grammar mistakes

One of my old fun things to do was translate the dictionary's examples of italian word use literally into English. I've always enjoyed the literal rendition over what would be our way of saying something. I'll try to come up with an example, although I have finally had to throw away my favorite paperback dictionary with all the great idioms in it.

OK, here's a quick one -
"colpo de fulmine" means literally "strike of lightening" but in usage it is "love at first sight". I like knowing both so that now I can think of love at first sight as a strike of lightening.

Hmm, moving on, "colpo di testa" means literally "stroke of the head" and in use means "inconsiderate action" or "sudden decision".

Not coming up with immediate better displays, I do remember being "blown away" by how interesting the literal translations would sometimes be in contrast to the given words in english. So, I would take forever to do my homework reading as I would be off browsing dictionary examples... some of these did involve different placement of verbs from the generally used order in english.

One, more, eek, I could do this all day -
"Andare in brodo di guggiole"- to go in a broth of joy, literally, and in usage, "to swoon".

I've read down to here and now I can't remember what it was you were all saying.

Ah well...

"Have a butcher's" is cockney rhyming slang, a rich vein of tom.

Yes, I know I used that one wrongly.
"Tom" or tomfoolery is jewellery.

But I think CRS really originally meant to exclude, rather than amuse, the uninitiated. So, not really "communication".

Hey, McTag. Good to see you back. See if this is correct:

Having a butcher's=hook=look. Right?

I have heard "red up the place" for cleaning up or neatening.

Now, dialects differ from colloquialisms. (if all this has been discussed before, my apologies)

Am I correct here?

frying pan; skillet; spider.

Frying pan is a shallow pan for cooking in Virginia, but a skillet is usually a black, thicker utensil, for making cornbread.

spider is something they say for the same utensils in (I think) New England

The one that drives me nuts is the use of "loose" instead of "lose". I see people loosing stuff all over the web.

Yes, Hi Letty, a butcher's (hook) is a look.

"Skillet" is a word used in Scotland, and I think in England too, and we Scots also refer to a "griddle".

I think a griddle is a larger utensil than a skillet, and is used for making scones and pancakes on top of the stove or hob/ range/ fire.

Loose/ lose is a strange one.
In the north of England, some people say "borrow" when they mean "lend", and it sounds weird.
As in "Could you borrow me a fiver till payday?"

Enough of that.

We all speak the same language, in a way McTag. Remembering with fondness the rounds:

Well, my friends, Regardless of what language we speak; regardless of the mistakes inherent in the geography or the region, we're still all in it together. I continue to maintain that it's the sound of the language that is most important.

I'd like to go back to the undeserved bad name given to "hopefully."

She moved, purposefully, to end the quarrel.

He laughed, generously, and put his arm over the boy's shoulder.

I do wonder why people single out "hopefully," as though that were bad, while other such uses of the participle don't even get a glance.

Setanta, that's because people get nervous about dangling stuff.

On loosing things, I see it all the time too, and I think it is often a typo. Of course that is probably because that is one misuse I don't do myself.

I am aghast (aghast, simply aghast!) at the mistakes that come from my fingers. As I have said before on a2k, these are mistakes I didn't make even as a child. I never used here for hear, or there for they're. Now I do, it just comes spilling out from some prehistoric spelling cave. Spellcheck - which I rarely use, and people will have noticed that - won't get those since they are correctly spelled words that are misused.

Loosen the lines, man, and man the decks!

Letty, you misread me. That is likely my fault, because i ought not to have used the word participle--these examples below are both adverbs.

I can see no qualitative difference, nor any violation of grammatical rule existing in one case and not the other, of the two following usages.

She replied to their complaint: "We will, hopefully, see this in our time."

She replied to their complaint: "We will, doubtfully, see this in our time."

My point is that people criticize the use of hopefully, but take no notice of adverbs other than hopefully used in exactly the same.

Damn, Setanta. Somehow your examples remind me of the guy on Barney Miller. I am full of hope that all will be resolved in due time.

but, boss, I understand exactly what you are saying. Ain't nuttin' wrong with your use of hopefully

I think these are probably all wrong, though I am not so good at pinpointing why they might be. People are hopeful. Hopefully as a word in common usage tends to land exactly nowhere, in some kind of outerspace. As in Hopefully wafffffft..... air..... and then, something.

Waiting for grammarians to appear. Hopefully.

One of the troubles with Hopefully is that it is such a NICE word, so, you know, positive. It usually modifies, or applies to, nothing.

Set, I think this is too loose.
Hopefully and doubtfully are not correctly used here.

Hopefully should not be thought of as synonymous with "I hope".
(Although it is a useful shorthand, and everybody understands it as such, my old domine would have marked it wrong.)

I would reply that your old domine is simply applying that same prejudice with regard to spoken English to which i have already objected.

He move, purposefully, to end the quarrel.

Why do we object if "he" were to act in a manner full of hope, but do not object if he were to act in a manner full of purpose? I consider this one of those oddities of spoken English, in which grammarians object of a specific usage without a very logical basis.

Well, look at these given examples:

"We will, hopefully, see this in our time."

That means literally that we will "hopefully see" it (cf. "clearly see" it) and it is a nonsense, to my way of thinking. "Hopefully" does not in any sense qualify/ modify "see".
It does not actually mean "I hope we will see it", which is the meaning intended.

The same goes for the other example, and that is why I say (although the intended meaning is not ambiguous) the grammar is too loose.

Just what i said to that little French painter when he got drunk the other night:

"You're too loose, Lautrec!"

I consider this a fault of written English, but perfectly acceptable in spoken English. I further consider that similar gaffes with other words go unnoticed, while "hopefully" gets jumped on. I cannot for the life of me fathom why the one is marked down for loud condemnation, but similar examples with other adverbs are ignored.

Oh, my Gawd, Setanta, too, too funny.

Hey, McTag. I think, perhaps, we are all splitting hairs. Have a butcher's in the OED and tell us what you see.

I can't see the objection to hopefully except that it is a comparatively new usage. Words change their meanings all the time, and most people consider 'correct' that which prevailed in their childhood. Their grandfathers would have had other notions and their grandchildren will have still others. The 'original' meaning of hopefully (as in to travel hopefully - full of hope) is not impaired by the modern one.

On the other hand if you use DISINTERESTED to mean UNINTERESTED you may get confusion in the listener. A disinterested judge is a good thing, an uninterested one not. I deplore modern usage which loses a good and useful word and sets up confusing messages. The word 'presently' meant 'at once' but now means 'in a little while'. Americans use it still to mean 'currently' and British not. So it's confusing.
No doubt in time disinterested will only mean uninterested, and confusion will vanish. But I am worried that the word stands for a concept which people are ceasing to value too...

I agree with McTag's hairsplitting.

In current usage, 'hopefully' often modifies thin air.

"He spoke hopefully" is fine to me. I say that in a hopeful manner. "We are going, hopefully, to Sweden" doesn't mean we are definitely going in a manner hopeful of the outcome but that we hope to go in the first place. Very fuzzy.

I do see though that this very common usage will become, if it isn't already, part of the language.