|
24 Nov 02 - 06:13 PM (#834093) Subject: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: Bill D very nice site!....lots of lists and plain discussion. He does give links to sites on UK usage also...I learned that inquire and enquire are both acceptable in the US, while enquire is 'preferred' in England. http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/ |
|
24 Nov 02 - 08:07 PM (#834160) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: GUEST,Q Possibly useful but sometimes slow to respond. I can use my Webster's and OED more rapidly. Some of the errors listed made me smile. After several years of looking at folk lyrics, "ahold" becomes ingrained and I have to correct myself. Others such as "volumptous" don't exist, but on second thought, should! (think of applying the word to a 200 pound "Venus"). I always disliked "enthuse," (so does the compiler of this website) but Webster's Collegiate defines it without comment, and even gives alternate pronunciations and definitions. One example given is from Julian Huxley, a famous English biologist. The OED called it an ignorant back formation, but it is a losing battle (and has been since at least 1827). In their 1987 supplement, they instruct the reader to "For U. S., substitute orig. U. S.," which means the word is now common in the British Isles. I don't have the latest OED edition, but I am almost willing to bet that they have withdrawn the adjective "ignorant." Blathering on, but words interest me. |
|
24 Nov 02 - 08:29 PM (#834175) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: Haruo I thought it was (or rather, wasn't) volumptuous... Haruo |
|
24 Nov 02 - 08:44 PM (#834179) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: GUEST,Q Strictly non-u myself. |
|
24 Nov 02 - 09:25 PM (#834204) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: Mr Red what about obstropholous? I should check to see if the weight of mis-use has leveraged (non U) (aka obstreperous). Last time I looked psychedelic was not in and hasn't been since the early 70's. |
|
24 Nov 02 - 09:30 PM (#834209) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: Mr Happy someone told me that 'gullible' had been removed from the dictionary. didn't know what to think. |
|
24 Nov 02 - 09:55 PM (#834215) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: GUEST,Q Mr Red, not sure I understood. Psychedelic is in my 1996 Webster's Collegiate. Obstreperous also is there as it should be; it is an old word as least as old as 1600, and fairly common in usage. Never heard of obstro---. Mr Happy. Gullible- dating at least back to 1800, is in Webster's. Commonly used words are NOT removed. It is a word heard every day. Some words are removed from smaller dictionaries. I have an old Webster's Collegiate, from the 1940s. In it are a number of Scottish words that are absent in the newer Webster's. They have been removed to keep the size down. They would not be removed from a comprehensive dictionary (the OED). The OED just keeps getting larger. |
|
25 Nov 02 - 12:32 AM (#834270) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: Ebbie In another thread I wrote that a songwriter I know wrote of the 'tempetuous' sea. I kind of like it- it could be a cross between a tempest and impetuousity. And we do ascribe moods to the ocean, don't we? |
|
25 Nov 02 - 07:24 AM (#834416) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: Nigel Parsons Guest Q: Mr Happy is being funny (or trying) in repeating the assertation that "Gullible has been removed from the dictionary". The gullible will often check the assertation! You've been had. Nigel |
|
25 Nov 02 - 07:32 AM (#834421) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: Pied Piper Mr Happy may I offer you my most sincere contrafabulations. PP |
|
25 Nov 02 - 08:18 AM (#834441) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: Mr Happy nig- u snitch!- you've gone & spoiled it now! 8-} |
|
25 Nov 02 - 09:00 AM (#834482) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: Nigel Parsons Mr H:at least you seem to have missed my comment in brackets, a deliberate double meaning! Nigel |
|
25 Nov 02 - 09:15 AM (#834494) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: Mr Happy oh no!- i'm always really trying! 8-) |
|
25 Nov 02 - 10:12 AM (#834544) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: Bill D at least all this blather is keeping the thread refreshed so that someone might get some good of it...*grin* |
|
25 Nov 02 - 10:34 AM (#834555) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: TIA Be very careful not to confuse nauseous with nauseated. If you tell someone you are nauseous, it's quite an auto-insult. |
|
25 Nov 02 - 11:08 AM (#834576) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: Amos I thought an auto insult was a fancy legal term for a fender-bender. Where do you UK blokes get your blather from, anyway? I can't say much for the quality but I impressed by the extraordinary high volume and low rates! You aren't importing it from Iraq, are you? That woudl explain a lot... A |
|
25 Nov 02 - 11:14 AM (#834580) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: Mark Clark Thanks, Bill. I can see I'm going to have some fun with that site. I don't pretend to be free from stupid errors in my own grammer but at least I do make an effort. I used to laugh (sometimes out loud) when a pompous mananager would tell participants in a meeting that we needed to consense on an issue, meaning of course that he wanted us to reach a consensus. I'm often surprised at the length to which people will go in an attempt to seem more educated than they actually are. One of my pet peeves is the modern habit of adding ize to a noun to create a transitive verb. A simple example of this is to say utilize when the simpler use is intended. Often, though, the pretentious usage results in a word that doesn't really exist in accepted English usage. Don't get me started. And don't go back over my old posts either. <g> - Mark |
|
25 Nov 02 - 01:17 PM (#834713) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: GUEST,Q Mark, I would use a toilet, but I would utilize a toilet in constructing a found object sculpture. Doesn't that make sense? No? Not sure it does either. The ize seems to have been promulgated largely (excess baggage word) through government reports in Britain and the US. The kind that occupy space in government vaults and, if shredded, would never be missed. Nigel, after reading Mudcat over the past two years, I take all posts literally. |
|
25 Nov 02 - 06:23 PM (#834881) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: katlaughing Great site, Bill. Thanks! |
|
25 Nov 02 - 06:28 PM (#834889) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: Bill D yer quite welcome...fun, and reasonably eddycashional |
|
25 Nov 02 - 06:28 PM (#834891) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: greg stephens Heard "narrativisation" on the radio today, a guy discussed improving reality TV by giving it a bit of a story line. |
|
25 Nov 02 - 07:54 PM (#834960) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: GUEST,Q My girl has narrativeize. They tell a story. ("ize" of all kinds is the current subject of the comic strip, Funky."). |
|
25 Nov 02 - 09:00 PM (#834999) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: Little Hawk Mark - You just have to prioritize, that's all. It's not necessary to conflicterize with people over utilization of longer than necessary words. The sheer joy of realizing how superior one's own command of prioritized language is over most other people's should be enough to ameliorize the negative feelings that their disorientativated lack of prioritization might cause...irregardless. - LH |
|
25 Nov 02 - 09:06 PM (#835006) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: Mr Red Mr Happy didn't they remove redundant at the same time? or was it surplus? Q (is that Q for quizzical?) some people use the word obstropholous when they mean obstriper er obstrepar er.... cantankerous but yes psychedelic (et al) is there in the SOEDCDROM but not in my paper concise OED. |
|
25 Nov 02 - 10:01 PM (#835060) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: GUEST soedcrrom? Sounds like my chain saw when I cut the power. Onomatopaeic? Cantankerous is one of those new words (18th c. vs. 17c. or earlier for obstreperous). obstropholous- do you mean omphaloskeptic contemplation? |
|
25 Nov 02 - 10:29 PM (#835087) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: kendall Not to put TOO fine a point on it, but,TO make a point, there are at least TWO people here who either don't know the difference among these three forms of the word, or, they don't care. It's not really important, but, I find it hard to read when the wrong form is used. |
|
26 Nov 02 - 06:08 AM (#835191) Subject: RE: BS: resolving common errors in English (USA From: Bagpuss I am fascinated by the way words and language changes over time. Adding suffixes to words without changing the meaning has been going on for a long time. The verb *to press* became *to pressure* which became *to pressurize*. And as if to prove the inherent procrastinatory nature of humanity, when we wanted someone to do something straight away, we used to say *soon* which became *presently* which became *now* which became *immediately*, with each of the earlier forms shifting back in time a little. Bagpuss |