BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 19 - 06:04 AM

"Delivering brexit" is almost as bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 25 May 19 - 02:45 AM

I have been increasingly annoyed by politicians going on about Brexit and what they think is the need to "get it over the line". Are they playing rugby, or American football, or shove ha'penny - who knows?
You would think the future of the country is too important to be reduced to a game.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 25 May 19 - 02:34 AM

Reminds me of Teresa May at (I think) the last general election, who had been 'knocking on doorsteps'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 24 May 19 - 08:17 PM

There are mornings I step foot
first in fresh cat puke stink
My tell tale foot steps lead to the sink
But I've never heard of step foot.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 19 - 08:03 PM

Don't worry, Bill. Raedwulf will quite likely elucidate once he's had a good night's kip...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 24 May 19 - 07:56 PM

Interesting... I've been an adult American for 60 years, and I have never heard "step foot". I suppose it occurs when someone just doesn't hear 'set foot', but it's a new one to me. Next time, ask them where they got it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Raedwulf
Date: 24 May 19 - 07:32 PM

"Step foot". With apologies to the American contingent here, stupid Americanism!! Because it has been creeping into British English these last several years, I believe, from American English.

Step doesn't work like that. You can step up, step out, step back, step on; you step in a direction. You can take a step, and a foot is also a measure of length. But you don't "step inch / metre / whatever". You can set foot; you are putting your foot somewhere (in it, possibly...). But you don't "step foot". Stupid, meaningless, idiotic misuse of the English language, whether it's the American or British version!!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 19 - 06:27 PM

Me too, Doug. I'm thinking of getting meself analysed some time in the next thirty or forty years... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 May 19 - 10:35 AM

Ooh yeah!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 24 May 19 - 10:04 AM

Tautologies.

Today's irritant: "fellow classmates".

Aaaaargh!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 24 May 19 - 09:51 AM

OK Steve! I'm easily confused.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 24 May 19 - 09:49 AM

Doug, doesn't that make a nonsense of the well known question:

"Will you marry me?"

Somehow, "Will you get married to me?" doesn't have that special something ...

Of course, in every day usage, only a pedant would make the difference between the passive form of being married and the active form of officiating at the ceremony. However, we are in a thread called "Language Pet Peeves" where the distinction is being made between the status of the groom before and after the nuptials.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 19 - 09:46 AM

Er, I did know that, Doug. Are you sure you're getting me drift?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 24 May 19 - 09:31 AM

"Romeo, Romeo, where art thou Romeo?"

I'm not picking on you, Steve. It's just by chance that you are the one I keep disagreeing with - nothing personal - but the quote is:-
"Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?"

Wherefore, in this case, means "why". Why did you have to be a Montague?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 May 19 - 09:22 AM

Not as we know it, not as we know it. Great video, that.

I saw a headline (clickbait) that said Groom cries as bride reveals love for his spouse. What? Bigamy?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 19 - 08:55 AM

"Crisis? What crisis?"

"Let them eat cake."

"Not tonight, Josephine."

"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: DMcG
Date: 24 May 19 - 08:10 AM

Quoting Shakespeare can be tricky:

"Uncle me no uncle" -- Richard II, Act 2 Scene 3.

I an not quite sure what part of speech that first 'uncle' is...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 19 - 07:59 AM

"Romeo, Romeo, where art thou Romeo?"

"Money is the root of all evil."

"Theirs but to do or die!"

"Beam me up, Scotty!"

"Elementary, my dear Watson."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 24 May 19 - 07:40 AM

Doug, doesn't that make a nonsense of the well known question:

"Will you marry me?"

Somehow, "Will you get married to me?" doesn't have that special something ...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 24 May 19 - 03:41 AM

"She married her husband in 2017."

Unless she was a vicar, registrar or other such appointed official, she got married to someone in 2017.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 19 - 03:14 AM

"She married her husband in 2017." Considering how expensive weddings are, what a waste of money doing it twice...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: DMcG
Date: 24 May 19 - 02:36 AM

media people who will NOT learn how celebrities pronounce their names

Not always as easy as it seems. My daughter was at school with Gemma Arterton, who pronounced her name A - er - t'n at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 May 19 - 01:57 AM

Hi, Meself - I will agree that assailant is a better term, but I think that "suspect" works reasonably well.
I'm a member of the "whatever works as long as it doesn't sound stupid" school. "Suspect" is common usage, and it doesn't sound particularly stupid. I'm not bound to pedantry, but I have to admit that your choice of the word "assailant" is damn good.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 24 May 19 - 01:09 AM

Do you really not see a significant difference between:

1) The suspect killed Bill Jones. The suspect is John Smith.

and

2) The assailant killed Bill Jones. The suspect is John Smith.

?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 May 19 - 10:42 PM

Meself, I'll stick with "suspect." After all, the crime itself has not been proved until the trial. So, it is a "suspected" or "alleged" crime until the court has proved it.
But I'll still respect you in the morning....

-Joe-

And yes, I did read what you wrote. I just disagreed.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 23 May 19 - 10:25 PM

No.. a cachet of arms would mean something like "my bomb is bigger than your bomb"...not something we want to test..

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 May 19 - 09:57 PM

Also pronouncing cache like cachet, as in, there was a cachet of arms. No, there wasn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 May 19 - 09:52 PM

Well, when I am speaking English I pronounce things, like foreign things, in English. When I speak French it's PaREE, in English PAriss.
People's names are another thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 23 May 19 - 07:57 PM

"vocal fry"

I was aware of it before I ever heard it explained. People make excuses for it and justify it in various ways, but it really wears on me.

As to usage: Certain military usages..like using 'contingency' when they mean 'contingent'... "To put down the uprising, we sent in a contingency of peace keepers." arrrgghh...

And media people who will NOT learn how celebrities pronounce their names.. It's Michael COHEN.. not 'Cone' or 'Cohn'. They are studying how to say 'Buttigieg', but can't say Cohen?

Also, media people who refuse to pronounce, as closely as possible, the names of foreign cities & countries. Some are very difficult, but Nicaragua has 4 syllables, not 5. The 'u' and 'a' are not separate syllables. Simply stating "that's how we've always said it." is not much of a defense. Yes, I'm aware my opinion is not likely to alter anyone's habits.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 May 19 - 06:28 PM

Jos... Exactly.

People are hanged. Pictures are hung.

In that vein (sorry) the widow, not the wife, files for death benefits or whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 23 May 19 - 05:08 PM

No, never Yorkshire but I have moved across the country from the Mersey to the Humber, via Manchester.

On reflection, my grandson, who was brought up in South Yorkshire, calls my wife "Granneh" and would probably say "moneh". I've never stopped to think about it - it's just the way he talks.

There was one TV advert, for gas central heating I think, that used the Carol King song "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow" which opened with the line "Tonight you're mine completeleh" ARRRRG!

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 19 - 04:04 PM

You could be Yorkshire, though, Doug. It's not proper north tha knows...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: saulgoldie
Date: 23 May 19 - 03:24 PM

Well, for better or for worse (or worser) language is dynamic. Sometimes the new usages can be interesting and enriching. Others, they just represent devolution. We all have our favorites on either side.

A couple of my own "faves" are--
Raising one's pitch toward the end of a statement as if it is were question.
Inserting a letter "h" where it does not belong (mentioned earlier).
Dropping a "d" or a "t" Where it DOES belong.
These two seem to be some sort of affectation more prevalent among young women.
Extraneous or missing apostrophes, check.
Extraneous or missing commas, check.

Now, this is my YUGE big cahuna of all word misuses. It is YUGE not because it sounds stupid/lazy/whatever. But because Its misuse f-u-n-d-a-m-e-n-t-a-l-l-y changes the meaning. That is the use of "can't." Look, if you "can't" do something, it is something that you are INCAPABLE of doing. You do not have the physical strength or coordination to do whatever it is. It does NOT mean that you do not have PERMISSION.

If you are physically CAPABLE of doing something but there are consequences that you do not like, then you must acknowledge that you CHOOSE to not do it, rather than that you "can't" do it. People say "can't" so they can avoid taking responsibility for the CHOICE that they make to avoid the consequences.

This misuse is an example of devolution. This misuse does not clarify anything, and does not provide some new and novel way of illuminating a point.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 23 May 19 - 02:24 PM

I'm a northerner, Doug.

So am I.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 19 - 01:45 PM

I'm a northerner, Doug. We talk proper up yon.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 23 May 19 - 01:42 PM

'Misuse of "after" as in They died after being hit by a train'

The version of this (often heard in regional television news bulletins) thst worries me is: "They were killed after being hit by a car" - as if they were lying in the road in pain and somebody came along and finished them off.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 23 May 19 - 01:23 PM

...and altering the short "i" sound at the end of words to "ee" as in "monee" and "societee" and industree

But it IS "monee", "societee" and "industree", at least where I come from. I can't recall anyone saying "moni".

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 23 May 19 - 12:11 PM

Using definitive when definite is meant.
Unravel when untangle is meant.
"The next level" What is that supposed to be?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 19 - 11:45 AM

What about the tendency for young people to fail to open their mouths properly when enunciating a word such as "book," thereby rendering it "berk"...and altering the short "i" sound at the end of words to "ee" as in "monee" and "societee" and industree"... And politicians who say "...going forward" deserve to be twatted right on the nose!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 May 19 - 11:23 AM

Misuse of "after" as in They died after being hit by a train. No, they were killed by a train. If you survive for a while you can die after. If you die right then, it isn't after.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 23 May 19 - 06:33 AM

One that gets me here in the UK is the pronunciation of the 'oo' vowel sound. When I was growing up (in the South East anyway) it was like 'oooh', whereas now it is commonly like the French 'y' or the German 'u-umlaut' sound. So for example 'food' sounds more like 'feud'.
This seemed to start about 20 years ago with young females - perhaps they thought they were sounding sexy, I don't know. But now it has spread - you hear it all the time on TV.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 23 May 19 - 06:10 AM

Mrzzy is not a suspect. He is a person of interest, in a good way.
bearded bruce is a 'person of interest' in a bad way.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: DMcG
Date: 23 May 19 - 05:07 AM

A growing one for me is statement as an adjective, as in a recent John Lewis advertisement for 'a statement sofa'. My sofa can keep its statements to itself, thank you. The only statement I am happy for it to make is that I like to sit down occasionally.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 May 19 - 02:51 AM

There seems to be a growing practice, among BBC presenters, to pronounce a leading ‘s’ as though it was followed by ‘h’ - so, ‘shtrong’, ‘shtudent’, ‘shchool’, etc.

Drives me nuts. Anyone else noticing it?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 May 19 - 02:34 AM

Oh, let's not start with movie anachronisms. In Amadeus, Mozart had an American accent that wouldn't develop for a century. (I didn't say let's not *continue* with the anachronisms...)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 22 May 19 - 09:36 PM

Re: "Listen up!". These are among the first words spoken in The Revanant - set in the later 1700s. In fact, the expression has not been traced back to any earlier than 1930s, as far as I know.

Of course, the same movie gave us a fiddler playing Ragtime Annie - which has been traced all the way back to 1923, according to The Fiddler's Companion.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 May 19 - 09:26 PM

There is a lot of overuse of "alleged" too. If you're caught doing it you are no longer the alleged doer.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 May 19 - 08:02 PM

"Is there a rule that all American films (and it's beginning to infest others) must have the line "Listen up"?"

Dunno, but there does seem to be a rule that any rudely interrupted steamy sex scene in an American film betrays the fact that the woman is still wearing bra and knickers and the man is still wearing underpants...

Back to the topic...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 22 May 19 - 05:17 PM

"If the 'suspect' is unconvicted, then it isn't reasonable to describe them as the 'perpetrator', as that has yet to be confirmed."


You're missing the point - which I realize I muddied with my parenthetical "(or at least, unconvicted)", but we don't have an 'edit' feature. The point is, if you say that a suspect broke in and killed somebody, and that John Smith is the suspect in question, you are saying that John Smith broke in and killed somebody. So much for 'presumption of innocence". It completely defeats the purpose of using the term 'suspect'. At the same time, you're saying, nonsensically, that whoever may have committed the murder is merely a 'suspect'. If, however, you say that a perpetrator/offender/assailant/criminal broke in and killed someone, and John Smith is the suspect, there is no confusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 May 19 - 04:00 PM

Going back even further:
"apparent confusion when dealing with their/they're/there or whose/who's or your/you're..."
I think most people understand these forms. Mistakes happen because people are typing fast.
NO! people don't type 'fast', they type quickly.
'Fast' is an adjective (he was a fast runner) not an adverb (he ran fast).
It may only be used as an adverb when given the meaning "firm" or "solid", as in to "stand fast" or to "hold fast". Biblically "He hath made the round world so fast that it cannot be moved"

Yes, I know the language moves on, but changing the meaning of words dilutes the ability to make clear, unambiguous comments.