|
09 Jul 11 - 10:41 AM (#3184329) Subject: BS: Sloppy use of language From: EBarnacle I have been annoyed over the years by the choices that authors and their ignorant editors make. [Yes, I have earned money as an editor.] Clavell was exceptional in this. On the first page of Shogun, he has the mate telling the captain that their ship was going to "flounder." Others have committed this same error publicly. In Tai-Pan, he refers to one vessel as a sloop, gunboat, ship of the line and a flagship, which combination is clearly impossible. This all occurs within the space of two pages. Her captain is referred by several titles, clearly as a statement of contempt. I am sure there are many others. Here's your chance to chime in. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 11:24 AM (#3184358) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Lighter I don't know what Clavell had in mind, but it's cvertainly possible for a ship to "flounder," at least *through* waves if not *under* them. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 11:31 AM (#3184364) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: artbrooks My personal bete noire..."decimate", which literally means reduce by ten percent, used as a synonym for "devastate". |
|
09 Jul 11 - 11:33 AM (#3184369) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: autolycus Defoe did have Crusoe swim out to the wreck of his ship naked, climb aboard and put some biscuits he found in his pocket. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 11:36 AM (#3184372) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Ebbie Happens all the time. Sometimes it's a good giggle "on-sight manager", for instance, but in a book or a 'permanent' presentation it is an irritant. I have seen numerous ones but the only one I can think of at the moment is where I read that the Hereford bull bellowed, "his black hide glistening in the sun". Hereford cattle are red. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 11:53 AM (#3184390) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon I am often annoyed by the overuse of "incredible" as a term of praise. People have gotten so used to hyperbole that they seem to have forgotten that the word has a literal meaning as well. If you tell me an incredible story, I won't believe it. I will conclude that you are either lying, joking, or sadly deceived, and rather gullible to boot. If a movie is advertised as incredible, I would expect some sort of fantasy or at least a comedy, with deliberately unrealistic plot elements. If an allegedly non-fiction book were termed incredible, I probably wouldn't want to read it; I would expect it to be full of cockeyed conspiracy theories and the like. Most of the time, it is better to be credible. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 11:57 AM (#3184394) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon At least half the time that people say "literally," they mean the exact opposite. "This movie will literally knock your socks off!" I wonder what happens if you're not wearing socks? |
|
09 Jul 11 - 11:58 AM (#3184397) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Ebbie Oh, yes, the use of 'literal' to mean just the opposite. (Jim Dixon, of course, uses it correctly) Songs do it too. In The New Tennessee Waltz, the writer says they were "literally dancing on air." Unless they were being hanged, 'tisn't likely. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 11:59 AM (#3184398) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jack the Sailor "Oh My Cod! Captain! The sloop is beginning to flounder! Skipper, Ship's Master, Commander, Pilot, Watch Officer, what are we gonna do?" "Quit carping Mr. Cheney. The tide is ebbing higher, we will be ebullient in no time!" "Captain Bush! You are the best!" |
|
09 Jul 11 - 12:02 PM (#3184404) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon "Exceptional" If you say, "Most geniuses are somewhat eccentric, but Einstein was exceptional," I would take you to mean Einstein was not eccentric, that is, he was an exception to the rule. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 12:04 PM (#3184406) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jack the Sailor We were waltzing up on my air hockey table. So don't tell me that we were not able, To be literally dancing on air! One in ten grapes I ate Oh how I love to decimate! |
|
09 Jul 11 - 12:10 PM (#3184409) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jack the Sailor Jim, Its hard to say where the writer was going with that without full context, but I would take that to mean that Einstein was eccentric as compared to other geniuses. Kind of like, Most basketball players are tall, but Shaq, at 7'2", was exceptional. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 12:39 PM (#3184423) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Lighter In the US, "exceptional" children are now those with learning disabilities, who were formerly described by the now forbidden "R-word," which originally meant only that their learning was extraordinarily slow compared to that of others. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 12:49 PM (#3184431) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST, topsie Some writers now seem afraid of using the word "difficult", so that every difficulty has to be described as "challenging". While some difficulties can, of course, be regarded as a challenge, it would usually be more helpful and honest to admit that they are a challenge BECAUSE they are DIFFICULT. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 01:01 PM (#3184438) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: saulgoldie OK, then. Here we go! I'll add some of my own after I go for a bike ride on this splendid day. I'll give this thread 200, easy. And it'll go on for weeks, or more. Yeah, sloppy language. Too many folks either never learned in the first place, or learned but don't GAS. Or they are taking too many of their cues from whatever we call "the news" and other widely disseminated forms of communication. Ohboy! Saul |
|
09 Jul 11 - 01:06 PM (#3184441) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Richard Bridge May I register my objection to the unnecessary and invasive neologism "horrendous"? The person who coined it was a wit: the next person to say it, a half-wit; and so on. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 01:14 PM (#3184445) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST, topsie . . .. and 'humungous' |
|
09 Jul 11 - 01:20 PM (#3184447) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Noreen Glossy posters at a special event locally last weekend, advertised a peel of bells from St Stephen's church, and later on a display of Appellation dancing... |
|
09 Jul 11 - 01:33 PM (#3184457) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: DMcG Last night at our (UK) folk club the MC said that in honour of our US guest spot the wine for the raffle was Appalachian Controlleé which I thought quite witty |
|
09 Jul 11 - 02:13 PM (#3184483) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 02:13 PM (#3184484) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Ebbie Oh- and 110 percent! A case of people giving more than they can. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 02:35 PM (#3184493) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST, topsie 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. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 02:51 PM (#3184497) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Leadfingers Legendary when applied to a living Musician or singer !! |
|
09 Jul 11 - 03:33 PM (#3184509) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: MGM·Lion "One pence"! Lord George-Brown used to say it when presenting hus budget as Chancellor of the Exchequer. What happened to a penny? ~Michael~ |
|
09 Jul 11 - 04:14 PM (#3184529) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Richard Bridge 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". |
|
09 Jul 11 - 04:18 PM (#3184531) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: artbrooks Actually, if I recall Lord Peter correctly, an organized ringing of church bells IS called a "peel". |
|
09 Jul 11 - 04:21 PM (#3184533) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: artbrooks Oops - my error...peal. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 04:46 PM (#3184549) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Noreen :) |
|
09 Jul 11 - 05:05 PM (#3184556) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: gnomad "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. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 05:18 PM (#3184559) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jack the Sailor A plenitude of parsimonious pedantry! |
|
09 Jul 11 - 05:34 PM (#3184563) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST, topsie 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!" |
|
09 Jul 11 - 05:43 PM (#3184568) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: John P I used to have a gas stove with a setting on the dial that would cause the burner to light. It was labelled "Lite". |
|
09 Jul 11 - 05:46 PM (#3184569) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: John P Virtual. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 06:12 PM (#3184572) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST,BobL "Quantum leap" used to mean a major change - it is actually, by definition, the smallest change possible. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 06:32 PM (#3184582) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Gurney To quote Spike, "Always wear a contraceptive on every conceivable occasion!" |
|
09 Jul 11 - 07:43 PM (#3184613) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Lighter "Horrendous" was a neologism in the 17th century. But not since then. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 08:14 PM (#3184625) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST,skivee-eating cookies, but cookieless Sarah Palin proclaiming herself a maverick. Rather like someone proclaiming themselves to be a hero. Those who are don't proclaim themselves. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 08:32 PM (#3184631) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Q (Frank Staplin) And those who avoid publicity and don't proclaim themselves are forgotten. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 08:35 PM (#3184632) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Bobert 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;~) |
|
10 Jul 11 - 04:46 AM (#3184739) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: DMcG 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 |
|
10 Jul 11 - 06:41 AM (#3184764) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Q (Frank Staplin) We flounder- full speed ahead- |
|
10 Jul 11 - 11:08 AM (#3184850) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: saulgoldie 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 |
|
10 Jul 11 - 11:41 AM (#3184866) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Ebbie Saul, you were going great until you got here: "If someone has turret's syndrome..." lol |
|
10 Jul 11 - 12:34 PM (#3184888) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: John P 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". |
|
10 Jul 11 - 12:49 PM (#3184896) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Uncle_DaveO 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 |
|
10 Jul 11 - 01:29 PM (#3184921) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Dave MacKenzie Using flounder when you mean founder is of course a malapropism. |
|
10 Jul 11 - 01:53 PM (#3184935) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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.) |
|
10 Jul 11 - 02:12 PM (#3184948) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: bubblyrat 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 !! |
|
10 Jul 11 - 02:53 PM (#3184971) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: MGM·Lion The Flanders quote is surely more an anachronism than a semantic solecism? ~M~ |
|
10 Jul 11 - 05:21 PM (#3185053) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Chip2447 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... |
|
10 Jul 11 - 05:43 PM (#3185060) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Dave MacKenzie 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". |
|
10 Jul 11 - 05:56 PM (#3185085) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: melodeonboy 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"! |
|
10 Jul 11 - 07:39 PM (#3185121) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: MGM·Lion 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~ |
|
10 Jul 11 - 07:54 PM (#3185128) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Gurney 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. |
|
11 Jul 11 - 03:59 AM (#3185267) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Richard Bridge 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". |
|
11 Jul 11 - 05:33 AM (#3185296) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Michael And 'I could of done it'. Mike |
|
11 Jul 11 - 07:56 AM (#3185347) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: saulgoldie 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 |
|
11 Jul 11 - 07:59 AM (#3185351) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Lighter 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. |
|
11 Jul 11 - 08:12 AM (#3185359) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST, topsie 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'? |
|
11 Jul 11 - 01:09 PM (#3185522) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Michael To differentiate from those who are only part men? Mike |
|
11 Jul 11 - 01:46 PM (#3185552) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon 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). |
|
11 Jul 11 - 01:57 PM (#3185558) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon 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. |
|
11 Jul 11 - 02:23 PM (#3185569) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon 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. |
|
11 Jul 11 - 02:32 PM (#3185576) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon 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. |
|
11 Jul 11 - 03:12 PM (#3185598) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon 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. |
|
11 Jul 11 - 03:28 PM (#3185618) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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. |
|
11 Jul 11 - 03:40 PM (#3185625) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon 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. |
|
11 Jul 11 - 04:51 PM (#3185656) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jack the Sailor "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 |
|
11 Jul 11 - 04:53 PM (#3185659) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jack the Sailor 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? |
|
11 Jul 11 - 04:55 PM (#3185660) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Richard Bridge Another surfaced on the news tonight. "Try and". NONONONONONONONO "Try TO". It's a fricking infinitive! Bah. |
|
11 Jul 11 - 05:25 PM (#3185682) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon 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. |
|
11 Jul 11 - 05:36 PM (#3185687) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Q (Frank Staplin) -"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. |
|
11 Jul 11 - 05:58 PM (#3185700) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Gurney 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. |
|
11 Jul 11 - 10:06 PM (#3185796) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Richard Bridge Q - those are just bad grammar. The prevalence of ignorance does not make it wisdom. |
|
11 Jul 11 - 10:39 PM (#3185803) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Ebbie 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. |
|
12 Jul 11 - 12:38 AM (#3185837) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: MGM·Lion 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~ |
|
12 Jul 11 - 12:45 AM (#3185838) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Ebbie Maybe so, Michael, but the way they use it, it sounds complete to me. |
|
12 Jul 11 - 12:46 AM (#3185839) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Ebbie Oh, wait! How do you pronounce Wednesday? |
|
12 Jul 11 - 12:51 AM (#3185842) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: MGM·Lion Almost as 'Wensday' but with a slight, almost glottally stopped, 'd' implied before the 'n'... |
|
12 Jul 11 - 12:55 AM (#3185843) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: MGM·Lion 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~ |
|
12 Jul 11 - 02:33 AM (#3185855) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Ebbie "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. |
|
12 Jul 11 - 03:03 AM (#3185863) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST, topsie 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". |
|
12 Jul 11 - 06:19 AM (#3185946) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Michael "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 |
|
12 Jul 11 - 06:40 AM (#3185955) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: autolycus 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. |
|
12 Jul 11 - 12:23 PM (#3186140) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: DMcG 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? |
|
12 Jul 11 - 01:48 PM (#3186179) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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. |
|
12 Jul 11 - 04:00 PM (#3186245) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST,Anne Lister mysteriously sans cookie 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. |
|
12 Jul 11 - 04:14 PM (#3186254) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon 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). |
|
12 Jul 11 - 04:34 PM (#3186260) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon 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. |
|
12 Jul 11 - 04:51 PM (#3186268) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: DMcG 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. |
|
12 Jul 11 - 06:03 PM (#3186299) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: EBarnacle 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. |
|
12 Jul 11 - 09:12 PM (#3186375) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Q (Frank Staplin) "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. |
|
13 Jul 11 - 04:18 AM (#3186497) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: autolycus 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?" |
|
13 Jul 11 - 09:22 AM (#3186656) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: MGM·Lion 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~ |
|
13 Jul 11 - 12:48 PM (#3186798) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: EBarnacle Q, almost immediately after that, she foundered. The sentence you quote indicates their fear of foundering. |
|
13 Jul 11 - 01:10 PM (#3186814) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: The Sandman 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. |
|
13 Jul 11 - 01:16 PM (#3186818) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: The Sandman OR PREFERABLY SHOOK ITSELF. |
|
13 Jul 11 - 01:17 PM (#3186819) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST,Lighter "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. |
|
13 Jul 11 - 01:19 PM (#3186820) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST, topsie 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. |
|
13 Jul 11 - 01:37 PM (#3186836) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: gnu "Grateful." Such an odd word. Seems incorrectly spelled. Greatful would make more sense. |
|
13 Jul 11 - 01:42 PM (#3186841) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST, topsie Yes, I had to think twice about it, but it means 'full of gratitude' not 'full of greatness'. |
|
13 Jul 11 - 02:01 PM (#3186855) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Q (Frank Staplin) Ships are accorded the gender 'she' in all English-speaking regions. Gender for trucks is new to me, although some individuals apply human characteristics to their vehicles. James Clavell was the son of Commander Richard Clavell of the British Royal Navy. He followed in a military career, a Captain in the Royal Artillery until an injury forced retirement from the service. I believe his credentials with regard to writing about ships and the sea are impeccable. He, and his widow, sponsored the archives of the Royal Artillery Library, which now bears his name. A writer and producer in tha American film industry, he took American citizenship, but continued his interest in, and support of, the Royal Artillery. Incidentally, he produced "To Sir, with Love," and translated "The Art of War" from the Chinese. |
|
13 Jul 11 - 04:40 PM (#3186975) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Donuel Authors put their blood, sweat and tears into their work. A good editor is the heart that circulates that blood correctly, mops up the sweat and dries the tears sufficiently to make authors readable. This might not apply to one in a thousand authors but I think one in ten would totally fail without a good editor. |
|
13 Jul 11 - 06:07 PM (#3187042) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Amos As regards "try and...." it has taken on enough colloquial momentum to steamroller any faint protests on the grounds of correctness; it is still mostly incorrect, however. I can conceive of structuring a sentence using "try and" --such as Better to try, and fail, than never to try.--but not using "and" as the auxiliary to an infinitive. Where this is done the colloquialism seems to assume that the "to" is understood in the second infinitive, but it still clangs. A |
|
13 Jul 11 - 06:23 PM (#3187050) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST, topsie There is also "go and ..." as in "go and see what is happening", and there is "wait and ...", as in "wait and see what happens", and "stop and ...", as in "stop and tie a shoelace". You can probably think of others. Do these upset the people who get all hot under the collar about "try and ..."? |
|
14 Jul 11 - 03:45 AM (#3187216) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST, topsie Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (so well used that the cover, and date, are missing, but definitely late twentieth century, and very useful for providing American variations) under 'careen' has only one meaning: verb esp. AmE [=American English]: to go forward rapidly while making sudden movements from side to side. Nothing about boats at all. Q has posted a relevant message on the "threat to the English language" thread, quoting similar uses. |
|
14 Jul 11 - 08:11 AM (#3187373) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST,Ripov "go and see", "wait and see" - in each case both actions are performed. "Try and see" implies trying (or testing) and seeing, and is justified in "These are nice chocolates, try [one] and see [what you think]. In this case both actions are again performed. But compare - "Go and try and see" - do three things; "Go and try to see" - do one thing and attempt to do another; and then try to see which has the desired meaning. Personally I'm puzzled by the store which advertises its prices as "30% less". I want to know which of their competitors gives the full 100% reduction. |
|
14 Jul 11 - 11:32 AM (#3187499) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: EBarnacle His credentials may be impeccable but his usages are not. Now, I have to look up the exact page(s) of my citation about the reference to the same vessel and its commander in several different ways. |
|
14 Jul 11 - 02:42 PM (#3187615) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Q (Frank Staplin) Many ships are involved in Tai-pan. A flock of Clouds, competitors' ships, lorchas, etc. Sone merchant men were gunned, also depot ships, etc. |
|
14 Jul 11 - 02:54 PM (#3187622) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST,scorpio We seem to have two different categories here - misuse of a term, and not thinking about what you are saying. Good examples of the latter include the famous British football commentator - "If that had gone in the back of the net, it would have been a goal!", and a magistrate in Birmingham who sentenced a youth with the the words " It is obvious that you haven't learned anything from your last term in prison, so I am sending you back there again!" |
|
14 Jul 11 - 09:32 PM (#3187934) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Bob Bolton G'day GUEST Topsie, "Longman Dictionary of Contemporary* English (so well used that the cover, and date, are missing, but definitely late twentieth century, and very useful for providing American variations) under 'careen' has only one *meaning: verb esp. AmE [=American English]: to go forward rapidly while making sudden movements from side to side." My (work) desk dictionary: Oxford Concise Australian Dictionary, Third edition, (1997) also gives the established (i.e. - not merely contemporary) "Turn (a ship) on one side for cleaning, caulking, or repair ...", which goes all the way back to the Latina root carina, keel. I will have to check, at home with the full Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles to see how far back the correct usage goes, before the American confusion with "career, noted elsewhere in the entry ... but the example Q quoted is correct usage ... even for an American! Regard(les)s, Bob |
|
14 Jul 11 - 11:19 PM (#3187973) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: EBarnacle Careen is still contemporary usage for those of us who are unwilling to pay for a haul when a job can be done between tides. It requires good ground tackle and a willingness to work with the demands of Mother Nature. I've done it and recommend it to those boat owners who feel competent to take care of things in isolated areas. |
|
15 Jul 11 - 01:14 AM (#3188014) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: MGM·Lion Just to cross-ref ~~ I started the 'careen' discussion on the "TransAtlantic differences" thread, but someone seems to have transferred it to this one: not sure why. So, for those interested, more on this topic over there. ~M~ |
|
15 Jul 11 - 11:53 AM (#3188293) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST,Shimrod The term that I despise is: 'Centre of Excellence'. My old employer once took an ordinary office, painted the walls, installed a white board and then began to refer to it as 'The Centre of Excellence'. We held the same sort of meetings in the re-furbished office as we had in the shabby, old office! |
|
19 Jul 11 - 08:17 AM (#3190581) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST, topsie BBC Radio 4 news a few minutes ago, reporting on the deaths from insulin poisoning at a hospital in Stockport, said that a spokesman had described the deaths as 'criminal acts with malicious intent'. Presumably the deaths were the RESULT of criminal acts, it isn't yet a crime to die. |
|
19 Jul 11 - 10:45 AM (#3190664) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST,Stringsinger You say "flounder" and I say "founder". Let's call the whole thing off. Is there a whale of a difference? |
|
19 Jul 11 - 01:58 PM (#3190807) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Michael No but there Is a thyme and plaice. Mike |
|
19 Jul 11 - 02:33 PM (#3190836) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Q (Frank Staplin) Yes, a right whale of a difference between flounder (move erratically) and founder (sink to the bottom). Flounder also a type of fish. Other meanings of founder- the person(s) responsible for starting some enterprise; one that founds metal (a 'typesetter'); to disable an animal (usually by over-feeding. Any more? I haven't looked in the OED. |
|
20 Jul 11 - 05:07 AM (#3191221) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Barb'ry 'At this moment in time' annoys me - why not just say 'now' or even 'at this moment'? |
|
20 Jul 11 - 06:17 AM (#3191261) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST, topsie As well as 'at this moment in time' I get annoyed by 'time period' - usually either 'time' or 'period' would be much better and clearer. Why clutter language up with pointless extra noise? |
|
20 Jul 11 - 07:23 AM (#3191282) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Michael Topsie's post reminds me of another; the use of the word 'period' at the end of a statement meaning 'I'm not accepting argument'as in: "You can't come with me, period." Mike |
|
20 Jul 11 - 08:03 AM (#3191316) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Nigel Parsons "You can't come with me, period." Which has a completely different meaning if said by a girl you've tried to pick-up at a disco! |
|
20 Jul 11 - 02:17 PM (#3191506) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: saulgoldie This reminds me of a bit I recently saw, but I can't remember where. It was a piece that "made sense." But it was spell-checked, but not grammar-checked. So the words were correctly spelled, and if you transposed the words with homonyms, it made sense. But by the *actual meanings* of the words, the piece made no sense. Anyone seen something like this? Saul |
|
20 Jul 11 - 04:01 PM (#3191573) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST, topsie Saul, that reminds me of a book of nursery rhymes I once saw, but sadly I haven't a copy. They are written in what looks like French but the result sounds like English with a French accent. All I can remember is the start of "Un petit d'un petit ..." [=Humpty Dumpty] |
|
20 Jul 11 - 04:25 PM (#3191594) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST, topsie I did a bit of Googling and I found it - it's called "Mots d'Heures: Gousses Rames". |
|
20 Jul 11 - 04:39 PM (#3191605) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST,Lighter Let's give credit where it's due: to the eccentric genius of the creator of "Mot d'Heures: Gousses Rames," U.S. architect and actor Luis van Rooten (1906-1973). |
|
20 Jul 11 - 08:02 PM (#3191716) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Nigel Parsons Saul, that reminds me of a book of nursery rhymes I once saw, but sadly I haven't a copy. They are written in what looks like French but the result sounds like English with a French accent. All I can remember is the start of "Un petit d'un petit ..." [=Humpty Dumpty] From: GUEST, topsie - PM Date: 20 Jul 11 - 04:25 PM I did a bit of Googling and I found it - it's called "Mots d'Heures: Gousses Rames". The title, of course, is an English/French homonym of Mother Goose's Rhymes |
|
20 Jul 11 - 08:08 PM (#3191717) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Nigel Parsons Talking of sloppy use of language, In that last comment, for homonym, read homophone! Cheers |
|
21 Jul 11 - 05:03 AM (#3191860) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST, topsie Nigel, having explained how it worked (as in Humpty Dumpty) in the earlier post, I deliberately left the later post untranslated so that people could have the pleasure of working it out for themselves - you obviously enjoyed it. |
|
21 Jul 11 - 08:34 AM (#3191931) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST,Patsy I was brought up to believe that ships and boats were referred to as 'she' and later computers were referred to as 'he' because they are so troublesome. Just joking of course! |
|
21 Jul 11 - 09:24 AM (#3191951) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: saulgoldie I think this is the thing I was talking about when I mentioned spell-checker: I have a spelling chequer, It came with my pea sea, It plainly marks four my revue, Miss steaks eye kin knot sea. Eye strike a key an type a word, And weight four it two say, Weather eye am wrong oar write, It shows me strait a weigh. As soon as a mist ache is maid, It nose bee fore to long, And eye can put the error rite, Its rare lea ever wrong. Eye have run this poem threw it, I am shore your pleased two no, Its letter perfect awl the weigh, My chequer tolled me sew. For the record, my spell-checker and grammar-checker both live behind my eyes, below my hat. Saul |
|
21 Jul 11 - 11:35 AM (#3192029) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: EBarnacle Nicely done, Saul. |
|
21 Jul 11 - 11:57 AM (#3192041) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Amos Careen has two distinct and separate meanings, the lesser known of which is to place a vessel in shallows so that the outgoing tides will leave it propped up (if done right) on the bottom, for maintenance or repair. Sometimes the vessel is just allowed to lie on one or the other side. This is in stark contrast to the more commonly known meaning of tearing ahead wallowing, as in "The out of control minibus careened through the crowded market...". A |
|
21 Jul 11 - 12:20 PM (#3192054) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST Amos ~ careen~ Yes, but the latter usage is solely US ~~ our equivalent is career. ~M~ |
|
21 Jul 11 - 04:29 PM (#3192186) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: MGM·Lion That was me ~~ new computer, my cookie needed resetting. Normal bizniz resumed... ~Michael~ |
|
21 Jul 11 - 04:50 PM (#3192203) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Q (Frank Staplin) If guest looks in his complete OED, he will find that US careen = Eng. career ain't quite correct- That equivalency also started with an English writer (as posted before, I think in this thread). |
|
21 Jul 11 - 05:44 PM (#3192229) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST, topsie Another sloppiness that has been annoying me lately is the people wh MEAN to say 'as many people as possible' 'as much money as possible', etc. etc. but who don't bother to say the 'as possible' part. |
|
21 Jul 11 - 06:24 PM (#3192249) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: The Sandman do ships copulate, of course they dont, so lets stop this; she for ships: and he for trucks, otherwise we will be getting ships and trucks mating and pricks getting muddled up with shuts, or prucks getting mixed up with shits, a pruck is term used in ulster to describe items that look nice but are useless. |
|
21 Jul 11 - 08:03 PM (#3192303) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST,EBarnacle Ships and other waterborne vessels are she 'cause it costs so much to keep 'em in powder and paint. That's what I was told by an old sailor I knew many years ago and it makes as much sense as any other explanation. |
|
21 Jul 11 - 09:22 PM (#3192340) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Q (Frank Staplin) And scrapin' the barnacles. (I couldn't resist-) |
|
21 Jul 11 - 11:38 PM (#3192408) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: EBarnacle That shot was below the waterline. |
|
22 Jul 11 - 04:41 AM (#3192481) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Nigel Parsons I thought boats were 'She' because they like to tie up to a buoy! Please note, this comment doesn't work with the US pronunciation of 'booee'! |
|
22 Jul 11 - 10:29 AM (#3192690) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST,Lighter It does with mine. |
|
22 Jul 11 - 11:45 AM (#3192740) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Dave MacKenzie Is this because some Americans pronounce bouy as if it were the Gaelic for yellow? |
|
22 Jul 11 - 12:48 PM (#3192800) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Amos Careening the Issuma at the mouth of the Saint Lawrence. From an online dictionary: ca·reen (k-rn) v. ca·reened, ca·reen·ing, ca·reens v.intr. 1. To lurch or swerve while in motion. 2. To rush headlong or carelessly; career: "He careened through foreign territories on a desperate kind of blitz" (Anne Tyler). 3. Nautical a. To lean to one side, as a ship sailing in the wind. b. To turn a ship on its side for cleaning, caulking, or repairing. v.tr. Nautical 1. To cause (a ship) to lean to one side; tilt. 2. a. To lean (a ship) on one side for cleaning, caulking, or repairing. b. To clean, caulk, or repair (a ship in this position). n. Nautical 1. The act or process of careening a ship. 2. The position of a careened ship. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [From French (en) carène, (on) the keel, from Old French carene, from Old Italian carena, from Latin carna; see kar- in Indo-European roots.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ca·reener n. Usage Note: The implication of rapidity that most often accompanies the use of careen as a verb of motion may have arisen naturally through the extension of the nautical sense of the verb to apply to the motion of automobiles, which generally careen, that is, lurch or tip over, only when driven at high speed. There is thus no reason to conclude that this use of the verb is the result of a confusion of careen with career, "to rush." Whatever the origin of this use, however, it is by now so well established that it would be pedantic to object to it. |
|
22 Jul 11 - 12:55 PM (#3192807) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Amos Ships are called "she" because they are strangely attracted to storms, and often hang out with the gulls. |
|
22 Jul 11 - 02:12 PM (#3192872) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Q (Frank Staplin) Ships belay! Steer away, Amos approaching, level 5. Amos, the variations in the meaning of careen in that online dictionary pretty much are those in the Oxford English Dictionary. Words can't be put in a straight-jacket. |
|
22 Jul 11 - 05:45 PM (#3193047) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST, topsie ... or even in a straitjacket |
|
22 Jul 11 - 06:15 PM (#3193076) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST My face is red,green and polka-dot, topsie. I lost my cookie on that one. Q |
|
22 Jul 11 - 08:54 PM (#3193163) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Nigel Parsons As I said in the other thread: Drop apostrophes? The religious cant! Another use of 'can't' or 'cant' cant ar hanner For the non-Welsh, that's a count on the postings at 150, or 100 (cant) + 1/2 a hundred (hanner) Hwyl fawr |
|
23 Jul 11 - 03:13 PM (#3193723) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Dave MacKenzie But you'll never hear the British say 'cant mil croeso' (except in songs transalated from the Irish). |
|
23 Jul 11 - 05:25 PM (#3193808) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: HuwG An old wartime book my father possessed discussing enemy (i.e. German, Italian and Japanese) aircraft, mentioned an Italian aircraft, the Cant 1007. The airframe was nothing particularly special, but its engines never attained the designed power and the aircraft was very underpowered. The writer suggested that "it would not be facetious to insert an apostrophe between the 'n' and the 't'." |
|
23 Jul 11 - 08:01 PM (#3193932) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: saulgoldie A panda walks into a café. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and proceeds to fire it at the other patrons. 'Why?' asks the confused, surviving waiter amidst the carnage, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder. 'Well, I'm a panda,' he says, at the door. 'Look it up.' The waiter turns to the relevant entry in the manual and, sure enough, finds an explanation. 'Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots, and leaves.' Buh-dum-bunh! Commas and apostrophes: use knowledgeably or not at all! Oh, and SAVE THE SEMICOLON; it is very handy when well-used. Saul |
|
23 Jul 11 - 08:12 PM (#3193939) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Uncle_DaveO Our media now says something is "headed up" by someone instead of just "headed." Why? The word "up" is one of the most widely--and confusingly--used words in English. For instance: Start up vs. End up or vs. Finish up Speed up vs. Slow up (which is the same as "slow down") Hurry up vs. Wait up or vs. slow up Make up vs. Break up Write up is often the same as "write down". Load up is really just "load". Wash up is just "wash" And so on and on and on. Dave Oesterreich |
|
24 Jul 11 - 12:50 AM (#3194058) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: MGM·Lion "Wash up" in UK = US "Do the dishes"; if we wash ourselves, we just 'wash' tout court. A 1950s UK Davy Crockett children's parody, for those old enough to recall that particular nine-days obsession, went "The Yellow Rose of Texas and the Man From Laramie - Went round to Davy Crockett to have a cup of tea. - The tea was so delicious they had another cup - And poor old Davy Crockett had to do the washing-up" [to tune, obviously, of Yellow Rose]. Unconvincing, the nephew, then about 5, that I learnt it from pointed out, because a second cup is generally poured in the same cup as the first so no additional washing-up would have been necessary! Note, in connection of 'up, that 'it is up to you' [= 'it is your responsibility to do it'] has of late become confused with the more recent, I think of US origin, 'it is down to you' [= 'you are the person who caused it to happen'] ~~ a fine shade of distinction which it is a pity to lose, I think. ~M~ |
|
24 Jul 11 - 01:54 AM (#3194065) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: MGM·Lion A misleading cliché which has always annoyed me, as it raises a false mental image, is the frequent piece of journalese stating that an offender "faces a flogging". The victim doesn't face a flogging, does he? Rather, he turns his back to it! ~M~ |
|
24 Jul 11 - 04:25 AM (#3194098) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Dave MacKenzie I'll take your word for it - before my time. LOL |
|
24 Jul 11 - 04:51 AM (#3194107) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: MGM·Lion LoL right back to you, Dave. But you'll still find it in reports of people accused of booze-running in Saudi, for instance... ~M~ |
|
24 Jul 11 - 02:51 PM (#3194396) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Q (Frank Staplin) From 'faces punishment', common and accepted, to 'faces a flogging' is a short step, and few would argue the phrase or bother to think that the flogee (hmmm, new word?) has to turn his back to receive the lash. |
|
24 Jul 11 - 02:58 PM (#3194402) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: EBarnacle Upcoming event... |
|
24 Jul 11 - 03:15 PM (#3194417) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST, topsie Another phrase beloved of journalists, and one I think simply lazy, is "set to" as in "the weather is set to get warmer", "inflation is set to increase" - and possibly "the offender is set to receive a flogging". |
|
24 Jul 11 - 03:47 PM (#3194434) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Q (Frank Staplin) Reminds me of the old sailor's hope about the weather- "Set fair." |
|
24 Jul 11 - 07:01 PM (#3194574) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Steve Shaw The word "up" is one of the most widely--and confusingly--used words in English. For instance: Start up vs. End up or vs. Finish up Speed up vs. Slow up (which is the same as "slow down") Hurry up vs. Wait up or vs. slow up Make up vs. Break up Write up is often the same as "write down". Load up is really just "load". Wash up is just "wash" Ah, yes. And much in vogue these days, especially with that breed of PE teachers who did PE at college because they weren't really clever enough to do much else, is the call to pupils "OK, listen up, guys!" Never mind that the "up" is irritatingly superfluous and illiterate - the "guys" nearly always comprise boys and girls. Ugh! |
|
24 Jul 11 - 07:03 PM (#3194577) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Steve Shaw My passionate ire led to inappropriate italicisation there, dammit. |
|
25 Jul 11 - 06:09 PM (#3195307) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: GUEST In many international sports these days I hear the term 'Team GB', when surely any team that includes N. Ireland athletes should be 'Team UK', as in 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. |
|
25 Jul 11 - 06:34 PM (#3195328) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Smedley As a Spanish friend of mine, exasperated by the oddities of English, once lamented: "How can anyone be expected to learn a language where you have to chop down a tree before you can chop it up?". |
|
25 Jul 11 - 08:56 PM (#3195392) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Q (Frank Staplin) Heard when I was visiting at a friend's ranch some years ago. "Belly up to the table, boys, eat up before we saddle up." The Oxford English Dictionary has more than ten pages devoted to 'up', including quotes Mr. Shaw would consider illiterate and superfluous. Often 'up' is added to add emphasis, and I for one, can't get het up over it. |
|
26 Jul 11 - 03:45 PM (#3196052) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Michael I've just seen a notice on a door; "Closed this week as floor is being relayed". Didn't say where to. Mike |
|
26 Jul 11 - 04:16 PM (#3196091) Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language From: Jim Dixon If your house burns down, the contents will burn up. |