What are your pet peeves re English usage?

As I said, McTag, this door has swung both ways. But I probably don't have to point out that I don't much appreciate those who malign language and the people who use language, especially when these folks doing so know precious little themselves.

One would think that you'd [generic 'you'] get the message. Yours is an intellectual pursuit that is similar in nature to the study of phrenology, without the research. On what grounds could you possibly think you [generic you] have the right to spread falsehoods about anything.

Let me get this straight. You're saying, "We pedants can state anything we want without applying to our comments any intellectual rigor". We can do this because we're being lighthearted about it??!!

Let me suggest that you [not the generic you] employ some intellectual rigor, Mr McTag. You [generic you, but you're included] keep making vacuous statements about not only Steven Pinker, but about language as well, with no reasoned arguments at all.

And you have the temerity to write this nonsense trying to paint me as the bad guy! Your logic grows more skewed with every uttered phrase.

I agree with Clary that people misusing "literally" can be very funny.

But one thing that does make me seethe with rage is people who make up fake etymologies and launch them on the world - and also the people who insist they must be true because they've "read them somewhere", and won't believe that any decent dictionary could disprove them.

It's bad enough being told that "keeping danger at bay" is about bay leaves, that "dead ringer" is about people being buried alive, and that "pull your finger out" derives from muzzle-loading gunnery (all pure fantasies). But there is a worrying tendency for people to invent offensive origins for phrases. Quite recently it was reported that workers in British public services were sent on courses where they were instructed not to use perfectly innocent words like "picnic" or "nitpicking" as they were "of racist origin".

Who do people do things like this? Grrrr!

Virago, my heartiest congratulations on your post to JTT

"Try and" (instead of "try to") is threatening to enter the Phrasal Verbs Hall of Shame. I try and not let it irritate me, but it's difficult.

Merry Andrew wrote:

Quote:

Virago, my heartiest congratulations on your post to JTT

Thank you, Andrew. I would have said more, but I was concerned about exasperting his nervous condition and fueling his delusions of saving the English speaking world from us original thinkers.

Virago

Valpower wrote:

"Try and" (instead of "try to") is threatening to enter the Phrasal Verbs Hall of Shame. I try and not let it irritate me, but it's difficult.

Well I'm not sure about that. I think both are acceptable nowadays. I think one hears "try and" more often. I prefer "try to" myself, but I think especially verbally I might use either.

"Try and" (instead of "try to") is threatening to enter the Phrasal Verbs Hall of Shame. I try and not let it irritate me, but it's difficult.

My pet peeve lately is that no one speaks English any more. My neighborhood looks like Tijuana when the real citizens go to work during the weekday. What I can't understand is the willingness to hire illegals for day work.

I don't want them in my yard.

Valpower wrote:

"Try and" (instead of "try to") is threatening to enter the Phrasal Verbs Hall of Shame. I try and not let it irritate me, but it's difficult.

I agree with Mr McTag. This is a perfectly fine, grammatically correct structure that is used in all dialects of English. It is quite a bit more common in BrE/CdE than AmE and it is a more informal usage, but it is found in all registers from casual speech to academic writing.

What the heck is that supposed to mean? I should welcome illegal aliens to my neighborhood? What part of "illegal" don't you understand?

What the heck is that supposed to mean? I should welcome illegal aliens to my neighborhood? What part of "illegal" don't you understand?

I doubt it would have mattered if you had said more, Virago, because you didn't say anything that points up how your positions are in any way correct. But I guess one could hold out some hope that that will change.

All you did was stamp your feet and demand your god given right to whine and kvetch about things that you don't know much about. I wondered why Andrew didn't notice that. He's usually more perceptive

You accused me of being a follower of Lederer and Safire, but now you are angry that I won't ape you.

JTT: I'm not angry. Actually, I apologise, Virago. You've convinced me. I'm now ready to admit that you've dreamed up these silly peeves all on your own.

I stated very clearly why my positions are correct, you are being obtuse.

You can state your opinions from now until kingdom come, Virago; I'm afraid that repetition doesn't qualify as proof. You may have been led to believe that's so because you see so many politicians doing it but it simply isn't so.

Why don't you turn your computer off for a while and go outside for some air. It will do me a world of good.

If you need a forum free from critique to advance your peeves, Virago, then I think even you can see just how much merit they have.

Virago

I just stumbled upon this thread, so I hope I'm not being redundant.

My flesh crawls when I hear a professional speaker misuse the word literally. The next time I hear it, I'm going to literally blow my top. Well not really, but you get the point.