What are your pet peeves re English usage?

Morning, McT. How's life going?

0 Replies

Life is sweet.

But I have some trouble keeping certain Americans in line.

Pry, indeed. The place is going to the dogs.

0 Replies

You know, some of them are a rambunctious bunch, they need to be praised..

So, prized dogs, then?

0 Replies

After some thought, I think I know why Americans have a problem here.

In most cases where a word ends in -ise, the Americans spell it with -ize.

So maybe that's why prise got changed tp pry. But why stop there? Change for the sake of change- it could equally well be pie.

"I'm going to pie these nails out with my pie bar, Hank."

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Irish schmirish. I think the bagpipe came from Greece.

Or maybe when the Scots came over from Ireland displacing the Picts and Celts.
It was all a very long time ago.

Indeed, it was a long time ago. Philokeltic people allege that as the early Kelts spread into Europe, they introduced the bagpipe to the people to the south, i.e., the Greeks.

However, the evidence is good that the Romans, who used the bagpipes in their battle lines, introduced the Kelts of the British Isles to the bagpipes. Not only is there no evidence of the use of the pipes prior to the Roman occupation, but the Kelts quickly put the pipes to the same use--to "pipe" their boys into battle.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

The place is going to the dogs.

And what would be wrong with that?

Watch yerself, Jock . . .

0 Replies

my peeve is Kelts...should be Celts Smile

0 Replies

Put up yer Dukes, Sassanach . . .

"A fully-equipped duke costs as much to keep up as two dreadnoughts. They are just as great a terror and they last longer."

-- Lloyd George

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

my peeve is Kelts...should be Celts

Prost!

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

McTag wrote:
Irish schmirish. I think the bagpipe came from Greece.

Or maybe when the Scots came over from Ireland displacing the Picts and Celts.
It was all a very long time ago.

Indeed, it was a long time ago. Philokeltic people allege that as the early Kelts spread into Europe, they introduced the bagpipe to the people to the south, i.e., the Greeks.

However, the evidence is good that the Romans, who used the bagpipes in their battle lines, introduced the Kelts of the British Isles to the bagpipes. Not only is there no evidence of the use of the pipes prior to the Roman occupation, but the Kelts quickly put the pipes to the same use--to "pipe" their boys into battle.

O my. The pipes, the pipes are .........

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/19/scotland

0 Replies

Saw this article today, on "borrowed" words in English.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2274775,00.html

0 Replies

McTag--

Thank you.

0 Replies

Peeve today, heard often on our news programmes now, "fire fight"

Two British soldiers killed in Afghanistan yesterday in a "fire fight".

What, fighting fire with fire? We used to have "skirmish", "battle", and so on.

Why do we need this nonsense?

0 Replies

Merriam-Websters Online Dictionary gives a date of 1899 for the origin of this term (which suggests that it might have been coined during England's Boer War, McTag. However, it give no further attribution. The Online Etymology Dictionary has no listing for that word, either separately or under the entry for fire. Dictionary-dot-com gives a date of 1895-1900, again without further attribution, and lists the Random House Unabridged Dictionary as its source.

I can't understand your objection. Firefight has a very specific meaning, in that it refers only to the exchange of gunfire by small arms units--therefore, it specifically excludes combats in which there is mortar fire, artillery fire or close air support, as well as excluding combat in which armored units or heavy weapons units are involved.

0 Replies

I think our military would normally say "an exchange of small-arms fire" for that.
I never heard of this in 1899, in fact I first heard it in 2007 and not in Britain either.
In common with lots of other things, I don't like it. Smile

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

I think our military would normally say "an exchange of small-arms fire" for that.
I never heard of this in 1899, in fact I first heard it in 2007 and not in Britain either.
In common with lots of other things, I don't like it.

I checked here, and it's not in my Shorter Oxford (1968 Revision) but surprisingly it is in my Concise Oxford (1996 Edition).
That figures, and is in accordance with my personal general rule that if it wasn't known before 1975 then it isn't knowledge, or is as yet unproven and can fairly be discounted. :wink:

0 Replies

I recall using the expression "fire-fight" back in the 1960s when I did my military service. It could be the term has been common in Amercian useage and is only now getting widely circulated by British newspersons.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

I recall using the expression "fire-fight" back in the 1960s when I did my military service. It could be the term has been common in Amercian useage and is only now getting widely circulated by British newspersons.

I think that's exactly right.

0 Replies

I concur with that man in the black hat.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

I recall using the expression "fire-fight" back in the 1960s when I did my military service. It could be the term has been common in Amercian useage and is only now getting widely circulated by British newspersons.

Given that the otherwise unattributed date for the coinage of the word is 1899, there is a strong suggestion that it was coined during England's Boer War.

0 Replies

What are your pet peeves re English usage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know