Battles you know are lost but still won't stop fighting

[Skald the Rhymer]

In this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7197391&posted=1#post7197391) someone mentioned the alleged synonymity of "inflammable" and its bastard-cousin-offspring-of-siblings "flammable." Naturally, being a language nerd, I commented that said synonymity is a result of ignorance winning a round--i.e., "flammable" is a word only because people didn't realize what "inflammable" meant.

But even as I typed that I knew it was pointless. There are untold examples of rotten usage that have been tolerated so long they've become acceptable. This is the prime one for me--and yet I can't make myself use "flammable" without quotes. It grates me like a cheese shredder. I refuse to use "flammable" myself, even to the point of occasionally writing memos containing phrases like

Isopropyl alcohol is inflammable (and for those of you who don't know, "inflammable" means "likely to catch fire," not the opposite)

though obviously it would be simpler and clearer just to surrender the point.

Which brings me to my question: what grammar-spelling-usage mistake can you NOT stop yourself from correcting, Dopers?

[Whack-a-Mole]

"Irregardless" never fails to irk me.

"I could care less" gets me too when you know the person meant "couldn't care less".

[Whack-a-Mole]

I forgot "decimate". I do not fight that fight much anymore but I always take note of people using it incorrectly (or I should say incorrectly from a historical view as it has been granted new meaning in today's dictionaries).

[QuickSilver]

Joe: It's a mute point.

QS: Sorry, what?

Joe: Mute point...?

QS: No, I distictly heard something.

[Skald the Rhymer]

"Irregardless" never fails to irk me.

"I could care less" gets me too when you know the person meant "couldn't care less"

I forgot "decimate". I do not fight that fight much anymore but I always take note of people using it incorrectly (or I should say incorrectly from a historical view as it has been granted new meaning in today's dictionaries)..

Are those really lost, though? You don't see "irregardless" showing up in print in reputable papers and magazines, but the same cannot be said of "flammable." "Could care less" is closer, but most people, if challenged, will admit that the phrase doesn't make sense--at least in my experience.

Now "decimate"--that's lost.

[MLS]

Fewer vs. Less. The former refers to countable things; the latter to quantity.

You have fewer cookies, but less oatmeal.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Are those really lost, though?

Not sure what you mean by "lost"?

You asked, "Which brings me to my question: what grammar-spelling-usage mistake can you NOT stop yourself from correcting...".

Technically people today use "decimate" correctly although by its original definition it means nearly the opposite of how it is used today.

"Irregardless" I do not think ever was a word.

"Could care less" is just lazy.

Anyway....those are ones I usually find myself correcting. Most time it just annoys people and occasionally I just get blank, incomprehending stares back.

(I hear "mute point" a lot too and notice it every time)

[aurelian]

I forgot "decimate". I do not fight that fight much anymore but I always take note of people using it incorrectly (or I should say incorrectly from a historical view as it has been granted new meaning in today's dictionaries).
What are the definitions in question? (I think of 'decimating' a population, that is, killing off a significant portion. I have a (possibly incorrect) memory from Latin that it originally meant to kill every tenth man...?)

The subjunctive. "If I was a rich girl..." Gah! (Given that I teach Spanish, which just loves the subjunctive, the erratic/ fading use of subjunctive only seems to confuse students all the more.)
The difference between there, their, and they're. And the strange need to put apostrophe's before plural's.
I had a student who tried to use the apostrophe + s plural...in Spanish.

[Sampiro]

It is impossible to have two mothers (at least biologically), therefore the correct pluralization is either "sons of bitches" or "sons of a bitch", but not "son of a bitches".

"Y'all" is a colloquial contraction of "you all" and is used exactly the same as "you all". It is never used in the singular sense (e.g. you would never say to a single person at a Waffle House "could y'all pass that syrup?"), but it's used that way frequently in movies and books written about southerners by non-southerners anymore than a Bronxite would say "You'se guys" to a single person (assuming that Bronxites actually use "You'se guys").

Regarding the word library- the bolded r is not silent.

There is nothing folksy about saying nukular unless the folks in question have a severe speech impediment or are retarded, and I simply don't understand what's difficult about saying it correctly.

[Anastasaeon]

Joe: It's a mute point.

QS: Sorry, what?

Joe: Mute point...?

QS: No, I distictly heard something.

[unavoidable Friends quote]

Joey: This is all a moo point.
Rachel: A moo point?
Joey: Yeah, it's like a cow's opinion. It just doesn't matter. It's moo.

[UFQ]


Like, Whack-a-Mole, I also cannot stand "I could care less".

[Whack-a-Mole]

What are the definitions in question? (I think of 'decimating' a population, that is, killing off a significant portion. I have a (possibly incorrect) memory from Latin that it originally meant to kill every tenth man...?)

You have it.

The Romans had a policy of killing 1 in 10 men in a group of disloyal soldiers. Killing off 10% of a given group is a long shot from the common usage today to mean "obliterate".

[RealityChuck]

OK, let's go to the videotape (i.e, the OED):

Decimate
Original meaning of "a tax of one-tenth of the whole." Now listed as Obsolete. Is that what you mean?

Or do you object to it changing from "to kill one in ten" to "to kill a lot." Well, the second definition dates at least from th 1800s. That's a new usage? How old are you, anyway?

The subjunctive. The subjunctive has been dead for decades. Get used to it.

nukular -- according to the OED: "it is now commonly given as a variant in modern dictionaries." It is no more wrong than pronouncing "tomato" with a long a.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Or do you object to it changing from "to kill one in ten" to "to kill a lot." Well, the second definition dates at least from th 1800s. That's a new usage? How old are you, anyway?


Old enough to have read a few history books. I already stipulated that decimate's usage to mean "to kill a lot" has been accepted. That doesn't change the fact that I know the word used to mean no such thing and actually seemed to be pretty clear. Why it morphed like it did I have no idea but as I said it is not one I fight for...just take notice of.

[Sierra Indigo]

The battle of que instead of queue is one that I want to keep fighting, regardless of the fact that 99% of the people I work with (not to mention a substantial number of people on the messageboards I frequent in various places) seem to be under the impression that the former is the correct spelling.

But what really busts my hump is people who will spell it 'que' when they're copying directly from something where the word is spelt correctly. That fills me with grrrr.

[Anastasaeon]

Like, Whack-a-Mole, I also cannot stand "I could care less".

Misplaced commas also irk me. :smack: It is a battle against myself that I continuously lose.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Not sure what you mean by "lost"?

You asked, "Which brings me to my question: what grammar-spelling-usage mistake can you NOT stop yourself from correcting...".

Technically people today use "decimate" correctly although by its original definition it means nearly the opposite of how it is used today.

"Irregardless" I do not think ever was a word.

"Could care less" is just lazy.

Anyway....those are ones I usually find myself correcting. Most time it just annoys people and occasionally I just get blank, incomprehending stares back.

(I hear "mute point" a lot too and notice it every time)

Stop pointing out when I'm not making sense. :smack:

I thought it was implicit in my thread title, but I meant the topic to be "grammatical errors that have become some common as to be acceptable to most authorities, but which nevertheless still irrirate you into correcting those who make them."

[Civil Guy]

I'm not a fighter, but if I were... hey, a subjunctive! right here!... I'd get annoyed about the misuse of "unique". Look, there is no such thing as "very unique". A thing is one-of-a-kind, or it isn't.

But aside from the grammar, I'd like to see the U.S. get into the metric system more. Yes, it's still pretty new to us. No, until we get used to it, it won't feel 'natural'. Still. It really is an easier system to use, none of this nonsense about 5,280 feet per (statute) mile and such. How many teaspoons in a gallon? How do you figure how much oil to add to 7 gallons of gas for a two-stroke engine?

It's not a lost battle, exactly, but it won't be won any time soon.

[Civil Guy]

Having missed preview, I'd like to apologize for the slight hijack.

[Sevastopol]

Even in world famous ignorance-fighting fora ;) the battle for proper grammar is a losing cause.

In the words of one moderator "I don't care about grammar (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7128155&postcount=50)"

[Mrs Johnson]

Someone saying "ideal" when he/she means "idea".
:rolleyes:

[Lazlo]

I can't stand myriad being used as a noun but according to dicionaries, it is acceptable.

Que vs. queue is an interesting battle in an area where bilingual spanish/english speakers are the norm. ;)

[Suburban Plankton]

nukular -- according to the OED: "it is now commonly given as a variant in modern dictionaries."
That doesn't make it right, just "common".

It is no more wrong than pronouncing "tomato" with a long a.
Yes it is.

[fishbicycle]

One of the things that drives me up the wall is people who don't know the difference between phenomenon (the singular) and phenomena (the plural). They use the plural for the singular, and add an 's' to the singular to make it plural.

Where's the flamethrower smilie when you need one?

[Excalibre]

Fewer vs. Less. The former refers to countable things; the latter to quantity.

You have fewer cookies, but less oatmeal.
In this case, it's not a battle that's been lost, as historically the distinction between the two is quite recent. I agree that the distinction matters, at least in formal usage. But it's simply not the case that the two were once completely distinct and have become blurred over time.


The Romans had a policy of killing 1 in 10 men in a group of disloyal soldiers. Killing off 10% of a given group is a long shot from the common usage today to mean "obliterate".
We only have the word because of the "mistaken" usage - it's a phenomenon that simply doesn't exist anymore, so there's no use for the original sense except maybe in describing Roman history, so if we kept the word it would be at most a very obscure bit of jargon among historians. The word only lives on because it's found new lease under a more useful definition.



I'm not a fighter, but if I were... hey, a subjunctive! right here!... I'd get annoyed about the misuse of "unique". Look, there is no such thing as "very unique". A thing is one-of-a-kind, or it isn't.
Now this is a complaint that I've never really understood. It always struck me as silly, and the good ol' AHD explains it pretty well. Let me do some quoting.


Over the course of the century unique has become the paradigmatic example of the class of terms that do not allow comparison or modification by an adverb of degree . . . Thus, most grammarians believe that it is incorrect to say that something is very unique or more unique than something else, though phrases such as nearly unique and almost unique are acceptable. . . . The relative acceptability of these [denigrated] usages reflects the semantic subtlety of unique itself. If we were to use unique only according to the strictest criteria of logic, after all, we might freely apply the term to anything in the world since nothing is wholly equivalent to anything else. Clearly, then, when we say that a restaurant or painting is unique, we mean that it is worthy of inclusion in a class by itself according to certain implicit but generally accepted criteria. Thus a legitimately unique painting might be one that realizes an unparalleled aesthetic vision, but not one that is rendered only in pigments whose names begin with the letter o; and a legitimately unique restaurant might be one that serves 18th-century French cuisine according to the original recipes, not one that has been installed in a converted sardine cannery. Given this understanding, it is not inherently impossible to think of uniqueness as a matter of degree, in the sense that one painting or restaurant may be more or less worthy of inclusion in a class by itself than some other. What is troubling about the copywriters' use of unique [to describe products that are not particularly noteworthy] is not that the word has become a synonym for unusual. Rather, it is the copywriters who are using the word in conformity with strict logic. Uniqueness is claimed for a restaurant in virtue of some trivial properties of its decor or menu . . . . Though it may be true that such properties render these things logically unique, they do not constitute legitimate grounds for putting the things into a class by themselves according to the criteria ordinarily invoked when things are sorted into classes . . .
As they argue, the trouble is that "uniqueness" does not really mean "one-of-a-kind-ness", since that's not something that is actually - logically-speaking - useful as a description. "Uniqueness" really means that something is particularly distinct, since everything is literally distinct. And there are definitely circumstances in which it can be argued whether something is distinct enough from its brethren to merit being considered "unique".


I can't stand myriad being used as a noun but according to dicionaries, it is acceptable.
:confused: But just about every specific term for a large number of things can be used that way. "Hundreds" and "thousands" are particularly common. In fact, you can't use them as anything but nouns - you can't say, for instance "I have thousand dollars" - you have to use the article, because "thousand" is not an adjective, the way smaller numbers are. I simply don't understand what you're getting at at all.



That doesn't make it right, just "common".
Don't make me do the whole nucular thing again. It's tiring.

Seriously, can you come up with a convincing argument for why "nucular" is wrong?


One of the things that drives me up the wall is people who don't know the difference between phenomenon (the singular) and phenomena (the plural). They use the plural for the singular, and add an 's' to the singular to make it plural.

Where's the flamethrower smilie when you need one?
It's to be expected. Irregular plurals are tough for English speakers. It grates on my nerves, too - but in a hundred years, it'll be the normal usage. That's the way it works. We simply don't retain the singular and plural forms of nouns we borrow from other languages - historically, it just doesn't happen. They always get regularized to normal English usage.

Of course, we're not there yet with "phenomenon", nor with "criterion". Misusing the plurals is simply not acceptable in writing or formal speech. But we're moving ever closer - it's like getting pissed at rivers for forming canyons by erosion. Processes like this are slow and inexorable. I've decided I might as well not grind my teeth about it, as I don't need the erosion to happen in my mouth as well.

[Malacandra]

Someone saying "ideal" when he/she means "idea".
:rolleyes:

You'd go potty in Bristol then. :D

An unusual feature of the Bristol, England dialect is the habit of closing words with an "l" after a weak vowel. For instance the "Carl Rosa Opera Company" would be the "Carl Rosal Operal company", "etc" is pronounced "etceteral", and the equivalent of "Eureka!" is "I've got a good ideal!". And so on. Even the city name itself is a corruption of "Bri'stow", "bridge place".

"Refute". We already have enough synonyms for "reject", "dispute", "deny" and "rebut". Pinching another one from "disprove" doesn't help.

[Excalibre]

"Refute". We already have enough synonyms for "reject", "dispute", "deny" and "rebut". Pinching another one from "disprove" doesn't help.
I don't get the hate for "refute", as it has a slightly different meaning from all the others, and it's useful to have that.

But the usage of "refute" to mean "rebut" (which basically means "attempt to refute") is irritating. That may not be so much misuse of a word as a tendency on many people's parts to overstate the skill with which they argued something . . .

[Roland Orzabal]

"Almost exactly".

Not for the reason you may think, though.

For years now, I've been arguing with people -- waaaay too many people -- that there is nothing wrong with using the phrase "almost exactly". I rarely use this phrase myself, having long been aware of the ruckus that inevitably arises upon its utterance; I don't feel the need to deliberately start semantics debates in casual conversation. Nonetheless, it bugs the hell out of me that every time somebody says it, some self-declared Grammar Policeman will chime in by saying, "You know, it's [grammatically/logically] incorrect to say that." When asked why, the person almost always (ha!) replies, "Something is either exact, or it isn't. Therefore, saying it is 'almost exact' has no meaning whatsoever." My response is as follows.

Ok, so a given comparison is either exact, or it isn't. That is correct. The comparison I'm discussing is not exact. It is, however, quite close, by any mutually agreeable standards, to achieving a state of exactness, hence my use of the phrase, "almost exactly". Those comparisons to which this phrase applies fall, without exception, squarely under the category of 'not exact', which is one of the two categories we agreed to be in existence, but adds much-needed clarification as to its proximity to said state. It is, if you will, a sub-category of exactitude.

Your next claim was that "almost exact" is a logically meaningless statement. I assume this is because the term 'almost' is not an absolute, whereas 'exact' is. If we are allowed only to define things in terms of absolutes, then the only thing we can determine when comparing two objects is that they are either exactly alike, or that they are not. If the only result we are allowed to obtain from a comparison of two unlike objects is that they are Not Exactly Alike, the comparison is rather useless in the first place, since all we've accomplished is to eliminate one possibility from an infinite set. That sounds like a fairly meaningless statement to me. If, on the other hand, we allow ourselves the idea that they are Almost Exactly Alike, we can limit our range of options to whatever bounds we feel are appropriate under an agreed-upon definition of the word 'almost'.

In conclusion, the term "almost exactly" is therefore only meaningless if you contend that the word 'almost' has no definition or applicable connotation. Would you like to have a look in the OED, or should I?

Long rant, yes, but hey, this seemed to the time and place. Next time, ask me about double negatives. ;)

[Excalibre]

"Almost exactly". . . .
I gotta say - you need new grammar police in your life. Because complaining about that phrase on logical grounds is simply moronic (as you've pretty thoroughly argued.) Even the stylebooks that argue that "more unique" is wrong don't argue that "almost unique" is also wrong. Sheesh, some people just need heavy things to fall on them from the sky.

[Nancarrow]

Your/you're.

would of, should of, could of.

That's all I've got.

[Malacandra]

I don't get the hate for "refute", as it has a slightly different meaning from all the others, and it's useful to have that.

But the usage of "refute" to mean "rebut" (which basically means "attempt to refute") is irritating. That may not be so much misuse of a word as a tendency on many people's parts to overstate the skill with which they argued something . . .

Oh, I don't hate the word. I like it a lot and would like to take it to dinner some time. What I hate is people who say "No, no, I utterly refute that allegation" before they've even advanced one word of evidence or argument. Overstating indeed.

[FatBaldGuy]

"Y'all" is a colloquial contraction of "you all" and is used exactly the same as "you all". It is never used in the singular sense (e.g. you would never say to a single person at a Waffle House "could y'all pass that syrup?")
Sampiro, I gotta say that this does not square with my experience in speaking with people from the south. I have many times been addressed as "y'all" when I was the only person around. The plural of "y'all" is "all y'all," which really grates on my ears.

[Nava]

Effect (noooooooun) vs affect (veeeeeeerb).

Yes, I do work with IT guys and programmers a lot.

[scr4]

There's one instrument I work with that has a "decimation" feature, and I was pleasently surprised to find it's close to the original meaning: it only saves every Nth data point and throws out the rest to conserve data storage.

The one I can't stand is "dampen". You damp an oscillation, and you dampen something by spraying water on it. The only dampener on your car is the windshield washer nozzle.

[Nava]

...And the strange need to put apostrophe's before plural's...

:D {{{{{aurelian}}}}}

[yBeayf]

Sampiro, I gotta say that this does not square with my experience in speaking with people from the south. I have many times been addressed as "y'all" when I was the only person around. The plural of "y'all" is "all y'all," which really grates on my ears.
Sorry. Proper usage in the south is that "y'all" is plural. I've never in my life heard "all y'all" used in actual conversation, and the only time "y'all" is ever used to address a single person is when that person is a stand-in for a group of people, e.g. asking a store clerk "Y'all got any more of these widgets in the back?".

[fishbicycle]

I work with a young guy from out in the sticks, FL. I have heard him say "all y'all" to refer to more than one person, and for an item or situation regarding another person, "y'all's." In English, that would be "your." It makes me want to beat him with the language stick.

[bordelond]

But even as I typed that I knew it was pointless. There are untold examples of rotten usage that have been tolerated so long they've become acceptable.
:shrug:

This is the story of language. A great many of the words you use "correctly" today would strike Elixabethan listeners as "rotten usage".

An example: Have you ever complimented someone on a "nice" haircut or a "nice" dress? Well, that would have been an insult at one time -- you'd have meant their haricut/dress/whatever was "silly" or "childish".

[bordelond]

There is nothing folksy about saying nukular unless the folks in question have a severe speech impediment or are retarded, and I simply don't understand what's difficult about saying it correctly.
Oh boy ...

[Rysto]

We seem to be fighting a losing(or should I say, loosing?) battle on the whole lose/loose thing. I honestly can't understand why so many people have this problem; loose and lose are clearly pronounced differently and the spellings following the difference in pronounciation.

[cactus waltz]

I correct friends who do not differ between much and many. It's a big deal for me.

[bordelond]

Sorry. Proper usage in the south is that "y'all" is plural. I've never in my life heard "all y'all" used in actual conversation, and the only time "y'all" is ever used to address a single person is when that person is a stand-in for a group of people, e.g. asking a store clerk "Y'all got any more of these widgets in the back?".
There is some variation in the Southern U.S. regarding use of "y'all". From my experience, it's always acceptable as a plural pronoun -- "all y'all" is never oblilgatory. I have heard some stock idioms that contain "y'all" and yet can be addressed to a single person (e.g. "Y'all come back!"). Other than usage in idioms, and in situations like the one yBeayf gives above, I'd say that the usage of "y'all" as a regular singular pronoun is fairly isolated.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Having missed preview, I'd like to apologize for the slight hijack.

I'm the OP, and I forgive you. Go and sin no more save in units of ten.

[BoringDad]

Don't make me do the whole nucular thing again. It's tiring.

Seriously, can you come up with a convincing argument for why "nucular" is wrong?This is the first I've ever hear of someone defending nucular. The concept intrigues me. I could understand defending someone pronouncing it "nooclar." That leaves all the letters i nthe right place and just changes pronounciation. But you want us to explain why the gap between the letters C and L in nuclear should not be pronounced "you"?

Well, I was in English cyoulass one day and the teacher expyoulained to me that we read the letters that are acyoutually on the page, not the ones that we imagine are on the page.

[bordelond]

This is the first I've ever hear of someone defending nucular. The concept intrigues me. I could understand defending someone pronouncing it "nooclar." That leaves all the letters i nthe right place and just changes pronounciation. But you want us to explain why the gap between the letters C and L in nuclear should not be pronounced "you"?

"Nucular" has been defended many times on these boards. See here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=321545) for one of the better examples.

[Roadfood]

Fewer vs. Less. The former refers to countable things; the latter to quantity.

You have fewer cookies, but less oatmeal.Damn, I was going to say that one. Anytime I hear a supposedly educated person say something like, "The code has less bugs now . . ." I can't help but think to myself, "Fewer, you idiot, FEWER bugs!"

[Belrix]

I'm not usually pendantic about grammar but I hate what I call the "loss of the great american adverb".

It's not "Fresh Baked", it should be "Freshly Baked".

It's not "Fair Priced", it's "Fairly Priced".

I practically had a snit fit every time I saw Apple's "Think Different" advertising campaign materials.

It seems to me that that little "ly" is missing more and more.

Lolly Lolly Lolly, get your adverbs here!
Lolly Lolly Lolly, got some adverbs here!
Come on down to Lolly's, get the adverbs here!
You're going to need
If you write or read
Or even think about it.

Lolly Lolly Lolly, get your adverbs here!
Got a lot of Lolly, jolly adverbs here!
Anything you need
And we can make it absolutely clear!

An adverb is a word...
That modifies a verb...
It modifies an adjective,
Or else another adverb.
And so you see that it's positively, very, very, necessary.

[Excalibre]

This is the first I've ever hear of someone defending nucular. The concept intrigues me. I could understand defending someone pronouncing it "nooclar." That leaves all the letters i nthe right place and just changes pronounciation. But you want us to explain why the gap between the letters C and L in nuclear should not be pronounced "you"?

Well, I was in English cyoulass one day and the teacher expyoulained to me that we read the letters that are acyoutually on the page, not the ones that we imagine are on the page.
The reason I'm defending the pronunciation is that frankly, there's nothing wrong with it. There's lots of words out there with two pronunciations - it's just that "nucular" was latched onto at some point as a mark of poor education. Which it is, actually - but only because the well educated are taught to identify themselves by using the "right" version.

The spelling thing doesn't really work when you start going through the language and noticing how many spellings are completely different from their pronunciations. Spelling - particularly so in English - is to a large degree arbitrary. After all, that's why they give spelling tests in elementary schools - because you can't guess the spelling from the pronunciation. Writing arose as a way of committing speech to paper, not the other way around. There's no logical reason why the spelling of a word ought to dictate its pronunciation. Writing arose far more recently than speech as a way to encode speech on paper - speech isn't a degraded form of writing.

[Cervaise]

"Themself."

Not lost yet. Check back in ten years.

[Wensleydale]

I dislike the Americanisation of English (as a non-American not living in the USA - no insult intended). One that really annoys me is meter (a unit of measure) instead of meter, but it seems to be creeping more and more into everyday language. Another pet peeve I have to deal with as a teacher is the correct use of lower and upper case letters. I can not count the number of times I have told kids that (insert name of country here) starts with a capital letter, because it is bigger than they are.

[Wensleydale]

:smack:
That should read metre instead of meter.

[scr4]

Fewer vs. Less. The former refers to countable things; the latter to quantity.
By the way, am I imagining things, or did Target recently change their express checkout lane sign from "10 items or fewer" to "10 items or less"?

[metj]

Someone saying "ideal" when he/she means "idea".
:rolleyes:

Other people do this? I thought it was only my husband. It drives me crazy! And I can't make him stop! ARGHHHH!

[sciurophobic]

"It begs the question" does not mean what most people think it does.

[Oregon sunshine]

Using or omitting apostrophe's when its not appropriate. :p

It's rampant... and I HATE it!!! You even see such mistakes in newspaper articles, public signs, etc. It's not that hard to learn, people! Arrgghhh!

[BoringDad]

I practically had a snit fit every time I saw Apple's "Think Different" advertising campaign materials.

It seems to me that that little "ly" is missing more and more.I have no cite, but I remember reading that the missing "ly" on the "Think Different" campaign was intentional. They did not want you to think differently, but to think of something that was different. As if I said to you "I will be purchasing a car for you. What general color of car should I be thinking of?" And you said "Think red." Still perhaps not the world's best grammar, but if it is wrong, it is wrong in a different way than what had offended you.

[fishbicycle]

Unequivocably.

Nessecary.

Starring right now on the SDMB.

[LiveOnAPlane]

The reason I'm defending the pronunciation is that frankly, there's nothing wrong with it. There's lots of words out there with two pronunciations - it's just that "nucular" was latched onto at some point as a mark of poor education. Which it is, actually - but only because the well educated are taught to identify themselves by using the "right" version.....
It's only my personal experience, I have no axe to grind on this one, but the majority of the time I hear someone pronounce it "nyook-you-ler" is the politicians and other assorted personnel in D.C. Mostly highly educated persons. I can not figure this, except it is maybe some kind of "Beltway" in-phrase?

[alice_in_wonderland]

advice/advise picks my butt, as does fishes

The plural of fish is fish.

[yBeayf]

The plural of fish is fish.

Unless you're talking about different kinds of fishes, in which case it's "fishes".

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

I have no cite, but I remember reading that the missing "ly" on the "Think Different" campaign was intentional. They did not want you to think differently, but to think of something that was different. As if I said to you "I will be purchasing a car for you. What general color of car should I be thinking of?" And you said "Think red." Still perhaps not the world's best grammar, but if it is wrong, it is wrong in a different way than what had offended you.I've heard that too, but I think it's just Apple apologism. "Think Different" sounds better than "Think Differently" as a bold statement and memorable slogan; that's why it was used. And the trend of misusing adjectives as adverbs in slogans continues. I ate a banana yesterday with a Chiquita label on it that said "Snack Healthy."

:rolleyes:

[Parthol]

Effect (noooooooun) vs affect (veeeeeeerb).

Yes, I do work with IT guys and programmers a lot.
I'd like to effect change in your opinion.

:D

[Excalibre]

I'd like to effect change in your opinion.

:D
If you change her opinion, it might change her affect as well.

[Civil Guy]

So what effect are you trying to affect?

[SmartAleq]

"Nucular" is wrong because an atom does not have a nuculus.

"Supposably" will probably cause my eventual indictment for murder, unless "prolly" beats it to the punch.

There is no such word as "alot." Thank you, M.E.!

Spelling-wise, "tounge," and "loose/looser" instead of "lose/loser" are topping my personal hit parade.

To, two, too. They're, there, their. So few and tiny words to produce such a great effect and veins popping out on my forehead.

Fewer/less grates on my nerves as well, this explains why I have a soft spot for Albertsons, which has yet to cave in to the knuckle scraper contingent.

It speaks well of my level of relaxation that this is all I can come up with at the moment. I know there are myriad more, but right now I am not attuned to annoyance.

Oh, and my own incorrect use of ellipses is less an affront than a charming affectation, okay? ;)

[robardin]

Language usage fights that I have conceded as lost, but continue to resist:

- The use of "begs the question" for "raises the question" ("begs the question" used to mean "is a leading question" or "contains the expected answer in its phrasing", as in "when did you stop beating your wife")

- The use of "waiting on" in place of "waiting for", as in an event or person (used to be "waiting on" someone could only mean you were taking their order at a restaurant) (can you imagine a current translation of Satre's Waiting On Godot? *shudder*)

[Eve]

Just the other night I heard a newscaster warn me that identity theives might steal the PIN number from my ATM machine.

My head asploded.

[fishbicycle]

Eve, maybe he works for The Department Of Redundancy Department.

[SmartAleq]

...Sector Twelve! :p

I actually saw this one in an account memo: "Customer was saposto get a free phone."

I died a little inside...

[Excalibre]

"Nucular" is wrong because an atom does not have a nuculus.
Precisely. Just as "muscular" is wrong because you don't have muscules.

[Sternvogel]

(can you imagine a current translation of Satre's Waiting On Godot? *shudder*)

You not only misspelled Sartre, you denied Samuel Beckett proper credit for writing the play in question.

To return to the topic of the OP: Several of my pet peeves have already been mentioned. I'll add definately (why do people who have no trouble spelling infinitely not see its definite similarity to that other adverb?) and myself (as in "Amy and myself will be attending your party").

[Hostile Dialect]

"Irregardless" makes me want to go on a killing spree, as do all mondegreens ("beckon call", etc.) "Flammable" doesn't really bother me, though; it's a simplification and not at all redundant. The way I see it is that this is how languages develop over the centuries.

"Irregardless" kills me, though, because it makes the word more complicated than it has to be and doesn't make linguistic sense: "ir" and "less" would logically cancel each other out, but that's not the way the "word" works. That's not natural development of the language, that's raping it. Lose/loose really burns me, too.

The difference between there, their, and they're. And the strange need to put apostrophe's before plural's.
I had a student who tried to use the apostrophe + s plural...in Spanish.

Augh! All three of these eat me alive. One student in my second-semester Spanish class--who was in my first-semester Spanish class last semester and would've learned something if she hadn't spent the whole class period whispering ridiculous jokes on the middle-school emotional level to her only friend. During our coverage of the preterite, she was off in Jokeville and paid just enough attention for some of the irregular verb forms to enter an ear and get lodged somewhere in her brain, but not enough to figure out what they meant. When she's called on to say something in Spanish she seems to take hours, with long, contemplative pauses between each word: "Ayer....uhhhhhh...yo...hizo*....uhhh....el* clase....uhhhh...ma...tay...ma...tee...cause?" She also gave us this gem last semester: "Es la mochila Juana's*".

The battle of que instead of queue

I don't know about you, but here in Southern California we (a) don't use the word queue for anything, ever and (b) would assume that que refers to the Spanish word. I haven't seen this new spelling, but I imagine I would scoop my eyes out if I saw it on a regular basis as you say.

Next time, ask me about double negatives.

So what's the deal with double negatives?

Sorry. Proper usage in the south is that "y'all" is plural. I've never in my life heard "all y'all" used in actual conversation, and the only time "y'all" is ever used to address a single person is when that person is a stand-in for a group of people, e.g. asking a store clerk "Y'all got any more of these widgets in the back?".

In the Air Force I talked to a lot of Southerners, many of whom used "y'all" as a singular pronoun and "all y'all" as its plural as well as the possessive "y'all's". I don't think I'll ever forget this gem, from a Georgia boy to a Texan with me in the middle:

Georgia Boy: "Did you hear her? She says youse instead of y'all!"
Me: :eek:
Georgia Boy: "Or, uh, 'you guys'. I guess."

I can not figure this, except it is maybe some kind of "Beltway" in-phrase?

I never heard it when I lived in the Beltway.

Precisely. Just as "muscular" is wrong because you don't have muscules.

"Muscular" is right because it's actually a word, which exists. Forget all the nucleus crap--the word "nuclear" legitimately exists and the word "nucular" doesn't. The latter is grating and requires a higher expenditure of energy, which accomplishes nothing except to make you look like an idiot.

*Aarrrrggghh! Must...resist...

[Excalibre]

"Muscular" is right because it's actually a word, which exists. Forget all the nucleus crap--the word "nuclear" legitimately exists and the word "nucular" doesn't. The latter is grating and requires a higher expenditure of energy, which accomplishes nothing except to make you look like an idiot.

*Aarrrrggghh! Must...resist...
Fine, but that sort of contradicts your earlier claims to be operating on logic. Since you have no argument or reason to support your point, you're asserting something that boils down to a superstition. It's fine if you believe in this superstition - but it sort of ruins your attempt to sound like you're discussing this from any logical standpoint, and it certainly destroys any linguistic legitimacy in what you say.

[thirdwarning]

I have a feeling this one is really lost, but I'm still trying. Our newspaper makes me want to tear my hair out.

Conjugate the verb "to lead"
Today I lead
Yesterday I led
I have led

I blame this on spell check. At least partly, anyway.

[aurelian]

Augh! All three of these eat me alive. One student in my second-semester Spanish class--who was in my first-semester Spanish class last semester and would've learned something if she hadn't spent the whole class period whispering ridiculous jokes on the middle-school emotional level to her only friend. During our coverage of the preterite, she was off in Jokeville and paid just enough attention for some of the irregular verb forms to enter an ear and get lodged somewhere in her brain, but not enough to figure out what they meant. When she's called on to say something in Spanish she seems to take hours, with long, contemplative pauses between each word: "Ayer....uhhhhhh...yo...hizo*....uhhh....el* clase....uhhhh...ma...tay...ma...tee...cause?" She also gave us this gem last semester: "Es la mochila Juana's*".
Hah! At which point I want to throttle them, or throw up my papers and leave the classroom in a huff, because NO ONE is paying any attention to a word I say. (Another fave: Student: "I wasn't here yesterday. Did we do anything important?" Me: "No. We never do anything of any importance in this class." )

I had a particularly curmudgeonly prof for a Spanish conversation class in undergraduate. One of my fellow students had impeccable grammar skills but could not speak to save her life (and had the most stereotypical grating gringo accent imaginable). He used to say to her (in thickly accented English): "Ju know, if ju eva go to an Espanish speaking country, it will take ju a week just to get out of the airport."
(Oh, and since I'm hijacking already..)

I give my students a list of abbreviations that I use to correct their compositions (eg, ADJ means use/make an adjective here). I actually added "GAH!!!" this semester for things like "Juana's mochila" or "yo realizo" (for darse cuenta de, of course)!
(We'll have to start another "Dumb things said by students" thread.)

[Fern Forest]

"I could care less" gets me too when you know the person meant "couldn't care less".
A doper discovered it was a quote from a piece that said something to the effect of "I know not and care less." He speculated that it was playing on the fact that not sounded like nought. Sadly the doper never filled us in on where he saw it.

[OtakuLoki]

I'm still fighting the battle over mass vs. weigh. Granted one may weigh something to determine it's mass. One still cannot say that something weighs in kilograms. Nor is it usual to speak about mass in pounds, unless one is specifying lbm, and even there slugs are the more proper English unit.

Dammit.

This is particularly annoying when people talk about things in microgravity environments. Or variable gravity situations. I seem to recall hearing a Sci-Tech reporter on the local news talking about how much the ISS weighed. And I wanted to reach through the TV screen to smack him with a cluebat.

[Dr. Rieux]

Pronouncing species "spee-sees" and Jesuit "Jeh-zoo-it."

[Malacandra]

<snippage>So what's the deal with double negatives?
<s'more snippage>

Can't help you there. I don't know nothing about them.

I wanted to slap my boss for apparently believing that the word "specific" begins with a silent S. :smack: Or else not knowing what the fucking word actually was.

[Eve]

Eve, maybe he works for The Department Of Redundancy Department.

"Identity thieves might steal the Personal Identity Number number from your Automatic Teller Machine machine."

Jeez, it's like listening to Lou Gehrig.

[yBeayf]

In the Air Force I talked to a lot of Southerners, many of whom used "y'all" as a singular pronoun and "all y'all" as its plural as well as the possessive "y'all's".
Are you sure they weren't using "y'all" to address a single person who was representative of an organization or group of people? If not, I don't have any reason to doubt what you heard. I'll just say it's very unusual. If I called a single person "y'all" I'd be looked at like I had two heads, or was a Yankee trying to sound southern.

[yBeayf]

Addendum: a few examples of when it *would* be correct to say "y'all" to one person:

-Talking to somebody in another department about something that department is doing
-Talking to a married friend about her and her husband's plans for the weekend
-A waitress talking to an individual person at a table when she has reason to expect more people will be joining him, and she's talking about something affecting them all

[corkboard]

I know this is wrong, but can't recite chapter and verse as to why- "have got". Years ago (maybe still?), Pennsylvania's license plate slogan was "You've got a friend in Pennsylvania". As a resident at the time, it would irk me to no end seeing it on the back of everyone's car. You have a friend- that's all you need to say.

Also, ending sentences with "at". "Where's the store at? Where's it at?"

How about, Where's the store? Where is it? Not only is the "at" unnecessary, it's wrong.

[Excalibre]

I know this is wrong, but can't recite chapter and verse as to why- "have got". Years ago (maybe still?), Pennsylvania's license plate slogan was "You've got a friend in Pennsylvania". As a resident at the time, it would irk me to no end seeing it on the back of everyone's car. You have a friend- that's all you need to say.
It sounds fine to me. It's wrong? Why on earth do you think that?

[jsgoddess]

I know this is wrong, but can't recite chapter and verse as to why- "have got". Years ago (maybe still?), Pennsylvania's license plate slogan was "You've got a friend in Pennsylvania". As a resident at the time, it would irk me to no end seeing it on the back of everyone's car. You have a friend- that's all you need to say.

I prefer "you've got a friend." It simply sounds better to my ear.

But, I come from the land of the might coulds, so what do I know?

[corkboard]

It sounds fine to me. It's wrong? Why on earth do you think that?
Because I was taught that it was wrong, and as I mentioned, I can't recall why or what the rule was. But since I was taught it was wrong at a fairly young age, I immediately saw it as wrong when I read it and it never sounded right to me, and that feeling has persisted into adulthood. But since I know my grade-school teachers would never lie to me ( :( ), it still strikes me as wrong.

If I have time to do a little digging to find out conclusively, I'll advise.

[Excalibre]

Because I was taught that it was wrong, and as I mentioned, I can't recall why or what the rule was. But since I was taught it was wrong at a fairly young age, I immediately saw it as wrong when I read it and it never sounded right to me, and that feeling has persisted into adulthood. But since I know my grade-school teachers would never lie to me ( :( ), it still strikes me as wrong.

If I have time to do a little digging to find out conclusively, I'll advise.
I don't doubt that some grade school teachers tell their students that it's wrong - God knows that teachers don't know the first thing about English grammar. I'm just curious because I've never even heard that "rule" before, and I'm familiar with most such made-up rules.

[corkboard]

I think it's because "you've got a friend" or "you've got mail" is just a conjunction of saying "you have got mail", and since the result is the same as saying "you have mail", the "got" is unnecessary, and consequently, incorrect. It's either "you have mail", as in, this mail has been accumulating for you, or "you got mail", as in, you just received this mail, but to mash the two together results in a mixed meaning. Or something.

[Excalibre]

I think it's because "you've got a friend" or "you've got mail" is just a conjunction of saying "you have got mail", and since the result is the same as saying "you have mail", the "got" is unnecessary, and consequently, incorrect. It's either "you have mail", as in, this mail has been accumulating for you, or "you got mail", as in, you just received this mail, but to mash the two together results in a mixed meaning. Or something.
But there's no reason why there shouldn't be two ways to say the same thing - in fact, English (and all languages) do that all the time. Both are perfectly natural ways of speaking English - why should we arbitrarily decide that one is "not necessary" when people use it all the time? Having more ways to say something allows for more subtle shades of meaning to be conveyed.

[jsgoddess]

But there's no reason why there shouldn't be two ways to say the same thing - in fact, English (and all languages) do that all the time. Both are perfectly natural ways of speaking English - why should we arbitrarily decide that one is "not necessary" when people use it all the time? Having more ways to say something allows for more subtle shades of meaning to be conveyed.

I think I hear a difference in meaning between "you have a friend" and "you've got a friend," but I can't even figure out what it is. The addition of the "got" seems to add more emphasis, but I don't know why. Maybe it's just a more emphatic sounding word?

[Excalibre]

I think I hear a difference in meaning between "you have a friend" and "you've got a friend," but I can't even figure out what it is. The addition of the "got" seems to add more emphasis, but I don't know why. Maybe it's just a more emphatic sounding word?
I'm not sure. It makes it feel more "immediate" to me, which is probably another way of saying just what you said. Like I said - subtle shades of meaning. There's probably someone who's done explicit work examining when people use one and when they use another, but I've never heard anything about it.

[corkboard]

I think I hear a difference in meaning between "you have a friend" and "you've got a friend," but I can't even figure out what it is. The addition of the "got" seems to add more emphasis, but I don't know why. Maybe it's just a more emphatic sounding word?
Wearing a belt with suspenders adds more emphasis to keeping your pants up, but it doesn't mean it's necessary.

[Excalibre]

Wearing a belt with suspenders adds more emphasis to keeping your pants up, but it doesn't mean it's necessary.
So? There's no reason we have to use emphasis at all in language. That doesn't mean we shouldn't or that it's wrong.

[jsgoddess]

Wearing a belt with suspenders adds more emphasis to keeping your pants up, but it doesn't mean it's necessary.

You didn't need "more" in the above sentence. See, we all use words that aren't strictly necessary. See, I said "strictly" when I didn't need to. See, I said "see" when I didn't need to.

[corkboard]

You didn't need "more" in the above sentence. See, we all use words that aren't strictly necessary. See, I said "strictly" when I didn't need to. See, I said "see" when I didn't need to.
UNCLE! OK, ok, I cave. Point taken.

In fact, this guy (http://www.licktheweb.com/articles/mannerspeak/ivegotyougot.html) seems to agree with you. Basically he's saying, the "have got" contraction isn't gramatically wrong, but the present conditional tense isn't the most pleasant to the ear.

And now, I have got to move on...

[corkboard]

Forgot to add:

I'm holding firm on the "where's it at" thing, dadgummit.

[Excalibre]

Forgot to add:

I'm holding firm on the "where's it at" thing, dadgummit.
It's not actually any longer. Because you can't say "Where's it?" - that's ungrammatical (try to say it if you don't believe me - it'll sound weird as hell), as you can't contract "is" when it's carrying stress. Adding the "at" allows the stress to move to that word, leaving you free to contract "Where is". Your two choices are "Where is it?" and "Where's it at?", which are equal in length.

[Excalibre]

UNCLE! OK, ok, I cave. Point taken.

In fact, this guy (http://www.licktheweb.com/articles/mannerspeak/ivegotyougot.html) seems to agree with you. Basically he's saying, the "have got" contraction isn't gramatically wrong, but the present conditional tense isn't the most pleasant to the ear.

And now, I have got to move on...
Incidentally, I looked at that - and the guy doesn't make the slightest sense. How is that the "present conditional tense"? English doesn't have conditional "tenses" - we express the same thing through auxiliary markers. Conditional clauses usually use "would", as in "I would fly off to Bora Bora" (if I could get some time off work). "I have got" is not conditional at all.

No offense, but while I'm sure that eZine is an excellent resource for the Long Island gay community, this is the problem with people who don't know much about grammar trying to tell the rest of us how to talk. He doesn't even seem to understand "traditional grammar" of the sort taught in schools, much less more modern conceptions of how language works. The dude just doesn't make sense here.

It gets worse if you read on - he starts talking about the passive voice - but none of the sentences he's discussing use it! That term seems to be the most misused grammatical term in existence - people who right about it generally seem to think it means "sentences that I personally don't like". That sort of thing is covered in high school composition classes - we're not talking stuff you have to learn in linguistics courses. There's little excuse for not knowing it, and none at all for writing about it anyway.

"We must become 'good grammar' watchdogs." Ironic that he's flapping his gums about something he doesn't know even the most basic things about. I guess that's my battle that I won't stop fighting - people who don't have even the most basic knowledge of grammar (like the author of this article) simply shouldn't be going around telling the rest of us how to talk. The trouble is that people who legitimately need resources on good writing style find this sort of crap instead, and end up confused and following silly superstitions and making their writing worse in the process.

[corkboard]

It's not actually any longer. Because you can't say "Where's it?" - that's ungrammatical (try to say it if you don't believe me - it'll sound weird as hell), as you can't contract "is" when it's carrying stress. Adding the "at" allows the stress to move to that word, leaving you free to contract "Where is". Your two choices are "Where is it?" and "Where's it at?", which are equal in length.
Correct, you can't contract "is" when it's carrying stress. Which is why you don't use the contraction, but rather say "where is it", stressing the "is".

Length doesn't matter. As stated in this (http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/probPrep.asp) resource, do not use extra prepositions when the meaning is clear without them.

[corkboard]

Incidentally, I looked at that - and the guy doesn't make the slightest sense. How is that the "present conditional tense"? English doesn't have conditional "tenses" - we express the same thing through auxiliary markers. Conditional clauses usually use "would", as in "I would fly off to Bora Bora" (if I could get some time off work). "I have got" is not conditional at all. etc., etc.
Fine. I give up. You've conclusively established your superiority in all things grammatical. Enjoy. ;)

[ChordedZither]

"I could care less" gets me too when you know the person meant "couldn't care less".

I know this battle is lost, but "I could care less" seems entirely appropriate to me. Think about the tone of voice people use when they say it. It's not something you can ever say to someone politely. It's an insult.

In fact, to me the phrase has always been an obvious instance of sarcasm (again, listen to the tone of voice) and, like most sarcastic comments, deliberately states the opposite of what is meant.

"I could care less..."
1) ...but not by much.
2) ...but I'd have to try very hard to do so.
3) ...if I cared at all.

Now, I will admit that many catch-phrases lose force when they are over-used, and one might argue that the innate sarcasm of this term has been diluted by over-use and by the tendency of people who both hear it and who speak it to treat it as a literal statement. Still, I'm always astounded at how many people regard this as obviously mistaken.

--------------------------

Another battle I know is lost: people who dismiss an argument with "Oh, you're just arguing semantics." I always want to respond with "Why, thank you for recognizing that. You, on the other hand, are merely arguing terminology."

"Semantics" is the underlying meaning of whatever it is that we are talking about. What should we be discussing or arguing about if not the semantics? It's only when the discussion has degenerated to disputes over the proper terminology to use to express those semantics that the argument has become trivial.

[elmwood]

Which brings me to my question: what grammar-spelling-usage mistake can you NOT stop yourself from correcting, Dopers?

I'm an urban planner who tries to write in simple, plain, jargon-free English. For the planners I supervise, I'm ALWAYS making the following corrections to their work:

Legalese. My planners adore terms of legal art like said, aforementioned, hereinafter, thereto, andso on. I tell them if it's not part of your normal speaking vocabulary, don't use it in writing. I tell them documents written in plain English are just as defensible as those written with a stream of legal terms. That never stops them, though.

Plannerese. Everyone knows what a driveway is, so stop calling it an "ingress-egress point." Everyone knows what a septic system is, so don't use "POWTS" (private onsite waste treatment system) or "HOSWDS" (household on-site wastewater disposal system). Nope, 'tis better to baffle with bullshit than to be clearly understood.

[Annie-Xmas]

The false generic--"men" means everyone; "he" means "he and she," etc. etc. I am not a man, so don't include me in a group of men.

The whole fuss about this makes me wonder why we have the word "people."

[yBeayf]

The false generic--"men" means everyone; "he" means "he and she," etc. etc. I am not a man, so don't include me in a group of men.
I fight the opposite way on this. "Men" means everyone, "he" means "he or she". We are all men; it's time for man to realize this, and for him to return to a sensible mode of speaking.

[Excalibre]

I'm an urban planner who tries to write in simple, plain, jargon-free English. For the planners I supervise, I'm ALWAYS making the following corrections to their work:

Legalese. My planners adore terms of legal art like said, aforementioned, hereinafter, thereto, andso on. I tell them if it's not part of your normal speaking vocabulary, don't use it in writing. I tell them documents written in plain English are just as defensible as those written with a stream of legal terms. That never stops them, though.

Plannerese. Everyone knows what a driveway is, so stop calling it an "ingress-egress point." Everyone knows what a septic system is, so don't use "POWTS" (private onsite waste treatment system) or "HOSWDS" (household on-site wastewater disposal system). Nope, 'tis better to baffle with bullshit than to be clearly understood.
Good. Encouraging good, clear writing in government is a noble (though obvious trying) task. Planning documents tend to be almost unreadable, which is one of the reasons I probably won't actually be doing anything with my planning degree.

[aurelian]

I fight the opposite way on this. "Men" means everyone, "he" means "he or she". We are all men; it's time for man to realize this, and for him to return to a sensible mode of speaking.
This reminds me of a very simple experiment in an undergrad linguistics course. While the masculine "he/ him/ his" and "man" are indeed defined as the English equivalent to the neuter, the connotation of these words tends to be "referring to a man/ men".

The phrase "Man is an animal that breastfeeds his young" sounds odd because the formal definition (of 'man' and 'his') differs from its common connotation.
IOW, I don't think it's quite as simple as returning to "a sensible mode of speaking".

[Excalibre]

This reminds me of a very simple experiment in an undergrad linguistics course. While the masculine "he/ him/ his" and "man" are indeed defined as the English equivalent to the neuter, the connotation of these words tends to be "referring to a man/ men".

The phrase "Man is an animal that breastfeeds his young" sounds odd because the formal definition (of 'man' and 'his') differs from its common connotation.
IOW, I don't think it's quite as simple as returning to "a sensible mode of speaking".
Yeah. Claiming that "man" is neutral means ignoring the connotation of the word. Demanding that everyone feel something different when a word is used is silly - that's just not how the world works.

At one point, "man" was actually neutral, and two terms existed to specifically refer to male and female "men". The female term lives on as "woman", but the male term died out hundreds of years ago. Clinging to the notion that "men" is neuter means ignoring the fact that language has changed. You can tell people till you're blue in the face what they should think when they hear a word - or you can take into account the actual meaning of the word when you talk, rather than what you'd like it to mean. One is going to give you much more sorrow than the other.

[BoringDad]

But there's no reason why there shouldn't be two ways to say the same thing - in fact, English (and all languages) do that all the time. Both are perfectly natural ways of speaking English - why should we arbitrarily decide that one is "not necessary" when people use it all the time? Having more ways to say something allows for more subtle shades of meaning to be conveyed.I would argue that rather than subtle shades of meaning it allows for more chances to misunderstand each other. People use words to communicate. If I make up a phrase or a spelling, then it is very likely that the person I am trying to communicate with won't know what I'm talking about.

Figs gooey namya! Did you understand that means "I like figs"? Well everyone around here says it like that! It portrays our love for figs based on how gooey they are. It provides more shades of meaning than "I like figs." Isn't that great?

[Excalibre]

I would argue that rather than subtle shades of meaning it allows for more chances to misunderstand each other. People use words to communicate. If I make up a phrase or a spelling, then it is very likely that the person I am trying to communicate with won't know what I'm talking about.
You suggest that language should thus be reduced to the bare minimum needed for our daily lives? Because my argument was that there's nothing wrong with a perfectly normal construction in our language. You seem to be suggesting that we should artificially decide what the absolute minimum we might want to say should be, and then pare the language down so that we have no greater expressive potential than that. I suppose as someone who dabbles in the art of writing, that strikes me as bizarre - but even just as some guy who speaks a language, I can't see what you'd possibly accomplish by wholesale removal of all sorts of words and phrases just to avoid any possibility of miscommunication. Language - no matter how simple - creates the risk of miscommunication. So what? We have ways to get around miscommunication.


Figs gooey namya! Did you understand that means "I like figs"? Well everyone around here says it like that! It portrays our love for figs based on how gooey they are. It provides more shades of meaning than "I like figs." Isn't that great?
Except that the argument I was responding to was someone trying to claim that we should stop using a construction that exists, and that everyone is familiar with. Are you genuinely confused by "You've got a friend in Pennsylvania"? No, of course not. So why should it be removed from the language? That's absolutely not comparable to your example of making up words and phrases. And why the false dichotomy? Every time I make the slightest argument that yes, the way people actually talk is okay, someone pops in with some nonsensical argument that I'm defending making up nonsense words and using them in communication. You can talk how you like - you can make up words or confine your vocabulary to the most common 800 words in the language to avoid ever miscommunicating anything - either one is your choice. You won't successfully communicate if you decide to speak in nonsense words - so what are you worried about? Do you think that if we don't teach our children arbitrary, irrational rules that have no logical backing or historical relevance, that they'll spontaneously all decide to speak in nonsense words and society will collapse?

Language is something we don't even fully understand yet. It's amazing in its communicative power, and it's amazing how well it works. Languages evolve, and they evolve to suit the needs of their language community. There's no reason to go around worrying about some phantom spectre of miscommunication, because language on its own is incredibly sophisticated and works to make communication easy. Features that cause confusion fix themselves on their own; language naturally strikes a balance between risking miscommunication and losing our ability to express everything we need it to. None of these silly strictures taught about language do anything to alter this balance (though sometimes people make nonsensical claims that some artificial rule works to make communication clearer, their claims never seem to stand up to any scrutiny.) There's no reason for grim schoolmarms to step in and "fix" it, because it's not broken in the slightest degree.

[yBeayf]

Clinging to the notion that "men" is neuter means ignoring the fact that language has changed. You can tell people till you're blue in the face what they should think when they hear a word - or you can take into account the actual meaning of the word when you talk, rather than what you'd like it to mean. One is going to give you much more sorrow than the other.
I know. ^_^ It's my own little Quixotic battle. Surely even die-hard descriptivists are allowed one little bugbear?

[Hostile Dialect]

Fine, but that sort of contradicts your earlier claims to be operating on logic.

You must think I'm someone else. Please point out where I ever said anything about the topic before.

BTW, it may be of interest to you that the "arrrgh" line was a footnote referring to specific Spanish-language mistakes noted earlier in my post.

Attributing claims to the wrong people sort of ruins your attempt to sound like you're discussing this from any logical standpoint, BTW.

Are you sure they weren't using "y'all" to address a single person who was representative of an organization or group of people? If not, I don't have any reason to doubt what you heard.

I'll grant that it generally went down like you said. But I'm pretty sure I heard it used as a second-person singular pronoun a couple times. I would've noticed something like that.


Also, ending sentences with "at". "Where's the store at? Where's it at?"

How about, Where's the store? Where is it? Not only is the "at" unnecessary, it's wrong.

This is a target a lot of would-be grammar Nazis latch on to*, but the usage described isn't actually wrong. Your further arguments on this point seem to confuse preferred written style with correct usage. These are two seperate things.

*I could write that "to which a lot of would-be grammar Nazis latch on", but it's not necessary.


Wearing a belt with suspenders adds more emphasis to keeping your pants up, but it doesn't mean it's necessary.

Doesn't mean it's wrong, either.

[BoringDad]

Except that the argument I was responding to was someone trying to claim that we should stop using a construction that exists, and that everyone is familiar with. Are you genuinely confused by "You've got a friend in Pennsylvania"? No, of course not. So why should it be removed from the language? That's absolutely not comparable to your example of making up words and phrases. Yes, I understand I've got a friend in PA. I even say it that way. I was arguing the philosophy moreso than the specific point. There's no reason to go around worrying about some phantom spectre of miscommunication, because language on its own is incredibly sophisticated and works to make communication easy. Features that cause confusion fix themselves on their own...Yes, and in theory, Communism works. By simple observation of the world I'd say that the exact opposite is true. Is it an imaginary phantom that English has developed dialects all around the world? Do various dialects make communication easier? Heck, we are even seeing arguments amongst southerners whether "all y'all" is the valid plural or if it should just be "y'all". Getting easier on it's own? History tells us no.

[Excalibre]

You must think I'm someone else. Please point out where I ever said anything about the topic before.
You said something about "logic" in your description of "irregardless" earlier in the exact post.


BTW, it may be of interest to you that the "arrrgh" line was a footnote referring to specific Spanish-language mistakes noted earlier in my post.
It wasn't clear. You put it right after something you wrote to me.


Attributing claims to the wrong people sort of ruins your attempt to sound like you're discussing this from any logical standpoint, BTW.
I see no evidence that I have done so.


Yes, I understand I've got a friend in PA. I even say it that way. I was arguing the philosophy moreso than the specific point.
I see it as helpful to examine real-world examples because bare philosophy is liable to result in all kinds of silly results when the conclusion of the philosophy is not checked against what actually happens in the world. Like I said - I think your concerns over miscommunication are overstated, and I returned to the example at hand to demonstrate that.


Yes, and in theory, Communism works. By simple observation of the world I'd say that the exact opposite is true. Is it an imaginary phantom that English has developed dialects all around the world?
So now you're arguing that having different dialects is bad? And that prescriptive grammar helps avoid that problem? The trouble with that statement is that prescriptive grammar has been a plague upon English pedagogy for centuries, and by now most Americans are well and thoroughly subjected to it because most Americans are educated in schools with that flawed pedagogy. It can be seen clearly that teaching prescriptive grammar does not stop the "problem" of dialectization (though television and the other mass media are actually slowing or reversing the formation of dialects.) If people are unwilling to change the way they speak, then you're actually positing a world in which (1) people are taught prescriptive norms in school (as they are now) and (2) people actually accept those norms (which they do not do now.) I would say the evidence suggests that they never do so except when there is some specific purpose to doing so for their own benefit. People who don't speak standard English at home or in their communities will do so in the academic and professional worlds because of sheer necessity - but that only affects the small percentage of people who actually have to do so to achieve career success. And even they tend to retain their native dialects when they're outside of their professional environment. So point (2) is pretty much impossible - even if you can make a philosophical argument that somehow the world would be better given both (1) and (2), you haven't come up with any evidence that it's even possible.


Do various dialects make communication easier? Heck, we are even seeing arguments amongst southerners whether "all y'all" is the valid plural or if it should just be "y'all". Getting easier on it's own? History tells us no.
What we're seeing is an argument over the precise syntax of a particular construction - we haven't seen even the slightest evidence, though, that this argument over syntax has any effect on actual communication. None of the examples given in the thread suggest that any actual difficulty with communication existed. Of course, such difficulties do sometimes present themselves when a person moves to an environment with an unfamiliar dialect. But those are largely minor and transient. Sure, if I moved to Georgia I'd probably be a bit confused by the dialect spoken - for about three days. We're not talking earth-shaking problems here.

The point I'm making here is mostly that prescriptive grammar education doesn't tend to make much difference, and that it would likely be of little benefit if it did. You seem to accept it as axiomatic that it would be better if everyone spoke the same way, but I disagree. I don't see why the existence of different dialects is a problem. On some rare occasions, it might create certain difficulties - buth those difficulties are miniscule. The social advantages of the existence of dialects are undeniable, and that's a big part of why they continue to exist.

In fact, I suspect that prescriptive pedagogy is sometimes quite harmful. An illustrative example is with black students in inner city elementary schools. When students are told that the way their community speaks is "wrong" (and again, I challenge you to find any a priori justification for the idea that one way of speaking is "right" and another is "wrong"), it's naturally offensive. Further, social pressures outside the school to fit into one's community go up against pressures inside the school to speak and act a certain way. Those conflicting pressures, according to some sociological research, are a major contributor to the notorious problems faced in inner city schools. Obviously not all of those pressures revolve around linguistic issues - but to whatever extent they do, is it somehow advantageous to "stick to your guns" and teach traditional prescriptive grammar (even when those prescriptions are not in themselves of any particular merit) if it means driving student and educator further apart?

[Hostile Dialect]

You said something about "logic" in your description of "irregardless" earlier in the exact post.

Ah, OK, I hadn't connected the two but I see your point. I don't see the two as being connected, though, and here's why: the first is literally inventing a new word, and the second is pronouncing an old word in a strange way. My point with "irregardless" was that--much like most mondegreens--it would clear itself up for any flagrant word-abuser if said abuser just thought about it for a second, and asked critical questions of him- or herself: Why do I say this word? Where did I hear it? Do I see it in written communication? If so, from which sources? How is this word constructed? Does it make sense?

This differentiates what I believe to be "lesser" mondegreens like "beckon call" from the ones which deserve the deepest circle of hell, like "should of". The first makes as much sense as any alternative spelling. The second doesn't.

Anyway, back to "nucular": after further review, I concede that a dialect's pronunciation of a word really can't be inherently "wrong", at least unless it makes it so that it can't be understood, which "nucular" doesn't. It's still utterly ridiculous, though. ;)


It wasn't clear. You put it right after something you wrote to me.

I assumed that the asterick next to it would clear the matter up, but apparently I should've been more clear. My bad.


I see no evidence that I have done so.

My apologies; I thought you were referring to an earlier argument about the logic of pronouncing nuclear "nucular", specifically. I was wrong.

[Excalibre]

Anyway, back to "nucular": after further review, I concede that a dialect's pronunciation of a word really can't be inherently "wrong", at least unless it makes it so that it can't be understood, which "nucular" doesn't. It's still utterly ridiculous, though. ;)
We're cool then. I have my little pet hates, too.

And don't get me started on people who write "should of". Did they just sleep through their entire education and then never read a book ever?

[Malacandra]

I hate "off of". The model plane mags I read regularly include this solecism. (I know you can parse the preceding sentence two ways. That's the beauty of it; both readings are valid.) It got worse when we got Windows XP installed as our operating system on the network, and someone set up a logoff screen that said "You are now being logged off of Windows". They want disembowelled with a blunt spoon. :p

[robardin]

You not only misspelled Sartre, you denied Samuel Beckett proper credit for writing the play in question.
D'oh! D'oh! :smack:

[robardin]

I hate "off of".
That's a common misspelling for "offa", as in, "get offa me, you ijit."

[fishbicycle]

There are an awful lot of people who think this > * < is called an "asterick" or "asterix."

It is an asterisk.

[gigi]

One of the things that drives me up the wall is people who don't know the difference between phenomenon (the singular) and phenomena (the plural).And criterion/criteria.

My peeves:

1) Misplaced modifiers, such as this classic from Steve Wariner's "Holes in the Floor of Heaven":

One day shy of eight years old
My grandma passed away

Or: As President, I think George Bush is doing a bang-up job.


2) Series that are not parallel:

She's pretty, smart and knows how to cook.

So basically you are saying:

She is pretty.
She is smart.
She is knows how to cook.

ARGGH!

[gigi]

Oh, and:

And I'll tell you the reason why: the reason why is, is because peaches are too expensive.

aka

The reason is (that) peaches are too expensive.

[Eve]

There are an awful lot of people who think this > * < is called an "asterick" or "asterix."

It is an asterisk.

We learned a little poem in school to keep that straight:

Susie bought a pair of skates
Upon the ice to frisk
Her friends all thought that she was nuts
Her little *

[Malacandra]

We learned a little poem in school to keep that straight:

That's sort of like:

"There was a young lady called Cholmondely
Whose face was both shapely and colmondely..." :)

[ChordedZither]

We learned a little poem in school to keep that straight:
I love the picture of some teacher sitting up late at night thinking, "OK, now how can I twist my lesson plan to fit in this little verse?" :)

[Hostile Dialect]

It is an asterisk.

Whoops. That's a mite embarrassing in a language pet peeves thread, ain't it?

[gigi]

Whoops. That's a mite embarrassing in a language pet peeves thread, ain't it? :confused:

[Hostile Dialect]

I called an asterisk an asterick.

[gigi]

Gotcha ya! I was staring at fishbicycle's post wondering what was the matter with it...

[flight]

I know this battle is lost, but "I could care less" seems entirely appropriate to me. Think about the tone of voice people use when they say it. It's not something you can ever say to someone politely. It's an insult.

In fact, to me the phrase has always been an obvious instance of sarcasm (again, listen to the tone of voice) and, like most sarcastic comments, deliberately states the opposite of what is meant.

"I could care less..."
1) ...but not by much.
2) ...but I'd have to try very hard to do so.
3) ...if I cared at all.

Now, I will admit that many catch-phrases lose force when they are over-used, and one might argue that the innate sarcasm of this term has been diluted by over-use and by the tendency of people who both hear it and who speak it to treat it as a literal statement. Still, I'm always astounded at how many people regard this as obviously mistaken.Sarcasm is all about intent. Almost no one who uses this phrase actually intends it this way. It seems that this more likely revisionism among people who picked up the habit and don't like being grammatically incorrect.
It gets worse if you read on - he starts talking about the passive voice - but none of the sentences he's discussing use it! That term seems to be the most misused grammatical term in existence - people who right about it generally seem to think it means "sentences that I personally don't like". That sort of thing is covered in high school composition classes - we're not talking stuff you have to learn in linguistics courses. There's little excuse for not knowing it, and none at all for writing about it anyway.(bolding mine)

I have my own pet peeves as well.
I give my students a list of abbreviations that I use to correct their compositions (eg, ADJ means use/make an adjective here). I actually added "GAH!!!" this semester for things like "Juana's mochila" or "yo realizo" (for darse cuenta de, of course)!
(We'll have to start another "Dumb things said by students" thread.)Like multiple exclamation points.
Joe: It's a mute point.

QS: Sorry, what?

Joe: Mute point...?

QS: No, I distictly heard something.
Joe: Oh, I mean it is a moot point.

flight: You think so?

Joe: Oh yeah, it doesn't matter.

flight: Then why did you say it was debatable?

Now there is a lost cause.

[BMalion]

... We are all men;...


We are Devo. :D


Sorry, I digress.

My skin crawls when I hear the word minus used as a verb.

"Well, I'll just take your $400 credit and minus it from the $500 dollars you owe."

I want to grab them and shake them like a terrier shakes a rat. I know language is fluid and evolves, I accept that, but I'm not a perfect, rational thinking machine and so it bothers me. Heck, I probubly have* spelling and grammer errors in this very post!


*I originally typed: I've probubly got... but the earlier post caused me to think it over and re-write.

[Honey]

I'm an insurance agent. It drives me toad-licking psycho when someone calls and says "Can I get a car insurance quota?"

[Roadfood]

I thought of one I haven't seen mentioned: "spell checker". I really don't need a software tool that will check the integrity of my magical incantations, thank you, what would be useful to me is a "spelling checker" that will tell me if I've mispelled any words.

Yes, I know, this battle was totally lost years ago.

[kelly5078]

There's another thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=363157) going on that uses "orgasm" as a verb. It's not a verb, regardless of what Hite did to it all those years ago.

Since I didn't post this to that thread, but am doing it here, I'm maybe not taking the fight to the enemy the way I should. But I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

[gigi]

Heck, I probubly have* spelling and grammer errors in this very post!Probably so. :)

[gigi]

There's another thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=363157) going on that uses "orgasm" as a verb. It's not a verb, regardless of what Hite did to it all those years ago.Well, it is listed as a verb in the dictionary, as is "suicide"!!

Which reminds me of another of my battles: if someone strangled himself to death by hanging, he hanged himself. Not hung, darn it.

[BMalion]

Probably so. :)

:smack:

I believe you, but could you explain?

[Excalibre]

Sarcasm is all about intent. Almost no one who uses this phrase actually intends it this way. It seems that this more likely revisionism among people who picked up the habit and don't like being grammatically incorrect.
So you know that secretly, deep down, they're violating the grammatical rules in their hearts?

:: sigh ::

"I could care less" is an idiom, a set phrase. People recite it - as with all idioms - as a single unit, known linguistically as a "lexeme". There's no point in criticizing the use of idioms - they're part of how language works. If you'd ever bothered to listen carefully, you'd notice that the two phrase "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less" have vastly different intonational patterns, which suggests that they probably do have some story behind them. Stephen Pinker used the intonational patterns to argue that the former is sarcastic, though I'm not positive I agree with him. Either way, you're vastly oversimplifying something, apparently just so you can have some reason to look down on the way other people talk.


I have my own pet peeves as well.
Yeah, I made a typo. I saw it, but we can't edit our posts. So sorry.

[Excalibre]

There's another thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=363157) going on that uses "orgasm" as a verb. It's not a verb, regardless of what Hite did to it all those years ago.

Since I didn't post this to that thread, but am doing it here, I'm maybe not taking the fight to the enemy the way I should. But I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings.
Why do you think "orgasm" isn't a verb? Why shouldn't people use it that way? What's wrong with doing so?

[Cardinal]

She also gave us this gem last semester: "Es la mochila Juana's*".In my Spanish 1 class, my friend with the last name of Jaramillo was called to the board and wrote, "Rocky's amigo". Now that's some down-home American assimilation, there.

[blackhobyah]

"Disinterested" used instead of "uninterested". Disinterested is a perfectly good word with a perfectly good meaning, as is uninterested. But they don't mean the same thing. I fear the battle for disinterested is already lost, since the error is common, even in otherwise good writers.

[Martin Sable]

Two years ago, 90 percent of the English-speaking world suddenly started spelling "lose" and "losing" as "loose" and "loosing." I'm still trying to figure out how and why that happened. It's driving me crazy.

If you'd ever bothered to listen carefully, you'd notice that the two phrase "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less" have vastly different intonational patterns, which suggests that they probably do have some story behind them. Stephen Pinker used the intonational patterns to argue that the former is sarcastic, though I'm not positive I agree with him.

This is another pet peeve, so I have been listening carefully. But I'm afraid my observations don't match yours. Nearly everyone I hear saying "I could care less" says it with exactly the same intonation as they would if they were saying "I couldn't care less."

If I heard more people saying, "I COULD care less," with an eye-roll and a knowing emphasis on the word "could," then, yeah, it would definitely be sarcasm. But for most people, I think they just haven't bothered to think about the literal meaning of what they're saying. I'd consider "I could care less" a kind of lazy spoken error in the same way that "could of" is a lazy written error.

[dnooman]

A friend of mine gets his panties in a twist every time someone says that they're nauseous. He says "No, you're nauseated. If you were nauseous you'd be causing nausea".

Dictionaries agree that nauseous can also mean "affected by nausea" but my friend doesn't care.

I want to bitch slap people that leave out the words to be. "The lawn needs mowed and your house needs painted". Gah!

[Kyla]

D'oh! D'oh! :smack:

You got the name of the play wrong, too. It's Waiting for Godot.

Mine:

literally = ! figuratively. God, this makes me cringe.

The Muslim holy book is the Qur'an. If you can't figure out where the apostrophe goes, just spell it Koran, okay? This drives me crazy, and I see it wrong in books, magazines, and message board posts all the freaking time. The apostrophe represents a glottal stop and is an actual letter in Arabic. You can't put it anywhere you like!

[Paintcharge]

The one that gets to me is "I'm going to try and do X." No you're going to try to do X. Perhaps it is said in an effort to be optimistic. I'm not sure. This is one I hear on TV news, read in papers etc.

[Hostile Dialect]

Two years ago, 90 percent of the English-speaking world suddenly started spelling "lose" and "losing" as "loose" and "loosing." I'm still trying to figure out how and why that happened. It's driving me crazy.

Unfortunately, the trend has been around longer than that--I saw "loose" used for "lose" at an REI in Minnesota around 1993, I believe.



You got the name of the play wrong, too. It's Waiting for Godot.

That was intentional, and was supposed to emphasize the difference between "waiting for" and "waiting on".


literally = ! figuratively. God, this makes me cringe.

This one will probably send me on a killing spree someday. The next person who tells me they literally jumped through the roof will find themselves literally thrown through the roof.

[Chronos]

Quoth OtakuLokiThis is particularly annoying when people talk about things in microgravity environments.Right there is one that annoys me. You can argue that the ISS and the things in it are in .8 gravities, that being the strength of the Earth's gravity at that height. I'm fine with that. Or you can take the relativistic view that the station, being in freefall, is in zero gravity. But there's no meaningful sense in which the station is in a little bit of gravity. "Microgravity" comes from people who have the impression that "zero gravity" is wrong (it isn't, relativistically speaking), but don't know why, so they coin a term meaning "almost but not quite zero gravity".

The common term "zero gravity" perhaps does not fully represent the subtleties of the situation, but it's far more correct than "microgravity". And "freefall" does fully represent the subtleties of the situation, though I understand entirely why that one won't catch on in the public mind (and am not bothered by that). Use either one of those, just not "microgravity".

And don't get me started on "escape velocity" instead of "escape speed".

[dbuzman]

I think I hear a difference in meaning between "you have a friend" and "you've got a friend," but I can't even figure out what it is. The addition of the "got" seems to add more emphasis, but I don't know why. Maybe it's just a more emphatic sounding word?

Maybe the writers of the phrase thought "you have a friend in Pennsylvania" could be taken as you have a friend who lives in Pa. and you've got etc. as Pa. itself is your friend.

[flight]

So you know that secretly, deep down, they're violating the grammatical rules in their hearts?

:: sigh ::

"I could care less" is an idiom, a set phrase. People recite it - as with all idioms - as a single unit, known linguistically as a "lexeme". There's no point in criticizing the use of idioms - they're part of how language works. If you'd ever bothered to listen carefully, you'd notice that the two phrase "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less" have vastly different intonational patterns, which suggests that they probably do have some story behind them. Stephen Pinker used the intonational patterns to argue that the former is sarcastic, though I'm not positive I agree with him. Either way, you're vastly oversimplifying something, apparently just so you can have some reason to look down on the way other people talk.
Yes, you have stated my point here exactly. It has become an idiom. It is a single unit that means, "I do not care about that." It is my contention that unless people know that the literal meaning of what they are saying is, "It is possible for me to care less about that thing than I currently do, thereby insinuating that I care about it somewhat," and with that knowledge intend for it to be understood to mean the opposite, then they are not being sarcastic. They are just using an idiom without thinking about it. This idea is supported by my experience that not one person I have ever spoken to about this used the phrase in a sarcastic manner. They have either never thought about it (the vast majority) or realized it did not make any sense but continued to use it out of habit.Yeah, I made a typo. I saw it, but we can't edit our posts. So sorry.
By your tone it seems you think I was making fun of you. OK, I guess I was a bit. It was not mean spirited though. There was just a certain beauty in following the phrase, "...the most misused grammatical term in existence," with a common word substitution error. When discussing grammar we open ourselves up to nitpicking, as I am sure I will be regretting once I notice the grammatical errors in his post that are escaping me at the moment.

[flight]

When discussing grammar we open ourselves up to nitpicking, as I am sure I will be regretting once I notice the grammatical errors in his post that are escaping me at the moment.
Which should, of course, be THIS post. Damn, in the actual sentence I predicted it.

[Mayo Speaks!]

Effect (noooooooun) vs affect (veeeeeeerb).

Yes, I do work with IT guys and programmers a lot.
A follow-up: The uninformed grammar Nazis who correct me when I use effect as a verb. (Note: I'm not talking about Nava here, s/he just reminded me.) I can effect changes, dadgummit!

And more generally, when the would be grammarians "correct" me for any legitimate usage. If you're going to be annoying, be in the right

And I'm sure that I made some grammatical mistakes in this post. But I'm fine with that.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Even with the many, many grammar rants I've read here, I've never seen anyone decry the misuse of the phrase "how dare". As in

How dare him! or How dare her!.

Just because the pronoun comes after the verb doesn't make it automatically an object. Yes I know it's an archaic idiom, because modern English uses the auxiliary in forming a question, and I know that English is a subject-verb-object language, and I further know that I'm being prescriptivist.

But the usages above just sound semi-literate to me.

[Excalibre]

Even with the many, many grammar rants I've read here, I've never seen anyone decry the misuse of the phrase "how dare". As in

How dare him! or How dare her!.

Just because the pronoun comes after the verb doesn't make it automatically an object. Yes I know it's an archaic idiom, because modern English uses the auxiliary in forming a question, and I know that English is a subject-verb-object language, and I further know that I'm being prescriptivist.

But the usages above just sound semi-literate to me.
I've never once in my life heard that. It sounds absolutely bizarre to me.

[kelly5078]

Well, it is listed as a verb in the dictionary, as is "suicide"!!
Why do you think "orgasm" isn't a verb? Why shouldn't people use it that way? What's wrong with doing so?

Okay, so I see that the AHD has decided to accept "orgasm" as a verb. The whores. Fortunately, Webster's Online doesn't go down that road.

Unless I'm greatly mistaken, orgasm was always a noun until Shere Hite, in "The Hite Report," decided to use it as a verb. I'm an old fashioned boy, and it drives me nuts. But go ahead and verb things if it makes you happy.

[Lazlo]

:confused: But just about every specific term for a large number of things can be used that way. "Hundreds" and "thousands" are particularly common. In fact, you can't use them as anything but nouns - you can't say, for instance "I have thousand dollars" - you have to use the article, because "thousand" is not an adjective, the way smaller numbers are. I simply don't understand what you're getting at at all.

Sorry for not getting back to this earlier. I haven't read the entire thread yet, so I don't know if anyone else has addressed this.

Anyhow, from dictionary.com:

myr-i-ad
adj.
1. Constituting a very large, indefinite number; innumerable: the myriad fish in the ocean.
2. Composed of numerous diverse elements or facets: the myriad life of the metropolis.
n.
1. A vast number: the myriads of bees in the hive.
2. Archaic. Ten thousand.

Usage Note: Throughout most of its history in English myriad was used as a noun, as in a myriad of men. In the 19th century it began to be used in poetry as an adjective, as in myriad men.My whole life I've been taught that the adjective form is "proper." However, after reading the dictionary.com usage note, I see that i'm the idjit here. :p

Has anyone mentioned using apostrophes for plurals?

[Colophon]

Folks that write "If you think (X), you've got another thing coming," instead of the correct version, "another think coming".

I know it's been debated on here endlessly, I know that those idiomatic vandals Judas Priest (http://www.fannins-collectables.com/images/j_listing/judas_priest/youve_got_another_thing_coming/cbsa2611_fc-fs.jpg) have muddied the waters with their misspelling, but it's wrong wrong wrong! It makes no sense, and it destroys the whole point of the phrase. You might think X, but you will very shortly have the error of your views thrust upon you and will instead think Y.

And I've got a whole bunch of reputable, pre-Judas Priest cites, so if you think I'm gonna back down on this one, you've got...

[BiblioCat]

Folks that write "If you think (X), you've got another thing coming," instead of the correct version, "another think coming".
I never, ever, ever in my life heard " ... another think coming" till I read one of the endless debates here on this board. I know in one of them, one poster presented pretty sound reasoning why 'thing' was just as correct as 'think.'

It's always been and always will be "... another thing coming" for me.
I'm 41, BTW. Mid-Atlantic US.
"Another think coming" just sounds soooo wrong to me.

[Epimetheus]

Schizophrenia is NOT multiple personality disorder, and aren't even remotely related. One is a neurosis, and one is a psychosis.

Reflexes and instincts are two distinct things. Cringing from a loud noise is reflexive, not instinctive.

I give up on the grammar battles. I realize that meanings change, but I still hold that scientific defintions are static, and that common usage doesn't change it until the field of science changes it.

[ElvisL1ves]

Unless I'm greatly mistaken, orgasm was always a noun until Shere Hite, in "The Hite Report," decided to use it as a verb.
"Verbing weirds language." - Bill Watterson

My personal Betty Noir is criterion vs. criteria. But I understand the inarguability of idiomatic usages, and I let it pass uncommented upon.

I've seen this sign over a coal-burning fireplace:

If the BMT put :
If the B . putting :
Don't put : over a -der.
You'd be an * it.

If the grate be empty, put coal on.
If the grate be full stop putting coal on.
Don't put coal on over a high fender.
You'd be an ass to risk it.

[Hostile Dialect]

It makes no sense, and it destroys the whole point of the phrase.

Sure it makes sense. I always interpreted "you've got another thing coming" as meaning that a thing different from the expected thing is coming soon. "Another think coming" sounds more like a pun on the original usage to me, and I've never heard or seen it like that before. I'm ready to be won over, though: Show me your cites.

[Kyla]

That was intentional, and was supposed to emphasize the difference between "waiting for" and "waiting on".


D'oh. That'll teach me to be a smartass.

Well, no it won't. But maybe I'll read the entire post first before correcting it next time.

[Colophon]

Sure it makes sense. I always interpreted "you've got another thing coming" as meaning that a thing different from the expected thing is coming soon. "Another think coming" sounds more like a pun on the original usage to me, and I've never heard or seen it like that before. I'm ready to be won over, though: Show me your cites.


It's supposed to be humorously non-grammatical, same as "sure as eggs is eggs". It's a reduplication - if that's what you think, you've got another think coming. Otherwise, what is the first thing? There is no thing, so the thing that's coming won't be another thing, it'll just be... a thing. If that's what you think, you've got a thing coming. Well, yeah, okay, but it's hardly a snappy phrase.

As for cites... newest first:

Here on my desk is a big copy of Collins English Dictionary (pub 2003).
think NOUN 18 you've (he's, she's, etc.) got another think coming. Slang you (etc.) are mistaken and will soon have to alter your opinion.

From The New Fowler's Modern English Usage (1996) :
think NOUN ... not recorded until 1834 ... it is commonly used in such sentences as Have a think about it and You have another think coming, 'You are greatly mistaken'.[/i]

The alt.usage.english FAQ (http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxyouhav.html) :
"If you think that, you have another think coming" means "You are
mistaken and will soon have to alter your opinion". This is now
sometimes heard with "thing" in place of "think", but "think" is the
older version... The OED gives a citation with "think"
from 1937, and no evidence for "thing".

And here are those cites from the OED:
1937 Amer. Speech XII. 317/1 Several different statements used for the same idea---that of some one's making a mistake._[e.g.] you have
another think coming.
1942 T. Bailey Pink Camellia xxvii. 199 If you think you can get me out of Gaywood, you have another think coming.
1979 Jrnl. R. Soc. Arts CXXVII. 221/2 Any design consultant who thinks he is going to get British Leyland right by himself on his own has got another think coming.

And in the realms of personal anecdote, my grandmother (b. 1919) used the phrase, and told me that she learnt it from her mother as a child in the 1930s. I wonder where her mother first picked it up from?
It's been around for a long long time, and people have obviously misheard it or missed the point of the phrase and so bastardised it into "another thing coming".

[Hostile Dialect]

Otherwise, what is the first thing? There is no thing, so the thing that's coming won't be another thing, it'll just be... a thing. If that's what you think, you've got a thing coming. Well, yeah, okay, but it's hardly a snappy phrase.

The think is the first thing, of course. Like I said, the way I've interpreted the saying--and again let me reiterate that I've never heard or read it with two thinks--is that there is no second "think", that is, that your subsequent change in opinion is a side effect of the thing coming, rather than the main dish--and it may not be related at all. The quintessential example in my mind is a mother saying "If you think you can eat dessert without finishing your vegetables, you've got another thing coming". There is no implication that the child will change his or her opinion that he/she should or will get food. There's no second think coming--how the child opines is in fact entirely irrelevant to the main point, which is that a big thing--lack of frozen sugary goodness, in this case--is coming that will suck for the child. Optimally the child will change his or her opinion--but the mother isn't forcing an opinion change, she's just giving the kid a choice: eat greens, or miss out on dessert.

You've made a convincing case for the double-think method being more legit, though.

[gigi]

Another of my pet peeves reared its ugly head again...

"at your convience"

You know, if you're going to have to use this word often, just post a slip of paper with the correct spelling and copy from it.

[Elendil's Heir]

its = belongs to
it's = it is

I hate modifiers for "unique." Something can't be "truly unique," "very unique," "most unique." It's either unique - one of a kind - or it's not.

"Anymore" does not mean "nowadays," but I hear it used that way more and more: "Seems like gasoline is really expensive anymore."

"Alot" and "alright" are becoming more common, too, but they still make me grind my teeth. I'm afraid they'll soon become acceptable, much as "already" and "altogether" long have been.

And, my all-time law-related pet peeve: John Roberts is "Chief Justice of the United States," not "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court." See 28 U.S.C. 1. People get it wrong all the time.

[ChordedZither]

its = belongs to
I hate modifiers for "unique." Something can't be "truly unique," "very unique," "most unique." It's either unique - one of a kind - or it's not.

See Excalibre's earlier quote (post #24) from the American Heritage Dictionary for a fairly well-reasoned counter-argument.

"Anymore" does not mean "nowadays," but I hear it used that way more and more: "Seems like gasoline is really expensive anymore."
The AHD recognizes this (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anymore) as a regional usage that appears to be spreading. I grew up (in the MidWest) hearing this usage of the word all the time, but my New Englander spouse was appalled every time I used it.

[Hostile Dialect]

The AHD recognizes this (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anymore) as a regional usage that appears to be spreading. I grew up (in the MidWest) hearing this usage of the word all the time, but my New Englander spouse was appalled every time I used it.

An acquaintance from an extremely small town in Washington state uses "anymore" this way, too; however, I'm pretty sure it's just him being an uneducated hick.

[jsgoddess]

"Anymore" does not mean "nowadays," but I hear it used that way more and more: "Seems like gasoline is really expensive anymore."


Considering "The Breakup Song" is from what, the early 80s? I don't think this is a new thing.

[Chance the Gardener]

I realize that one of these days, the official definition of presently will be "something that's happening right now." Regardless, I hold out that presently and currently mean more or less the same thing, and I still use the word in the traditional sense. These things change, I know, I know; "awful" used to mean "fantastic," and I'm sure there were people like me fighting that, too, and it's hopeless but I don't care. presently means soon, and I'll keep tilting at that windmill.

In other quixotic news, I still don't patronize Exxon (or Esso, or Mobil) stations, and I haven't since that business with the Exxon Valdez in 1989. I'm still not quitting. One night I was driving through a remote section of West Virginia, almost out of gas, and when I happened upon an Exxon station, I drove right past, dreading the need to call Triple A in a place where I wouldn't know where to look for a phone. A couple exits later, running on fumes, I found a BP station. Deus veult!

[Gala Matrix Fire]

Niggardly is a perfectly good word that means exactly what it's supposed to and should be used more often.

The book Little Black Sambo by Helen Bannerman has nothing to do with Africa or Africans.

Switching our clocks twice a year for daylight savings time is a pain in the neck. Can we just pick a time and stick to it?

[Sternvogel]

:smack:

I believe you, but could you explain?

Here is the quote to which gigi was responding:

Heck, I probubly have* spelling and grammer errors in this very post!

You misspelled probably and grammar in that sentence.

Also, you wrote:

"Well, I'll just take your $400 credit and minus it from the $500 dollars you owe."

Either "$500 you owe" or "five hundred dollars you owe" is correct here -- "$500 dollars" would literally be read "500 dollars dollars". (Although, to your credit, you didn't make the all-too-common error of typing "500$"!)

bluethree: I agree with the point of your statement. After living in Ohio since I was born, I moved to Indiana, and relished the fact that I no longer had to "spring forward" and "fall back". Then Governor Daniels decided we Hoosiers had to make the leap into the twenty-first century, and so I had to move my clocks ahead a couple of days ago. However, that abomination of which you speak is properly written Daylight Saving Time (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/daylight1.html). The second word is singular, and each word of the phrase is capitalized (cf. Eastern Standard Time).

Currently bugging me is Maryland women's basketball coach Brenda Frese, who repeatedly praises the fact that her Terrapins just grinded it out (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:hhrv7ihfjw4J:rssfeeds.usatoday.com/UsatodaycomCollegeWomensBasketball-TopStories%3Fm%3D283+Brenda+Frese+grinded&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3&ie=UTF-8) en route to victory. Um, Brenda, the past tense of grind is ground!

[BMalion]

Here is the quote to which gigi was responding:



You misspelled probably and grammar in that sentence.

Also, you wrote:



Either "$500 you owe" or "five hundred dollars you owe" is correct here -- "$500 dollars" would literally be read "500 dollars dollars". (Although, to your credit, you didn't make the all-too-common error of typing "500$"!)



Thanks! Being corrected is a blessing.

[gigi]

presently means soon, and I'll keep tilting at that windmill.Thank you for the reminder! I think I have slipped into using it like "currently" and that's not OK.

[Hostile Dialect]

Either "$500 you owe" or "five hundred dollars you owe" is correct here -- "$500 dollars" would literally be read "500 dollars dollars". (Although, to your credit, you didn't make the all-too-common error of typing "500$"!)

Not to mention that he made the critical mistake of identifying minus as a verb, rather than what it really is: a signal for me to start killing everyone in my field of vision.

[Joey P]

But what really busts my hump is people who will spell it 'que' when they're copying directly from something where the word is spelt correctly. That fills me with grrrr.

I had a history teacher in college who said one of his pet peeves is when people misspell historical names. Now, he it wasn't normally a big deal, but if the persons name is in the question and then they misspell it in the first line of the essay...well (according to him) that's like going to brush your teeth but brushing your nose instead, just dumb.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

My biggest gripe isn't a specific grammatical issue, it's people who correct me when I'm not wrong. If you want to use "criteria" as a singular, go ahead. I'll just cringe and ignore you. But don't correct me when I say, "what was your main criterion?"

That said, I absolutely detest newscasters on television who don't understand present vs. past tense. Sometimes they switch inappropriately between tenses within a story. Sometimes their use of present tense is just silly: "John Doe dying today..." No. He died. He's not still dying six hours later. It's over. He's dead now. I understand the use of present tense in newspaper headlines to make news seem more current, and even shorten the headline ("Bush signs bill" is shorter than "Bush signed bill"), but we don't need this silliness on television.

But go ahead and verb things if it makes you happy.One of the beautiful things about English is that you can verb any noun...even "verb." :D

D'oh. That'll teach me to be a smartass.There's one of my pet peeves. Don't you mean, "That'll teach me not to be a smartass"? Think about it!

[RickJay]

Mine is "Sentient." You'll often hear people argue thatthe difference betwene man and the other animals is that man is "Sentient," or argue whether dolphins are "sentient" or if we will ever find "sentient" life on other planets.

"Sentient" means "having senses." All animals are sentient. A tuna fish is sentient. I think Star Trek started this nonsense of it meaning "intelligent."

[Hanna]

Perscription, as in "I need to get my perscription filled". It's PREscription!

[Bill Door]

Fewer vs. Less. The former refers to countable things; the latter to quantity.

You have fewer cookies, but less oatmeal.

My kids never got this wrong, even as elementary school students. The explanation I gave them was that it's exactly like boogers and snot. If you can count them, it's boogers, if you have to weigh it, it's snot. No more confusion.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Bill Door, eh? I presume you're a Terry Pratchett fan?

Another thing that drives me nuts is rampant misunderstanding of units of measurement. "My ship did the Kessel run in seven parsecs*" or "that happened many light-years ago" or "the lot is about two square acres." Argh!

* Yeah, I've heard the lame justifications for this one. Sorry. Lucas just got it wrong.