63
   

What are your pet peeves re English usage?

 
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 10:07 pm
ceraitve spellnig is fun
0 Replies
 
Virago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 10:45 pm
((Sigh))

Quote:
There's gotta be a name for this type of deception, an actual name, there's just gotta be!


There is no deception, JTT, but I am not surprised that you are unfamiliar with the technique. It is called making a point and, by the way, winning an argument.

Quote:
The distinctions that you're attempting to draw, Virago, between these "language preferences" and color preferences are really specious.


I would say you are either deliberately misunderstanding, which is most probable, or you need to take another look because you didn't understand, which is less probable.

Quote:
I don't recall the "preferences" that you got taken to task for but they obviously went beyond a color preference. All these preferences contain within, a snide, you-don't-talk-as-well-as-I-do attitude.


You cannot possibly be serious. Have you never read any of your own posts? You condescend with every syllable! I am assuming you are referring here to my initial post - the one for which I was, ahem, taken to task. Everything written, as you absolutely know, was intended as lighthearted. If you think otherwise, then you've misinterpreted. If you have specific issues, then be clear.

Quote:
These types of remarks intrude into how language is used and are more akin to;

A: Brown hair shouldn't be genetically possible".

B: Oh, why?

A: Because I detest brown hair.


Which is precisely what you are doing when you try to "apply scientific principles to preferences."

A: People shouldn't be irritated by the use of "literally" when meaning "virtually"

B: Oh, why?

A: Because they know what is intended, and because the dictionary says it can mean either literally OR virtually, therefore they have to like it. They have to like it because science and the dictionary say so.


Quote:
The problem with all this, is that when you apply scientific principles to such "preferences", they show up as mere prejudices.


But I am not applying scientific principles to preferences; that would be you. My whole point, as you surely must know by now, is that preferences do not require scientific principles! They don't require second opinions! You are saying that there must be some logical foundation before a preference can be credible, and I am saying that's ridiculous. To be a true and valid pet peeve must it also come with certification? Perhaps I should have my list of peeves documented in writing, witnessed and notarized. Or is a pet peeve permit required?

Quote:
Actually, I just went back and had a look at your preferences, Virago. Not a one, wait, let me double check ..., ..., ..., ..., I'm back, right, where were we, oh yes, not a one finds a scintilla of support within knowlegeable language circles.


Well, if you must have support from others to form an opinion, then perhaps your circle of "knowledgeables" is too small. Widen out. Smile

Virago
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 02:01 am
Hooray! Another argument!

Well said, Virago, robustly but politely stated.

On this "language" thread, it is amazing how personal these post can get. Not dusty at all, not in the first sense of the word at least. :wink:

As far as the goofy language issue is concerned, it may make some sense while texting simple messages on a mobile, but makes little sense from a keyboard. On the GIGO principle, the answers elicited will tend to be goofy too.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 02:08 am
McTag wrote:
I heard a debate by politicians and journalists on the radio today, and someone had referred to someone else's views as "repellent".

Should that be "repugnant"? I haven't looked in the good book yet for exact meanings, or meanings which were more-or-less exact when my best dictionary was published, but I would plump for "repugnant" and leave "repellent" for silicone sprays and anti-insect preparations.


hey wat bowt my ansr? i bin ig-nord or wat?

fuggedaboudit I look in dick shunry
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 04:57 am
think you could use either McT

repugnant being stronger

I would use that word for casual speech

repellent is as you say for technical use eg treated surfaces

But I do have a water proof repugnant jacket somewhere
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 04:59 am
A lovely good morning to our spirited members from across the pond. Such fun to be had this fine Sunday morning.
0 Replies
 
smorgs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 05:22 am
Whaddeverr!!!
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 05:28 am
And good afternoon to you Setanta.

I said to the vicar this morning that Genesis was plaigarised, just lifted from The Epic of Gilgamesh, as you said...


Smile
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 05:31 am
And how did the good man take that assertion, Steve? One would assume that good manners would have denied him the outlet of fire and brimstone . . .
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 05:48 am
Well of course your name came up straight away and he said in that case there is no contest.

He's leaving the Church now to join a bunch of travelling minstrels.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 05:50 am
I hope he has the stamina for it. Travelling minstrels are in short supply; clerics are a dime a dozen.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 05:55 am
indeed

gotta go now


have some serious repentin'to do
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 06:08 am
smorgs wrote:
Whaddeverr!!!


Hereabouts that's pronounced "Whaddevah", Smorgs. Smile
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 08:23 am
Yo.
Yoiks.

Same? Different? Related?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 09:19 am
I'll stick my neck out . . .


"Yo" is a form of address, intended to get someone's attention.

"Yoiks" is an expression of surprise, and perhaps dismay.

That's my story, an' i'm stickin' to it.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 09:22 am
<muttering>
0 Replies
 
LionTamerX
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 09:25 am
Hoy hoy...
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 06:39 pm
Hoo-boy.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 06:41 pm
Floy floy . . .


Oh, the flat foot floogie with a floy, floy,
Flat foot floogie with a floy, floy,
Flat foot floogie with a floy, floy,
Floy doy, floy doy, floy doy.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 06:43 pm
And let's not forget Hutsat Ralston (Sp.?)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 03/16/2025 at 08:57:06