BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 07:57 AM

Have I mentioned "fact" for "notion, claim, or idea"?

I've been hearing it almost daily for decades: "What about the fact that...?" "As for the fact that...."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 05:53 PM

Here's a typical one from my files, from 2009:

"We can't be lulled into the fact that all the Al-Qaeda people are flubs....They are expert bombers."

From 1968:

"We're banking on the fact that Dr. Halvorsen's [crackpot] theory [that we don't believe] is correct."

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: 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: leeneia
Date: 12 Oct 23 - 12:26 PM

Here's a peeve of mine: categorically, as in "I categorically deny that I broke the windows."

What is it supposed to mean? I believe the speaker wants to convey "emphatically" or "without a doubt," because how do categories enter into it?

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: 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: Thompson
Date: 11 Sep 23 - 02:07 PM

Bigly, while rare, is a real word.

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: Thompson
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 09:18 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 22 Sep 23 - 02:42 AM

In Ireland it's common enough for husbands to refer to wives, and wives to husbands, as "the boss" - eg, "What, you want me to keep that stray puppy? I'll have to check with the boss."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 01 Oct 23 - 09:41 PM

Came across a use of "than" when "as" would be correct. It's in The Atlantic:

The cultivated apple-tree was first introduced into this country by the earliest settlers, and it is thought to do as well or better here than anywhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 04:08 PM

Oh dear. Even this thread had been captured.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 02:58 AM

I'm currently flinching every day by the misuse of the word 'after':

Woman Killed After Collision

Is there a serial killer going around killing helpless car crash victims?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 19 Oct 23 - 01:57 PM

It's always a bit embarrassing on this side of the Atlantic (where we say "full stop" for the "." at the end of a sentence) when Americans make a strong declarative statement, and end it by saying "Period". Should we be offering Tampax?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 20 Oct 23 - 01:30 AM

I've no objection to Americans calling a full stop a period. It's when the word is used as a bullying "And that's what I think, and that's right, so shut up" ending to a statement it makes me laugh. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: PHJim
Date: 16 Oct 23 - 03:59 AM

I could care less.
Do you want to come with?
I blame John Dean for this during the Watergate hearings. "At this point..." or "At this time..." not "At this point in time..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Paul Burke
Date: 17 Oct 23 - 06:17 AM

"From an evolutionary perspective, faith *preceded* intelligence."

Hmm, citation needed. Maybe you mean "developmental point of view". Or maybe faith in the soft sense, as distinct from Faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 06:36 AM

'I liked Cloughie... '

That'll be Mr. Clough to you, young man.

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: 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: 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: 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: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Sep 23 - 01:22 AM

“A tad bit”. Aaaarrgghh!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 09:25 AM

Nice one, Manitas!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 10:38 AM

”Lady Gaga won a Brit in 2010 for best international female artist, not artiste, chanteuse, or songstress.”

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 04:23 AM

Mine too, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Oct 23 - 04:20 PM

…and don’t well-known British TV and radio presenters talking about ‘Eye-bee-fah’

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Oct 23 - 04:36 PM

“…and don’t forget well-known…”

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Oct 23 - 02:21 PM

…or should that be ‘ætheism’, Mrrzy? ;-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Oct 23 - 12:24 PM

Errrrmmm…Language Pet Peeves????

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 23 - 09:39 AM

The much-hated Suella Braverman, our home secretary, used the word "operationalise" three times in a radio interview this morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 23 - 07:33 PM

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"!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 23 - 03:57 AM

Dunno, but the other day I picked a buttercup. I thought, "I wonder who left this buttock lying around?"

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: 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: 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: 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 04:46 AM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.