BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jul 20 - 07:07 AM

Nah. I'm a fighter to the death against two things, Nigel: degradation of da lingo and pretentiousness in the use of words. I won't rest until albeit bites the dust. It's an abomination...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Jul 20 - 08:03 AM

How about Nevertheless? Unless you are Kate Hepburn in The African Queen, I mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 09 Jul 20 - 01:45 PM

Steve, I did say that using 'reference' as a verb was a pet peeve of mine. A pet peeve is not a clarion call for all mankind to conform to my preferences.

'Reference' used as a verb is an intelligible word, albeit an ungraceful one.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Jul 20 - 09:49 AM

Headline:
The rare fashion brand that’s beloved by the women of Trump world and not afraid to show it

What?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 15 Jul 20 - 01:04 PM

I agree, Mrrzy. That's baffling.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Reinhard
Date: 15 Jul 20 - 03:47 PM

Just desserts, as in the thread "Jolly Rogues of Lynn": " Whereas millers and weavers get their just desserts in the song, the tailor is too much of a rogue, so he ends up enjoying it."

No, they don't get sweets, they get their just deserts, i.e. what they deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 Jul 20 - 04:16 PM

And then there is the dreaded "woke" - which is what I did at 3am this morning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 16 Jul 20 - 04:02 PM

Reinhard, I agree.

Bonzo, you are right. I've never been confidant about woke, wake, and awaken.

Here's another peeve of mine: advisedly.

"This is a millenial dilemma, and I use the term advisedly." What is that supposed to mean? The speaker never mentions an advisor who okayed the term.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Jul 20 - 05:14 PM

It is not pronounced just deserts [DEZ-erts], it is pronounced just desserts [duh-ZERTS], but yeah, phrase origin is deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jul 20 - 10:06 PM

albeit... discussed in USENET https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.usage.english/jwJrs1rNN0g

My favorite philosophy prof. in college A.C "Tony" Genova, wrote a paper titled "What is existentialism>"

I still have a copy somewhere..which does not mean *I* can still explain it, but at one time I was clear on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Jul 20 - 06:00 PM

Yeah, for about 10 pages in Einstein's biography, I understood relativity.

Peeve: starting a story with This is the untold story of. Hitherto-untold, ok, but if you're telling it, not untold now, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Jul 20 - 05:08 AM

This is the untold story of. Hitherto-untold, ok, but if you're telling it, not untold now, eh I'd prefer 'previously' to 'hitherto'. Other than that, if the story is being told for the first time them I'm fine with "This is the untold story".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Jul 20 - 09:49 AM

WashPo, who should know better, spelled a word for bellybutton Naval. It bugs me more when coming from such a source.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Jul 20 - 11:29 AM

Same source: Portland mayor hit by tear gas deployed by federal troops, said the headline, and my immediate thought was, wait, the feds deployed the mayor?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Jul 20 - 06:35 AM

Next pet peeve: Using 'fast' as an adverb related to speed.
adjective: "He is a fast runner". Yes
adverb: "He runs fast". No, "He runs quickly."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Jul 20 - 07:12 AM

Oxford English Dictionary considers "fast," as an adverb meaning "quickly," to be perfectly acceptable, with numerous quotations back to the 13th century.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Jul 20 - 12:24 PM

I agree with Nigel Parsons on this one.

Dictionaries define Literal as Figurative and have lost all claim to correctness.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 20 - 01:14 PM

One more time, chaps. Dictionaries are not there to decide what is or isn't "acceptable." Their role is to reflect usage. And I can't see much wrong with "fast" as an adverb. In fact, it can be used to rather good effect I feel.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Jul 20 - 11:29 PM

Ok watching a cooking show and the cook pronounced Millet millÉ, as if she were Hyacinth keeping up appearances.

Reminded me of Dick Cheney and his "cachets" of arms.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jul 20 - 04:43 AM

If you object to run fast, surely you should also object to hold tight. Any takers?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 26 Jul 20 - 07:44 AM

I would prefer "hold tightly", but accept that "hold tight" is in general use, particularly on passenger transport.

Flanders and Swann: "Hold very tight please, ding ding!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jul 20 - 08:08 AM

Brits as old as me may recall the Milky Bar Kid ads on telly, which had the ditty ending in "...Nestle's Milky Bar!" - pronounced " Nessels." The other day I happened to remark that a certain breakfast cereal was made by "Nessel". I received a severe bollocking from Mrs Steve because I hadn't said "Nest-lay." Sheesh!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 26 Jul 20 - 08:18 AM

I don’t like “he ran fast” and would use “quickly” but I guess we can tie ourselves up in knots with all this.

Steve is right that dictionaries aim to reflect current usage and language moves on whether we like it or not. A pet hat of mine used to be my perceived Americanism of the (UK) language but I’m not even going to come up with examples now.

Perhaps the one thing I once had some linguistic ability with was writing in plain simple English. I was once asked to do that in a job (when I was “employable”) when we were going for the then BS5750 and tried to do some shop floor procedure manuals for our department. Simple, easy to follow, unambiguous language was the order of the day and I think that I could manage that then.

Of course the language here is, and should be, mostly conversational and that changes things until you get pedants complaining about correctness. At which point, and if I cared, I’d start worrying about how I express what I write…

Which on this one, sorry Steve, but I’m comfortable with albeit...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jul 20 - 09:06 AM

It has brilliant and unpretentious alternatives. If you say albeit instead of although, or though, and prior to instead of before (which is the perfect substitute every single time), you are trying to make yourself sound cleverer than you really are. If you're already clever enough you shouldn't need to do these daft things.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Jul 20 - 10:27 AM

I like that Jon Freeman had a pet hat...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jul 20 - 11:18 AM

"fast"... when people compliment me by saying, about something I have done, "Gee.. you are fast!".... I usually reply something like, "Oh well, I am usually called 'half-fast'."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 26 Jul 20 - 07:36 PM

Here's another journalist's phrase I dislike. "Left the road" Yesterday two people, one driving a Lexus and one on a motorcycle, lost their lives because their vehicles mutinied, apparently. The Lexus left the road, went through a guard rail, down a slope, and rolled over. The motorcycle left the road and slammed into a building, all on its own.

Terrifying, ain't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 02:31 AM

Likewise "the vehicle went out of control" rather than "the driver lost control". But in this case, the reporter is simply describing what happened, not the cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 04:20 AM

Here's another journalist's phrase I dislike. "Left the road"

There could be many reasons why the vehicle left the road: the driver might have been drunk; not paying attention; avoiding a stray animal; too fast round the bend; forced off the road by anther vehicle; a blow-out; a medical emergency.

The reasons ought to come to light during the subsequent investigation. The journalists are simply reporting the known facts and not dealing in speculation. They should be commended for their restraint.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 05:52 AM

Ah yes, the autonomous vehicle. More signs of absent drivers: "A pedestrian/cyclist was in collision with a car/van/truck/train". In the old days people were knocked down by drivers.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Jul 20 - 12:47 PM

In the old days people were knocked down by drivers.
That seems to pre-suppose that the 'driver' was at fault, and caused the accident with the pedestrian/cyclist. That is not always the case. If a cyclist smashes into the side of a car they can rarely be describes as "knocked down by the driver".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Jul 20 - 03:27 PM

And a lot of people are apparently murdered despite surviving these accidents, as in headlines like Pedestrian killed after being run over by steamroller.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 28 Jul 20 - 05:54 PM

Doug, I doubt if in hundreds of accidents there were no witnesses, no skid marks, no weather report, and nobody knows anything about what happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 29 Jul 20 - 01:59 AM

True. But if a court case ensues, a reporter who anticipates its findings by saying a particular person was at fault could be in trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 31 Jul 20 - 08:35 PM

Writing that says that something is not what it's not. A recent example:

"At this time, we don’t have any evidence indicating this is something other than a 'brushing scam' where people receive unsolicited items from a seller who then posts false customer reviews to boost sales,"

That's from the US Department of Agriculture, about people receiving unsolicited packages of seeds. Why don't they just say "This seems to be a 'brushing scam'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Aug 20 - 07:06 AM

Ooh I saw this there and thought it should be here!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 02 Aug 20 - 02:24 AM

In writing, I usually find that it's clearer to talk about things that are than things that are not. Now remember I said "usually."

Tax instructions used to be bad that way. "If line 48 is not less than $30,000, go to Section 4, unless AGI is no greater than $50,000."

I remember my confusion as a kid the first time I read, "He said, not unkindly."   What?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Aug 20 - 10:45 AM

> Why don't they just say "This seems to be a 'brushing scam'.

Because it's more definitive to say we have *no* evidence than possibly to imply, by omission, that we *might* have some, but if we do, we're ignoring it.

Compare:

1. "We have no evidence that alien spacecraft are real."

2. "Alien spacecraft seem not to be real."

The statements are not precisely equivalent - particularly if you're an official spokesperson (or a trial witness), whose statements may be scrutinized for weasel words.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 02 Aug 20 - 05:21 PM

The word "seems" covers a lot of things easily, in a manner that most people can understand. After all, the most frightened and suspicious people are the most likely to have poor reading skills and comprehension.
===================
Here's another peeve of mine. People who refer to the owner of a dog or cat as its mom or dad. No, a pet is an animal, and when push comes to shove, it is not as intelligent or valuable as a child.

Several years ago, the house next door to ours had a bad fire, and we had to get out of ours fast, because the houses are close together. I called to my cat, but she ran and hid somewhere. With flames shooting toward the sky and powerful fire engines rumbling in front of the house, I threw on a sweatshirt and fled, leaving her behind. I never would have done that with a child.

Fortunately, we all came out of it all right. We sustained some damage to our roof, and some plastic siding melted, but that was all.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 20 - 07:28 PM

Well we had cats for over forty years. We didn't replace our last one after he'd died as we had then both retired and wanted to be off on our travels, and we live miles from anyone who could see to our cats when we were away. But we always admonished our cats when they'd been "naughty" by threatening to tell "mummy" or "daddy" what they'd been up to. We'd pat our leg to invite the cat to "sit daddy's knee," etc. Bloody hell, we are both perfectly rational people! More like a nod and wink twixt me and the missus, it was. And we always had amazing relationships with every one of our cats down the years. Of course the daft talk was never serious and never intended to parallel human relationships. We are all different, leeneia, and I must say that you come across as rather stiff and judgemental about stuff at times...

By the way, when we were little up north in Lancashire, the older blokes and blokesses in the street, maybe your friends' parents or the people your mum worked with, we always called our aunties or uncles, even though we weren't related. I had an Auntie Hilda, Auntie Brenda, Uncle Charlie and Uncle Bill, among many others. None of them were remotely related! That tradition is maintained to this day, and long may it carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 20 - 07:20 AM

In writing, I usually find that it's clearer to talk about things that are than things that are not. Now remember I said "usually."
Tax instructions used to be bad that way. "If line 48 is not less than $30,000, go to Section 4, unless AGI is no greater than $50,000."

The wording, though, is precise. To re-word it (keeping the same meaning) you would need:
"If line 48 is more than $29,999.99, go to Section 4, unless AGI is less than $50,000.01."
As a retired civil servant (UK) I prefer the original formulation.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Aug 20 - 07:44 AM

Cats seems to bring out our humaness.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Aug 20 - 08:56 AM

The current U.S. President seems to have no pets.

BTW, the latest usage prefers "spacecrafts" to plural-in-sense-but-singular-in-form "spacecraft."

The same goes for "aircrafts," "water crafts," etc.

Probably influenced by "arts and crafts."

So at this point in my life, I could care less, plural-wise.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 03 Aug 20 - 01:39 PM

I've never heard anybody say aircrafts or spacecrafts. You know, sometimes a word occurs in the language in only one form. For example, "jiffy." We always say "in a jiffy." (I'm ignoring the brand Jiffy Mix for now.) We don't say "He came in five jiffies." Or "It took a long jiffy."

I think the --craft words are like that. We only use them one way. We can say we flew in a Boeing aircraft, or we can say there were about 30 aircraft on the field when the tornado hit.

For a couple years, the DH and I would do the crossword together, and we added interest by spotting words which only occur in one form or in one phrase. I wish I could think of more of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 03 Aug 20 - 01:45 PM

"you come across as rather stiff and judgemental about stuff at times..."

That's pretty rich, coming from the guy who thinks dried basil is going to destroy civilization.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 20 - 02:29 PM

That happens to be true. And you caught me just as I was going outside to pick some home-grown fresh basil. Fancy that!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Aug 20 - 10:33 PM

Scissors, never a knife, for basil chiffonade, my mom said and did.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 20 - 03:59 AM

Unless you're making pesto, all basil needs is fingers.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Aug 20 - 10:52 AM

From today's zoom meeting:

Unsuccessful aging -isn't that living? I mean, isn't unsuccessful aging called death?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 04 Aug 20 - 01:01 PM

Good question, Mrrzy. I suppose dementia, arthritis, obesity would be examples of unsuccessful aging, but still...

Success is something we work for and may obtain with a combination of effort and luck. Aging happens whether we want it or not, so I don't think it's reasonable to combine the two. In technical terms, the expression "unsuccessful aging" is whopperjawed.