BS: Language Pet Peeves

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: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Sep 23 - 08:40 AM

Meself... I loved Rumpole!

My radio station has started saying Area has (temp) instead of It is (temp) in Area.

No, Charlottesville does not have 25 degrees.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet PeevesI
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Sep 23 - 02:16 PM

I wondered where Rumpole got it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 11:47 AM

Oh, yeah, that use of Innocent bugs me too.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 09:46 PM

Hmmm on widow/widower. Both are widowed, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Oct 23 - 02:00 PM

I thought adviser was just misspelled...

Still working on eliminating Stray Bullet.

Still working on atheism being an absence of belief in diety, not a faith-based position that no gods *can* exist.

Both of those came up recently.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Oct 23 - 05:55 PM

Um, sorry, Steve Shaw, the a- root of a-theism does, precisely, mean lack of. Lack of theism.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Oct 23 - 03:11 PM

From an evolutionary perspective, faith *preceded* intelligence.

The Agency fallacy is something 3-year olds go through on their way to developing 5-yo thinking, following the likely development of human intelligence from more primitive (meaning closer to the point of origin) cognitive abilities.

People who believe in anythingsupernatural fail to outgrow it, is all.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Oct 23 - 09:04 AM

No, the data beg to differ.

A 3yo has language but not complex rational thought.

A 3yo has the Agency fallacy. This is the birth of Faith.

You can have language and an earlier form of intelligence.

Anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 07:10 PM

Right on about the after thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Oct 23 - 10:24 AM

Right. You can disprove, or provide support for.

The headline had read Judge killed by suspect, but before I could complain, it was changed to Suspect in judge's killing...

Someone else was faster.

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: 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: Manitas_at_home
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 07:43 AM

Artiste is not the feminine form of artist.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 11:44 AM

I think it does imply just that.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 01:27 PM

No Steve, I'm not competing with you. I am not claiming to be more woke than you - just that you are not more woke than me as your choice of referring to a spouse is no better than others available. Your objection to the term "my wife" as implying inequality, condescension or property-owning is, frankly, nonsense.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 05:38 PM

Let's just agree to disagree.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 04:00 AM

does the usage of "the wife" imply that one is treating the seventh commandment lightly?

In what way?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 04:11 AM

"My car" as opposed to "the car"; "I'll be coming in the car".

"The car" doesn't imply taking without consent.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 04:37 AM

I thought we had drawn a line under it, Steve.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 06:31 PM

Leonardo's name was Leonardo. "Da Vinci" means "of the village Vinci," which thousands of denizens of that village could have used.

If I read a report where the name Leonardo is used on its own, it could be Leonardo Da Vinci, Leonardo DiCaprio or one of a host of other well known Leonardos. If the report uses Da Vinci on its own, I would immediately think of Leonardo Da Vinci. I would not imagine it would be Giuseppe Da Vinci, Leonardo's neighbour from next door but one, nor Giovanni Da Vinci who opened a pizzeria in the town long after Leonardo died.

If "Da Vinci" is used on its own, do you understand what is meant? In reality, is there any possible ambiguity? If the answers are "Yes" and "No", then it meets all the requirements for good communication.

To take a couple of quotes from upthread: The evolution of meanings of words is time-honoured and is healthy; Language is wot people speak, not wot professors of language profess.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 07:19 PM

... any more than your name is Doug da Ashton-under-Lyme or wherever it is you come from.

The surname Chadwick comes from the "village of Ceadda (or Chad)" and originates in the parish of Rochdale, Lancashire (now Greater Manchester). The name has spread over the centuries but is still well represented in the North West of England. I think the parallels with "Da Vinci" are quite strong.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 10:28 AM

It was in the quote from the Guardian, talking about Lady Gaga.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 05:43 PM

I would argue the point with you, Steve, but there is no point once you have made up your mind. Others can read the words and decide for themselves.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 04:15 AM

To my hearing, "as" has not been replaced by "than". It is simply missing. The correct form should be:

.... as well as or better than ....


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 10 Oct 23 - 07:32 PM

.... simple refusal to think about it all.

To my mind, the most appropriate response to "Do you believe in God?" would be "Does it matter?". No matter how strong a mere mortal's belief may be, either for or against, it would have no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a supernatural being.

I don't know if it's a real word, but I describe myself as an apothet - it makes no difference one way or the other. I try to live my life as a polite, caring, socially aware and responsible citizen, not because I fear eternal damnation, but because it's the way I choose to live.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: HuwG
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 07:50 PM

"My wife" as opposed to "the wife"; does the usage of "the wife" imply that one is treating the seventh commandment lightly?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Oct 23 - 01:06 PM

Advise and advise, practice and practise

What is the difference between 'advise' and 'advise'?

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: 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: Lighter
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 10:21 AM

"My better half" is the U.S. form and is usually complimentary.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Sep 23 - 03:06 PM

The original "She-who-must-be-obeyed" (thus punctuated) was the Queen Ayesha in H. Rider Haggard's "She: A History of Adventure" (1887).

The 1965 movie starred Ursula Andress as "She."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 03:07 PM

Masculine "widows" *are* a thing now.

Have heard this several times over the last few years.

It's like replacing "actress" with "actor." It supposedly helps in degenderfying life.

If that's your bag.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 01:31 PM

There was a cartoon a few years ago in the "New Yorker" that showed a hip young couple passing a storefront advertising "Artisinal Kick in the Butt! Really Painful! Ruins Your Day!"

The young woman says, "Ooooh! Artisinal!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Oct 23 - 08:01 AM

Merriam-Webster:

"[T]here are some cases in which one tends to be used more often than the other. Some people feel that 'advisor' is more formal, and it tends to be found more often when applied to official positions, such as an advisor to a president. When referring to someone who is serving in a military role, especially when using the term as a euphemism (as when claiming that troops are actually military 'advisers'), then 'adviser' is somewhat more common."

Makes sense. Not.

In my brain, an "adviser" simply advises, but an "advisor" occupies a paid position to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Oct 23 - 01:27 PM

Around here they're pronounced the same. Same word, alternative spellings.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 07:38 AM

If you have no principles, avoid moderation:


https://tinyurl.com/36b5kev8

"Republican state Rep. Craig Williams has been trying to build internal party support for an undeclared 2024 bid for Pennsylvania attorney general, but he got some unwelcome news when a powerful national party group [the Republican Attorney Generals Association] trashed him as dishonest and 'very moderate, unprincipled and opportunistic.'"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 01:07 PM

No, Steve, for the extreme populists of the Republican party (now about 90% of it) "moderation" in the pursuit of their version of liberty is, to paraphrase Barry Goldwater, "no virtue."

Moderates, in that view, are just fast-talking cowards.

Bonus peeve: "cowardly" being used as the preferred synonym for "treacherous" (no matter how daring) and "coward" for "miscreant" or "monster (ditto).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 04:26 PM

Captured by what? Pejoration of "moderate" is a linguistic development explicable by politics.

Traditionally the word has had neutral or positive connotations.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 05:27 PM

No "No, Steve," Steve. Obviously, I would have thought!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Oct 23 - 07:45 AM

Human intelligence is based on language.

You can't have conscious, reflective "faith" or "belief" without language.

Therefore both faith and intelligence "evolved" at about the same time. So did inductive logic. ("If such-and-such is true, so-and-so should be true too.")

Deductive logic, however, took millennia.