What are your pet peeves re English usage?

booman2 wrote:

Pifka,
.....We're having such a fun gentlemanly debate. I'm afraid mwe all will be accused of being gentlemen. Anyhow, I want you to focus now... All I'm saying is, I thought he was correct, but learned Gentleman, voted me down. You insisted,that I should use him. Okay...I conceded.. I not only changed it, but took the you, off the table so you could see your "him" in all it's glory. So why aren't you satisfied? Please keep it simple, I am but a humble high school drop out.

Sweet Booman, I am not a gentleman. I am what you'd call a lady, perhaps, or at least a female, thank you very much.

I do applaud your efforts <clap, clap, clap>. Nothing an old pedant likes better than some confusing grammar to be worked out, but you didn't use the same constructions for your sentences so (I'm not making this up) they don't follow the same rules. That's why it doesn't matter if you take "the you off the table." You've changed from a motorcycle to a car and expect to still need the helmet.

In one case you have a straightforward Noun + Verb phrase (which requires an object) + a compound object consisting of an objective pronoun possibly performing an action.

In the other, you have two independent or main clauses, one relative to the other. <shrug> That's just the way it is.

Clauses are predicative and use real subjects or the nominative case; direct object phrases are not predicative and use the objective case.

Now I'm just feeling badly about going into so much detail... however:

First Sentence (corrected):

Quote:

I would like you and him to check out my post.

You could also say: I would like him to check the post.

A complete sentence cannot be made from the noun + verb, you see? "I would like" is a sentence fragment.

In the same way, "him to check the post" is also a fragment.

Second Sentence (corrected):

Quote:

"I think that he would like to check it out."...

You could also say: I think he will check out the post.

A complete sentence can be made from the noun + verb, "I think."

A complete sentence can also be made from "He will check the post."

<sigh> I think I'll go back to my game now.

0 Replies

Booman wrote:

Okay fellas'
.....Far be it from me to argue with so msny apparently learned gentlemen.
So, I'll just restate the sentence, using him...oh.... and just to show with clarity, wht I've learned from you learned gentleman I'll leave out one of the subjects. "I think that him would like to check it out."... Okay guys?

booman2 wrote:

MA,Pifka,Val,
.....Don't leave a brother hangin' here. Did I satisfy you guys with my contrition, and rewording of the sentence? I'd like to know if 'se done did well y'all.

I wouldn't leave a brother hangin'; it's illegal, even if it's my nasty brother. I simply had to leave work when the discussion was at it's apex. Your contrition is hardly necessary as it's your enthusiam for language that makes you (and many of us) rejoice in something so silly as a grammar victory (however unfounded it may be). That is a good thing. It's no accident that a thread on pet peeves has become the de facto social parlor for the English forum posters.

Gentleman? I'll take it. I couldn't rightly be called learned, though, since I didn't know the rule by which "him" was correct (thank you Piffka). I prefer to be called learning, anyway. Before I found this board, I'd be damned if I'd remembered what a gerund was.

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

You've changed from a motorcycle to a car and expect to still need the helmet.

Lady drivers!

0 Replies

lady diverse!

0 Replies

ladies dive first! I say.

0 Replies

Pifka,
.....Please forgive me dear lady. Or as Homer Simpson would say..D'OH!
As for your arguements....er...uh...um...I might strike back when this dizzy spell goes away. Embarrassed

Osso,
....Thanks old Pal, It's good to be back

0 Replies

booman2 wrote:

Pifka,
.....Please forgive me dear lady. Or as Homer Simpson would say..D'OH!
As for your arguements....er...uh...um...I might strike back when this dizzy spell goes away.

Osso,
....Thanks old Pal, It's good to be back

Should I apologize now for all that grammatical double-speak?? I didn't mean to make you dizzy; really I didn't. It just sneaks out of me sometimes.

And now..... Vrooom, vrooom. I think I'll put on my helmet & take the old wreck for a spin. Wink

0 Replies

The funny part of all this is, I'll wager no one actuallychecked out the post I alluded to, which I thought was pretty relevant to participants on this forum.
Sad

Sig-h-h.... Sad

0 Replies

This one?

booman2 wrote:

....Wowee zillickers!.. .I see after I made an appearance last night, I missed the linquistical rumble, that later ensued between Setana & Jtt. So , albeit a little late, I have a coupla' points, that nevertheless should be addressed.
.....First point: A peeve of mine I didn't mention is making language a mandate rather than a tool. Please remember that the position of lanquage is as a TOOL OF COMMUNICATION ...Tools don't use men,men use tools. If you have a nail to drive in and the closest thing to you is a monkey wrench, you shouldn't be ostracized, for using it. If you succeed in getting your point across, my "pet peeves" are just that, nothing more. My concern is mainly when someone in the position of say, a newscaster, misuses the language, without explanation. A youngster or newcomer should have a chance to learn proper english, before learning improvisations, malaprops, etc..
....Second point:Mssrs. Setana and JTT A debate is best utilized when the participonts priority is Seeking the truth, not winning the argument at all costs. This is done by arguing your position to the best of your ability, NOT ....contesting the right of your adversaries to have a different point of view. Now you guys shake hands, and get on with your lifses...hee,hee ...o.k..lives.

Yes, I did. But, like a bull with a red rag.... hand me an editing job and I can't think of anything else. I am sorry though, because I thought you were doing a swell job of trying to make everyone see reason. (Not that people always want to see reason.) It is a funny when people get irate about this subject, myself included. I didn't go back and check the fireworks, unfortunately since this is become almost a spectator sport, but I can comment on this very true comment of yours:

Quote:

My concern is mainly when someone in the position of say, a newscaster, misuses the language, without explanation. A youngster or newcomer should have a chance to learn proper english, before learning improvisations, malaprops, etc..

It musters up the thought in my mind and probably in others that the newscaster (or any other supposedly emulatable English speaker) may not know any better. Maybe their teachers didn't know "proper English" either. Well, ho-hum, I've learned to "quit worrying and love the bomb." Should I be feeling differently about that? <shrug> You tell me.

Proper English is here defined, I think, as that traditionally written, punctuated, spelled and otherwise accepted (and, as JTT might say, practically out-of-date by the time it is published) standard. I know it, or used to know it, but fa-la... who really cares?

For one thing English English-speakers think we in the states (Moi?) have a lot of it wrong. Since they also seem to revel in their own variations across that tiny island, I have learned to love the differences and not worry about my own problems toeing the English line.

Also... I did mean to mention just-in-case (and I apologize for making this long) that any construction guy would be ostracized on the job:

Quote:

If you have a nail to drive in and the closest thing to you is a monkey wrench, you shouldn't be ostracized, for using it.

You're expected to get up and find a hammer unless somebody is in danger of dying. Wink

0 Replies

Pifka,
,,,,,I wouldn't think there's a need for you to apoligize, for lucidly, and eloquently, getting your point across. I feel honoree that a person such as you consideers my POV valid.

0 Replies

Omigosh, I must seem ancient to you. Very Happy

0 Replies

0 Replies

Well said, Piff.

I find it a bit of a peeve when people deliberately use the language wrongly, know it's wrong, and think it's too much trouble to find the right way.
Or one of the right ways.
Or commentators on radio and TV using the latest buzzword, to show how hip they are; another example of that.

0 Replies

Quote:

Booman2
....Wowee zillickers!.. .I see after I made an appearance last night, I missed the linquistical rumble, that later ensued between Setana & Jtt. So , albeit a little late, I have a coupla' points, that nevertheless should be addressed.

There was no "linquistical rumble", Booman. Setanta, a knowledgeable gentleman on many topics couldn't, by his own admission, fill the proverbial thimble with his linguistic knowledge.

.....First point: A peeve of mine I didn't mention is making language a mandate rather than a tool. Please remember that the position of lanquage is as a TOOL OF COMMUNICATION ...Tools don't use men,men use tools. If you have a nail to drive in and the closest thing to you is a monkey wrench, you shouldn't be ostracized, for using it.

My position exactly! Many here have both misunderstood and mischaraterized my position. That's the nature of this discussion; it isn't as simplistic as many make it out to be.

If you succeed in getting your point across, my "pet peeves" are just that, nothing more. My concern is mainly when someone in the position of say, a newscaster, misuses the language, without explanation. A youngster or newcomer should have a chance to learn proper english, before learning improvisations, malaprops, etc..

You are again, making an assumption, [actually two, at the least], that is not credible when viewed thru the lens of language science. I must have already addressed your allegations against whoever it was or you'd not be discussing it here.

....Second point:Mssrs. Setana and JTT A debate is best utilized when the participonts priority is Seeking the truth, not winning the argument at all costs. This is done by arguing your position to the best of your ability, NOT ....contesting the right of your adversaries to have a different point of view. Now you guys shake hands, and get on with your lifses...hee,hee ...o.k..lives.

I get on with my life. I hold no grudges. I've defended Setanta "language errors" as pointed out by others. Since my side of the discussion addressed the actual language issues raised, I can't see your point, Booman.

I did point out that Setanta knows very little about how language works; that was not a personal attack, it was simply the truth. How do we know this is so? He said so himself.

Now on to your other issue, Booman, the nominative and the accusative and how they work in modern English.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Well said, Piff.

I find it a bit of a peeve when people deliberately use the language wrongly, know it's wrong, and think it's too much trouble to find the right way.
Or one of the right ways.
Or commentators on radio and TV using the latest buzzword, to show how hip they are; another example of that.

Exactly, McTag, dead on exactly! After all the postings where I've pointed up how language actually works, where I've debunked the old prescriptions, with proof from knowledgeable language sources, why are there still so may people who "think it's too much trouble to find the right way".

Isn't it hypocritical to criticize some for using new words, [words, that I must point out, become English as soon as they gain a new meaning] but get all gushy about the new words Shakespeare created or those some that come from other authors? Do these folks operate in some nether world of language, this place of "artistic license" that is denied to the rest of us?

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

Proper English is here defined, I think, as that traditionally written, punctuated, spelled and otherwise accepted (and, as JTT might say, practically out-of-date by the time it is published) standard. I know it, or used to know it, but fa-la... who really cares?

For one thing English English-speakers think we in the states (Moi?) have a lot of it wrong. Since they also seem to revel in their own variations across that tiny island, I have learned to love the differences and not worry about my own problems toeing the English line.

A wonderful summation, Piffka. Just one small point. And this one small point is actually the big overall point that has caused a lot of the problems.

Your definition for "proper English" is actually the definition for Standard Written English. Let me try to show the difference and what it means to this discussion in the overall sense.

Prescriptive grammarians have always assumed that the rules of English, are those that define how we write in formal situations. A quick look at some of the more formal of writing will quickly dispel that notion. We don't speak as we write, even informal writing.

That leaves 'you' in the uneviable position of having to live with the fact that the vast majority of your language use is incorrect and/or ungrammatical. But that, I think you'll agree, is ludicrous.

Now this leads us directly to the Descriptivist position. Language has many "registers". This means [you're a bright lady, you almost certainly already know what it means but indulge me] there are many different ways we use language and each has its own rules.

If we look at a transcript of actual everyday casual speech, we can easily discern that it doesn't follow the rules of SWE. Nor does newspaper writing follow the rules of academic prose. Fiction, too has its rules.

Even conversation has many different registers and the changes that occur from one to the other are dramatic indeed.

The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English undertook a massive study just to help define what these differences are. Studies of this type clearly point up that language is not that described by prescriptive grammar.

So does that mean there are no rules; of course not. We ENLs are very careful about rules but the rules we use depends on the situation.

You raised a good point about BrE versus AmE. AmE, not so long ago was bad English. To reach its current status as an English, it didn't drop the Americanisms and go back to BrE.

That there tells you that these dialectal differences have nothing to do with grammaticality or correctness. They only have to do with our perception of the same and those perceptions shouldn't be determined by old wives tales. They should be determined by what's true about language.

0 Replies

Tha's on to summat, theer.

I'm in such a good mood today, I couldn't think of a peeve.
Instead, I'll make an observation.

Isn't it funny how words persist, a long time after their original reason-for-use is gone?

I mean, you can take a steamer, even though steam propulsion was largely gone by the 1950s (!)

You may even roll a road nowadays with a steam-road-roller. (although road contractors do not use that term, some people still do)

I came across two other examples of this yesterday, but I'm damned if I can think of them now. I'll be back.

0 Replies

booman2 wrote:

Ahhh, Booman... just a joke. Cool

I'm hononred that you're honored. Your POV is as valid as anyone's. In my POV you made many friends with your kind gestures.

0 Replies

McTag -- waiting breathlessly for whatever it was you have momentarily forgotten. I'm glad you're in a good mood. Is the sun shining? Did you rise with the larks and the snails?

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

A wonderful summation, Piffka. Just one small point. ...

Nor does newspaper writing follow the rules of academic prose. Fiction, too has its rules. /quote]

Thanks for the kind comment. I like this idea of the registers for written & spoken English, but I have to object to newspapers not following the rules of SWE since teachers of today often point to them as examples.

Interesting points about how we don't speak as we write... though there are varying layers (registers?) of more judiciously applied language. And now, on to one of my pet peeves (I've always got one in my back pocket)...our lame duck president provides plenty of fodder for the complaint of people in high places speaking poorly and incoherently. I can only hope those who applaud him do so not to encourage him to continue but to point to a convenient and early stopping point.

0 Replies

What are your pet peeves re English usage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know