63
   

What are your pet peeves re English usage?

 
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 04:10 pm
I think there is a difference between meet and meet with just as I think there is a difference between talk to and talk with. I agree with Merry Andrew.

When you are on your way to the bank, you will meet with the loan officer. If you are going to meet him, then perhaps you two have a blind date. Meet is social but meet with can imply a business relationship.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 04:17 pm
thanks silly old moo with the sunglasses Smile

There is a genuine difference here in the use of English. We dont say met with or talked with. I dont know why.....

she swallowed the fly.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 04:21 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
Interesting and I dont for one minute deny the logic. But let me ask a straightforward question...Would you say

"The appointment was arranged, and I went to the bank to meet with the loan officer"?

And more importantly was the white picket fence splashed with pink?


Very likely, yes, that is what one would say in the American language. I don't suggest that one is correct and the other incorrect, of course, i was just pointing out what you immediately recognized, the logic behind the usage.

The paint was more of a pale coral, rather like your own shell-like . . .
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 04:22 pm
You also say vitamins with a short i while we use a long I.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 04:32 pm
Setanta wrote:

The paint was more of a pale coral, rather like your own shell-like . . .
amazing, second friday of the year is traditional "bath friday" here. Did you know that or was it a lucky guess?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 04:37 pm
If you knew how properly to pronounce vitamin, you might not need to bathe with such obsessive frequency . . .
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 04:42 pm
Setanta wrote:
If you knew how properly to pronounce vitamin, you might not need to bathe with such obsessive frequency . . .
its the vitt-a-mins that keep ears clean between annual baths.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 08:12 pm
Piffka wrote:


Re: "I could care less" = "I couldn't care less".

dadpad wrote:
I'm with you on this one steve. i could care less means "I care at least a small amount."


Steve 41oo wrote:
Indeed it does.


I think you're right... that caring person did care a small amount, but at some point in the past.

There's a strong implication of gossip and previous caring when the word is used. Later, after that first initial caring, the subject is found wanting. So, "I could care less" is not so much a statement of how I feel at this moment, but a considered opinion of what my view will be the next time the subject comes up in the future. I could NOT care less also refers to a future state, akin to "my cares will not change." Insert the word "any" that is implied by the negative: I couldn't care (any) less if you brought this up tomorrow.

---My mind's made up.
1 - I don't care (anymore).
2 - I could care less (if I thought about it... but I'd prefer not to).
3 - I couldn't care less (if you asked me next week).


As Piffka has noted/noted, the net effect is one and the same. Both note great disdain, the level of uncaring is such that the person that is desirous of care is unlikely to get any from either the "I couldn't care less" or "I could care less" person.

A paraphrase of "I could care less";

I could [possibly] care less about this issue that you've raised if I really tried but it's now, so near to rock bottom now that you'll not be seeing any empathy from me.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 08:25 pm
Quote:


BBC Learning English

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/radio/specials/1535_questionanswer/page69.shtml

Mustafa asks:

What is the difference between 'I will meet you' and 'I will meet with you'?

--------------

Martin Parrott answers:

Yes - well, firstly, well done Mustafa, well done for being really up-to-date, because of course 'I will meet with you' -- that 'with' there is a recent form, certainly in British English. It comes from American English, but I think in American English too, it's a fairly recent form.

I will meet you

There is a difference: I will meet you or I'll meet you, could mean all kinds of things. It could mean that we're going to have a meeting, and we're going to do some work together; but it could simply mean that's where we're going to see each other, and we're going to go and do something else afterwards.

I will meet with you

'I will meet with you' does imply a number of things: it implies that it's quite formal; it implies that it's very professional reasons and it implies that somehow, we're going to collaborate on something ...and that it will go on for quite a long time.

Which is the more common expression?

I'll meet you is much more common. Personally, I love these new expression, and I use 'I'll meet with you' at every opportunity. However conservative people very often dislike, and disapprove of, these new expressions which come into the language - and so I tend to be a little bit careful about who I'm talking to when I use expressions like this. I love it!



Better get with the program, ya ole farts. Smile

You've got zero chance of stopping this.

Compare:

UK only exact phrase search:
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,070,000 for "meet with"

Google.com exact phrase search:
Results 1 - 10 of about 6,820,000 English pages for "meet with".

So while it's clear that 'meet with' is not nearly as common in BrE as it is in NaE, it's made the swim 'cross the pond with the NaE meaning intact. Since language is all about nuance, it's likely to continue growing in usage.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 02:37 am
"I'll meet you is much more common. Personally, I love these new expression, and I use 'I'll meet with you' at every opportunity. However conservative people very often dislike, and disapprove of, these new expressions which come into the language - and so I tend to be a little bit careful about who I'm talking to when I use expressions like this. I love it! "

On the other hand, there are people who grab eagerly at every neologism, and even import a few themselves to show how trendy and "now" they are, and the only succeed in making themselves sound shallow and trite.
0 Replies
 
Clary
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 03:53 am
A somewhat ambivalent attitude, it seems, Mc T, depending on your perception of the speaker's motives and provenance!

Meet up with is a phrase I often use, but not meet with; it sound a bit formal to me. It could have a semantic niche in a context such as "we have to meet with the lawyers today", when meet wouldn't do, and we'd probably say "having a meeting with" if we were avoiding USisms.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 05:13 am
Why wouldn't "meet" do, in that sentence? I think it would.

In fact I think it's better.

Hah! So there.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 06:42 am
"we have to meet with the lawyers today"

"we have to meet the lawyers today"


This is subtle. They mean the same thing, but, to me, the first sounds like the lawyers are on your side, the second sounds as if you are making contact with the opposing counsel.

Joe(of course, if 'our' proceeded 'lawyers', all would be clear.)Nation
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 10:36 am
McTag wrote:


On the other hand, there are people who grab eagerly at every neologism, and even import a few themselves to show how trendy and "now" they are, and the only succeed in making themselves sound shallow and trite.


Good morning, McTag.

I hope y'all didn't take my little joke too seriously. I'm an old fart myself.

When a new nuance is invented or imported, it only enriches the language. I know that some may feel left out and I agree with you that there are collocations that fail to stand the test of time, but they work for the short time that they are alive. This is exactly how language works.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 11:41 am
JTT wrote:
McTag wrote:


On the other hand, there are people who grab eagerly at every neologism, and even import a few themselves to show how trendy and "now" they are, and the only succeed in making themselves sound shallow and trite.


Good morning, McTag.

I hope y'all didn't take my little joke too seriously. I'm an old fart myself.

When a new nuance is invented or imported, it only enriches the language. I know that some may feel left out and I agree with you that there are collocations that fail to stand the test of time, but they work for the short time that they are alive. This is exactly how language works.


Okay, no problem. I've suffered too much "management-speak" in a long career to look kindly at most attempts at innovation in the language, but probably I am a bit jaundiced in my view.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 11:47 am
McTag -- I agree with you that the too eager adoption of neologisms makes the speaker sound shallow. Some new words are great -- mainly because they carry with them some emotional weight -- while others are just stupid.

A couple of expressions that teens used a few years back carried a great deal of emotional weight. One was the now completely faded, "dis -," which could stand for DISapprove, DISgust, DISarm, etc. It had a great deal of punch to it and gave the user a socially acceptable way of telling someone else where to go.

Another such expression that is still used, but less than previously, is, "Duh!"
A speaker could use it to mock himself when he finally realized the answer to whatever his dilemna is was near at hand.

But, there are expressions that sound trite and irritating as soon as they are coined.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 01:12 pm
Clary wrote:
...if we were avoiding USisms.


USisms? I hope you avoid them. I don't want to visit the UK & find anything but UKisms.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 01:18 pm
POM, that 'dis' expression is still around (heard it just recently) but it's usually used nowadays to mean only 'disrespect' or 'disregard' as in "He dissed me," meaning he was insulting or stand-offish or "I dissed him," meaning I cut him dead.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 03:31 pm
Here's an Englishman with a peeve.

He was picked on by the Atlanta Police.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENCa43r9jmY&mode=related&search=
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 03:55 pm
JTT wrote:

A paraphrase of "I could care less";

I could [possibly] care less about this issue that you've raised if I really tried but it's now, so near to rock bottom now that you'll not be seeing any empathy from me.
I could care less can NEVER mean the same as

I could not care less

be told JTT

you are beginning to annoy me.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/30/2024 at 10:34:49