Things in English that annoy you.

[Agent Foxtrot]

I'm sure we've done this before, but why not do it again? We all have our little pet peeves about English. Mine:

There's no singular gender-neutral third-person pronoun. Even when you don't know the gender, you have to choose one or the other ("Every person will have [his][her] day in court."). I'm a strong advocate for using "their" as a gender-neutral possessive pronoun, even when referring to a single person.
"Bi-weekly" can mean either "every two weeks" or "twice a week." I suggest "di-weekly" for "twice a week."
I find nothing wrong with using "Man" as a synonym for the human race and think anyone shunning that word is being way too politically correct. Furthermore, I have no issue with B.C./A.D. as an era label, since Christ's birth was what our calendar was based on to begin with (even if it is four or so years off).
For some reason, it bothers me that the number 40 is spelled "forty" and not "fourty."
Bring back the words "fortnight," "thrice," "betwixt," and maybe even "thou" as a formal pronoun. There was nothing wrong with those words!

So, what are yours?

[Giles]

There's no gender-neutral third-person pronoun. Even when you don't know the gender, you have to choose one or the other ("Every person will have (his)(her) day in court."). I'm a strong advocate for using "it" as a gender-neutral pronoun when referring to a person.
Every person will have their day in court.
"Bi-weekly" can mean either "every two weeks" or "twice a week". I suggest "di-weekly" for "twice a week."
What about "fortnightly" and "twice a week"?
For some reason, it bothers me that the number 40 is spelled "forty" and not "fourty."
Especially when it is "fourteen".
Bring back the words "fortnight," "thrice," "betwixt," and maybe even "thou" as a formal pronoun. There was nothing wrong with those words!
As far as I'm concerned, "fortnight" and "thrice" never went away.

[Zsofia]

There's no "proper" second person plural, and the invented ones are "improper" (y'all, yinz for you Pittsburghers, etc.) Y'all fills a real need in English and I don't see what's wrong with it.

I also hate the number kludge above - "everyone will have their day in court" is absolutely incorrect and my high school English teacher would kick your ass for it. "everyone will have his day in court" is probably factually incorrect. I have no personal problem with "his" and "man" and such used in the general sense at all (seriously, chairperson? chairwoman? why?) but some people obviously do. It's silly.

[Maggie the Ocelot]

I'm sure we've done this before, but why not do it again? We all have our little pet peeves about English. Mine:

There's no singular gender-neutral third-person pronoun. Even when you don't know the gender, you have to choose one or the other ("Every person will have [his][her] day in court."). I'm a strong advocate for using "their" as a gender-neutral possessive pronoun, even when referring to a single person.
"Bi-weekly" can mean either "every two weeks" or "twice a week." I suggest "di-weekly" for "twice a week."
I find nothing wrong with using "Man" as a synonym for the human race and think anyone shunning that word is being way too politically correct. Furthermore, I have no issue with B.C./A.D. as an era label, since Christ's birth was what our calendar was based on to begin with (even if it is four or so years off).
For some reason, it bothers me that the number 40 is spelled "forty" and not "fourty."
Bring back the words "fortnight," "thrice," "betwixt," and maybe even "thou" as a formal pronoun. There was nothing wrong with those words!

So, what are yours?

Nitpick: "thou" is actually the informal pronoun, similar to the German 'du' or the Spanish 'tu'. We're all being very formal and polite with each other when we say 'you'!

[Really Not All That Bright]

I have no issue with B.C./A.D. as an era label, since Christ's birth was what our calendar was based on to begin with (even if it is four or so years off).

<snip>

Bring back the words "fortnight," "thrice," "betwixt," and maybe even "thou" as a formal pronoun. There was nothing wrong with those words!
I agree with you on the BC/BCE-AD/CE thing. Unless you're also going to find a culturally neutral starting point for our calendar, changing the names or the eras is meaningless.

Fortnight and thrice are in common usage in the UK (the former more than the latter).

FTR, thou was actually the informal second-person singular pronoun when in use. You was the formal one. Thou is still used in bits of Northern England, too - search for the show Last of the Summer Wine on YouTube.

ETA: Beaten to the punch on thou. *shakes fist at ONM*

[Kolga]

I tell my students that in order to avoid the his/her/their issues, I refer to the singular gender-neutral third-person as "it." They'll just have to deal with hearing humans referred to as objects.

And y'all is a perfectly useful second-person plural vernacular, and I'll give it up when you pry it from my cold, dead lips.

My peeve: If warmth is a word, then coolth should be, and so it shall be, and I'm using it.

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

There aren't any good options for "Aren't I?" That just ain't right. It's "proper," I guess, just not "right."

[The Lurker Above]

I'm sure we've done this before, but why not do it again? We all have our little pet peeves about English. Mine:

There's no singular gender-neutral third-person pronoun. Even when you don't know the gender, you have to choose one or the other ("Every person will have [his][her] day in court."). I'm a strong advocate for using "their" as a gender-neutral possessive pronoun, even when referring to a single person.



So far as I'm concerned 'they' is the correct gender-neutral third person singular; with a centuries old history of usage. Anyone objecting to 'they' used in this way can safely be ignored (so long as they are not marking my work or signing my paycheque)



2. "Bi-weekly" can mean either "every two weeks" or "twice a week." I suggest "di-weekly" for "twice a week."



I'd use 'semi-weekly' if I wanted to express 'twice a week' and 'bi-weekly' strictly for 'every two weeks'. I'm not sure how universal this usage is.

[Johnny Angel]

I also hate the number kludge above - "everyone will have their day in court" is absolutely incorrect and my high school English teacher would kick your ass for it.
Your high school English teacher should shut their hole. The singular "they" has been used for centuries by the very lions of English literature.

[MLS]

I'd use 'semi-weekly' if I wanted to express 'twice a week' and 'bi-weekly' strictly for 'every two weeks'. I'm not sure how universal this usage is.
It may not be universal, but that's the correct meaning.

[Lynn Bodoni]

I'm right behind y'all on the gender neutral words.

My peeves are people who misuse y'all (it's a contraction of you all, and it's second person plural) and foreign language plurals, like fora for forums and syllabi and all that stuff. Plurals should be formed with either sticking an "s" at the end of a word, or an "es", and that's that. English is quite irregular enough.

[Spiff]

Bi-monthly can mean twice a month or every other month. Grrrrr.

[silenus]

There are no sex-specific words for cousin. There are no family-specific words for any relatives, just "My Uncle Bob on my Mom's side" and the like.

[Annie-Xmas]

I'm sure we've done this before, but why not do it again? We all have our little pet peeves about English. Mine:
[LIST=1]
There's no singular gender-neutral third-person pronoun. Even when you don't know the gender, you have to choose one or the other ("Every person will have [his][her] day in court."). I'm a strong advocate for using "their" as a gender-neutral possessive pronoun, even when referring to a single person.


It annoys me that people who think this apparently never heard of the words "a" and "the." "Everyone should have a day in court" is gramatically court.

[Giles]

It annoys me that people who think this apparently never heard of the words "a" and "the." "Everyone should have a day in court" is gramatically court.
"Every parent should sit next to their child" is not the same as "Every parent should sit next to a child."

[Bytegeist]

5. Bring back the words "fortnight," "thrice," "betwixt," ...

Also add "lest" to that list. I find myself wanting to use it ever since I learned about it (from Shakespeare, I think).

Also, bring back the proper, unique meaning of "unique", which seems to be morphing into a synonym for "rare". The word describes a useful concept, but there is no replacement ready to deploy once it's completely corrupted.

[Rumor_Watkins]

There are no sex-specific words for cousin. There are no family-specific words for any relatives, just "My Uncle Bob on my Mom's side" and the like.

Um, wouldn't "paternal uncle" and "maternal uncle" be the specific forms of these words?

[Roland Orzabal]

It annoys me that people who think this apparently never heard of the words "a" and "the." "Everyone should have a day in court" is gramatically court.I've heard that argument before, but I think it misses the point. I don't believe anyone is honestly arguing that there's no way to write a given sentence such that the need to use a pronoun at all is avoided, just that having one would avoid unnecessarily clunky (or otherwise sub-optimal) sentence structures.

Consider the sentence "He or she has a dog," with the goal of rewriting it to get rid of the "he or she" part. I wrote that sentence specifically to avoid the tricks people often use to circumvent the problem that the no-gender-neutral-third-person-pronoun argument poses...devoid of context, you can't rewrite it using a more specific noun ("He or she must possess strong HTML skills" —> "The applicant must possess strong HTML skills"), and absent the possessive form, "a" and "the" are no help. If you're determined to get rid of "he or she", the only option left is to change it to something ridiculous like "A person of indiscriminate gender has a dog." This is the source of these complaints.

But that's not my complaint. :D

Mine is the lack of an easy way to make a negative declarative statement that definitively includes the possibility of the positive case. In other words, the difference between "I cannot eat apples", and "I can not eat apples" (but I can also eat them). To say the latter unambiguously, there are many ways you could phrase it, but all of them are overly cumbersome for the sentiment you're trying to express: "I am capable of not eating apples," "I can decide not to eat apples if I choose," and so on. (Nitpickers may note that the simple sentence "I can eat apples" is logically equivalent in this case, but that doesn't apply if you imagine a situation with more than two possible truth values.)

I'd lamented this long before the problem arose in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=550519), but it's a particularly good example of why we need this.

[sachertorte]

My peeve: If warmth is a word, then coolth should be, and so it shall be, and I'm using it.

Interesting. Here language matches science. Science-wise, cold is the absence of heat. So it makes sense that "coolth" doesn't exist as a word.

How would you use "coolth" in a sentence?

[silenus]

Um, wouldn't "paternal uncle" and "maternal uncle" be the specific forms of these words?

Those are two words each.

[Rumor_Watkins]

Those are two words each.

is that really a problem? like brother-in-law bothers you too? step-brother? half-brother?

terms don't need to be reduced to one word

[Nzinga, Seated]

I hate that black folks* can't get the way we use the word 'be' sometimes, to cross over into mainstream language use.

It has a rhythm to it that I think really works well in making the conversation flow. Also, it often cuts down on a syllable or two:

Let's take, "You be in a red car?" Someone asked me that today. She knows I don't drive, but I often am in a red car.

Instead of saying, "Are you often in a red car?", she saves herself a syllable. Sure, it's just a syllable or two, but again, the omission of the word 'often' helps with the rhythm, in my opinion.

I know I will never convince anyone that usinng 'be' in that way is good English, for lots of reasons. One reason is that folks will never figure out how to use it right.

'You be in a red car' does not mean you are in a red car as we speak. Not at all. As a matter of fact, if you are in a red car now, but never at any other times, it would be completely crazy for me to say, "you be in a red car". Despite what what tv shows and movies that try to duplicate black English portray.

*black folks means black people that I know. Not all black people.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Let's take, "You be in a red car?" Someone asked me that today. She knows I don't drive, but I often am in a red car.

Instead of saying, "Are you often in a red car?", she saves herself a syllable. Sure, it's just a syllable or two, but again, the omission of the word 'often' helps with the rhythm, in my opinion.
She could save herself an extra syllable by saying, "You in a red car?"

[BigT]

Mine is the lack of an easy way to make a negative declarative statement that definitively includes the possibility of the positive case. In other words, the difference between "I cannot eat apples", and "I can not eat apples" (but I can also eat them). To say the latter unambiguously, there are many ways you could phrase it, but all of them are overly cumbersome for the sentiment you're trying to express: "I am capable of not eating apples," "I can decide not to eat apples if I choose," and so on. (Nitpickers may note that the simple sentence "I can eat apples" is logically equivalent in this case, but that doesn't apply if you imagine a situation with more than two possible truth values.)

I'd lamented this long before the problem arose in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=550519), but it's a particularly good example of why we need this.

It can be done in speech quite easily, just by using emphasis. "I can not eat apples, you know." And, I don't think it's particularly kludgy to say "I do have the ability to not eat apples," which accomplishes the same thing in text.

I've heard that argument before, but I think it misses the point. I don't believe anyone is honestly arguing that there's no way to write a given sentence such that the need to use a pronoun at all is avoided, just that having one would avoid unnecessarily clunky (or otherwise sub-optimal) sentence structures.

Consider the sentence "He or she has a dog," with the goal of rewriting it to get rid of the "he or she" part. I wrote that sentence specifically to avoid the tricks people often use to circumvent the problem that the no-gender-neutral-third-person-pronoun argument poses...devoid of context, you can't rewrite it using a more specific noun ("He or she must possess strong HTML skills" —> "The applicant must possess strong HTML skills"), and absent the possessive form, "a" and "the" are no help. If you're determined to get rid of "he or she", the only option left is to change it to something ridiculous like "A person of indiscriminate gender has a dog." This is the source of these complaints.


All sentences can be rewritten to get rid of the ambiguity. You're right in that we can't do much with your statement without context, but when the statement is actually being used, there will always be context.

In this case, I'd go with the context in which I can most imagine this statement being uttered. The owner has been mentioned previously (even if only by pointing), but the gender is still unknown. So you can say "That person has a dog." I'm sure there is a place where "Someone has a dog" would work, but I can't think of it offhand.

Anyways, the most annoying thing I have about English lately is spelling. Sure, words aren't pronounced the same everywhere, but there are ways it definitely isn't pronounced. Of course, the reason it bugs me is not that I can't do it, but that everyone has to constantly ask me how to spell things so that they don't look foolish. And, for some reason, when I'm on the spot, spelling things out loud, I have a lot of trouble.

The next is nitpicking grammar wankers like myself. :D

[Indistinguishable]

I know I will never convince anyone that usinng 'be' in that way is good English, for lots of reasons. One reason is that folks will never figure out how to use it right.

'You be in a red car' does not mean you are in a red car as we speak. Not at all. As a matter of fact, if you are in a red car now, but never at any other times, it would be completely crazy for me to say, "you be in a red car". Despite what what tv shows and movies that try to duplicate black English portray.
In case you aren't aware already, the/a technical term for that is "habitual aspect" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#Grammatical_aspect_marking). It is a bit odd how few people who don't speak AAVE ever catch on to the fact that are those grammatical rules governing its use, instead just implicitly assuming something like "Those lazy blacks often spontaneously just can't be bothered to inflect the word 'be' ".

[Agent Foxtrot]

I'm right behind y'all on the gender neutral words.

My peeves are people who misuse y'all (it's a contraction of you all, and it's second person plural) and foreign language plurals, like fora for forums and syllabi and all that stuff. Plurals should be formed with either sticking an "s" at the end of a word, or an "es", and that's that. English is quite irregular enough.I think the mediums would have a field day reporting on the criterions of your datums, confusing all the mans, womans, and childs -- all English-speaking persons -- who are used to voting with their foots. :)

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

There are no sex-specific words for cousin. There are no family-specific words for any relatives, just "My Uncle Bob on my Mom's side" and the like.Also no shortcuts for aunts/uncles who are, um, *'legally' related, and those who are simply married to a 'legally' related aunt/uncle.

*Not a good word, but I couldn't find a word that would encompass a) blood aunts/uncles, b) aunts/uncles by adoption, c) aunts/uncles that are step-siblings of a parent.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Bring back the words "fortnight," "thrice," "betwixt," and maybe even "thou" as a formal pronoun. There was nothing wrong with those words!

Don't they still say "fortnight" in the UK? I believe it was fairly common usage not too long ago. On the other hand, "sennight" would be a great word to revive.

[Really Not All That Bright]

She could save herself an extra syllable by saying, "You in a red car?"
Never mind. Forgot to read whole post.
Don't they still say "fortnight" in the UK? I believe it was fairly common usage not too long ago. On the other hand, "sennight" would be a great word to revive.
Psst... see Posts 2 and 5. ;)

[Indistinguishable]

It is a bit odd how few people who don't speak AAVE ever catch on to the fact that are those grammatical rules governing its use, instead just implicitly assuming something like "Those lazy blacks often spontaneously just can't be bothered to inflect the word 'be' ".
Er, I guess I'm occasionally spontaneously too lazy be bothered to write "the fact that there are those grammatical rules".

[Drunky Smurf]

Interesting. Here language matches science. Science-wise, cold is the absence of heat. So it makes sense that "coolth" doesn't exist as a word.

How would you use "coolth" in a sentence?

The coolth of the metal of the axe gave me goose pimples as it was slicing through my head. :p

[Giles]

Don't they still say "fortnight" in the UK? I believe it was fairly common usage not too long ago. On the other hand, "sennight" would be a great word to revive.
"Fortnight" is still used in Australia, and I suspect that it is in the UK too. However, I don't see the point of using "sennight" when we already have its synonym "week".

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Also add "lest" to that list. I find myself wanting to use it ever since I learned about it (from Shakespeare, I think).Who says "lest" is dead? Herbert Kornfeld of The Onion used to use it all the time, although mistaking it to mean the same thing as "unless".

With its true meaning, it may be obsolescent but I don't think it's quite dead yet. Lest Darkness Fall is a time-travel science fiction classic of the 1930s; granted that's a long time ago, but it's not like we're talking about Elizabethan times. Lest calls for a present subjunctive verb in AmE, so it works better in that variety of English.

With regard to the lack of gender-neutral pronouns that can refer to people, I have noticed some writers using "she" and "her" exclusively, or alternating them with the masculine pronouns. It's as good a solution as any, but knowing German it reminds me of the fact that German uses "sie" for "she", "they", and in some contexts "her" and "them"; it also uses variations of "ihr" to mean "her" in other contexts, as well as "them" and "their". So the use of "she"/"her" in this way looks vaguely German-ish to me.

[Nzinga, Seated]

In case you aren't aware already, the/a technical term for that is "habitual aspect" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#Grammatical_aspect_marking). It is a bit odd how few people who don't speak AAVE ever catch on to the fact that are those grammatical rules governing its use, instead just implicitly assuming something like "Those lazy blacks often spontaneously just can't be bothered to inflect the word 'be' ".

Thanks for that link! I never knew the name for it, or how to explain it, and I always fail at trying to explain it.

[Anne Neville]

Some languages have two words for "we"- one meaning "you and me and possibly others", the other meaning "me and someone else, but not you". I kind of wish English had something like that.

maybe even "thou" as a formal pronoun.

"Thou" was the informal pronoun (like the French "tu") and "you" was the formal one.

There's no "proper" second person plural, and the invented ones are "improper" (y'all, yinz for you Pittsburghers, etc.) Y'all fills a real need in English and I don't see what's wrong with it.

I suspect that dialect prejudice against the Southern dialect is why it doesn't get more widely adopted.

[Kolga]

Interesting. Here language matches science. Science-wise, cold is the absence of heat. So it makes sense that "coolth" doesn't exist as a word.

How would you use "coolth" in a sentence?

Pretty much in the same way I'd use warmth.
"I'm enjoying the warmth of this fire."
"I'm enjoying the coolth of this beverage."
"We'll sit on the back porch and enjoy the coolth of the evening."

[Bytegeist]

Who says "lest" is dead? [...] With its true meaning, it may be obsolescent but I don't think it's quite dead yet.

True, the word is not completely unknown. Still, try slipping it into your daily conversations and see what kind of looks you get.

[Cunctator]

Bring back the words "fortnight,"It's in regular use here.

[Anne Neville]

Pretty much in the same way I'd use warmth.
"I'm enjoying the warmth of this fire."
"I'm enjoying the coolth of this beverage."
"We'll sit on the back porch and enjoy the coolth of the evening."

We have "coolness" for that.

[Giles]

Pretty much in the same way I'd use warmth.
"I'm enjoying the warmth of this fire."
"I'm enjoying the coolth of this beverage."
"We'll sit on the back porch and enjoy the coolth of the evening."
The thing is, while "coolth" looks like a pretty cool word, it doesn't fill a gap: we already have "coolness", which works with all the meanings of "cool". So I doubt if "coolth" will ever stop looking like a linguistic joke -- not that there's anything wrong with such jokes.

ETA: And I was beaten by Anne Neville.

[Really Not All That Bright]

What's wrong with chill?

[Kolga]

I didn't realize the thread was supposed to only be about missing words, rather than personal pet language peeves.

[delphica]

I don't like that English doesn't have a good verb for (can I say this in IMHO?) fucking, one that you could say in polite company. I'm not 100% sure of the terminology, but I think what I want is an intransitive verb, one that just covers the activity itself.

"Sleep with" is too much of a euphemism.

"Have intercourse" also has the older meaning of chatting somebody up.

[nikonikosuru]

I hate how words can have the same spelled endings but be pronounced totally different from one another (rough/through/thorough) or inflections ("Please polish the Polish furniture", "He couldn't produce the fresh produce.") They're just a pain and make me feel sorry for people who are trying to learn the language.

[crazyjoe]

Well, that might be because in typical American culture, one doesn't explicitly mention sexual acts in polite conversation.

"Have sex" is about as neutral as I can come up with, and still people would look at you sideways if you were bringing it up in dinner conversation.


--eta, I was responding to delphica, when niko slipped in there.

[Beware of Doug]

Mr. and Mrs. aren't words; they're half-assed pronuncibreviations.

[wolfman]

My peeve: If warmth is a word, then coolth should be, and so it shall be, and I'm using it.

Along the same lines :Heighth.
Length, Width, Heighth
Screw Webster, I like it and I use it.

[Bam Boo Gut]

A couple means two. If I order a couple of buns, don't look at me waiting for me to say how many.

[Napier]

A couple means two. If I order a couple of buns, don't look at me waiting for me to say how many.

I think many use "couple" as a vague number smaller than "a few". Especially people getting DUI tickets.


My peeve is that we put adjectives before nouns. Even though I am used to it, it seems inefficient. It also means that many automatic sorting engines will put "red car" next to "red house" and nowhere near "yellow car" .

[BlakeTyner]

I don't like that English doesn't have a good verb for (can I say this in IMHO?) fucking, one that you could say in polite company. I'm not 100% sure of the terminology, but I think what I want is an intransitive verb, one that just covers the activity itself.

"Sleep with" is too much of a euphemism.

"Have intercourse" also has the older meaning of chatting somebody up.

This isn't widespread in usage, and may be a feature of the south Texas AAVE dialect, but I've heard "sexin'" used this way.

It made it into a song--"Still a Bitch" from Lil Troy's "Sittin' Fat Down South" album, circa '98-'99 or so. That's the album that spawned "Wanna be a Balla'

[Sunspace]

I have one thing to say about English:

Fix the %^ĝ£¢©þ spelling!

Yes, I know it reflects the historical evolution of the language. Yes, I know that 'knight' was originally pronounced like our German counsins' 'Knecht' and reflects our common ancestry in the Proto-Germanic. Yes, I appreciate that our loss of verbal declensions and our drift twords a pure-positional grammar makes English an increasingly-easy language to speak badly and still be understood... and that this is an advantage.

But current English spelling is an enourmous drag on every learner. It's unfit for a world language. I know the number of dialects makes it impractical to have a true phonetic spelling, where every vowel sound is unanbiguously represented, but couldn't we go halfway and get rid of junk like the 'k' and 'gh' in 'knight'?

[Napier]

Fix the %^ĝ£¢©þ spelling!

Change your name to Sunspas!

[Bacon Salt]

What's wrong with chill?Well, warmth always has a positive connotation, as coolth would by association. Not so with chill. However, I do agree that coolness serves the intended purpose.


I don't like that English doesn't have a good verb for (can I say this in IMHO?) fucking, one that you could say in polite company. I'm not 100% sure of the terminology, but I think what I want is an intransitive verb, one that just covers the activity itself.Boink? Do? Shag? How polite are we talking here?

As for what about English annoys me? That the people over there are pronouncing it all wrong.

[delphica]

Boink? Do? Shag? How polite are we talking here?


I was going for anything "not slang." There are tons of good ones that are slang, but I just feel like there should be a more clinical term that isn't an auxiliary verb.

I don't even know why this bothers me -- it's not like I find myself talking about the Horizontal Mambo all that often -- but it does.

[Indistinguishable]

Copulate?

[matt_mcl]

"Thou" was the informal pronoun (like the French "tu") and "you" was the formal one.

"I thou thee, thou traitor!"

Also no shortcuts for aunts/uncles who are, um, *'legally' related, and those who are simply married to a 'legally' related aunt/uncle.

Relatives' terms are crazy, cross-linguistically. Many languages use kin terms that are completely different from those used in English and other European languages, which follow a pattern known as Eskimo kinship structure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinship_terminology). For example, cousins on one side will be considered relatives and the other side not, or male cousins on the father's side and not on the mother's side, or the same word will be used for brother and male cousin or for mother and aunt, etc., etc. Some languages have separate words for just about every conceivable relationship. (Before my brother got married, his future wife's brother's wife's mother told my mother, "When Theo and Jen get married, there'll be a word in Yiddish for the relationship between you and me!")

Some of the more sedate differences from English: in French, step-relatives and relatives-in-law are both beau- or belle-, so that a beau-frère can be either your brother-in-law or your stepbrother; in Swedish (or is it Norwegian?) there are different words for paternal and maternal grandparents (farfar, farmor, morfar, mormor); and in Chinese there are different words for older and younger siblings.

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

I suspect that dialect prejudice against the Southern dialect is why it doesn't get more widely adopted.Maybe so, but I have heard Africo-Americans from all parts of the country use "y'all", so apparently it's not such a big deal in that culture.

[Civil Guy]

What I love about English is that there's all these subtle signals to throw out, or listen for, that can say gobs about the speaker, the effect the speaker's trying for, and the just plain skill with communications the speaker possesses.

One can listen for these signals and decide how one's response might be modified to put the original speaker more at ease, or truly bamboozle the original speaker - whatever the intended effect is. (Hah. I found a place to use the word "bamboozle".)

But back to the original request: God would seem to be an entity beyond gender, most religions claiming that God created gender and sex in the first place. In English, we can only call God "her," "him," or "it." I don't like any of those choices.

[Rodgers01]

I have one thing to say about English:

Fix the %^ĝ£¢©þ spelling!

Yes, I know it reflects the historical evolution of the language. Yes, I know that 'knight' was originally pronounced like our German counsins' 'Knecht' and reflects our common ancestry in the Proto-Germanic. Yes, I appreciate that our loss of verbal declensions and our drift twords a pure-positional grammar makes English an increasingly-easy language to speak badly and still be understood... and that this is an advantage.

But current English spelling is an enourmous drag on every learner. It's unfit for a world language. I know the number of dialects makes it impractical to have a true phonetic spelling, where every vowel sound is unanbiguously represented, but couldn't we go halfway and get rid of junk like the 'k' and 'gh' in 'knight'?

Agreed. The spelling system really is atrocious, and I can't imagine how difficult it must be for non-native speakers.

[Max the Immortal]

I think many use "couple" as a vague number smaller than "a few". Especially people getting DUI tickets.

I've always taken "a few" to mean "three or more". "A couple" is always two.

I don't think we can restandardize spelling unless we restandardize pronunciation. Imagine reading a thread with posters from Boston, New Delhi, Melbourne, three parts of London, and New Orleans, all spelling phoenetically. I don't wanna have to wade through that.

[Ponch8]

One thing I just thought of the other day for the first time: there's really no counterpart for the word "whose" when you're talking about things instead of people. Examples: "will the person whose car window got smashed report to the office?" "I hate the restaurant ____ owner got arrested yesterday." In the second example, there's really no single word that's entirely appropriate.

[Nava]

Change your name to Sunspas!

Sanspéis.


The euphemisms (including PC-ness). I'm surprised there isn't an euphemism for "euphemism," considering how many euphemisms there are in English and that they seem to reproduce when you turn your back on them. They're a cross between tribbles and invader pods, English euphemisms... I'm not talking about something like "gosh darn," which are words invented specifically as euphemisms, but of something like "sleep with" being used in its euphemistic sense so often that you pretty much can't use it literally any more. Other languages do that, too, but it doesn't seem to be anywhere near as fast-moving as in English.

[GuanoLad]

Yes, I know that 'knight' was originally pronounced like our German counsins' 'Knecht' and reflects our common ancestry in the Proto-Germanic.I think you'll find it was pronounced "ker----nigit" in Mediaeval French.

[Anne Neville]

Maybe so, but I have heard Africo-Americans from all parts of the country use "y'all", so apparently it's not such a big deal in that culture.

There's dialect prejudice against AAVE, too, if anything more so than the prejudice against the Southern dialect. Remember Ebonics?

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

"Fortnight" is still used in Australia, and I suspect that it is in the UK too. However, I don't see the point of using "sennight" when we already have its synonym "week".But "sennight" would emphasize the nights, the way we speak of a stay of so many nights at a hotel.

[Kyla]

There are no sex-specific words for cousin. There are no family-specific words for any relatives, just "My Uncle Bob on my Mom's side" and the like.

Bulgarian has different words for maternal and paternal aunt and uncle and they're actually falling out of use, with people switching to just one word to mean both. I think people have decided having two words is just extraneous.

What I don't like about English is that the possessive singular and plural sound the same when spoken. The other day I told someone that "I went to my friends' wedding." Now, you can tell that both of the wedding participants were my friends, but spoken aloud, it's impossible to tell what I meant. Were I speaking Bulgarian (I just use that example cause it's the language I know best besides English) I would be able to clarify whether one or both of the participants was my friend, and if just one of them was my friend, I would be able to specify whether it was the man or the woman. In English, clarifying that is very clumsy.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Then again, you'd also be speaking Bulgarian, and nobody would understand you. ;)

[Giles]

What I don't like about English is that the possessive singular and plural sound the same when spoken. The other day I told someone that "I went to my friends' wedding." Now, you can tell that both of the wedding participants were my friends, but spoken aloud, it's impossible to tell what I meant. Were I speaking Bulgarian (I just use that example cause it's the language I know best besides English) I would be able to clarify whether one or both of the participants was my friend, and if just one of them was my friend, I would be able to specify whether it was the man or the woman. In English, clarifying that is very clumsy.
Some languages don't distinguish singular and plural, and you have to use other devices if the distinction is important. And for some words in English that happens too:
"Can you see the sheep?"
"I can see one sheep."
"No, there are at least three sheep over there."
In the case of your friends'/friend's wedding, you could say "the wedding of my friends" to make it clear.

[Kyla]

Then again, you'd also be speaking Bulgarian, and nobody would understand you. ;)

Um, Bulgarian is a vital world language. Everyone speaks it, right?

*crickets*










A Bulgarian in my village once told me when I got back to the US, I should be a Bulgarian teacher. To my credit, I did not laugh in her face. I explained as tactfully as possible that there wasn't a lot of demand for Bulgarian language classes. She was baffled.

[Sunspace]

Some languages don't distinguish singular and plural, and you have to use other devices if the distinction is important. And for some words in English that happens too:
"Can you see the sheep?"
"I can see one sheep."
"No, there are at least three sheep over there."This is another direction where Bad English is ahead of the rest of us: dropping the plural indicator. "How many car you got?" "I got three car."

[ToughLife]

some of my pet hates are:

- Long time no see

- FANTASTIC !!

- Oh My God !

- Funky , have fun, sounds like fun

- Can I help you ? (in shopping malls)
After a dozen of questions/greetings like this I sometimes reply
" Do I look like I need help ? "
I know it's rude, but sometimes just can't help
(pun intended )

- "She is beautiful "
one can never hear " she is ugly ", instead people say " she's got a nice personality"

- There are also a zillion of clichés
which irritate me because of their blatant overuse in
the Hollywood's movies

like:

- C'mon guys ! Let's go !.....everything’s gonna be OK !! (by most action heroes )

- you've got the right to remain silent, everything you say
can be and will be ...blah, blah ,blah ( so called " Miranda warning " )

predictable dialogs , like

-- Have you reached your verdict?
-- Yes , Your Honour
-- How do you find the defendant ?
-- (after looooong pause ) Guilty ,Your Honour

Cop stops a car:

-- License and registration ,please
-- What seems to be the problem ,officer ?
-- Step out of the car real slow! Put your hands where I can see them !

[Patty O'Furniture]

Standard Pronunciation.

I know this is one egg that we can't unscramble, but there is no need to make it worse when new words are brought into the language.

Some time in the 19th century, somebody decided to use Zoe as an English name. Except they pronounced it like "Zoey".

Joe, Moe, Foe, Hoe, Poe, Roe, Toe and Zoe should all have the same pronunciation!

Sigh.

Never mind. I've decided that even though I spell my name as Patty, I want you all to pronounce it like "Parker".

[Sunspace]

Isn't Zoe normally spelt 'Zoë' with two dots over the E? Like Noël?

[Indistinguishable]

Maybe it's not the pronunciation of the name that's the problem, but the spelling?

Though, on edit, the point raised by Sunspace indicates there isn't necessarily any incongruity to begin with, at least in some and perhaps the original instances.

[Clothahump]

As far as I'm concerned, "fortnight" and "thrice" never went away.

As a speed measurement, nothing beats furlongs per fortnight.

[Patty O'Furniture]

Isn't Zoe normally spelt 'Zoë' with two dots over the E? Like Noël?

I've never seen that, but we're talking about English right? We don't use diacritical marks in English.

Unless I'm being naive.

[Quasimodem]

One of my favorite topics: Language.

Once, (I used to have) I had a book entitled The Dictionary of Archaic Words.

Okay, but who decides if and when a word or phrase becomes obsolete?

Rhetorical question, I know.:)

I have a propensity for using the word heretofore in some of my sentences. and although I use it correctly, some folks think me snobbish when I do use it.

So what annoys me is that I have to sometimes very quickly edit what I'm about to say in order to not give the impression that I'm arrogant.

Quasi

[Telperion]

I've never seen that, but we're talking about English right? We don't use diacritical marks in English.

The Brontë family did, and apparently for much the same reason.

[Sunspace]

We don't use diacritical marks in English.You don't, maybe. But I couldn't distinguish resumé from resume without them!

[Really Not All That Bright]

I've never seen that, but we're talking about English right? We don't use diacritical marks in English.

Unless I'm being naive.
You're being naïve, actually.

[Zoe]

Don't worry. I'll get over my snit.

I was going for anything "not slang." There are tons of good ones that are slang, but I just feel like there should be a more clinical term that isn't an auxiliary verb.

This may sound a little Edwardian, but I rather like the use of the verb "to bed" someone.

Nzinga, Seated, you posted about liking the use of "be." A young woman that I know had to testify in court. She was asked where she was on a certain night and she responded, "I bes at the opera." It always makes me smile to think about it. It just seemed perfect.

[Nzinga, Seated]

She was asked where she was on a certain night and she responded, "I bes at the opera."

Ha. I love that.

[njtt]

What's wrong with chill?

It is way too cold.

I have long been convinced that "cool" itself can be used as a noun:
"We enjoyed the cool of the evening."
"I felt the cool of the steel against my flesh."

Maybe that is just me, though. :cool:

[foolsguinea]

I'm sure we've done this before, but why not do it again? We all have our little pet peeves about English. Mine:

There's no singular gender-neutral third-person pronoun. Even when you don't know the gender, you have to choose one or the other ("Every person will have [his][her] day in court."). I'm a strong advocate for using "their" as a gender-neutral possessive pronoun, even when referring to a single person.
"Bi-weekly" can mean either "every two weeks" or "twice a week." I suggest "di-weekly" for "twice a week."
I find nothing wrong with using "Man" as a synonym for the human race and think anyone shunning that word is being way too politically correct. Furthermore, I have no issue with B.C./A.D. as an era label, since Christ's birth was what our calendar was based on to begin with (even if it is four or so years off).
For some reason, it bothers me that the number 40 is spelled "forty" and not "fourty."
Bring back the words "fortnight," "thrice," "betwixt," and maybe even "thou" as a formal pronoun. There was nothing wrong with those words!
:sigh: The masculine gender is used for a person of unstated or undefined sex. If you disagree with this style rule, there is a perfectly good singular gender-neutral third-person pronoun: it. Or one could say, "twice a week." I agree. The male of the species are properly "gooms" or might be if the Normans hadn't cocked it all up. "Woman" is a subset of "man" in the same sense that "breadfruit" is a subset of "fruit." But some people think it's more like the relationship between "breadfruit" & "bread."
I also am fine with B.C./A.D., but I hope at some point we just change to a whole new calendar to switch things up. I just go ahead & spell it "fourty." Well, yeah, except "thou" is supposed to be informal. Also, I quite like hither, thither, whither, hence, thence, whence, & wherefore. (There is a herefore, apparently long subsumed into therefore.)Mine:
We need a good way to separate 2nd person singular from 2nd person plural. I've been using y'all a lot, but the genitives are what, y'all's?

[foolsguinea]

And we're never going to be able to really fix the spelling until we add about seven vowels to the alphabet. The five vowels of Latin (or eight if you add œ, æ, & y) simply are insufficient to English. We need the thorn (þ) back & these days the edh (ð) as well.

[StrangeBird]

Also, bring back the proper, unique meaning of "unique", which seems to be morphing into a synonym for "rare". The word describes a useful concept, but there is no replacement ready to deploy once it's completely corrupted.

So you're saying unique is, in fact, unique?;)

This isn't exactly a common one, but it think it's important that 'disinterested' not be used to simply mean 'uninterested'.

[Jamaika a jamaikaiaké]

So far as I'm concerned 'they' is the correct gender-neutral third person singular; with a centuries old history of usage. Anyone objecting to 'they' used in this way can safely be ignored (so long as they are not marking my work or signing my paycheque)



I'd use 'semi-weekly' if I wanted to express 'twice a week' and 'bi-weekly' strictly for 'every two weeks'. I'm not sure how universal this usage is.

I came here just two post what you did.

[Kobal2]

Present tense after "when", even if the action is in the future. That doesn't make any fucken sense, dammit ! It should be "when I will be old", not "when I'm old" !

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Also, bring back the proper, unique meaning of "unique", which seems to be morphing into a synonym for "rare". The word describes a useful concept, but there is no replacement ready to deploy once it's completely corrupted.
Yes. It bugs me when people say something is "very unique." Unpossible ;). Something is either unique or it is not. There are no shades of uniqueness.

[Greg Charles]

Plurals. We speak English. Why do we have to use Latin and Greek plurals ... especially when we often get them wrong? (E.g., cacti, octopi, virii) And have you ever tried to teach a non-native speaker the difference between people and persons?

[Indistinguishable]

We don't have to use Latin and Greek plurals. Go ahead and say "cactuses", "octopuses", "viruses", etc. Be free!

[put down the sabre]

Yes. It bugs me when people say something is "very unique." Unpossible ;). Something is either unique or it is not. There are no shades of uniqueness.

I have never been convinced by this claim.

Suppose (for the sake of argument) that eg cars have seven different things about them that can be different: colour, shape, size, cost, speed, coolness, density

Now, isn't a car that has a colour, size and shape that no other cars have more unique than a car that just has a colour that no other cars have?

pdts

[Sunspace]

And we're never going to be able to really fix the spelling until we add about seven vowels to the alphabet. The five vowels of Latin (or eight if you add œ, æ, & y) simply are insufficient to English. We need the thorn (þ) back & these days the edh (ð) as well.And how are we going to add vowels? Either we need to invent more letters, or it's back to diacritical land.

[Jragon]

Present tense after "when", even if the action is in the future. That doesn't make any fucken sense, dammit ! It should be "when I will be old", not "when I'm old" !

"When I will be old" is... now (assuming you're not old). "When I am old" is saying "when I am [in the state of being] old, I will do [action] with regards to the present tense when that state is true." The future tense construction sounds to me like "When I am in a state such that I will eventually become old, but am currently not."

[Lamia]

Some of the more sedate differences from English: in French, step-relatives and relatives-in-law are both beau- or belle-, so that a beau-frère can be either your brother-in-law or your stepbrother;I believe this used to be the case with the term "in-law" in English -- it described people who were related to you legally rather than by blood, and covered both what we'd currently describe as "in-law" relations in English as well as "step-" relations. I can't think of a specific example, but I'm sure I've seen step- relations described as "in-laws" in Jane Austen novels. Further confusing things for the modern reader is the fact that in Austen's time they often dropped the "in-law" when referring to in-laws in the modern sense: Emma Woodhouse refers to Mr. Knightley (her sister's husband's brother) as her brother rather than her brother-in-law.

...

I just checked the OED and it does give give "stepfather" and "stepmother" as the second definition for "father-in-law" and "mother-in-law", although it says the former is now considered incorrect (last cite for this usage is 1876) and the latter only survives as a regionalism.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Now, isn't a car that has a colour, size and shape that no other cars have more unique than a car that just has a colour that no other cars have?

pdts

The lack of uniqueness in all the other aspects besides color isn't a lesser degree of uniqueness. An aspect of uniqueness is like being in a room, you are either there or you are not; if not, you are not less in the room, you just aren't in the room, period.

I realize I'm bordering on prescriptiveness, however. In some software/computer science contexts, with regard to a set of data elements we might well say that they are more or less like a control element, based on how many bits match those in the control. So...your argument seems tenable to me.

[Johnny Angel]

And we're never going to be able to really fix the spelling until we add about seven vowels to the alphabet. The five vowels of Latin (or eight if you add œ, æ, & y) simply are insufficient to English. We need the thorn (þ) back & these days the edh (ð) as well.
And perhaps one more, since apparently "proin" as an abbreviation of "proinde" is supposed to be monosyllabic (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=proinde&la=la#lexicon), then there is clearly at least one more diphthong nobody is putting on their lists. From English, I can guess how you'd pronounce 'oi' as a single syllable, but foreigners, especially dead ones, do things differently.

[Zsofia]

We need a good way to separate 2nd person singular from 2nd person plural. I've been using y'all a lot, but the genitives are what, y'all's?

Of course. If you want to distinguish a larger group, you can use "all y'all", as well.

"Yall's pigs got out!" is a perfectly good genitive.

[Giles]

And how are we going to add vowels? Either we need to invent more letters, or it's back to diacritical land.
You can take letters from the International Phonetic Alphabet, e.g., Ə and ŋ, or you can use two letters to represent diphthongs, e.g., "mai" for "my", "boi" for "boy".

[Indistinguishable]

It's ridiculous to use <ai> to spell the vowel in "my" in English when we already have the perfectly good spelling <i>; sure, it may be phonetically accurate to construct it as a diphthong, but this is entirely irrelevant, and indeed largely opaque, to English speakers on a conscious level. In terms of English phonology, it acts like an atomic phoneme.

[Indeed, even many of the archetypally monophthongal vowels of English are actually realized as diphthongs by plenty of speakers, but we really needn't overhaul the spelling system to make this sort of trivia manifest]

[Giles]

It's ridiculous to use <ai> to spell the vowel in "my" in English when we already have the perfectly good spelling <i>; sure, it may be phonetically accurate to construct it as a diphthong, but this is entirely irrelevant, and indeed largely opaque, to English speakers. In terms of English phonology, it acts like an atomic phoneme.
But if you use "i" for the vowel in "bite", what do you use for the vowel in "bit"? Or do you keep that silent letter "e" in "bite" to mark the difference?

[Indistinguishable]

The silent e, "long" vs. "short" convention works just fine. It's not the sort of thing you would do from a "phonetic alphabet" point of view, but it's predictable and consistent, and what's more, it's been the standard for ages. So, if I were in charge of English spelling reform, keeping in mind the advantages of maintaining backwards compatibility where not an undue burden, I would keep it.

[Indistinguishable]

(Of course, If I were to make the system anew, I'd probably just give each of them their own character.)

[foolsguinea]

Can we at least admit that ðat the ðe voiced & unvoiced "th" are two phonemes now? There aren't yet words where there's ðere's a real confusion (unless you use the ðe same vowel in "then ðen" or "than ðan" that ðat you use in "thin þin") but they're ðey're not interchangeable anymore. So why not fix that ðat at the ðe same time we finally give them ðem their ðeir own characters?

[Sunspace]

Can we at least admit that ðat the ðe voiced & unvoiced "th" are two phonemes now? There aren't yet words where there's ðere's a real confusion (unless you use the ðe same vowel in "then ðen" or "than ðan" that ðat you use in "thin þin") but they're ðey're not interchangeable anymore. So why not fix that ðat at the ðe same time we finally give them ðem their ðeir own characters?I'm wiþ you! And while we're at it, let's sort out 'c' once and for all. If it sounds like 's', spell it 's'. And if it sounds like 'k', spell it 'k'. Ðen we kan spell þings like 'akkomodate' and 'onse' less ambiguously. And 'suksinkt' bekomes a joy for ðe learner! And onse ðe letter 'c' has been unused for some time, we can resykle it. Resykling is good, right?

[Indistinguishable]

You missed one ("There" at the start of the second sentence)

[5-HT]

A Bulgarian in my village once told me when I got back to the US, I should be a Bulgarian teacher. To my credit, I did not laugh in her face. I explained as tactfully as possible that there wasn't a lot of demand for Bulgarian language classes. She was baffled.

I had the opposite experience in Slovakia. This girl I was talking to said that when she lived in Sweden she spoke only English so as to be understood. She then said everyone in Slovakia needs to learn English because Slovak is a useless language.

Granted, Slovaks tend to be kind of self-deprecating in general.

[foolsguinea]

You missed one ("There" at the start of the second sentence):siʒ:

[Indistinguishable]

Is that how "sigh" used to be pronounced, like the first syllable of "seizure"? I thought <gh> used to stand for a velar fricative (first /x/ and eventually /ɣ/), but I don't really know anything. Alternatively, I may be misinterpreting you entirely.

[Lamia]

I had the opposite experience in Slovakia. This girl I was talking to said that when she lived in Sweden she spoke only English so as to be understood. She then said everyone in Slovakia needs to learn English because Slovak is a useless language.

Granted, Slovaks tend to be kind of self-deprecating in general.I studied German in school, and a couple of times I have met native Germans who asked me why I bothered or suggested that it was useless for an English-speaker to learn German, since everyone in Germany has to take English anyway.

When I was in Germany I did encounter people who didn't speak English, so my German language skills did pay off. But more frequently I'd ask someone a question in German and they'd answer me in English. This was often helpful, but didn't make me feel great about the quality of my German!

[foolsguinea]

Is that how "sigh" used to be pronounced, like the first syllable of "seizure"? I thought <gh> used to stand for a velar fricative (first /x/ and eventually /ɣ/), but I don't really know anything. Alternatively, I may be misinterpreting you entirely.No. It's how "gh" used to be written. The Middle English yogh looks enough like an IPA ʒ that I used one of those. I didn't realize there was a specialized yogh character (ȝ) available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogh

It was pronounced...who knows? I lean toward a sort of |j| demivowel, like the y in "yes" in reverse. Just sort of raise the body of the tongue closer toward the palate, tightening the vowel. Maybe let it get close enough to buzz or hiss a little.

[Indistinguishable]

No. It's how "gh" used to be written. The Middle English yogh looks enough like an IPA ʒ that I used one of those. I didn't realize there was a specialized yogh character (ȝ) available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogh
:smack: Of course. I have, in the past, known that, though apparently only fleetingly...