BS: Language Pet Peeves part II

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 23 - 04:54 PM

I must say, I like "euphemism," which I will now use when in polite company. Except that none of my company is ever really polite...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 17 Dec 23 - 04:39 PM

I once heard a rumour (refutation requested) that every word for the Smallest Room, and the actions taken therein, is a euphamism, right back to "bog", which was alleged to be of Roman origin; the source wasn't clear whether that included medical terms.* Calling said room or its porcelain furniture "the Euphemism" sounds about right, which makes it a meta-euphemism.

* "Taking the mickey" has an especially long and interesting etymology.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Dec 23 - 12:11 PM

LOL! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: gillymor
Date: 17 Dec 23 - 11:32 AM

We're very informal about it around here, we just call "the euphemism".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Dec 23 - 10:30 AM

‘Murrican prudishness?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 23 - 10:07 AM

Bog, dunny, lavvy, shithouse, man about a dog, checking the plumbing, off to drain the spuds, drain the snake, off to shake hands with the unemployed/wife's best friend, take the temperature of the porcelain, spend a penny, khazi, John, throne, crapper, jakes, loo (yuk), even gents or ladies....so many rude or not-so-rude alternatives to choose from. So, yanks, what's with "rest-room" or "bathroom"? You don't go there for a rest and there's no bath! Explain yourselves! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 23 - 03:49 AM

Then there's speciality and specialty...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Thompson
Date: 15 Dec 23 - 03:16 AM

The difference between 'specially' and 'especially' seems to have disappeared.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: meself
Date: 14 Dec 23 - 08:15 PM

Probably wasn't the clearest example, but it was the one I had heard most recently. A simpler example would be something like, "Police are blaming icy roads on the car accidents."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 23 - 06:44 PM

"Increased deaths"? Hmm...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Dec 23 - 03:38 PM

IMHO, of course! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Dec 23 - 03:05 PM

In meself’s example - “Failed health policies are being blamed on increased deaths from drug overdose." - yes, it is a misuseage. Should be “Failed health policies are being blamed for increased deaths from drug overdose”.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Thompson
Date: 14 Dec 23 - 01:58 PM

Is "blamed on" a misusage? Surely it's just a reversal of meaning. Bad singers are blamed for bad singing; bad singing is blamed on bad singers?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Dec 23 - 12:11 PM

Fewer than 10 dollars mwans fewer than 10 individual, counted dollars. Total agreement.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Thompson
Date: 12 Dec 23 - 12:56 PM

Delay - what many's the girl wished too late she could do.

They're still at it: using "on behalf of" where they mean "on the part of". Must see dentist. Teeth ground down to pathetic nubs.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: meself
Date: 12 Dec 23 - 12:48 PM

Here's one I've been noticing for the past year or so: "blame on" meaning "blame for". Yesterday I heard on the radio, "Failed health policies are being blamed on increased deaths from drug overdose." Been hearing that misusage a lot lately.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 23 - 06:09 PM

So, you think that these are all wrong, do you? I'm afraid that I shall have to beg to differ:


Rebecca has less than twenty dollars left in her checking account.

Ethan has been at his job for less than five years.

Baby pandas weigh less than 200 grams at birth.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Dec 23 - 11:01 AM

Less is for mass nouns, like grass, that don't take "a" in the singular, and have no plural. There is some grass, there is less grass. Less butter. Fewer pats of butter. Fewer blades of grass.

Fewer grassES grow in this region. Now it is a count noun. As in, barley is a grass.


Fewer is for count nouns, like dog, that can take "a" in the singular, and have a plural. There is a dog, there are some dogs, there are fewer dogs.

Both use More. More dogs, more grass. Fewer people. And so on.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 11 Dec 23 - 06:07 AM

the warming climate will make conditions "increasingly ideal" for disease-carrying insects to establish themselves ...... I was wondering whether you can have even more ideal than ideal

There could be, perhaps, the ideal temperature but the less than ideal humidity. A warming climate could be bringing more factors into alignment.

Or, possibly, the ideal conditions, which have previously only existed for a short period each year, could be occurring earlier and lasting longer.

Just my thoughts as a point for discussion.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 23 - 05:35 AM

I heard on the radio this morning that the warming climate will make conditions "increasingly ideal" for disease-carrying insects to establish themselves in the UK. I was wondering whether you can have even more ideal than ideal, then I remembered that we often say "less than ideal", which I think is OK. If the top of the mountain equals "the ideal" for the climber, you can come down from it but (unless you can fly) you can't go higher than it. I think the newsreader might have been better off saying "increasingly suitable" or something like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 23 - 05:24 AM

Hmm. Less vs fewer is not a simple matter. I'd say we should be inclined to excuse alleged misuse in the spoken word but be a bit stricter with the written word.

The trouble with "less" and "fewer" is that they are both the opposites of "more." Two words on one side of the fence but only one on the other. I've plucked some examples of the use of "less" and "fewer" from the Grammarly website Here goes:

Rebecca has less than twenty dollars left in her checking account.

Rebecca has fewer than twenty dollars left.

Ethan has been at his job for less than five years.

I wish I could spend fewer hours on household chores and more on watching television.

Baby pandas weigh less than 200 grams at birth.

Fewer than eight percent of the world’s people have blue eyes.

I see you have eaten less than ten percent of your mashed potatoes.

On the face of it, it looks like a bit of rule-breaking is going on there in places - but Grammarly adjudges every one of those examples to be correct. Sometimes, either word may be permissible. English is a wonderfully zany language, more or less...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Dec 23 - 04:16 PM

"Less" for "fewer" is indeed hopeless and rightly so.

"Less" has been so used since the 14th century. That it must not be used that way is a superstition promulgated in the 18th.

Stylist John Lyly, 1587:

"I thinke there are fewe Vniuersities that haue lesse faults then Oxford."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: meself
Date: 09 Dec 23 - 02:58 PM

This isn't really a pet peeve; more of a curiosity, I suppose. I heard someone on TV, commenting on an up-coming election, say, "There will be no surprises." I don't think this quite qualifies as an 'oxymoron', but it does seem in a way self-contradictory, given that a 'surprise' is, well, a 'surprise'; it would be the equivalent of saying, "Nothing unexpected will happen". Perhaps someone who has studied logic can apply a neat Latin or Greek term here ....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Dec 23 - 03:49 PM

Just the other day I heard, for about the 4th time, some 'expert' in a TV program about BBQ contests say "with some 'au jus' ".

And just now I read an article misusing "Less" for "Fewer".

It's hopeless, but some of us still fight...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 23 - 06:23 AM

Context is everything. When someone uses literally in its literal sense you can tell straight away. It's literally a piece of cake.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: BobL
Date: 04 Dec 23 - 03:49 AM

If people use literally to mean figuratively, what do they use when they want to mean literally?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 23 - 01:35 PM

Only if you think it's wrong. It's used by so many people that's it's regarded by many (including me!) as wrong no longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Dec 23 - 01:18 PM

Using literally to mean figuratively is still wrong, despite it being common usage and in the dictionary.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 23 - 08:14 AM

Prior to this moment in time, I could care less either, albeit controversial, and I said so on a daily basis, but could you give me an alternate form of words going forward?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Nov 23 - 07:44 AM

I could care less…

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 23 - 07:42 AM

It's not an error if it becomes widely adopted. In the UK "I could care less" isn't used, but if it's common currency in the US it's unfair to call it an error. Personally, I can't get my head round how it's supposed to make sense but I still hesitate to call it an error. I've been castigated by several here for criticising the nonsensical "albeit" (all be it? Although be it? Although it be?), which equally doesn't make sense, but it's widely used, especially by those of pretentious inclination, and there's no way I can call it an error.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Nov 23 - 06:44 AM

”The increasing use of "purposefully" in place of "purposely", a completely different word.”

Amen on that, Thompson. Drives me nuts! I might be doing American friends a disservice, and apologies if that’s the case, but I have the strong impression that it started over there, another ‘I could care less’ kind of error?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Thompson
Date: 29 Nov 23 - 05:05 AM

The increasing use of "purposefully" in place of "purposely", a completely different word.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 23 - 05:23 PM

I thought it was me. There's all sorts missing.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Nov 23 - 11:29 AM

Um, I didn't start this thread... what is missing?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: BrooklynJay
Date: 11 Nov 23 - 03:57 PM

Sometimes debark is worse than debite.

Here in the States I've not heard debar, but disbar, which helps when differentiating it from datbar.

I'll go my room now...


Jay

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: G-Force
Date: 08 Nov 23 - 03:56 AM

A recent post on the joke thread had 'laying' instead of 'lying'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Neil D
Date: 12 Nov 23 - 09:37 AM

A pet peeve of mine is the deliberate misspelling of words. When I used to deliver meat in Cleveland the 2 largest grocery chains were Bi-Rite and Sav-Mor. I hated the idea of a generation of kids forever misspelling those 4 words.
In company I worked for the head of IT was super smart about computers. He'd been programming since childhood. But when he broadcast an Email about a meeting and I pointed out that in the phrase "goto the breakroom". go and to should be separate words, he didn't even believe me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 23 - 05:56 PM

Despot: to dab on stain remover

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 23 - 05:55 PM

Traduisez en englais, s'il vous plonk.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 23 - 05:07 AM

Beat you to that one, Thompson! :-)

Deterred - to flush the lavvy

Depict - ancient attempt at ethnic cleansing in Scotland

Dead - to use an adblocker

Dearest - to let your prisoner go, then find your spellchecker

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 23 - 04:53 PM

I thought debar was deplace where you ordered debeer...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 23 - 04:26 PM

Delay, Doug? I thought that meant "to get off 'er..."

I've only got the one coat...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 23 - 12:51 PM

All right then:

Debrief (v.i.) to remove your knickers

(v.t.) to remove someone else's knickers

I'll get me coat (it's long enough to cover me up...)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 23 - 04:56 AM

Debrief: to...oh, never mind...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 23 - 05:00 PM

Decry: to stop blubbering

Deglaze: to remove all your windows

Delight: to turn off the lights when you go to bed

Denude: to get dressed

Deliver: to chuck out the offal

Deride: to get off your horse

Declare: to dump your girlfriend

Desire: to decide not to impregnate your girlfriend

Describe: to not write it down

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 23 - 01:02 PM

Different to, different from, different than. I can stomach the first, I'm happy with the second but I find the third to be just an ugly Americanism. I do like SOME Americanisms...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 23 - 04:15 AM

Ah, that was me, G-Force. That joke was a straight copy 'n' paste from Quora and I neglected to do an edit. Mea culpa. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 23 - 12:11 PM

I could read it but not post to it.

Subject: BS: Language pet peeves Mk II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 23 - 11:02 AM

As Mk 1 seems to have disappeared into the error of its ways I thought I'd resurrect it, in the hope that this'll be a temporary measure only. Anyway:

A couple of recently-spotted doublings-up:

"I married my husband last Thursday!" (You've married him twice...?)

Headline on our local news website: "Missing woman disappears in the night" ....Huh?