BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 07 Sep 23 - 04:07 AM

Dammit, man, it's "lackadaisical"!

I never knew that. All theses years I've been been saying wrong. You learn something every day!
- mind you, I can't think of the last time I used it, rightly or wrongly.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Sep 23 - 04:35 AM

Heard these two chestnuts on TV recently - BBC TV in fact! Shameful!

“Pronounciation”. Aaaargh! It’s “Pronunciation”!

“Restauranteur”. Sod that, it’s “Restaurateur “!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 07 Sep 23 - 06:27 AM

> “Restaurateur“

Good grief: Collins's (the aforesaid first edition) and Wictionary both agree with you. The latter gives an interesting etymology, and the usage notes are, ahem, noteworthy.

Note to self: remember to distinguish between etymology (words) and entomology (eg insects). That's today's second embarrassing discovery, and it ain't even dinnertime yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 23 - 05:17 PM

Restauranteur vs restaurateur is a tough bugger. You'd think the former was perfectly logical, but it's, well, not right. If I see it in print, e.g. in the Guardian, I seethe. Otherwise, I get it, sort of, though I do wonder why anyone would choose to use it...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 07 Sep 23 - 06:31 PM

Steve: Right. The choice is between "restaurateur" (the correct French form) and "restauranter" (a regular English form). Both are awkward; usage has chosen the first.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Sep 23 - 02:43 AM

”The choice is between "restaurateur" (the correct French form) and "restauranter" (a regular English form). Both are awkward; usage has chosen the first.”

Except that it hasn’t. ‘Usage’ has chosen ‘restauranteur’, which is neither the correct French form nor a regular English form - it’s a bastardisation of both.

It’s true that language evolves, and I’m certainly not agin that, but this one drives me nuts, pure laziness. And don’t get me started on the current BBC pronunciation fad of pronouncing ‘st’ as though there’s an ‘h’ in there - ‘shtreet’, ‘shtudent’ etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Rain Dog
Date: 08 Sep 23 - 03:23 AM

"Some rugby bloke on the wireless this morning rattled on about the perils of "lacksadaisical" preparations for games. I've heard that so many times. Dammit, man, it's "lackadaisical""

Whoever coined the word was just too lazy to include the required extra s.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 08 Sep 23 - 03:48 AM

I suppose "lacksadaisical" could be considered a portmanteau of "lackadaisical" and "lax". This excuse also covers one of my pet hates, "irregardless".
I'm not adding either to the spellcheck list.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 23 - 10:47 AM

The root of the first part of the word lies in "alack," as in "alas and alack!" Therefore there's no room for the letter s in the first syllable of lackadaisical. It's amusing to see just how often ignorantes choose to use big words just to look clever - but slip up. Delicious. Your man could just as easily and far more economically referred to the "lax" preparation for games. Or poor, or sloppy, or casual.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 23 - 12:50 PM

Missed out a "have" there, before anyone accuses me of lacking daisies...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Rain Dog
Date: 08 Sep 23 - 02:41 PM

Things change. You don't. A sign of the times.

I still don't like the widespread misuse of decimate. That is just me.
Others are happy enough to use it as they so wish. It does not upset me.

Anyway, I am all set to watch the rugby. Enjoy your night.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Sep 23 - 01:26 PM

I saw a poater that said Smoking is so ... debonair! and it took me a while to wrap my brain around that.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 09 Sep 23 - 03:41 PM

I don't know if anyone's yet brought up the way "than" is increasingly, senselessly, being used in place of "as"?
Then there's pronunciation: I heard Gerry Adams referring to "the half-penny bridge" in Dublin. No one previously has ever pronounced it other than ha'penny (haypenny). Assassin of language!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 09 Sep 23 - 04:12 PM

I don't know if anyone's yet brought up the way "than" is increasingly, senselessly, being used in place of "as"?

Could you give an example or two, please?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Sep 23 - 01:22 PM

Has anyone mentioned "on accident," which I've heard a number of times recently, as though it's the latest thing?

(What the sudden frequency means is that it's been building under the radar for decades.)

It's the precise opposite of "on purpose" and a replacement for "by accident."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 10 Sep 23 - 01:52 PM

I'll have to wait till I hear the horror the next time, Doug. Basically, it's when people use a longish statement with a comparison that would normally use "as" in the second half of the phrase, but instead they say "than". Keep your ear open and you'll hear it.

Lighter, what about "purposefully" used incorrectly to mean purposely. Different words, different meanings, innit?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Sep 23 - 06:10 PM

More, Thompson, than you probably wish to know:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/purposely-purposefully-usage

Most interesting to me is the notion that many people don't think "purposely" is a "real word."

And here's my pet meta-peeve. Nearly everybody seems to think Trump used to say "bigly." In fact, what he was saying was "big-league." But you have to listen close.

He seems to have given up the habit, however, just like he gave up his previous trademark "huge."

(Gotta stay fresh.)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 10 Sep 23 - 07:17 PM

Much as it pains me to be seen to be defending trump in any way, I agree with Lighter on the matter of what trump said: in the interview in which he was alleged to have said 'bigly', it is hard to make it out precisely, but I saw another interview somewhere in which he clearly uses the term 'big league' in the exact same way, which convinced me that that is indeed what he said in the interview in question.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 23 - 08:11 PM

"Things change. You don't. A sign of the times [a reference to me, guys!].

I still don't like the widespread misuse of decimate. That is just me."

Well, Stanron, I've said so many times in this thread that wot people say a lot inevitably ends up being standard English. We don't have to like the evolution (some I love, some I don't), but the fight is always there to be lost. It's somewhat ironic that you accuse me, after all I've said, of being unable to change, when you make this comment about "decimate." Unfortunately for you, it's been used in what you see as its non-literal sense for hundreds of years. It's a very useful word that implies mass-destruction without putting numbers on it - or, alternatively, it's a virtually extinct word meaning the killing of one Roman soldier in ten. Well we don't have legions of Roman soldiers any more but we can still, if we want, hang on to a very colourful word. Or not. Don't use it if you don't like it. I do like it, so I'll carry on using it and ignore grammar curmudgeons such as your good self. I like "gay" too.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Stanron
Date: 11 Sep 23 - 06:11 AM

Why bring me into this?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Sep 23 - 12:54 PM

Oh bugger. It was Rain Dog, not you. A brain fart on my part. Sorry about that. That's a half I owe you...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 11 Sep 23 - 02:07 PM

Bigly, while rare, is a real word.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 12 Sep 23 - 04:07 AM

A recent decision by TfL in London has been described as 'incredulous'. So what's wrong with 'incredible'?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 12 Sep 23 - 07:12 AM

That's linguistic leakage, G-Force; another of these is "sewerage" (ie piping and other infrastructure used in the disposal of waste) being used when "sewage" is meant. I think it's a kind of ladylikeness, a fancier-sounding word making one seem (one might wrongly think) more educated.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 04:14 AM

I heard one of our dimmer ministers using "personable" when she meant "personal" the other day. Oh, God.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 04:46 AM

Speaking of personable, what about the ridiculous "relatable?"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 06:47 AM

"Relatable", in the sense of "have a connection to" or "empathetic" seems like a perfectly good word to me, unless you have some examples of its misuse.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 07:22 AM

"Have a connection to" is a bad example, as this is more to do with "related" rather than "relatable". Instead, consider "has parallels with".

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 07:26 AM

Not arguing that it's not a legitimate word, Doug. But it's become trendy and there are lots of very good synonyms that may be used instead. It's pretentious, in other words.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 08:58 AM

Someone once accused me of being pretentious ....

I said Moi? pretentious!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 09:18 AM

You're only relatable if you're leaning in.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 09:36 AM

It's pretentious, ...

HA! I had a little bet with myself that that would be your response.

PRETENTIOUS definition:    Any word that others use but Steve doesn't.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 12:45 PM

Oi, Doug, I use all sorts of words in my posts that I don't see others using. If you're going to make up non-dictionary definitions, here's one of mine:

PRETENTIOUS: of words designed to make you think (mistakenly) you look clever and super-educated but for which there are plenty of simple and common synonyms, e.g., "albeit" (pretentious and often misused); much better synonyms "though," "although." "Prior to" (pretentious); the synonym "before" works every time. "Relatable" (pretentious); plenty of synonyms which far more clearly express the intended meaning, such as "engaging," "sympathetic," "friendly," "collaborative," "approachable," "mutual understanding" (these especially with regard to people). Or get more colourful: "on the same page," "chimes with me."

Also worth avoiding: "end result"; "at the end of the day"; "in close proximity;" "I have to say...", "3 AM in the morning hundred hours."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 12:50 PM

That was the medallion man on Fawlty Towers, Raggytash, "Pretentious? Moi?" :-)

Commonly used in our house!

(Used? Utilised? Deployed? Heheh. Pretentious? Moi?).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 23 - 07:13 AM

"Heavily pregnant." I hate this. There's a frisson of the demeaning about it in my mind with regard to both mother and child. The child is burdensome somehow and the mother sounds tediously weighed down. In any case, "pregnant" is a sort of standalone word that shouldn't take an adverb qualifier. We don't say slightly pregnant or very pregnant; well I don't anyway. There are better ways of indicating the stage in pregnancy that's been reached.

Inconsistently mebbe, I'm fine with qualifying "unique," another allegedly standalone word, not because I've given up the fight but because the meaning of "unique" has drifted. The evolution of meanings of words is time-honoured and is healthy and democratic. A good example is how we now use "decimate." ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 18 Sep 23 - 08:12 AM

> Heavily pregnant

That's shorter than "very obviously about-to-pop-at-any-moment pregnant", and marginally less insensitive. It also acknowledges, and sympathises with, the extra strain on the mother-to-be's back and feet.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 23 - 08:30 AM

Well I can't agree with that. Perhaps we could stick with "great with child."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 18 Sep 23 - 11:49 AM

> Perhaps we could stick with "great with child."

Agreed: it has a subtle gentlemanly charm, with just a hint of eau de KJV.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 05:49 AM

Just heard a brainless radio presenter (on one of those cosy programmes that cost the Beeb next to nothing to make in which a couple of people talk giggly shite down microphones for fifteen minutes) referring to her "significant other." To me, that's in the same league as "my better half," "the wife" and, above all, the thoroughly detestable and utterly buttock-clenching "my hubby." For God's sake. I mean, what's wrong with "my partner," or, even better, the person's name!

I suppose that, as on here, you may not wish to reveal your partner's name. In private messages I always use her name, but in the open I've resorted to the jocular expression "Mrs Steve" for many years. I will not resort to the twee!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 06:10 AM

Have you considered that "significant other" may be considered jocular by some and it's "Mrs Steve" that is twee?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 06:35 AM

Yes I have, Doug, and I've considered that they're wrong. If you see anything amusing in "significant other" then you need to go and join hands with D****l on the joke thread. "Mrs Steve" may be jocular, but at least it indicates that we are a married couple and there's no hint of inequality, condescension or property-owning there (as in "my wife," etc.). "Significant other" is almost as nonsensical as "albeit," in m'humble. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 07:12 AM

"Mrs Steve" may be jocular, but at least it indicates that we are a married couple and there's no hint of inequality, condescension or property-owning there (as in "my wife," etc.).

"My wife" is no more possessive than "my brother / sister / mother / father / aunt or uncle". It shows a relationship, not a possession.

"Mrs" is almost always adopted alongside a change in surname to that of the husband. In formal terms, the couple would be addressed as "Mr and Mrs Joseph Bloggs". How much more unequal amd condescending can you get?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 07:22 AM

Spot-on, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 07:36 AM

Mrs Backwoodsperson prefers ‘my wife’ to any of the other appellations suggested above, and she refers to me as ‘my husband’. Nowt wrong with either of those.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 07:58 AM

The word "wife" is as perfectly fine as "husband," no argument there. But in many cultures in the past, and even in some today, the wife has been considered to be a possession of the man, subservient to the man, or both. Gosh, it isn't that long ago that we were saying "I now pronounce you man and wife." And there's a difference between using "my wife" informally, as when your introducing each other to someone ("this is Erica, my wife") and formalising it by typing it, on Mudcat for example. You can then make a slight effort to find a more egalitarian form of words that is difficult to do in informal, casual, spoken contexts. In the latter case, both partners are present, which adds an extra contextual dimension that doesn't happen in print. Makes all the difference.

It's also worth noting that many men make a laudable but clumsy effort to avoid the possessive sense of "my wife" by changing it to "the wife." Some people at least can still see the awkwardness of implying that, somehow, she belongs to you and would rather avoid the allusion, even if you two wouldn't.

She's not called Erica, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 08:14 AM

My wife’s opinion is that ‘the wife’ relegates her to the same category as ‘the car’, or ‘the fridge’ - i.e. to that of being simply a possession - whereas ‘my wife’, as Doug quite correctly pointed out, indicates a close relationship.

I agree with her.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 09:04 AM

I agree, BWM. "The wife" is an object; "my wife" is a person.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 09:20 AM

Well I did say it was clumsy and it's not a construction I'd use. Put it down as a valiant but misguided effort to dispense with the ownership allusion. A similar effort to avoid saying "my wife" is "the missus." We're not far removed historically from "man and wife" and, as I said, in olden times and even in some modern-day cultures the wife was right in there with the goods and chattels. Gosh, in some cultures you can even have more than one. Even Jesus was a bit one-sided on the issue. "Whosoever shall put away his wife, save for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." Shows who has to be the decision-making boss then!

I'll continue to avoid "my wife," in writing at least. Seems that I'm a bit more woke than you pair of hubbies...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 09:31 AM

Seems that I'm a bit more woke than you pair of hubbies...

No you're not, Steve. "Mrs Steve" is no better. In fact, to use your word, I would go as far as to describe it as 'twee'.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 10:11 AM

I've used it for years and it's a jocular means of avoiding displaying her name, which is respectful to her and which avoids the tired allusions I've been talking about. I can't help it if you want to continue to stubbornly misconstrue that.