63
   

What are your pet peeves re English usage?

 
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 02:54 am
Sympathise with all of Quincey's peeves, and agree with most of them.
I like "all but" though, in its place.

(peeve: I hate seeing it's in places like that.)

The boy stood on the burning deck
Whence all but he had fled....


Yes I know my "good" above is not being used as an adverb. Just trying to spread a little alarm, confusion and despondency. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 04:15 am
You're good at that Mac.

Speaking of which when you next down these parts and we can have lunch?
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 04:32 am
I'm going down to London on 15th April for my brother's birthday and will be in the environs of St Pancras at lunch on 16th April, me and the missus, if you fancy meeting up.
I could do the next day too, but she will be gone back by then.

Over.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 08:46 am
Quincy wrote:
I am not advocating perfect English- I too use bad English as you will no doubt be able to find for yourselves.

I doubt that you do use "bad" English, Quincy. You use the English of your dialect and that can hardly be bad.

But these types of errors are horrid, ugly, lead to confusion, and are easily avoided. It's not difficult to distinguish between adverbs and adjectives and when to use which. It is nowhere near as bad as some of the really arcane rules of grammar.

It is as arcane as any other prescription, Quincy. Speech is the driving force for language change.

[quote]LGSWE

... conversation is at the forefront of linguistic change and it is thus less likely to make use of features which were previously more frequent in the language.

[Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English]


The standard mantra, [sounds like a Reader's Digest type comment], is that these standards of speech lead to confusion. That is rarely, rarely the case. The great confusion that has come in language are the silly prescriptions that come from such sources as the Reader's Digest, the ones that drive most of the peeves of language. Hold these peeves up to scrutiny and most are flimsy as hell.[/color]

English is my mother tongue, and I was schooled in the standard English, or "the Queen's English", and saying: "I am seeing good", and using "good" as an adverb in that sentence is as bad as saying "that forrest is scarily", and almost as bad as "he are very tall"!

should be interpreted is if good is a noun, thus your meaning is not conveyed. If we allow this to happen, English deteriorates. We may as well grunt at each other. Eventually "good" will have no meaning at all.

Has this ever happened, Quincy? No. Language takes care of itself. It always has and it always will despite the prescriptivists. Their "rules" have always been laughable. It sounds as if you're givng us some more of Reader's Digest sage advice.


While I'm at it I may as well toss in another of my pet peeves: "all but" constructions in sentences. I know they are grammatically correct. What's wrong with "nearly"? "All but" to me is unnecessarily complicated and ugly.
And also, people often use it like "I all but cried" meaning "I cried", so it is often incorrectly used and superfluous.[/quote]

English is renowned for its rich store of synonyms. Everything that exists in language has a nuance. 'nearly' is one choice as is just about & almost and more or less & pretty much, not quite, nearing, approaching, close to, be on the verge of, be on the brink of, ...

Language is exceedingly complex. There is so much more to it than that expressed by a Reader's Digest point of view. Delve into a real study of language and you'll see that these concerns are mostly misplaced.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 09:04 am
It don't get no gooder than this . . .
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 01:54 pm
JTT wrote:
Who wants to speak like the queen? The queen's English isn't any better or more grammatical than any other dialect of English.
You pompous fool. It is by definition[/i].
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 03:08 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
JTT wrote:
Who wants to speak like the queen? The queen's English isn't any better or more grammatical than any other dialect of English.


You pompous fool. It is by definition[/i].


A definition is noticeably absent. Uniformed opinions can hardly be considered definitions, Steve.
0 Replies
 
Dorothy Parker
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 03:10 pm
Yeah Queen's English is a definition. Am informal one, but still a definition.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 03:11 pm
I don't dress MY opinions up like that.

:wink:
0 Replies
 
Dorothy Parker
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 03:12 pm
Yeah but your Scottish....
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 03:17 pm
Dorothy Parker wrote:
Yeah but your Scottish....


Did you get it? Smile
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 03:18 pm
Dorothy Parker wrote:
Yeah Queen's English is a definition. Am informal one, but still a definition.


Queen's English is a term. There's still no definition here, Dorothy. There's a definition for GWB's English too, there's one for Australian English, one for NzE, one for CdE, another for AmE but for someone to suggest that one is better or more grammatical than another illustrates that that person simply does not understand language or how it works..
0 Replies
 
Dorothy Parker
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 03:21 pm
Right whatever. I know what I mean. Calm down.
0 Replies
 
Dorothy Parker
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 03:22 pm
Does that mean you're Australian?
0 Replies
 
Dorothy Parker
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 03:23 pm
Should have just kept my gob shut.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 03:35 pm
Dorothy Parker wrote:
Does that mean you're Australian?


Hey JTT, I wondered, a few days ago in another thread, which part of the world you hailed from.
Would you care to divulge?
I haven't checked for "Profile" but lamentably few fill them in. Or out.

Also, I always have addressed/referred to you as male, but I noticed YL referring to you as "she". Which is correct, pray? If you don't mind.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 03:45 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
It is by definition[/i]. (referring to the Queen's English)


Does that mean the Old Girl talks English real good?

(That there Dorothy Parker sure is a little cutie, ain't she?)
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 06:38 pm
Setanta wrote:
It don't get no gooder than this . . .


Amen to that'un, Bubba Set.
0 Replies
 
Quincy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 09:03 am
There's a reason I used quotation marks.

Perhaps I shouldn't post again in this thread because I seem to get many people's feathers ruffled. So, good-bye for good What are your pet peeves re English usage thread.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 10:42 am
Setanta wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
It is by definition[/i]. (referring to the Queen's English)


Does that mean the Old Girl talks English real good?

(That there Dorothy Parker sure is a little cutie, ain't she?)
Yes she is. The Queen does speak good English, mainly because its all written down for her by experts. Left to her own devices the Queen's English degenerates into unintelligible grunts and squeaks of which JTT would no doubt approve.
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 0.09 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 04:53:06