 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Language Pet Peeves
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Alvin-Songster Date: 02 Oct 10 - 11:31 AM "Emma Thompson attacks poor language" inspired me to begin this thread. Jump in with your own PP's. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: GUEST,999 Date: 02 Oct 10 - 11:48 AM People who use the word `fuck` on threads. Hear that Spaw? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: MGM·Lion Date: 02 Oct 10 - 12:09 PM "One pence" ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: michaelr Date: 02 Oct 10 - 12:12 PM "...one of the only..." Someone/thing is either the only, or one of the few. Drives me nuts! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: catspaw49 Date: 02 Oct 10 - 12:50 PM Awesome post 999 and here's the deal on that.......I'll tell myself to fuck off and that should handle it. If you need more info on my decision just lemmee know. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: akenaton Date: 02 Oct 10 - 01:06 PM "We shal re-double our efforts" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: catspaw49 Date: 02 Oct 10 - 01:25 PM You got it Ake,,,,one of the only things we can all do! Let's all give 200% 100% of the time!!! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: YorkshireYankee Date: 02 Oct 10 - 03:38 PM Then instead of than "PIN number" (the N already stands for number) X "a.m. in the morning" (similar issue) "baited breath" (unless you've been eating worms) "very unique" (see "one of the only", in a previous post) X "peaked my interest" (unless your interest began to decline after that) "forward" instead of "foreword" apostrophes -- some missing, others unnecessary These things don't bother me so much from everyday punters (we all have our strengths and weaknesses; just because spelling & grammar always seemed to come pretty easily to me (perhaps because I read a lot as a kid) doesn't mean everyone else finds them easy), but when I see them in books/magazines/newspapers or hear them on radio or TV, I really feel that someone should have caught it before it was published/aired -- aren't proofreaders/editors/subeditors supposed to notice such things? Although... it seems that businesses rarely think it worth the time to proofread things these days -- after all, "time is money"! I'm a graphic designer, and in more than one job I've had, it has not been appreciated when I've caught mistakes; I've been told it's not my job to worry about such things. One printer even said that mistakes were no bad thing (as long as the mistake was the client's rather than ours), since they generate more business when the job needs to be reprinted... [sigh] Let's not worry about the sheer waste of binning all that paper and ink from the first run... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Wesley S Date: 02 Oct 10 - 04:35 PM The word "veggies". I guess "vegetables" takes to long to say. "Newbie" for newcomer. Same thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: MGM·Lion Date: 02 Oct 10 - 04:44 PM 12 am and 12 pm ~~ if you work it out, both can only mean mean midnight, which is both 12 hours before noon [=ante meridiem] & 12 hours after noon [=post meridiem]. 'Noon' & 'midnight' are the correct terms. ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: maple_leaf_boy Date: 02 Oct 10 - 05:13 PM I don't get "my bad" and "a$$hat". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Richard Bridge Date: 02 Oct 10 - 05:51 PM I think "my bad" is a useful coinage. What is "a$$hat"? I think I am most annoyed by the following (partly because of their frequency, partly because of their egregious nature): - "For free" in stead of "free" or "for nothing" Split infinitives "Checkout" in stead of "till" "Janitor" (or, worse, "in-store janitor") for "cleaner" "Regular" for "ordinary". "Regular" means "recurring with a fixed periodicity". "Expiration" (which means "exhalation") in place of "expiry" "In the event that" in stead of "if". "Less" in place of "fewer" (the former applies to amorphous quantities, the latter to numbers of individuals or individual things). I am confident that more will occur to me as the evening wears on and the bottle empties. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Richard Bridge Date: 02 Oct 10 - 05:52 PM Oh - how could I have overlooked "Off of"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 02 Oct 10 - 06:15 PM I would have sworn that I posted the following earlier in this thread: "Epicenter" as in a usage like "Hollywood is the epicenter of the film industry in the U.S." Oh, so the film industry in the U.S. is way down underground, and Hollywood is located on the surface above it? Awww, c'mon! Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Jim Dixon Date: 02 Oct 10 - 07:28 PM I'd say the repetition of the word "is" in sentences like, "The trouble is, is that nobody listens." Once you notice it, you keep hearing it everywhere (in the US). I have only heard it in speech, probably by people who don't even realize they're saying it. I have never seen it in print. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 02 Oct 10 - 09:01 PM Right here, in our very own, Mudcat, a lot of posters, use way too many, commas, without any, justification or sense. Makes it, hard to, understand. Leaving ALL commas, out, would make it, more readable! Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Phil Cooper Date: 02 Oct 10 - 09:33 PM Misuse of quotation marks and apostrophes. Also confusing compose and comprise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: michaelr Date: 02 Oct 10 - 10:12 PM People who don't know the difference between palette, palate, and pallet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Jim Dixon Date: 02 Oct 10 - 11:01 PM Oops! How could I forget "copywrite" (for "copyright") "copywright" and even "copywritten"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: katlaughing Date: 02 Oct 10 - 11:42 PM I've been having a little to-do with a newperson at the station where my Rog is chief engineer. They posted a story with the headline approximately as follows: "Humane Society Looking to Get New Diggs" Found out said reporter teaches at the local college and readily admitted to mistakes, which were corrected. We exchanged a couple of more comments in which she agreed using such slang as "diggs" should be guarded against, as she tells her students, but that sometimes it is "just fun." The new headline reads as follows: "Lots of tail wagging over proposed Roice-Hurst move" A definite improvement, though I suppose it would be better if "tail" were plural. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: GUEST,Bert Date: 03 Oct 10 - 01:49 AM Second of all Surely it should be 'second of all but one' seeing as 'first of all' has already dealt with the first one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Oct 10 - 01:55 AM People who use 'gibberish-logic' ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: MGM·Lion Date: 03 Oct 10 - 02:50 AM Uncle DaveO: for some reason you posted your 'epicenter' comment on the Emma Thompson thread ~~ I wondered at the time if you had meant it for this one, or were making some recondite point about luvviedom! ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Dave Hanson Date: 03 Oct 10 - 03:30 AM Go figure, which is usually written as ' go figger, ' it really means " If you don't know that, I think you are stupid " Dave H |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Liz the Squeak Date: 03 Oct 10 - 04:01 AM People who say 'two things, a) blah de blah and secondly....' It's A and B or First and Second!!! Less instead of Fewer gets me every time and I shout at the TV when an advert that uses it is shown. 'Compares to' instead of' compares with'. I can accept that we are ruled by Microsoft's version of spelling (even when the thing is set to English rather than American English) but am driven completely spare by books and publications that have both UK and US spellings used with gay abandon, often ON THE SAME PAGE! I dearly wish to go through certain books with a red pen, correcting every mistake and send it back to the author with the exhortation to employ a proofreader or at least a bloody spell checker! The worst offender was a 'vanity printing' tome that professed to be 'one of the best guides' to its subject matter... Opened at random, I gave up counting after the spelling mistakes, grammatical and typesetting errors got to 2 dozen on one double page. Obviously the subject matter was not 'how to write correct English'. Another pet peeve is the continued publication of historical "facts" that have been proven to be otherwise. The accusations of murder levied against Richard III is a prime example. The account of these murders were written on the orders of the man who had just usurped Richard and wanted to dispose of any potential threats. Tudor 'historians' state that Richard III had his 2 nephews murdered in the Tower of London when in fact, there is no contemporary evidence that this happened. When the Tudor dynasty was exhausted, a retraction was broadcast and Richard exhonorated. However, if you open any school history book published in the last 200 years, you'll see that Richard murdered the Princes in the Tower and that is it. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: GUEST,FloraG Date: 03 Oct 10 - 04:01 AM The last line is repeated ( singers) - if so - its not the last line. A right and left hand star - callers call. Try putting both hands in! This door is alarmed ( poor door ) Turn into a bowl ( cooks ). How? FloraG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Abdul The Bul Bul Date: 03 Oct 10 - 04:53 AM "tiny little" and pronouncing 'aitch' with an h. Al |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Wyrd Sister Date: 03 Oct 10 - 05:19 AM "Should of" as the expansion of "should've", a contraction of "should have". Same for could/would |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Paul Burke Date: 03 Oct 10 - 05:37 AM It's been going on a long time, and I doubt if it will stop in our species' lifetime. A hundred years ago, Disgusted of Tonbridge Wells might have written to "The Times"(*): The word "terrific" used to mean "inspiring terror," but currently it usually means "very good." Where did the phrase "Hello" come from, and what will make it go away? The word is "omnibus," NOT "bus." Are three syllables really so much more difficult to utter than one? It is permissible if you want to use it informally, or to show you are "up to date". But to use it in the newspapers, as in "to catch the bus..." makes me wonder who is in charge. Note that I've partially corrected a few solecisms ("use to", a certain laxness of punctuation), and excised contractions like "isn't" that would not have been printed in the better newspapers, but wouldn't be blinked at today. (*) That's how he would have put it then. No one with any education wrote to the Times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: MGM·Lion Date: 03 Oct 10 - 05:51 AM "Didn't used to" ~ horribly widespread ~ should of course be "Didn't use to": think about it. But this one a losing battle, I fear. ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: MGM·Lion Date: 03 Oct 10 - 06:47 AM The American usage [following on from a post above] 'The London Times'. There is no such newspaper. It is called simply 'The Times'. A friend from US once tried to defend this, as necessary to distinguish from 'The New York Times', &c; but climbed down and admitted I was right when I pointed out that the masthead of 'The New York Times' reads 'The New York Times'; while the masthead of 'The Times' simply reads 'The Times'. ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Paul Burke Date: 03 Oct 10 - 09:27 AM And haitch with an haitch his has hold has the 'ills. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Jim Dixon Date: 03 Oct 10 - 10:00 AM I once bought a guidebook to the northwest United States (principally Washington and Oregon) that consistently and repeatedly referred to the "Williamette River." The correct spelling is Willamette. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 03 Oct 10 - 10:08 AM "The American usage [following on from a post above] 'The London Times'. There is no such newspaper. It is called simply 'The Times'." That's true MtheGM, and I understand that both are proper names so the insertion of a place name (as in London) isn't grammatical, but for US readers the default cultural assumption would (probably?) naturally be that if someone refers to 'The Times' they will be using shorthand for "The NY Times"? Personally I'm inclined to think "The London Times" is sloppy journalism because you'd never get that kind of fudge used as a reference in academic literature. But is there a preferable way to disambiguate, that is both uncomplicated and concise for more general use? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: GUEST,999 Date: 03 Oct 10 - 10:11 AM Expressions such as `Are you joking me?` |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: MGM·Lion Date: 03 Oct 10 - 12:02 PM >But is there a preferable way to disambiguate, that is both uncomplicated and concise for more general use? < CS ~ I think 'The [London] Times', or '"The Times" of London' would both be acceptable. ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 03 Oct 10 - 12:48 PM I think it was GUEST,Bert who asked us: Second of all Surely it should be 'second of all but one' seeing as 'first of all' has already dealt with the first one? "Of them all, the first is" blah-blah = "First of all" "Of them all, the second is" whatever = "Second of all" So "second of all" is perfectly logical, Bert. I wouldn't use it myself, because the unadorned "second" is quite sufficient in that context and "second of all" is kind of cumbersome, but it's not logically or grammatically wrong. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Ed T Date: 03 Oct 10 - 01:13 PM in order to,....why not just to? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: MGM·Lion Date: 03 Oct 10 - 01:15 PM There seems to be a belief among tv football commentators and commenters that "Goal" is an indelicate word in some way, and the euphemism "It's in the back of the net" is somehow more seemly. I don't think I have ever heard the word "Goal" on Alan Hanson's lips, for example. Now, why do I find this so profoundly irritating? ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: YorkshireYankee Date: 03 Oct 10 - 01:39 PM "Here, here!" instead of "Hear, hear!" "It's a mute point" instead of "moot point" I think the reason "Here, here!", "mute point", "peaked", "baited breath" and "forward" bug me so much is that by using homonyms, people are losing the original sense(s) of the word(s), along with a certain richness of expression (and even understanding) which accompany the "proper" spelling(s), and I regret that loss -- even while knowing it's inevitable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Penny S. Date: 03 Oct 10 - 03:35 PM "Fascia" instead of "facia". Lost cause already. It's a bundle of things, such as ligaments in the foot, not a facing board. And there's something else, but fortunately I have forgotten it. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Penny S. Date: 03 Oct 10 - 03:40 PM "Comprises of". Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: katlaughing Date: 03 Oct 10 - 03:57 PM "Go figure" in my neck of the woods usually means "Who would have thought it?" We've always referred to it as the NYTimes and the Times of London as just the Times. I can still hear Mrs. Worcester, my old English/Latin teacher, scolding any of us who used "like" when we meant "such as." It's a lost cause, it's even been deemed "acceptable," but it still bugs me, greatly! The best example of incorrect usage she used with us was the old "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should!" My, how times have changed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Oct 10 - 06:27 PM "There seems to be a belief among tv football commentators and commenters that "Goal" is an indelicate word in some wa" ... because they associate it with the 'goal' spelling of 'jail'.... and don't want to upset the supporters? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: maple_leaf_boy Date: 03 Oct 10 - 06:41 PM "a$$hat" or "asshat" is a term I've heard used. An "ass" is a donkey, so a donkey hat doesn't make sense to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Richard Bridge Date: 03 Oct 10 - 09:37 PM How could I have forgotten? "try and". In the vast preponderance of circumstances "try to" is correct. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: GUEST,leeneia Date: 03 Oct 10 - 09:39 PM I agree my peeve doesn't make much sense, but I'm peeved by people who introduce themselves by simply walking up to another person and saying their own name. As in: "Leeneia? Jonathan Bimblethwaite." Apparently I am so unimportant that it's too much effort to say, "Hello, I'm Jonathan Bimblethwaite and..." When someone does that, I stare at them and say "What about him?" When I worked at the fabric store, pushy women would sometimes barge into somebody else's transaction with "Scissors?" or "Velcro?" I didn't let them get away with it. The person I was helping deserved my full concentration. ============= This isn't a peeve, but it gave us a good laugh. A novel involving concert violinists said that when premier violinist So-and-so performed, "there wasn't a dry seat in the house." Obviously got 'wasn't a dry eye' mixed up with 'wasn't an empty seat.' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Slag Date: 03 Oct 10 - 11:44 PM "The END of the DAY"! How about "after all is said and done" or "The bottom line is" or "To sum up" or " the net effect is" or "with the results being" or and the conclusion is" or "in the final analysis" or just about anything except "at the end of the day" Please! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Darowyn Date: 04 Oct 10 - 03:52 AM "Attendees"! Someone who attends an event is an attender. Someone who is 'attended to' is an attendee. So at a gig the audience are the attenders, and the artists are the attendees. The "..er" suffix is active. The "...ee" suffix is passive. A referee is someone who is referred to. A referrer is someone who refers. I saw a notice on a bus recently. It said "Seating capacity 56. Standees 12" Standees must be people who have been stood up. How sad for them! Cheers Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves From: Wolfhound person Date: 04 Oct 10 - 04:09 AM nucular Suggestions for use of this term welcome - it looks like a good word in its own right, but what does it mean? Nuclear I understand already, thank you (when pronounced correctly) Paws |
