What are your pet peeves re English usage?

There's a reason for that : I am French!

Francis, you are just tooooooo much.

"Pet peeve" can be explained by looking up the words peeved and peevish in a dictionary.

Pet just means "favourite " in this context.

Does "bete noir" come close?

I disagree with my learned colleagues earlier.

It is not incorrect to say "It's me" or "That was me" especially in conversation.

Gramatically it's incorrect, and you would probably write "It is I" since the verb "to be" does not take a direct object. However normal conversation ignores this.

McTag : Bête noire fits well for peeve.

But a French 'pet' is somewhat different to an English one

You awoke in a very good mood, Walter!

In any case you are flat*****, Walter :wink:

Better that than that n'aucun/e vaux un pet de lapin about me

Dont be self depreciating, Walter!

thank you everyone

favourite is what you like
bete noire is what you do not like

it is strange

sylvie

All of my mistakes.

Sylvie - dans ce cas ce sont les choses qu'on aime détester! (pet peeve)

No, McTag, grammatically "It's + object pronoun" is completely correct. Why would you only "probably" write "It is I". One writes, like one speaks according to the register.

People just keep on mouthing [no offense intended, McTag] these things without finding out the truth about language.

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language:

A common view of the prescriptive tradition is that uses of {things like Mctag stated} are not grammatically correct but are nevertheless 'sanctioned by usage'. ... No further defense than 'colloquial' is needed for this.

This implies a dichotomy between 'talk' and 'grammar' that we reject. The standard language embraces a range of styles, from formal through neutral to informal. ... It is not that formal keeps to the rules and informal departs from them; rather, formal and informal styles have partially different rules."

Isn't that a long-winded way of saying what I said- "formal and informal styles have partially different rules"

I think this is a very tortuous and flawed argument, even from such an august tome:

"It is not that formal keeps to the rules and informal departs from them; rather, formal and informal styles have partially different rules."

I mean, what are "rules" for informal styles, and who would be bothered to draft them?

Isn't that a long-winded way of saying what I said- "formal and informal styles have partially different rules"

JTT: No, McTag, it was a rather short address to show you that you made an inaccurate portrayal of language.

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

I think this is a very tortuous and flawed argument, even from such an august tome:

"It is not that formal keeps to the rules and informal departs from them; rather, formal and informal styles have partially different rules."

I mean, what are "rules" for informal styles, and who would be bothered to draft them?

JTT: Precisely the point. These rules were much too complicated for PGs to describe, so they took to inventing rules, fashioning them out of thin air. You described one such rule in your second to last posting.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

Prescriptive rules are useless without the much more fundamental rules that create the sentences to begin with. These rules are never mentioned in style manuals or school grammars because the authors correctly assume that anyone capable of reading the manuals must already have the rules.

No one, not even a valley girl, has to be told not to say [Apples the eat boy] or [Who did you meet John and?] or the vast, vast majority of the trillions of mathematically possible combinations of words.

So when a scientist considers all the high-tech mental machinery needed to arrange words into ordinary sentences, prescriptive rules are, at best, inconsequential little decorations. The very fact that they have to be drilled shows that they are alien to the natural workings of the language system. One can choose to obsess over prescriptive rules, but they have no more to do with human language than the criteria for judging cats at a cat show have to do with mammalian biology.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

When I was much younger my pet pieve in English was Which Witch is Which?

I think Pincker is troubled by the size of his own brain (which doesn't trouble me much) and drunk with the exuberance of his own verbosity.

People recognise rules and norms, and you would not get far in the BBC newsroom or the legal profession if unable to comply with them.

LOL Good one, McTag!

Boy, am I glad I don't work for BBC or the legal profession! LOL

I detest when people say "like" 10 times in a sentence. I also hate when people make spelling mistakes.
Lastly, I can't abhor poor word usage.

A couple of the typical studied responses that normally come from peevists. They streak off on tangents.

Of course people recognize rules and norms, McTag. You [normally] adhere to all the rules of language. This present issue {and all these issues raised by peevists] has very little to do with what goes on in the formal setting of the BBC.

Isn't it interesting that the BBC website for language study has a section for street lingo. Imagine that, the BBC allows actual real life language on its programs. And horror of horrors, it actually, no it can't be, ... it encourages its use!! What is this world coming to!! Can Armageddon be far behind?

BBC:
"Learn the language of the street - what people say and the topics they like to talk about. Take a look at these music words and phrases and then take the Lingo Challenge!"

The some examples:

"Sports - Football

Do you want to watch some footie? / the match? - Fancy going to watch football?
They really took a hammering. / took a thrashing. - They lost the game badly.
They're playing at home / away - The team is playing the match at their own ground. / at the opposing team's ground.
He lives and breathes the game! / Football's his life! / Football's in his blood! - He's a total football fanatic!

Football - Commentators {this means these folks are actually on TV}

He covers every blade of grass. - He's an energetic player.
He goes in where the boots are flying! - He's a player who is always at the centre of the action!
It's handbags at six paces! - There's a mild disagreement on the pitch [a reference to how women might flick their handbags at each other but not get into a serious argument].
He keeps it tight at the back. - The player makes sure the defence is well organised.
The keeper keeps a tight sheet. - The goalkeeper [goalie] doesn't let many goals in.
He's lethal in the air! - He'a good at using his head to hit the ball.
A netbuster - A powerful shot which is in danger of breaking the goal's net!
He teases the full back - He makes it difficult for the defence to get the ball!

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

What it is that people don't recognize are 'rules' that are foreign to the natural workings of their native tongue. What's so highly instructive in all this is that y'all can peeve to beat the band but you just can't seem to back up your peeves with facts.

Let me leave you and Piffka with a last little quote to help you grasp just who it is that is actually trying to determine how language works. {a little hint; it's not the PGs]

-------------
The Grammar Book - An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course

Many people are under the impression that the facts about a given language are all known. Nothing could be further from the truth. Much is not known about English, particularly at the level of discourse and in the dimension of pragmatics.