BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Helen
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 03:48 AM

This is relevant to the topic:

A creepy, dirty old man thinking about sex in a normal, everyday environment near other people, including girls and women, just going about their daily business, oblivious to his creepy, dirty thoughts.

Maybe this is not unusual for some (or even most?) men, to think about sex in normal, everyday situations, but to crow about it and make it into a big joke on a public music-related forum, open to all people of all ages. Is that normal and healthy or is it creepy and dirty?

And then to act self righteous about the comments posted by other Mudcat members?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: weerover
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 03:29 PM

Fowler's "Dictionary of Modern English Usage" and Harrap's "English Usage" both declare that "will" with the first person (singular or plural) denotes intention or determination. I am not usually pedantic but when someone else is being pedantic and gets it wrong I can't help it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 03:23 PM

Another one that's been bugging me is news commentators' uncritical use of 'believe', as in, 'Donald trump believes the election was stolen' - no! it is highly unlikely that he 'believes' any such thing; he does, however, claim to believe the election was stolen.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 01:32 PM

I think I read that the rules for "will" and "shall" were invented by some pedant in the 1600's. He felt that since Latin used different forms of a verb for different persons, then English should too. It didn't work.

I believe the only time I use "shall" is in singing "He Shall Feed his Flock."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Rain Dog
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 11:23 AM

"Shall we?"
"Let's shall."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 11:17 AM

Technically ... Shall can really only be used with I. One can't speak for others.

Will means intend to.
Shall means actually going to do it, no hedging about intentions.

A parent can say You shall to a child, but the kid still might not. So, twchnically, not proper usage.

It shall rain? Hmmm. Presumptuous, kinda.

Not that this is common current usage, I do know.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 10:59 AM

Convention in North America, if we are to understand 'convention' as the customarily-accepted practice, is that 'shall' is not used at all, other than by the rare schoolteacher.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: weerover
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 07:32 AM

...there is a 60% chance we SHALL see showers (convention being "will" in 1st person denotes intention or determination).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 04:33 AM

Yes, Doug, mainly because I know how you hate it when I do. Anyway, I never use it in a sentence in which better alternatives are available, at least not prior to today, and certainly never on a daily basis, albeit that could change (note its ungrammatical use there, a mistake commonly made by the more pretentious among us!)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 04:25 AM

For someone who hates the word albeit, you don't half say it a lot, Steve. I've lost count of how many times you have mentioned it in this thread. We get the message - let it go!

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 04:14 AM

Absolutely with you on existential, leeneia. It's a pointless, useless word which even dictionaries struggle to elucidate. As with albeit, on a daily basis and prior to, there is always a far more elegant and far less pretentious alternative. Let's start a campaign in which we automatically start a fifteen-second, hundred-decibel belly-laugh every time we hear "existential threat." Away with the damn thing!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 14 Jun 23 - 02:58 AM

Hee hee Nigel, 'hold-ups' on a road! There have been many hold-ups here in Norfolk on our country pot-hole-ridden roads. I now imagine a gang of Norfolk peasants waving pistols and holding up beleaguered motorists! "Gimme yer bank card yew fewl, or oi'll shoot yew dead bor!"
Regarding 'thumbs up', I've always put up both thumbs when signalling approval, not just one. (I don't do things by halves!)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 13 Jun 23 - 11:28 PM

Good question, Doug. Maybe it started as a contraction of "thumb is up."
=======
On then, to another peeve of mine, and that's the use of the word "existential" merely to mean "actual." For example, referring to a living, breathing zebra as an existential zebra. I suppose in contrast to a metaphorical zebra, whatever that may be.

When I was in college, existentialism was a sort of philosophy, a philosophy I never actually understood. No wonder. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says:

... it is difficult to explain what the term “existentialism” refers to. The word, first introduced by Marcel in 1943, is certainly not a reference to a coherent system or philosophical school.[1] Indeed, the major contributors are anything but systematic and have widely divergent views, and of these, only Sartre and Beauvoir explicitly self-identified as “existentialists.”

Reading about it now, I realize that it was a the attempt of people bewildered and horrified by the atrocities of World War II to make sense out of human life.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 13 Jun 23 - 06:22 PM

Why is raising the thumb of one hand, to express approval, referred to as a 'thumbs-up' instead of a 'thumb-up'?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 23 - 02:03 PM

Are you sure they're not holds-up, Nigel? Have you consulted Doug? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Jun 23 - 11:27 AM

Then there are the radio travel presenters:
The M1 is heavy! Well, duh. it's made of rubble and concrete or asphalt. Of course it's heavy!

Traffic on the M1 is heavy!
Again, yes, and getting heavier with the switch to electric vehicles.

There are hold-ups on the M25
Well, apart from this not being news to anyone, are the hold-ups the Dick Turpin style, or belt & braces?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Jun 23 - 11:22 AM

there is a 60% chance we WILL see showers!

Even that may be untrue. I'm planning on staying indoors. That makes it virtually Zero%

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 12 Jun 23 - 11:16 AM

Moving right along .... I'm finding that reporters increasingly are hedging their pronouncements and speculations, to the point that much of the time, they're uttering inanities. So this morning I hear, "There is a 60% chance we may see showers" - no! there is a 60% chance we WILL see showers!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 12 Jun 23 - 10:38 AM

On reflection, I don't find 'spoonfuls' that ugly. In fact, I think I probably use both constructions without thinking, though I would more likey drop the '-ful' and go for teaspoons/buckets. I like to pick and choose as the fancy takes me and am happy that they all exist.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Jun 23 - 05:31 AM

Spoonsful / Spoonfuls

A quick browse has Merriam Webster, and Cambridge org both giving both plurals.
Collins & Oxford both give 'spoonfuls' with no alternative.

My own preference would be spoonfuls. 'Spoonsful' always sounds to me as if more than one spoon is being used.

Strangely whatever spellchecker my computer is using picks up 'spoonfuls' as being the wrong spelling, although it is given in all four dictionaries that I checked.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 12 Jun 23 - 04:56 AM

Spoonsful is correct but it makes you sound like a twat. Spoonfuls is great. Just like bucketfuls and lots of others. English is always wot people speak. It's a good guide.

I am English and I would say 'spoonsful' and 'bucketsful'. 'Spoonfuls' sounds really ugly .... and I dare you to make your comments to my face. ;-)

I agree that '-ful' is not needed and 'spoons' and 'buckets' would do but it's nice to have the option. English is a rich and varied language.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Jun 23 - 10:10 PM

In recipes, it's teaspoons. Not full. Full would be redundant.

A spoonfull, sure.
A teaspoon or a tablespoon is a precise amount.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 23 - 06:55 PM

Spoonsful is correct but it makes you sound like a twat. Spoonfuls is great. Just like bucketfuls and lots of others. English is always wot people speak. It's a good guide.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Stanron
Date: 11 Jun 23 - 06:44 PM

There as a song wasn't there?

A spoonful a spoonful, a spoooooonful.

That'd be three spoonfuls.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 23 - 06:47 AM

From your link, Lighter: People who found themselves particularly grossed out by thinking of things as moist may just be more likely to associate the word with sex, the researchers postulate. As one participant explained, “It reminds people of sex and vaginas.” No disrespect to either, of course, but we're pretty sure no one wants to think about those things when they're browsing the baked goods aisle.

I think about sex and vaginas (and other bits) all the time, no matter which aisle I'm browsing, and indeed when I'm doing anything else that allows my mind to be drifting along at about 50% capacity. And I find the association of the word moist with those thoughts to be particularly pleasurable. I can't begin to believe I'm alone in this.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 23 - 06:39 AM

Why make life difficult? Two teaspoons full, or teaspoonsful (or whatever - who knows?) of sugar is exactly the same as two teaspoons of sugar. If your teaspoon isn't "full", you can say level teaspoon, or rounded teaspoon, or heaped teaspoon. Far more elegant, with the added bonus of avoiding ambiguity.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Stanron
Date: 11 Jun 23 - 05:01 AM

I can't remember if this has been done but is it two teaspoons full or two teaspoon fulls?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 05:03 PM

The alleged explanation:


https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/64984/science-behind-why-people-hate-word-moist

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 01:35 PM

Ah, Sheldon's Lancashire oven bottom muffins...

"When you were little, did you like Muffin the Mule?"

"Dunno, never tried it..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 01:22 PM

Aaaaahh, those old times… Moist muffins and Fanny…

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 12:32 PM

> What's with "moist"?

Try asking Adora Belle Dearheart.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 12:09 PM

…and I’ve been suffering gender-confusion ever since a colleague in Houston, TX told me I had a big fanny.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 10:40 AM

2 nations divided by a common language again? :-D

I'm still recovering from going out to roll a fag in Chicago...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 09:54 AM

It's a compliment over here. When sampling someone's home-made cake, it's polite to say, "Mmm, very good cake. Really nice and moist."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 09:09 AM

What's with "moist"? (Sorry. Why do some people find "moist" rebarbitive? Just some Americans?))

I've been hearing bout this for ten years or more. It's said to be "creepy and queasy-making." (Sorry. Creepy and disturbing.)

Just yesterday a TV journalist apologized on the air for letting the word slip.

Sounds fine to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 04:00 AM

I think I'll add whomever/whomsoever to my anti-ugly-English campaign, right up there with prior to, on a daily basis and, of course, albeit...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 07 Jun 23 - 03:13 AM

True. It should, perhaps, be "whomsoever"...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 02:38 PM

The point about revising and restructuring sentences is to make oneself clearer and to minimise the amount of mental processing required of your recipient. We've all written something that we then refuse to alter as if it's some kind of cherished and sacred possession. Better to ditch it and start again sometimes. And if you've written a sentence that has "whomever" in it, you're a clot if you leave it unaltered.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 12:03 PM

I have no issues with who/whom, I/me and so forth. I grew up using them appropriately. I don't see the need to restructure sentences for folks who don't, especially. There is enough dumbing down going on already.

However, if you say your pronoun is He or She or They, there is no need to specify the other cases.

My 3rd person pronoun is They. I assume you know the objective pronoun is Them and the possessive one is Their. I don't see why some people have to specify them all. In fact, it's annoying, and smacks of down-dumbing.

On the other hand, I have had idiots try to use They as my 2nd person pronoun.

I know loads of people who have no clue what I just said. Sigh. Why can't Americans teach English the way the French teach French?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 04:53 AM

Exactly. That's the press and the media. As I said, to the people around him he was always just Lenny. With a y. Remember when the papers of lesser repute referred to Madeleine McCann as Maddie, a name never used by the people around her?

It sounds a bit twee calling him Lenny, I admit, and when I'm talking about him I'd probably just call him Bernstein. But calling him by a name that no-one around him ever used doesn't sit well with me..

Anyway, the point is that it's Woody.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 04:44 AM

He’s always been Leonard to me. Never seen him referred to in the press and media as ‘Lenny’ or ‘Len’, always ‘Leonard’. That’s good enough for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 04:20 AM

He legally changed his name to Leonard, but that was never a name used by the people who knew him.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 04:16 AM

No it's not. He was born Louis Bernstein. "Leonard" was an adopted name (I know not why), but no-one ever called him Leonard. It was always Lenny, or occasionally Len, maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 03:43 AM

Or Len.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Jun 23 - 02:33 AM

It’s Leonard.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jun 23 - 07:00 PM

I've done it again. And how. It's Lenny, not Lennie. When you consider that I excoriate people for typing Woodie instead of Woody, the error is especially egregious. Pass the bloody hair shirt.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jun 23 - 05:58 PM

To me, the greatest Americans of the twentieth century (in the musical context) are George Gershwin, Lennie Bernstein and Woody Guthrie. Do not piss me off by typing "Woodie Guthrie," yeah?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 05 Jun 23 - 12:37 PM

Has the conjunction "data is" been dealt with already? I'm beginning
to see "data are" (which I now find makes my teeth ache worse than
"data is"); thankfully, I've not yet seen "data sunt" (Frank da Cruz:
Kermit: a File Transfer Protocol, p12, footnote 2). The
existence of Commander Data seems to also have, erm, played a
supporting role.

That battle's lost. But not yet a related source of toothache: The
Meeja haven't yet cottoned on that "medium" is the singular of
"media", possibly because paparazzi hunt in packs.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 10:38 PM

Be careful! I made a joke in another thread about 'rap' music starting with a silent 'c' and got told off for doing it.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 23 - 07:38 PM

Which reminds me of a joke (do forgive wrong-threadedness):

Why can you never hear a pterodactyl in the toilet?

Because, with a pterodactyl, the p is silent...