What are your pet peeves re English usage?

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be peeved, but that construction originally arose from the growing wealth of the middle classes. If your father was, say, the Duke of Dorchester, and the family name was Scroggs, you would be Lord Scroggs. Any younger brothers would be Mr. Edward, Mr. Charles, etc. Your mother would be Lady Dorchester, and your oldest sister would be Lady Scroggs, and the others Miss Caroline, Miss Mary, etc.

When the middle classes started to get wealthy, they aped the manners of the nobility. So, if your father were a wealthy mill owner name Heep, he would be Mr. Heep, and you would be Mr. Snood, and your brothers Mister so-on . . . your mother would be Mrs. Heep, and then same with the girls as above.

I was raised to always address "grown-ups" with a title of respect. If the neighbor lady insisted that i call her Rita, i'd call her Miss Rita.

3 Replies

@Setanta,

Well, the very construction "pet peeve" says that it isn't necessarily something that answers to logic, but thanks for the history lesson.

1 Reply

'Engage' used to mean anything and everything.

Engage your brain (think)
Engage in a discussion (discuss, argue, talk, ...)
Engage with someone/something to mean any sort of interaction between two things.

0 Replies

@snood,

Oh no, far be it from me to tell others what they may or may not be peeved about. I leave it to that little **** JTT.

0 Replies

@roger,

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Hey, you're right!

Either Laughoutloud missed it or you missed it, Roger, or perhaps both of you missed it. I definitely meant some other idiot. That's exactly how these peeves persist.

1 Reply

Setanta and Snood: Out of linguistic curiosity, may I ask which part of the country you learned to speak English in? I'm wondering if your difference about this pet peeve reflects a regionalism of some kind.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I was raised and have lived North and South. The injunction to address all adults with a title of respect came from my grandparents.

0 Replies

@snood,

Quote:

at least, any in addition to ones already being named.

Yours is a good peeve, Snood. There might be a few others but the vast majority of peeves that have been advanced in this thread have been spurious nonsense.

I'm not surprised that you have bought into them though because you have shown yourself to be highly susceptible to propaganda.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Point taken, but I agree with Snood right down the line.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

It seems that somehow you have the US confused with England.

0 Replies

@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.

JTT added subsequently, "Either Laughoutloud (sic) missed it or you missed it, Roger, or perhaps both of you missed it. I definitely meant some other idiot."

I know exactly what the words convey, as the context attests, but chose to muddy the waters.

Nonetheless the peeve stands because some people are inclined to say 'some other idiot' when they mean 'some idiot' which is ineffably risible when they refer to themselves unintentionally as the 'other' idiot.

Not only but also my atavistically unchallenged forehead is as ever disappointed by the aweful spelling of awful by a previous contributor.

I get so mad when people accidentally insult themselves, especially when posting here, unless it's me.

1 Reply

@laughoutlood,

laughoutlood wrote:

JTT added subsequently, "Either Laughoutloud (sic) missed it or you missed it, Roger, or perhaps both of you missed it. I definitely meant some other idiot.

...

Not only but also my atavistically unchallenged forehead is as ever disappointed by the aweful spelling of awful by a previous contributor.

I guess you must be the only person not to make spelling mistakes.
I wonder if aweful is such a great crime when compared to turgid writing.

1 Reply

@Quincy,

Quincy wrote:

I wonder if aweful is such a great crime when compared to turgid writing.

Flaccid not turgid.

0 Replies

@roger,

I'm frankly surprised--it's been the custom in the United States, or at least portions of it, for as long as there has been a United States, and it is not something i would have ever thought would peeve someone. Of course, i don't deny that Snood is peeved, nor suggest that he shouldn't be--i''m just surprised.

0 Replies

One of my major peeves about American English just surfaced in a TV discussion of immigration. It's the term "undocumented immigrant", used as a substitute for "illegal immigrant".

First of all, this usage annoys me because it's an incorrect usage of the word "undocumented", which in all comparable contexts means "unaccounted for". Second, having invented this newfangled constructions, Americans constrain their usage of "undocumented" as meaning "without documents" to the narrow context of illegal immigration. They don't use it in any other context. For example, when police officers catch American drivers without license and registration, they wouldn't even think of calling them "undocumented drivers".

So why this awkward exception for "undocumented immigrants"? Everybody knows the term refers to people who live in the country illegally, that that's the reason they carry no government-issued documents, and that the absence of those documents isn't the issue anyway. So why evade the real issue of lawbreaking with this feckless display of doublespeak? Why not just call them "illegal" immigrants? Or if you need a euphemism to suggest that illegal immigration is no big deal, why coin a term that sticks out like a sore thumb? This ineptitude of the euphemers really peeves me.

2 Replies

They do it just to piss you off, Thomas . . .

1 Reply

@Setanta,

That makes sense, thanks!

0 Replies

@Thomas,

I never cared much for "undocumented" either. It seems to suggest that "Oh well, they just forgot to bring along some 'documents'".

2 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

I never cared much for "undocumented" either.
It seems to suggest that "Oh well, they just forgot to bring along some 'documents'".

Yeah; political correctness, not to offend the criminals.

I still remain with "illegal aliens".

David

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

First of all, this usage annoys me because it's an incorrect usage of the word "undocumented", which in all comparable contexts means "unaccounted for".

It's pretty silly, Thomas, to suggest that a word that has a meaning that everyone understands is an incorrect usage.

================
AHD
ADJECTIVE
1 Not supported by written evidence: undocumented income tax deductions; undocumented accusations.
2 Not having the needed documents, as for permission to live or work in a foreign country.
NOUN:
A person not having proper documentation, especially for immigration.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/undocumented

========================

M-W

Definition of UNDOCUMENTED

: not documented: as
a : not supported by documentary evidence <undocumented expenditures>
b : lacking documents required for legal immigration or residence <undocumented workers>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/undocumented

Quote:

Second, having invented this newfangled constructions, Americans constrain their usage of "undocumented" as meaning "without documents" to the narrow context of illegal immigration. They don't use it in any other context. For example, when police officers catch American drivers without license and registration, they wouldn't even think of calling them "undocumented drivers".

Google exact phrase search for "undocumented drivers"
About 10,100 results

0 Replies

What are your pet peeves re English usage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know