# Words commonly misused



## Jeremy Marchant

The UK media's insistence on consistently misusing certain words really gets my goat.

Worst offender is: _epicentre_, which is routinely used to mean 'centre', presumably to give the writer the appearance of learning or sophistication, but just shows their ignorance, since the epicentre of an earthquake is precisely _not _its centre.

Then there is _fiscal_, which is used as a catchall synonym for 'financial', when it means 'related to tax' (or more loosely, government finance). This is more dangerous since fiscal is used in both senses by the media, so in news reports it is genuinely not clear what is meant.

And _significant _is widely used to mean substantial, when it means 'bearing a sign' (signi-fer).

And yours?


----------



## kv466

Well,...one that has bothered since I was in elementary was 'supposably' being used as 'supposedly'.

And then there's mispronunciation of words which bothers me even more!


----------



## Fsharpmajor

I hate the way that, in this country, the word "blizzard" is used for every kind of snowfall. A blizzard is a severe winter snowstorm with high winds. Minor outbreaks of snow are flurries, not blizzards.

Similarly, the word "hail" is used for rain which freezes on the way down, but "sleet" is the correct term. Hail is a different phenomenon, caused by atmospheric turbulence within thunderstorms, which results in balls of ice with multiple layers.


----------



## Kopachris

I also hate misspellings. The most egregious to me are misspellings of the word "definitely." I've recently been in the habit of looking up the definitions of "sophisticated" words that I'm not entirely sure of before I use them. I wish more people (especially journalists) would do the same.


----------



## Polednice

I can agree with the first two Jeremy, but not with your gripe about the use of 'significant'.

As I'm sure you've all heard before, language needs (and does) change and evolve, and, as such, if a word is widely used in a particular sense and can always be understood in that sense, then we shouldn't grump about hanging on to the etymological root. Otherwise, I could no doubt pick you up on half the vocabulary you use.

What I hate more than misunderstood meanings are predictable phrases and sentence structures - not all of them cliches. I tire of seeing people cling to metaphors like "economic climate" just because it's probably good for search engine optimisation; and I think _anyone_ writing _anything_ should quadruple their attention span when proof-reading and ask themselves: "am I using this word in this phrase just because it's in such common use that I treat the _phrase_ as a single building-block rather than the _words_ that comprise it?" For example, if you're going to write something about a woman looking through her handbag, do _not_ use "rummage", and if something comes to a halt, do _not_ say it "grinds" to it.


----------



## Couchie

A useful tip for Mac users: Hover over a word with your mouse. Hit *ctrl - command ⌘ - D*. It will give you the definition. Works in virtually any OSX application.


----------



## HerlockSholmes

Although it's not a word, but the phrase "begs the question" always bothers me when people use it instead of saying "raises the question".


----------



## Yoshi

Kopachris said:


> I also hate misspellings. The most egregious to me are misspellings of the word "definitely."


You see, I only found out that I always misspelled that word a few weeks ago. To be fair, english isn't my first language and I learnt it mostly by myself. The fact is that I was used to see people writing it wrong and I just assumed that was the right way.


----------



## Philip

hacker vs cracker used to bother me... but i got over it


----------



## sospiro

Why has the phrase 'going forward' started to mean 'in the future'? 

This is my pet :scold: at the moment or should that be 'at this moment in time'


----------



## Fsharpmajor

"Stealth tax" is one I hate, because politicians accuse the other side of imposing stealth taxes, even if the tax increase is blatantly obvious to everyone.


----------



## Krummhorn

I constantly see journalistic spelling errors in news articles all the time ... simple ones like "dose" for "does", "sent" for "scent", and many others. Makes me wonder what kind of "ed-jur-cay-shun" these journalists are getting these days.

My pet peeve though is the constant assumption that my last name ends in "son" when it's actually "sen", even when I tell them "sen" they write "son" ... and then I get the "deer in the headlights" state like I don't know how to spell my own last name :lol:.


----------



## HerlockSholmes

Krummhorn said:


> I constantly see journalistic spelling errors in news articles all the time ... simple ones like "dose" for "does", "sent" for "scent", and many others. Makes me wonder what kind of "ed-jur-cay-shun" these journalists are getting these days.
> 
> My pet peeve though is the constant assumption that my last name ends in "son" when it's actually "sen", even when I tell them "sen" they write "son" ... and then I get the "dear in the headlights" state like I don't know how to spell my own last name :lol:.


Dear in the headlights?

The irony!


----------



## Ukko

Krummhorn said:


> I constantly see journalistic spelling errors in news articles all the time ... simple ones like "dose" for "does", "sent" for "scent", and many others. Makes me wonder what kind of "ed-jur-cay-shun" these journalists are getting these days.
> 
> My pet peeve though is the constant assumption that my last name ends in "son" when it's actually "sen", even when I tell them "sen" they write "son" ... and then I get the "dear in the headlights" state like I don't know how to spell my own last name :lol:.


 "dear in the headlights state"?


----------



## Krummhorn

Oh crap ...  I meant "deer" (just corrected that) ... thank you for pointing out the error of my ways ... :lol:


----------



## Polednice

HerlockSholmes said:


> Dear in the headlights?
> 
> The irony!


That poor old dear, she's caught in the headlights of that oncoming truck! Well, she was probably going to snuff it soon anyway, I suppose...


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Literally.

When I saw that I failed my English test, I literally died. Omigod.


----------



## Ukko

Krummhorn said:


> Oh crap ...  I meant "deer" (just corrected that) ... thank you for pointing out the error of my ways ... :lol:


Well, at least you avoided the cliched 'deer in the headlights stare'. Like literally.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

I hate the way that people always confuse "its" (belonging to it) and "it's" (it is).

Capital punishment is insufficient for this crime.


----------



## GraemeG

Polednice said:


> I can agree with the first two Jeremy, but not with your gripe about the use of 'significant'.
> 
> As I'm sure you've all heard before, language needs (and does) change and evolve, and, as such, if a word is widely used in a particular sense and can always be understood in that sense, then we shouldn't grump about hanging on to the etymological root. Otherwise, I could no doubt pick you up on half the vocabulary you use.


And yet too much of the evolution you describe is not in fact that at all, merely a simplistic and ignorant contraction. Whereas once, 'significant' meant significant, and 'important' meant important, now both words are understood to mean important. So when you wish to convey the meaning which 'significant' used to have, what do you use?

For the record, 'superlative' and 'fulsome' seem to have lost their original meanings as well. And not for the better. People who want to use the words 'super' and 'full' would like to use a longer word to appear clever, so they settle on something similar, but merely longer. The hell with its original meaning. And other fools grab onto it, and subtle distinctions are lost.
Orwell had the solution for these things. If 'super' isn't enough for you, then how about 'plussuper'. Or in extreme cases, 'doubleplussuper.'

These days, your average tabloid hack seems to think "the public interest" and "what the public is interested in" mean the same thing.

GG


----------



## Polednice

GraemeG said:


> And yet too much of the evolution you describe is not in fact that at all, merely a simplistic and ignorant contraction. Whereas once, 'significant' meant significant, and 'important' meant important, now both words are understood to mean important. So when you wish to convey the meaning which 'significant' used to have, what do you use?


Evolution can be driven by ignorance. When it comes down to it, as beautiful and inspiring as language can be in all its diversity, its purpose is meant to facilitate easy communication between a mass of people.


----------



## Klavierspieler

I think all the linguists and etymologists and whatnot should all get together at a big conference and make the English language more consistent, we have _way_ too many exceptions as it is.


----------



## Polednice

Klavierspieler said:


> I think all the linguists and etymologists and whatnot should all get together at a big conference and make the English language more consistent, we have _way_ too many exceptions as it is.


What kind of exceptions? Do you mean spelling exceptions? Although they can be counter-intuitive, they are remnants of a word's etymology, and so they can actually help you understand the history and meaning of a word. I wouldn't want that to be lost.


----------



## Couchie

I would say english has a lot of pronunciation issues. Many words, you would have no idea they're pronounced how they are until you hear them, and spelling what you hear is often counterintuitive. Apparently there _is_ a reform movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_spelling_reform


----------



## Kopachris

Polednice said:


> What kind of exceptions? Do you mean spelling exceptions? Although they can be counter-intuitive, they are remnants of a word's etymology, and so they can actually help you understand the history and meaning of a word. I wouldn't want that to be lost.


Like "pronunciation?" I understand the origin from the Latin "nuntiare," but we don't "pronunce" words, we pronounce them. Either change "pronounce" to "pronunce" or "pronunciation" to "pronounciation," please.

Sorry, that always gets on my nerve, especially when I say "pronounciation" on purpose and someone tries to correct me.


----------



## mamascarlatti

I lament the passing of "disinterested" to mean "Not influenced by considerations of personal advantage". Now it is usually used as a synonym of "uninterested".

In other news, a headline in a recent NZ national newpaper had "you're" for "your" yesterday. I was appalled.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> Evolution can be driven by ignorance. When it comes down to it, as beautiful and inspiring as language can be in all its diversity, its purpose is meant to facilitate easy communication between a mass of people.


Hah! There you go... that 'between' is misapplied!


----------



## Almaviva

Jeremy Marchant said:


> And _significant _is widely used to mean substantial, when it means 'bearing a sign' (signi-fer).


I believe that regarding _significant_ you're not entirely right.
Just look at its use in _statistically significant _(as in p = or < than 0.05). This is a measure of a substantial effect (or magnitude of effect), not of a sign.


----------



## Weston

I work at a major university, yet I still get a lot of emails using "alot" a lot. There is no such word in that context. They should allot some of their time for proofreading.

I also hear the word "recurring" pronounced as reoccurring. I'm not sure why this bugs me, but it does.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

I used to live in a large city but I moved to a rural area and some things that people say really annoy me. For instance people say crik instead of creek or rolly coaster instead of roller coaster.

Its also annoying when people refer to machines with a feminine pronoun. For example someone might say she's a really nice car.


----------



## samurai

TrazomGangflow said:


> I used to live in a large city but I moved to a rural area and some things that people say really annoy me. For instance people say crik instead of creek or rolly coaster instead of roller coaster.
> 
> Its also annoying when people refer to machines with a feminine pronoun. For example someone might say she's a really nice car.


Even Stephen King was guilty of this in his short story/novella *Christine, *launching a movie of the same name.


----------



## mamascarlatti

TrazomGangflow said:


> I used to live in a large city but I moved to a rural area and some things that people say really annoy me. For instance people say crik instead of creek or rolly coaster instead of roller coaster.
> 
> Its also annoying when people refer to machines with a feminine pronoun. For example someone might say she's a really nice car.


You'd really hate the NZ expression "She'll be right" to mean a situation is going to turn out OK.


----------



## Ukko

samurai said:


> Even Stephen King was guilty of this in his short story/novella *Christine, *launching a movie of the same name.


Ah, _samurai_, for shame.


----------



## Ukko

mamascarlatti said:


> You'd really hate the NZ expression "She'll be right" to mean a situation is going to turn out OK.


In my neck o' the woods it's 'She'll be alright'. Pretty close.


----------



## hawk

Where I live if she won't be alright we say " she's some stoved up"....


----------



## samurai

Hilltroll72 said:


> Ah, _samurai_, for shame.


Hilltroll72, I know, I know!


----------



## Ravellian

Fsharpmajor said:


> I hate the way that people always confuse "its" (belonging to it) and "it's" (it is).
> 
> Capital punishment is insufficient for this crime.


YES YES YES

This annoys me so much. Use its and it's correctly people! PLEASE!


----------



## Polednice

Oh, and faux-poshness/formality by using "I" or "myself" where "me" is actually correct. That's probably the thing I unreasonably hate the most.


----------



## hawk

Polednice said:


> Oh, and faux-poshness/formality by using "I" or "myself" where "me" is actually correct. That's probably the thing I unreasonably hate the most.


Yeah me too , literally....


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Jan said:


> You see, I only found out that I always misspelled that word a few weeks ago. To be fair, english isn't my first language and I learnt it mostly by myself. The fact is that I was used to see people writing it wrong and I just assumed that was the right way.


Neither is mine, I make my very best...nonetheless...But I read in English a lot...alot (LOL) a lot...alot.

Martin


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Fsharpmajor said:


> I hate the way that people always confuse "its" (belonging to it) and "it's" (it is).


A long time ago, I was sufficiently aggravated by this to work a size=1 explanation of the distinction into my signature field!

On a more message-board specific note, I used to chafe when not-so-careful readers referred to podium-placed top-poster *World Violist* as _'World Violinist'_

More in the spirit of the original post (word misuse), maybe the most common one is the word 'mishap' improperly applied to a major, epic disaster. Perhaps more personally irritating is when the word "tragedy" is applied to some result of sociopathic villainy (e.g.: a mass-murder). 

_King Lear_ is a tragedy. Criminal pathological destruction isn't in the same category. (One more .)


----------



## Fsharpmajor

I once read somewhere that the most commonly misspelled word in the English language is "occurrence." Besides that one, I have trouble with "recommend" and "graffiti," in terms of remembering which letters are doubled and which aren't.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Fsharpmajor said:


> I once read somewhere that the most commonly misspelled word in the English language is "occurrence." Besides that one, I have trouble with "recommend" and "graffiti," in terms of remembering which letters are doubled and which aren't.


I sometimes forget how to spell 'necessary'. Thank heaven for Firefox Spell-check!


----------



## Almaviva

> Oh, and faux-poshness/formality by using "I" or "myself" where "me" is actually correct. That's probably the thing I unreasonably hate the most.





hawk said:


> Yeah me too , literally....


Yes, I myself too.:devil:


----------



## hawk

Good one Alma!


----------



## Guest

Somewhat off-topic but English spelling is really terrible. There are plenty of languages where if you know how to spell it you know how to say it, and vice versa. Not English. We need an orthographic revolution.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

BPS said:


> Somewhat off-topic but English spelling is really terrible. There are plenty of languages where if you know how to spell it you know how to say it, and vice versa. Not English. We need an orthographic revolution.


I'll be the first to admit the purpose of language is to clearly communicate, but I don't think that means we need to try to iron out every quirk. I've seen some bloggers brainstorm potentially more consistent rules and spelling, and it always feels like some kind of Brave New World nightmare, totally dumbed down and binary.


----------



## jalex

Aggravate - means to make worse, not to annoy/irritate
Anticipate - to do something before the appointed time, not to expect
Appreciate - to form a judgement of the worth of something, not to recognise/admire/be aware of
Crescendo as used in the phrase 'to reach a crescendo' (to crescendo is to gradually get louder for those who don't know)
Enormity - means monstrous or wicked, has nothing to do with size (the correct word for that is 'enormousness')
If I'm feeling especially pedantic then 'mutual' means reciprocated, not shared, so the phrase 'mutual friends' isn't strictly correct. 
Irony - when the opposite of one's expectations occurs, not any humorous coincidence.


----------



## Ukko

jalex said:


> Aggravate - means to make worse, not to annoy/irritate
> Anticipate - to do something before the appointed time, not to expect
> Appreciate - to form a judgement of the worth of something, not to recognise/admire/be aware of
> Crescendo as used in the phrase 'to reach a crescendo' (to crescendo is to gradually get louder for those who don't know)
> Enormity - means monstrous or wicked, has nothing to do with size (the correct word for that is 'enormousness')
> If I'm feeling especially pedantic then 'mutual' means reciprocated, not shared, so the phrase 'mutual friends' isn't strictly correct.
> Irony - when the opposite of one's expectations occurs, not any humorous coincidence.


_Aggravate_ - can mean to _further_ annoy/irritate. there's the rub.
_Anticipate_ - has evolved to include prepareness to do the act.
_Appreciate_, Crescendo - no quibble.
_Enormity_ - your 'monstrous' meaning has come to denote size.
_Irony_ - no quibble. Irony can be humorous, doesn't have to be.

:tiphat:


----------



## Polednice

Spellings based on history and etymology, though frequently confusing, is actually one of the _friendliest_ systems. There are no solid definitions of how all vowels and consonants should be pronounced, so, if we went to a pronunciation based system, a single language would look vastly different in a single country in accordance with regional accent. Clearly, this problem wouldn't even be solved if we all adopted the phonetic alphabet.

Seriously, learning to spell is not at all hard if you do a healthy amount of reading.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

jalex said:


> ... Anticipate - to do something before the appointed time, not to expect
> ... Irony - when the opposite of one's expectations occurs, not any humorous coincidence.


I so agree - though isn't it usually the case that, when people use 'irony', they mean 'paradox'? And, strictly speaking, irony is a term in classical Greek drama meaning a situation in which the audience knows something the characters on stage don't: eg, in Oedipus Rex, when we know he is his father's murderer, but his mother, Jocasta, doesn't.

And, another more banal irritant: the use of _basis _as in "on a daily basis" which can be replaced, wth compete fidelty, with "daily". The "on a ... basis" is utterly redundant.


----------



## Rasa

"Good music"


----------



## sabrina

Couchie said:


> A useful tip for Mac users: Hover over a word with your mouse. Hit *ctrl - command ⌘ - D*. It will give you the definition. Works in virtually any OSX application.


Couchie, do you need to be in certain programs? I tried now hovering over "definition" +ctr-command-D, nothing happened. If I click the word then I have some options to copy, check language, language and some add dictionary (from Firefox). No definition...
I have macbook pro si Lion OS X.

Edit: I did it but with Safari. Thanks!


----------



## GoneBaroque

BPS said:


> Somewhat off-topic but English spelling is really terrible. There are plenty of languages where if you know how to spell it you know how to say it, and vice versa. Not English. We need an orthographic revolution.


When Woodrow Wilson was the U. S. President he tried to start by eliminating the use of the letter U between O and R at the end of words which is the UK usage. It is my opinion that this move detracted from the language. Of course, he also started the League of Nations which led to all kind of horrors.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

_Crisis _is actually one of those words that are used incorrectly over and over everywhere. The definition of crisis is a point within an event where circumstances change for the better or for worse (ex. A Fever Crisis is when the ill person finally has their temperature begin to drop). Not simply the problem at hand. So when I hear people saying "the Debt Crisis" in the U.S. it really should be translated "Debt Emergency" or "Debt Problem." If we were in a Debt Crisis by proper use of word, that may be good because it means that there's a likely chance we'll get out very soon. In reality, the Debt issue isn't going anywhere for a long time.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Huilunsoittaja said:


> _Crisis _is actually one of those words that are used incorrectly over and over everywhere. The definition of crisis is a point within an event where circumstances change for the better or for worse (ex. A Fever Crisis is when the ill person finally has their temperature begin to drop). Not simply the problem at hand. So when I hear people saying "the Debt Crisis" in the U.S. it really should be translated "Debt Emergency" or "Debt Problem." If we were in a Debt Crisis by proper use of word, that may be good because it means that there's a likely chance we'll get out very soon. In reality, the Debt issue isn't going anywhere for a long time.


The word no longer means this; it merely means a large problem nowadays.


----------



## GoneBaroque

Another example of the dumbing down of the language.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Klavierspieler said:


> The word no longer means this; it merely means a large problem nowadays.


Exactly, but even 100 years ago, it had that older meaning. That's how language has changed.


----------



## Philip

to know the real meaning of words, one should refer to the urban dictionary


----------



## HerlockSholmes

Philip said:


> to know the real meaning of words, one should refer to the urban dictionary


There's something bizarre about Max Planck's dead-serious face posting an incredibly lame joke . . .


----------



## Ukko

Philip said:


> to know the real meaning of words, one should refer to the urban dictionary


Sure... if you're urban. Hill folk are slow to change. Ain't is still proper, and Palm Sunday is pronounced with an 'r'. Some backwoods Vermonters (and them folks across the river) still vote Republican, even after Bush-Cheney.


----------



## jalex

Hilltroll72 said:


> _Anticipate_ - has evolved to include prepareness to do the act.
> _Enormity_ - your 'monstrous' meaning has come to denote size.


I'm unhappy with these new meanings. Both are useful words in their original meanings but we already have words for the new ones ('expect' and 'enormousness') so English speakers lose twice.


----------



## Philip

HerlockSholmes said:


> There's something bizarre about Max Planck's dead-serious face posting an incredibly lame joke . . .


contrast is beautiful


----------



## Ukko

jalex said:


> I'm unhappy with these new meanings. Both are useful words in their original meanings but we already have words for the new ones ('expect' and 'enormousness') so English speakers lose twice.


I agree that 'expect' covers the ground that 'anticipate has moved onto. The deal with 'monstrous' is that 'monster' has acquired a relationship with 'huge'. When someone describes a child as a 'little monster', the littleness is a significant qualifier.

[I am trying to use 'significant' frequently in this thread.]


----------



## Vesteralen

Another word that has been misused so often that it's become accepted speech is "hopefully".

It's gotten to the point that when I see the correct usage in print I do a "double-take" and ask myself "Is that right?"

In his reminiscence of Elgar, Reed was talking about going to Elgar's one day and looking forward to being asked to play his violin in a duet with Elgar. He wrote something like, "Hopefully I carried my violin with me". Sounds weird, doesn't it? Yet, he was correct in his usage of the word.


----------



## Almaviva

I'm learning a lot.
But the bottom line is, languages evolve, and regretting lost meaning doesn't really pay because new words get generated every day.


----------



## Ukko

The fear amongst the cognoscenti isn't so much 'lost meanings' in the specific sense as in the general sense. As we lose ways to express a thought, the language 'dumbs down'. Language being what it is, if there is no way to _express_ the thought, there is no way to _have_ the thought.


----------



## Almaviva

Hilltroll72 said:


> The fear amongst the cognoscenti isn't so much 'lost meanings' in the specific sense as in the general sense. As we lose ways to express a thought, the language 'dumbs down'. Language being what it is, if there is no way to _express_ the thought, there is no way to _have_ the thought.


But Hilltroll, why is this phenomenon necessarily 'dumbing down'? Like I said, new words and new usages of ancient words are constantly being created. The language just gets different, not necessarily dumber. Is Italian dumber than Latin? Dante Alighieri might disagree.


----------



## Sid James

There's a couple of here used exclusively here in Australia -

*Un-Australian *- Was often used by former Prime Minister John Howard (in office 1996-2007) & also nationalist politician of 1990's Pauline Hanson. This is yet another term used to refer to "people we don't like" or "people whose opinions/politics/attitudes/watever we don't like or approve of." It's basically bullsh*t catch-all term which means nothing, and usually exposes the prejudices & biases of the person who's using it against another person or group.

*Rort* or *rorting* - as in "rorting the system." This is sometimes used against public figures (politicians, public servants, corporate bosses, etc.). It kind of means using the system for your own benefit, eg. a *tax rort*.


----------



## Ukko

Almaviva said:


> But Hilltroll, why is this phenomenon necessarily 'dumbing down'? Like I said, new words and new usages of ancient words are constantly being created. The language just gets different, not necessarily dumber. Is Italian dumber than Latin? Dante Alighieri might disagree.


OK, I'll repeat: If there is no way to _express_ the thought, there is no way to _have_ the thought.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> OK, I'll repeat: If there is no way to _express_ the thought, there is no way to _have_ the thought.


There are still ways of expressing those thoughts, just not with the original words. It might take a phrase rather than a word, but you can still express them.


----------



## hawk

Hilltroll72 said:


> OK, I'll repeat: If there is no way to _express_ the thought, there is no way to _have_ the thought.


This is interesting~Are you suggesting that oral language is needed to express thought? I think it's not what your suggesting because there are numerous vehicles for expressing thought ie music, painting, cooking...The _thought_ is an inner dialogue, a forming of idea which needs language to be expressed. Language in this case can be what the host (thinker) defines it as, such as symbols(visual), grunts and squeaks (auditory not vocal), behavioral ...
Does not the thought give rise to the expression of itself?


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> There are still ways of expressing those thoughts, just not with the original words. It might take a phrase rather than a word, but you can still express them.


Sometimes even a phrase won't do it. And when you get into shades of meaning, and the influence of societal connotations on the meaning of a word.... Quite a few fairly common words have different shades of meaning in different communities; words not often used sometimes mean something slightly different to the speaker than to the hearer. This is why face-to-face communication is more reliable than what we do here at TC. Language is a great tool, but flawed. Much of formal philosophy consists of surrounding the point.


----------



## Ukko

hawk said:


> This is interesting~Are you suggesting that oral language is needed to express thought? I think it's not what your suggesting because there are numerous vehicles for expressing thought ie music, painting, cooking...The _thought_ is an inner dialogue, a forming of idea which needs language to be expressed. Language in this case can be what the host (thinker) defines it as, such as symbols(visual), grunts and squeaks (auditory not vocal), behavioral ...
> Does not the thought give rise to the expression of itself?


Rational thought is done in language. Vocabulary is not just a collection of words for use in _communication_; the meanings of those words _applied to the words_ are necessary for effective ratiocination.

The famous 1000 word vocabulary will take you through the day; but it will keep you 'a dull boy'.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Hilltroll72 said:


> Rational thought is done in language. Vocabulary is not just a collection of words for use in _communication_; the meanings of those words _applied to the words_ are necessary for effective ratiocination.
> 
> The famous 1000 word vocabulary will take you through the day; but it will keep you 'a dull boy'.


I would disagree; you seem to be saying that it is necessary to think in words. I would say that thinking our thoughts in pictures or whatnot would be just as efficient.


----------



## hawk

How do you think of or define language in this context? I'm probably getting stuck on the words and language you're using here  Rational thought I believe can be defined by the members of the group and it may be agreed that words are not required for _rational thinking_. I worked with children, in a long term treatment environment, diagnosed with pervasive developmental disorder(s) and I found it astounding to observe the depth of their ability to solve problems without the use of conventional language.


----------



## Ukko

Klavierspieler said:


> I would disagree; you seem to be saying that it is necessary to think in words. I would say that thinking our thoughts in pictures or whatnot would be just as efficient.


I don't know if thinking in pictures is possible - I don't see how they can be sequenced into ratiocination. Certainly it is possible to 'view a movie' in one's head, a lot of dreams work like that. It's in drawing conclusions from the movie that words take over again.


----------



## Almaviva

Hilltroll72 said:


> Rational thought is done in language. Vocabulary is not just a collection of words for use in _communication_; the meanings of those words _applied to the words_ are necessary for effective ratiocination.
> 
> The famous 1000 word vocabulary will take you through the day; but it will keep you 'a dull boy'.


My point is that the evolution of a language doesn't necessarily mean that the language is losing any meaning. Ancient words disappear or get modified but NEW words get added. This is how English now has 300,000 words, the most of all world languages, thanks to its wide usage around the word, so it's always incorporating new words and new meanings. Your idea seems to endorse the notion that a language's evolution is always reducing the available vocabulary, which is definitely not always the case.

On another note, I heard today on NPR that every other week a language disappears (the last speaker dies out and there is no written record) which prompted a group in Manhattan to found an institution to preserve endangered languages.

On still another note and more in tune with what you're saying, some schools of though in linguistics and psychoanalysis (e.g. the Lacanian school) advance the notion that language precedes reality, and not the other way around like intuitively one would think. Well, it's a bit more complex than this, the notion being that the unconscious is structured like a language, and to apprehend reality one needs to have the symbolic frame (made of signifiers) already in place.


----------



## Ukko

hawk said:


> How do you think of or define language in this context? I'm probably getting stuck on the words and language you're using here  Rational thought I believe can be defined by the members of the group and it may be agreed that words are not required for _rational thinking_. I worked with children, in a long term treatment environment, diagnosed with pervasive developmental disorder(s) and I found it astounding to observe the depth of their ability to solve problems without the use of conventional language.


I can't respond intelligently (if indeed I have been) without knowing more about your subject. For instance:

What do you mean by 'conventional' language?

Were the problems 'group' problems, solved together (allowing body language to assist)?

Were the problems solved of greater depth than those solved in studies of parrots or ravens? [Aha! that relates to _Klavierspieler_'s 'thinking in pictures'. It has been proposed that a raven can picture a possible result of an action (one unrelated to its natural environment) before performing it.]


----------



## Ukko

Almaviva said:


> Your idea seems to endorse the notion that a language's evolution is always reducing the available vocabulary, which is definitely not always the case.


*>>>* My 'idea' does not embrace that notion. 



> still another note and more in tune with what you're saying, some schools of though in linguistics and psychoanalysis (e.g. the Lacanian school) advance the notion that language precedes reality, and not the other way around like intuitively one would think. Well, it's a bit more complex than this, the notion being that the unconscious is structured like a language, and to apprehend reality one needs to have the symbolic frame (made of signifiers) already in place.


I don't embrace that notion either, if it includes the 'apprehend reality' thing.


----------



## jalex

Sid James said:


> There's a couple of here used exclusively here in Australia -
> 
> *Un-Australian *- Was often used by former Prime Minister John Howard (in office 1996-2007) & also nationalist politician of 1990's Pauline Hanson. This is yet another term used to refer to "people we don't like" or "people whose opinions/politics/attitudes/watever we don't like or approve of." It's basically bullsh*t catch-all term which means nothing, and usually exposes the prejudices & biases of the person who's using it against another person or group.
> 
> *Rort* or *rorting* - as in "rorting the system." This is sometimes used against public figures (politicians, public servants, corporate bosses, etc.). It kind of means using the system for your own benefit, eg. a *tax rort*.


Unrelated to the thread, I recall reading somewhere that 'to bash', meaning 'to attack / assault' is commonly used in formal writing in Australia. Being British I find the thought of a well regarded newspaper reporting a 'bashing' quite funny, it would be seen as both colloquial and poor English here.

I wonder if there are any other examples of this sort of thing?


----------



## Almaviva

Hilltroll72 said:


> I don't embrace that notion either, if it includes the 'apprehend reality' thing.


Like I said, it's a bit more complicated than this; or let's rather say, a lot more complicated. It is sort of impossible to summarize here Lacan's theory of the relationship between language, the unconscious, and what he calls _The Real, The Symbolic, and the Imaginary_ (being that _The Real_ is not exactly equivalent to _reality_ in its usual meaning (far from it, actually). I tried a gross simplification for the sake of mentioning it. Anyway, forget about it, it's too huge to discuss here.

Back to the other point, I had the impression that you were saying that a language's evolution reduces the available vocabulary, since you used terms like "dumbing down" and the impossibility of expressing or even having certain thoughts thanks to the absence of the equivalent words to express certain nuances of meaning. So, you gave me the impression that you were considering that a language evolves by shrinking, while often it evolves by expanding.

If I understood you incorrectly, please clarify the meaning of what you said.


----------



## Ukko

Almaviva said:


> [...]
> Back to the other point, I had the impression that you were saying that a language's evolution reduces the available vocabulary, since you used terms like "dumbing down" and the impossibility of expressing or even having certain thoughts thanks to the absence of the equivalent words to express certain nuances of meaning. So, you gave me the impression that you were considering that a language evolves by shrinking, while often it evolves by expanding.
> 
> If I understood you incorrectly, please clarify the meaning of what you said.


Certainly a language expands by adding words. That expansion has nothing to do with words that are lost, along with their meanings. That seems so obvious to me that our posts here must be 'shooting off at oblique angles' to each other. We aren't connecting, Alma.


----------



## Sid James

jalex said:


> Unrelated to the thread, I recall reading somewhere that 'to bash', meaning 'to attack / assault' is commonly used in formal writing in Australia. Being British I find the thought of a well regarded newspaper reporting a 'bashing' quite funny, it would be seen as both colloquial and poor English here.
> 
> I wonder if there are any other examples of this sort of thing?


Yes, "to bash," kind of means to diss someone, something like that.

& I agree, from what older people say, the quality of spoken and written English in this country has declined in the last few decades. But of course, some say it's decline, others say it's change or evolution of the language.

Another word that is a bit politically incorrect now, but still used, is *bogan*. This is a rather derogatory term for disadvantaged & poor people, the underclass. Sometimes it is used to described an attitude, like *yobbo* or *yobs*. These are rough and uncouth people, not necessarily poor, but probably uneducated. There is a Bogan Shire Council in the state of New South Wales, but I don't think this word is related to the word bogan in any way...


----------



## Almaviva

Hilltroll72 said:


> Certainly a language expands by adding words. That expansion has nothing to do with words that are lost, along with their meanings. That seems so obvious to me that our posts here must be 'shooting off at oblique angles' to each other. We aren't connecting, Alma.


But Hilltroll, why wouldn't the meanings that are lost when attached to certain words, fail to pop up again in new worlds? There would be a need to express them and they would be re-created and attached to new words.

The example that I gave you - Latin and all its beautiful poetry doesn't seem to have lost much when we consider that it evolved (among others) into the beautiful language of Dante Alighieri (not to forget French, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Romanian...).

One of the more modern ways to see the relationship between signifiers and meaning, is that meaning is not necessarily attached to signifiers in any stable or immutable way.

Regarding the Lacanian concept I was mentioning before, here is another way to look into it (although of course still a gross simplification):

Signifiers (the realm of the Symbolic) do precede reality, because reality is what is cooped out of the Real (that is, the raw material that hasn't been "treated" or "metabolized" by the Symbolic yet). Chunks of The Real (which is what is raw and traumatic and foreign and strange and uncodified), need to be assigned to the Symbolic and have an image associated with them - i.e., a word (signifier, part of the Symbolic) and an image (part of the Imaginary). It's when there is an alloy between the Symbolic and the Imaginary to define, absorb, and integrate into one's perception certain parts of the Real, that the subject (the individual) can perceive reality.

The acquisition of language is a process of assigning signifiers and mental images to parts of the Real, which then *become* reality (you have to realize that the *reality* I'm talking about is more the psychic reality kind than the material reality kind - because in our minds the material reality only exists as a number of constructs which are what Lacan called the psychic reality).

Like I said, this Internet Message Board pocket definition of the complex teachings of Jacques Lacan regarding the Real, the Symbolic, the Imaginary, and reality, is a gross simplification and entirely insufficient to make sense for anybody unfamiliar with the theory, but it may be a start just to clarify what exactly I was trying to get at when I mentioned "apprehension of reality."


----------



## Klavierspieler

Almaviva said:


> But Hilltroll, why wouldn't the meanings that are lost when attached to certain words, fail to pop up again in new worlds? There would be a need to express them and they would be re-created and attached to new words.
> 
> The example that I gave you - Latin and all its beautiful poetry doesn't seem to have lost much when we consider that it evolved (among others) into the beautiful language of Dante Alighieri (not to forget French, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Romanian...).
> 
> One of the more modern ways to see the relationship between signifiers and meaning, is that meaning is not necessarily attached to signifiers in any stable or immutable way.
> 
> Regarding the Lacanian concept I was mentioning before, here is another way to look into it (although of course still a gross simplification):
> 
> Signifiers (the realm of the Symbolic) do precede reality, because reality is what is cooped out of the Real (that is, the raw material that hasn't been "treated" or "metabolized" by the Symbolic yet). Chunks of The Real (which is what is raw and traumatic and foreign and strange and uncodified), need to be assigned to the Symbolic and have an image associated with them - i.e., a word (signifier, part of the Symbolic) and an image (part of the Imaginary). It's when there is an alloy between the Symbolic and the Imaginary to define, absorb, and integrate into one's perception certain parts of the Real, that the subject (the individual) can perceive reality.
> 
> The acquisition of language is a process of assigning signifiers and mental images to parts of the Real, which then *become* reality (you have to realize that the *reality* I'm talking about is more the psychic reality kind than the material reality kind - because in our minds the material reality only exists as a number of constructs which are what Lacan called the psychic reality).
> 
> Like I said, this Internet Message Board pocket definition of the complex teachings of Jacques Lacan regarding the Real, the Symbolic, the Imaginary, and reality, is a gross simplification and entirely insufficient to make sense for anybody unfamiliar with the theory, but it may be a start just to clarify what exactly I was trying to get at when I mentioned "apprehension of reality."


Good Heavens! Has Sid hijacked Alma's account? :lol:


----------



## Ukko

Klavierspieler said:


> Good Heavens! Has Sid hijacked Alma's account? :lol:


 Alma's description of the subject hypothesis wasn't nearly long enough to make sense of it.

Regarding the appearance of new words expressing abstract concepts/thoughts that have been lost - those things must happen, but I don't understand how they happen. And I question how we can know that the new word expresses the former thought. I have read enough history to wonder.


----------



## Almaviva

Well, guys, I told you that this was way too complex for this setting.
Lacanian theory requires some 10 years of intense studying in order for its student to *start* getting to some hint of sense, and a couple of posts here wouldn't do it justice. I throw the towel and won't insist. I spent 18 months studying *one* of his articles (a tiny fraction of his vast works). Like I said, there is just no way to summarize it in a coherent manner, so I won't try to do it.

This may help, if you're interested (although all these introductory books only scratch the surface; you gotta read the man himself):










http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-...6042/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1317776983&sr=8-6


----------



## Couchie

sabrina said:


> Couchie, do you need to be in certain programs? I tried now hovering over "definition" +ctr-command-D, nothing happened. If I click the word then I have some options to copy, check language, language and some add dictionary (from Firefox). No definition...
> I have macbook pro si Lion OS X.
> 
> Edit: I did it but with Safari. Thanks!


Yeah, firefox has its own dictionary and doesn't support the system-wide OSX dictionary by default, use Safari.


----------



## hawk

@Hilltroll~I am not able to continue the conversation with you. Time or lack of time is why. I need to finsih some flutes before I hit the road for 6 days or so. I generally stay away from the computer when not at home. It's really a nice break....
So I'll be popping in to have a read or a quick comment but that's all I'll have time/energy for... :tiphat:


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*Spotted at my workplace yesterday!*

*Who's the imbecile who decided that the word "acronym" could be used as a synonym for "abbreviation?!"

I would like to conduct an Inquisition-like persecution of that guy- and ALL of his followers!!*

_Before I go, I also have a pronunciation-rant, as well. The letter "X" deserves much more caring and selective treatment than the profligate misuse it receives in the following contexts:

A) Axe (e.g.: "I just HAD to axe him that question.")
B) Ex cetera... [I've heard the younger of New Jersey's two US Senators drop this one],
and (perhaps worst of all...)
C) Ex-specially._


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*Well- 'tis the season for this one...*

People who [I guess] mean to say "pundit," but out of their mouths comes "pundint."

Fingernails
Blackboard
Feels like that.


----------



## Polednice

Rather than single words with changed meanings or frustrating mis-spellings, I'm particularly riled by people who hear but have never seen a certain phrase or idiom and then confidently write it getting it absolutely wrong, such as "for all intensive purposes".


----------



## Very Senior Member

A very common mistake, which I've seen a good deal of here at T-C, is the mis-use of the word "its" and "it's". It's so easy to identify the correct use as "it's" stands for "it is", and "its" is the possessive pronoun referring to belonging to something. Very often "it's" is used instead of the correct "its". The mistake is made by all sorts of people, some of whom one might have presumed would know better.


----------



## Polednice

Very Senior Member said:


> A very common mistake, which I've seen a good deal of here at T-C, is the mis-use of the word "its" and "it's". It's so easy to identify the correct use as "it's" stands for "it is", and "its" is the possessive pronoun referring to belonging to something. Very often "it's" is used instead of the correct "its". The mistake is made by all sorts of people, some of whom one might have presumed would know better.


It's very common and a bit unsightly, but I have sympathy for this one as it's a mistake by analogy with other possessives which are all 's.


----------



## Cnote11

Its a damn shame Intentional


----------



## Kopachris

"Censured" for "censored."


----------



## moody

TrazomGangflow said:


> I used to live in a large city but I moved to a rural area and some things that people say really annoy me. For instance people say crik instead of creek or rolly coaster instead of roller coaster.
> 
> Its also annoying when people refer to machines with a feminine pronoun. For example someone might say she's a really nice car.


But applying she to cars,ships and aeroplanes has always been the thing.
What about the ridiculous "awesome"?


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

moody said:


> ...What about the ridiculous "awesome"?


But isn't that like the downgrading of "awful", only more recent?


----------



## moody

Chi_townPhilly said:


> People who [I guess] mean to say "pundit," but out of their mouths comes "pundint."
> 
> Fingernails
> Blackboard
> Feels like that.[/QUOTEd
> I had a boss once who insisted on saying "he went absolutely beresque" instead of berserk---I was always mortified.


----------



## moody

Jeremy Marchant said:


> But isn't that like the downgrading of "awful", only more recent?


I am not sure if I follow you, but a lot of young people use it e.g. I think Beethoven is absolutely awesome.


----------



## Romantic Geek

The word "problem" was something that one of my professors at my undergrad institution thought was misused a lot. She stated that a "problem" was something unsolvable or at such a significant level (ex. the Irish famine problem, war as a problem, a paradox as a problem, etc.) She contended that most people use words like issue, dilemma, and concern for lesser worries (ex. "I have an issue with how you are doing that," "That won't be an issue/of a concern," etc.)

As far as the "literally" issue above, this/ pretty much sums up that debate.

I also get annoyed at people who cannot spell "definitely." An easy way to remember: if you're definitely going to do something, your decision has become "finite." I've never misspelled that word since I learned that "finite" was in it.

As far as a music goes, music cannot cadence. Cadence is not a verb. The music achieves (or reaches) a cadence.


----------



## moody

This is fun isn't it,but we are likely to expose ourselves---especially to the formidable Hilltroll.
Pet hate : "Well of course your different to me".
I was taught the rhyme: "Different from, similar to".


----------



## Romantic Geek

moody said:


> I am not sure if I follow you, but a lot of young people use it e.g. I think Beethoven is absolutely awesome.


It's only different in syntax. To say that "Beethoven is awesome" does not alter the original definition which is to describle something that "inspires awe" or "expresses awe." The thing that you may have an issue with is that the sentence "Beethoven is awesome" doesn't describe _why_ someone thinks its awesome.


----------



## moody

jalex said:


> Unrelated to the thread, I recall reading somewhere that 'to bash', meaning 'to attack / assault' is commonly used in formal writing in Australia. Being British I find the thought of a well regarded newspaper reporting a 'bashing' quite funny, it would be seen as both colloquial and poor English here.
> 
> I wonder if there are any other examples of this sort of thing?


Probably but then that's the problem with Australians .


----------



## moody

Klavierspieler said:


> I would disagree; you seem to be saying that it is necessary to think in words. I would say that thinking our thoughts in pictures or whatnot would be just as efficient.


But we are not cats , well most of us aren't that is. ( that is pretty lousy English!)


----------



## moody

Sid James said:


> There's a couple of here used exclusively here in Australia -
> 
> *Un-Australian *- Was often used by former Prime Minister John Howard (in office 1996-2007) & also nationalist politician of 1990's Pauline Hanson. This is yet another term used to refer to "people we don't like" or "people whose opinions/politics/attitudes/watever we don't like or approve of." It's basically bullsh*t catch-all term which means nothing, and usually exposes the prejudices & biases of the person who's using it against another person or group.
> 
> *Rort* or *rorting* - as in "rorting the system." This is sometimes used against public figures (politicians, public servants, corporate bosses, etc.). It kind of means using the system for your own benefit, eg. a *tax rort*.


But of course this is the problem with Australians, they've devolved the language back to the ape men.


----------



## samurai

How about this phrase: *"He/she is cool, calm and collective". :scold:*


----------



## moody

moody said:


> Probably but then that's the problem with Australians .


I'm sorry ,I meant this for another post.


----------



## moody

Wonderful Americanism ,"She'll be arriving momentarily", heavens above!


----------



## moody

Romantic Geek said:


> It's only different in syntax. To say that "Beethoven is awesome" does not alter the original definition which is to describle something that "inspires awe" or "expresses awe." The thing that you may have an issue with is that the sentence "Beethoven is awesome" doesn't describe _why_ someone thinks its awesome.


Yes, but where you would say that you think MacDowell is a wonderful composer, they would say that he is awesome i.e going over the top. But they use the expression about a flavour of soda pop much less composers.


----------



## Romantic Geek

moody said:


> Yes, but where you would say that you think MacDowell is a wonderful composer, they would say that he is awesome i.e going over the top. But they use the expression about a flavour of soda pop much less composers.


I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as you're making it out to be. Nothing suggests that "awesome" has to be associated with "over the top." Considering that awe's current usage usually describes a mixture of emotions, it would be difficult to quantify the change of affections.


----------



## Ukko

Romantic Geek said:


> It's only different in syntax. To say that "Beethoven is awesome" does not alter the original definition which is to describle something that "inspires awe" or "expresses awe." The thing that you may have an issue with is that the sentence "Beethoven is awesome" doesn't describe _why_ someone thinks its awesome.


Yeah, that usage without qualifiers could lead one to believe that Beethoven (in some incarnation) is surrounded by an aura, or a loud hum, or... has some other very impressive attribute, possibly unmentionable in polite society.

Yet, if the hearer assumes that the speaker is referring to Beethoven's music, chances are good that's the intent. Shortcuts in speech can be acceptable. To the extent that posts here can be regarded as speech, that's good too; as long as we are not unknowingly relying on body language that isn't, ah, getting across.


----------



## jalex

A 'dilemma' is a situation in which only two courses of action are available, it isn't synonymous with 'problem'.


----------



## Romantic Geek

jalex said:


> A 'dilemma' is a situation in which only two courses of action are available, it isn't synonymous with 'problem'.


Well that's the _issue_...problem is often misused.


----------



## Couchie

"Closet" refers to a small room where shoes are kept when out of service, not a barge charged with drawing logs away from the reef.


----------



## Couchie




----------



## Ukko

Romantic Geek said:


> Well that's the _issue_...problem is often misused.


 I didn't know that a dilemma is limited to < or >; is that the significance of the 'di'? Anyway it seems to be a special case of 'problem', so why isn't 'problem' OK?

I hope we aren't losing the view of the forest here by peering too closely at the underbrush. The _numero uno_ job of language is the accurate communication of information. The receiver has to get the meaning that the transmitter intends to convey. If, for instance, _'problem'_ has the same meaning for the transmitter and some high percentage of receivers, it's OK, ain't it?

Yeah I know, I am still annoyed by the pronunciation shift that turned 'protein' into a two-syllable word. But it's a lost cause now. I'm saving my arguments now for St. Peter, who I'm pretty sure is going to be reluctant to let me in.


----------



## samurai

@ Hilltroll, What about the word* "protean", *do you think that somehow got confused with the pronunciation of *"protein"* {although their meanings are vastly different?}.


----------



## jttoft

People who misuse or misspell words annoy me to no end. Especially when it's something incredibly trivial like _its_ instead of _it's_ and vice versa.
What annoys me even more is people who can't use the correct word in a sentence. A huge pet peeve of mine is when people write _would of_ instead of _would have_. It makes no sense to write "I could of done that". I just can't wrap my head around why in the world someone would even think to use _of_ in that sentence.
Also, grammatical errors in prominent or permanent texts or signs make me laugh. You would be amazed at how many people forget the apostrophe in possessive nouns or, in the case of my mother tongue Danish, puts an apostrophe where there shouldn't be any. I mean, if you're making a sign for your store, why can't you spend 5 minutes having it spell checked by someone?


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

jttoft said:


> People who misuse or misspell words annoy me to no end. Especially when it's something incredibly trivial like _its_ instead of _it's_ and vice versa.


You know, there are a lot of people who would find your use of "incredibly" in that sentence a bit annoying, too.



> What annoys me even more is people who can't use the correct word in a sentence. A huge pet peeve of mine is when people write _would of_ instead of _would have_. It makes no sense to write "I could of done that". I just can't wrap my head around why in the world someone would even think to use _of_ in that sentence.


In the UK, at least, most people do not fully articulate each of the two words "could" and "have". They say "could've" which sounds rather like "could of", particularly when the latter is also sloppily pronounced. If they haven't been taught grammar in school, it is unlikely they even know the part of the verb they should be using.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Hilltroll72 said:


> I didn't know that a dilemma is limited to < or >; is that the significance of the 'di'?...


Wikipedia, as ever: A dilemma (Greek: δί-λημμα "double proposition") is a problem offering two possibilities, neither of which is practically acceptable. One in this position has been traditionally described as "being on the horns of a dilemma", neither horn being comfortable. This is sometimes more colorfully described as "Finding oneself impaled upon the horns of a dilemma", referring to the sharp points of a bull's horns, equally uncomfortable (and dangerous).


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Romantic Geek said:


> As far as a music goes, music cannot cadence. Cadence is not a verb. The music achieves (or reaches) a cadence.


But there are so many verbs directly formed from nouns that this must be accorded a legitimate word creation process. For example "to chair a meeting", "it is raining", "oiling the wheels", "John is refereeing the game"...

And anyway, surely it is the composer who achieves the cadence not the music!


----------



## Romantic Geek

Jeremy Marchant said:


> But there are so many verbs directly formed from nouns that this must be accorded a legitimate word creation process. For example "to chair a meeting", "it is raining", "oiling the wheels", "John is refereeing the game"...
> 
> And anyway, surely it is the composer who achieves the cadence not the music!


Not really. The music would achieves/reaches a cadence. The composer writes/composes cadences.


----------



## jttoft

Jeremy Marchant said:


> You know, there are a lot of people who would find your use of "incredibly" in that sentence a bit annoying, too.


- That's their loss. It's perfectly correct.



> In the UK, at least, most people do not fully articulate each of the two words "could" and "have". They say "could've" which sounds rather like "could of", particularly when the latter is also sloppily pronounced. If they haven't been taught grammar in school, it is unlikely they even know the part of the verb they should be using.


- Yes, I realise _could've_ can sound a little like _could of_, but people really ought to think about what they are writing.

By the way, do people generally use _realise_ or _realize_ in the UK?


----------



## Ukko

Jeremy Marchant said:


> Wikipedia, as ever: A dilemma (Greek: δί-λημμα "double proposition") is a problem offering two possibilities, neither of which is practically acceptable. One in this position has been traditionally described as "being on the horns of a dilemma", neither horn being comfortable. This is sometimes more colorfully described as "Finding oneself impaled upon the horns of a dilemma", referring to the sharp points of a bull's horns, equally uncomfortable (and dangerous).


So... the word is a more or less direct borrowing from the Greek? You _realize_ of course that English has a long history of borrowing words and then modifying their meanings - often beyond recognition. I think this _established procedure_ makes the limiting of, ah, points of reference to two, somewhat less than ironclad.


----------



## moody

jttoft said:


> - That's their loss. It's perfectly correct.
> 
> - Yes, I realise _could've_ can sound a little like _could of_, but people really ought to think about what they are writing.
> 
> By the way, do people generally use _realise_ or _realize_ in the UK?


Realise, realize is the American version.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

jttoft said:


> What annoys me even more is people who can't use the correct word in a sentence. A huge pet peeve of mine is when people write _would of_ instead of _would have_. It makes no sense to write "I could of done that". I just can't wrap my head around why in the world someone would even think to use _of_ in that sentence.


Absolutely shocking innit? I couldn't of expresed it better meself. Its the yobbo culcha to blame, yer know. Id round up all these yobs who don't talk proper and send off to a boot camp sum place to learn them a fing or too about riting prope english. Enuf's enuf I say.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

moody said:


> Realise, realize is the American version.


I'd like to know what lurks behing that helmut of yours. Have you had a bad accident?


----------



## Ukko

Andy Loochazee said:


> I'd like to know what lurks behing that helmut of yours. Have you had a bad accident?


It's obvious from his posts that _moody_ is a modern knight errant.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Hilltroll72 said:


> It's obvious from his posts that _moody_ is a modern knight errant.


Oh I agree. He's one of few people around here I admire, along with your goodself of course. Both his and your gems of wisdom sorting out the uneducated provide me with a constant source of inspiration. He leads the way and I yearn for more every day. I just wish I could have a sneak view under that visa to satisfy my curiosity it's not just a suit of armour. As for you, I admire the brevity of your exposition which has unfailing devastingly powerful effect. I feel deeply humble at the ability to share this page with you both.


----------



## Romantic Geek

moody said:


> Realise, realize is the American version.


I can't help but hear undertones of disgust in this post.


----------



## moody

Andy Loochazee said:


> I'd like to know what lurks behing that helmut of yours. Have you had a bad accident?


No, but people who look behind it are doomed!


----------



## moody

Romantic Geek said:


> I can't help but hear undertones of disgust in this post.


Hullo, I smell a Geek around. You hear things that others don't that is well known, but as a Canadian German I think I'm quite used to both spellings.


----------



## moody

Andy Loochazee said:


> Oh I agree. He's one of few people around here I admire, along with your goodself of course. Both his and your gems of wisdom sorting out the uneducated provide me with a constant source of inspiration. He leads the way and I yearn for more every day. I just wish I could have a sneak view under that visa to satisfy my curiosity it's not just a suit of armour. As for you, I admire the brevity of your exposition which has unfailing devastingly powerful effect. I feel deeply humble at the ability to share this page with you both.


What a sensible fellah! Pity that Geek isn't as clever as you.


----------



## jalex

moody said:


> Realise, realize is the American version.


Nope. '-ize' is the verb form preferred by the OED among other serious English publications, and by many international bodies. Apparently it's closer to the original Greek. Both are considered acceptable in UK English.



Wikipedia said:


> British English using -ize is known as Oxford spelling, and is used in publications of the Oxford University Press, most notably the Oxford English Dictionary...The OED lists the -ise form separately, as "a frequent spelling of -IZE", and refuses to list the -ise spellings even as alternatives in the individual entries for words such as realize. It firmly deprecates usage of -ise for words of Greek origin, stating, "[T]he suffix..., whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Greek -ιζειν, Latin -izāre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling in -iser should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic." It maintains "... some have used the spelling -ise in English, as in French, for all these words, and some prefer -ise in words formed in French or English from Latin elements, retaining -ize for those of Greek composition." Noah Webster rejected -ise for the same reasons. Henry Watson Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage quotes the OED and clearly recommends the -ize- spelling. Also Horace Hart in Hart's Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford also clearly recommended the -ize- spelling.
> 
> The Cambridge University Press, on the other hand, has long favoured -ise, and many reference works, including the Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, accept the "-ise" usage as legitimate.
> 
> *Perhaps as a reaction to the ascendancy of American spelling, the -ize spelling is often incorrectly viewed in Britain as an Americanism*, and -ise is more commonly used in the UK mass media and newspapers, including The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Economist. Meanwhile, -ize is used in many British-based academic publications, such as Nature, the Biochemical Journal and The Times Literary Supplement.


----------



## Ukko

Andy Loochazee said:


> Oh I agree. He's one of few people around here I admire, along with your goodself of course. Both his and your gems of wisdom sorting out the uneducated provide me with a constant source of inspiration. He leads the way and I yearn for more every day. I just wish I could have a sneak view under that visa to satisfy my curiosity it's not just a suit of armour. As for you, I admire the brevity of your exposition which has unfailing devastingly powerful effect. I feel deeply humble at the ability to share this page with you both.


 Yeah, sure.

[The above is an Americanism, employed to indicate disbelief in the sincerity of your sentiments. Do not confuse this with 'Oh yeah?', which has an entirely different significance.]


----------



## jttoft

jalex said:


> Nope. '-ize' is the verb form preferred by the OED among other serious English publications, and by many international bodies. Apparently it's closer to the original Greek. Both are considered acceptable in UK English.


- Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out!


----------



## PetrB

impact - as a verb. now in dictionaries, but to several older generations, it will always sound so wrong :-/

Agree, nothing ever 'reaches a crescendo' Arrrgh! Writers and music - a whole volume of sins


----------



## Cnote11

Everybody in the world, except for LORD TROLL OF THE HILLS of course, uses the word beauty in a sloppy (a.k.a. WRONG) manner.


----------



## moody

JALEX.
You may well be right, but not many people here will be reading the publications mentioned. Also this is the first time I have had this information imparted to me in my life, the strange thing is that I have have tended to use the 'z' fairly often. Nevertheless if one were to show 'recognize' to 95% of British people they would say that it was the American way.


----------



## moody

Cnote11 said:


> Everybody in the world, except for LORD TROLL OF THE HILLS of course, uses the word beauty in a sloppy (a.k.a. WRONG) manner.


Well, he is always correct Andy (above) will tell you!


----------



## moody

PetrB said:


> impact - as a verb. now in dictionaries, but to several older generations, it will always sound so wrong :-/
> 
> Agree, nothing ever 'reaches a crescendo' Arrrgh! Writers and music - a whole volume of sins


I would suppose Martin must be reaching a crescendo after all our advice.


----------



## Ukko

moody said:


> JALEX.
> You may well be right, but not many people here will be reading the publications mentioned. Also this is the first time I have had this information imparted to me in my life, the strange thing is that I have have tended to use the 'z' fairly often. Nevertheless if one were to show 'regognize' to 95% of British people they would say that it was the American way.


 Hah. Far as I know, 'regognize' isn't anyone's way.


----------



## moody

Hilltroll72 said:


> Hah. Far as I know, 'regognize' isn't anyone's way.


Hah, I noticed and have changed it. But I think they spell it that way in Manchester.


----------



## Cnote11

That's simply because they can't spell anything in Manchester.


----------



## moody

Cnote11 said:


> That's simply because they can't spell anything in Manchester.


Yes my boy, that was the point I was putting across---but you knew that now didn't you?


----------



## Xaltotun

When I hear the word "natural", I reach for my gun.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

jttoft said:


> - Yes, I realise _could've_ can sound a little like _could of_, but people really ought to think about what they are writing.


My point was that they _don't know_ what is right or wrong because they have never been taught grammar.



> By the way, do people generally use _realise_ or _realize_ in the UK?


Both are acceptable in the UK. The suffix -ise is cognate with the French -iser, indicating derivation via the Norman French after 1066 from Latin, -ize is cognate with Greek "izein". Both suffixes have a general sense of make, create, bring into being. Pedants in the old days would argue that words which came from the Greek should be spelt -ize (eg theorize), those from Latin with -ise (eg advise).

The prevalence of the -ize spelling in the US today could reflect the orthography of the early British colonisers of America, in the same way that American use the -or suffix whereas the British now use -our (eg honor/honour). The -or spelling was far more common in Elizabethan times and is preserved in some place names in England today - eg, I was born and brought up in a district of London called Honor Oak Park.


----------



## Cnote11

moody said:


> Yes my boy, that was the point I was putting across---but you knew that now didn't you?


I was helping out those who aren't very good at picking up subtleties of language. We _know_ how poor some people are with their language skills on this forum.


----------



## moody

Cnote11 said:


> I was helping out those who aren't very good at picking up subtleties of language. We _know_ how poor some people are with their language skills on this forum.


You'd better sort them out then or the Troll thing will!


----------



## Moira

Fsharpmajor said:


> I hate the way that, in this country, the word "blizzard" is used for every kind of snowfall. A blizzard is a severe winter snowstorm with high winds. Minor outbreaks of snow are flurries, not blizzards.
> 
> Similarly, the word "hail" is used for rain which freezes on the way down, but "sleet" is the correct term. Hail is a different phenomenon, caused by atmospheric turbulence within thunderstorms, which results in balls of ice with multiple layers.


Every dose of the common cold is termed 'flu' here in South Africa. A few years ago I got flu. I will NEVER confuse them again.


----------



## Ukko

moody said:


> You'd better sort them out then or the Troll thing will!


Hah. _Cnot_ has whipped on me to the extent that his whip has worn down to the handle. He would hit me over the head with that, if he could reach it. Fortunately for me, _Cnot_'s whip was made of eider down shaped by pettiness.

I have no beef with the people of Manchester - the city in England, or the city in New Hampshire, or the town in Vermont. I'm sure there are more Manchesters, and I have no beef with them either.

If you care to check with _Poley_, I think you will find that, a few hundred years ago, spellings in letters and suchlike were a pretty arbitrary thing. Many of them were the result of 'sounding out', and so are a guide to how folks pronounced words back then.


----------



## Cnote11

Hilly has never had any fun in his life.


----------



## Ukko

Cnote11 said:


> Hilly has never had any fun in his life.


Not so. I remember a day, a chilly spring day long ago, standing on top of a manure pile, feet sunk in halfway to the knees, shoveling (mostly) cow manure into a spreader wagon. I was able to imagine the grass that would grow high and green and full of nourishment because of that manure. And my feet were toasty warm. It was a fun time.

There may have been other fun times; I will try to remember.


----------



## moody

Hilltroll72 said:


> Hah. _Cnot_ has whipped on me to the extent that his whip has worn down to the handle. He would hit me over the head with that, if he could reach it. Fortunately for me, _Cnot_'s whip was made of eider down shaped by pettiness.
> 
> I have no beef with the people of Manchester - the city in England, or the city in New Hampshire, or the town in Vermont. I'm sure there are more Manchesters, and I have no beef with them either.
> 
> If you care to check with _Poley_, I think you will find that, a few hundred years ago, spellings in letters and suchlike were a pretty arbitrary thing. Many of them were the result of 'sounding out', and so are a guide to how folks pronounced words back then.


With all respect to him, why should I need to check anything with Poley?


----------



## sheffmark

Or the way the youth of today say "Yeah" after every mindless sentence!!


----------



## Ukko

moody said:


> With all respect to him, why should I need to check anything with Poley?


_Poley_ is studying medieval English, which is a little early for our purposes, but he has had contact with writings Chaucerian and later, so must have seen some 'creative' spellings. Oxford isn't _all_ fun and games, I think.


----------



## moody

Hilltroll72 said:


> _Poley_ is studying medieval English, which is a little early for our purposes, but he has had contact with writings Chaucerian and later, so must have seen some 'creative' spellings. Oxford isn't _all_ fun and games, I think.


I didn't think he was ever actually there, but now we know where to go for the medieval stuff, I'm most relieved because I just missed that period.


----------



## moody

Cnote11 said:


> Hilly has never had any fun in his life.


That's a bit harsh, he tries his best you know. I bet he could have some fun with you.


----------



## Ukko

moody said:


> I didn't think he was ever actually there, but now we know where to go for the medieval stuff, I'm most relieved because I just missed that period.


It's an important period, I think, because somewhere in there the languages spoken in England, western Germany, Holland and Flanders, and Scandinavia drifted far enough to no longer be mutually intelligible. Seems like a damn shame.


----------



## Cnote11

Ah, I remember reading Canterbury Tales in its original language form. Good times!


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> It's an important period, I think, because somewhere in there the languages spoken in England, western Germany, Holland and Flanders, and Scandinavia drifted far enough to no longer be mutually intelligible. Seems like a damn shame.


It doesn't take long for the divide to form - the Scandinavians came to settle at the end of the 5th Century, and 3-4 centuries later, the Vikings came to rape everyone and communication with their cousins wasn't the smoothest it could be. Much closer than nowadays, of course, but it necessitated the two languages of Old English and Old Norse swapping words to make them mutually intelligible. In short, if you want Northern Europe to share one mighty language again, mount an invasion.


----------



## moody

Polednice said:


> It doesn't take long for the divide to form - the Scandinavians came to settle at the end of the 5th Century, and 3-4 centuries later, the Vikings came to rape everyone and communication with their cousins wasn't the smoothest it could be. Much closer than nowadays, of course, but it necessitated the two languages of Old English and Old Norse swapping words to make them mutually intelligible. In short, if you want Northern Europe to share one mighty language again, mount an invasion.


There was a guy prepared to do that , now what was his name? Oh I remember Adolf something , but it didn't work out so we're stuck with all these daft people who don't speak English. But do not despair Mr.Putin might save the day.


----------



## Polednice

moody said:


> There was a guy prepared to do that , now what was his name? Oh I remember Adolf something , but it didn't work out so we're stuck with all these daft people who don't speak English. But do not despair Mr.Putin might save the day.


If it was me, I'd mount a _nice_ invasion. I'd make sure only the children were slaughtered, not the women, and the women would only be half-raped. I'd make sure the gas chambers played nice music too.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*Today's special workplace aggravation*

Several (mis)-uses, from several people, on several documents...

Saying "bi-monthly" in a context that makes it clear that what they mean to say is twice a month; which of course should be "semi-monthly."

I don't have enough time in the day to _correct_ these idiots- but it still gets me mad.


----------



## violadude

People often mistakenly use the phrase "could care less" when they clearly mean "couldn't care less".


----------



## KenOC

One of my favorites: Further and farther. If I have this right, "farther" refers to physical distance or separation, nothing else. All other situations use "further."

Or do I have that backwards? :lol:


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> One of my favorites: Further and farther. If I have this right, "farther" refers to physical distance or separation, nothing else. All other situations use "further."
> 
> Or do I have that backwards? :lol:


No, that's correct. Apparently, people on the East Coast (capitalized because I'm referring to the region...) of the US don't distinguish between the two! I frequently hear newscasters say "further" when they should say "farther." My wife, who is from NY and is well educated, used "further" for all situations. I wasted no time in correcting her!


----------



## KenOC

Kontrapunctus said:


> My wife, who is from NY and is well educated, used "further" for all situations. I wasted no time in correcting her!


You corrected SWMBO? I hope your affairs are in good order.


----------



## Cnote11

Wait, what? Give an example of how it is misused, please. I'm not currently understanding what you're referring to, KenOC.


----------



## Cnote11

I decided to look something up to possibly clarify what KenOC is trying to say and I found this

the Oxford English Dictionary, Fowler's Modern English Usage, and a number of other sources say that, in most cases, it's fine to use “further” and “farther” interchangeably, especially when the distinction isn't clear. People have been using them interchangeably for hundreds of years, and a few experts don't even follow the distinction. For example, Garner's Modern American Usage notes that in British English, although it's more common for speakers to use “farther” for physical distance, they will regularly use either “further” or “farther” for figurative distance.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Cool jazz: Art Pepper, Dave Brubeck.

Smooth jazz: Kenny G infomercial elevator music.

Don't mix them up.


----------



## Guest




----------



## Hayze

Kontrapunctus said:


>


No. 4 is really the most annoying ever.


----------



## Guest




----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

One mistake I see waaaaaay to often: "latter" means the second mentioned of two things, not the last in a list of more than two things. Also, barbecue is spelt barbecue.


----------



## KenOC

One of my peeves: "Unique" means...unique. It does NOT take a qualifier such as pretty, quite, very, or anything like that. Something's either unique or it's not. Like pregnant.


----------



## Crudblud

From a tech forum my friend linked me to, all I can say is: prepare yourselves.


lo l i installd ubuntu once. but it was all purple thats fking gay. who makes eeverything all purple at the start. and ya ur rite gentoo is probable the worst. no 1 wants tomake things from code every time. who the fk dose that
ive tried dem all tho. fadora i skipped tho bc i dont really like the spy hat LOLL tho rly maybe i should try it later..
ok so next 1 up is centos. i tried t his 1 thinkin it was abt the rapperLOL cuz u kno they had a hanna montena linux?? LOL IM SRS jus google it. ne way thats what i thot so dont laff. but i cudnt really get this one to install rite so it probably sux too
im gona talk aaboutt mandrivia linux now i kind of liked it but. but... its just sometimes idk. it just felt werid i gues. its not rly idk i gues u cuould say finished. it needs sum work still.
ok all done with linux,. i rly shuold just say this. i think taht mac is best. bc its easy to use an my macbook pro just works. mayb its abit old but it doesnt FK ME LIKE EVERY OTHER 1 DOES SRS IM TIRED OF THIS ♥♥♥♥ PPL WHY CANT NO 1 MAKE A COMPURTER THAT ALWAWS JUST WORKS FKIN HELL


----------



## PetrB

Curtains vs. Drapes, Draperies. // Curtains hang: Drapes drape.

'things that reach a crescendo.' 'nuff said.

neoclassical (now misappropriated and wrongly applied to a style of one sub-genre in pop music.)

Romantic (era) ~ has nothing to do with modern sentiments of 'what is romance / romantic.'

... when people 'suddenly disappear.' Has anyone ever disappeared, rather, more in the manner of Lewis Carroll's Chesire Cat, i.e. a slow fade-out? LOL.

'utilize,' for when 'use' sounds just too plain or easy.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

*Re: Crudblud's post*

Aaaaaaarrrrrgh!!! Make me unsee it! 
Not being a native speaker of English, I get very irritated when I see native speakers ( I assume the author of this post was a native speaker) spell so much worse than someone who just learned the language in college.


----------



## PetrB

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> One mistake I see waaaaaay to often: "latter" means the second mentioned of two things, not the last in a list of more than two things. Also, barbecue is spelt barbecue.


You mean, of course, too often


----------



## Crudblud

SiegendesLicht said:


> Aaaaaaarrrrrgh!!! Make me unsee it!
> Not being a native speaker of English, I get very irritated when I see native speakers ( I assume the author of this post was a native speaker) spell so much worse than someone who just learned the language in college.


Yes, many of the most proficient English speakers I know are actually from mainland Europe.


----------



## Ukko

Crudblud said:


> Yes, many of the most proficient English speakers I know are actually from mainland Europe.


Proficiency is not an exact synonym for efficiency, though. Depending on the communicants, "bookish" proficiency may not even result in accurate communication - which is the point of the thing.

Spelling has been a, ah, _flexible art form_ for most of the time English has been English. Even now there is the Correct way in contrast to the American way - exemplified by The Great Zed Controversy.



[  ]


----------



## Guest

Oops...this is supposed to be in the "Funny Pictures" thread. Oh well...I guess it tangentially relates!



Kontrapunctus said:


>


----------



## Crudblud

Hilltroll72 said:


> Proficiency is not an exact synonym for efficiency, though. Depending on the communicants, "bookish" proficiency may not even result in accurate communication - which is the point of the thing.
> 
> Spelling has been a, ah, _flexible art form_ for most of the time English has been English. Even now there is the Correct way in contrast to the American way - exemplified by The Great Zed Controversy.


There is a difference between altering language for functional purposes and being illiterate. Illiteracy only serves to complicate communication, not to make it more efficient, and if you look at the example I posted on the previous page you'll see that what SiegendesLicht and I were talking about was not merely a matter of incorrect spelling.


----------



## Flamme

SiegendesLicht said:


> Aaaaaaarrrrrgh!!! Make me unsee it!
> Not being a native speaker of English, I get very irritated when I see native speakers ( I assume the author of this post was a native speaker) spell so much worse than someone who just learned the language in college.


It is sometimes...Required...From non native speakers to speak Perfect english sometimes in their o wn countries if they work with strangers or foreigners...From native speakers nobody expects to be perfeeect...Like professor an englishman in my english learning school once told me ''Relax, more than 80 % of english speaking ppl in the world dont know either to read or write correctly''...


----------



## Ukko

Crudblud said:


> There is a difference between altering language for functional purposes and being illiterate. Illiteracy only serves to complicate communication, not to make it more efficient, and if you look at the example I posted on the previous page you'll see that what SiegendesLicht and I were talking about was not merely a matter of incorrect spelling.


Ah, so. That looks like it's mostly 'texting' elisions, plus typos, and in 3rd place moderate illiteracy. It's really not a good example of the 'native bad English' you two allude to. Examples of that are certainly available, although even then it is useful to distinguish between 'conversational' writing and formal writing.


----------



## Ukko

Flamme said:


> It is sometimes...Required...From non native speakers to speak Perfect english sometimes in their o wn countries if they work with strangers or foreigners...From native speakers nobody expects to be perfeeect...Like professor an englishman in my english learning school once told me ''Relax, more than 80 % of english speaking ppl in the world dont know either to read or write correctly''...


It does appear that you have heeded the professor's suggestion to relax.


----------



## Flamme

Well i may have mistakes but...I dont work with foreigners for about three years and i dont use english so much except on the i nternet or for reading of some instructions for hardware or software usage usage pc programs ...


----------



## Ukko

Flamme said:


> Well i may have mistakes but...I dont work with foreigners for about three years and i dont use english so much except on the i nternet or for reading of some instructions for hardware or software usage usage pc programs ...


Your written English is serviceable, the errors mostly involving capitalization (or capitalisation for non-Americans). Relax.


----------



## samurai

Hilltroll72 said:


> Your written English is serviceable, the errors mostly involving capitalization (or capitalisation for non-Americans). Relax.


Wasn't he already doing that?


----------



## Vaneyes

Everyone, please watch a Norm Crosby vid.


----------



## Crudblud

Hilltroll72 said:


> Ah, so. That looks like it's mostly 'texting' elisions, plus typos, and in 3rd place moderate illiteracy. It's really not a good example of the 'native bad English' you two allude to. Examples of that are certainly available, although even then it is useful to distinguish between 'conversational' writing and formal writing.


I'm not going to attack someone for using informal language in an informal thread; the quote I posted was from a serious discussion on the relative merits of different computer operating systems, and that kind of post just doesn't belong there. It's also worth mentioning that the "native bad English" thing really came up as an aside and my post wasn't meant to be an example of it, though it all seems to have been bunched together now so I suppose I'll drop that.

You mentioned texting but I don't think that applies here; shortening "people" to "ppl" serves a practical function in SMS messaging given the limitations of the medium (and also because typing on a traditional phone keypad is quite tedious for longer messages) but in a public forum I don't think it's asking too much that people at least try to spell words correctly and make use of basic grammar as a courtesy to their fellows.


----------



## Ukko

samurai said:


> Wasn't he already doing that?


I thought I saw indications of tension in his response. _Vaneyes_' suggestion should fix that, while lending support to _Crudblud_'s position.


----------



## Ukko

Crudblud said:


> [...]
> You mentioned texting but I don't think that applies here; shortening "people" to "ppl" serves a practical function in SMS messaging given the limitations of the medium (and also because typing on a traditional phone keypad is quite tedious for longer messages) but in a public forum I don't think it's asking too much that people at least try to spell words correctly and make use of basic grammar as a courtesy to their fellows.


Oh, I agree with you; but texting is more like shorthand than a form of bad or sloppy English, which I thought was your characterization of the message you quoted. Sorry for the misapprehension.


----------



## Flamme

lol...


----------



## Flamme

Hilltroll72 said:


> Your written English is serviceable, the errors mostly involving capitalization (or capitalisation for non-Americans). Relax.


Ah thanks i would certainly rust more but i talk to a lot of yanks and brits online and that keeps me kinda fresh...I notice british english is way much different than american one...


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Flamme said:


> View attachment 11384
> 
> lol...


What are the requirements to be accepted into the _Einsatzgruppe_?

One more reason bad spelling and "text-speak" irritate me is that I think they show a kind of disrespect for that person's native language (same is true of Germans who pepper their German with unnecessary English words - another pet peeve of mine). English is the language of some of the greatest culture out there, and overall magnificent, the least a native speaker of it could do is learn to use it correctly.


----------



## Flamme

Yawohl!!!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I beg your pardon, but it should be spelled "Jawohl"


----------



## Flamme

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yawohl:D


----------



## SiegendesLicht

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jawohl :tiphat:


----------



## Flamme

I k now dude just makin fun of it


----------



## Guest




----------



## Lunasong

"song" Typically found in the Identifying Music forum.


----------



## Flamme

I read somewhere a debate on whether you can or cant call compositions of classical music songs...


----------



## Lunasong

A Song is “a form of musical expression in which the human voice has the principal role and is the carrier of a text. As a generic term, any music that is sung…”


----------



## Ukko

Flamme said:


> I read somewhere a debate on whether you can or cant call compositions of classical music songs...


If you wish to be in the in crowd, you can't. BTW 'cant' means something else.


----------



## Cnote11

How egocentric

The song thing that is... anthropocentric at that.


----------



## Lunasong

^^Oh I don't know about that, but that's why we have qualifiers..."BIRDsong." With the exception of birds, I believe most references to song (ie babbling brooks or wind in the trees) are personification, also anthropocentric.


----------



## Cnote11

No, that's why YOU have qualifiers. ENLIGHTEN YOURSELVES.



Not serious


----------



## Flamme

Hilltroll72 said:


> If you wish to be in the in crowd, you can't. BTW 'cant' means something else.


Grammah nazi attack?lol


----------



## Guest

Punctuation can radically change one's meaning, too!


----------



## Guest




----------



## Flamme

Its just wierd!


----------



## PetrB

Klavierspieler said:


> I think all the linguists and etymologists and whatnot should all get together at a big conference and make the English language more consistent, we have _way_ too many exceptions as it is.


Anglo-Saxon / touch of Frisian / old Dutch (if you know Dutch, Chaucer's middle English is almost directly 'readable') / Norman (middle) French: 
just that little mosh better known as 'the English Language.'

You know all those phrases in law which basically 'say it twice,' -- like "Cease and Desist?" -- from the times when laws were encoded in England under the Norman French rule - one from Norman French, the other from the Anglo-Saxon, so that all would clearly understand.

Your suggestion for consistency, well, good luck with that. It might just be _too to two_ much a task. Then it is also a language with one of the most flexible uses of syntax.

I imagine it could be done, but when they get to that "I before E except after C" spelling rule, I don't know what revision might be better _receive_d: a _leisure_ly pace in determining what changes are to be made might be a wise suggestion.
Then, post-revisions, everone will have to go back to _school_ on some _schedule._ _[in Britain, would that last be pronounced, "Go back to skool on a shedule?]_


----------



## SiegendesLicht

PetrB said:


> ...if you know Dutch, Chaucer's middle English is almost directly 'readable'...


Old English also shows more similarities to German than the modern one (though being both Germanic languages they have a lot in common nowadays too), for example in the verb endings - thou sayest/du sagst.



> You know all those phrases in law which basically 'say it twice,' -- like "Cease and Desist?" -- from the times when laws were encoded in England under the Norman French rule - one from Norman French, the other from the Anglo-Saxon, so that all would clearly understand.


Tolkien wrote once that he considered the Norman invasion which had brought Norman French to England the most disastrous event in the entire English history.



> Then it is also a language with one of the most flexible uses of syntax.


It seems, Russian is still more flexible. You can use practically any word order there, which is impossible in English.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

http://www.talkclassical.com/16711-jus-wonderin.html


----------



## SiegendesLicht

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> http://www.talkclassical.com/16711-jus-wonderin.html


That's what too much (c)rap does to people, right?


----------



## Flamme

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> http://www.talkclassical.com/16711-jus-wonderin.html


----------



## Marsden

Kontrapunctus said:


>


Re: #8. 'Affect' may be a noun and 'effect' may be a verb.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marsden said:


> Re: #8. 'Affect' may be a noun and 'effect' may be a verb.


Very true, but that's not usually the affect people are trying to effect.


----------



## starthrower

Number one on that grammar peeves list should be "I was like" for "I said".


----------



## Tristan

..........


----------



## Tristan

How about "utilize" being used as a direct synonym for "use"? Or "vapid" meaning "empty" (probably confused with "vacuous"). These differences are subtle, but they're there.

Also, in regard to the pet peeve picture, the most common one I see is "I could barely breath!" How hard is it to just add an e? The words are pronounced differently even; it should be obvious...

That said, some grammatical rules are pointless, such as "don't end a sentence with a preposition", a rule borrowed from Latin in the 18th century that really means nothing in the context of modern spoken English.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean to post twice


----------



## KenOC

Tristan said:


> How about "utilize" being used as a direct synonym for "use"?


For that matter, how is a "commentator" different from a "commenter"? Aside from the fact that the latter word doesn't seem to exist, officially...


----------



## Tristan

^It must be related to the difference between "orient" and "orientate".


----------



## moody

Tristan said:


> ^It must be related to the difference between "orient" and "orientate".


Orient the map for instance is correct.


----------



## Mahlerian

Tristan said:


> That said, some grammatical rules are pointless, such as "don't end a sentence with a preposition", a rule borrowed from Latin in the 18th century that really means nothing in the context of modern spoken English.


Yeah, where did we get that one from?


----------



## violadude

Tristan said:


> That said, some grammatical rules are pointless, such as "don't end a sentence with a preposition", a rule borrowed from Latin in the 18th century that really means nothing in the context of modern spoken English.


"Some of the lines and the novel today at the school there are many Danois"- your quote put through "Bad Translator", thank you COAG :lol:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Tristan said:


> How about "utilize" being used as a direct synonym for "use"? Or "vapid" meaning "empty" (probably confused with "vacuous"). These differences are subtle, but they're there.
> 
> Also, in regard to the pet peeve picture, the most common one I see is "I could barely breath!" How hard is it to just add an e? The words are pronounced differently even; it should be obvious...
> 
> That said, some grammatical rules are pointless, such as "don't end a sentence with a preposition", a rule borrowed from Latin in the 18th century that really means nothing in the context of modern spoken English.
> 
> EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean to post twice


Did you realise that your use of "Utilise", as in "How about "*utilize*" being used" - is the american spelling and not the english spelling - just thought I would point that out ..............


----------



## samurai

The phrase "should of" for "should have".


----------



## moody

Tristan said:


> How about "utilize" being used as a direct synonym for "use"? Or "vapid" meaning "empty" (probably confused with "vacuous"). These differences are subtle, but they're there.
> 
> Also, in regard to the pet peeve picture, the most common one I see is "I could barely breath!" How hard is it to just add an e? The words are pronounced differently even; it should be obvious...
> 
> That said, some grammatical rules are pointless, such as "don't end a sentence with a preposition", a rule borrowed from Latin in the 18th century that really means nothing in the context of modern spoken English.
> 
> EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean to post twice


Are you being a bit picky here---

Utilize Make practical or effective use of.
Vapid Insipid,flat,dull,tedious.

By the way what's this "The words ar pronounced differently even". Do you mean they are laid out nice and flat ?


----------



## Salix

Not really a misused word, but a my favorite one is "expresso" instead of espresso. It is mispronounced by everyone! Drives me batty. I've had people correct my own "bad" English and then go on to use expresso when we go to get a coffee. I find ones that take time to correct your pronunciation or grammar in a most condescending manner that are the least likely to police their own verbal mangling of the language. 

My post is probably full of glaring errors. Hahaha!


----------



## moody

Salix said:


> Not really a misused word, but a my favorite one is "expresso" instead of espresso. It is mispronounced by everyone! Drives me batty. I've had people correct my own "bad" English and then go on to use expresso when we go to get a coffee. I find ones that take time to correct your pronunciation or grammar in a most condescending manner that are the least likely to police their own verbal mangling of the language.
> 
> My post is probably full of glaring errors. Hahaha!


You're so right about "expresso" it grates on me always.


----------



## Tristan

moody said:


> Are you being a bit picky here---
> 
> Utilize Make practical or effective use of.
> Vapid Insipid,flat,dull,tedious.
> 
> By the way what's this "The words ar pronounced differently even". Do you mean they are laid out nice and flat ?


I mean, the verb "breathe" is pronounced differently than the noun "breath", and it's the combination of pronunciation and spelling that differentiates the noun from the verb. If the two were homophones, I could understand the confusion. But it is a common feature of English for an "e" at the end of a word to lengthen (raise) a vowel. "Bath" vs. "bathe", "tap" vs. "tape". So "breath" vs "breathe". No one confuses "bath" and "bathe", so why do they confuse "breath" and "breathe" when essentially the same phonetic alteration is occurring?

And yes, I am being picky--I acknowledged the differences in the definitions were subtle  I was mainly referring to people (particularly some of my peers) using "utilize" in place of "use" to make the writing sound better/more intelligent, or for simply diversity of word choice, when really "use" would be more appropriate according to its definition.


----------



## Tristan

moody said:


> You're so right about "expresso" it grates on me always.


"Expresso", "excape", "expecially"...hmm, what about "poinsettia" being pronounced as "pointsetta"? I don't even understand that one, yet I hear it all the time.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

"Expresso" grates on my nerves too, as does "barbeque."


----------



## Turangalîla

My mother has been using some entertaining redundancies lately. Her latest creation: "Pre-warn".


----------



## KenOC

Rain.

"It's raining outside."
"The rain's really coming down."

And other redundancies. "That's all past history."


----------



## Guest

I detest "the AMOUNT of people". Surely it should be "the NUMBER of people" or the "AMOUNT of coffee". What's so hard?

People who end sentences with *conjunctions* really get on my goat (and that goat becomes very aggressive too, let me tell you! Like a horse being ridden at a rodeo, he is!!).

"I was doin' me work, but (miss)". And another goat inciter: "I *seen* her do it miss".

AND "Youz are all a pack of idiots!". Ewes?? Sheep surely. But I betray some horrendous Australianisms here.


----------



## millionrainbows

Kontrapunctus said:


>


Both affect and effect *are both verbs and nouns,* but only effect is common as a noun, usually meaning 'a result, consequence, impression, etc.':: my father's warnings had no effect on my adventurousness. (The noun affect is restricted almost entirely to psychology.)
As verbs, they are both familiar, but often confused. Affect means 'to produce an effect upon':: what you eat can affect your mood. The verb affect, except when used in contexts involving feelings, often serves as a vague substitute for more exact verbs and should therefore be used sparingly. Effect means 'to bring about': | the negotiators effected an agreement despite many difficulties.

My peeve is seeing the great phrase "buck naked" eventually degrade into "butt naked."


----------



## Guest

I haven't heard "buck or butt" naked before. And I agree with your list. 

I once saw on a sign at the petrol station across the road, "TOILET'S". I asked, "please what IS it that the toilet owns - don't keep us in suspense!". 

Palpable silence. 
Puzzled look. 
Patronizing grimace (me).


----------



## Crudblud

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I once saw on a sign at the petrol station across the road, "TOILET'S". I asked, "please what IS it that the toilet owns - don't keep us in suspense!"


I can't believe you've never heard of John Toilet, famous petrol station proprietor.


----------



## KenOC

Contrary to popular belief, Thomas Crapper did not invent the flush toilet. But his improvements, such as the floating ballcock, did much to popularize it. His nephew George further improved the siphon mechanism. What a family!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

A whole lot a good Crappers

Problem with John, is that he leaves strange notes on his toilets:


----------



## Tristan

Thomas Crapper's ballcock.

Now _that's_ a phrase.


----------



## Guest

Crudblud said:


> I can't believe you've never heard of John Toilet, famous petrol station proprietor.


I'm afraid I flushed when you mentioned this!! It was actually B-Pee (cough).


----------



## Guest

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> A whole lot a good Crappers
> 
> Problem with John, is that he leaves strange notes on his toilets:
> View attachment 13187


I think he needs to read "The Little Book of Calm".


----------



## KenOC

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I'm afraid I flushed when you mentioned this!! It was actually B-Pee (cough).


There is actually a history of the toilet, "Flushed with Pride." The latest edition has has been updated by Simon Kirby, Managing Director of Thomas Crapper & Co.

http://www.amazon.com/Flushed-Pride...1360828216&sr=1-1&keywords=flushed+with+pride


----------



## BurningDesire

Crudblud said:


> I can't believe you've never heard of John Toilet, famous petrol station proprietor.


I guess I was just s#!t out of luck to not have learnt of him sooner~


----------



## millionrainbows

Don't forget to 'jiggle the johnny' before you leave.

Why can't this sort of off-topic subject start in threads where it's *really needed,* like the "mental disorders" thread? Too bad...:lol:


----------



## Guest

My mother was a nurse many years ago and she worked with a woman in a nursing home who frequently used 'malapropisms'. 

One day she said to my mother, "I'm going to the choir practice this afternoon". 
Mother replied, "Oh, I didn't know you were a singer".
The woman retorted, "I'm not...what made you say it?";
Mother said, "Choir practice....?"
She replied, "No, choir practice...the person who looks after your neck and back"';
Mother then sighed with relief, "Oh, chiropractor!!";
"That's the one", she said.


----------



## Kopachris

Prodigal. As in, "prodigal son," a term which people seem to use for any wayward child, referring to the biblical parable. Doesn't work like that--the child isn't prodigal unless he/she recklessly spends a lot of money.


----------



## Alydon

A favourite horror word used incorrectly is 'decimate.' News readers etc talk about villages and towns decimated by bombs, or shops being decimated by the ecomony, whereas the word means one in ten - crimes or unwillingness to fight in the Roman army would end with one man in ten being executed as a warning to others - so all you media people watch out!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

decimated......................


----------



## Capeditiea

the

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


----------

