What are your pet peeves re English usage?

That kind of thing literally makes my blood boil, and I wish the dictionary had not said that. It is illogical, and I believe it is also damaging, to encourage stronger and stronger phraseology in the interests of emphasis: simple hyperbole. It seems to me unnecessary, and that way madness lies, a dead-end path. We will have "nowhere else to go", struck dumb, literally speechless.

0 Replies

I think the dictionary has to include actual usage, and in that way needs to include the second definition. We do use many words which started out as hyperbole and are now taken as less. Infinite comes to mind. Too early in the morning to think of others.
However, I would disagree with the wording of the usage note. It is indeed the relativism which pervades our age. I think it would be fine to say 'often wrongly used to mean'... I suppose they do a similar thing for 'almost unique'.

0 Replies

Clary wrote:

I think the dictionary has to include actual usage, and in that way needs to include the second definition. We do use many words which started out as hyperbole and are now taken as less. Infinite comes to mind. Too early in the morning to think of others.
However, I would disagree with the wording of the usage note. It is indeed the relativism which pervades our age. I think it would be fine to say 'often wrongly used to mean'... I suppose they do a similar thing for 'almost unique'.

I could have sworn, Clary that you said you were one of those, waddya call 'em, you know, "word studying type people". I'm more than a wee bit surprised that "you think" a dictionary has to include meanings that occur in language.

Aren't dictionaries merely the catalogues for the meanings people invent? New words and new meanings are invented daily. As one astute student, quoted in the LDCE put it, "A dictionary should describe how people actually use the language".

Hasn't it always been so? Language has been around for eons and dictionaries have a somewhat more limited history.

0 Replies

What's M-W when it's at home?

Whatever M-W is, I entirely disagree with it/them/him/her. "Literally" is an antonym of "virtually". If it is allowed to mean "virtually" as well, it doesn't mean anything at all other than being a vague intensifier. Then we will have to coin a new word to convey the meaning "literally".

In just the same way the word "decimate", which had the perfectly specific meaning "kill one in 10 of" has been lazily corrupted by people using it to mean "kill most of". Now it's impossible to use it in its correct meaning because it will not be understood. (Even in an audience of classicists they may not be clear whether the speaker is using it correctly or not.) The real meaning is effectively dead and if the sense is needed a new word will have to be coined for it.

0 Replies

Yes, I was being tactful and gentle in my approach to my friend McTag, JTT. Of course a dictioonary must be a catalogue of contemporary language.
But look at the uses it's put to. People either want to check spelling or want to know a standard of acceptability. American Heritage Dictionary used to have something like : "76% of the Usage panel thought this unacceptable." That seems to me an entirely worthy approach for a book which is so often taken as gospel.

0 Replies

Quote:

I suppose they do a similar thing for 'almost unique'.

Can anyone explain to me what if anything is wrong with "almost unique"?

Yes, I know about "unique" being an absolute, and certainly "very unique" and "slightly unique" are wrong, but if you have - say - a postage stamp of which there are only two known examples in the world, I can't see what is wrong with saying that it is almost unique.

I think a good analogy here is "dead", another absolute. You can't be "very dead" or "slightly dead" but you can certainly be "almost dead" or "quite [in the sense 'totally'] dead".

0 Replies

that's true

0 Replies

What Clary said.

"Quite" is a good one, isn't it? (not a peeve)

It has two opposite meanings:

"Quite dead" -totally dead

"Quite good" -not totally good.

0 Replies

I quite agree.

I quite like that.

0 Replies

syntinen wrote:

What's M-W when it's at home?

Whatever M-W is, I entirely disagree with it/them/him/her. "Literally" is an antonym of "virtually". If it is allowed to mean "virtually" as well, it doesn't mean anything at all other than being a vague intensifier. Then we will have to coin a new word to convey the meaning "literally".

In just the same way the word "decimate", which had the perfectly specific meaning "kill one in 10 of" has been lazily corrupted by people using it to mean "kill most of". Now it's impossible to use it in its correct meaning because it will not be understood. (Even in an audience of classicists they may not be clear whether the speaker is using it correctly or not.) The real meaning is effectively dead and if the sense is needed a new word will have to be coined for it.

That's pure pedantry, syntinen. People are just not as stupid as you'd have us believe. Context fills us in just fine. I've never, in my life, been confused by any word with dual usage/dual meanings because, unlike the confines of these silly style books, real life has context.

'moot' has two opposite meanings, no confusion. Check the dictionary for 'get'. Who gets confused? What might this "audience of classicists" be gathered for; to see who can come up with the most inane peeve? Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

Yes, I know about "unique" being an absolute, and certainly "very unique" and "slightly unique" are wrong, ...

I'm afraid I must inform you that knowledgeable language sources don't agree with your amateur assessment, Syntinen.

0 Replies

JTT, you're doing it again.
"Fatuous", "inane", "amateur" pepper your posts. Surely you can express yourself clearly without recourse to unpleasantness. I know you can.

0 Replies

Fatuous -- having a propensity to gain weight

Inane -- lacking visual acuity

Amateur -- too clueless to get a good agent

0 Replies

I ain't got no peeves, wild or domesticated, when it comes to butcherin' English . . . it's all good . . .

0 Replies

syntinen wrote:

What's M-W when it's at home?

Whatever M-W is, I entirely disagree with it/them/him/her. "Literally" is an antonym of "virtually". If it is allowed to mean "virtually" as well, it doesn't mean anything at all other than being a vague intensifier. Then we will have to coin a new word to convey the meaning "literally".

In just the same way the word "decimate", which had the perfectly specific meaning "kill one in 10 of" has been lazily corrupted by people using it to mean "kill most of". Now it's impossible to use it in its correct meaning because it will not be understood. (Even in an audience of classicists they may not be clear whether the speaker is using it correctly or not.) The real meaning is effectively dead and if the sense is needed a new word will have to be coined for it.

Hear, hear!

I agree wholeheartedly... Very Happy

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Quote:

Context fills us in just fine. I've never, in my life, been confused by any word with dual usage/dual meanings.

Fine: if I write "Badgers in Herefordshire have been decimated by a cull authorised by the Ministry of Agriculture" I know what I mean, but do you?

Quote:

What might this "audience of classicists" be gathered for

I was literally (that's literally literally, by the way) imagining addressing the annual conference of the Classical Association of England and Wales and wondering whether I could use "decimate" without ambiguity.

Quote:

I'm afraid I must inform you that knowledgeable language sources don't agree with your amateur assessment, Syntinen.

What knowledgeable language sources are those? I stand by what I said.

0 Replies

JTT

I've got no specific objection to your posts. If we were to characterise the majority of the posters here as "linguistic authoritatians" you seem to fall into the category of anarchist. "Anything goes", according to you, it seems.

(I'll try to imitate Carrie Bradshaw at this point but you'll see from my photo that's near impossible)

I couldn't help but wonder:

- what are you getting out of this thread?

- if usage is the major determinant, are there any which go "beyond the pale" for you?

- for the same reason, why bother to back up your points with the dictionary entries - surely it doesn't matter what the old book says, it'll always be sligthly out of date?

Please don't take this as an attack. I'm genuinely interested to discover your motivation and whether you can apply any general principle to your comments.

It seems the authoritarians make their (our?) points on the basis of an inate sense that the precision of language use is being eroded, to the detriment of meaning.

Do you wish to comment?

KP

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Quote:

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.

Politicians, huh. You do like to stray from the point, don't you. First of all I never repeated a thing; I simply said I was clear in the first place. Secondly, why is it that you keep asking for proof? I don't need a second opinion on something as basic as coherent sentence structure or the past tense of a verb, and I wonder why anyone would. Then again, logic doesn't seem to be your forte. On second thought, please don't answer that. I just don't have the time to continue this, and I feel sure the rest of the very nice people on this thread would rather I didn't encourage you.

JTT wrote:

Quote:

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.

Boy, you must really be steamed. Smile

I can read the standard print quite clearly, so there is no need for bold unless you just like it. I don't need a critique free forum; I am merely amazed that anyone would get so excited about another person's thoughts. Why should an opinion, a comment made in passing which affects no one, get critiqued? My, but you are defensive. By the way, JTT, you are the one paying so much attention to my personal peeves, thereby advancing them. No one else cares. Perhaps you'd like to stop?

You may be interested to know, though I'm sure you will adamantly deny it, that I did take a peek at some on line information written by the authors you mentioned. I was ridiculously amused to see so many folks concurring with me. You know, since you are paying so much attention to what I think, I will share another thought with you. I think you really love language and are probably an interesting fellow with something to say. Problem is, it is all buried so deeply beneath your rosy outlook that no one will listen. I also think you are fighting a losing battle by posting what you perceive to be higher thinking on the subject on a thread entitled "What are your pet peeves re English usage." You are going to wear yourself out defending your position. However, if you enjoy it, by all means continue. Now then, much to our mutual delight, I'm going back to lurking for a while. I really enjoy reading some of the other folks' thoughts, and you need a chance to cool off.

Virago

0 Replies

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0867090790.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

4

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0801058066.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

1

0 Replies

Why can't the "misuse" of literally be viewed as a hyperbole? I've used it "incorrectly" with that exact intention. When you say you will "literally blow your top, if..." everyone knows you are exaggerating. Anyone with me?

I object to "try and" in some cases. It makes sense in "Well, I'll try and see," but "I'll try and do that," which I presume is the sense we're discussing, where "and" would need to be a correct preposition to pair with the word, and not just a conjunction, then I don't see how it could be grammatically correct.

Forgive me if I'm using the incorrect terms. Most of my terminology actually comes from another language, so if I've misused a word just bring it to my attention and I'll rephrase.

My wife uses "Almost to..." in conjunction with a verb. Is it just me, or is that incorrect. If you're going to combine with a verb, then you need to use "about to." For example, "I'm almost to go to the store." It makes me cringe, but I don't know how to justify why.

I just caught up from a while back, and I'm confused that "wont" would be pronounced the same as "won't." I'm surprised because I would have thought that to be an uneducated or ignorant pronunciation. So when I heard intelligent people saying they pronounced it that way I had to run to my dictionary.

0 Replies

What are your pet peeves re English usage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know