BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 19 Jul 23 - 12:20 PM

.... can't .... resist ....

Then don't listen to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 23 - 12:06 PM

Getting a lot of this type of thing today: this morning I got a magazine in the post with a wrapper that said "I'm fully recyclable. Please don't put me in with your rubbish."

How bloody twee is that. I simply will not be spoken to by a magazine bag.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Jul 23 - 01:34 PM

I first noticed "supposably" about fifteen years ago.

Oxford affords many examples from 1696 (before Ben Franklin) to 1995. It's labeled "Now chiefly U.S."

Oxford cites both John Ruskin and Mark Twain.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 10:55 AM

If anyone is walking on eggshells when it comes to trying to be clever about accuracy of expression, it's you.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 09:43 AM

Oh boy, can you ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 09:02 AM

As it's standard English I can't object, Doug. But I can bemoan.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 07:23 AM

The more you object to it, the more I feel inclined to use it.
;-)

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 05:36 AM

I'm beginning to think that "albeit" must be in the title of your autobiography, Doug...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 04:24 AM

As is "albeit" ....


    {{Yawn}}

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 07:37 PM

And another one, highlighted today by my Word Of The Day by Merriam-Webster, is "comprised." I don't care what anyone thinks: "comprised of" is just plain wrong and plain ignorant, used by people who know that they have so many good alternatives but who would rather try to be pretentious instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 07:20 PM

I hesitate to list this one because I don't know whose ox I am about to gore: "supposably".

Right off the top of my head I can name three (THREE!) well-educated, bright people I know that use that word.

Does it come from 'back in the day', like, during the time of Ben Franklin, the 1700s? That's what it sounds like to me. I have never commented on it to any speaker but I don't understand wherever they got it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 06:57 PM

"And therefore" is, tragically, standard English. As is "albeit" and the egregiously awful use of "alright," "alternate" and "disinterested." There are so many really good, simple alternatives to these horrors, but the semi-literate and pretentious insist on using them. Therein lies the degradation of our beautiful language. But it's a fight that the great and good are bound to lose in this philistine world of ours.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 05:01 PM

"And therefore" has never needed "and" wherever I've seen it. And, irritating though it be to Filk, I think that that "so" is a much better alternative, though admittedly not in all cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 04:05 PM

They say "so" partly because they were told not to say "like."

"Well" works for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 02:23 PM

" ... and et cetera ...."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 01:16 PM

> "and therefore..."

I find that considerably less irritating than starting off a reply with "So". Those who use it by conditioned reflex should be obliged by law to replace it with the directly equivalent "Therefore", and to have to watch their listeners' faces.

Its original form, which seems to have died out, was short for "You didn't go to Stanford as I did, so let me rephrase it this way ...." This ex-cathedra prefix was followed by a three-second pause, during which one could hear the creaking as the speaker's language was wound down to street level.

--- Oops: *bzzt* "Repetition!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 11:56 AM

I just looked up the word trope. Basically, a trope is a figure of speech. I just encountered a new trope. Florida governor Ron DeSantis has been labelled "thirsty" for desperately wanting publicity and attention.

Me, I think he wants power.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 06:18 AM

That "into/in to" one: there are quite a few of those that confuse the semiliterate or the careless non-proofreaders. All together, altogether. For ever, forever. May be, maybe. Any way, anyway. And the worst of the lot, All right, alright. Stuff like that. For decades we had a telly programme called It'll Be Alright On The Night. Grr. Apropos of "into," we were told by our priests at school that "onto" is not a word and we should never write it (they also told us to never end a sentence with a preposition or to start one with "And" or "But"). They were just dead wrong, of course. I mean, "onto" has been an English word since at least 1518...

One thing that crops up a lot and which peeves me every time is "and therefore...". Pig ignorant!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 05:47 AM

"Right up until his death, the late Duke of Edinburgh received a payment..."

Good old Nicholas Witchell, our long-standing royal sycophant, said this on the BBC news this morning. Well up until his death Phil The Greek wasn't "the late," was he, unless we were all fooled and he'd been a dead man walking...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 23 - 03:40 AM

As with one of our high street logos: "Poundland - amazing value everyday!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Jul 23 - 08:27 PM

I haven't re-read this whole thread but I've never seen anyone mention one irritant: The difference between "in to" versus "into"

"I turned into the police station"- No, you didn't. Not likely, at all.

"I dropped the butter into the bowl with the flour." OK- I'll be right over.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 12:12 PM

Hm .... a "quantum leap" may be small in physics, but is usually large in public discourse. The common elements are getting from *here* to *there* all in one go, without pit stops, and it being a surprise. As a metaphor, I hereby declare it to be annoying but excusable .... though the expression happily seems to have fallen out of fashion amongst the chatterati.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 11:08 AM

Oxford English Dictionary:

"paradigm shift noun a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions."

Merriam-Webster:

"paradigm shift noun formal an important change that happens when the usual way of thinking about or doing something is replaced by a new and different way."

As I believed, though admittedly I wouldn't have phrased it as clearly if asked.

"Existential," ditto.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 10:47 AM

I looked them up in several online dictionaries, Doug, and remained generally unlightened. Same problem with existential.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 05:30 AM

A quantum leap is technically the smallest movement of an electron to another higher orbit. Too small to see unless a photon is released when a smaller orbit is achieved. BTW an electron orbit is stranger than you think.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 04:59 AM

I thought that I knew what 'paradigm' and 'paradigm shift' meant but after Steve's assertion that nobody knows, I looked them up in the dictionary. It turns out that I do know what they mean, although there is a second definition for 'paradigm', to do with linguistics, that was new to me.

I can't recall ever having used it, other than in this discussion, and is unlikely that I will use it in the future, so nobody would ask me - thus maintaining Steve's 100%. Otherwise, its 99.9999 ...%.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 12:04 AM

No, I don't know what it means, and I find myself to be incurious. Another silly one is sea change. Or a raft of measures. Daft expressions that are avoided by sensible people.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Jun 23 - 04:41 PM

Context suggests that what Steve really intends to say is that only he knows the "meaning."

He seems not to be, by implication, one of the 100% of those you might ask.

Fun fact: Context is as important as a dictionary definition to a word's meaning. Consider "cleave," which is its own antonym.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Jun 23 - 12:21 PM

Steve:
Next time you hear someone say "paradigm" or (especially) "paradigm shift" ask them what they mean. There's a one hundred percent likelihood that they won't have a clue.

On the basis of the above statement, either you don't know the meaning, or the probability is not 100%.
Were you deliberately setting up a paradox? Or were you 'literally' commenting on its use when spoken, rather than when in print?

A similar claim can be made for the expressions 'quantum shift' and 'quantum leap'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 24 Jun 23 - 11:48 AM

I sympathise, Senoufou: I used to be more dischuffed than somewhat at his abusage of "like". But I've just realised it's because everything for youngsters is a simile rather than, like, a metaphor.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jun 23 - 04:12 AM

"I'm not gonna lie..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Jun 23 - 03:23 AM

Originally I was disgusted by the interjection of the word 'like' in statements such as, "I was like ..." which is heard everywhere nowadays. But I'm coming round to the opinion that it introduces a feeling or a reply in a rather neat way. I'm trying to accept that language evolves, and I must stop being critical of today's changes and usages.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jun 23 - 09:14 PM

Next time you hear someone say "paradigm" or (especially) "paradigm shift" ask them what they mean. There's a one hundred percent likelihood that they won't have a clue.

And don't get me started on "ironically." Is this the most misused word in our beautiful language?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jun 23 - 07:18 AM

You seem to be peeved that I'm peeved, Doug...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 22 Jun 23 - 07:02 AM

> we've had six amazing weeks of "summery" weather already

Shortly to be followed by another false autumn, like last year: trees can't move away from the Equator fast enough to avoid the heat stress. But that's a peeve for a different Thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 22 Jun 23 - 05:47 AM

People who pretend to be Druids, and the like, don't celebrate the solstice. They are out there at sunrise on the day of the solstice. If they can pick and choose when they celebrate and the the meteorologists can mis-name the seasons for their own convenience, there doesn't seem to be a lot of point in getting peeved about a moment in time.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jun 23 - 04:56 AM

It's a matter of having statistics that can be compared year-on-year. From the Met Office website:
"The meteorological seasons consist of splitting the seasons into four periods made up of three months each. These seasons are split to coincide with our Gregorian calendar, making it easier for meteorological observing and forecasting to compare seasonal and monthly statistics. By the meteorological calendar, spring will always start on 1 March; ending on 31 May.

The seasons are defined as spring (March, April, May), summer (June, July, August), autumn (September, October, November) and winter (December, January, February)."

It might seem arbitrary, but so is defining the seasons as beginning and ending on solstices and equinoxes. Doing it that way, summer started yesterday. As we've had six amazing weeks of "summery" weather already, that seems slightly absurd, at least this year. Another issue is the actual dates on which solstices and equinoxes fall vary from year to year. It's arbitrary, but doing it in convenient three-month chunks is more consistent.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 22 Jun 23 - 02:45 AM

The meteorologists don't even know when the seasons start and finish. They refer to the calendar months of March, April and May as 'meteorological' Spring and June, July and August as 'meteorological' Summer. If they can't get the seasons right, no wonder they're so bad at predicting the weather.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 07:35 PM

Your point, Lighter, may well be the one I've consistently made here over the years, that English is wot people say and not wot the grammar (etc.) police like to dictate. One might feel that it's a shame when nuance is lost, as with unique, literally, disinterested, alternative and the like. Even worse when pretentiousness is allowed to creep in, things like prior to, on a daily basis and the dreaded albeit. It can feel like we're kowtowing to ignorance by accepting the "misuses," but language belongs to the people, not to professors in ivory towers. It's about evolution, not dumbing down, and the bottom line is that language is all about communicating.

But none of that means that we can't have peeves. And I'm peeved when allegedly educated scientific types such as meteorologists don't know that the solstice is a moment in time, not a day.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 11:00 AM

Well the solstice has just passed (and the sun was beaming out). Can't help noticing that the nights are already drawing in... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 10:20 AM

"Is" commonly designates "the day of" - as should be pretty obvious.
("Is today the exam?")

Those who assume, extralinguisticly, that the whole day is the solstice are just misinformed.

Their command of everyday English, however, is fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 10:08 AM

Aha, not wobbly then. Must've been the Ardbeg 10 making me THINK I was wobbling...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 09:43 AM

OK, I consider myself provoked:

The Wikipedia article on the Equation of Time is most enlightening. It's not the wobbliness of the Earth's rotation on its axis: it's that the Earth's axis isn't at right angles to the plane of its orbit (which gives us summer and winter), and that the orbit's slightly elliptical (we're closest to the Sun around Christmas, which helps make Northern hemisphere winters milder). This may help explain my personal observation that the earliest dawn, longest day, and latest sunset happen in that order, over about a week; were we on solar time instead of mean time, these may or may not coincide.

.... that's Quite Enough for now.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 07:05 AM

I heard a newsreader say that today had more hours of sunlight than any other day. She should have said seconds, maybe.

It's a funny thing that, after the solstice, sunrise and sunset don't start to close in on each other equally. In Bude, sunrise today was at 05.04 BST and sunset is 21.35. By June 30 sunrise is four minutes later at 05.08 - but sunset is still at 21.35 (we won't quibble about seconds). Something to do with the Earth being a bit wobbly in its orbit. Maybe it needs its wheels balanced.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 06:55 AM

Fresh peeve: "key" used to describe some event which enables others to happen ("unlocking" them, if you will), and that's a vaguely tolerable metaphor; but "key" has been diluted by repetition into a synonym for "important".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 06:35 AM

Hm: Knowing the *instant* when it's Solstice is a side-effect of modern astrophysical knowledge and instrumentation; but it's a stationary point on a gentle curve. Knowing the *day* would have been high-precision knowledge Way Back When. I'll settle for "longest day", and skip further astropedantry (unless severely provoked).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 06:27 AM

Generally, Doug, dictionaries regard anniversaries as being a date on the calendar, not a moment in time. Same with birthDAY. A minute before the solstice (God, nearly said "prior to" there...), the northern hemisphere is still a fraction away from having the sun at maximum angle in the sky, and a minute after the sun is declining from that angle. The "-stice" part of the word only applies momentarily.

After today's moment in time, the sun's angle declines on a daily basis, albeit almost imperceptibly so unless observed over a week or two. Sorry, couldn't resist...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 05:19 AM

"Today is the King's Coronation"? Not a great example, maybe...

"Solstice" has a specific scientific meaning (sol=sun, stice=stasis or standing still). It's a momentary event, but I suppose we use it informally to mean the day on which the event occurs, and that's hard to fight. But it can still be a peeve!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 04:57 AM

The solstice occurs today, but it's an instant in time, not the whole day.

That would also apply to 'anniversary'. If you were married at 3pm, then your wedding anniversary would occur at 3pm in each of the following years. Try getting away with not taking your wife a cup of tea in bed that morning, then come and remake your argument.

If a newsreader says "Today is the King's coronation", everyone would understand that what was meant was "Today is the King's coronation day". It would not need an explanation that the coronation is a moment in time, when the crown is placed on the King's head.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 04:32 AM

Aside from the fact that the link is dead, that doesn't seem to fit in this thread very well. Still, the poster has hedged their bets by sticking the post in two separate threads! :-)

My pet peeve of the day, very topical, is the misuse of "solstice." Even the weather forecaster on radio 4 this morning, a professional meteorologist, told us that today is the summer solstice. Well that's not right at all. The solstice occurs today, but it's an instant in time, not the whole day. For us Brits it occurs at 3.58 this afternoon. I'll stop digging my garden for a moment, look heavenwards and pretend I'm a Druid, just for a minute...