BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 23 - 08:10 PM

But why would anyone use that stupid word?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Aug 23 - 08:07 PM

The ouster of the president of Niger...

...was the military leader [makes sense]

...occurred on [does not]

But the latter is the way it's used, not the former.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 15 Aug 23 - 11:08 AM

I looked it up and it was suggested that it was mainly North American but another site identified the earlier, pre-USA usage and reckoned that anyone who was well-read enough would have encountered it. That put me in my place!

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Aug 23 - 10:30 AM

Oxford shows examples of "ouster" ('dismissal or expulsion') from 1531.

It is, in fact, the original meaning.

"Ouster" ('one who ousts') is recorded only since 1869.

And "ousting" as a noun doesn't appear till the 1850s.

Which is now quite a while ago, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 15 Aug 23 - 10:05 AM

"After his ouster from the presidency, the criminal psychopath swore revenge on humanity."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 15 Aug 23 - 04:13 AM

The oustER should be the person who did the oustING.

The oustING should be the event wherein someone got ousted.

Not the oustER.

I agree with that, Mrrzy, but I don't think that I have ever heard it misused in that way. Can you give an example?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Aug 23 - 08:43 PM

The oustER should be the person who did the oustING.

The oustING should be the event wherein someone got ousted.

Not the oustER.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 23 - 04:35 PM

Yebbut I need atmosphere, Nigel!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Aug 23 - 02:55 PM

Steve,
There are buttons on the tv, or on the remote, to mute all sound from that all-pervasive machine.
It also makes the adverts more entertaining.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 23 - 11:06 AM

I've been watching the women's football World Cup recently. Great stuff. Bring back Kenneth Wolstenholme and Motty, say I. These current strident teams of commentators are doing me brain in: "What a goal!" "What a save!" "What a miss!" "What a player!" I know that Ken and Motty used to do it too, but this lot, knocking sparks off each other, never shut up! I prefer the Brazilian-style commentary, "GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!!!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 07 Aug 23 - 06:02 AM

Folk cookery: 'armonizing a cake

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 23 - 04:39 PM

But what IS folk music, Doug?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 Aug 23 - 04:07 PM

Shulled should rich people give "olms" or "ahms" to the poor?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 Aug 23 - 02:27 PM

Do you pronounce the "l" in folk music, Steve? To me, that woolden't sound rigghut. Sorry, I mean it wouldn't sound right.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 11:21 PM

True story .... Child goes to school in Nottingham, and picks up the local accent from his classmates.

Mother: Can you stop him speaking like that?
Teacher: But he's a Nottinghamshire lad.
Mother: He doesn't need to advertise the fact!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 08:43 PM

So you say "ahmighty" too, huh? "Ahma mater?" "Ahmost"?? You'll be telling me next that you say "ahbeit!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 08:24 PM

For me, the "alm" sound in 'almond' is the same as in 'balm', 'calm', 'palm' and 'psalm'.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 07:52 PM

Good God, Doug, and here's me thinking you were a northerner - and you say "ahmund"...?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 07:26 PM

..... you're being a pretentious prick

You seem to have some very odd ideas of what is 'pretentious', Steve. I am beginning to think that the term could most readily be attached to your good self.

I cannot agree with you on the pronunciation of 'almond'. Hearing it pronounced as "olmund" one of my pet peeves.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 06:47 PM

And yanks, if I said "Moss-cow," Eye-raq" or "Eye-ran" in this country, I'd be laughed out of the building.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 06:22 PM

Pronunciations. Now before I rabbit on, I know that yanks might have different takes on these words, so this is a peeve aimed at Brits only.

It's "olmund" (almond). If you say "ahmund" you're being a pretentious prick. It's "garridge" (garage), never "gurrarge" with that stupid soft g at the end. You go to the beautiful city of Bath for the weekend (Mrs Steve worked there for several years before she and I met, and my son went to the university there, and not to Bath Spa before you say anything). It's Bath, not "Barth." There will be others.

But if you do happen to be a yank, do not say "tomayto" in my presence.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 04:18 PM

Well, leeneia, we are the only two living here and, worse, 'twas I who broke the glass...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 02:07 PM

Not necessarily, Steve. A third person who needs protection might have broken the wine glass.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 12:53 PM

"When I was clearing up last night after you went to bed, a wine glass got broken."

"Really? Do you mean that you broke a wine glass last night?"

"Well, er... yeah..."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 05 Aug 23 - 10:51 AM

Leeneeia: it may sometimes be a case of "in spelchek veritas" or "typus autocompletus", when the little offender adds an extra letter to (eg) "Britain is broke". But *agree* about the overuse of "it doesn't work" (which gets boiled down to "it's broken" by lazy headline writers), when what the offender means is "I can't get it to work" or "it doesn't work the way I want it to", or even "I know it works as it's supposed to, but it's getting in my way".

There's also the matter of severity, which is often context-dependent. Brokenness can mean anything from a small chip on the edge of a plate or the lip of a wine glass to a pile of shards on the floor.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Aug 23 - 10:40 PM

Bully for the Singaround!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 03 Aug 23 - 08:22 PM

Here's another term that irritates me: "broken," when it's used to make sweeping discouraging claims.

Somebody has a YouTube about one psychologist at Harvard who supposedly faked some data, and the heading is "Academia is broken." I asked if the YouTuber actually knew everything about the hundreds of universities and thousands of teachers and students that constitute "academia," but I didn't get a response.

Then we find The South is Broken, and How to Fix the Broken Supreme Court.

Somebody started a thread saying the Mudcat is broken, yet here we are, chatting, and the DT is still working. Plus the Singaround has been going for about two years.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 26 Jul 23 - 11:55 AM

I tried to add this €0.02 of mine before, but the 'Cat had a nap, so apologies for firing off my mouth from the hip ....

"Pumping out" might originally have referred directly to removing polluted bilge water from an oil tanker; this would imply making the pollution in question Somebody Else's problem. Take that basic idea, apply it to the tailpipe of a rust bucket or a people carrier, and there y'go: instant cliché.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 23 - 06:02 PM

I'm getting irrationally very annoyed with all these reports on human-induced climate change referring to carbon dioxide being "pumped out" into the atmosphere. It is never "pumped out." Completely wrong words. When I was an 'A' level chief examiner in the early 90s we decided that any comment about pollutants being "pumped out" disqualified that marking point. Likewise, any reference to "fumes."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 23 - 05:55 PM

Well Hal was always very polite.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 25 Jul 23 - 12:21 PM

Re machines saying "please": That to me is better than them ordering me about --- I refuse to be a cog in someone else's machine. If a computer is saying "please", I take it as some programmer somewhere being polite to me at one remove.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 25 Jul 23 - 11:04 AM

> That's the problem, Nigel.

Do you mean in linguistic or political terms :-) ?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 23 - 04:20 AM

The US is comprised of 50 states. That's the problem, Nigel.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 08:48 PM

Comprise/comprises

Fifty states comprise the USA.
The USA comprises 50 states.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 07:16 PM

Comprises, maybe. I'm a bit with Joe on this. The word is so commonly misused that it has lost its usefulness. Unless you're absolutely rock-solid on how it should be used, it's best to pick one of the excellent alternatives. A bit like "albeit," I suppose.


Doug?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 11:08 AM

Comprise means is composed of, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 06:01 PM

"Comprise" might have been a useful word if we had kept it in the sense it once had -- as a synonym of "include" that differs in promising a complete list. However, I'm afraid that's a lost cause. For most people these days "comprise" is a fancy version of "compose" -- and the OED tells us that that sense it goes back to the 18th century. It still sounds like a malapropism to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 06:44 AM

Doug...?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 06:37 AM

The problem with "comprise" comes when it's used in the passive sense, "...is comprised of...". There's no way you can leave out the "of" in that case. I just think it's awful and ungrammatical, and there are several good alternatives, "composed of," "consists of", "includes," "made up of..." The "of" is already contained in "comprises" so an extra "of" is both ignorant and ugly. When someone shuns the plethora of good alternatives and decides to write "comprised of" they think they're being clever in using a clever word, when the very opposite is the case.

Some dictionaries do point out how some usages are considered to be inadvisable, but dictionaries don't judge. "Comprised of" has been used for a couple of hundred years and it's so common that it has to be regarded as standard English. That doesn't mean that the more erudite among us have to like it or even reluctantly approve of it. A bit like "albeit" really. Have I ever mentioned that one?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 03:13 AM

To back up, I'm with Steve on "comprise." You use comprise with the small things, as in "Fifty states comprise the Union." The public is so mixed up about this word that I don't use it at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 05:47 PM

I agree with Steve Shaw in condemning the now common use of "please" to introduce advice given for the recipient's own good, rather than a request for a favor. Worst of all is "Please turn to page 69". As an attempt at politeness, that succeeds about as well as "Please kiss my ass". The only polite thing to do with jumps is avoid them.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 05:10 PM

> "I want to take our relationship to the next level."

Just realised: They're playing Rogue, and haven't yet found the Amulet of Yendor.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 04:40 PM

Steve, I am totally opposed to crime in multi-level car parks.

Recently I had a dream where I was wandering around Hell (although it was not scary or hot), looking for the DH. Later I went to a doctor's appointment and realized that Hell in my dream looked a lot like a car park, especially the part that had some crusty cables and scaley drainpipes.

Whenever I have to use a car park, I head for the top level, so I can park in the sunshine.

One good thing about car parks. I read an article about a photographer who wanted to really experience a hurricane, so he took supplies and waited one out in a car park. I admit that a car park is one structure likely to withstand a hurricane, but I won't make your heart ache by detailing the reason why he later thought it had been a very bad idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 01:51 PM

It means levels or degrees of interest, intensity, etc.

Not horizontal planes of anything.

But you knew that.

How do you feel about "a high level of accomplishment"?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 01:12 PM

Meself, my car's built-in satnav is really polite, as in "Please take the next left turn," etc. Grr. She does sound like a nice lady, though, and we do refer to her as "she."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 01:06 PM

Jamie Oliver is forever burbling on about how his recipes take his dishes to the next level. And what about crime in multi-storey car parks, leeneia? Wrong on so many different levels...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 12:50 PM

leeneia> "level"

It's built in, sad to say:

* Hom Sap has difficulties with continuous change: remember what a journey of a thousand miles starts with.

* Hom Sap shows unidimensional thinking by default, cf "left" and "right" in politics [snip: the balance of that rant belongs elsewhere].

Add in the tendency to label abstract things to save having to think (I believe it's called "ontic dumping" in the linguistic trade), and ....

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

Every dog has its day.
Why only one?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 11:49 AM

Question and choice of responses that come up on the screen on the gas pump, after I've filled up: "Would you like a receipt?" "Yes, please." "No, thank you." It annoys me to no end that I'm not given the option of whether or not I want to use my best manners with a damn machine.

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

Level. I'm sick of hearing that "This painting is on a new level," or "I want to take our relationship to the next level." What exactly is the speaker talking about? And I'm repelled by the idea of a universe divided into tidy, parallel levels, one above the other, like a parking building.

To me life seems more like hillsides with twisting trails, some easy, some hard, some which peter out, some which go back to where they started, and some which intersect with others, inviting an unexpected course.