BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 19 - 04:50 PM

Well, speaking as a botanist and wildflower man, I appreciate the urge to impose vernacular names on wild animals and plants. We try to make the distinction between old country names and invented ones, but it's a distinction that can get blurred. Quite often, invented names are very attractive, and, let's face it, the alternative can be rather arcane Latin nomenclature, which few people appreciate and which, though scientifically invaluable, can sound pretentious and jargonistic. So I'm defending friendly-sounding made-up names for birds, beasts and wildflowers. And I do have a degree in botany...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 27 Aug 19 - 10:45 AM

I sometimes dislike the common names which the American Ornithological Union assigns to birds.

Northern cardinal. Why? There is no southern cardinal. There's pyrroluxia, (sp) which could quality as a southern cardinal, but as far as I know, they haven't even given poor pyrroluxia a name.

House finch. A delightful little bird, brave and chipper. The male has a lovely wash of rosy pink on his breast. Why such a prosaic name? I have a friend who calls them raspberry sparrows.

Yellow-rumped warbler. We still call them myrtle warblers. I have a deal with the birds that I won't talk about their rumps if they won't talk about mine. In Florida, where they are rather common, I have heard them called butterbutts.
=========
Gotta go.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Aug 19 - 10:41 AM

Man-bag or man-bun. It's a bag or a bun, no matter what the shape of the skin between your legs. If you carry a purse it's a purse, regardless of gender. Of the carrier thereof.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 27 Aug 19 - 10:36 AM

Good point, DMcG.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Aug 19 - 03:21 PM

Just noticed in an advert that some supplement or other had been 'Scientifically researched'.

That's nice.

Scientifically proven? ... "we don't claim that."
Scientifically demonstrated to be safe? ... "We only researched it. Maybe, maybe not."
Or,at least as good as a placebo? "Not telling you"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 Aug 19 - 11:14 AM

Strains and sprains may involve the the tearing of muscle or ligaments but could involve only stretching, without tearing. This would still be an injury, and very painful at that.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Aug 19 - 08:37 AM

If nothimg is broken, not skin nor other tissue, what is injured?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 19 - 05:12 AM

Bone is definitely tissue.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 Aug 19 - 04:15 AM

My manual isn't specific about injuries. An on-line US site MedilinePlus gives:

An injury is damage to your body.

Wounds are injuries that break the skin or other tissues.

"Other tissues" would allow for bruises, blood blisters and the like. Whether bone counts as tissue is up for discussion.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 06:26 PM

DC, what about injuries?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 05:07 PM

For me, a wound involves a break in the skin and bleeding.

According to my first aid manual, wounds can be open or closed.

Open wounds include:- puncture wounds; incisions; thermal, chemical and electrical burns; bites and stings; gunshot wounds; abrasions; lacerations; skin tears.

Closed wounds include:- contusions (eg bruising); blisters; seroma; haematoma (blood blisters); crush injuries.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 03:17 PM

Yeah, see, I wouldn't. An injury can be severe (compound fractures come to mind) without being a wound, which to me involves intent. People wound; objects injure. Did I make that distinction up out of whole cloth? Not that I'd be surprised if I did...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 02:55 PM

This came up when the headline was about lighning "wounding" rather than "injuring" people

Being struck by lightning is quite likely to cause severe burns. Even if the skin remains intact, if the burn is sufficient to cause blistering, I would count that as a wound.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Stanron
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 01:04 PM

There is an interesting interplay between using language precisely and using it as creative tool. Language changes. Our language is a cobbled together mish mash of Celtic. Latin, Early German (?) Norse and not a little French thrown in as well. If we could time travel 500 years we would struggle to understand and be understood. Apparently there are Asian versions of English that we would struggle to understand today.

On a slightly different tack on one Mudcat thread there was an anecdote where Peggy Seeger was amused by some one singing an American song with a Cockney accent. It probably wasn't Railroad Bill, but for the sake of argument let's pretend it was. What amuses me is the fact that back in the 19th Century Railroad Bill himself might have been born a Cockney and might have spoken with a Cockney accent. OK he might equally have been from Ireland or Scotland or France or Germany, but my point is that what now passes as as American accent may not have even existed back then. Language changes and accents change. Viva the whateveryoucallit.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 12:38 PM

I agree, Mrrzy. For me, a wound involves a break in the skin and bleeding.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 11:58 AM

Ok, let's talk about Injury vs. Wound. They are not synonymous to me. There are two dimensions: on purpose, and openness. So if I fall and break my arm, I am injured, not wounded. If I am shot, I am wounded (and also injured). This came up when the headline was about lighning "wounding" rather than "injuring" people. What do y'all think?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Aug 19 - 02:08 AM

Also for you Epstein-story watchers, there is no such thing as a "doctoral-level psychologist" - either you are a doctoral- level *grad student* in psychology, or you have a doctorate and are a psychologist. If it was a grad student, just say so. If it was a psychologist, don't hedge. My guess is it was a grad student and they are hedging because it should have been a psychologist.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Aug 19 - 05:57 PM

Now come on, yanks: "If you will..." :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 23 Aug 19 - 11:12 AM

"and I use the term advisedly..."

I never have understood that phrase.

another one is "as it were"

What does that mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 10:46 PM

Ooh love Stephen Fry.

Today someone said Toleration, and several of us asked, Tolerance? Apparently, not necessarily. Phooey. I am intolerational of toleration.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 05:00 AM

IMNSHO. At least that's a bit more honest. I rather like "in m'humble...". Very Stephen Fry-like!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 03:46 AM

IMHO

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 02:48 AM

"Going forward..." Grrr...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 09:56 PM

Right, "to be honest" = "I will now lie."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 05:51 PM

"If I'm honest"...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 05:50 PM

"At the end of the day..." - heheh!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 04:21 PM

This is turning into Monty Python. But do carry on .....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 02:35 PM

"Basically" is awful. I've just thought of something else: pretentious gits who begin their opinion-expressing with "I have to say..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 08:13 AM

And, I just read, "with all due respect" usually means the opposite. I have never liked that phrase.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Aug 19 - 09:54 AM

Also, Technically.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Aug 19 - 08:03 AM

I put ‘actually’ and ‘basically’ in the same category - they are ‘starter-words’ intended to put the other party(ies) in a conversation on the back foot.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 08:54 PM

Actually and Just (actually, he's just being ignorant) do kinda sound smarmy, now that you point it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 08:46 PM

"Actually" is often used in an apologetic way, as in "Actually, I never did put gas in the car." But I do hear people use it to soften a factual statement.

"The capital of New York state is Albany, actually."

==============
fortunate (lucky) vs. "fortuitous" (coincidental)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 08:42 PM

Well I must admit that I use "actually" quite a lot. I'll try harder...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 08:31 PM

When you start a sentence with 'actually', you usually are indicating that your interlocutor is wrong, or at least lacking in information. It may well mean "'You are wrong, and I am right, and you are at least a little bit of an idiot.'" So - what's wrong with that? Are you supposed to refrain from correcting others - or are you supposed to come right out and call them 'idiots' while you're doing it?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: michaelr
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 08:21 PM

I was recently informed that one should not begin a statement with "Actually" because it makes one sound like a know-it-all. I was referred to an article that said "Actually is the word that you use when you're actually saying, 'You are wrong, and I am right, and you are at least a little bit of an idiot.'"

I'm inclined to call BS on that. What do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 08:12 PM

Not exactly a comparable case, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 03:11 PM

In fact, they make the user sound pompous.

Not to me, they don't. You might as well object to someone saying "pail" when they mean "bucket" but that, of course, would be nonsense.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 12:16 PM

Subsequently, to me, means After and because of, whereas after means After.

Saw "due" for Do today. Subsequently, I was annoyed.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 11:36 AM

I have never seen a case of "prior to" in which it couldn't have been perfectly well replaced with "before." Likewise, I've never seen "albeit" used where "though" wouldn't have been just as good. "Subsequently" can carry nuance that makes it useful, but generally I share Leeneia's objection to it. The objection isn't that they're not standard English, rather that they are used in order to make the user sound clever. In fact, they make the user sound pompous.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 10:19 AM

Thinking about "prior to" and "subsequently", I really can't see what there is to object to. They are, in turn, perfectly understandable and unambiguous alternatives to "before" and "after". Life would be pretty boring if communication was restricted to an approved list of basic words. Variety is the spice of life.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 08:50 AM

Ha ha. I've just posted a joke in the recession thread that contains the word "pre-declined"...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 19 - 05:50 AM

Pre-order. Pre-book. Pre-select. Pre-choose. Presuppose. Pre-grrr.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Aug 19 - 11:50 PM

A live audience. What, other shows are filmed before corpses?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Aug 19 - 08:02 PM

"This program was previously recorded earlier.".. and variations on the theme.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Aug 19 - 12:19 PM

Black boy is the name the Aussies give to a big tufted wild plant, at least in WA. Not nice, I told 'em...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Aug 19 - 08:09 AM

I kinda liked the Aughties...

Black boots held at gunpoint turned out to be black boys, but that's just bad proofreading.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Aug 19 - 06:13 AM

"On a daily basis." Argh.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Aug 19 - 04:49 AM

And the first decade of this century referred to as the noughties. Grrr again...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 17 Aug 19 - 02:48 AM

Obviously never heard of a luniversary...