What are your pet peeves re English usage?

Clary, it is sometimes used to indicate someone or something of no consequence, as in: "I'll take care of those puppies right now"--to mean dealing with some annoying adolescents; or "there's no more moles tearing up my lawn, i took care of those pupppies once and for all." The expression does not bother me as it seems to do AG, although i'd not likely use it myself.

Another pet peeve: Precedence of interpunctation. Here's an example:

"Why don't you add a paragraph to your letter saying something like this# '(Blabeddy blah blah blah.)'"

The '#' before the quote could stand either for a question mark or for a colon. A question mark, because the independent clause preceding the quote is a question; a colon, because that's how you conventionally alert the reader that there's a quote coming up. Is there a correct and consistent solution to this dilemma?

Thomas,

Just avoid the problem and turn it into a statement and use a colon:

"You could add a paragraph to your letter saying: "XXXX""

Alternatively, use a colon before the quote and finish with a question mark after the end of the quote, outside the quotation marks.

KP

Kitchenpete: Avoiding the problem might indeed yield an expressive and grammatically accurate sentence. Unfortunately, it would also make me a grammar wimp when I want to be a grammar macho. What good is understandable language when I loose my self-esteem writing it?

Thomas

Die Mehrheit von Englisch als Muttersprache sprechende Leute koennten weder deinen Grammatische Stolz verstehen noch diesen Satz korrigieren!

KP

Thanks!

Thanks, Setanta!!
Setanta,

Thank you for providing an explanation of the "puppies" expression. I didn't include one in my original post because I wasn't sure I could come up with one!! How do these things catch on, anyway? I could understand if it was clever but...

ailsa

P.S. How come you guys are posting in German?

"It goes without saying that..."

I'm a part of the minority, so I probably shouldn't be doing this, but it is a pet peeve. Americans ordering their dates with the actual day, between the month and year. Logically, shouldn't the order progress from the shortest length of time to the longest? I suppose I just think it's easier to find the day at the beginning of the date.

Also... "I didn't do nothing wrong."

Dates
Happenstance,

Yes, "it goes without saying that..." is a good one. Makes no sense at all!!

The date thing is another issue. Being American/Canadian, I was brought up to use this form: June 12, 1968. In Europe, I know that the same date would be written 12 June 1968. But to me, the fact that the day comes first, then the month, then the year isn't logical-- why? Because until you know the month, the day doesn't matter. (If that makes sense.) At least with the American version, you can see the year easily (since it's last) and see the month right away (since it's first). But I suppose it's really a matter of preference.

Let me ask you something about the word "whilst." Is it synonymous with "while?" I like the sound of it much better than "while."

ailsa

ailsa,

We'll never agree across the world on the date format!

While means "during" - we all know that.

Whilst means "in spite of the fact that..." (at the beginning of a sentence) or "whereas" (as a conjunction).

e.g. Whilst I am generally in favour of allowing freedom of individuals to follow their own cultural practices, I believe that Female Genital Mutilation should be stopped, no matter the culture or location in which it takes place.

I'm not sure I agree with that, KP. Did you look it up first?
I haven't got access to any reference books at the moment, but I consider while and whilst to be interchangeable.
But, I've been wrong before.

Peeve: I don't like the American use of "momentarily" when they mean "presently".

(Or "presently" when they mean "now")

Yeah! said he trying to catch up.

I remember when I was in primary school I quoted the phrase "Practice makes perfect", and the teacher insisted the correct form should be "Practice makes perfection". I never trusted a teacher after that.

I was curious as to where the format of dates originated and found this tidbit of information. The format of month, day, year is actually from England. This format was traditional in England, and then brought to America. However, since the 1900s the English began to use the day, month and year format which was imported from Europe.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/calendar_date

I'm mystified--i'm not familiar with this, and i've been 'Merican all my life (no, no, really, i have . . . ). When i use momentarily, i mean very soon, and that's how i've always taken others to mean it. I doubt i'd use presently, but if i did, i would consider it interchangable with momentarily. If i meant at this time, i'd use at present.

Set,

It's one of those words which has a different meaning in the UK and the US.

UK: momentarily means FOR a moment (ephemeral)

US: momentarily means IN a moment (next thing to do = UK's "presently")

It's one that confused me for a long time, then the penny dropped...then again, you probably get exposed to less Brit English than we do 'Murican.

KP

Double and multiple negatives are quite common in European languages. They were common in English until about the time of Shakespeare and the Jacobean playwrights, when "logic" began to be enforced. One can find many examples of double and multiple negatives in Caxton's Mallory (Le Morte d'Arthur), which was first printed in 1485. There are many examples of the survival of ancient forms and pronunciations in English. The common usage of "ain't" in the American language is a vestige of a time (late Elizabethan, early Jacobean) when English speakers pronounced "are" as "air"--hence, air not, airn't, ain't.

When Anglo-Saxon was spoken in England, there were letters which represented "th," both the "hard" and the "soft" forms. In other European languages, ch, sh and zh are indicated by certain combinations of letters, as in "cc" when it appears in many words of Italian.

A single negative makes as much sense logically as a double negative. Languages have to sort of straddle the essense of the meaning by choosing to accept a single negative or a double, but neither really work with logical definitions of the words. Russians use double negatives only. You would say "No one isn't here," for example. I'll expound on that if I wan't very clear.

Peeve gleaned from CBS news this morning, that I hear increasingly: I understand that there is a phrase: "As far as X is concerned, ..." but nowadays I'm left dangling because people get as far as "As far as X" and leave out the concerned bit. Am I right to be concerned about this?

I don't know that you need be concerned. It's silly, perhaps even stupid--however, as i see it, the human race has thrived and prospered for millenia despite an overabuncance of silliness and stupidity.