Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Dave MacKenzie Date: 10 Jul 11 - 05:43 PM I remember 'The Times' reporting Prince Charles, addressing a conference on Palestinian archaeology, telling his audience that one day he'd love to come and see all the "sights". |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: melodeonboy Date: 10 Jul 11 - 05:56 PM I recently received a leaflet from Virgin Media which stated in large letters on the front, "You are amazing". Oh, I wondered, what have I done to deserve this? Apparently, it's because I'm a Virgin Media customer and I pay my bills! Well, that's really amazing, ain't it?!!!!! As for "incredible", I'm with Jim Dixon. Even on a high quality programme such as The Today Programme on Radio 4, which I listen to on the way to work, it's difficult to get through half an hour without one or two speakers using "incredible" (or more often "incredibly"), when all they really want to say is "surprising" or "very"! |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: MGM·Lion Date: 10 Jul 11 - 07:39 PM One locution, extremely widespread and fashionable in usage over the past few years, which I find peculiarly annoying, is the would-be emphatic and reinforcing, but actually IMO entirely superfluous and counter-productively distracting, interpolation of three-word clauses beginning with "as" ~~~ best illustrated by examples: "Living *as she does* in New York, Madonna is able to maintain her position at the heart of the popular arts." "The English ships, being *as they were* small and manoeuverable, were able to disperse the large and clumsy galleons of the Spanish Armada." See what I mean? In all such contexts, the meaning would remain, to my mind much improved by the omission, if these otiose clauses were simply cut. ~Michael~ |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Gurney Date: 10 Jul 11 - 07:54 PM Like 'at the present moment in time' eh, Michael? Saul; regarding your discourse on 'Can't,' the term 'Shan't' seems to have disappeared. It was common in my younger days. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Jul 11 - 03:59 AM I am today (by the post of a friend on facebook) that there are two different verbs that are somewhat similar: "to lay" and "to lie" (n the sense of recline). It is hard to find anyone who uses them correctly. I also get very annoyed by the intrusive "of" as in "off of" - the correct usage is "off". Then there's "for free". Correct usage is "free" or "for nothing". And "refute" when the speaker means "rebut" or "reject". |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Michael Date: 11 Jul 11 - 05:33 AM And 'I could of done it'. Mike |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: saulgoldie Date: 11 Jul 11 - 07:56 AM One problem for those of us who strive to use proper language is that the receivers of what we say and write may not understand. I frequently find myself having to explain what I have said. And I edit myself to try to not confuse people who don't know "proper." Saul |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Lighter Date: 11 Jul 11 - 07:59 AM What about "almost as big *of* a thing." It's been years since I heard anyone not insert the pointless and ungrammatical "of." I see it in print now, too. "Is, is (that)" is everywhere in speech. Listen to CNN and you'll hear what I mean: "The great thing about it is, is (that) it's incredibly economical!" Maybe it began as a stammer. Now it's probably the spoken norm. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST, topsie Date: 11 Jul 11 - 08:12 AM I heard someone interviewed who seemed incapable of sayin 'is' - every 'is' in the whole interview was 'is is'. Something that has been irritating me lately is, for example, 'a third of all the people interviewed' or 'ninety per cent of all men in this country'. Why not just 'a third of people interviewed' or 'ninety per cent of men in this country'? |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Michael Date: 11 Jul 11 - 01:09 PM To differentiate from those who are only part men? Mike |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon Date: 11 Jul 11 - 01:46 PM What does "exceptional" mean if not "an exception to the rule"? To give "exceptional" meaning in a particular context, you've got to indicate which rule you're referring to. I guess it could be either "most geniuses are eccentric" or "most ordinary people are not eccentric" (which ought to go without saying, since "eccentric" means "out of the ordinary—although it has also acquired the connotation of being a bit daft). |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon Date: 11 Jul 11 - 01:57 PM Topsie: as long as they don't say "the police were literally bending over backwards" I wouldn't say they were grammatically wrong. (Whether they were factually wrong is a different matter.) "Bending over backwards" is a recognized figure of speech, although a cliché. Of course combining two clichés often leads to laughable mental images, and you have found one. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon Date: 11 Jul 11 - 02:23 PM I remember a teacher once telling a class (of which I was a member) that to "fledge" means to grow feathers, because the root word means "feather," which can also be seen in the word "fletcher," meaning arrow-maker, because attaching feathers is an essential part of making arrows. And therefore a "fledgling" is a young bird that has only recently grown feathers. However, I find that a lot of birders (the modern word for bird-watchers) say "fledge" when they mean "leave the nest." You can see this usage on the Decorah eagles web-cam website, where it reports that the first baby eagle fledged on June 18. I'm sure they don't mean the eagle grew its feathers all on one day. So, are they wrong? Or was my teacher wrong? Either way, I believe it is worthwhile to point out the origins of words, if only because it helps us remember their meanings, but I don't think we ought to maintain that the original meaning is the only admissible meaning. If enough people, especially specialists, like bird-watchers, decide that they need a short word like "fledge" to mean "leave the nest" they will eventually prevail, although it might take the dictionary-makers some time to catch up. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon Date: 11 Jul 11 - 02:32 PM I suppose the first person who said "he gives 110 percent" meant "he gives 110 percent of what other people give" which is perfectly proper, although a rather mild distinction. Surely every team has has a few members that put out 110% of the effort that the average team member puts out, or scores 110% as many points, etc. However, it has become a cliché, and ought to be avoided. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon Date: 11 Jul 11 - 03:12 PM I have believed for a long time (although I can't remember how I arrived at this belief) that "to flounder" meant "to flop around like a flounder" i.e. like a caught fish on the bottom of a boat, and therefore meant "to expend a lot of energy in a probably futile struggle." That might be an accurate description of what a boat (or its crew) does in a hurricane. At any rate, I'm not sure that everyone who says "flounder" means to say, or ought to say, "founder." In fact, it seems to me there are times when "flounder" would be appropriate but "founder" would not. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 11 Jul 11 - 03:28 PM Exactly, as I pointed out earlier that both flounder and founder express what could happen to a ship. I don't remember which was meant in the Clavell novel, so I can't agree or disagree with Barnacle's first post. Covert is a word that recently changed pronunciation, from cov-ert to co-vert. Cov-ert, meaning a thicket, or something under cover, seems meaningless to me when it is pronounced co-vert. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon Date: 11 Jul 11 - 03:40 PM Here's a web site you might enjoy: The Eggcorn Database The term "eggcorn" was coined by someone who saw someone else use the spelling "eggcorn" for "acorn." He was struck by how oddly appropriate it was. An acorn is sort of egg-shaped. For someone who didn't have a clue how to spell "acorn," "eggcorn" was a reasonable guess. "Eggcorn" implies a sort of false etymology. You could call it "folk etymology" if enough people used it, but this was probably one individual's mistake. You could say a mondegreen is a type of eggcorn. Mondegreens pertain exclusively to song lyrics, whereas eggcorns could occur anywhere in spoken or written language. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jack the Sailor Date: 11 Jul 11 - 04:51 PM "he gives 110 percent of what other people give" Likewise overachiever, overachieving is to be expected for many with these dictionary definitions of the words. o·ver·a·chieve (vr--chv) intr.v. o·ver·a·chieved, o·ver·a·chiev·ing, o·ver·a·chieves To perform better or achieve more success than expected. over·a·chievement n. over·a·chiever n. Noun 1. overachiever - a student who attains higher standards than the IQ indicated |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jack the Sailor Date: 11 Jul 11 - 04:53 PM Here is and interesting question. If a person with average ability gives 110% and gets 10% better than average results, is that person an overachiever? |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Jul 11 - 04:55 PM Another surfaced on the news tonight. "Try and". NONONONONONONONO "Try TO". It's a fricking infinitive! Bah. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon Date: 11 Jul 11 - 05:25 PM Jack the Sailor: Yes, I think that's what the term "overachiever" was coined for (although I don't think 10% is enough to worry about). I think that the concern was that people, especially students, who "overachieve" academically may do so at the expense of depriving themselves of other worthwhile experiences such as dating or physical exercise, and may wind up socially inept, sedentary, obese, etc. I don't know whether that concern was justified. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 11 Jul 11 - 05:36 PM -"Try and Catch the Wind," Donovan. Hear it on youtube. -Consumer Reports.org- "Turbine Tests: Should you try and catch the wind?" 18 May 2011. -Sweethearts of the Rodeo, "Catch the wind." ...Oh but I might as well try and catch the wind..... -Michael Murphy, Try and Catch the Wind, novel. -"Try and Change the World" Johnny Reid. -"Don't you try and teach me no original sin" Ozzie Osborne. -"When you are in a troubled relationship, it is normal to want to try and fix it." The magic of Making-up, a book. There are eight examples. So don't try and fight city hall, windmills, whatever. The people, she have spoke. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Gurney Date: 11 Jul 11 - 05:58 PM The 'could of..' sequence referred to above is possibly just accents. When written as 'could've' it makes sense, and sounds much the same in my Midlands accent. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Jul 11 - 10:06 PM Q - those are just bad grammar. The prevalence of ignorance does not make it wisdom. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Ebbie Date: 11 Jul 11 - 10:39 PM One phrase that I hear and see quite frequently is "one of the only...", as in one of the only people left or one of the only ways to say something- you get the idea. What does One of the Only mean/em>? "One of the few..." yes. "one of the many..." yes. But one of the only?? I can't make it come out so that it makes sense. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: MGM·Lion Date: 12 Jul 11 - 12:38 AM Ebbie ~~ I think it is just an ellipsis for "one of the people of whom ONLY a few remain". But a bit clumsy and confusing, I agree. ~M~ |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Ebbie Date: 12 Jul 11 - 12:45 AM Maybe so, Michael, but the way they use it, it sounds complete to me. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Ebbie Date: 12 Jul 11 - 12:46 AM Oh, wait! How do you pronounce Wednesday? |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: MGM·Lion Date: 12 Jul 11 - 12:51 AM Almost as 'Wensday' but with a slight, almost glottally stopped, 'd' implied before the 'n'... |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: MGM·Lion Date: 12 Jul 11 - 12:55 AM But wouldn't this Wednesday discussion fit better on the Sloppy Pronunciation thread. A bit confusing to have them going on at the same time, what? Would it be expedient to combine them, clones ~~ or would that only lead to worse confusion? ~M~ |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Ebbie Date: 12 Jul 11 - 02:33 AM "Almost as 'Wensday' but with a slight, almost glottally stopped, 'd' implied before the 'n'... " Sounds like one has a cold. :) And you are right- it belongs in the other thread. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST, topsie Date: 12 Jul 11 - 03:03 AM Another over-used expression is "in terms of". On BBC Radio 4 this morning I heard someone talking about house prices "in terms of real terms". |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Michael Date: 12 Jul 11 - 06:19 AM "In real terms"- I'v never been sure about that one, 'real' as opposed to 'unreal' 'imaginary'? House prices in real terms, rather than, say, Monopoly money or bananas? Mike |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: autolycus Date: 12 Jul 11 - 06:40 AM One I can't abide is 'definitive' with reference to classical music performances. I think the same would apply to theatrical or cinematic ones. There hint no sich animal. Not even the composer can do that. I also object to the phrase "the verdict of history". Doesn't exist either. Historians are constantly revisiting to re-evaluate. And there are a variety of stripes of historian, too. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: DMcG Date: 12 Jul 11 - 12:23 PM On today's UK news:"the rate of increase of the price index has slowed this month" Are we talking about the 2nd, 3rd or 4th differencial of price against time, here? |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 12 Jul 11 - 01:48 PM Price index is a single number summarizing price levels Price index on Monday- 4.0 Price index on Tuesday- 4.7 A 'significant' increase in price index. ---------------------- Today's bad grammar is taught tomorrow. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST,Anne Lister mysteriously sans cookie Date: 12 Jul 11 - 04:00 PM One that has me shouting at the radio (where I come across it most) is the phrase "mitigate against". You can militate against something, and you can mitigate (soften) something. You can't, though, mitigate against anything. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon Date: 12 Jul 11 - 04:14 PM Young people nowadays use the word "awesome" for anything agreeable, convenient, or helpful. I used to work in the "post office" of a university. Sample dialogue: STUDENT: Can you sell me a stamp? ME: Yes. STUDENT: Awesome! If I were Superman, and they asked me, "Can you leap tall buildings at a single bound?" and I said "Yes"—that would be awesome. Selling a stamp is not awesome. But no irony was intended (I think). I had to laugh. But that's no worse than saying "Cool!" or "Boss!" (another cool word of my youth). |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon Date: 12 Jul 11 - 04:34 PM DMcG: That should be "contrôlée"—or better still, "Appalachian d'origine contrôlée." Ordinarily, I wouldn't bother to correct something like that, but in this thread, them as dished it out oughta be able to take it. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: DMcG Date: 12 Jul 11 - 04:51 PM I didn't think I was dishing anything out - I said I thought it witty. However, I'm quite content to have the correction noted. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: EBarnacle Date: 12 Jul 11 - 06:03 PM Echtuelly, I believe the term Dancing on Air did originate with the uncontrolled movements that the victim made for a while after being hanged. Bobert, I do use ain't on occasion but it is a conscious choice. The point of my earlier post was that misuse of language, especially in an early part of a book shows the author's ignorance and calls all that he writes into question, especially his specific knowledge upon which the book is based. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 12 Jul 11 - 09:12 PM "Dick Struan came up on the quarterdeck of the flagship H.M.S. Vengeance.... the 74-gun ship of the line was anchored...." Surrounding her were the rest of the fleet's warships, the troopships of the expeditionary force and the merchantmen and opium clippers of the China traders." "The harbor's the best in these waters," Cooper [American standing on the foreshore] said. "Plenty of room to careen and refit all our ships...." *American edition I'll have to reread sometime, a good writer. "Shogun" (p. 10) The sea fell on the ship and she heeled and he thought they'd floundered but she shook herself like a wet terrier and swung out of the trough." Not possible to interpret that as meaning the ship has foundered. On p. 1 (Prologue) the ship lurches, but no mention of flounder or founder. Barnacle may need a remedial English course. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: autolycus Date: 13 Jul 11 - 04:18 AM Parent "There are two words I can't stand. They're cool and awesome. I want you to stop using them all the time." Teenager. "Ok. What are the words?" |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: MGM·Lion Date: 13 Jul 11 - 09:22 AM Example of what I complained of at 10 Jul 11 - 07:39 PM from this morning's Times, p 22 ~~ '... these comments are even more desperate coming as they do from elderly people languishing...' In what the hell way do those three words 'as they do' enhance the sense or make the writing effective? Their effect in these particulars is entirely counter-productive: verbose, distracting, and entirely superfluous -- of course they bally-well 'do', or they wouldn't be mentioned, would they? I do wish this particular annoyance would disappear. ~M~ |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: EBarnacle Date: 13 Jul 11 - 12:48 PM Q, almost immediately after that, she foundered. The sentence you quote indicates their fear of foundering. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: The Sandman Date: 13 Jul 11 - 01:10 PM The sea fell on the ship and she heeled and he thought they'd floundered but she shook herself like a wet terrier and swung out of the trough. but all this she and he stuff is very confusing, why not say which heeled, AND HE THOUGHT THEY HAD FLOUNDERED but the Ship shook herself. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: The Sandman Date: 13 Jul 11 - 01:16 PM OR PREFERABLY SHOOK ITSELF. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 13 Jul 11 - 01:17 PM "As they do," in the sentence quoted, serves to emphasize the significance of where they're coming from and, in this case, slows down the remaonder of the sentence to reinforce the emphasis and allow an extra moment for the reader or listener to apprehend the point. It adds nothing semantically. But pacing and emphasis count as well. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST, topsie Date: 13 Jul 11 - 01:19 PM I was brought up to believe that all ships and boats are 'she', and I know someone who always refers to vehicles such as lorries/trucks as 'he' (I think it is a regional thing). If you were learning French or Spanish you would have to learn a gender for everything, not just ships, so be grateful. |
Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: gnu Date: 13 Jul 11 - 01:37 PM "Grateful." Such an odd word. Seems incorrectly spelled. Greatful would make more sense. |