BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 20 - 05:10 AM

I find the confusion between singulars and plurals to be a very disturbing phenomena.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 May 20 - 01:31 AM

I wouldn’t say “A thousand and a half”, I’d say “One-and-a-half-thousand”.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: robomatic
Date: 07 May 20 - 01:05 AM

I'm not sure what is wrong with half-a-thousand.

On the other hand, if you say thousand and a half, do you mean:
1,500.
Or
1,000.5

???

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 May 20 - 11:23 PM

Good point about half a dozen v score!

There's a limerick there but that would be thread drift.

Anyway, also visualize is not see, it is imagine you see, or use technology to see. But seeing is seeing, not visualizing.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 06 May 20 - 09:43 PM

leeneia: "Alright" has been made into a mark of illiteracy, but this IMO is one case where the illiterates have the better of the argument. Just as "already" is not the same as "all ready", so "they were alright" (they were acceptable) is not the same as "they were all right" (all of them were right). Note the difference in pronunciation.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: weerover
Date: 06 May 20 - 05:11 PM

"cast in stone" works for me. The mould could be carved from stone and molten metal poured into it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 May 20 - 02:47 PM


"Slightly less than two decades ago, she was the happy mother of four..."

The writer is a journalist and presumably has the facts. If it was 19 years, say so. Better yet, say "In 2001, she was the happy mother..."

It might not have been 19 years ago. 18 yrs and 9 months would still qualify as "slightly less than 2 decades". It might not have been 2001. Anything after June 2000 would be less than 2 decades.

Our language is full of synonyms. Just because you prefer one doesn't make the others wrong. As I said somewhere up-thread, life would be pretty boring if communication was restricted to an approved list of basic words. Variety is the spice of life.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 06 May 20 - 01:08 PM

1) decade. I see sentences like this in the media all the time:

"Slightly less than two decades ago, she was the happy mother of four..."

The writer is a journalist and presumably has the facts. If it was 19 years, say so. Better yet, say "In 2001, she was the happy mother..."

2) Most where almost should be used. "Most everybody enjoys ice cream." arrgh!   

3) Alright instead of all right. I guess alright was born of its visual similarity to already, but already isn't the same as all ready.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 May 20 - 09:56 AM

... half a thousand is not a number but half a million is

The eggs that I buy in the supermarket come in boxes of 6 or 10. If I wanted someone to get me a small box, I would ask them to get me half a dozen. If I wanted a large box, I would ask for a box of ten, never half a score.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Charmion
Date: 06 May 20 - 09:41 AM

I'm an editor, so my peeves are cast in bronze and carved in stone. Never cast in stone.

I guess my current biggest language peeve is the ubiquitous "passed away" and its even mincier little brother "passed". "In the midst of life we are in death," wrote dear old Tom Cramner, but not any more if you're a "nice" person.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Reinhard
Date: 06 May 20 - 09:40 AM

No Nigel, this is thread 132499, see the url. Your posting in this thread may have been number five-hundred.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 May 20 - 09:40 AM

Never thought about that but you're right, half a thousand is not a number but half a million is. Half a hundred is poetic (never saw a door shut so tight...)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 May 20 - 09:20 AM

This is not thread half-a-thousand.

It is FIVE HUNDRED

And yet,
       "He bought a house for half a million pounds"
and
       "He bought a house for five hundred thousand pounds"
are equally acceptable.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 May 20 - 09:10 AM

I agree with you, Doug, more or fewer... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 May 20 - 08:58 AM

yes, or, I walked less than she did. How about this Potato's

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 May 20 - 08:53 AM

....so I walked less miles than she did

...so I walked fewer miles than she did, I would have thought.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 May 20 - 07:01 AM

It's a bit complicated is that one. It's less than four hundred miles from Bude to Manchester: good. Mrs Steve walked four miles yesterday but I walked only three, so I walked less miles than she did. Not so good...?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 May 20 - 04:54 AM

Any mangling of the correct way of stating numbers and amounts.
This is not thread half-a-thousand.

It is FIVE HUNDRED

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 May 20 - 02:48 AM

Get in over your head, Reinhard? D'ye mean that this is above your pay grade?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 May 20 - 02:43 AM

has anyone heard the phrase.. going backwards

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Reinhard
Date: 06 May 20 - 01:41 AM

Sorry Steve, can't and won't do that. I already picked all the low-hanging fruits in my last post. Now I would have to be touching base with my severely lacking creativity to achieve a paradigm shift to intelligently worded sentences. So I'd better stop here before I get in over my head.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 05 May 20 - 09:21 PM

Just to be sure all those who share concerns about usage stay busy...

https://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=89383

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 May 20 - 04:16 PM

You're a genius, Reinhard! :-)

Now don't get me started on "paradigm shift", "touching base" and "low-hanging fruit"...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 May 20 - 04:05 PM

Some NPR people have stopped saying In 10 mn from now, which somehow makes those that still do more infuriating.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Reinhard
Date: 05 May 20 - 02:54 PM

Uh, Steve I was just going forward to confess that prior to your rant I was using proper grammar on a daily basis, albeit marred by not being a native English speaker. So there.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 May 20 - 02:40 PM

Well, Barb'ry, I've said it many times before, but if you're ever in my presence do NOT utter "prior to", "on a daily basis" or the shocking "albeit"... And as for "going forward"...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Barb'ry
Date: 05 May 20 - 02:16 PM

Probably already been mentioned but 'at this moment in time' drives me mad. We aren't (usually) talking about a moment in a circle. Then there is 'could of, would of' instead of 'have' and people saying, 'she gave it to myself'.
I could go on...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 05 May 20 - 12:37 PM

This isn't a peeve, just a confusion.

My church is having services via computer, and I just bought a micrunophone for that purpose. Meanwhile, we've all got used to the use of "un" as the all-round prefix to mean the opposite of an action.

So the screen had an icon of a microphone to show the mic is on. Good, so far. Under the mic is says Mute, meaning turn it off. Later it says Unmute meaning to turn off having the microphone turned off.

Then they drew a slanting red line through all that, apparently meaning Do Not Touch the thing that turns off the turning-off. in which case, why buy a mic?

I had to wait for a non-sacred moment to barge in and ask if people heard me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 May 20 - 11:44 AM

but sometimes both names are wonderful, eg birds foot trefoil and eggs and bacon.
the use of the words fucking and cunt unless you are derek and clive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYGy-j_oH5Q

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 May 20 - 10:16 PM

IMDB description includes: okay western with a theme that's been done before in other films, namely "Duel at Diablo" several years later.

Time travel?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Aug 19 - 11:51 AM

Ooh and the way the media are still treating Puerto Rico as if it were not just as American as whatever states are about to have hurricanes.
When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 12:42 PM

Logic is a little bird tweeting in the wilderness. Logic is a bunch of flowers, which smell *bad* [I paraphrase]...

Sorry, I could not help it.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 12:39 PM

I suppose we don't have to use them. I know the Latin names of most of our wild flowers but even professional botanists, generally averse to jargon, often resort to to folk names or invented names. There are exceptions in the bird world. The wren will always be Troglodytes troglodytes to me, and the blackbird, even better, is Turdus vulgaris... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 28 Aug 19 - 11:52 AM

The Union meets every five years and standardizes the vernacular names of birds. This is nothing to do with scientific name versus vernacular name.

It peeves me that some of the names they assign are ugly or illogical.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 19 - 04:50 PM

Well, speaking as a botanist and wildflower man, I appreciate the urge to impose vernacular names on wild animals and plants. We try to make the distinction between old country names and invented ones, but it's a distinction that can get blurred. Quite often, invented names are very attractive, and, let's face it, the alternative can be rather arcane Latin nomenclature, which few people appreciate and which, though scientifically invaluable, can sound pretentious and jargonistic. So I'm defending friendly-sounding made-up names for birds, beasts and wildflowers. And I do have a degree in botany...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 27 Aug 19 - 10:45 AM

I sometimes dislike the common names which the American Ornithological Union assigns to birds.

Northern cardinal. Why? There is no southern cardinal. There's pyrroluxia, (sp) which could quality as a southern cardinal, but as far as I know, they haven't even given poor pyrroluxia a name.

House finch. A delightful little bird, brave and chipper. The male has a lovely wash of rosy pink on his breast. Why such a prosaic name? I have a friend who calls them raspberry sparrows.

Yellow-rumped warbler. We still call them myrtle warblers. I have a deal with the birds that I won't talk about their rumps if they won't talk about mine. In Florida, where they are rather common, I have heard them called butterbutts.
=========
Gotta go.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Aug 19 - 10:41 AM

Man-bag or man-bun. It's a bag or a bun, no matter what the shape of the skin between your legs. If you carry a purse it's a purse, regardless of gender. Of the carrier thereof.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 27 Aug 19 - 10:36 AM

Good point, DMcG.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Aug 19 - 03:21 PM

Just noticed in an advert that some supplement or other had been 'Scientifically researched'.

That's nice.

Scientifically proven? ... "we don't claim that."
Scientifically demonstrated to be safe? ... "We only researched it. Maybe, maybe not."
Or,at least as good as a placebo? "Not telling you"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 Aug 19 - 11:14 AM

Strains and sprains may involve the the tearing of muscle or ligaments but could involve only stretching, without tearing. This would still be an injury, and very painful at that.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Aug 19 - 08:37 AM

If nothimg is broken, not skin nor other tissue, what is injured?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 19 - 05:12 AM

Bone is definitely tissue.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 Aug 19 - 04:15 AM

My manual isn't specific about injuries. An on-line US site MedilinePlus gives:

An injury is damage to your body.

Wounds are injuries that break the skin or other tissues.

"Other tissues" would allow for bruises, blood blisters and the like. Whether bone counts as tissue is up for discussion.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 06:26 PM

DC, what about injuries?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 05:07 PM

For me, a wound involves a break in the skin and bleeding.

According to my first aid manual, wounds can be open or closed.

Open wounds include:- puncture wounds; incisions; thermal, chemical and electrical burns; bites and stings; gunshot wounds; abrasions; lacerations; skin tears.

Closed wounds include:- contusions (eg bruising); blisters; seroma; haematoma (blood blisters); crush injuries.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 03:17 PM

Yeah, see, I wouldn't. An injury can be severe (compound fractures come to mind) without being a wound, which to me involves intent. People wound; objects injure. Did I make that distinction up out of whole cloth? Not that I'd be surprised if I did...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 02:55 PM

This came up when the headline was about lighning "wounding" rather than "injuring" people

Being struck by lightning is quite likely to cause severe burns. Even if the skin remains intact, if the burn is sufficient to cause blistering, I would count that as a wound.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Stanron
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 01:04 PM

There is an interesting interplay between using language precisely and using it as creative tool. Language changes. Our language is a cobbled together mish mash of Celtic. Latin, Early German (?) Norse and not a little French thrown in as well. If we could time travel 500 years we would struggle to understand and be understood. Apparently there are Asian versions of English that we would struggle to understand today.

On a slightly different tack on one Mudcat thread there was an anecdote where Peggy Seeger was amused by some one singing an American song with a Cockney accent. It probably wasn't Railroad Bill, but for the sake of argument let's pretend it was. What amuses me is the fact that back in the 19th Century Railroad Bill himself might have been born a Cockney and might have spoken with a Cockney accent. OK he might equally have been from Ireland or Scotland or France or Germany, but my point is that what now passes as as American accent may not have even existed back then. Language changes and accents change. Viva the whateveryoucallit.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 12:38 PM

I agree, Mrrzy. For me, a wound involves a break in the skin and bleeding.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Aug 19 - 11:58 AM

Ok, let's talk about Injury vs. Wound. They are not synonymous to me. There are two dimensions: on purpose, and openness. So if I fall and break my arm, I am injured, not wounded. If I am shot, I am wounded (and also injured). This came up when the headline was about lighning "wounding" rather than "injuring" people. What do y'all think?