Quote:JTT wrote: It's precisely because I do care, Clary that I don't allow these language bigots to spread falsehoods about how language works.
At first I thought you were just argumentative. I'm beginning to think you're ridiculous. Let me say right away that a "pet peeve" is a minor complaint, not a tragedy. Let's not get all worked up, okay?
Quote:Virago:
One thing I cannot stand to hear is someone using "rech" (pronounced the same as wretch) for the past tense of reach. "I rech for the jar."
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language:
" ... English is a global language with something like 400 million native speakers pronouncing the language in many different ways: pronunciation differs across the world more than any other aspect of language."
Very true, but irrelevant. Obviously, I am not referring to colloquialisms or accents. Rech is not the past tense of reach. Look it up.
Quote:Virago:
Another thing I don't like to hear is temperature in place of fever. "I'm feeling sick. I think I have a temperature." Well, I should hope that you have a temperature. Perhaps you also have a fever!
JTT: I think you've been reading too much Richard Lederer, Bill Safire, or some of the other language entertainers, Virago. They write some cute books and columns about language but they are sorely lacking in substance.
Well, thank you for your warm and fuzzy opinion on what I read, JTT, but I've never read those fellows. In case it eluded you, these are my pet peeves. They don't need to be yours, and they are not up for debate! I'm not proving a theory here; I'm stating the fact that when I hear or see these things it bugs me. It doesn't have to bug you.
Quote:Virago:
This one is a bit nit picky, but I prefer not to hear the phrase "Have your cake and eat it too." This is supposed to mean having it both ways or having it all! To have your cake and eat it is no big deal. People do it all the time. Try eating your cake and having it too. Now that's having it all.
JTT: This is nit-picky and pedantic, too. Why? Because you know full well what the meaning is. Idioms and language have their own logic. Clearly the 'have' refers to a time after the cake has been consumed. It does not refer to the time before the cake has been eaten.
Yes, I do know full well what the meaning is. If I didn't know what it was supposed to mean, I wouldn't notice when it is recited backwards. Did you call me pedantic?
Quote:Virago:
This one really bugs me. "I could care less." This implies that you do care some. If you could care less then you do care a little bit. It should read "I couldn't care less."
JTT: Both are correct, Virago, and both mean, more or less, the same thing. While this might seem odd at first blush, you have to remember that language says what people intend, not what some wag believes.
No, both are not correct, JTT, nor do they mean the same thing. Could and couldn't are opposites, sweetie. Language says what people intend? This would be why there are no misunderstandings. But, let's not digress
Quote:Paul Brians is out to lunch on his analysis. In point of fact, it is no analysis at all. "I could care less" is perfectly grammatical and it has full meaning within language. There's nothing more that's required.
Since a good portion of what you wrote just prior to this statement is off topic, (check the thread title if you are unsure of the topic) I will only quote this part and agree that "I could care less" is indeed perfectly grammatical and does have full meaning within the language. However, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Apparently,
so much more is required.
Quote:Virago:
And finally, my biggest peeve, the overuse of the word "literally". People incorrectly use "literally" when they are trying to impress upon you the degree to which they are affected by something. Literal means that something is exactly as stated. So, when someone says to me "It literally made my skin crawl" or "My eyes literally popped out of my head" I get a mental picture that I just don't want to have.
JTT: Virago, as you may have gathered by now, when we look into pet peeves, we often find that they have no substance themselves. Once again, you have to remember that language is determined by the people who use it.
Any word can acquire a new nuance, even a different meaning. When we check a dictionary, in this case, M-W online, we see that 'literally' is being used perfectly.
I'm one of the people using the language, JTT, and I've determined that I prefer not to hear about someone's eyes literally popping from their sockets. Once again, these are my complaints, and I see them as light-hearted. They don't have to be yours.
Quote:Next time, you hear or read some wag's comments on language, don't just swallow the tripe, hook, line and sinker, think about it a bit.
I know you will be horribly disappointed, since you seem to have based your entire critique on the assumption that I'm parroting someone else's opinion, but my thoughts are my own and have not been borrowed. JTT,
as you may have gathered by now, I know tripe when I see it.
Virago
