BS: Sloppy use of language

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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:12 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Michael
Date: 11 Jul 11 - 05:33 AM

And 'I could of done it'.

Mike

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Chip2447
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 05:21 PM

There is a television commercial, I believe for hair transplant in which the talking head says;

"People don't believe how unbelievable it is."

Would someone please translate for me...

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 02:53 PM

The Flanders quote is surely more an anachronism than a semantic solecism?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: bubblyrat
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 02:12 PM

Getting back to Defoe ; A TV adaptation of "Moll Flanders " had actress Alex Kingston as the eponymous heroine saying to the captain of the ship that she had just boarded in order to take passage to the New World in the 17th century " Aren't you wanted on the bridge ?"

       Seen recently in some Estate Agents' advertisements ;

    " Principle Bedroom" and " Garden mainly laid to flower boarders "

also recently in "The Times" , an article about soldiers in Afghanistan " diffusing" bombs ; naturally , I sent them an E-mail !!

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 01:53 PM

Be proactive, not active! I firmly agree.

And for heaven's sake, folks, a ship may flounder (plunge and toss, struggle, etc.) in high seas, as well as founder (plunge to the
bottom, etc.)
The first usage has been common since the 16th c., and the second from the 15th c.

(Like Lighter, I don't know what Clavell had in mind; I read it years ago and don't remember.)

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 01:29 PM

Using flounder when you mean founder is of course a malapropism.

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 12:49 PM

All my life (and I say it to my shame) I have been an underachiever. That is, I've not performed as well as I had the underlying talent or ability to do.

But some individuals are described as "overachievers", which is clearly impossible. They don't do more than is in their power. As Ebbie pointed out, they cannot "give 110%".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: John P
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 12:34 PM

Bobert, of course language evolves. That's one of the great things in life for me. However, using the wrong word is not the same as evolution. "Flounder" is not an example of evolving language -- it's someone not knowing the difference between "flounder" and "founder". Sort of like if I were to say its someone not knowing the difference between "flounder" and "founder".

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 11:41 AM

Saul, you were going great until you got here: "If someone has turret's syndrome..."

lol

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: saulgoldie
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 11:08 AM

Well, a problem for those of us who care more deeply is that language is dynamic. We start with the "dictionary definition" or some sort of definition from a well-regarded reference, perhaps going back dozens or hundreds of years, and we go from there. But in any given conversation, the meaning of (whatever) is ultimately what all the involved conversants agree upon. Researching word routes is a fascinating study in the evolution of social culture. It is dynamic. Having said that...

Of course, the boat (or whatever) "founders" on rocks or some other obstacle.

The BIG question is the "$64,000 question" coming from the quiz show of the 1950s, not the "$1MIL question" or any other amount.

The opposite of "pro-choice" is "anti-choice," which is accurate, and NOT "pro-life" for which the opposite is "anti-life," which is NOT an accurate characterization of those who support reproductive choice for women. This misnomer has very far-reaching social and political implications.

We are ignoring "the elephant in the room," NOT the "800 LB gorilla," who "sits wherever it wants to." (G-d help us with the myriad abused metaphors!)

I looked up "decimate" on several sites. And yes, it does mean "to reduce by one tenth." But "common usage" has forced it to mean "to devastate." I am sorry about this one. But there you have it.

Of course, "new-clee-ur." DUH!

"Three times 'more than.'" "Three times 'more than"'" actually means three times as many as the original PLUS ONE. "Three times 'as many as'" means what I think most speakers are trying to indicate, which is three times the original. Of course, one can never know. In the case of "a thousand times more than" the difference is insignificant. But in my original case, it is a significant difference. The difference is between an indicated total of 300% versus 400%. Which did the speaker or writer actually mean? Depending on what is being talked about and what the context is, it could make a lot of difference to the people involved in terms of people, or money or material.

Yes, too, "fewer/less than." Fewer refers to countable quantities, like gallons, people, houses, items at the checkout counter, or dollars/pounds/lira/drachmas/rupees. "Less than" refers to fluid quantities, like air or water that is not measurable in gallons or liters, or "money in general but not a specified amount."

Language usage requires thought on the part of the speaker or writer. Unfortunately, it seems to me that people are less inclined to put out the effort these days or to be open to learning the proper use.

You know, I think I am obliged to dig out those old style and grammar books and make sure I know what I am conveying when I utter or write! Words and phrases definitely have meaning. And it is important to say what I mean and mean what I say.

Oh, hey. Just one more. And this is another big one. "Can't." As in "I can't do 'X.'" To say that I "can't" actually means that I am physically or emotionally incapable. But the way most people use it most of the time actually indicates a CHOICE. "I can't go to the show?" No, I CHOOSE not to go to the show. The reasons I CHOOSE not to go may be very compelling. However, I DO make a CHOICE not to go. Perhaps I have no transportation to the show, in which case I physically cannot go. Or I may be in traction. But for most circumstances I CAN go, but CHOOSE not to. Even if the cost is more than I CHOOSE to pay, I CAN go, if I CHOOSE to forgo food this week. Similarly, the store "can't" take back that item. No. The store may have a "policy" to not take it back. But that policy is a CHOICE made by some PERSON. If someone has turret's syndrome, they may not be able to avoid saying certain things. But for most people, most of the time, they CHOOSE to say or not to say (whatever).

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 06:41 AM

We flounder- full speed ahead-

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 04:46 AM

Language, as well as every thing else, is evolutionary... Get over it...

Something that will only concern the Roman Catholic members here but there is a new English translation of the service coming into play in a few months. There's a whole set of reasons I think it is naïve, and that's one of 'em

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 08:35 PM

Language, as well as every thing else, is evolutionary... Get over it...

I mean, folks get stuck with what the rules "used to be" and keeps them from appreciating the evolutionary aspects...

Ya' gotta get up to speed, EBarn, or go a lap or two down... You want that??? Hell no, you don't...

So here's what I need you to do... Say "ain't" 5 times real fast every mornin' for a week and see if you ain't feelin' better, ya' hear???

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 08:32 PM

And those who avoid publicity and don't proclaim themselves are forgotten.

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: GUEST,skivee-eating cookies, but cookieless
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 08:14 PM

Sarah Palin proclaiming herself a maverick.
Rather like someone proclaiming themselves to be a hero. Those who are don't proclaim themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 07:43 PM

"Horrendous" was a neologism in the 17th century.

But not since then.

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Gurney
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 06:32 PM

To quote Spike, "Always wear a contraceptive on every conceivable occasion!"

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: GUEST,BobL
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 06:12 PM

"Quantum leap" used to mean a major change - it is actually, by definition, the smallest change possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: John P
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 05:46 PM

Virtual.

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: John P
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 05:43 PM

I used to have a gas stove with a setting on the dial that would cause the burner to light. It was labelled "Lite".

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 05:34 PM

A young lad who had been given a ride in a helicopter announced eagerly, "It was a once in a life time opportunity. I'm ready to go up again!"

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 05:18 PM

A plenitude of parsimonious pedantry!

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: gnomad
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 05:05 PM

"There's now 300% less of X" Unless you mean that in place of one X, there are now minus two X, this is an incorrect way of viewing the percentage reduction. If I cannot trust your use of a percentage, why should I believe the statistic you are failing to express?

Don't get me going on "fewer/less".

Saulgoldie is quite right, this one could run on until even the MOAB thread is looking to her laurels.

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Noreen
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 04:46 PM

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 04:21 PM

Oops - my error...peal.

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 04:18 PM

Actually, if I recall Lord Peter correctly, an organized ringing of church bells IS called a "peel".

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 04:14 PM

I only ever use "decimate" to refer to the removal of one in ten.

"Regular" refers to something that recurs with fixed periodicity.

And "verbal" does not mean "oral".

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 03:33 PM

"One pence"! Lord George-Brown used to say it when presenting hus budget as Chancellor of the Exchequer. What happened to a penny?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Leadfingers
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 02:51 PM

Legendary when applied to a living Musician or singer !!

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 02:35 PM

At the Notting Hill Carnival one year the police were reported to have been 'bending over backwards to maintain a low profile' - it must have been really uncomfortable for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 02:13 PM

Oh- and 110 percent! A case of people giving more than they can.

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 02:13 PM

Ok, lets stop all alterations to grammar and definitions as of July 11, 2011 at 6:00 UTC

Decimate? Lets confine it to exactly one-tenth. Any variance is incorrect usage.

And we all know that December is the tenth month.