“Decimated” doesn’t mean that in English. It means that in Latin, but we’re not speaking Latin. There is a less/fewer distinction to it, though. I would use decimated for “greatly reduced in number” not as a direct synonym for destruction.
English is aggressive in its acquisition of loan words, but it cares little about retaining their original definitions. “Chai” doesn’t just mean “tea.” “Salsa” doesn’t just mean “sauce.”
Time for an old joke.
Many languages use a double negative that, unlike in English, is just an intensifier and does not make the statement a positive one, but no language uses a double positive to make a negative statement.
From the back of the room he then hears, “Yeah … right.”
On a related note, instances in which I am thanked (for whatever reason) with “I appreciate it” seem to be getting less frequent, and supplanted with “I appreciate you.” Wassup with that?
My understanding is that this is where the word ain’t comes in…
…and the “respectable” words all edge over to the other end of the bench.
I have a delightful internal picture of the chaos we’d see if someone were to subscribe to Grammarly and apply it to the old Time Cube site.
I agree with wolfpup AND Exapno. The way we try (not always successfully, I’m sorry to say) to square this circle when teaching undergraduates at my workplace, is to distinguish between formal and informal writing, and to offer some feedback on both modes. Obviously, the feedback and expectations are distinct — but there is some overlap, mainly the goal of clarity (which includes appropriate length).
The explosion of informal writing since the advent of texting and such is a good thing overall, but more students than before now struggle to keep informal styles out of formal contexts.
Yes, what is needed is a written variant of code switching. People disagree about the pros and cons of code switching, and it must be learned. To prove that it’s not natural listen to any Boomer trying to speak Teen.
Heh–that’s basically what I do, too, except with fourth graders. Here’s my introductory lesson on grammar, which I follow up with lessons on subjects, predicates, parts of speech, and so on.
Thanks for that.
In Greece there was a diglossia between “katharevousa” and Demotic Greek, which was resolved (in some sense) by making Demotic the official language. However, one result is that now Demotic has become standardized, so that it can be taught in schools, etc.
It is (or at least was, when I grew up) a Pennsylvania-ism. My husband got annoyed when I phrased something like that. It was years before he heard another person use that phrasing, and I made a big deal out of pointing it out to him.
I remember this from an episode of Thirty-Something. “She just wanted walked home.” it was remarked that it was a regionalism, iirc.
“Let’s flush out those details in another meeting.”
No. The details are currently a skeleton that need flesh. That’s why we flesh them out. We don’t flush them out, because then they’d go down the drainpipe and we’d lose them forever.
Maybe the details are cowering in a closet somewhere, hoping to escape unseen.
ETA: is “flush” acceptable?
Personally, I don’t like how “capital” means both wealth and also the administrative city of a nation. I’d prefer that “capitol” refer to both the administrative building and the city, while “capital” mean purely a monetary term.
Also: we “eke out gains”, we do not “eek them out”, we are not scaring the gains into existence.
And: something that’s zany is “wacky”. “Whacky” would describe someone who likes to whack things.
Just to nitpick @HMS_Irruncible , this thread is not about mistakes in semantics and grammar. It’s about constructions that have become acceptable that you wish were not.
Along those lines, I had a very old-school friend who could not tolerate split infinitives. No amount of explaining how that was a ridiculous rule made up by some cranky guy who believed that since it is impossible to split an infinitive in Latin, English should institute a rule against such splits, mattered to him. He said, “I know it should be okay to split infinitives, but I can’t stand the way it sounds.”
I disagree with him on that particular issue, but there are constructions/usages that are becoming acceptable that I wish would still be considered wrong.
What about capital letters? Or capital punishment? Or the capital of a column?