BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Jun 23 - 02:47 PM

I am understanding of people who misuse apostrophes when they can't tell possessives from contractions. But I WILL consider physical action if you've left up a sign with apostrophes for plurals.

I've rarely if ever used the word 'albeit' (allbeit?) and I know someone who really hates its use, but I have no understanding of where the hostility comes from. If it should offend me, I do not know why.

As for other sources of offense, most of them have been eroded over time. I saw a cute movie where a proper American teacher is explaining to the father o f the student how he's been marked down for not knowing the difference between 'can' and 'may', and it's plain to see the Jewish immigrant father has no idea of what he's talking about nor the difference. But his trusting attitude is comic.

I used to treat double negatives as anathema until I ran into foreign languages that simply don't care. I love that Russian has no definite article, though I suspect that is responsible for their long-time problems with democracy and the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 23 - 04:09 PM

We call it the greengrocers' apostrophe this end. You can buy a pound of potato's or half a pound of tomato's. And how about lending me some of your CD's?

"Albeit" doesn't offend me. It makes me smirk when I see it, because there are far more sensible alternatives (try "though" every time). That makes "albeit" pretentious. Same with "prior to" ("before" works every time) and "on a daily basis" (try "every day" every time). These three examples are all standard English, therefore not wrong, but they are decidedly not elegant English.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 01 Jun 23 - 04:22 PM

That makes "albeit" pretentious.

Spherical objects!

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 23 - 04:56 PM

But why use that silly word when a much simpler word, universally understood, will do just as well?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 02:56 AM

Because variety is the spice of life. 'Albeit' is a perfectly good, unambiguos alternative and I reserve the right to use it whenever I want to.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 04:52 AM

I wouldn't question your right, Doug, even if I were one of General Franco's grammar-police goons. I'd just politely request that you consider "though" next time...

Maybe it's because, as you know, I'm a very simple man...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 07:40 AM

Incidentally, I highly recommend Larry Trask's book "Mind the Gaffe." He was a mighty linguist and I don't care if I'm appealing to authority here. You won't like what he has to say about "albeit." He regards it as a pretentious and silly word, avoided by good writers and loved by bad writers who foolishly believe that using pretentious words makes bad writing good. And I heartily agree!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 10:33 AM

OK, folks: here's a couple of curious facets of English as she is spoke that sort-of annoy me.

* If I ask someone "Are you feeling OK?" and they're not, the answer is "No". If instead I say "Are you not feeling OK?", logic suggests the answer would be "Yes", but it's understood that I'm asking "Are you feeling OK?" with the implication that I expect the answer to be "No".

* If I say "You're feeling OK, aren't you?" then neither "Yes" nor "No" is logically correct.

Happily, these two curiosities cancel out in practice in spoken English. They may well not appear in other languages; contributions, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 10:35 AM

Oh, and I view use of "albeit" as often being for comic effect. Always look on the wry side of life.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 04:10 PM

Albeit: All be it? Although it be? Although be it? There's no way of extracting sense from this silly word. I'd sooner rip off me top and staple me tit to a beehive than be seen using this ludicrous word.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 04:54 PM

And don't get me started on "prior to." Yes, it's standard English. But it should never appear either in writing or the spoken word. It's a complete horror. It means "before," and I've never seen a single instance of "prior to" in which "before" wouldn't have cut it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 05:05 PM

And don't get me started on "prior to."

Nobody asked you to. It's you who keeps bringing the subject up.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 05:27 PM

But it's a pet peeve of mine, Doug! What the thread's all about! I rail against this stuff on a daily basis!

Shit...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 05:29 PM

And don't get me started on "prior to."

I arrived at the abbey, and asked the prior to arrange a room for the night for me!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 23 - 05:37 PM

I'm sure there are better b&bs in your area, Nigel! Just check prior to making your booking...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 23 - 07:13 AM

Hmm. A person in another thread (Rain Dog shall remain nameless), in what was ostensibly an attempt to take the mickey out of me, typed this: "D..... did post a couple of jokes, albeit you might not have found them funny..."

Well if you insist on using the nonsensical word "albeit" (it's a free country and you have every right), then at least use it correctly. The construction quoted above is completely ungrammatical. There's nothing more delicious in life that wannabe pretentious types misusing their pretentious words...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Jun 23 - 08:33 AM

What is with all yhe commercials saying Two times? Twice!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Jun 23 - 11:19 AM

‘X-year Anniversary’. Aaaaaaarrgghh!

Xth Anniversary…

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 23 - 05:32 PM

Dammit!

"...nothing more delicious in life that wannabe..."

That that should have been a than...

I could have been hoist by my own petard there had I not spotted it first...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 23 - 05:51 PM

We've had three weeks of brilliant weather and Mrs Steve and I have already had a lot of barbecues (including tonight, when I successfully barbecued some wild sockeye salmon for the first time). But we have not had a single barbeque or a bar-b-q. I might tell my offspring in a WhatsApp that we've had a BBQ, otherwise it's a barbecue, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 04:57 AM

Whom. This terrible word gets my goat almost as much as "albeit." Unless it's the object of a preposition, it should never be used, ever. Even then, just rejig the sentence. Constructions such as "to whom it may concern" (which is horrible in itself) are the only ones in which "whom" is barely acceptable. I wish "whom" an early and horrible demise. I think I may have used it here once but (in the words of Basil Fawlty) I think I got away with it...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 11:06 AM

"Whom are you?" he said, for he had been to night school.
                               -- George Ade

[Snoopy typing on top of his doghouse:]
    To whom it may concern:
[pause for one frame]
    Dear Whom,

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 11:10 AM

Whomever. This is surely a purely comic word in the same mould as octopi, fora and viri.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 11:20 AM

Who/whom
Whom is used to refer to the object (rather than the subject) of a sentence.

An elderly queer from Khartoum
Took a lesbian up to his room.
They lay on the bed, 'til he finally said:
"Who does what, with what, and to whom?"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Reinhard
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 11:20 AM

"Whom" is to "who" what is "him" to "he" - an excellent pronoun, albeit out of fashion in informal speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 11:29 AM

Reinhard:
Suck sinked!

Oh, sorry, 'succinct'

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 11:39 AM

> Two times

Hear, hear. A related annoyance is abuse of percentages: when an advert says "200% bigger", do they mean it's been doubled or trebled? place your bets, mesdames et messieurs. (I even saw "Reduces [the board area used] by 150%" in an advert about printed circuit board interfaces, which if taken literally meant said interface took up negative area.)

I'll pass over percentages per se, as that's a mathematical peeve which merely enables the aforesaid abuse by advert.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 12:09 PM

I can't think of an instance in which "whom" couldn't be replaced by "who" in speech, and instances in the written word would be confined to crusty grammarians who would be far better off rebuilding their sentences.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 12:20 PM

.... and I recalled the words of my mother, from whom I'd learned everything about playing the washboard.

'from who' just doesn't work in this example.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 01:46 PM

I think it does! Certainly in speech, and, if I wanted to express that in writing, I'd reconstruct the sentence. You're not wrong to use/defend it, of course, but, by the same token, we have people here who defend "albeit!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 02:29 PM

While so many are fretting about "albeit" and "whom," millions of your fellow native speakers of English are replacing inanimate "whose" ("of which") with "thats," "which's" (or "whiches"), and even "which."


It's based on a superstition that "whose" can only refer to people and animals.

I first noticed this forty years ago, when I was teaching at a large American university. Back then, fewer than half of undergraduates polled could correctly fill in the blank: "It's an idea _______ time has come."

It's found mostly in "folk" writing, even of people who are otherwise literate.

Here's an excellent example from the 'Net:

"Seems like a shame when so much bad material is rushed to DVD. 20th Century Fox should do something about this. After all they have released A YANK IN THE R.A.F which main claim to fame is Betty Grable and Tyrone Power."

"That his/ her/ its" is commonly used in speech:

"This is the lady that her car was towed."

"Which is the novel that its [or "thats"] hero turns out to be the killer?"

I'm peeved.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 06:05 PM

Lighter: To my ear, "that is/her/its" is not another possessive of "which", but a construction in which "that" = "such that". It is nonstandard English but standard Hebrew.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 06:11 PM

I always use whom with a silent m.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 07:38 PM

Which reminds me of a joke (do forgive wrong-threadedness):

Why can you never hear a pterodactyl in the toilet?

Because, with a pterodactyl, the p is silent...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 10:38 PM

Be careful! I made a joke in another thread about 'rap' music starting with a silent 'c' and got told off for doing it.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 05 Jun 23 - 12:37 PM

Has the conjunction "data is" been dealt with already? I'm beginning
to see "data are" (which I now find makes my teeth ache worse than
"data is"); thankfully, I've not yet seen "data sunt" (Frank da Cruz:
Kermit: a File Transfer Protocol, p12, footnote 2). The
existence of Commander Data seems to also have, erm, played a
supporting role.

That battle's lost. But not yet a related source of toothache: The
Meeja haven't yet cottoned on that "medium" is the singular of
"media", possibly because paparazzi hunt in packs.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jun 23 - 05:58 PM

To me, the greatest Americans of the twentieth century (in the musical context) are George Gershwin, Lennie Bernstein and Woody Guthrie. Do not piss me off by typing "Woodie Guthrie," yeah?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jun 23 - 07:00 PM

I've done it again. And how. It's Lenny, not Lennie. When you consider that I excoriate people for typing Woodie instead of Woody, the error is especially egregious. Pass the bloody hair shirt.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 02:33 AM

It’s Leonard.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 03:43 AM

Or Len.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 04:16 AM

No it's not. He was born Louis Bernstein. "Leonard" was an adopted name (I know not why), but no-one ever called him Leonard. It was always Lenny, or occasionally Len, maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 04:20 AM

He legally changed his name to Leonard, but that was never a name used by the people who knew him.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 04:44 AM

He’s always been Leonard to me. Never seen him referred to in the press and media as ‘Lenny’ or ‘Len’, always ‘Leonard’. That’s good enough for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 04:53 AM

Exactly. That's the press and the media. As I said, to the people around him he was always just Lenny. With a y. Remember when the papers of lesser repute referred to Madeleine McCann as Maddie, a name never used by the people around her?

It sounds a bit twee calling him Lenny, I admit, and when I'm talking about him I'd probably just call him Bernstein. But calling him by a name that no-one around him ever used doesn't sit well with me..

Anyway, the point is that it's Woody.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 12:03 PM

I have no issues with who/whom, I/me and so forth. I grew up using them appropriately. I don't see the need to restructure sentences for folks who don't, especially. There is enough dumbing down going on already.

However, if you say your pronoun is He or She or They, there is no need to specify the other cases.

My 3rd person pronoun is They. I assume you know the objective pronoun is Them and the possessive one is Their. I don't see why some people have to specify them all. In fact, it's annoying, and smacks of down-dumbing.

On the other hand, I have had idiots try to use They as my 2nd person pronoun.

I know loads of people who have no clue what I just said. Sigh. Why can't Americans teach English the way the French teach French?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 02:38 PM

The point about revising and restructuring sentences is to make oneself clearer and to minimise the amount of mental processing required of your recipient. We've all written something that we then refuse to alter as if it's some kind of cherished and sacred possession. Better to ditch it and start again sometimes. And if you've written a sentence that has "whomever" in it, you're a clot if you leave it unaltered.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 03:13 AM

True. It should, perhaps, be "whomsoever"...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 04:00 AM

I think I'll add whomever/whomsoever to my anti-ugly-English campaign, right up there with prior to, on a daily basis and, of course, albeit...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 09:09 AM

What's with "moist"? (Sorry. Why do some people find "moist" rebarbitive? Just some Americans?))

I've been hearing bout this for ten years or more. It's said to be "creepy and queasy-making." (Sorry. Creepy and disturbing.)

Just yesterday a TV journalist apologized on the air for letting the word slip.

Sounds fine to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 09:54 AM

It's a compliment over here. When sampling someone's home-made cake, it's polite to say, "Mmm, very good cake. Really nice and moist."