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 Feb 22 - 04:41 AM I've never seen "vise" outside an American context. You are wrong about "between" and "among." Again, language is what people use, not what grammarians dictate. It's a distinction that I try to maintain myself, but there's also a distinction to be made between "it's wrong" and " I don't like it." Ahem: a treaty between western nations, or a treaty among western nations...? Between you, me and the gatepost, or among you, me and the gatepost? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Mrrzy Date: 15 Feb 22 - 11:01 AM The Tween of Between means 2. The misuse of literal to mean figurative does not change the meaning of literal to figurative. Between you and me. Not between you and I, which also bugs me. Adding the lamppost I will allow, but as literary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: meself Date: 15 Feb 22 - 11:46 AM 'Gazpacho police' is just a polite way of saying, 'Soup Nazi'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 Feb 22 - 12:26 PM It doesn't matter what you think "tween" means. "Albeit" means "all be it" or "although be it," both of which are absolute nonsense, but even I know that it's a standard English word. The danger with hanging on to things that you haven't noticed have evolved is that you're going to criticise people who have not done anything wrong. They've merely gone with the flow, which Canute demonstrated that we all have to do. Take a tip from him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: leeneia Date: 15 Feb 22 - 12:32 PM Steve, what do you call a device that's clamped to a workbench and has two jaws and a handle? When an item if placed between the jaws and the handle is turned, the item is eventually clamped in place. Something cute: I was just watching a video on how to cook pork ribs, and the cook said, "Now put on some W sauce. This stuff. (displays a bottle of Worcestershire sauce) Pronounce it however you want." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Lighter Date: 15 Feb 22 - 12:33 PM Here's what Merriam-Webster says: "There is a persistent but unfounded notion that between can be used only of two items and that among must be used for more than two. Between has been used of more than two since Old English...." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/between Oxford concurs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 Feb 22 - 12:56 PM A vice. I'm a big fan of American English, but I can't think that I've ever seen "vise" used in an English-English context. Cheers, Lighter. I also checked that source. I don't want anyone thinking that I make stuff up... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Jon Freeman Date: 15 Feb 22 - 01:02 PM Leeneia. The device you describe is a “vice” in British English. Looking through the Chambers dictionary App on my phone, I find 2 entries for “vice” with different roots. #1 (which has the Latin “vitis” – "vine" referenced) Has meanings including the tool. #2 (“vitium” – "defect") has the immoral meanings. You in the US appear to spell #1 as “vise”. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 Feb 22 - 01:03 PM Unfortunately, leeneia, many a telly chef over here refers to "Worcester sauce." That's very annoying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 Mar 22 - 06:25 AM "Influencer." Grr. I know it's an ancient word, but its modern manifestation, mainly it seems in social media contexts, gets right on my nerves, it does. It's become flavour of the month, all over the place like a rash. I'll swear I hardly ever heard it used until six months ago but now I can't avoid it. Daft if you ask me (you won't). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Senoufou Date: 15 Mar 22 - 07:40 AM I'm rather addicted to Dr Pimple Popper on TV, and am amused by some of the words/pronunciations used. For the word 'pouch' she says 'pooch' (which is a pet dog here in UK!) And any tumours, spots etc are referred to as 'bumps'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: leeneia Date: 22 Apr 22 - 08:07 PM I've learned something new. A woman talked to me recently about joining my early-music group, and I was about ready to send out e-mails to the gang. The following came into my Inbox from the new person: Leeneia, Recorder information? How often? How long do you plan? How many in group? I was irritated! How rude! I was trying to think of a good lie to make her go away, but then I showed it to the DH, and he said that that is considered normal writing for a person on a phone. Well, okayeee. I think that is a heck of way to ask a person for a big favor. And it is a big favor - I find and arrange music, I've bought a projector and screen, we have snacks and tea .... I hope she doesn't keep this up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Senoufou Date: 23 Apr 22 - 02:22 AM Being completely ignorant of terms connected to technology, I'm often flummoxed by my neighbour's son and daughter (they're in their early twenties) when chatting with them. They usually forget that I don't possess a fobile moan, and have remarked many times, "You need a nap!" I think this means an App (whatever that is). I always reply, "Thanks, but I've already had one today." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Mrrzy Date: 23 Apr 22 - 04:18 PM I didn't understand the app concept till I saw a New Yorker cartoon with cavemen sitting around a fire, and one is exclaiming I love this stuff! It's got a heating app, a light app, a cooking app... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Senoufou Date: 24 Apr 22 - 02:20 AM Hahahaaaaagh Mrrzy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: BobL Date: 24 Apr 22 - 03:13 AM Then there is the cartoon where Tarzan is saying to Jane "I've got an ape for that..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: leeneia Date: 27 Apr 22 - 04:07 PM That's a good one, Mrrzy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Jul 22 - 06:55 AM This exchange between Donuel and me took place on the Roe v. Wade thread, where it was out of place, so I've edited it extremely heavily in order to remove abrasiveness and moved it over here. It all started when he misused the word "supersedes," compounded by his rather perverse misspelling of it: ME: "Supercedes" [sic]?? HE: “Sic” is an adverb that means “thus” in Latin, but writers and editors can also use it to highlight grammar errors in quoted text. Learn the proper way to use “sic” and useful alternatives. It would be better to use "recte" and write the word correctly spelled if you want to correct spelling... ME: [sic] means that I have quoted your rendering of the word in question exactly, even though I know it to be incorrect. For five hundred years the word has been "supersede," and you won't find many authorities that don't regard "supercede" as either perverse or ignorant. ...And it was the wrong word to use in any case. HE: Please continue to use [sic] incorrectly, "recte" is more correct for a single word. A spelling error, horrific, hoisted by ones own petard, devine. ME: The phrase is from Hamlet, and the correct version is hoist with his own petard. I use it quite a lot, only ever that way, the right way, just as I use [sic]. ......................... I've never used, let alone heard of, "recte," and the examples of its use that I looked up all look cumbersome and somewhat obscurantist. I think that [sic] is perfectly good for both single words and for phrases and I can find no objection to that anywhere. Feel free to demur! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Backwoodsman Date: 06 Jul 22 - 09:31 AM ‘Devine’? Any ideas, anyone? (Other than it being the obvious mis-spelling of ‘divine’?). ”Before you start pointing fingers, make sure your hands are clean” - James Marshall Hendrix (allegedly). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 06 Jul 22 - 11:42 AM Sic transit gloria mundi .... ? I'll get mi dictionary |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: meself Date: 06 Jul 22 - 11:46 AM From Merriam-Webster: su·?per·?cede Definition of supercede disputed spelling variant of SUPERSEDE Supercede vs. Supersede: Usage Guide Supercede has occurred as a spelling variant of supersede since the 17th century, and it is common in current published writing. It continues, however, to be widely regarded as an error. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Jul 22 - 02:39 PM Exactly. To the point at which it's perverse to spell it that way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Doug Chadwick Date: 06 Jul 22 - 02:41 PM Sic transit gloria mundi .... ? Gloria threw up in the van at the beginning of the week. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 06 Jul 22 - 03:36 PM Oil on Troubled Waters Dept: I thought "supercede" was the correct spelling too, but Wictionary corrects me (and provides the even more interesting misspelling "superseed" --- definite comic mileage there). I'll need to remember to think of "supersession", using the mental image of Lennon and Hendrix jamming in the recording studio next to the Pearly Gates. Another that I can only get right by brute force is "desiccate", which still looks wrong to me; mayhap it's the insidious influence of my father's disparaging term "desecrated coconut". At least now I'm not in paid employment which involves distributing software to users, I don't have to worry about distinguishing between "license" (verb) and "licence" (noun), of which the latter spelling seems to not have made it across the Puddle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Jul 22 - 04:28 PM I like the distinction between licence and license, but, as most Brits get it wrong whenever they use it as a verb, I've given up on that one. Maybe I'm a secret yank. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Jul 22 - 04:31 PM Caesar adsum iam forte Pompey aderat Caesar sic in omnibus Pompey sic in hat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Joe_F Date: 06 Jul 22 - 04:47 PM Steve Shaw: The use of [sic] to highlight an error is vulgar. The proper scholarly use is to reassure the reader that you, the writer, have *not* made an error, but have written the preceding intentionally. The usual reason for needing it is that a quotation contains an error that you have quoted faithfully; but quotation need not be involved. For example, I once wrote (describing a dream) "ate some candles [sic]"; without that warning, anyone might reasonably suspect I meant to write "candies". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Jul 22 - 05:11 PM It isn't necessarily to highlight and thereby expose someone's error. Were I to quote someone whose words include an error and I corrected that error, that would be patronising in the extreme. If I were to quote someone, knowing that the quote included an egregious error but I didn't point out the error via [sic], it could look like I was condoning the error, or worse, didn't know that the error was there. [sic] is relatively subtle, is time-honoured and is not at all vulgar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 06 Jul 22 - 05:28 PM .... I used to use "licence" for both noun and verb, until I had to deal with licences and licensing (and Murrkin software) a lot. Meta-peeve: Old English was (approximately) the result of mixing Anglo-Saxon with Old Norse, then there was a violent collision with Norman French; then Dr Johnson and co-conspirators overlarded it heavily with late Latin (including the wrong sort of grammar); and only then did spelling start settling down. Then the language pedants started making educated mistakes, like never permitting one to boldly split an infinitive; and we started picking up words from all over the Empire, and getting those wrong too. And you expect such a magpie language to be consistent? humph. End of core dump. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Jul 22 - 06:00 PM I must have posted dozens of times with the expressed sentiment that language is fluid, should be allowed to be fluid, must not be in the hands of grammar police and must go with the popular flow. It's wot the people say, not wot grammarians dictate. You hit on a classic example in your post. The people who like to constantly rail against "splitting the infinitive" are not only wrong (people have chosen to routinely "split the infinitive" for hundreds of years with impunity), but they don't actually know what an infinitive is. The scholarly take is that a true infinitive is a single word, and you can't exactly split that. You'll have to look that up if you're bothered. However, the sentiment that language should be fluid and allowed to evolve in no way excuses blatant errors and sloppiness. Ignorance should not be the driver of language evolution. Claiming that your misspelled word or inelegant phrase is all part of the language evolving is both ignorant and vexatious. It's hard to know where the dividing line is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 07 Jul 22 - 02:09 AM .... Apologies: I should have added that I was distracting myself from the dire news, so may have been inadvertently firing off my mouth from the hip (again). As for said dividing line, it's even harder to know where it is if you don't know the reader's context; so I suggest we say "everybody has their own line in the sand", and (erm) draw a line under it. I will now go and write "I will always take an hour extra before I click Submit" four hundred times. "Quick, Jeeves! my asbestos mail-reading long johns!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Senoufou Date: 07 Jul 22 - 02:22 AM I've mentioned on here before how much I love that word 'innit?'. (Used at the end of seemingly irrelevant statements, for example: "He looks cool in them trousers, innit?" I suppose it could be 'translated' as 'Is that not so?'. Well, I've got to know a black chap who lives down my road with his white wife. He's of Caribbean origin but lived most of his life in West London, where I spent my childhood. (We discovered we'd been born in the same hospital in Hillingdon!) He uses 'innit' without let or hindrance, and has me in stitches! I think it's my favourite word, innit? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: BobL Date: 07 Jul 22 - 03:40 AM Better "innit" than "right", especially when giving directions - "then you take the next left, right?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: leeneia Date: 07 Jul 22 - 01:01 PM When I was growing up in Milwaukee, many working-class people said 'aina?', short for 'ain't it?.' These did not seem to be American country people (users of ain't), and I thought that 'aina' was a replacement for the German 'nicht wahr?" Thus it would resemble England's 'innit?'. I haven't lived there for a long time, so I don't know if it has died out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: meself Date: 07 Jul 22 - 02:34 PM Among large swathes of Canadians, "eh?" used to be common - now you'll find Canadians who claim they've never heard it (which I don't believe), let alone used it. In the past decade or so, "right?" has largely replaced "eh?". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Jul 22 - 04:21 PM Know wot ah mean, like? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: weerover Date: 07 Jul 22 - 04:58 PM Steve says you can't split a single word. Abso-fucking-lutely you can: it is called "tmesis" and is a recognised rhetorical device, like many such from Greek. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Joe_F Date: 07 Jul 22 - 05:28 PM Steve Shaw: I think, in the situation you describe, I would correct the error but enclose the corrected words in square brackets. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Jul 22 - 06:47 PM Well I use the time-honoured method, chiefly for brevity and clarity. I mean, it isn't exactly as if I made up the ploy... You say that I should make a huge and polite effort to correct an error. In the case in question, I'd suggest that the perpetrator of the error made that error lazily, and does not deserve the time and effort it would take for me to do that. I mean, has he not heard of dictionaries? Dunno about you, Joe, but if I'm ever unsure about a word, I look up the spelling. That's why you won't find spelling errors in my posts. It's not that I'm incredibly clever or anything, it's more that I make the effort to get it right. The man who types "supercede" and "supream" clearly doesn't do that. Shoot at the right target, Joe! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Jul 22 - 06:50 PM Do that with an infinitive, weerover. There's a challenge for you! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Doug Chadwick Date: 08 Jul 22 - 06:57 AM That's why you won't find spelling errors in my posts. Is that a challenge? It's certainly a very bold statement. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Backwoodsman Date: 08 Jul 22 - 07:31 AM I was told, very early in my engineering apprenticeship, that, “Him what never makes a mistake never does sod-all”. Even with the double-negative, I think the message is pretty clear… |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Jul 22 - 05:30 PM Doug, I edit my posts before hitting send. I hate spelling errors. If I'm not sure, I check with a dictionary. I do that every day. If you find a spelling error in my posts, let me know. I regard it as only polite to do my best to express myself clearly and avoid mistakes. That does not mean that I'm excessively clever. It means that I want to be represented by clear and accurate posts. My opinions, on the other hand, are another matter... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Doug Chadwick Date: 08 Jul 22 - 06:46 PM I'm sure that most of us try to avoid spelling errors, Steve, but mistakes slip through. I'm thinking of Senoufou's recent efforts to correct a mis-spelling of "iridescent" in the "BS: Mad Swans, blue tits, and others" thread. She knew perfectly well how to spell it but somehow her brain wasn't connected to her fingers. It can happen to the best of us. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Jul 22 - 07:21 PM And the ould spellchecker can trip one up, especially when you're not wearing your reading glasses. Insertion of unwanted apostrophe's is one it's worst traits. I say, to he'll with spellcheckers! |
