Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I hate dangling superlatives, like "House for sale, newer carpets." Though it probably would say "...newer carpet's."
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:There's them as holds they're prepositions of direction. Aarrh.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I get annoyed on the TV weather forecasts by unnecessary adverbs (at least I think they are adverbs): "Bands of rain will be sinking down", "The winds will ease back" and the like.
quote:And then there's the evil scum that insist on adverbing the adjective.
Originally posted by Ariel:
Which isn't verbing the noun so much as nouning the adjective.
quote:It's a precise legal term in the intellectual property field, especially regarding patents. Elsewhere treat it with disdain.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
What's "state of the art"?
quote:You are what you eat.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:And then there's the evil scum that insist on adverbing the adjective.
Originally posted by Ariel:
Which isn't verbing the noun so much as nouning the adjective.
"Eat Healthy!"
Eat healthy what? Eat healthy people?
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:You might, but we don't. The exception here is ice cream, which has been called that for decades.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The -d of the adjectival form of verbs is dying. Example: until quite recently we used to drink iced tea; now we drink ice tea.
quote:"Box sets" (of films etc.)
Originally posted by mousethief:
The -d of the adjectival form of verbs is dying. Example: until quite recently we used to drink iced tea; now we drink ice tea. There are others.
quote:I have tried to google this to no avail. I know there are other examples but "adjectives ending in d" or "adjectives ending in ed" only give you vocabulary lists, not the blog entry I vaguely remember.
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:You might, but we don't. The exception here is ice cream, which has been called that for decades.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The -d of the adjectival form of verbs is dying. Example: until quite recently we used to drink iced tea; now we drink ice tea.
quote:That's not superlative that's comparative.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I hate dangling superlatives, like "House for sale, newer carpets." Though it probably would say "...newer carpet's."
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:That had never occurred to me but good call.
I also cannot abide common usage of the word "traditional" to refer to the habit of a single individual. In the Olympics, it was said of an athlete that he traditionally listened to <some song or other> before competing.
quote:It seems that in these parts, it takes about five minutes to establish a new "tradition". A few years ago, my church inaugurated a social evening for the church men. It was successful, and was repeated the following year, when it was advertised as "traditional".
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I also cannot abide common usage of the word "traditional" to refer to the habit of a single individual. In the Olympics, it was said of an athlete that he traditionally listened to <some song or other> before competing.
quote:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
quote:Along the same lines, for the last few years I have been hearing/seeing "one of the only".
Originally posted by HCH:
I sometimes dislike the improper use of "unique". Nothing can be more or less unique; it is sometime appropriate to say something is unique in some fashion among the members of some collection.
quote:Very true.
Originally posted by HCH:
I sometimes dislike the improper use of "unique". Nothing can be more or less unique; it is sometime appropriate to say something is unique in some fashion among the members of some collection.
quote:I think perhaps it helps if you've done at least a little Latin and also learnt a couple of other languages as it makes you more aware of words' origins and how sentences are constructed. I think they are bringing back more formal grammar lessons in schools now which I think is a good thing. Not that I expect people to to use perfect grammar all the time (I certainly don't, but when you get even teachers making quite bad mistakes sometimes, it doesn't seem to bode very well.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I imagine "fresh eggs" is in the same category as "creamery butter." (The place where they make butter is called a "creamery" so it all is creamery butter.) Designed to sound good, as a selling point, but ultimately meaningless.
As a meta point, I dislike "That's not a word." It most certainly is a word. It's just a bad one. Examples include "irregardless" which sucks because it is an unnecessary synonym that etymologically is a double negative, and "ain't" which has better bona fides as a word than much of our current vocabulary, although you'd never use it in a resume (if you wanted the job) or college paper (if you wanted the grade).
I would ask my students: can you spell it? can you pronounce it? do you know what it means? then it's a word.
quote:I agree, but I fear this horse left the barn decades ago.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
"A quality product" to me sounds meaningless. All right, I presume that it is ellipsis for "high quality" ... but all products have quality, the question is whether that is good or poor!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:And the whole repertoire of "Various differences". If there are differences then there will be a variety of them.
Originally posted by Ferdzy:
quote:Along the same lines, for the last few years I have been hearing/seeing "one of the only".
Originally posted by HCH:
I sometimes dislike the improper use of "unique". Nothing can be more or less unique; it is sometime appropriate to say something is unique in some fashion among the members of some collection.
NO NO NO. Either something is the only [one], or it isn't.
quote:If that was a direct quote from the Beeb, it would most likely be, "BBC are broadcasting..." For some reason they've decided to drop the definite article from the names of countries and organizations. So "United States have sent troops..." and "World Health Organization issued a statement..."
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
"The BBC are broadcasting grammatical horrors." IS BROADCASTING!
quote:To what extent is this wrong? Although I agree with you, can I play Devil's Advocate and contend that there is an ellipsis in most of these sentences:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
My greatest linguistic loathing is the lack of agreement between subject and verb, particularly where collective nouns are concerned.
"The Government are planning educational reforms." IS PLANNING!
"England are playing at Lords today." IS PLAYING!
"The BBC are broadcasting grammatical horrors." IS BROADCASTING!
"The Household Cavalry are escorting the Queen..." IS ESCORTING!
quote:I don't think they are particularly examples of ellipsis - at least not deliberately. If they had said, "Ministers of the Government" then it would be plural and "are" would be correct. When broadcasters refer to "The Government", though, they are not employing ellipsis to remove superfluous words; they are referring to the singular entity that is "the Government."
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
To what extent is this wrong? Although I agree with you, can I play Devil's Advocate and contend that there is an ellipsis in most of these sentences:
quote:It has for a long time been acceptable in British English to use either singular or plural verbs with most collective nouns.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
When broadcasters refer to "The Government", though, they are not employing ellipsis to remove superfluous words; they are referring to the singular entity that is "the Government."
quote:Worse: "Free Range Pork Sausages" (or, sometimes, "Outdoor Bred Pork Sausages" - all those little chipolatas galloping around the field).
Originally posted by andras:
Free Range Eggs!
Walked round on their own, did they?
quote:That's just it; I don't think it has been acceptable for a long time. I'm sure people have done it for a long time but it's only relatively recently that it has become acceptable; certainly it is only recently that the Beeb has started doing it. Rather like splitting infinitives and ending sentences with a preposition, people have recently decided "Oh, it doesn't really matter, because people have always done it."
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It has for a long time been acceptable in British English to use either singular or plural verbs with most collective nouns.
quote:What? It's bad enough that he thinks he can "literally" feel the spray from a photograph taken hundreds of miles away. That he thinks he can "literally almost feel" it is even worse.
Here's a picture of Norfolk; isn't it beautiful? I can literally almost feel the spray on that beach.
quote:Both those things are "rules" invented by people with an obsession with Latin grammar. Despite their best efforts, English isn't Latin, has never been Latin, and there's no reason to pretend that it is Latin.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
Rather like splitting infinitives and ending sentences with a preposition, people have recently decided "Oh, it doesn't really matter, because people have always done it."
quote:Adding clarity and elegance are the key; I would never suggest either the infinitives or preposition "rules" as being unbreakable because it is sometimes clearer and more elegant to break those rules. That, though, was not the reason suggested for abandoning subject-verb agreement and just as well, too, since it does neither.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Both "rules" are reasonable guidelines - it is usually better not to split an infinitive, and it is often better not to end a sentence with a preposition.
quote:Perhaps. "Is comprised of" has a long pedigree in English, for all that the purists tend to poke at it, but "comprises" is certainly OK.
Originally posted by Penny S:
Isn't 'The government comprises' better?
quote:I tend to think 'comprised of' to be estate agent speak. It was one of my Dad's bugbears.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Perhaps. "Is comprised of" has a long pedigree in English, for all that the purists tend to poke at it, but "comprises" is certainly OK.
Originally posted by Penny S:
Isn't 'The government comprises' better?
quote:A few years ago I overheard a young woman on the train telling a friend how she had just dumped her boyfriend. The sentence I particularly remember is "I literally grew a pair of bollocks and told him"
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
Oh, and whilst I'm in moaning mode...
"Literally." Even as I wrote my last post, the BBC weatherman said:
quote:What? It's bad enough that he thinks he can "literally" feel the spray from a photograph taken hundreds of miles away. That he thinks he can "literally almost feel" it is even worse.
Here's a picture of Norfolk; isn't it beautiful? I can literally almost feel the spray on that beach.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:"Can I get..."
Originally posted by Spike:
One that annoys me is people in shops/pubs/restaurants who say "can I get ..." when ordering something
quote:So it is. Let's stay with the evil that men do to grammar.
Originally posted by Penny S:
Different subject. Wiltshire Ham
quote:The Cotswold Tourist Partnership would beg to differ here (scroll down to the third paragraph), as does the map here.
Originally posted by Penny S:
...south of the Cotswolds, which are not in Wiltshire.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:That's rather what acceptable means when it comes to the English language. Or perhaps it's only acceptable when the right people do it?
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
people have always done it."
quote:What a pity "nary" has dropped out of common parlance.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
"Which film do you think should win the Oscar?"
"It's difficult to say; none of them are very good." Waaaaaaa!
quote:You may think so. There are lots of ways people "have always" spoken; that doesn't make them "acceptable" English.
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's rather what acceptable means when it comes to the English language.
quote:There are quite a lot of opinions as to precisely what area comprises the Cotswolds, but this thread is not one of those areas. Unless, of course, a single Cotswold by itself is prone to grammatical misuse.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
The Cotswold Tourist Partnership would beg to differ here (scroll down to the third paragraph), as does the map here.
quote:Perhaps part of the problem lies in the way English has changed over the centuries. For example, perhaps once, one would have said 'whither goest thou?' where now we say 'where are you going to?'.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Both those things are "rules" invented by people with an obsession with Latin grammar. Despite their best efforts, English isn't Latin, has never been Latin, and there's no reason to pretend that it is Latin.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
Rather like splitting infinitives and ending sentences with a preposition, people have recently decided "Oh, it doesn't really matter, because people have always done it."
Both "rules" are reasonable guidelines - it is usually better not to split an infinitive, and it is often better not to end a sentence with a preposition. But, as an example, trying to un-split "the number of split infinitives used in these pages is expected to more than double this week" does not aid clarity, and is nonsense up with which I will not put.
quote:Acceptable to whom?
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:You may think so. There are lots of ways people "have always" spoken; that doesn't make them "acceptable" English.
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's rather what acceptable means when it comes to the English language.
quote:Your sub-editor. Have you tried arguing a point of grammar or style with a sub-editor?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Acceptable to whom?
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:You may think so. There are lots of ways people "have always" spoken; that doesn't make them "acceptable" English.
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's rather what acceptable means when it comes to the English language.
quote:I don't have a sub-editor. This just says it's not acceptable for people who have sub-editors. Whoever they are. Not that it's not acceptable for people in general.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Your sub-editor. Have you tried arguing a point of grammar or style with a sub-editor?
quote:I don't see it as a long pedigree. Perhaps I'm showing my age.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Perhaps. "Is comprised of" has a long pedigree in English, for all that the purists tend to poke at it, but "comprises" is certainly OK.
Originally posted by Penny S:
Isn't 'The government comprises' better?
quote:In his "Essay toward the Theory of the Ideal or Intelligible World," John Norris of Bemerton writes
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
I don't see it as a long pedigree. Perhaps I'm showing my age.
quote:That was published in 1704.
For so tho' a Triangle in the most simple and precise Conception of it be only a Figure comprised of three right Lines, yet these three Lines will necessarily make three Angles, and these three Angles will be equal to two right ones, &c.
quote:I accept the correction, O learned colleague. But I wouldn't use it. Maybe that's an illustration of changing usage?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:In his "Essay toward the Theory of the Ideal or Intelligible World," John Norris of Bemerton writes
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
I don't see it as a long pedigree. Perhaps I'm showing my age.
quote:That was published in 1704.
For so tho' a Triangle in the most simple and precise Conception of it be only a Figure comprised of three right Lines, yet these three Lines will necessarily make three Angles, and these three Angles will be equal to two right ones, &c.
quote:Don't get hung up about it. I used "sub-editors" because they are arbiters of style and grammar in the professional sphere. As you say, you don't have one and few do.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I don't have a sub-editor. This just says it's not acceptable for people who have sub-editors. Whoever they are. Not that it's not acceptable for people in general.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Your sub-editor. Have you tried arguing a point of grammar or style with a sub-editor?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
quote:I agree entirely about the adverbing of adjectives (I mentioned my objections to "eat healthy" earlier.)
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Another is when BBC (radio 4) news readers say, There's been a meeting....' when they mean, There has been...' I have written several times over the past few years, since the saving of time in using the abbreviation cannot be more than a milli-second.
quote:My apologies - I should have remembered to say it is the way it is said - as if it is 'there is been', with three syllables, instead of 'there's been' as two. Next time I hear it, I'll try and make a note
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
On the use of "there's" as a contraction of "there has", I can't agree with you. If you're concerned about time saving, the difference between "there's" and "there has" is no different from the difference between "there's" and "there is", so that is no reason to object to one contraction but not the other.
quote:To be consistent, shouldn't you have written "I will try"?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
My apologies - I should have remembered to say it is the way it is said - as if it is 'there is been', with three syllables, instead of 'there's been' as two. Next time I hear it, I'll try and make a note
quote:No, you will not. You will try to make a note.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Next time I hear it, I'll try and make a note
quote:I recently "experienced" a man on the telephone who said: "I'll send the form out to yourself; if you complete it and send it straight back to myself, I'll action it straightaway and you can just send the payment to ourselves as soon as it's convenient." Quite impressive to get three different misuses of the same grammatical construct in one sentence, I thought!
Originally posted by jedijudy:
The word that gets my dander up is the use of the word myself when it is not reflecting the pronoun of the person speaking.
quote:I'm not so much hung up as unanswered. Who gets to say what is or is not acceptable in everyday speech? Teekeey Misha seems to think that there is some divine authority saying which locutions may or may not be used. But won't say who has the right to make that call. You kinda got caught in the crossfire. But I am still unanswered.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Don't get hung up about it. I used "sub-editors" because they are arbiters of style and grammar in the professional sphere. As you say, you don't have one and few do.
quote:I don't see the problem. "Released" is not there the verb in a sentence. The complete sentence has not been quoted. You can think of it two ways:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ugh! what I hate hate HATE is the tendency to have direct objects perform the verb, as in "the new book released last Wednesday." No, it didn't, you dumbass, the publisher released it. What precisely do you think books release, pages? hot air?
quote:Yes, there is a difference I feel, but those two words seem so interchangeable, it can be hard to know which to use. I actually looked this up in a grammar book a few years ago as I find it rather confusing (we weren't taught any proper usage of those words at school). Anyhow the grammar book wasn't really much help in the end. I also looked up the usage of 'shall' and 'will' and that was somewhat inconclusive too. The different usages seem to be quite subtle...what, for example is the difference between'I may go into town tomorrow' and 'I might go into town tomorrow'? To me, 'may' in that sentence seems more doubtful, hesitant. 'Might' seems more positive or definite but I'm not really sure.
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
quote:I don't see it as a long pedigree. Perhaps I'm showing my age.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Perhaps. "Is comprised of" has a long pedigree in English, for all that the purists tend to poke at it, but "comprises" is certainly OK.
Originally posted by Penny S:
Isn't 'The government comprises' better?
The Government is composed of
or
The government consists of
or
The government comprises
While I'm here, I liked the report of the wanted criminal who 'turned himself into police'.
And while, like all retired English teachers, I acknowledge that language does change, we all have some pet hates for changes that have resulted in a loss of an important distinction. Even competent novelists miss this next one
Which of these two women in still alive?
Seat belt may have saved woman's life.
Seat belt might have saved woman's life.
Glad to get that off my chest.
GG
quote:I have to admit that I am guilty of that, although I know it's wrong. It's lazy speaking really (at least for me). It depends on who I'm with and various factors. However, if I were ever to be standing up and giving a speech or a talk or lecture (not that I ever will), or if I am explaining something carefully to someone, then I'll tend to speak 'properly' as best I can, for clarity.
Originally posted by jacobsen:
My bugbear has always been the there is/there are
divide. When I was growing up, a thousand years ago, the difference was strictly enforced. Now, however, "there's fifty people in the hall..."
I am only partially reconciled to the change after living in Belgium and Germany, and realising that most European languages use their equivalent of "there's" for both singular and plural items/people etc. But "there's" followed by a plural whatever still feels counter-intuitive to me.
quote:Perhaps reading ridiculous comments like that makes people even less inclined to provide an answer.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Teekeey Misha seems to think that there is some divine authority saying which locutions may or may not be used. But won't say who has the right to make that call.
quote:But not - as all too frequently - "The Government comprises of".
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
The Government is composed of
or
The government consists of
or
The government comprises
quote:Part of the difference is that might is the past tense of may when expressing possibility.
Originally posted by cornflower:
Often, in books, I've seen a sentence where someone asks 'Might I go borrow your book?' or conversely 'May I borrow your book?'. I honestly don't know which of those is correct...maybe they both are.
quote:Just as you don't want to know how sausages are made (or laws, as the saying goes), you really don't want to know how ready-packed ham comes to be in such convenient slices.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
By the way, thinking of the thief who turned himself into police - what about the packets one sees in supermarket shelves which, on closer inspection, contain "reformed ham"? What misdemeanours did such ham commit when it was still part of a real, live pig?
quote:OK, thanks, I think it may/might have been that sort of explanation I read in the book (only it was a long time ago, can't quite remember).
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:Part of the difference is that might is the past tense of may when expressing possibility.
Originally posted by cornflower:
Often, in books, I've seen a sentence where someone asks 'Might I go borrow your book?' or conversely 'May I borrow your book?'. I honestly don't know which of those is correct...maybe they both are.
E.g. If there are any sandwiches, I may have one with my tea later but If there had been any sandwiches, I might have had one with my tea earlier.
The difference I remember being taught as a child is that might expresses less likely possibility.
E.g. I may have a sandwich with my tea if I'm seriously considering it but I might have a sandwich with my tea if I have vaguely considered it but probably won't do it. I confess I didn't find that awfully convincing as a boy and don't find it any more convincing now.
If one is talking about possibilities in the past tense (such as Granny's seat belt example) either may or might is fine, except if one is talking about a past possibility that one knows didn't actually come to pass. E.g. When I threw my tea at the mouse, someone might have been hurt.
In terms of asking permission (as per your example) either may or might is fine, but might is more formal (and for that reason probably less widely used.)
That's may and might as I understand them; others may disagree.
quote:Re-edited because I made the same mistake– I meant to say that of course I too am a native speaker of English; it was those brought up in England who used 'shall' where in speaking I would use 'will' or probably 'I'll'
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
It's really in the past tense that the may/might distinction becomes important.
'might' implies a significant 'if' – if the woman had worn a seatbelt her life might have been saved.
Or, she survived the accident, probably because she was wearing her seatbelt: the seatbelt may have been what saved her.
In my schooldays I noticed that English speakers used 'shall' more often than we did. I was taught that 'I will' expressed determination while 'I shall' was a simple statement of intention; and that in the second or third person, the opposite was the case – 'You shall do it (whether you like it or not).
But my support worker, from Sri Lanka, asked where he could work on his English, because he knew from lessons back home that the difference between 'shall' and 'will' was important and he didn't know if he'd got it right. My thought was, that I didn't know whether anyone still made that distinction, and what he needed was probably a conversation class.
GG
Edited because I hit the wrong button.
quote:This is a fairly new (and to my ear strange) thing: using the name of a country as the adjective, rather than the adjectival form of the name. Thus we now have "Canada geese" and not "Canadian geese." I don't like it.
Originally posted by bib:
During cricket season we often hear the announcement that the team has produced another centurion. I realise that cricket has been around for a long time, but surely not in Roman times, despite some test innings seeming to last forever. The player should be described as a century maker or having scored a century, never a centurion.
While on the subject of cricket, why do we hear the term the England team rather than the English team. Other countries playing cricket don't do this eg Australian team, South African team. It sounds very strange to my ear.
quote:You say, "The complete sentence has not been quoted." That is a charitable but wrong understanding (I know because I worked for the publisher in question!). The marketing folks were forever writing "Such-and-such a book released on Friday, and you can buy it on our website" and similar constructions. They clearly intended it to be a complete grammatical sentence, with "released" as the verb. I attempted to remonstrate with the copywriters, but got nowhere. To them, books release, in the same manner that an egg hatches or the sun rises. Grrrrrrrr.
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:I don't see the problem. "Released" is not there the verb in a sentence. The complete sentence has not been quoted. You can think of it two ways:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ugh! what I hate hate HATE is the tendency to have direct objects perform the verb, as in "the new book released last Wednesday." No, it didn't, you dumbass, the publisher released it. What precisely do you think books release, pages? hot air?
A Released is not grammatically a verb in that phrase, but the past participle of a verb used as an adjective modifying "the new book".
B The phrase is a contraction of "the new book (that was) released yesterday".
quote:One nitpicky correction--it isn't the past tense per se where the may/might choice matters--it's in the past tense conditional ("if/then" sentences). When you want to talk about something that never happened ("If Donald Trump had won the Mr. Sensitivity Award, then he might have gotten my vote") you use the past perfect forms (here, "had won" and "might have gotten").
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
It's really in the past tense that the may/might distinction becomes important.
'might' implies a significant 'if' – if the woman had worn a seatbelt her life might have been saved.
quote:I would say that in those sentences 'may have been' implies that we don't know whether he won or not, whereas 'might have been' implies that he didn't win, but we're not sure whether, if he had, he would have been surprised. Thus "Police said that of the dead woman that wearing a seatbelt may have saved her life" is clearly wrong since the question of whether her life was saved is no longer an open one, whereas "Police said that of the dead woman that wearing a seatbelt might have saved her life" acknowledges the fact of her death, but leaves open the question whether a wearing a seatbelt might have (not may have) saved her life.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
"If Donald Trump won the Mr. Insensitivity Award, then he may have/might have been surprised." ("won" = simple past, "may have been/might have been" = the perfect tense for both forms, and in this example the may/might difference expresses only a difference in the degree of probability. However, the surprise is clearly not ruled out)
quote:Grr indeed. I took it to be part of something like "The book released on Friday is now available for purchase". Although that's a pretty silly thing to say, come to think of it. Being released means by definition it is available for sale.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
"Such-and-such a book released on Friday, and you can buy it on our website".... Grrrrrrrr.
quote:Yes and no. Surely "Canada geese" defines a particular species (is that the right word?) of said bird, while "Canadian geese" could refer to any kind which happened to have flown across the border to the US of A?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Thus we now have "Canada geese" and not "Canadian geese." I don't like it.
quote:And that's a whole new can of worms! Yes, I know "gotten" stretches way back to Old English, but we just don't use it in the UK - and plenty of people (incorrectly) would decry it as being "wrong" or "a ghastly Americanism". The majority, I suspect, just avoid it because it's such an ugly, clumsy word. Some of us don't even like to use "got" because it's clumsy in constructions and such an ugly little word. (And many of us grew up with English teachers who would foam at the mouth if we used "got" in our writing!)
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
"If Donald Trump had won the Mr. Sensitivity Award, then he might have gotten my vote"
quote:I cannot think of a better reason for deciding that something doesn't matter than that people have always done it, when it comes to language. Language is defined by the speech community; what people generally say is by definition correct.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:That's just it; I don't think it has been acceptable for a long time. I'm sure people have done it for a long time but it's only relatively recently that it has become acceptable; certainly it is only recently that the Beeb has started doing it. Rather like splitting infinitives and ending sentences with a preposition, people have recently decided "Oh, it doesn't really matter, because people have always done it."
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It has for a long time been acceptable in British English to use either singular or plural verbs with most collective nouns.
quote:No, you wouldn't. Alpha tests are small scale closed-group tests. Unless you are the developer of the software, or one of the small number of people asked to be an alpha tester, you wouldn't encounter them.
Originally posted by Ariel:
If anything, you're beta-testing it (though I haven't heard of anyone alpha-testing anything).
quote:Perhaps. Fortunately, the thread isn't called "Things grammatical that annoy me and really matter." At the last analysis, none of it don't matter, do it?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I cannot think of a better reason for deciding that something doesn't matter than that people have always done it, when it comes to language.
quote:A history; an historian!
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
...a history or an history?
quote:Yes, that makes sense what you say about 'may' and 'might'.
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
It's really in the past tense that the may/might distinction becomes important.
'might' implies a significant 'if' – if the woman had worn a seatbelt her life might have been saved.
Or, she survived the accident, probably because she was wearing her seatbelt: the seatbelt may have been what saved her.
In my schooldays I noticed that English speakers used 'shall' more often than we did. I was taught that 'I will' expressed determination while 'I shall' was a simple statement of intention; and that in the second or third person, the opposite was the case – 'You shall do it (whether you like it or not).
But my support worker, from Sri Lanka, asked where he could work on his English, because he knew from lessons back home that the difference between 'shall' and 'will' was important and he didn't know if he'd got it right. My thought was, that I didn't know whether anyone still made that distinction, and what he needed was probably a conversation class.
GG
Edited because I hit the wrong button.
quote:'A hotel' or 'an hotel'?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Shall we have "an history" or "a history"?
quote:Perhaps. Fortunately, the thread isn't called "Things grammatical that annoy me and really matter." At the last analysis, none of it don't matter, do it?
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[qb]I cannot think of a better reason for deciding that something doesn't matter than that people have always done it, when it comes to language.
quote:Well, it doesn't matter too much in general chit chat, perhaps, but if there's no more or less 'proper, standard' grammar, then I think that there would be room for quite bad confusion, especially with legal documents etc (though legal documentation, even simple stuff is ghastly to read...look at all the terms and conditions you have to wade through when you sign up to various things on the computer
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
).quote:I say a history book, but an historical novel. The word 'history' is stressed on the first syllable, so the h is loud and clear. The word 'historical' is stressed on the second syllable, and the h has a weaker sound.
Originally posted by cornflower:
quote:'A hotel' or 'an hotel'?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Shall we have "an history" or "a history"?
I don't know, but do you think the usage of 'an' as opposed to 'a' before those sorts of words, depends on whether perhaps the word originally came from French?
quote:I think that's exactly it... or at least exactly half of it! French origin is one reason; words like hotel that come from the French have no aspirate, which makes them sound as if they start with a vowel and, thus, need "an" rather than "a".
Originally posted by cornflower:
I don't know, but do you think the usage of 'an' as opposed to 'a' before those sorts of words, depends on whether perhaps the word originally came from French?
quote:Do you aspirate the 'h' in "an historical"?
Originally posted by Moo:
The word 'historical' is stressed on the second syllable, and the h has a weaker sound.
quote:Personally, I do aspirate the "h" in "historical"; much less than I do in "history" but enough that it's not "istorical".
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Do you aspirate the 'h' in "an historical"?
quote:I found out when I volunteered to teach ESL to a group of Spanish native speakers. Take, for instance, the word "do":
Originally posted by cornflower:
I really do wonder how foreigners cope with English when they come here...it must be incredibly confusing for them.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:What a to-do!
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Do you like me? Yes, I do.
I have to do the laundry.
We're going to do Europe next summer.
She's got her hair up in a do.
quote:Only a very small part of the Cotswolds is in Wiltshire. Cotswold Water Park, for example.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:The Cotswold Tourist Partnership would beg to differ here (scroll down to the third paragraph), as does the map here.
Originally posted by Penny S:
...south of the Cotswolds, which are not in Wiltshire.
quote:And is it a geographical rather than a grammatical infelicity?
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But is the Cotswold Water Park really in the Cotswolds?
quote:We're back into collective noun verbal ambivalence territory, I see.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Only a very small part of the Cotswolds is in Wiltshire.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
Silly me (timed out of editing window).
quote:To "kick [thing] into the long grass" is a phrase meaning to put it off until much later, possibly indefinitely.
Originally posted by Sparrow:
Another brand new (to me) usage on the Today programme this morning, in a discussion about the doubt surrounding a Scottish referendum, the speakers referred to there being a lot of "long grass" around the situation.
quote:Very good post. I agree that language and speech are determined by usage, and then people often complain about various usages. But we don't have an Academy for determining correct grammar, or correct anything.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:I cannot think of a better reason for deciding that something doesn't matter than that people have always done it, when it comes to language. Language is defined by the speech community; what people generally say is by definition correct.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:That's just it; I don't think it has been acceptable for a long time. I'm sure people have done it for a long time but it's only relatively recently that it has become acceptable; certainly it is only recently that the Beeb has started doing it. Rather like splitting infinitives and ending sentences with a preposition, people have recently decided "Oh, it doesn't really matter, because people have always done it."
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It has for a long time been acceptable in British English to use either singular or plural verbs with most collective nouns.
I'm sure people in the 15th century whined about this bloody northern habit of using "-s" when "-eth" was correct dammit, regardless of what people say! And I bet in 16th Century Ceredigion old people moaned about bloody youngsters using "ddim" after the verb and dropping the all important "nid" before it. There's no absolute arbiter for language beyond usage. How could there be? There's no point appealing to logic, because languages are frequently illogical.
quote:It's still used up here in the north of Scotland.
Yes, I know "gotten" stretches way back to Old English, but we just don't use it in the UK
quote:Although let's face it somebody who has the opportunity to vote for Trump is ... wait for it ... an American.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:And that's a whole new can of worms! Yes, I know "gotten" stretches way back to Old English, but we just don't use it in the UK - and plenty of people (incorrectly) would decry it as being "wrong" or "a ghastly Americanism".
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
"If Donald Trump had won the Mr. Sensitivity Award, then he might have gotten my vote"
quote:Interesting. A few months ago the topic of " gotten" cropped up via a Kiwi facebook friend of mine ( who found it quaint, not ugly)a nd it turned into a really interesting discussion about how little nuggets of preserved archaic speech seem to crop up in many former colonies where the native language was overtaken by a European one. I talked about how I'd heard that South American Spanish had many words and grammatical quirks that were pretty much conquistador- era usages trapped in time like prehistoric wasps in amber. A few Canadian folk said the same dynamic could be found in Québécois.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:And that's a whole new can of worms! Yes, I know "gotten" stretches way back to Old English, but we just don't use it in the UK - and plenty of people (incorrectly) would decry it as being "wrong" or "a ghastly Americanism". The majority, I suspect, just avoid it because it's such an ugly, clumsy word. Some of us don't even like to use "got" because it's clumsy in constructions and such an ugly little word. (And many of us grew up with English teachers who would foam at the mouth if we used "got" in our writing!)
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
"If Donald Trump had won the Mr. Sensitivity Award, then he might have gotten my vote"
quote:That's interesting. When I said we don't use it in the UK, I meant we hadn't used it in the UK, but it's now becoming increasingly common (I suppose through the medium of TV.)
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Teekay Misha:
quote:It's still used up here in the north of Scotland.
Yes, I know "gotten" stretches way back to Old English, but we just don't use it in the UK
quote:I'm with BT as far as the geese are concerned (we have them here too and they proliferate.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:Yes and no. Surely "Canada geese" defines a particular species (is that the right word?) of said bird, while "Canadian geese" could refer to any kind which happened to have flown across the border to the US of A?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Thus we now have "Canada geese" and not "Canadian geese." I don't like it.
Returning to sport, I accept that an "England" footballer has to be English (though the rules as to who is and who isn't "English" are complex). On the other hand, a "Chelsea" player could come from virtually anywhere, not just southwest London - and probably does!
quote:This sparked a discussion in the North East household.
I hadn't realised that it was in common usage in parts of the UK. Only in the North of Scotland, or does it crop up in other Scots regional dialects?
quote:Some of these examples are brilliant, really. I think that this use of 'this' is not about spatial presence, but textual. In other words, 'this' means not 'this rock that you can see in the room now', but 'this rock which I am introducing into the conversation'.
Originally posted by mousethief:
One of my pet peeves is use of the demonstrative for persons/things that aren't actually present.
"These two girls were talking on the train today."
Which two? I don't see any girls here.
"Then this rock falls on my windshield."
Which rock? Is it here in this room?
AUGH!
quote:I raised this point with someone who said "Oh, I know, but I don't want to talk like a grammar book."
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Me and Sue are going to the ballet. Or even Sue and me are going to the ballet. But they wouldn't say 'Me am going to the ballet, would they?
quote:You'll find that most, if not all speech is done for effect.
Originally posted by mdijon:
Sometimes "down with the masses" infelicities can be used for effect. "It ain't gonna happen." makes the UK English speaker sound more definite about it than "It's not going to happen."
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:No. They'd say, "Me am, like, off to the gig - innit?"
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Me and Sue are going to the ballet. Or even Sue and me are going to the ballet. But they wouldn't say 'Me am going to the ballet, would they?
quote:I would say that 'it ain't' is grammatical in some dialects. Of course, some Standard English speakers decry it, but this is not a linguistic judgment, but a social one, I guess. Snobbery, in other words.
Originally posted by mdijon:
Sometimes "down with the masses" infelicities can be used for effect. "It ain't gonna happen." makes the UK English speaker sound more definite about it than "It's not going to happen."
quote:It may be "acceptable" in some dialects, but does that make it "grammatical"? Given that "ain't" is a contraction of "am not", can it ever be "grammatically correct" when it is used in contradiction of the rules of grammar, even if it is "acceptable" in a dialect?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would say that 'it ain't' is grammatical in some dialects.
quote:Dismissing opinions and attitudes one doesn't like as snobbery is, surely, merely another form of snobbery. Or isn't it?
Of course, some Standard English speakers decry it, but this is not a linguistic judgment, but a social one, I guess. Snobbery, in other words.
quote:I think that "ain't" was part of some upper-class spoken English until fairly recently.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
[I would say that 'it ain't' is grammatical in some dialects. Of course, some Standard English speakers decry it, but this is not a linguistic judgment, but a social one, I guess. Snobbery, in other words.
quote:Is it now?
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
Given that "ain't" is a contraction of "am not"
quote:That is certainly its origin, or so says my friend the etymological dictionary:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Is it now?
quote:It's use to mean "is not, are not, have not &c" came in the 19th century; that a word has come to be used differently doesn't change the origin of the word.
1706; originally a contraction of "am not"
quote:Very good point; I'd forgotten about such conservative forms, which presumably have died out. I do remember conservative RP, e.g. pronouncing all the syllables in 'miniature' and 'Parliament', hardly ever heard today.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:I think that "ain't" was part of some upper-class spoken English until fairly recently.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
[I would say that 'it ain't' is grammatical in some dialects. Of course, some Standard English speakers decry it, but this is not a linguistic judgment, but a social one, I guess. Snobbery, in other words.
quote:"Innit" is doing well on that front and is used a bit more widely than a mere contraction of "isn't it". "I'm on the train, innit" and similar can be heard in modern English so "I'm gonna thump you, innit" is entirely possible.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Also, the tag question in Standard English is often 'aren't I?', since we've lost 'ain't I?' or 'amn't I?'. Hence, 'I'm going to thump you, aren't it?'.
quote:Yes, it's beginning to resemble 'n'est ce pas?' in French. But in Standard English, I think 'aren't I?' is the only version possible, as far as I've heard. Although, it's possible that 'innit' will spread into the middle-class, dunno, do I.
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:"Innit" is doing well on that front and is used a bit more widely than a mere contraction of "isn't it". "I'm on the train, innit" and similar can be heard in modern English so "I'm gonna thump you, innit" is entirely possible.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Also, the tag question in Standard English is often 'aren't I?', since we've lost 'ain't I?' or 'amn't I?'. Hence, 'I'm going to thump you, aren't it?'.
quote:I suspect that "innit" is destined to remain low-status.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Although, it's possible that 'innit' will spread into the middle-class, dunno, do I.
quote:Yes, I once knew someone from Czechoslovakia or somewhere like that, and they couldn't seem to understand the difference between 'at' and 'in', at least with how we use those words in various situations...so difficult to explain. There was also a German girl who asked me the difference between 'next' and 'nearest'. I had terrible trouble trying to explain the usage (not being an expert on these things). I said something like the next railway station might not be the nearest. (At least, the next stop might not be the nearest) I think in German they use the same word. Doesn't help when someone asks for an explanation and you don't have time to think it out.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:I found out when I volunteered to teach ESL to a group of Spanish native speakers. Take, for instance, the word "do":
Originally posted by cornflower:
I really do wonder how foreigners cope with English when they come here...it must be incredibly confusing for them.
Do you like me? Yes, I do.
I have to do the laundry.
We're going to do Europe next summer.
She's got her hair up in a do.
quote:Thanks very much
Originally posted by Firenze:
Cornflower - there is a UBB practice thread you might find useful. I find it impossible to sort the code/quotes in your last post.
Also, we try and avoid double or triple sequential posts - it looks monopolistic.
Firenze
Heaven Host
. I'll take a look at that. For some reason, on this site, I find it difficult to get it right, though on a another site, I managed to figure it out.
quote:This is a thread in which you need to be very careful with misplaced apostrophes.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:That is certainly its origin, or so says my friend the etymological dictionary:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Is it now?
quote:It's use to mean "is not, are not, have not &c" came in the 19th century; that a word has come to be used differently doesn't change the origin of the word.
1706; originally a contraction of "am not"
quote:Or 'do someone in'. Or 'do the house up'.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Oh and there's the sexist observation, "I'd do her."
quote:What do you mean by double or triple sequential posts...do you mean, like what I've just done by replying to you and then suddenly realising I didn't understand the second bit, so immediately posted again (suddenly realised, I probably could simply have edited my first response to you, sorry), or do you mean, posting several responses in a row,to different posts by different people or what? Slightly confused...am just getting used to this site, so I do apologise for any gaffes. I certainly don't mean to monopolise.
Originally posted by Firenze:
Cornflower - there is a UBB practice thread you might find useful. I find it impossible to sort the code/quotes in your last post.
Also, we try and avoid double or triple sequential posts - it looks monopolistic.
Firenze
Heaven Host
quote:This could also be from Irish. I remember when I began studying Old Irish I encountered the phrase, "and she pregnant"
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Sometimes "me" is used as the object of an implied preposition "with". I would guess that this is an English carryover of that bane of many a Latin student, the ablative absolute. Example: "There we were in the restaurant, and me so hungry I could eat out the whole place."
quote:One of the problems with later usage of the Authorised Version Bible is that people had generally forgotten this usage. So "Thee/thou" became thought to refer to God alone, while exhortations to "you" were seen as individualistic rather than communal ("y'all"). I think this has had a definite effect on our understanding of the Faith.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Nostalgic point - my grandfather (in Yorkshire), used to still say 'thou' and 'thee', probably died out?
quote:Not completely - I know people from Westray, one of the northern isles of Orkney, who would still say, "would thou* pass me the sugar?"
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... Nostalgic point - my grandfather (in Yorkshire), used to still say 'thou' and 'thee', probably died out?
quote:If you have any questions about Firenze's Hostly request, please start a thread in the Styx, so we can keep this thread on topic, and discuss those questions seperately.
Originally posted by cornflower:
quote:What do you mean by double or triple sequential posts...do you mean, like what I've just done by replying to you and then suddenly realising I didn't understand the second bit, so immediately posted again (suddenly realised, I probably could simply have edited my first response to you, sorry), or do you mean, posting several responses in a row,to different posts by different people or what? Slightly confused...am just getting used to this site, so I do apologise for any gaffes. I certainly don't mean to monopolise.
Originally posted by Firenze:
Cornflower - there is a UBB practice thread you might find useful. I find it impossible to sort the code/quotes in your last post.
Also, we try and avoid double or triple sequential posts - it looks monopolistic.
Firenze
Heaven Host
)quote:But every singer knows the answer to that question. "Thee" is used if the next word begins with a vowel; "thuh" if it begins with a consonant.
Originally posted by Penny S:
a friend went ot teach English in Sweden, and was utterly stumped when asked when speakers should use 'thee' or 'thuh' pronunciations for 'the'.
quote:Use of the "singular they" can be documented as far back as the Fifteenth Century.
Originally posted by Spike:
I am becoming increasingly irritated at the use of the words "them" or "they" to refer to a single person.
I'm all in favour of inclusive language, but if you know the person you are referring to is male or female, surely it's not sexist to say "he" or "she"?
quote:I am beyond mortified and have spent the entire night flagellating my typing fingers in penance. (Both of them.)
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
This is a thread in which you need to be very careful with misplaced apostrophes.
quote:As far as I can see, it's partly because English lacks a word such as French 'on', i.e. the impersonal pronoun. Well, OK, we can say 'one', but that sounds odd often.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Use of the "singular they" can be documented as far back as the Fifteenth Century.
Originally posted by Spike:
I am becoming increasingly irritated at the use of the words "them" or "they" to refer to a single person.
I'm all in favour of inclusive language, but if you know the person you are referring to is male or female, surely it's not sexist to say "he" or "she"?
But I agree that using it makes no sense if one is speaking of a specific person whose identity, and gender, is known. (Unless, of course, that specific person prefers due to gender identity to be referred to as "they/them.")
quote:Yeah, I remember some vocab nerd article going around a long time ago about this.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just realized that the Washington Post has admitted singular 'they' into its style guide, in two circumstances: for trans people, and to avoid awkward sentences.
An awkward sentence such as: 'if someone wins the lottery ----- should give some to charity'. Or, 'somebody left ------ umbrella in the office'.
Of course, you can say, 'he/she', or 'he or she', and so on, but 'they' and 'their' is coming to a style guide close to you.
quote:Not everyone is a singer.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:But every singer knows the answer to that question. "Thee" is used if the next word begins with a vowel; "thuh" if it begins with a consonant.
Originally posted by Penny S:
a friend went ot teach English in Sweden, and was utterly stumped when asked when speakers should use 'thee' or 'thuh' pronunciations for 'the'.
quote:That's been commonplace for years surely?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just realized that the Washington Post has admitted singular 'they' into its style guide, in two circumstances: for trans people, and to avoid awkward sentences.
An awkward sentence such as: 'if someone wins the lottery ----- should give some to charity'. Or, 'somebody left ------ umbrella in the office'.
Of course, you can say, 'he/she', or 'he or she', and so on, but 'they' and 'their' is coming to a style guide close to you.
quote:It is a new style, the singular they. You wouldn't get an 18th and 19th century author like Jane Austen using it.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just realized that the Washington Post has admitted singular 'they' into its style guide, in two circumstances: for trans people, and to avoid awkward sentences.
An awkward sentence such as: 'if someone wins the lottery ----- should give some to charity'. Or, 'somebody left ------ umbrella in the office'.
Of course, you can say, 'he/she', or 'he or she', and so on, but 'they' and 'their' is coming to a style guide close to you.
quote:I think of this as the face of a clock. When the minute hand is at the top, it is the top of the hour.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I'm not sure if this qualifies as 'grammatical usage', but I detest the phrase 'top of the hour', meaning 'on the hour', often used by presenters on the BBC radio programme Today when they're trying to sound bright and breezy. It's meaningless. What about 'bottom of the hour' or 'side of the hour'?
quote:Yes, it's been used for yonks, but has also been officially disapproved of, termed ungrammatical and so on. My wife was an editor in publishing, and was not allowed to use singular they.
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:It is a new style, the singular they. You wouldn't get an 18th and 19th century author like Jane Austen using it.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just realized that the Washington Post has admitted singular 'they' into its style guide, in two circumstances: for trans people, and to avoid awkward sentences.
An awkward sentence such as: 'if someone wins the lottery ----- should give some to charity'. Or, 'somebody left ------ umbrella in the office'.
Of course, you can say, 'he/she', or 'he or she', and so on, but 'they' and 'their' is coming to a style guide close to you.
Oh wait, she did.
There is nothing new under the sun.
quote:It can be even worse:
And next up it's Question Time...
quote:It's bad enough that it's "next up" rather than just "next", but if it's after the news headlines it's not even "next"!
And next up it's Question Time, after the news headlines.
quote:"Back in the day" is another phrase that makes me snarl and spit and scratch at the keyboard. It is almost meaningless and is becoming infuriatingly commonplace.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
"Back in the day" The indefinite, not definite, article is more appropriate.
quote:That's a bit like "past experience". As someone else pointed out, what other kind is there?
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Oh yes: "Advanced Warning of roadworks commencing on ...".
As opposed to an ordinary, basic, simple warning, I presume?
quote:Whose back? Which day?
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
"Back in the day" is another phrase that makes me snarl and spit and scratch at the keyboard. It is almost meaningless and is becoming infuriatingly commonplace.
quote:It's sorta like the "they" of "They say."
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:Whose back? Which day?
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
"Back in the day" is another phrase that makes me snarl and spit and scratch at the keyboard. It is almost meaningless and is becoming infuriatingly commonplace.
quote:Thank you. Yes, I did accidentally double-post a while back, but at that stage I didn't know how to edit or delete, I'm afraid
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:If you have any questions about Firenze's Hostly request, please start a thread in the Styx, so we can keep this thread on topic, and discuss those questions seperately.
Originally posted by cornflower:
quote:What do you mean by double or triple sequential posts...do you mean, like what I've just done by replying to you and then suddenly realising I didn't understand the second bit, so immediately posted again (suddenly realised, I probably could simply have edited my first response to you, sorry), or do you mean, posting several responses in a row,to different posts by different people or what? Slightly confused...am just getting used to this site, so I do apologise for any gaffes. I certainly don't mean to monopolise.
Originally posted by Firenze:
Cornflower - there is a UBB practice thread you might find useful. I find it impossible to sort the code/quotes in your last post.
Also, we try and avoid double or triple sequential posts - it looks monopolistic.
Firenze
Heaven Host
Kelly Alves
Admin
(P.S.-- I have deleted what appears to be a duplicate post-- to be distinguished from a double post.
quote:One of mine is the 'evasive unable' as in 'I am unable to accede to your request'. That ought only to mean, 'what you're asking for is actually impossible'. What it usually means 'I'm not going to', 'I can't be bothered to', 'it might cost me time or money to, and so I'm not', or just 'b****r off' - but in each case 'I'm not honest enough to say what I really mean'.
Originally posted by mousethief:
... Another pet peeve of mine is the passive voice used to hide the agent of the verb, or worse yet make up for the fact that there isn't one. This is used all over this thread. "It's not acceptable to use 'ain't'." This of course means "They don't accept using 'ain't'," but it doesn't say who THEY is. It's obfuscation on a grand scale.
quote:This is an instance where "sorry" is being used in a way defined by social custom, which takes precedence over etymology.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
To follow that thought to its logical conclusion, "I'm sorry" is frequently uttered by people who aren't in the least sorry, or are in fact glad.
"I'm sorry you missed your train, but you should have left for the station earlier." Translation: "Ha, ha, that will teach you to procrastinate!"
quote:I had always understood "the bottom of the hour" to mean the end of the hour - ie. list all the minutes in the hour sequentially, and these ones come at the bottom of the list.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Anybody who has ever adjusted the timing in their car knows the "top" of "top dead center." Top of the hour is obvious for anybody old enough to have learned to read time from an analogue clock. The hour begins when the minute hand is at the top.
quote:Interesting indeed - I learned something old today.
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Chair" as "presider over an assembly" dates from 1658. Interestingly, "chairman" dates to the same decade.
quote:But the OED only notes recorded use of a term. So for fifty years people were calling sedan chair men "sedan chair men" but not writing it down.
Originally posted by Firenze:
Apparently the sedan chair was introduced to Britain in 1634. So that's 50 years of people going 'you know, chap who carries you around in a chair. Pole guy. Thingummy fellow.'
quote:The OED is giving the earliest recorded written example of a usage so the word could have been used in that sense in demotic spoken usage much earlier.
Originally posted by Firenze:
Apparently the sedan chair was introduced to Britain in 1634. So that's 50 years of people going 'you know, chap who carries you around in a chair. Pole guy. Thingummy fellow.'
quote:Perhaps there was some other term, and just don't know what it was, because we weren't there and are too lazy to go look up the references (I know I am).
Originally posted by Firenze:
Apparently the sedan chair was introduced to Britain in 1634. So that's 50 years of people going 'you know, chap who carries you around in a chair. Pole guy. Thingummy fellow.'
quote:I'd have thought the word scientist would have been around nearly as long as the word science (in the same context). Interestingly (or not, depending on your point of view) my etymological dictionary lets me down here.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
On "University Challenge" last night we discovered that the word "scientist" only dates from 1834.
quote:I'm right with you on the first two – I haven't heard the 'reticent' one.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Three more that make me want to shout:
'Bored of' for bored by or bored with.
'X convinced Y to (do something)': no he hasn't, he's persuaded him.
'Z was reticent to (do something): I think you mean reluctant.
quote:How is that being used then, Loth?
Originally posted by Lothlorien:
[...] "Hate on" or "love on." Just why??
quote:For me it's "different than" or "different to".
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Three more that make me want to shout:
'Bored of' for bored by or bored with.
'X convinced Y to (do something)': no he hasn't, he's persuaded him.
'Z was reticent to (do something): I think you mean reluctant.
quote:Different than just sounds wrong; different to doesn't bother me. I have no problem with X convinced Y either - there's a subtle difference but both can be valid. If I hear "X convinced Y to do something" then I take it to mean that X persuaded Y that doing that thing was the right thing to do; it's a bit stronger than "persuaded" which might just mean that he bunged him a tenner to do it and he said "OK then".
Originally posted by Sparrow:
quote:For me it's "different than" or "different to".
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Three more that make me want to shout:
'Bored of' for bored by or bored with.
'X convinced Y to (do something)': no he hasn't, he's persuaded him.
'Z was reticent to (do something): I think you mean reluctant.
quote:The problem is that 'persuaded' takes an infinitive, "I persuaded him to do that." while "convinced" takes a following clause, "I convinced him that he should do that."
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have no problem with X convinced Y either - there's a subtle difference but both can be valid. If I hear "X convinced Y to do something" then I take it to mean that X persuaded Y that doing that thing was the right thing to do; it's a bit stronger than "persuaded" which might just mean that he bunged him a tenner to do it and he said "OK then".
quote:Says who?
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:The problem is that 'persuaded' takes an infinitive, "I persuaded him to do that." while "convinced" takes a following clause, "I convinced him that he should do that."
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have no problem with X convinced Y either - there's a subtle difference but both can be valid. If I hear "X convinced Y to do something" then I take it to mean that X persuaded Y that doing that thing was the right thing to do; it's a bit stronger than "persuaded" which might just mean that he bunged him a tenner to do it and he said "OK then".
Moo
quote:Another common one, which I dislike is to "meet with" someone. Isn't it enough to meet them?
Originally posted by Lothlorien:
Extra prepositions which add nothing to the sentence and which interrupt the flow of the sentence. Two in particular seem to have landed recently in Australia, although I have seen their use for years.
Examples. "He picked up the hat off of the table." Why not just say from the table?
"Hate on" or "love on." Just why??
quote:I interpret this as having the specific meaning of "having a meeting with someone". It doesn't sound quite right to say "I met Jim, Brendan and Sunita" when you're talking about the people you've just had a meeting with, as it sounds more as if you've just made their acquaintance for the first time. "I had a meeting with Jim, Brendan and Sunita" is really what should be said, except that when you're a high-powered exec who's pressed for time it's quicker just to say "I met with" and save two seconds.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Another common one, which I dislike is to "meet with" someone. Isn't it enough to meet them?
quote:This video uses the term "experimental philosopher" to refer to a physicist from Oxford who purchased the Oxford Electric Bell in 1840.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
So does that mean that people such as Newton or Faraday weren't scientists? Of course not - but they must have called themselves something else such as "cultivators of science" or "natural philosopher".
quote:A fascinating example of so-called 'syntactic blends', whereby different constructions start to blend with each other. It sounds correct that 'meet with' is by analogy with 'have a meeting with', although I don't know if people say it of friends. 'I met with John last night in the pub' sounds odd to me, but that's just my dialect/idiolect.
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:I interpret this as having the specific meaning of "having a meeting with someone". It doesn't sound quite right to say "I met Jim, Brendan and Sunita" when you're talking about the people you've just had a meeting with, as it sounds more as if you've just made their acquaintance for the first time. "I had a meeting with Jim, Brendan and Sunita" is really what should be said, except that when you're a high-powered exec who's pressed for time it's quicker just to say "I met with" and save two seconds.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Another common one, which I dislike is to "meet with" someone. Isn't it enough to meet them?
quote:Yes, that's how I take it, (although not 'by chance'), but it's possible that 'meet with' might start to 'leak' into informal situations. Language is pretty leaky in this way. My old professor did research on syntactic blends, and it is pretty interesting, well, for nerds.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
To me, "I met with John" sounds as if this was a prearranged meeting and you had an Important Matter to discuss; "I met John" sounds as if you bumped into him by chance.
"I met up with John" sounds prearranged but more social - we'd been meaning to have some time together and we finally managed to do so.
quote:This is the usage I am accustomed to hearing. Sometimes I hear 'convince' used with an infinitive, but it's rare and jarring.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Says who?
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:The problem is that 'persuaded' takes an infinitive, "I persuaded him to do that." while "convinced" takes a following clause, "I convinced him that he should do that."
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have no problem with X convinced Y either - there's a subtle difference but both can be valid. If I hear "X convinced Y to do something" then I take it to mean that X persuaded Y that doing that thing was the right thing to do; it's a bit stronger than "persuaded" which might just mean that he bunged him a tenner to do it and he said "OK then".
Moo
quote:I have never heard/read "saving" used in that context. It is always "savings". Is this a pond thing, I wonder?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
From the radio this morning:
"That's a savings of more than 15% off".
- No, it's a saving.
- It is quite sufficient to save 15% - you don't need to save 15% off.
quote:Thanks everyone. I hadn't considered that level of subtlety at all. Not for the first time I learn something on the Ship.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:A fascinating example of so-called 'syntactic blends', whereby different constructions start to blend with each other. It sounds correct that 'meet with' is by analogy with 'have a meeting with', although I don't know if people say it of friends. 'I met with John last night in the pub' sounds odd to me, but that's just my dialect/idiolect.
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:I interpret this as having the specific meaning of "having a meeting with someone". It doesn't sound quite right to say "I met Jim, Brendan and Sunita" when you're talking about the people you've just had a meeting with, as it sounds more as if you've just made their acquaintance for the first time. "I had a meeting with Jim, Brendan and Sunita" is really what should be said, except that when you're a high-powered exec who's pressed for time it's quicker just to say "I met with" and save two seconds.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Another common one, which I dislike is to "meet with" someone. Isn't it enough to meet them?
quote:Says everyone in my youth and middle years, until maybe a couple of decades ago.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Says who?
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:The problem is that 'persuaded' takes an infinitive, "I persuaded him to do that." while "convinced" takes a following clause, "I convinced him that he should do that."
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have no problem with X convinced Y either - there's a subtle difference but both can be valid. If I hear "X convinced Y to do something" then I take it to mean that X persuaded Y that doing that thing was the right thing to do; it's a bit stronger than "persuaded" which might just mean that he bunged him a tenner to do it and he said "OK then".
Moo
quote:Back in another century when the dinosaurs still roamed and I was a student, there was no such thing as physics at Aberdeen University. We did, however, have a flourishing Department of Natural Philosophy.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
On "University Challenge" last night we discovered that the word "scientist" only dates from 1834. So does that mean that people such as Newton or Faraday weren't scientists? Of course not - but they must have called themselves something else such as "cultivators of science" or "natural philosopher". Doubtless some people regarded the word as an ugly neologism and refused to use it.
quote:It used to be 'Back in the days when...'
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
"Back in the day" The indefinite, not definite, article is more appropriate.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
It's "What if God were one of us," you dolt! because I seriously doubt that God is a slob.![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:Or "If I were a rich man."
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
"If I were a butterfly ..."
quote:Worse is "...up to X or more"
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
From the radio this morning:
"That's a savings of more than 15% off".
- No, it's a saving.
- It is quite sufficient to save 15% - you don't need to save 15% off.
