BS: Language Pet Peeves

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: 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 23 - 05:03 PM

I love Strictly (shoot...), but the judge Motsi, who is brilliant, has this irritating habit of prefacing her judgements with "For me,..." Grr!

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: 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: Bill D
Date: 08 Oct 23 - 03:55 PM

Ha! I yell at them every chance I get...And I remember a Brit news guy talking about
Nic-uh-RAG-you-uh.

And everyone in Australia pronouncing 'pain' and 'pine' the same way.

No wonder the English language bewilders foreigners.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 23 - 03:46 PM

Oi, Bill, we hear a lot from you guys talking about Eye-ran and Eye-raq, not forgetting Dubya with his "noo-queue-ler"!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Oct 23 - 03:22 PM

I just watched a YouTube thing where some guy was telling about a man who suffered ridicule when you was young... he was reading from some script, and he pronounced it re-DIC-you-el!|

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Oct 23 - 10:02 AM

My spellchecker just follows me around and beeps at me. It can be added to or corrected to MY choices. It recognizes both advise and advice, so I can use either...depending on context.

https://tinyspell.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 23 - 01:20 PM

Wow, didn't spot that. I meant advise and advice. It was the autocorrect thingie. It's just done it to me again in this post three times in a row! To he'll with spellcheckers!

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: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 23 - 06:06 AM

Pee and poo. Just stoppit now. It's piss and shit, two beautiful words so redolent of the stuff/action involved. We've used them since the 1300s. Out with twee euphemisms, say I!

It's quite interesting, however, that grown men and women even in mixed company, even if they don't know each other very well, will often say things like "Hang on a minute, I just need to go for a wee," the norm round here. You don't hear "Hang on, I'm just going for a shit," presumably because most healthy adults will have dealt with that before leaving the house.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 23 - 04:26 PM

Advise and advise, practice and practise, different words with different meanings. Advisor, adviser, same word, same meaning (whatever you say) so no need for two spellings. It's mostly an American thing, isn't it?

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: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 23 - 12:54 PM

But we don't need two words for it, Lighter. And you're talking American. Ever been called Lightor?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: gillymor
Date: 06 Oct 23 - 08:40 AM

Trump as Speaker would be like pouring gasoline on an already blazing dumpster fire.

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: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 23 - 07:50 AM

Advisor. This is not the traditional spelling of this word, which should be spelled "adviser." I can't claim that "advisor" is incorrect, as it's used so much that it's now standard English, but it grates. Yanks may beg to differ, though even the NYT uses "adviser." I blame Trip Adviser.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 23 - 05:56 AM

If you read the (rather old) Guardian piece, you'll see that bereaved men are far less likely to be referred to as widowers than bereaved women are referred to as widows.

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: 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 09:48 AM

After another look I kind of agree with Doug. Better still, a rebuild of the sentence might have worked. It's one of those things that wouldn't matter much if you said it but which looks awkward in print.

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.

"The cultivated apple tree, first introduced into this country by the earliest settlers, is thought to do at least as well here as anywhere else."

I left it in, but I'm not keen on "is thought..." as it's tantamount to weasel words (thought by who?) but hey ho, and "apple tree" does not need a hyphen.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 05:52 AM

I can't see much wrong with the original sentence.

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: 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: 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 23 - 07:33 PM

Pretentious foodie things. "Compote" (mushed up fruit). "A medley of vegetables" (a load of boiled broccoli, carrots and peas piled up in a dish). "Artisanal" ( same as your other stuff but at twice the price). "Fine dining" (fourteen courses of cold, tiny portions on huge plates, often with a "theme" - I once endured such a "feast" in which thinly sliced radishes appeared in at least half the dishes).

If you're somehow persuaded to go to a "fine dining" restaurant, take my advice and make sure that there's a good chippy on your way home.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 01 Oct 23 - 04:56 PM

'And men are not "widowered," are they?' I've found myself wondering that on occasion. It sounds clunky, but you would think there'd be a simple way to get that idea across ... ?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 23 - 12:30 PM

A couple of days ago meself mentioned a bloke referred to as a widow. I looked this up and it seems that, in newspapers at least, "widow" crops up as much as 15 times more often than "widower." Am I being woke in suspecting that this reflects something unequal in the way we see women in relationships differently to the way we see men? Anyway, a good read, though more than ten years old, in the Guardian: "Women and men are still unequal – even when they are dead" [Matt Mills]

And men are not "widowered," are they?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 06:39 PM

Nonsense, Doug. I can't help it if I engage with the issue more than you do. I'm very flexible and quite indulgent when it comes to use of language, and I'm always firmly on the side of non-bullshitters.

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: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 04:09 PM

Well let's take another look, shall we? Here's the bit that you three have homed in on:

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

The Guardian is quite clearly steering its writers (it's their style guide, don't forget) away from outmoded sexist terms for women performers. It's telling its contributors not to lapse into sexist (chanteuse, songstress) or incorrect (artiste, which has nothing to do with "artist," and if you use that word for a female artist not only are you being sexist but you are also dead wrong). That's the sentiment of that sentence whether you like it or not. There is no hint in that sentence whatsoever that the Guardian thinks that "artiste" means, or has ever meant (it hasn't) "female artist." Two things. Look up the definitions of artist and artiste in a dictionary, and have a good read of the Guardian style guide. It's actually very entertaining and it fully reflects modern thinking on how we must be careful with terminology. Go on, I dare you.

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: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 11:22 AM

The three of you need to read that Guardian quote again! In no way does it imply that artiste is the feminine form of artist. In fact, it specifically says not to use the word artiste in that way, so no blunder as far as I can see. I have to assume that you're all fans of the Daily Telegraph! ;-)

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: 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 10:20 AM

Did anyone make that blunder here?

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: 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 07:10 AM

"via the M62 from Besses to the A627(M) turnoff"

Before some present-day local puts me right, it was the turnoff AFTER the A627M, for Shaw, A640. Don't like leaving chinks!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 06:55 AM

I suppose that if you just say "Claus" you might get the odd double-take as people think you're talking about something on a cat. "Santa" on its own nearly always means Father Christmas and has the convenience of not causing confusion. In Italy there are hundreds of churches called Santa-something, and there's Santa Lucia of course (which I once sang in a duet with a boatman just off Siracusa in Sicily), but the default understanding, in an appropriate context, of "Santa" is that you're talking about the Christmas chap.

Leonardo added "da Vinci" to his name himself in order to distinguish himself from other local Leonardos. In almost every case if you're talking about "Leonardo" (and, as I keep saying, context is everything), there's no need to add "da Vinci," though you can if you like. "Leonardo da Vinci" is unobjectionable, but referring to a chap called "da Vinci" without the Leonardo is just ignorant and wrong. Incidentally, Doug, it's only "Da Vinci" if you're starting a sentence with it, otherwise it's "da Vinci," never "Da Vinci," and fusing the two bits into a single word is just laughable.

Everybody knows who you mean if you say Michelangelo, and if you use his surname at all (it's Buonarroti plus a few other bits if you're a purist), you're just showing off. In other cases of less-eminent people, you might have to add a helpful bit on to the end on its first use, e.g. "Geoffrey of Monmouth." You wouldn't then go on to calling him just "of Monmouth," would you?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: G-Force
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 03:54 AM

It's a bit like Santa Claus. It drives me mad when people call him Santa as if that were his name. His name is Claus, (short for Nicholas), ferchrisake. Santa means Saint.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 07:42 PM

Well Shaw means "copse" or "thicket" (shut up, Doug), and is related to Littlewood. I had a fiancée who lived in Shaw (coincidentally) and we nearly got married until she thought better of it. I used to visit her by riding my moped from Radcliffe, down Bury Old Road then down Sheepfoot Lane by Heaton Park. Eventually I graduated to my dad's Vauxhall Viva and got there via the M62 from Besses to the A627(M) turnoff. Ah, those were the days. But I digress. Back to the cheery fray, Doug!

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: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 06:48 PM

Well, Doug, feel free to call me Stephen da Radcliffe. The bald fact is that "da Vinci" without Leonardo is simply not his name, end of. He was an illegitimate child and, if you look him up, you'll find that he could have adopted another name to follow "Leonardo."

"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..."

Disingenuous nonsense, Doug. If you read a report where Leonardo is used on its own, and that report means to refer to Leonardo da Vinci, there will one hundred percent be a ton of context, art, sculpture, whatever, that will confirm to you that the reference is to the great artist and no-one else. No-one is going to mention Leonardo in isolation if they mean Leonardo diCaprio, yer daft bugger. The bottom line here is that his surname is not "da Vinci," any more than your name is Doug da Ashton-under-Lyme or wherever it is you come from.

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: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 04:34 PM

Da Vinci. This is just nonsense. Leonardo's name was Leonardo. "Da Vinci" means "of the village Vinci," which thousands of denizens of that village could have used. Leonardo da Vinci is fine. But referring to him as though "da Vinci" is his surname, without Leonardo, is just pig ignorant. I saw this in the Guardian today, and, of course, there's "Da Vinci Code." It's just laughable.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 03:14 PM

The Guardian style guide on actor/actress:

actor
Use for both male and female actors; do not use actress except when in the name of an award, eg Oscar for best actress. The Guardian’s view is that actress comes into the same category as authoress, comedienne, manageress, “lady doctor”, “male nurse” and similar obsolete terms that date from a time when professions were largely the preserve of one sex (usually men). As Whoopi Goldberg put it in an interview with the paper: “An actress can only play a woman. I’m an actor – I can play anything.”

There is normally no need to differentiate between the sexes – and if there is, the words male and female are perfectly adequate: Lady Gaga won a Brit in 2010 for best international female artist, not artiste, chanteuse, or songstress.

As always, use common sense: a piece about the late film director Carlo Ponti was edited to say that in his early career he was “already a man with a good eye for pretty actors ...” As the readers’ editor pointed out in the subsequent clarification: “This was one of those occasions when the word ‘actresses’ might have been used”

Let common sense prevail!

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: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 03:05 PM

He wasn't talking about a male spider, was he? :-)