What are your pet peeves re English usage?

There are no lies here. That you provided a source or two which agrees with the point of view which you wish to further does not make a thing so. That you have provided what you consider a reasoned position does not make anyone else's reasoned position invalid. Your rage to brand me a liar, and now to suggest that Steve's post is somehow not appropriate strongly suggests that you replace surety in your position with invective and vicious personal attack. In fact, you're projecting. You are the one who displays the hysteria of a Tom Delay.

I have been discussing a language issue--to wit, that mere usage is not the sole basis upon which one decides what is correct. You have failed completely to address the points that i have raised. I have addressed your arguments from usage, and pointed out that following them to the logical conclusion results in less effective communication--in any language. I have not ranted, i've explained my point of view--you have ranted, and indulged insulting personal remarks.

You have failed to address the issue of what it is that people wishing to learn English wish to know and why. You have failed to address the issue of standardization versus argot and narrowly local patois. You have failed to address the economic issue of the establishment, since the end of the Second World War, of a standard English.

With regard to your nonsense of using Google searches to support your contentions, you have failed entirely to acknowledge the criticisms i have advanced against that method. Google cannot be considered to be a statistically representative sample of all native speakers of English. A set of search results cannot be know to be comprised entirely of unique examples of a locution--any number may be quotes of a passage of the written word or a transcript of the spoken word. A set of search results can provide results from any number of non-native speakers of English, of which it is also true that you have no control to assure that none of the citations are repetitions or quotes of other sources. A set of search results does not come with any demographic information on the authors of examples cited which would allow anyone to judge the relative sophistication of the various authors in the use of the language--you don't know how old they are or what their level of education might be. Google searches are absolutely worthless from a statistical point of view because of a complete lack of controls in the sample, and no verification of the sources, and no means of eliminating or identifying duplications.

You have failed to address any of these points. You have raged at me, and sneered at Steve. Do you think you can address these objections without more recourse to accusations of lies and ranting? You see, whenever you do that without answering criticims of your position, you just make yourself look more the fool.

Once again, citing a source which is convenient to your argument does not establish your argument. Offering "reasoned arguments," which, when criticized, you are apparently unwilling to defend does not establish your argument. Your argument proceeds from premises which are unfounded, therefore there is no reason for anyone to take your ex cathedra dicta as anything more than pomposity.

Surely this is the nub of the debate. If something is and has and had been long, then it becomes correct; if it is new, different, and untested in the fires of time, then it remains borderline correct, or, according to many, incorrect.

One nub anyway, Mr Pen. The main nub of this whole thread is that there are many many old wives tales floating around disguised as 'rules'.

Just because you [the general you] were taught these things in grade school [shockingly many of these falsehoods are even taught in college] doesn't mean they have any veracity.

It's really a thread for peeves. Peeves can exist independently of concepts of "right" and "wrong". However, I CONCEDE, MOSTLY WE ARE TEMPTED TO SAY THE OTHER IS WRONG, AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES THE THING ANNOYING.

Damn, I hit the Caps Lock button and now I can't be bothered to change that bit.

Journalistic excess, over-egging things, that annoys me. Buzz words. A small example: "the robbers were armed with pickaxe handles".
Has anyone ever used a pickaxe, or seen one? They are a most unusual tool, especially around these parts. Far more usual is the common pick, and it is pick handles which make such useful clubs around here (whenever any felon feels the need for one). So why does the media talk about handles of pickaxes?

It has that robust sound to it, MacT. To say 'pickaxe' is to give the thing some weight. To say 'pick' sounds like you're speaking of a nasal extrusion.

I checked my memory with the Google image page:

http://images.google.com/images?q=pickaxe&hl=en

I believe that the difference between a pick and a pickaxe is in the blade head rather than in the handle.

Of course reputable journalists cringe at the idea of nit-picking in any way, shape or form and would much rather wield a choice of penetrating tools--especially if they are paid by the syllable.

I think I may have mentioned this way back when the thread started began, but if I didn't, my pet peeve is the Valley Girlization of grown women. Today I watched a person try to convince another of the value of not buying animal skins for adornment, but the female voice kept referring to "fer" and I know she meant "fur". I remember the nuns in school beating any trace of regional accent out of us, but now it not even regional, women close to 40 now are parroting the pronunciation of pre-teens. Boys still mumble prior to college, but it seems to stop after that, what gives with the women?

Like, whatever, Glitter.

Like, what is the difference, like, between how "fur" and "fer" get pronounced, like, you know?

Well those images were very illuminating, if I can put it that way. It seems we are once again divided by a common language, and the British pick is the American pickaxe. How loose can it get? :wink:

To me, a pickaxe has to have an axe blade as well as a "pick" blade- one like that is indeed shown on the first page of the Google images.

I say, an ice pick is not the same as an ice axe, and so I rest my case.

Picky, picky, picky.

(Although, essentially, I do agree with you, Mac.)

Imagine this said in a huff (and no, huff is not an automobile)

Well, well, you guys are like so not getting it!!!!!

A miners' pick has a shorter handle and two pointy end on the blade.

The handle is shorter than that of a pickaxe.

An icepick is dainty by comparison.

A labourer's pick is a pick. Pick & shovel, as we say, these are typical roadmenders'/drainage workers'/general hand-excavation tools.

Pickaxe, especially here, is a more specialised tool. Americans, I suppose, can call it what they want...but they're wrong. :wink:

From Wikipedia:

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=pickaxe&gwp=11&ver=1.0.2.84&method=2



In the states we use a pick/pickaxe handle as a weapon, not as a ceremonial baton.

Do you suppose someone is playing games on Wikipedia?

Well, take your pick. My Shorter Oxford is of no real further help. I think there is a subtle meaning shift somewhere in mid-Atlantic

What are your pet peeves re English usage?
The phrase that really gets me is "a ways". That "s" is totally pointless!

As for the "to him and I" type of construction, I think that must have originated in the usage that forbids using the first person pronoun at the beginning of such a phrase. So people go overboard, you might say, and though correctly and courteously remembering to put themselves, (the "I"), at the end, forget that, as an indirect object, "I" shouldn't be used in the phrase in the first place.

About the use of serial commas - the jury's still out on that one. There are times when I feel the last comma is simply awkward.

a ways doesn't exist in BritEng, Dieu soit loué

and yes, for those of us who pronounce fer and fur the same when speaking English (very diifferent in French) - what do you mean, glitterbag??

Which leads us to vers, verre, ver and vair, in French--all of which are pronounced the same. Vers means toward, and ver means worm; verre means glass, and vair means the fur of a squirrel, or other soft-coated small mammal (usually, squirrel, though). So, in the Cendrillon story, known to English-speakers as Cinderella, the original tale actually speaks of Cendrillon having slippers of vair, an expensive and much prized luxury in the middle ages. However, through corruption and ignorance, that became verre (glass) in later French versions, and turned into glass slippers in the English version of the tale.

"The capital of the US is Washington D. C.[.]" One or two colons after the `C'? Two looks very odd, but seems logically correct.