BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jun 23 - 09:14 PM

Next time you hear someone say "paradigm" or (especially) "paradigm shift" ask them what they mean. There's a one hundred percent likelihood that they won't have a clue.

And don't get me started on "ironically." Is this the most misused word in our beautiful language?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Jun 23 - 03:23 AM

Originally I was disgusted by the interjection of the word 'like' in statements such as, "I was like ..." which is heard everywhere nowadays. But I'm coming round to the opinion that it introduces a feeling or a reply in a rather neat way. I'm trying to accept that language evolves, and I must stop being critical of today's changes and usages.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jun 23 - 04:12 AM

"I'm not gonna lie..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 24 Jun 23 - 11:48 AM

I sympathise, Senoufou: I used to be more dischuffed than somewhat at his abusage of "like". But I've just realised it's because everything for youngsters is a simile rather than, like, a metaphor.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Jun 23 - 12:21 PM

Steve:
Next time you hear someone say "paradigm" or (especially) "paradigm shift" ask them what they mean. There's a one hundred percent likelihood that they won't have a clue.

On the basis of the above statement, either you don't know the meaning, or the probability is not 100%.
Were you deliberately setting up a paradox? Or were you 'literally' commenting on its use when spoken, rather than when in print?

A similar claim can be made for the expressions 'quantum shift' and 'quantum leap'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Jun 23 - 04:41 PM

Context suggests that what Steve really intends to say is that only he knows the "meaning."

He seems not to be, by implication, one of the 100% of those you might ask.

Fun fact: Context is as important as a dictionary definition to a word's meaning. Consider "cleave," which is its own antonym.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 12:04 AM

No, I don't know what it means, and I find myself to be incurious. Another silly one is sea change. Or a raft of measures. Daft expressions that are avoided by sensible people.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 04:59 AM

I thought that I knew what 'paradigm' and 'paradigm shift' meant but after Steve's assertion that nobody knows, I looked them up in the dictionary. It turns out that I do know what they mean, although there is a second definition for 'paradigm', to do with linguistics, that was new to me.

I can't recall ever having used it, other than in this discussion, and is unlikely that I will use it in the future, so nobody would ask me - thus maintaining Steve's 100%. Otherwise, its 99.9999 ...%.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 05:30 AM

A quantum leap is technically the smallest movement of an electron to another higher orbit. Too small to see unless a photon is released when a smaller orbit is achieved. BTW an electron orbit is stranger than you think.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 10:47 AM

I looked them up in several online dictionaries, Doug, and remained generally unlightened. Same problem with existential.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 11:08 AM

Oxford English Dictionary:

"paradigm shift noun a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions."

Merriam-Webster:

"paradigm shift noun formal an important change that happens when the usual way of thinking about or doing something is replaced by a new and different way."

As I believed, though admittedly I wouldn't have phrased it as clearly if asked.

"Existential," ditto.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 12:12 PM

Hm .... a "quantum leap" may be small in physics, but is usually large in public discourse. The common elements are getting from *here* to *there* all in one go, without pit stops, and it being a surprise. As a metaphor, I hereby declare it to be annoying but excusable .... though the expression happily seems to have fallen out of fashion amongst the chatterati.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Jul 23 - 08:27 PM

I haven't re-read this whole thread but I've never seen anyone mention one irritant: The difference between "in to" versus "into"

"I turned into the police station"- No, you didn't. Not likely, at all.

"I dropped the butter into the bowl with the flour." OK- I'll be right over.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 03:40 AM

As with one of our high street logos: "Poundland - amazing value everyday!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 05:47 AM

"Right up until his death, the late Duke of Edinburgh received a payment..."

Good old Nicholas Witchell, our long-standing royal sycophant, said this on the BBC news this morning. Well up until his death Phil The Greek wasn't "the late," was he, unless we were all fooled and he'd been a dead man walking...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 06:18 AM

That "into/in to" one: there are quite a few of those that confuse the semiliterate or the careless non-proofreaders. All together, altogether. For ever, forever. May be, maybe. Any way, anyway. And the worst of the lot, All right, alright. Stuff like that. For decades we had a telly programme called It'll Be Alright On The Night. Grr. Apropos of "into," we were told by our priests at school that "onto" is not a word and we should never write it (they also told us to never end a sentence with a preposition or to start one with "And" or "But"). They were just dead wrong, of course. I mean, "onto" has been an English word since at least 1518...

One thing that crops up a lot and which peeves me every time is "and therefore...". Pig ignorant!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 11:56 AM

I just looked up the word trope. Basically, a trope is a figure of speech. I just encountered a new trope. Florida governor Ron DeSantis has been labelled "thirsty" for desperately wanting publicity and attention.

Me, I think he wants power.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 01:16 PM

> "and therefore..."

I find that considerably less irritating than starting off a reply with "So". Those who use it by conditioned reflex should be obliged by law to replace it with the directly equivalent "Therefore", and to have to watch their listeners' faces.

Its original form, which seems to have died out, was short for "You didn't go to Stanford as I did, so let me rephrase it this way ...." This ex-cathedra prefix was followed by a three-second pause, during which one could hear the creaking as the speaker's language was wound down to street level.

--- Oops: *bzzt* "Repetition!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 02:23 PM

" ... and et cetera ...."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 04:05 PM

They say "so" partly because they were told not to say "like."

"Well" works for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 05:01 PM

"And therefore" has never needed "and" wherever I've seen it. And, irritating though it be to Filk, I think that that "so" is a much better alternative, though admittedly not in all cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 06:57 PM

"And therefore" is, tragically, standard English. As is "albeit" and the egregiously awful use of "alright," "alternate" and "disinterested." There are so many really good, simple alternatives to these horrors, but the semi-literate and pretentious insist on using them. Therein lies the degradation of our beautiful language. But it's a fight that the great and good are bound to lose in this philistine world of ours.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 07:20 PM

I hesitate to list this one because I don't know whose ox I am about to gore: "supposably".

Right off the top of my head I can name three (THREE!) well-educated, bright people I know that use that word.

Does it come from 'back in the day', like, during the time of Ben Franklin, the 1700s? That's what it sounds like to me. I have never commented on it to any speaker but I don't understand wherever they got it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 07:37 PM

And another one, highlighted today by my Word Of The Day by Merriam-Webster, is "comprised." I don't care what anyone thinks: "comprised of" is just plain wrong and plain ignorant, used by people who know that they have so many good alternatives but who would rather try to be pretentious instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 04:24 AM

As is "albeit" ....


    {{Yawn}}

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 05:36 AM

I'm beginning to think that "albeit" must be in the title of your autobiography, Doug...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 07:23 AM

The more you object to it, the more I feel inclined to use it.
;-)

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 09:02 AM

As it's standard English I can't object, Doug. But I can bemoan.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 09:43 AM

Oh boy, can you ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 10:55 AM

If anyone is walking on eggshells when it comes to trying to be clever about accuracy of expression, it's you.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Jul 23 - 01:34 PM

I first noticed "supposably" about fifteen years ago.

Oxford affords many examples from 1696 (before Ben Franklin) to 1995. It's labeled "Now chiefly U.S."

Oxford cites both John Ruskin and Mark Twain.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 23 - 12:06 PM

Getting a lot of this type of thing today: this morning I got a magazine in the post with a wrapper that said "I'm fully recyclable. Please don't put me in with your rubbish."

How bloody twee is that. I simply will not be spoken to by a magazine bag.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 19 Jul 23 - 12:20 PM

.... can't .... resist ....

Then don't listen to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 11:29 AM

Level. I'm sick of hearing that "This painting is on a new level," or "I want to take our relationship to the next level." What exactly is the speaker talking about? And I'm repelled by the idea of a universe divided into tidy, parallel levels, one above the other, like a parking building.

To me life seems more like hillsides with twisting trails, some easy, some hard, some which peter out, some which go back to where they started, and some which intersect with others, inviting an unexpected course.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 11:49 AM

Question and choice of responses that come up on the screen on the gas pump, after I've filled up: "Would you like a receipt?" "Yes, please." "No, thank you." It annoys me to no end that I'm not given the option of whether or not I want to use my best manners with a damn machine.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 12:19 PM

Every dog has its day.
Why only one?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 12:50 PM

leeneia> "level"

It's built in, sad to say:

* Hom Sap has difficulties with continuous change: remember what a journey of a thousand miles starts with.

* Hom Sap shows unidimensional thinking by default, cf "left" and "right" in politics [snip: the balance of that rant belongs elsewhere].

Add in the tendency to label abstract things to save having to think (I believe it's called "ontic dumping" in the linguistic trade), and ....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 01:06 PM

Jamie Oliver is forever burbling on about how his recipes take his dishes to the next level. And what about crime in multi-storey car parks, leeneia? Wrong on so many different levels...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 01:12 PM

Meself, my car's built-in satnav is really polite, as in "Please take the next left turn," etc. Grr. She does sound like a nice lady, though, and we do refer to her as "she."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 01:51 PM

It means levels or degrees of interest, intensity, etc.

Not horizontal planes of anything.

But you knew that.

How do you feel about "a high level of accomplishment"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 04:40 PM

Steve, I am totally opposed to crime in multi-level car parks.

Recently I had a dream where I was wandering around Hell (although it was not scary or hot), looking for the DH. Later I went to a doctor's appointment and realized that Hell in my dream looked a lot like a car park, especially the part that had some crusty cables and scaley drainpipes.

Whenever I have to use a car park, I head for the top level, so I can park in the sunshine.

One good thing about car parks. I read an article about a photographer who wanted to really experience a hurricane, so he took supplies and waited one out in a car park. I admit that a car park is one structure likely to withstand a hurricane, but I won't make your heart ache by detailing the reason why he later thought it had been a very bad idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 05:10 PM

> "I want to take our relationship to the next level."

Just realised: They're playing Rogue, and haven't yet found the Amulet of Yendor.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 05:47 PM

I agree with Steve Shaw in condemning the now common use of "please" to introduce advice given for the recipient's own good, rather than a request for a favor. Worst of all is "Please turn to page 69". As an attempt at politeness, that succeeds about as well as "Please kiss my ass". The only polite thing to do with jumps is avoid them.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 03:13 AM

To back up, I'm with Steve on "comprise." You use comprise with the small things, as in "Fifty states comprise the Union." The public is so mixed up about this word that I don't use it at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 06:37 AM

The problem with "comprise" comes when it's used in the passive sense, "...is comprised of...". There's no way you can leave out the "of" in that case. I just think it's awful and ungrammatical, and there are several good alternatives, "composed of," "consists of", "includes," "made up of..." The "of" is already contained in "comprises" so an extra "of" is both ignorant and ugly. When someone shuns the plethora of good alternatives and decides to write "comprised of" they think they're being clever in using a clever word, when the very opposite is the case.

Some dictionaries do point out how some usages are considered to be inadvisable, but dictionaries don't judge. "Comprised of" has been used for a couple of hundred years and it's so common that it has to be regarded as standard English. That doesn't mean that the more erudite among us have to like it or even reluctantly approve of it. A bit like "albeit" really. Have I ever mentioned that one?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 06:44 AM

Doug...?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 06:01 PM

"Comprise" might have been a useful word if we had kept it in the sense it once had -- as a synonym of "include" that differs in promising a complete list. However, I'm afraid that's a lost cause. For most people these days "comprise" is a fancy version of "compose" -- and the OED tells us that that sense it goes back to the 18th century. It still sounds like a malapropism to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 11:08 AM

Comprise means is composed of, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 07:16 PM

Comprises, maybe. I'm a bit with Joe on this. The word is so commonly misused that it has lost its usefulness. Unless you're absolutely rock-solid on how it should be used, it's best to pick one of the excellent alternatives. A bit like "albeit," I suppose.


Doug?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 08:48 PM

Comprise/comprises

Fifty states comprise the USA.
The USA comprises 50 states.