What are your pet peeves re English usage?

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Lemme get this straight, J.:
u allege that u KNOW what I do consciously ????

As regards language use, yes, I do know what is largely unconscious and what is largely conscious.

Not all, mind you, for the study of language is exceedingly difficult.

When it comes to language, you aren't appreciably different than the next person.

Quote:

HOW did u acquire this (alleged) information about what I DO??

You only have to note how little you know about English grammar and how little you know about how English works to realize that it's not your conscious brain that allows you function in language.

And as I said above, "When it comes to language, you aren't appreciably different than the next person".

Quote:

U clutch error, factual error, to your mind.

That's a description that better fits you, Dave. Look at the discussion on borrowed words. Look at how you've been avoiding discussing the other issue even when you trumpet that you are defending these lunacies with "logic".

All one has to do is note that all around them, in fast speech, 'aluminum' is also pronounced a-loo-ma-nim or a-lum-num.

1 Reply

@JTT,

David wrote:

Lemme get this straight, J.:
u allege that u KNOW what I do consciously ????

JTT wrote:

As regards language use, yes, I do know what is largely unconscious and what is largely conscious.

Forgive my skepticism of your superhuman powers & abilities, far beyond those of mortal men.

JTT wrote:

Not all, mind you, for the study of language is exceedingly difficult.
When it comes to language, you aren't appreciably different than the next person.

David wrote:

HOW did u acquire this (alleged) information about what I DO??

JTT wrote:

You only have to note how little you know about English grammar and how little you know about how English works to realize that it's not your conscious brain that allows you function in language.

I think I get it: Popeye got his superpower from Spinach
and u get yours from hurling insults.

JTT wrote:

And as I said above, "When it comes to language, you aren't appreciably different than the next person".

As if he knew me

David wrote:

U clutch error, factual error, to your mind.

JTT wrote:

That's a description that better fits you, Dave. Look at the discussion on borrowed words. Look at how you've been avoiding discussing the other issue even when you trumpet that you are defending these lunacies with "logic".

I 'll get to it (belatedly).

JTT wrote:

All one [how many??] has to do is note that all around them, [how many???]
in fast speech, 'aluminum' is also pronounced a-loo-ma-nim or a-lum-num.

Maybe in your delusions, but not in America.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I think I get it: Popeye got his superpower from Spinach
and u get yours from hurling insults.

Pretty lame, Dave. But it's not an insult. It's simply a fact. I know that you know, in a conscious fashion, very little about the grammar of English and how English works. It's easy to see in your responses on questions of English.

Quote:

All one [how many??] has to do is note that all around them, [how many???] in fast speech, 'aluminum' is also pronounced a-loo-ma-nim or a-lum-num.

See what I said. Here you leap out and provide a fine example illustrating your ignorance of how English works.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

All one [how many??] has to do is note that all around them, [how many???]
in fast speech, 'aluminum' is also pronounced a-loo-ma-nim or a-lum-num.

JTT wrote:

See what I said.
Here you leap out and provide a fine example illustrating your ignorance of how English works.

No.
U r in error.
I know very well that (unlike what u alllege of aluminum)
errors of this kind ofen occur; that's no surprize.

I hoped to draw attention to your neglect of logic (of simple math)
by using a plural in reference to "one".

That shows very poor mental co-ordination
and your acceptance of sloppy mental disorganization; a rape of arithmetic, in your mind.

The fact that this error occurs ofen
means that folks shoud be alert to correct it,
not that mental, oral violence against logic is justified and shoud be perpetuated.

If too many people drive drunk,
then fewer shoud do so; the existence of the problem
is NOT justification nor exhortation for its perpetuation.

If too many folks err in math,
then fewer shoud do so, not PERSIST in the problem.

Those who use math incorrectly
shoud not object that those mathematicians who r accurate r
"ignorant" of widespread error in math in the populace
and that the correct ones shoud emulate those who r confused in their calculations.

Popularity of error is not vindication nor absolution thereof
(however much the lemmings might disagree with that).
U appear to imply that it IS.

Please note that my (eclectic) loyalty to English grammar
is based on the fact that (for the most part)
it is consonant with and expressive of accurate logic.

To the extent that grammar deviates from accurate logic,
I deviate from grammar. MY allegiance is to mathematically sound reasoning.

Yours is to the fad of the moment,
if I understand u correctly.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I hoped to draw attention to your neglect of logic (of simple math)
by using a plural in reference to "one".

David, you're simply trying to divert attention away from 'aluminum' because you know you're wrong. Sadly, I must note, you seem to lack the honesty to admit it. That's not logical at all.

Regarding the above, in quotes, you [singular] are [plural verb] wrong. Do you need this explained to you or do you get it?

This is the very issue that you have been avoiding for weeks. Now you go on and on with your inane rants about "logic" and you completely fail to address the language issue. Not surprising when you don't have a leg to stand on.

Admit that you are wrong on aluminum and we can go on to a new topic.

1 Reply

@JTT,

David wrote:

I hoped to draw attention to your neglect of logic (of simple math)
by using a plural in reference to "one".

JTT wrote:

David, you're simply trying to divert attention away from 'aluminum' because you know you're wrong.
Sadly, I must note, you seem to lack the honesty to admit it. That's not logical at all.

Your assertion is false and has no value.

JTT wrote:

Regarding the above, in quotes, you [singular] are [plural verb] wrong. Do you need this explained to you or do you get it?

Do u want me to amend it to: "thee is rong" ?

JTT wrote:

This is the very issue that you have been avoiding for weeks.
Now you go on and on with your inane rants about "logic" and you completely fail to address the language issue. Not surprising when you don't have a leg to stand on.

I do not accept your allegations.

JTT wrote:

Admit that you are wrong on aluminum and we can go on to a new topic.

That is foolishness, and accordingly it is rejected, as being devoid of merit.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Go to bed, Om, and get some much needed sleep. We can do this another time.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Thank u for your advice.

David

0 Replies

Can we at least attempt to keep the discussion vaguely on-topic?

2 Replies

@Quincy,

Okay. I've noticed myself becoming increasingly annoyed with the phrase "going forward", in the sense of "in the future". I can't say what's wrong with it, but it does make me peevish.

2 Replies

@roger,

When a phrase becomes a cliche, the annoyance factor has already started.

Although "going forward" has to me a slightly different meaning than "in the future".

Cliches, like slogans, save the speaker from having to think.

2 Replies

@McTag,

On one of the occassions on which Ted Kennedy was running for President, there was a Doonesbury cartoon which showed three panels of Kennedy essentially saying nothing, and the in the final panel, a reporter speaks up: "A verb, Senator, we need a verb . . . "

Here we go, i found that rather quickly:

http://hypergogue.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Optimized-we-need-a-verb-1.jpg

0 Replies

@McTag,

Quote:

Cliches, like slogans, save the speaker from having to think.

That would be your signature line for many a language thread, eh, McTag? Smile

0 Replies

@roger,

Hallelujah, Roger has resurrected the Pet Peeves thread.

No worries, Rog, on being puzzled; no one was ever able to give sound reasons for their peeves. The reason, most, many were simply cribbed from some other idiot.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Om Sig: I hoped to draw attention to your neglect of logic (of simple math)
by using a plural in reference to "one".

That shows very poor mental co-ordination
and your acceptance of sloppy mental disorganization; a rape of arithmetic, in your mind.

Quote:

jtt: Regarding the above, in quotes, you [singular] are [plural verb] wrong. Do you need this explained to you or do you get it?

Quote:

OmSig: Do u want me to amend it to: "thee is rong" ?

No, I'd rather you showed some tiny measure of honesty and address the issue head on instead of going off on inane tangents.

FACT: You show the same "very poor mental co-ordination and your acceptance of sloppy mental disorganization" that you like to accuse millions of native speakers of English of when you use 'you' singular, with the plural verb 'are'.

It's amazing how you language mavens can say the stupidest things about language without even recognizing your own hypocrisy or your own stupidity.

Quote:

For here are the remarkable facts. Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens make no sense on any level. They are bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since. For as long as they have existed, speakers have flouted them, spawning identical plaints about the imminent decline of the language century after century.

All the best writers in English have been among the flagrant flouters. The rules conform neither to logic nor tradition, and if they were ever followed they would force writers into fuzzy, clumsy, wordy, ambiguous, incomprehensible prose, in which certain thoughts are not expressible at all. Indeed, most of the "ignorant errors" these rules are supposed to correct display an elegant logic and an acute sensitivity to the grammatical texture of the language, to which the mavens are oblivious.

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html

Do you see yourself in this quote, Dave? I sure do. But it's not you who thought up this nonsense; it's just you repeating this bit of folklore because you read it somewhere or you were told about this "rule" of language.

Singular 'you' with plural verb 'are', a collocation that you use everyday, have been using for your whole life, clearly illustrates that you don't know what you are talking about.

Think about that for a minute. It didn't require you to do any extensive research, no laborious study. The proof was right in front of you for all these years and, somehow, you missed it.

1 Reply

@JTT,

David wrote:

I hoped to draw attention to your neglect of logic (of simple math)
by using a plural in reference to "one".

That shows very poor mental co-ordination
and your acceptance of sloppy mental disorganization; a rape of arithmetic, in your mind.

JTT wrote:

jtt: Regarding the above, in quotes, you [singular] are [plural verb] wrong.
Do you need this explained to you or do you get it?

David wrote:

Do u want me to amend it to: "thee is rong" ?

JTT wrote:

No, I'd rather you showed some tiny measure of honesty

Dishonesty woud be self-defeating and a pointless waste of time.

I see logical merit in your objection qua use of the plural verb "are"
for an individual person. Tho I coud say "thee is . . . thus n so"
this impresses me (subjectively) as being a very striking, radical
rejection of the popular paradime of use.

JTT wrote:

and address the issue head on instead of going off on inane tangents.

I surmise that u did not understand the points that I sought to make,
and therefore, u characterize them as being "inane tangents."

JTT wrote:

FACT: You show the same "very poor mental co-ordination and your acceptance of sloppy mental disorganization"
that you like to accuse millions of native speakers of English of when you use 'you' singular, with the plural verb 'are'.

U have raised an interesting point and one that might well bear some logical merit
regarding the plurality of the verb "are" (or r), as I have acknowledged hereinabove.

I will consult with one of my tennants,
who is an English professor at Queens College, but my own best analysis
of that situation is that the word has been unofficially, de facto ` re-defined (and is popularly intended)
as being individual, as well as plural. In my mind, that is how I classify it. Do u agree with that ?

JTT wrote:

It's amazing how you language mavens can say the stupidest things
about language without even recognizing your own hypocrisy or your own stupidity.

I think that u have fallen into the error of oxymoronic contradiction in terms, J,
in that hypocrisy means falsely n deceptively saying that u believe something that u do not believe
(e.g., if I claim to love baseball; [ I have no interest in competitive athletics ]).
No one can believe anything without knowing that he believes it.
Therefore, if a man does not recognize his hypocrisy,
then that hypocrisy cannot exist.

Quote:

For here are the remarkable facts. Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens make no sense on any level. They are bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since. For as long as they have existed, speakers have flouted them, spawning identical plaints about the imminent decline of the language century after century.

All the best writers in English have been among the flagrant flouters. The rules conform neither to logic nor tradition, and if they were ever followed they would force writers into fuzzy, clumsy, wordy, ambiguous, incomprehensible prose, in which certain thoughts are not expressible at all. Indeed, most of the "ignorant errors" these rules are supposed to correct display an elegant logic and an acute sensitivity to the grammatical texture of the language, to which the mavens are oblivious.

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html

JTT wrote:

Do you see yourself in this quote, Dave?

No.

JTT wrote:

I sure do.

That is a misperception.

JTT wrote:

But it's not you who thought up this nonsense;
it's just you repeating this bit of folklore

BULLoney. As a libertarian, I have very little respect for authority.
I have ofen delighted in challenging it, since I was in the single digits of age.
It was fun.
However that may be: I respect sound reasoning.
Man rose to the top of the food chain n rendered the Earth more comfortable
thru the use of competent logic; THAT commands my loyalty.

I reject folklore-based appeals to authority, as a general rule.
For instance, I reject (as foolish) the prohibition of splitting
infinitive verbs, on the grounds that thay were one word, in Latin.
I don 't give a damn about Latin, UNLESS I 'm speaking Latin
(such as when I say FORUM). Likewise, I am not bound
by the rule against ending sentences with prepositions,
tho I generally tend to avoid that.
I discriminate in which rules I will follow; competent logic is the dispositive criterion.

Having acknowledged some of the imperfections of English grammar,
candor moves me to acknowledge the fact that it was fairly well-crafted,
for the most part, to accurately express concepts logically.
Accordingly, I tend to accept the rules of English grammar
(at least on an eclectic basis; in the immortal words
of my ex-girlfriend, Marilyn: "take the best and leave the rest.")

JTT wrote:

because you read it somewhere or you were told about this "rule" of language.

No; u r guessing n ASSUMING the reasons that I do things
and then u assert them as known fact; (some nerve!)

I usually don 't give a rat 's ass about a "rule" UNLESS
I respect the authority behind that rule. Sometimes I do.

JTT wrote:

Singular 'you' with plural verb 'are', a collocation that you use everyday, have been using for your whole life, clearly illustrates that you don't know what you are talking about.

Your allegation is false.
I knew of that problem, but I have not selected an acceptable remedy.
I lack for a good substitute for the extant popular use.

JTT wrote:

Think about that for a minute. It didn't require you to do any extensive research, no laborious study. The proof was right in front of you for all these years and, somehow, you missed it.

Your promiscuous assumptions r false (again).
I did not miss it.
I merely did not arrive at an acceptable way of HANDLING the problem.
I did not know what to DO about it. I still don't.
I 'm reluctant to atavisticly adopt use of "thee is" when indicating a single person.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

No worries, Rog, on being puzzled; no one was ever able to give sound reasons for their peeves. The reason, most, many were simply cribbed from some other idiot.

I'm particularly peeved when people mistakening say "some other idiot" when they mean "some idiot".

Naturally, I don't imagine for one moment that JTT intended that.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Dishonesty woud be self-defeating and a pointless waste of time.

And yet, you readily engage it with most every response.

Quote:

I see logical merit in your objection qua use of the plural verb "are"
for an individual person. Tho I coud say "thee is . . . thus n so"
this impresses me (subjectively) as being a very striking, radical
rejection of the popular paradime of use.

You have about as much chance to change this aspect of English as you have changing the spelling system, but by all means, go for it if it pleases you.

But the all important point is that this one example has blown apart your argument that it is illogical. Language does NOT operate on the principles of mathematics anymore than English operates on those principles governing Latin or Finnish or Yoruba.

Quote:

I will consult with one of my tennants,
who is an English professor at Queens College, but my own best analysis
of that situation is that the word has been unofficially, de facto ` re-defined (and is popularly intended)
as being individual, as well as plural. In my mind, that is how I classify it. Do u agree with that ?

You might also want to note [and you would have been able to note this, had you read the material offered on this very subject in the "would" pronunciation thread where this issue was first raised] that this "rule" only came about, I believe, in the late 17th century.

People have always used 'their/them/they' as both a specific pronoun and as an unspecific pronoun. Go to that thread and read the sources material.

Though I have no way of knowing at this point, your "tennant" might be as out to lunch on the workings of English as are many English professors. Who do you think was largely responsible for the crafting of these silly prescriptions and who do you think has been largely responsible for passing them on?

Strunk, of Strunk & White fame was an English professor. But when one reads his little manual, one has to wonder how he gained such a position.

[Notice, Dave, how the 'one' in the sentence above refers to the general 'one', the plural 'one', the reference is to the same 'you' as the general 'you', the plural 'you'.]

Quote:

I don 't give a damn about Latin, UNLESS I 'm speaking Latin
(such as when I say FORUM).

You don't have the foggiest notion about how to speak Latin as I've already clearly shown. You seize on one example, one you've been erroneously schooled on and you forget about all the thousands of other Latin words, all the tens of thousands of other words from other languages that you inflect for plural following the rules of English.

All these same words you pronounce according to the English sound system for your dialect.

jtt wrote: It's amazing how you language mavens can say the stupidest things
about language without even recognizing your own hypocrisy or your own stupidity.

Quote:

I think that u have fallen into the error of oxymoronic contradiction in terms, J, in that hypocrisy means falsely n deceptively saying that u believe something that u do not believe

No, I haven't, at all. You suggest that you were aware of 'you' singular [I doubt it] yet you tried to advance the argument that the other was not logical. That's hypocrisy.

But regardless, this issue is settled. It has been since forever. We use our pronouns in their specific senses and we use them for other senses. And these senses all make perfect sense.

Language doesn't care if you are a libertarian or not. There are no authorities for language in the sense that prescriptivism has given it. The ultimate authority, the only authority are the people who use language.

"Usage in the broad sense is always the determinator of correctness. The only way to falsify that assertion is to imagine that language somehow preceded its users." (Dwight Bolinger)

0 Replies

@laughoutlood,

Hey, you're right!

1 Reply

I've seen this thread and bypassed it because I couldn't really think of specific pet peeves I had about how people use the English language - at least, any in addition to ones already being named.

But I've got one. I have come to strongly dislike the use of "Miss" or "Mister" before someone's first name instead of their last. I think I've always sort of felt a little unsettled by the ultra polite, too-sweet little "honey" or "sweetie" that some Southern people like to use, and using 'Mr' and 'Miss' this way seems to me to be somehow related to that. It seems to connote some kind of familiarity or respect that to my thinking may or may not exist. It brings to my mind a time when people who looked like me HAD to address whites with that kind of subservient respect, no matter their station or age. It feels about the same as the phoney "Bless your heart" that's popular among southern christians.

I've started to tell people that, if they must call me mister to do it using my last name - but that I prefer just simply calling me by my first. It generally gets a sort of startled reaction, and generally some explanation about "just being respectful" that they've obviously never bothered to think about.

But yeah, the "miss" or "mister" with first name is definitely a pet peeve of mine.

1 Reply

What are your pet peeves re English usage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know