What are your pet peeves re English usage?

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

By extending the arms in the air and using two fingers of each hand in an up and down movement to signify bunny rabbit's ears to represent the ironic use of a word which the gesture is timed to accompany.

That's quotes, I always thought, not ampersands.

0 Replies

@roger,

Quote:

but I don't know of an actual rule.

Tell us something we don't know, Roger.

0 Replies

My current pet peeve is the phrase "legalize gay marriage". Although it's effective and serves a good cause, it is also dishonest, and that peeves me.

To be sure, I can see why the phase is rhetorically effective. There are undeniable parallels between the struggles for gay marriage today and for interracial marriage in the 1960s, which everyone now agrees was the Right Thing (TM). The moral case for gay marriage receives a powerful boost from invoking these parallels. So why not invoke them?

Because these parallels only go so far. When Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter left Virginia to get married in Washington DC, they actually broke Virginia miscegenation law. the Racial Integrity Act. For that, Virginia sentenced the lovings to a year in jail. The Supreme Court, by sacking Virginia's Racial Integrity Act, actually legalized interracial marriage. By contrast, if the Lovings were a gay couple today, married in Maryland today, and returned to Virginia tomorrow, they would break no law --- in Virginia or in any other American state. Virginia would merely ignore Maryland's marriage license. That's radically different; it's the difference between a silent treatment and locking you up for a year.

To insinuate that the two kinds of marriage were equally illegal, and thus equally deserving to be "legalized", abuses the word "legalize". The English language, let alone the worthy cause of marriage equality, deserves better than that.

1 Reply

You're confusing "legalize" with "decriminalize." I don't know of anyone who alleges that homosexual marriage is a criminal act. Interracial marriage was.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Yes. We say "recognise". Gay and lesbian couples want their partnership/marriage to be recognised as a marriage as fully as a marriage between "traditional" partners.

And, I believe, are fully legal in this country now.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

You're confusing "legalize" with "decriminalize." I don't know of anyone who alleges that homosexual marriage is a criminal act. Interracial marriage was.

With an established church neither is possible.

1 Reply

@McTag,

My very biggest peeve is the use of that word in place of "homosexual". Setanta doesn't do it.

Just in Jane Austen the word is used numerous times. It almost makes her books inaccessible to a young modern reader. The word is turned inside out to put it as mildly as I can. And it has been removed from the modern comedy writer's armory.

Even "marriage" is incorrectly used.

Other peeves are pinpricks.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

I don't know of anyone who alleges that homosexual marriage is a criminal act. Interracial marriage was.

Homosexual marriage didn't need to be made illegal. Having homosexuality illegal was all that was needed.

By the way, you're off topic, Set. This is the English peeves thread. Smile

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You're confusing "legalize" with "decriminalize."

That's not a confusion, that's correct usage. You cannot legalize something unless it's illegal in the first place.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

With an established church neither is possible.

With an established church many good things are deemed impossible.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Setanta wrote:
You're confusing "legalize" with "decriminalize."

That's not a confusion, that's correct usage. You cannot legalize something unless it's illegal in the first place.

Gay marriage is illegal in most states. "Legalize," therefore, is the correct term to use in those states where gay marriage is illegal.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

My very biggest peeve is the use of that word in place of "homosexual". Setanta doesn't do it.

Well okay, point taken. I didn't like it myself originally, but it's so widely used now what can you do? And the homosexual community have wholly adopted it so it's a fact. A fixture. In the dictionaries.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Gay marriage is illegal in most states.

How so? I'm well aware that gay marriage is impossible in most states, but in what sense is it illegal? "Illegal" means "against the law". But if a gay couple from, say, Missouri ties the knot in, say, Iowa, my understanding is that this isn't against Missouri law at all. As far as Missouri law is concerned, nothing has happened in Iowa, legal or illegal. Are you saying that this understanding is incorrect? If so, what Missouri law would the couple have broken?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Gay marriage is illegal in most states.

How so? I'm well aware that gay marriage is impossible in most states, but in what sense is it illegal?

I don't think that's much of a distinction. As you say, if it's against the law, it's illegal. Furthermore, just because a state says it will not permit gay marriage doesn't mean it's impossible. A man might impersonate a woman in order to get married to another man, but if the state subsequently discovered the imposture, the marriage would be nullified and the imposter (as well as his putative spouse) most likely would be subject to some kind of criminal sanction.

Thomas wrote:

But if a gay couple from, say, Missouri ties the knot in, say, Iowa, my understanding is that this isn't against Missouri law at all. As far as Missouri law is concerned, nothing has happened in Iowa, legal or illegal. Are you saying that this understanding is incorrect? If so, what Missouri law would the couple have broken?

It's not against Missouri law because there was no illegal act committed in Missouri. It would be the same if an Missourian murdered somebody in Iowa. That would be a violation of Iowa's law, not Missouri's. Missouri's jurisdiction does not extend to other states.

EDIT: in keeping with the subject of this thread, if the distinction you want to maintain is between "possible" and "impossible" rather than "legal" and "illegal," then what term would you prefer to "legalize?" "Possibilize?"

1 Reply

Possibilitize. Damn straight. POSSIBILITIZE GAY MARRIAGE.

0 Replies

Hehehehehehehehehehe . . .

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

A man might impersonate a woman in order to get married to another man, but if the state subsequently discovered the imposture, the marriage would be nullified and the imposter (as well as his putative spouse) most likely would be subject to some kind of criminal sanction.

I appreciate the idea, but wouldn't the same be true if the man had impersonated another man? If it would, the nullification and criminal sanction would be about fraud, identity theft, or something in this vein. They wouldn't be about gay marriage.

joefromchicago wrote:

It's not against Missouri law because there was no illegal act committed in Missouri. It would be the same if an Missourian murdered somebody in Iowa.

Now I'm confused. If it's necessarily the same, what criminal act in Virginia did Mr. and Mrs Loving commit when they married in Washington DC? Why didn't the federal courts just sack the state court's Loving v. Virginia decision because Virginia lacked jurisdiction over DC? Why even reach these pesky civil-rights issues?

joefromchicago wrote:

EDIT: in keeping with the subject of this thread, if the distinction you want to maintain is between "possible" and "impossible" rather than "legal" and "illegal," then what term would you prefer to "legalize?" "Possibilize?"

I would prefer "recognize". De facto, as McTag said, gay couples in long-term relationships already live in common-law marriage. Some States recognize their relationship status by issuing marriage licenses, some don't. I think all states should. The verb "recognize" captures the essence of the issue, accurately and in plain English.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I appreciate the idea, but wouldn't the same be true if the man had impersonated another man? If it would, the nullification and criminal sanction would be about fraud, identity theft, or something in this vein. They wouldn't be about gay marriage.

If you're asking "would somebody be convicted of gay-marrying somebody else?" I suppose the answer would be "no." I don't think the statutes prohibiting gay marriage are criminal statutes (although they might provide sanctions for clerks who issue marriage licenses). But that doesn't mean gay marriage isn't illegal, it just means it's not a crime.

Thomas wrote:

Now I'm confused. If it's necessarily the same, what criminal act in Virginia did Mr. and Mrs Loving commit when they married in Washington DC? Why didn't the federal courts just sack the state court's Loving v. Virginia decision because Virginia lacked jurisdiction over DC? Why even reach these pesky civil-rights issues?

The Lovings were convicted under the following statute:

Quote:

Leaving State to evade law. -- If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage.

So it was a crime in Virginia for the Lovings to live together as man and wife, even though they were married elsewhere.

Thomas wrote:

I would prefer "recognize". De facto, as McTag said, gay couples in long-term relationships already live in common-law marriage. Some States recognize their relationship status by issuing marriage licenses, some don't. I think all states should. The verb "recognize" captures the essence of the issue, accurately and in plain English.

Well, most states have abolished common-law marriage, so people living together in long-term relationships aren't necessarily in a common-law marriage.

"Recognize" works when you're talking about gay marriages which are legal in one state but not in another, but I'm not so sure it's the mot juste when you're talking about something that is illegal everywhere. For instance, suppose that all states have laws that say that no one under the age of 18 is allowed to hold public office. That wouldn't be a criminal statute, and some 17-year-old office holder wouldn't be criminally prosecuted under such a statute for masquerading as an 18-year old. Would you then say that it was time for the states to "recognize" under-age office holders? Or would it be more appropriate to say that the states should "legalize" under-age office-holding?

EDIT: I think the best word for what you want to say is "permit," as in "Virginia should permit gay couples to marry."

3 Replies

@joefromchicago,

It's good to see you sticking to legal issues and leaving questions of how language works, grammar, etc. alone, Joe.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

If homosexual "marriage" is illegal there can only be a charade. It might be false pretences if the charade is taking advantage of somebody who is not in on it. The Church publishes banns in the month previous to a Catholic wedding so everybody knows what's what.

If homosexual "marriage" was illegal there would be no process by which it could take place.

Even where it is legal the Church would still see it as a charade.

0 Replies

What are your pet peeves re English usage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know