# Common confusions: Or, what price pedantry?



## KenOC

I seem to be seeing some pretty constant confusions in posts here. To raise the general quality of discourse, perhaps we might mention some. Either confusions or outright misuses, or...whatever!

Here's #1: Confusion of the words "cite" and "site."


----------



## PetrB

:lol:~~~:lol:~~~:lol:~~~


----------



## Novelette

As always, the consistent voices of reason prevail.

My esteem. :tiphat:


----------



## Blancrocher

........................

Oh boy


----------



## KenOC

C'mon folks, don't make me get started on "peek" or "peak" versus "pique"...and I warn you, I have a lot more! (where's that angry emoticon when I need it...)


----------



## arpeggio

what dew ewe mean that mi speeling and gremmer is baaa. I just noow how too play the bassooni not speel it. :lol:


----------



## aleazk

As a non-native, and self-taught, English speaker, I'm probably/surely responsible for a lot of mistakes and misspellings. In my defence, we only had French lessons in high-school...


----------



## Weston

The bar for diction here is raised higher than the few other forums I frequent, and it's even higher than most business emails I receive, wherein I hear about "reoccurring vouchers." While "reoccurring" is a valid word, the intended meaning is "recurring," a different thing altogether. And if I ever see the word "accumulative" again used instead of "cumulative" I may scream. Again both are words, but the latter is more credible. 

Sigh. And I don't even care about the subject matter of those words.


----------



## Guest

Heard on TV last night..."mitigate against" (instead of "militate against")


----------



## Tristan

The most common confusion I see is "breathe" vs. "breath". I don't see why this one is so difficult--but I see them misused all the time -_- I do remember seeing it on this site, but pretty rarely. People on this site do seem to be good with words; that's more than I can say for other forums I post on.


----------



## Guest

Tristan said:


> People on this site do seem to be good with words; that's more than I can say for other forums I post on.


It's all down to practise! :devil:


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Or indeed practice


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> C'mon folks, don't make me get started on "peek" or "peak" versus "pique"...and I warn you, I have a lot more! (where's that angry emoticon when I need it...)


You are not allowed to move to another area of this subject until you correct the mistake in your OP,
i.e. cite / site 
of having overlooked _cité_

Tsk, tsk, tsk. _Scholarship demanded it._


----------



## Mahlerian

The one that gets me is when people say they're waiting with "baited" breath...

Get a mint or something!


----------



## GreenMamba

"I am loathe to admit..." is pretty common.
"Advise" if often as a noun.
I've given up on protesting "floundering," although I always say "foundering" myself
"That is not my forte..." being pronounced as "for-tay" (apparently, now acceptable)

I'm not really bothered so much by these, as language as always evolved. Even the most pedantic grammar nerd is likely to be breaking a lot of old rules.

Interestingly, I've recently come to understand that the Brits use "dice" as singular.

EDIT: also "presently" doesn't actually mean "now"


----------



## Taggart

GreenMamba said:


> Interestingly, I've recently come to understand that the Brits use "dice" as singular.


We find casting the die sounds a little too much like laundry. It's alright for the Romans as a translation of _Iacta alea est_, but not otherwise.


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort

Went to Sears last weekend to look at exercise equipment. We were warned of the "dangers of a 'sedimentary' lifestyle" by the salesman. Not much into hard rock, myself.


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort

"Misunderstand me correctly." - Jean Sibelius


----------



## KenOC

Saying "literally" when you mean "figuratively." See this all the time!

In an article from the June 1984 Journal of the Arnold Schoenberg Institute, Schoenberg is referred to as a "giant, whose semen literally spurted when he composed."

Kind of disturbing either way.


----------



## Blancrocher

*Deleted, for appropriate lack of "likes"*


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort

Inappropriate, possibly offensive and very funny.


----------



## Weston

Berlioznestpasmort said:


> Went to Sears last weekend to look at exercise equipment. We were warned of the "dangers of a 'sedimentary' lifestyle" by the salesman. Not much into hard rock, myself.


I use this often to be deliberately Norm Crosby-ish. He may have been trying to be funny.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

precision is not pedantry (and no, I'm not being pedantic here :lol: )

One of the things that irritates me a lot is the inappropriate use of superlatives (such asthe use of 'excellent' to signify 'very good') or complete inaccuracy (such as 'favourite' to be synonymous with 'best')


----------



## Ingélou

Language changes, and what was correct becomes incorrect or unwelcome - e.g. in the eighteenth century, Scotch was fine for the people as well as the drink, and Welch was fine for the people as well as the act of betrayal; now no longer.

Conversely, what was incorrect becomes acceptable. When I was at school, only uneducated people talked about 'laying in bed', as opposed to 'lying in bed'. You lay something down, or a hen lays eggs. But now even BBC presenters talk of 'laying in bed'. It still grates, though.

Sometimes what was acceptable in England in Tudor times - 'gotten' for 'got' - became unacceptable in the nineteenth & twentieth centuries - and is now recrossing the Atlantic again to become acceptable.
Another Americanism that has become acceptable in Britain, though once frowned on in polite parlance - 'outside of the building', instead of 'outside the building'.

'In polite parlance' - now there's a phrase to roll round your mouth & savour...

I feel much better now. Nothing like being *a pedant* about *pedantry*! :lol:


----------



## PetrB

Berlioznestpasmort said:


> Went to Sears last weekend to look at exercise equipment. We were warned of the "dangers of a 'sedimentary' lifestyle" by the salesman. Not much into hard rock, myself.


The Precambrian sales approach.


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort

Weston said:


> I use this often to be deliberately Norm Crosby-ish. He may have been trying to be funny.


If only that were true - not much humor at Sears these days.


----------



## Blancrocher

Berlioznestpasmort said:


> Inappropriate, possibly offensive and very funny.


Even though I didn't see it, I'm going to "like" your original post. In this case it really is the thought that counts.


----------



## brianvds

KenOC said:


> I seem to be seeing some pretty constant confusions in posts here. To raise the general quality of discourse, perhaps we might mention some. Either confusions or outright misuses, or...whatever!


I would of participated in this thread, but their are so many such linguistic monsters, and there so irritating, that they're is just no way I'm getting dragged into this...


----------



## KenOC

"Jive" vs "jibe" is always a treat...


----------



## brotagonist

I realize that many here are not native English speakers, so I don't judge  But there is one particular peeve that will certainly occur to me as soon as I log out.

Ah ha! Many people don't understand the difference between separable verbs and nouns. Eg., use the logout button to log yourself out or to log out, but not _to logout_. This forum uses the verb, correctly.

Also, their, they're and there. These are so obvious, that I don't understand why people don't get the differences. In speaking (I am not certain that it is an officially accepted contraction), I also use there're (it has one and one half beats) for there are (it has two beats) 

I had _off_ not _off of_ drilled into me as a child and it still grates when I hear the latter.

There are dozens of others, but I need some time...


----------



## Guest

Another transgression springs to mind: the desperate determination, particularly of those in sales, to avoid the use of 'you'. For some reason, it is deemed impolite, so it must be replaced by 'yourself'.


----------



## brotagonist

Yes, I find that especially galling and it has become so prevalent these last few years.

Similarly, why do people constantly say _myself_ when they mean _I_ or _me_? _John and myself climbed Everest_ sounds awkward (and is likely grammatically incorrect). Why not say, _John and I..._? _You can find out more by contacting John and myself_, etc.

Yuck!

P.S.: If you find my_self_, send him back to me :lol:


----------



## Guest

Warming to my theme, I also dislike the habit of cooks (I think Jamie is one of the worst) who create a dish telling us,

"You've got your shallots, your white wine, your seasoning...all your lovely flavours!!!"

No, I haven't: _you _have!


----------



## Ingélou

MacLeod said:


> Warming to my theme, I also dislike the habit of cooks (I think Jamie is one of the worst) who create a dish telling us,
> 
> "You've got your shallots, your white wine, your seasoning...all your lovely flavours!!!"
> 
> No, I haven't: _you _have!


Oh, I don't know - it's very Shakespearean. 

_(See for example All's Well that Ends Well Act II. Scene I, too rude to quote. I know there are other examples, & interestingly, I think most are from low-life characters!)_


----------



## Guest

Shakespeare? Shakespeare??

Don't get me started!!!


----------



## brianvds

brotagonist said:


> I realize that many here are not native English speakers, so I don't judge


Yes, but just about all the most irritating errors mentioned thus far in this thread are ones typically made by native English speakers. In which case one could perhaps ask whether they are really mistakes... 

Non-native speakers make other categories of errors depending on what their native language is. In my case it is Afrikaans and I make the same mistakes that are very typical of Afrikaans speakers, e.g. getting hopelessly confused with "is" and "are" (because in Afrikaans, there is no grammatical distinction between singular and plural). This happens to me especially in spoken English. In written English I usually notice those errors and correct them, but not always.

And to this day, after decades of reading, writing and speaking English, there are cases where I still cannot work out whether to use "is" or "are." A flock of sheep is grazing or are grazing? In local cricket commentary, I nowadays regularly hear commentators say things like "England are in trouble"; I'm pretty sure until very recently it was "England is in trouble."

Worst of all, ask English speakers on a forum like this, and you get three mutually exclusive answers!



MacLeod said:


> Warming to my theme, I also dislike the habit of cooks (I think Jamie is one of the worst) who create a dish telling us, "You've got your shallots, your white wine, your seasoning...all your lovely flavours!!!"
> No, I haven't: _you _have!


And then you have your semi-literate cooks and your linguistically inept neighbours...


----------



## deggial

Headphone Hermit said:


> or complete inaccuracy (such as 'favourite' to be synonymous with 'best')


what you talkin' 'boot? everybody knows they are synonymous!


----------



## brotagonist

Referring back to brianvds' misuse of singular and plural forms of verbs...

Even for native speakers, there are times when it is difficult to know which to use. I have been trying to come up with a good example, but this dumb phrase is the only one that comes to mind right now:

A tonne of guts is/are required to climb Everest.

It is clearly one tonne, so it should be _is_, but most speakers say _are_ (and I am fairly sure that this is grammatically incorrect).


----------



## Tristan

brotagonist said:


> Referring back to brianvds' misuse of singular and plural forms of verbs...
> 
> Even for native speakers, there are times when it is difficult to know which to use. I have been trying to come up with a good example, but this dumb phrase is the only one that comes to mind right now:
> 
> A tonne of guts is/are required to climb Everest.
> 
> It is clearly one tonne, so it should be _is_, but most speakers say _are_ (and I am fairly sure that this is grammatically incorrect).


It should be _is_, correct. The subject is "tonne", so that should determine the number of the verb, but due to the word "guts"'s proximity to the verb, the verb is attracted into the plural informally.


----------



## brotagonist

I groan whenever I hear these expressions:

At the end of the day, blah blah blah....

I always think, what about at the start of the day or in the middle of the day? :lol:

Worse, however, is this common one:

Having said that, blah blah blah....

What does _having said that_ mean in that sentence? I think it stands for _however_, _therefore_, _thus_, _hence_, _moreover_, etc., so why not say one of those words?


----------



## brotagonist

Another one I hear a lot:

John's and Fred's trucking business

Properly, when both or numerous people/entities possess something, one puts the possessive _'s_ only onto the final one, hence:

John and Fred's trucking business


----------



## aleazk

brotagonist said:


> I groan whenever I hear these expressions:
> 
> At the end of the day, blah blah blah....
> 
> I always think, what about at the start of the day or in the middle of the day? :lol:
> 
> Worse, however, is this common one:
> 
> Having said that, blah blah blah....
> 
> What does _having said that_ mean in that sentence? I think it stands for _however_, _therefore_, _thus_, _hence_, _moreover_, etc., so why not say one of those words?


I don't see any problem with "having said that" and I don't think it can be replaced with any of the alternatives you propose (maybe "however").

The expression is used for excluding certain particular cases before making a generalization. For example: "Yes, I do like Bach's St Matthew Passion, but, having said that, I despise most of his oeuvre".

The expression is also common in my native language.


----------



## brotagonist

I think, aleazk, that "having said that" is redundant in your example sentence.

Yes, I do like Bach's St Matthew Passion, but, having said that, I despise most of his oeuvre.
Yes, I do like Bach's St Matthew Passion, but I despise most of his oeuvre.

I don't think there is any added semantic value to the former. They appear to mean exactly the same thing to me.


----------



## aleazk

brotagonist said:


> I think, aleazk, that "having said that" is redundant in your example sentence.
> 
> Yes, I do like Bach's St Matthew Passion, but, having said that, I despise most of his oeuvre.
> Yes, I do like Bach's St Matthew Passion, but I despise most of his oeuvre.
> 
> I don't think there is any added semantic value to the former. They appear to mean exactly the same thing to me.


It's true that can be omitted. I would say it's added in order to reinforce the intentionality of what it's being said.

Alternative: It's true that can be omitted. But, having said that, I would say it's added in order to reinforce the intentionality of what it's being said.


----------



## brotagonist

When I hear the expression, _having said that_, I always think, "yes, I heard you just say it, you don't need to tell me that you did. I was listening."


----------



## aleazk

brotagonist said:


> When I hear the expression, _having said that_, I always think, "yes, I heard you just say it, you don't need to tell me that you did. I was listening."


What about "leaving that aside"?. :lol:

"Yes, I do like Bach's St Matthew Passion, but, leaving that aside, I despise most of his oeuvre".


----------



## quack

*What price pedantry?*

The answer to that question is stale, barren communication that does little to illuminate for all its correctness. Much of pedantry is over-reliance on established cliché, the idea that a word once used in a particular way must always be used that way.

Many of the phrases people criticise or cling to are highly abstract and have a only a remote connection to day-to-day language, this is why they are frequently mistaken. Phrases such as "mitigate against" / "militate against" become fossilised and are merely inserted into a sentence with little need to understand their inner sense, who ever uses militate unless it is in that cliché. "Baited breath" / "bated breath": when do people ever use the word bate, even abate is rare, and if you suggest you "hook" an audience with your dramatic tension then baited makes some logical, semantic sense even if it does sound noxious.

Pedantry leads to arguing if "a tonne of guts" is/are required rather than seeing that either would make climbing Everest an impossibility.


----------



## brotagonist

I understand what you mean, Quack, and I agree to an extent; however, I also think that a good communicator, whether textual or verbal, can be more effective by knowing what he/she is saying and by saying it well. When words are misused, stock phrases that add no meaning are incorporated into utterances, metaphors are mixed and badly constructed, etc., the impact of the intended message is diminished and, thereby, so is the credibility of the speaker/writer.

Your example of hooking and baiting enters the realm of punning. It could be effective in written communication, depending on how you develop it.

One can get too hung up on pedantry, for sure, but "stale, barren communication" of facts is better than ambiguous, nonsensical and unintended blather that tries vainly to sound intelligent.


----------



## PetrB

aleazk said:


> What about "leaving that aside"?. :lol:
> 
> "Yes, I do like Bach's St Matthew Passion, but, leaving that aside, I despise most of his oeuvre".


A tedious linguistic convention between the two clauses softens it so the "I do" is clearly not an absolute. "That said," works in the same way.

Is that any better or worse, than a basic, "yes / but" construction? With the "yes / but" construct (and How cliche is _that_?), I almost always half expect the drum trap _ka-da-boom_ serif that comes a half-beat after the joke in stand-up comedy ala vaudeville / music hall tradition


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort

I have a list of 'verbal offenses' that inspire everything from mild annoyance to agony. "It is what it is," annoys, but the use of the exhortation "Enjoy!" without an object is, to me, the worst and I don't know precisely _why_. It's so prevalent - particularly in restaurants - that nothing can be done and language police have prob. accepted it by now. Enjoy is a transitive verb and requires an object, thus:

*INCORRECT: * "Enjoy!"
*CORRECT:* "Enjoy my eternal disdain!"


----------



## Ingélou

brotagonist said:


> When I hear the expression, _having said that_, I always think, "yes, I heard you just say it, you don't need to tell me that you did. I was listening."


This is all most entertaining - but a certain amount of redundancy is necessary to avoid baldness of tone & possible ambiguities. That's language for you - it picks up polite circumlocutions. Enjoy!


----------



## Mahlerian

Berlioznestpasmort said:


> I have a list of 'verbal offenses' that inspire everything from mild annoyance to agony. "It is what it is," annoys, but the use of the exhortation "Enjoy!" without an object is, to me, the worst and I don't know precisely _why_. It's so prevalent - particularly in restaurants - that nothing can be done and language police have prob. accepted it by now. Enjoy is a transitive verb and requires an object, thus:
> 
> *INCORRECT: * "Enjoy!"
> *CORRECT:* "Enjoy my eternal disdain!"


In Japanese, objects, subjects, and so forth can be implied, so sentences can consist of a single word.

"So, where go yesterday afterwards?"
"To store."
"Always that."

In place of:

"So, where did you go yesterday after that conversation we had?"
"I went to the store."
"As you always do..."


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

KenOC said:


> I seem to be seeing some pretty constant confusions in posts here.


Not just posts here- posts _everywhere_.

Typing "it's" in situations where "its" is correct: single most common word-misuse in cyberspace, I'd say.

Saying "i.e." in places better served by "e.g." is high on my personal (soil) list- but fortunately, it's a less frequent mistake.


----------



## brianvds

Tristan said:


> It should be _is_, correct. The subject is "tonne", so that should determine the number of the verb, but due to the word "guts"'s proximity to the verb, the verb is attracted into the plural informally.


That is how I also understand it, but I also make that same kind of mistake all the time.

And then there is the question of when to use "a" and "an" as article. More specifically, is it a hospital or an hospital? I have seen both used in words beginning with H. And then, in some words beginning with U, "an" just doesn't sound right to me: "An usage of a dictionary is to whack someone over the head with it."


----------



## Tristan

brianvds said:


> That is how I also understand it, but I also make that same kind of mistake all the time.
> 
> And then there is the question of when to use "a" and "an" as article. More specifically, is it a hospital or an hospital? I have seen both used in words beginning with H. And then, in some words beginning with U, "an" just doesn't sound right to me: "An usage of a dictionary is to whack someone over the head with it."


"An" should be used before a vowel sound. Since the word "usage" does not begin with a vowel sound (despite beginning with the letter U, the sound is actually a semivowel "y" sound), "a" is used instead of "an".

As for "an hospital" vs. "a hospital", that's more dialect-dependent. In some dialects (particularly British ones), "h" is considered a soft/subtle enough sound that it is treated as if it doesn't count as a consonant and "an" is used instead of "a".


----------



## PetrB

Berlioznestpasmort said:


> I have a list of 'verbal offenses' that inspire everything from mild annoyance to agony. "It is what it is," annoys, but the use of the exhortation "Enjoy!" without an object is, to me, the worst and I don't know precisely _why_. It's so prevalent - particularly in restaurants - that nothing can be done and language police have prob. accepted it by now. Enjoy is a transitive verb and requires an object, thus:
> 
> *INCORRECT: * "Enjoy!"
> *CORRECT:* "Enjoy my eternal disdain!"


English lacks any set exhortation for enjoying a meal! (Is that because for centuries, English cooking was infamously dull and bland?) Many another language has some expression like the French _bon appétit_, the German _guten Appetit_, etc.

We are left with the one word _Enjoy!_ used as an imperative. (If that gets your pedantic knickers in a twist, you are probably old enough to also be disturbed every time you now hear _impact_ used as a verb) In my youth, the only time I recall hearing "enjoy" before chowing down was exclusive to eating in a Jewish Deli... now it is everywhere


----------



## senza sordino

Allot of people cannot go figure out they're mispellings and pour grammer


----------



## Guest

It's a hotel, or an 'otel, I believe.


----------



## Ingélou

Tristan said:


> "An" should be used before a vowel sound. Since the word "usage" does not begin with a vowel sound (despite beginning with the letter U, the sound is actually a semivowel "y" sound), "a" is used instead of "an".
> 
> As for "an hospital" vs. "a hospital", that's more dialect-dependent. In some dialects (particularly British ones), "h" is considered a soft/subtle enough sound that it is treated as if it doesn't count as a consonant and "an" is used instead of "a".


Actually 'an hospital', 'an hotel' and 'an history' date from much earlier when the words were pronounced in the French way, as 'hotel' is still pronounced by the upper classes. The usage continued and became established. This was not a dialect, but standard English, and so we find that Jane Austen talks about 'an history'. When I was studying English at university, our professor explained this and asked what we said for 'hotel'. Two 'posh' students said 'otel and an hotel; the rest of us 'hotel' and a hotel. In modern standard English 'an hotel' is no longer correct.


----------



## Ingélou

Mahlerian said:


> In Japanese, objects, subjects, and so forth can be implied, so sentences can consist of a single word.
> 
> "So, where go yesterday afterwards?"
> "To store."
> "Always that."
> 
> In place of:
> 
> "So, where did you go yesterday after that conversation we had?"
> "I went to the store."
> "As you always do..."


Fascinating! But the Japanese have rituals and gestures to express politeness, don't they? I know when our school had Japanese visitors, there was a lot of bowing.


----------



## Guest

Talking of pedantry,...has anyone actually answered the OP yet?

I'd say (with Douglas Adams in mind) £42.42, or £42 8s 5d in old money.


----------



## Ingélou

MacLeod said:


> Talking of pedantry,...has anyone actually answered the OP yet?
> 
> I'd say (with Douglas Adams in mind) £42.42, or £42 8s 5d in old money.


Oughtn't the price to involve guineas, florins and farthings? Doubloons, nobles, angels, groats, bodles, doits? Or for a universal price, fractions of grammes of gold dust?


----------



## PetrB

Ingélou said:


> Oughtn't the price to involve guineas, florins and farthings? Doubloons, nobles, angels, groats, bodles, doits? Or for a universal price, fractions of grammes of gold dust?


Then there is that much traveled _thaler_

"On 15 January 1520, the kingdom of Bohemia began minting coins from silver mined locally in Joachimsthal. The coins were called "Joachimsthaler," which became shortened in common usage to thaler or taler. The German name Joachimsthal literally means Joachim's valley or Joachim's dale. This name found its way into other languages: Czech tolar, Hungarian tallér, Danish and Norwegian (rigs) daler, Swedish (riks) daler, Icelandic dalur, Dutch (rijks)daalder or daler, Ethiopian ታላሪ ("talari"), Italian tallero, Flemish daelder, Polish Talar, Persian Dare, as well as - via Dutch - into English as dollar." ~Wikipedia


----------



## brianvds

Tristan said:


> "An" should be used before a vowel sound. Since the word "usage" does not begin with a vowel sound (despite beginning with the letter U, the sound is actually a semivowel "y" sound), "a" is used instead of "an".
> 
> As for "an hospital" vs. "a hospital", that's more dialect-dependent. In some dialects (particularly British ones), "h" is considered a soft/subtle enough sound that it is treated as if it doesn't count as a consonant and "an" is used instead of "a".


Okay, the above is the rule I follow.Whether it is right or not.


----------



## Guest

Ingélou said:


> Oughtn't the price to involve guineas, florins and farthings? Doubloons, nobles, angels, groats, bodles, doits? Or for a universal price, fractions of grammes of gold dust?


I don't wish to seem rude...but I only go back as far as florins, farthings, half crowns and celebratory crowns (Churchill 1965 I think).

As for bodles and doits...they must have something to do with...oh, I don't know...fly fishing?


----------



## TurnaboutVox

brianvds said:


> In local cricket commentary, I nowadays regularly hear commentators say things like "England are in trouble"; I'm pretty sure until very recently it was _"England is in trouble." _


What never changes is the need for this phrase, whichever version!


----------



## Guest

Isn't it something to do with the speaker's implied "take" on the scenario?
a) The England XI _are_ in trouble;
b) The England team _is_ in trouble.

Still, the message is (that) the Brits are always in trouble !!! It all started with Boadicea.


----------



## Taggart

TalkingHead said:


> Isn't it something to do with the speaker's implied "take" on the scenario?
> a) The England XI _are_ in trouble;
> b) The England team _is_ in trouble.
> 
> Still, the message is (that) the Brits are always in trouble !!! It all started with Boadicea.


No, not the Brits - the *English*. This is another confusion that annoys some people on the celtic fringes.

The question of singular or plural verb with a collective noun depends to some extent on the the context and to some extent as to how you see the collective.

The shoal *is *moving north - as *one *body.

The shoal *are *darting about in all directions - as *many *individuals.

Similarly the England team / XI / XV *is *presenting a united front or the England team / XI / XV *are *divided.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Taggart said:


> ..the England team / XI / XV are divided.


That's where we have been going wrong - we need an England cricket team of 15!


----------



## Ingélou

On the same topic, people who use 'less' and 'fewer' incorrectly can be irritating.

'Less' means there is not so much of a substance, and 'fewer' that there are not so many of individuals.

I always used to teach it with my own mnemonic: *less mud, fewer tadpoles*.


----------



## Guest

Taggart said:


> No, not the Brits - the *English*. This is another confusion that annoys some people on the *celtic* fringes. [...]


You're quite right, Inspector T, and I stand rightly corrected. I blame the _Fitou_. Please check on the "Funny videos ..." thread later for more *kilt-ic* [sic] humour from my part!!


----------



## Guest

TurnaboutVox said:


> That's where we have been going wrong - we need an England cricket team of 15!


Yes! This way we can regain the Empire!


----------



## Guest

Ingélou said:


> On the same topic, people who use 'less' and 'fewer' incorrectly can be irritating.


I know! How often do you see (in the UK supermarkets that sign for those wishing to check out with "10 articles or less" ?
I know, it's small stuff as things go. At least in French (and Spanish) that isn't a problem, as _moins_ (or _menos_) covers both concepts.


----------



## Guest

Ingélou said:


> On the same topic, people who use 'less' and 'fewer' incorrectly can be irritating.
> 'Less' means there is not so much of a substance, and 'fewer' that there are not so many of individuals.
> I always used to teach it with my own mnemonic: *less mud, fewer tadpoles*.


I think the term to explain the difference between much, many, less, fewer, etc., is '*uncountable and countable nouns*'.
Anyway, to answer Ken's OP about the price of pedantry: Dunno; precision, perhaps? And in terms of musical pedantry, correct spelling (enharmonic or otherwise) is a must, I'd say!


----------



## Tristan

brotagonist said:


> Another one I hear a lot:
> 
> John's and Fred's trucking business
> 
> Properly, when both or numerous people/entities possess something, one puts the possessive _'s_ only onto the final one, hence:
> 
> John and Fred's trucking business


Here's one that would always get me confused: where to put the apostrophe if the possessor is a long phrase.

The guy with the grey beard's book.

The girl whom I met yesterday's glasses.

That is considered "acceptable", right?


----------



## Mahlerian

Ingélou said:


> Fascinating! But the Japanese have rituals and gestures to express politeness, don't they? I know when our school had Japanese visitors, there was a lot of bowing.


Yes, but in fact a good deal of politeness lies in expressing oneself correctly given your station relative to your interlocutor's. There are actually several different forms of the pronoun "you" which are used in different situations (more than simply the formal/informal of European languages). I have found that the safest thing to do in conversation to make sure you don't mess up is to either use the person's name (with the correct honorific, if necessary) or nothing at all.


----------



## Guest

Mahler-san ! [He said, bowing quite low...)


----------



## Ukko

Tristan said:


> Here's one that would always get me confused: where to put the apostrophe if the possessor is a long phrase.
> 
> The guy with the grey beard's book.
> 
> The girl whom I met yesterday's glasses.
> 
> That is considered "acceptable", right?


Move the subsidiary phrase or change it. That guy has a gray beard, he isn't with one . So, the gray bearded guy's book - the girl I met yesterday, her glasses. The latter phrase is archaic, but so what?


----------



## aleazk

Which of these two is correct?:

-Mr. Peters' briefcase.

or

-Mr. Peters's briefcase.


----------



## Tristan

Ukko said:


> Move the subsidiary phrase or change it. That guy has a gray beard, he isn't with one . So, the gray bearded guy's book - the girl I met yesterday, her glasses. The latter phrase is archaic, but so what?


Keep in mind, I'm not asking what sounds good, I'm asking whether or not it is even considered acceptable to have a phrase as a possessor.

In a language like Italian, you would say the equivalent of "the glasses of the girl whom I met yesterday". But that sounds clunky in English.


----------



## Ukko

aleazk said:


> Which of these two is correct?:
> 
> -Mr. Peters' briefcase.
> 
> or
> 
> -Mr. Peters's briefcase.


Nowadays, both. There is an aesthetic problem with the pronunciation of Peters's.


----------



## senza sordino

aleazk said:


> Which of these two is correct?:
> 
> -Mr. Peters' briefcase.
> 
> or
> 
> -Mr. Peters's briefcase.


I think it's Mr Peters' briefcase

When I hand out a test to my students, there is always someone who asks "how much marks on the test?" So I always reply "how many butter did you put on your toast this morning". This seems like a simple thing but apparently not.


----------



## Ukko

Tristan said:


> Keep in mind, I'm not asking what sounds good, I'm asking whether or not it is even considered acceptable to have a phrase as a possessor.
> 
> In a language like Italian, you would say the equivalent of "the glasses of the girl whom I met yesterday". But that sounds clunky in English.


It isn't acceptable to me... but you probably aren't asking that. 

In Amerenglish we just drop the 'whom'; The sentence is fine.


----------



## Ingélou

aleazk said:


> Which of these two is correct?:
> 
> -Mr. Peters' briefcase.
> 
> or
> 
> -Mr. Peters's briefcase.


Technically, both are okay, but as Ukko points out, most people wouldn't say Peters'*s*.

The rule about using apostrophes of possession is 'Mark the person to whom it belongs, then add an s if you say an s'.

It's fun thinking about the implications of apostrophes. People who write *the sailors' noses* as *the sailor's noses* - Gordon Bennett, how many did Popeye have??


----------



## Ingélou

TalkingHead said:


> Mahler-san ! [He said, bowing quite low...)


Only *quite *low - and he was talking to our *Mahlerian*? The scoundrel!


----------



## PetrB

Tristan said:


> Here's one that would always get me confused: where to put the apostrophe if the possessor is a long phrase.
> 
> The guy with the grey beard's book.
> 
> The girl whom I met yesterday's glasses.
> 
> That is considered "acceptable", right?


As per Ukko's recommendation:

The grey-bearded guy's book.

The glasses of / belonging to the girl I met yesterday.


----------



## Taggart

Ingélou said:


> It's fun thinking about the implications of apostrophes. People who write *the sailors' noses* as *the sailor's noses* - Gordon Bennett, how many did Popeye have??


Funny stuff Spinach!


----------



## GreenMamba

Ingélou said:


> It's fun thinking about the implications of apostrophes. People who write *the sailors' noses* as *the sailor's noses* - Gordon Bennett, how many did Popeye have??


On a related note, I see *Brahm's* fairly often at TC.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> As per Ukko's recommendation:
> 
> The grey-bearded guy's book.


And what about this "grey" versus "gray" thing anyway?


----------



## Guest

GreenMamba said:


> On a related note, I see *Brahm's* fairly often at TC.


You do? You're not that kid 'off of' _The Sixth Sense_, are you? The one who sees ghost's all the time?


----------



## Tristan

PetrB said:


> As per Ukko's recommendation:
> 
> The grey-bearded guy's book.
> 
> The glasses of / belonging to the girl I met yesterday.


I agree that those are better ways of wording those phrases. But I'm asking whether or not it is even acceptable to do in the first place.

I guess a better way of wording this would be: can a noun phrase that includes an embedded prepositional or verb phrase itself be placed before apostrophe-s? Or is that considered non-standard? I agree that it certainly does not sound very good. But I hear it all the time in "common parlance".

Just the other day someone asked about a sweater left at her house and my friend was like "oh, it's that girl with the red dyed hair's sweater!" It certainly sounds very informal to me  But I've probably said it...


----------



## science

brotagonist said:


> Yes, I find that especially galling and it has become so prevalent these last few years.
> 
> Similarly, why do people constantly say _myself_ when they mean _I_ or _me_? _John and myself climbed Everest_ sounds awkward (and is likely grammatically incorrect). Why not say, _John and I..._? _You can find out more by contacting John and myself_, etc.
> 
> Yuck!
> 
> P.S.: If you find my_self_, send him back to me :lol:


None of these things bother me the way they seem to bother others here, but one that I enjoy is when people assume that "and I" is correct and polite regardless of its function in the sentence. Salinger's classic (always skating on the edge of an innuendo) example: "It's a secret between he and I."

I really enjoy hearing that.

In general, I enjoy hearing people talk the way they talk. One of the great things about the English language is its diversity, even among native speakers. I really enjoy going to some little burger joint in some little hick town and listening to the conversations.

The best I ever heard was in a flea market, so deep in West Virginia that it wouldn't be polite to describe. I was in shock the entire time that people actually talk like that. I mean, at that point I'd lived in WVA for four or five years, so I was used to ordinary West Virginia dialect, but this was special. Pretty sure Alan Lomax would've just started recording them.


----------



## kangxi

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, but in fact a good deal of politeness lies in expressing oneself correctly given your station relative to your interlocutor's. There are actually several different forms of the pronoun "you" which are used in different situations (more than simply the formal/informal of European languages). I have found that the safest thing to do in conversation to make sure you don't mess up is to either use the person's name (with the correct honorific, if necessary) or nothing at all.


Yorkshire phrase recollected from part of my childhood when I lived in Mexborough, gateway to, er, well, Wombwell & Rawmarsh: "Don't tha 'Thee-Thou' me!" (& not polite at all.)


----------



## kangxi

aleazk said:


> Which of these two is correct?:
> 
> -Mr. Peters' briefcase.
> 
> or
> 
> -Mr. Peters's briefcase.


I've lived off & on for several years in China & still don't know if I'm in the People's Republic of China or the Peoples' Republic of China. And no I can't go to an original source since Chinese characters don't use apostrophes. (Actually, having just googled & wiki'd it, it's People's Republic, but if argued from first principles you can justify both usages.)


----------



## PetrB

Tristan said:


> I agree that those are better ways of wording those phrases. But I'm asking whether or not it is even acceptable to do in the first place.
> 
> I guess a better way of wording this would be: can a noun phrase that includes an embedded prepositional or verb phrase itself be placed before apostrophe-s? Or is that considered non-standard? I agree that it certainly does not sound very good. But I hear it all the time in "common parlance".
> 
> Just the other day someone asked about a sweater left at her house and my friend was like *"oh, it's that girl with the red dyed hair's sweater!" *It certainly sounds very informal to me  But I've probably said it...


That sounds / reads like a non-native English speaker's bad translation into English from German!


----------



## kangxi

PetrB said:


> English lacks any set exhortation for enjoying a meal! (Is that because for centuries, English cooking was infamously dull and bland?) Many another language has some expression like the French _bon appétit_, the German _guten Appetit_, etc.


How very dare you! Admittedly I'm currently located in northern China & enjoying possibly the finest food on the planet but there's nothing tasteless or bland about good British scoff. Panhaggerty! Chadderton's Bury black pudding! Stinking Bishop cheese! Throdkin! Tripe & onions! Craster kippers! Welsh rabbit! Cumberland sausage! Bstr%$ck&s! (Oops, sorry, drooled on the keyboard.)


----------



## kangxi

Mahlerian said:


> The one that gets me is when people say they're waiting with "baited" breath...
> 
> Get a mint or something!


I had a cat that used to enjoy a morsel of cheese now and again. It would eat a mouthful then go and crouch near a mousehole in the wainscot. It would wait with baited breath.

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all night.


----------



## Guest

kangxi said:


> How very dare you! Admittedly I'm currently located in northern China & enjoying possibly the finest food on the planet but there's nothing tasteless or bland about good British scoff. Panhaggerty! Chadderton's Bury black pudding! Stinking Bishop cheese! Throdkin! Tripe & onions! Craster kippers! Welsh rabbit! Cumberland sausage! Bstr%$ck&s! (Oops, sorry, drooled on the keyboard.)


Exactly! Go chomp on your Big Kuhana mega-chain hamburger, PetrB.
Hey Kangxi, let's go savour some fine game, available for centuries and up to today in the UK, such as the various versions of beast that fall under the term 'venison', or perhaps fine and tender morsels of rabbit, hare, pigeon, pheasant, grouse, partridge... 
Though I have to agree that the nosh in China is truly outstanding, notably those 'night markets' !!!


----------



## kangxi

TalkingHead said:


> Exactly! Go chomp on your Big Kuhana mega-chain hamburger, PetrB.
> Hey Kangxi, let's go savour some fine game, available for centuries and up to today in the UK, such as the various versions of beast that fall under the term 'venison', or perhaps fine and tender morsels of rabbit, hare, pigeon, pheasant, grouse, partridge...
> Though I have to agree that the nosh in China is truly outstanding, notably those 'night markets' !!!


Pie! How could I have overlooked Pie! Game pie, pork pie, steak & ale pie, meat & potato pie, rabbit pie, cornish pasty... Let the Americans mumble in the cellar over their namby-pamby fruit pie: give me a raised Melton Mowbray Pork Pie with piccalilli and a pickled onion! Fruit pie indeed. I'm minded of the immortal words of the old Daily Mirror columnist Cassandra: A quiet corner, an aspidistra, a handkerchief and the old heave-ho.

The Chinese culinary experience, while wonderful, does have some dark corners. I was given something new to eat the other day: it was a tube but I had no idea which tube. Out came the dictionary & the questions. It wasn't the stomach or the entrails or bit of heart or an artery. It *was* from a cow but that's as far as I got in identifying the thing. It was delicious though. I'm coming to the conclusion that if you want to write a chinese cookbook, in order to list the ingredients you need to have degrees in pathology & comparative anatomy. I also had something that was all too readily identifiable: ox *****. Tasty, though, once you learn to ignore sympathetic twinges from your own nether reaches. I say 'tasty' but that's somewhat misleading: it's the sauce that's tasty. I had some duck's webs the other day. The sauce was delicious, but the webs themselves were hard going. After chewing one for about 5 minutes I put it back on the plate while I took a breather & it looked exactly the same as the ones I hadn't yet started on. Nice sauce though.


----------



## Guest

Yes, some dark corners, notably eating endangered species in some parts of the country. But on the whole, the Chinese food I experienced when I was there was superb. There is no comparison with so-called 'Chinese' restaurants here in Europe, with the exception of the 'Good Friends' Chinese restaurant in Berlin.


----------



## Ingélou

kangxi said:


> Yorkshire phrase recollected from part of my childhood when I lived in Mexborough, gateway to, er, well, Wombwell & Rawmarsh: "Don't tha 'Thee-Thou' me!" (& not polite at all.)


Lovely story! I remember thee & thou being used in Chesterfield in the 1970s - not so far from Mexborough. 'Thou' was used historically to recognised inferiors, such as servants, and I remember from studying Elizabethan history at A-level that during her reign one member of parliament took offence at being called 'thou' by another. I can't find it on 'google', though.


----------



## Guest

And Kangxi, is your name a sort of phonetic rendition of the Yangtze River?


----------



## kangxi

TalkingHead said:


> And Kangxi, is your name a sort of phonetic rendition of the Yangtze River?


Ha! No, I'm the Kangxi Emperor, second of the Qing Dynasty. Reigned for 60-odd years and maybe the most decent & wisest human being ever to have been an emperor. There's quite a good Wiki article on me, and some scholar pieced together some of my writings so they form a sort of memoir.

Re the Yangtse River: in China it's called the Chang Jiang, which just means Long River. Apparently the name Yangtse comes from a foreigner who asked a local the name of the river by pointing to it and saying "What's that called?" Yangtse is something like the local bend in the river the man happened to be indicating. There's a running joke in Terry Pratchett's books where prominent geographical objects have names in local languages which translate to something like "Mount Your Finger You Idiot".


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong

I remember my father telling me that there are no rules when it comes to English grammar and spelling, merely conventions.

If you want someone to blame for the way English is spelt, then turn your ire to Dr. Samuel Johnson, whose dictionary codified English spelling. (My twin brother, who was a terrible speller, told me that it was his ambition to desecrate the grave of Dr. Johnson. Alas, Johnson is buried in Westminster Abbey, and it would be difficult to get at his grave undetected.)

As James Nicoll said, "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse *****. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."


----------



## PetrB

aleazk said:


> Which of these two is correct?:
> 
> -Mr. Peters' briefcase. or -Mr. Peters's briefcase.


If Mr. Peter, then -- Mr. Peter's Briefcase
If Mr. Peters, then -- Mr. Peters' Briefcase


----------



## PetrB

Tristan said:


> Keep in mind, I'm not asking what sounds good, I'm asking whether or not it is even considered acceptable to have a phrase as a possessor.
> 
> In a language like Italian, you would say the equivalent of "the glasses of the girl whom I met yesterday". But that sounds clunky in English.


The 's goes on whichever word is the possessor
The girl I met yesterday's glasses??? That might sound briefer, but that is now _yesterday's glasses_, no longer the girl's glasses.


----------



## PetrB

kangxi said:


> I've lived off & on for several years in China & still don't know if I'm in the People's Republic of China or the Peoples' Republic of China. And no I can't go to an original source since Chinese characters don't use apostrophes. (Actually, having just googled & wiki'd it, it's People's Republic, but if argued from first principles you can justify both usages.)


Good one 

peo·ple
ˈpēpəl/
noun

_people_ and _peoples_ are both plural nouns; where the apostrophe goes makes a slight shift in meaning 

1.
human beings in general or considered collectively.
the citizens of a country, esp. when considered in relation to those who govern them.
2. 
plural noun
the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.
"the native peoples of Canada"
synonyms:	race, (ethnic) group, tribe, clan


----------



## PetrB

kangxi said:


> I had a cat that used to enjoy a morsel of cheese now and again. It would eat a mouthful then go and crouch near a mousehole in the wainscot. It would wait with baited breath.
> 
> Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all night.


LOL. Since this is "the pedantic" thread...

When it comes to homophones, no one could mind at all, let alone 'hate,' "hearing people say." It is when the wrong word is written and we read it which gives that dreaded mental hiccup effect.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong

Has anyone mentioned "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" yet?

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.


----------



## quack

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> Has anyone mentioned "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" yet?
> 
> Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.


Not only does the linguistic prescriptivism of that book annoy me, but the bowdlerisation of the title joke is also very irritating.

The original joke was:

_Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, *roots,* shoots and leaves._

And rather than it being about a gun-toting panda, it instead plays on the sexual slang senses of root and shoot. This is my point about pedantry producing sterile communication. A once ribald joke is reduced to polite pun in service of correct comma usage


----------



## Blancrocher

"I could care less" or "I couldn't care less"?

I could care less!

...

No, I _couldn't_ care less...

...

...

Kill me now.


----------



## PetrB

Uninterested vs. Disinterested
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/blog.php?action=ViewBlogArticle&ba_id=240


----------



## PetrB

"Pet peeve," an irritation on a leash? A domesticated animal irritation???

http://walkinthewords.blogspot.com/2008/06/etymology-of-pet-peeves.html


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong

In William Makepeace Thackeray's novel, _The Luck of Barry Lyndon_, the German authorities ask Barry to spy on the Chevalier de Balibari, saying to him "He speaks Italian or French indifferently; but we have some reason to fancy this Monsieur de Balibari is a native of your country of Ireland." In this case, "indifferently" means "with no difference between them" -- i.e., "equally well". Words change their meaning.

The story is told that when Christopher Wren finished rebuilding St. Paul's Cathedral in London after the great fire of 1666, he showed it to Queen Anne. Anne said that it was "awful, artificial and amusing" -- that is, awe-inspiring, artfully made, and amazing. There is, alas, some reason to doubt whether she actually said it.


----------



## SixFootScowl

The one I most often run into is confusion of "effect" vs "affect."

I did have some trouble once with "insure" vs "ensure."

Don't get me started on "close proximity." I once even saw "very close proximity."

And then it drives me nuts when people use "due to" when they mean because of. I learned that "due to" should only be used if you can substitute "attributable to" and the sentence still makes sense.

How about "an historic" vs "a historic"?

Dropping of the second comma is another pet peeve of mine. While I realize the comma in a series means and, and that it is redundant to put two ands together as in "cars, trains, and boats." Yet in many cases the dropping of that last comma makes the sentence hard to read as one sometimes can be fooled into thinking that the first comma is separating clauses instead of the first two terms of a list. I don't have a good example off the top of my head but if anyone want's one, I'll have to post it when one comes up.

Also on commas, it makes no sense to me to write, "the opera I attended was on March 3, 1995 in New York. As the 1995 is a parenthetical clause, it needs the second comma. But better is European style dates: "...the opera I attended was on 3 March 1995 in New York." Now we have gotten rid of the commas altogether and have a much cleaner looking sentence. Also a logical flow of the date from smallest unit (day) to largest (year).


----------



## Ukko

Florestan said:


> [...]
> Also on commas, it makes no sense to me to write, "the opera I attended was on March 3, 1995 in New York. As the 1995 is a parenthetical clause, it needs the second comma. But better is European style dates: "...the opera I attended was on 3 March 1995 in New York." Now we have gotten rid of the commas altogether and have a much cleaner looking sentence. Also a logical flow of the date from smallest unit (day) to largest (year).


I use the formula I learned in the military, which makes your example 3MAR95. Far as I know, it has not caused confusion, even among draft dodgers.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong

The word misuse that always gets to me is "unique". "Unique" means "one of a kind", and is NOT a synonym for "rare". 

I'm probably the only person who cringes at "warranteed" -- the word is "warranted".

"An historic" is correct, since the "h" is silent, and one should go with the sounds.

I will admit that some years ago, I was writing a memo, and I wanted to use the word "lose". No matter how I spelt it, it looked wrong.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Whoops, ignore this post.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I don't care for the popular, "...and most importantly, ..." Rather, I prefer to say, "... and most important, ..."

And the word "proven" irks me. Also don't care for "utilize" when "use" serves the purpose just fine.


----------



## KenOC

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> The word misuse that always gets to me is "unique". "Unique" means "one of a kind", and is NOT a synonym for "rare".


And never takes a qualifier. Reading "fairly unique" makes me fairly want to upchuck. It's either unique or it ain't.


----------



## Taggart

Florestan said:


> And the word "proven" irks me.


It's a perfectly reasonable Scot's verdict when used properly - not proven means that the case has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. As a legalism it has its place.


----------



## PetrB

It seems in hotels and homes in novels all through the English speaking world of novels or in real hotels and homes, people's window coverings are all drapes. They are usually mentioned when people are closing or opening them. "___ drew the drapes."

Curtains _hang_; Drapes, uh, _drape_.


----------



## quack

KenOC said:


> And never takes a qualifier. Reading "fairly unique" makes me fairly want to upchuck. It's either unique or it ain't.


I like to think that people use constructions similar to "fairly unique" in order to avoid appearing arrogant and pretending to a more perfect knowledge of the world. Everyone is unique, so to call someone unique is meaningless, therefore qualifiers are put in place to signify a greater degree of uniqueness.

You either want to upchuck or you don't want to upchuck, you shouldn't qualify upchuck with fairly.


----------



## SixFootScowl

PetrB said:


> It seems in hotels and homes in novels all through the English speaking world of novels or in real hotels and homes, people's window coverings are all drapes. They are usually mentioned when people are closing or opening them. "___ drew the drapes."
> 
> Curtains _hang_; Drapes, uh, _drape_.


One definition of draw is to cause to move continually with force applied. We do that when we close drapes by pulling on a cord. A wagon has a draw bar which hooks to a tractor so the tractor can draw it along the path. Just an old usage. We can find many more of these dated words on old texts such as the King James Bible translation.


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort

Is anyone as weary as I am of what I consider the over-use of "absolutely"? It drives me spare. While correct, it is a response that in my universe at least should be used only sparingly, to express an _exceptional_ and _overwhelming _agreement or absolute certainty. The consistent lack of affect when "absolutely" is intoned makes me think it is being used to feign enthusiasm or accord with the questioner.


----------



## Haydn man

For me it is the way words have their use changed for no apparent reason other than to sound good in 'new manager speak'
E.g. I now hear in meetings that we are talking around an issue rather than about an issue.


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort

Haydn man said:


> For me it is the way words have their use changed for no apparent reason other than to sound good in 'new manager speak'
> E.g. I now hear in meetings that we are talking around an issue rather than about an issue.


That is confusing - with 'around' it sounds like you are skirting or avoiding the issue at hand.


----------



## ArtMusic

KenOC said:


> I seem to be seeing some pretty constant confusions in posts here. To raise the general quality of discourse, perhaps we might mention some. Either confusions or outright misuses, or...whatever!
> 
> Here's #1: Confusion of the words "cite" and "site."


Good thread.

Here's #2: Confusion of the words "music" and "noise".


----------



## PetrB

ArtMusic said:


> Good thread.
> 
> Here's #2: Confusion of the words "music" and "noise".


Yes, it seems some can not tell the difference between highly organized sounds and random ones as they occur without man's determination.


----------



## samurai

KenOC said:


> And never takes a qualifier. Reading "fairly unique" makes me fairly want to upchuck. It's either unique or it ain't.


Somewhat like being pregnant; either one is or isn't, with no half-way measures in between.
Of course, a "pregnant pause" is an entirely different matter! :lol:


----------



## Guest

Haydn man said:


> For me it is the way words have their use changed for no apparent reason other than to sound good in 'new manager speak'
> E.g. I now hear in meetings that we are talking around an issue rather than about an issue.


I work for someone who says, "around and about" an issue!

My wife complains that I always seem to be 'attending' to things instead of just 'dealing' with them, or 'doing' them.

Never mind, as long as, _moving forward_, we accept that it's a _learning curve_.


----------



## Tristan

Here's something I often see:

"The proof is in the pudding". 

The original phrase was "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", meaning that in order to know what something is truly like, you need to test it for yourself. But "the proof is in the pudding" is quite goofy when you think about it and although it seems that people use it the same way, "the proof is in the pudding" seems to mean that the evidence is all there if you were to look for it, which is not exactly the same meaning as the original phrase.


----------



## Ingélou

MacLeod said:


> I work for someone who says, "around and about" an issue!
> 
> My wife complains that I always seem to be 'attending' to things instead of just 'dealing' with them, or 'doing' them.
> 
> Never mind, as long as, _moving forward_, we accept that it's a _learning curve_.


... and _draw a line under_ past mistakes, because _lessons can be learned_; also make use of _the window of opportunity_ - (but don't move forward through it).


----------



## Taggart

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


----------



## Ingélou

I always love that joke about the woman who discovered her husband, a Professor of English, cuddling the maid in the kitchen:

Wife: Rodney, I am surprised!

Professor: No, my dear - *I* am 'surprised'; *you* are 'astonished'.


----------



## KenOC

On the news occasionally...diffuse versus defuse. Yesterday somebody was trying to diffuse the situation in Ukraine...


----------



## Vaneyes

Pleased to see "unique" dealt with. "Very unique" makes me want to jump through the television screen, or better yet in borrowing a page from Elvis' life...firing a handgun multiple times at it. But that action would effect too many people. "Affect, damn it!"

Perhaps unrelated, I recently noticed how a golf equipment retailer had chosen to categorize its golf balls. Men's balls. Ladies' balls.


----------



## techniquest

> How very dare you! Admittedly I'm currently located in northern China & enjoying possibly the finest food on the planet but there's nothing tasteless or bland about good British scoff. Panhaggerty! Chadderton's Bury black pudding! Stinking Bishop cheese! Throdkin! Tripe & onions! Craster kippers! *Welsh rabbit*! Cumberland sausage! Bstr%$ck&s! (Oops, sorry, drooled on the keyboard.)


It's Welsh Rarebit; though it is pronounced 'rabbit'.
Here's one that, oddly, I've only ever heard females say: 'pacific' instead of 'specific'.


----------



## Guest

techniquest said:


> It's Welsh Rarebit; though it is pronounced 'rabbit'.
> Here's one that, oddly, I've only ever heard females say: 'pacific' instead of 'specific'.


How about 'nucular' instead of 'nuclear'?


----------



## quack

KenOC said:


> On the news occasionally...diffuse versus defuse. Yesterday somebody was trying to diffuse the situation in Ukraine...


what's the difference? One is to remove the ignition mechanism - to stop an explosion - to make things safer, the other is to spread out - reduce centralised concentration - to make things safer. A situation cannot be literally defused or diffused, they are both figurative language so both make sense.

This is one of my problems with pedantry, it is so often a defense of cliché. Defuse is how it has always been said, a metaphor from the 19th century redolent of anarchist bomb throwers, so that is why it must remain. What about situations being firewalled, or bloviated or logged off.


----------



## techniquest

> How about 'nucular' instead of 'nuclear'?


Yes - even high-status politicians and reporters do this one. 
I've heard elderly people say 'cerstificate' rather than certificate.


----------



## KenOC

quack said:


> What about situations being firewalled, or bloviated or logged off.


Perfectly good words in my book. I particularly like "bloviate", which seems to have a nice congruence of sound and meaning. In a dictionary, there would be really only one face to put beside it...


----------



## Tristan

When it comes to pronunciation, there are a number of them, namely:

excape
expresso
expecially
excetera

And my personal least favorite: pointsetta !


----------



## Weston

Today I recieved an email asking if I had any incite into the situation. It got me a little stirred up.


----------



## Taggart

Tristan said:


> When it comes to pronunciation, there are a number of them, namely:
> 
> excape
> expresso
> expecially
> excetera
> 
> And my personal least favorite: pointsetta !


Total minefield - as in let's call the whole thing off.

From Shaw's preface to Pygmalion:



> It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him.


----------



## MagneticGhost

The only thing that really really really annoys me...is the use of 'of' instead of 've and have

I would have mentioned it earlier. 
I would've mentioned it earlier. 

I would of mentioned it earlier  - is not a sentence


----------



## Schubussy

The only thing that annoys me is 'I could care less'.

It's wrong and it sounds wrong!


----------



## Katie

MacLeod said:


> It's all down to practise! :devil:


Practice! Practice? Are we in here talkin' 'bout practice?


----------

