BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 09:33 AM

I use X for Xian but $ for $mas.

Raised to the ground reminds me of Reign in, which should be rein in.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 07:04 AM

That may be so, Nigel, but it's a good bet that most people who use "Xmas" use it as a convenient shorthand, or just a lazy one, and are unaware of that Greek origin. As an atheist I have no dog in the fight as to whether it's offensive or not to believers, but a quick google revealed that there are plenty of Christians who find it offensive (try Quora for example). As it takes about 0.568 seconds longer to write the word in full, and as I have many Christian friends, I'll carry on choosing to avoid the short form.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 06:39 AM

I am a practising Christian, and I've no problems with "Xmas". "X" (chi) was an early symbol used by Christians to identify themselves.
Xmas has a long history of use.
"Xtian" however is a neologism which I strongly dislike.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 06:22 AM

Or the outrageous "Xtian"...

Any more xs exes?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 06:20 AM

And even though I'm a damned atheist, I will never write "Xmas."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 06:18 AM

How's about "razed to the ground" (terrible) or even "raised to the ground" (very terrible indeed)?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 06:15 AM

Ah cool your jexts.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 06:10 AM

Yep, and all the other variants. I think it's to do with that letter x at the end, which isn't even a part of the full word. It fills me with angxt. I'll get over it...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 05:53 AM

Surely you mean "Tx", you prolix bollix?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 04:57 AM

Unless it's in a text message, "Thx."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Thompson
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 04:36 AM

"A crisis situation". A crisis is a crisis. You don't need to add "situation" to elucidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 08 Nov 20 - 03:17 AM

Silly question: "Are they both the same?"
Silly answer: "No, only one of them is."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 07 Nov 20 - 06:38 PM

Another long-lost cause: "Both of them were talking with each other." "Both" properly implies "Not just one, but...". Since it is impossible for one to talk with each other, the emphasis of "both" is absurd.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Nov 20 - 04:49 PM

. . .said he wanted as many people to donate to the poppy appeal.
Not having seen the report I can't tell what was intended. But context is everything. If it was preceded by a comment about last year's supporters then the partial sentence makes sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 06 Nov 20 - 01:37 PM

I keep hearing people saying 'as many ...' without continuing with 'as ...'.
I heard an example just know in a local television report about an installation consisting of giant soldier figures to represent those who had died fighting in wars.
Its creator was interviewed, and said he wanted as many people to donate to the poppy appeal. Did he mean as many people as there were giant figures in the display? Or as many as died in the two world wars? He probably meant 'as many as possible', but why not say so?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Nov 20 - 10:02 AM

As Woody Guthrie would say to the question "Why, oh why, oh why, oh why,...why, oh why, oh why?"


"Because, because, because, because...goodbye, goodbye goodbye."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 20 - 06:22 AM

And why use five exclamation marks when one is perfectly sufficient?????

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 06 Nov 20 - 05:33 AM

Possibly mentioned above, but the inclusion of an aggressive "right" at the end of a sentence is beyond fuckdom!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: BobL
Date: 06 Nov 20 - 03:46 AM

A tick is a positive sign - but it puts a different slant on "uptick" if it's the parasitic sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 05 Nov 20 - 07:57 PM

Back in the day, I never heard anyone say, 'Back in the day' - then all of a sudden everyone was saying it - how come?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 20 - 05:41 PM

It was a delight, Jennie, so no worries!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 05 Nov 20 - 04:09 PM

I've noticed recently that when people are talking about numbers, instead of saying there has been an increase they often say there has been an 'uptick'. Is this because so many statistics these days are bad news?
A tick is a positive sign so this could be an attempt to make the larger numbers seem less unwelcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: JennieG
Date: 05 Nov 20 - 03:42 PM

Steve - "no worries" is an Ozzie-ism that has been around for many years. Back in the day when I was a Sweet Young Thing people - always blokes, women weren't supposed to know such things - would sometimes say "no wucking forries".

Another dating back a very long time, and still in use today, is "she'll be right". It can also be combined with "no worries" to make the compound phrase "no worries, mate, she'll be right".

Once again, a bloke thing. Women have their own Womenspeak. There is also Familyspeak.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 05 Nov 20 - 05:20 AM

There seems to be widespread confusion between 'reticence' and 'reluctance'.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Nov 20 - 02:21 AM

theivery instead of theft, some illiterate republican politician

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Nov 20 - 02:48 PM

And all those sugary crap things shelved under Nutrition. Shudder.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 03 Nov 20 - 06:39 PM

There is usually an aisle in a (U.S.) supermarket labeled "International". In fact, most of the offerings in that aisle came from the U.S., and many of the other commodities in the rest of the place were imported. It is stupid to use "international" to mean "foreign", and stupid stupid to use either to mean "ethnic".

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 03 Nov 20 - 06:16 AM

'awesome' - reminds me of the television coverage of the Jubilee celebrations a few years back. I remember thinking "What large crowds, what small vocabularies."
Almost everyone asked what they thought of it said either "It's amazing" or "It's a once-in-a-lifetime-opper'uni'y."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 20 - 05:30 AM

When we visited Perth (the Aussie one) we were tickled by how frequently we heard assistants in shops, cafes, etc., replying to each and every step in the transaction with "no worries!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 03 Nov 20 - 02:33 AM

"What block is it that blockbusters bust?"

The block where the movie is screening, where the theatre is located.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: meself
Date: 02 Nov 20 - 10:04 PM

Well, if we're going to get into that - how about "awesome"?

Waitress: Would you like some more coffee?

Me: Sure.

Waitress: Awesome!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 02 Nov 20 - 08:28 PM

"Incredibly" is no longer just an exaggeration for "surprisingly". It may mean "very" or nothing at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Nov 20 - 06:17 PM

Right, Nigel. Psychologists use affect as a noun to mean emotion.

Also, I can effect a change.

What's wrong with contact as a verb when I don't wish to specify the method? If I tell my assistant to contact a vendor, s/he may write, telephone, text, fax, send an e-mail or visit the firm.
==========
It's my own fault, but I can never remember what a meme or a trope is.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Nov 20 - 11:47 AM

"Impact"
saves the trouble of deciding whether to say "affect", "effect",

Yes, always a difficult choice. A writing guide used in HMRC stated that the correct usage should be easy, as "affect is a verb and effect is a noun".

Unfortunately that isn't always the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Nov 20 - 10:09 AM

What happened to the word Widow? I keep wincing at headlines about Sean Connery's, but they all say Wife.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Nov 20 - 07:43 AM

So someone is a "semiliterate" for using "impact."

Fascinating.

My friend was clerk of the state supreme court for many years. The clerk's job (for those unfamiliar with the judicial system) is, essentially, to study the case, write a decision, and pass the decision on to the judge for approval or revision.

My friend had to revise just one decision in his career. He frequently uses "impact." And "irregardless," too.

Does that make him (and others who use these words) semiliterates?

When I was in high school, we were warned never to use "contact" as a verb, because it meant we were too lazy or tongue-tied to use "call," "phone," write," etc.

You can see how far that got.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 01 Nov 20 - 05:47 PM

"Impact"
saves the trouble of deciding whether to say "affect", "effect", or "influence". An app that would respond to "impact" with "BANG" would automatically make fun of semiliterates.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 01 Nov 20 - 02:36 PM

With half an ear on Countryfile this evening, I definitely heard one of the presenters say of some view or location that it "never fails to disappoint".
I really don't think that was what she meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Nov 20 - 01:55 PM

Sen got it on the nose.

On NPR today (NPR!) on a science show (a *science* show!), something was "part and partial" of whatever they were talking about...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 20 - 01:30 PM

"In m'humble" does it for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Senoufou
Date: 01 Nov 20 - 01:11 PM

Would IMOSHO be 'in my oh-so humble opinion'?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Nov 20 - 12:27 PM

Yes, it should, as we're talking forces rather than their components.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 20 - 11:23 AM

I think that should be the weight of fluid displaced, Nigel.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Nov 20 - 10:54 AM


Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
. . .
Newly discovered Triassic lizard could float underwater to pick off prey ... Well, if it is floating, it is not *under*water, now, is it?

Well, actually, they can be 'floating'. It just means that they do not need to regulate the depth of their dive. Floating is being in a state of suspension due to the upthrust of the medium one is in matching the downthrust of ones weight/mass. Or, as our physics teacher had us memorise:
"When a body is wholly or partially immersed in a liquid or fluid it receives an upthrust equal in force to the mass of liquid or fluid displaced."
Hope I got that right, it's 50 years ago now, and a quote (in translation) of Archimedes.
Divers use weighted belts to offset the floatation effect of the sea-water surrounding them.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: leeneia
Date: 01 Nov 20 - 10:24 AM

You're right, Joe. What block is it that blockbusters bust?
==============
Here's a peeve of mine, but it's not actually language. It's when somebody is leaving, and they point a finger at me and lower the thumb as if shooting me with a gun. Fortunately this fad seems to be over, but maybe it's not over. Maybe since I retired I have managed to exclude people like that from my world.

It was always done by people who live in neighborhoods where a sudden loud noise does not lead to saying "Was that a gunshot?"

Literary note: I remembered this gesture because it was in a detective novel about Spenser and Hawk.
================
Mrrzy:   Good points. What does imosho mean? Sounds Japanese.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 31 Oct 20 - 09:13 PM

"Blockbuster"
should make people imagine digging corpses out of rubble.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Oct 20 - 12:29 AM

All the ramifications too, or rather neither, JoeF.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Joe_F
Date: 30 Oct 20 - 06:32 PM

"... changed everything."

Nothing changes everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Oct 20 - 11:40 AM

Oh and I am so old I didn't know that Pride is now, apparently, exclusively an LGBTQ word. I feel like some old curmudgeon asking why people are using gay to mean homosexual when they [the curmudgeon] are gay themselves but in the sense of Happy.

What happened was my undergraduate institution had online Homecoming so I signed for several things including Tufts Pride on opening day which I thought was going to be about pride *in* Tufts but was Pride *at* Tufts... Oh well. Being nonbinary puts me at Q so I was not at the wrong party, I just wasn't at the party I *thought* I was going to. But a good time was had by all.

Which is an expression I had trouble with in college, when I ran into someone senior year that I had been to a really fun party with freshman year but who had forgotten where we'd met, and I said at Roots and Growth, we had a good time, and he took several shocked steps backwards as I had apparently told him we'd had sex. Which we hadn't.

Got into trouble in French with Sortir Avec, which I thought meant Go Out With but apparently meant have sex with, so an odd conversation occurred with somebody who had had sex with a Marine in the pool once, but was denying Going Out with them.

Ah, youth.

And I'm not even going into my strenuous objections to claiming pride in anything you didn't actually *accomplish* - mom, holocaust survivor, refugee, could be *proud* to be American, it was a personal feat. I on the other hand was *born* American, so proud does not compute. I feel bloody lucky [present times excepted], sure, but never Proud. One cannot imosho claim *pride* in one's skin color, sexual orientation or gender identity, or birthright nationality.

You *can* be proud of getting out of a closet, though. Applies to atheists too, that last.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Jos
Date: 30 Oct 20 - 02:39 AM

Towards the end, a pregnancy can feel very heavy if you are the one lugging it around wherever you go.