# For fuck's sake, it's, "could HAVE!" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 8, 2005, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493 "2005-03-08T03:59:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493/61 "2005-03-09T05:04:19Z")
I think we should eliminate “near miss” from the language. From now on, we’ll have headlines like “Over four hundred people died today when two airplanes barely hit each other.” ---
**Author:** ![Large\_Marge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/50afbb/32.png) [@Large\_Marge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Large_Marge)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493/62 "2005-03-09T05:06:03Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > I think we should eliminate “near miss” from the language. From now on, we’ll have headlines like “Over four hundred people died today when two airplanes barely hit each other.” This made me laugh out loud. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493/63 "2005-03-09T06:15:59Z")
> [@biddee](#): > > My pet peeve (apart from could of, would of, arrrrgh, it pains me to type it) is people who don’t know the difference between borrow and lend. For example, someone asked me to borrow him a pen the other day. It’s lend, dumbass! That’ll learn him.😉 That’s kind’ve like people who say “itch” when they mean “scratch”, e.g. “Stop itching your arm.” ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493/64 "2005-03-09T06:20:51Z")
And it’s “TO hell with it”, not “the hell with it”. The latter makes no sense. ---
**Author:** ![Othersider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/cab0a1/32.png) [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493/65 "2005-03-09T06:30:09Z")
And “leave it be”, and “let it alone”. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493/66 "2005-03-09T07:04:10Z")
> [@](#): > > **biddee** : My other grammar hate is someone who uses a scissors or a trousers. It’s a pair of scissor/trousers! How about _the_ scissors and _the_ trousers? I know I’ve posted this often, but it’s _center on_, not _center around._. Also, use the possessive pronoun before a gerund: Wrong: I don’t mind **him** borrowing my notes. Right: I don’t mind **his** borrowing my notes. ---
**Author:** ![biddee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@biddee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/biddee)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493/67 "2005-03-09T11:10:13Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > How about _the_ scissors and _the_ trousers? The scissors and the trousers are correct because they are still being used in the plural. ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493/68 "2005-03-09T11:25:58Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > But I draw the line at “very unique”. That destroys a word we need to say “one of a kind”. Besides, I just have a real “adversion” to hearing that phrase. 🙂 Well, I’ll admit that lots of people use it stupidly. But I don’t think that means the concept has no place in the langauge. Any apple is unique. The largest apple is more unique, ie. unique in more ways, or more important ways. An apple that plays Schubert’s Death and the Maiden in the presense of any hammer is \very\ unique, because it’s unique among even imaginary apples. Admittedly it’s an extension of the word unqiue to include people’s instinctive perception of it, but I think it’s useful, and should be adopted into the langauge. ---
**Author:** ![SusanStoHelit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@SusanStoHelit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SusanStoHelit)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493/69 "2005-03-09T17:47:24Z")
> [@Nordic](#): > > One that I’m seeing more and more frequently that really makes my bile rise is the use of “everyday” to mean “every day.” > > “Everyday” is an adjective meaning “commonplace” or “regular.” You’ve got your everyday clothes and your Sunday-go-to-meetin’ clothes. > > “Every day” means, well…every day. I get up at 6:30 AM every day, not everyday. > > Several months ago there was a billboard on the side of buses around here for Dasai bottled water. It read, “Treat yourself right. Everyday.” I vowed never to buy Dasai water. Microsoft’s homepage has the slogan “Better… Everyday”, which I think is completely appropriate. Anyways (makes no sense. Think about it). Nowandays (already mentioned, but this spelling is a new way to be wrong). While I won’t necessarily judge someone who uses these “creative” words and phrases, I will automatically label them a non-reader. ---
**Author:** ![overlyverbose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/9dc877/32.png) [@overlyverbose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/overlyverbose)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493/70 "2005-03-09T18:04:17Z")
I hate the word “Oftentimes.” While it _is_ a word, many of the people I write marketing copy for try to substitute it for often. Rrrrrrgh. I hate that. Or “going to go ahead and [insert action here].” For example, “I’m going to go ahead and go to the bathroom.” Fuck! Just go to the bathroom, don’t go ahead and go! Just don’t pee on my shoes. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493/71 "2005-03-09T18:22:03Z")
> [@Shade](#): > > Well, I’ll admit that lots of people use it stupidly. But I don’t think that means the concept has no place in the langauge. > > Any apple is unique. > > The largest apple is more unique, ie. unique in more ways, or more important ways. > > An apple that plays Schubert’s Death and the Maiden in the presense of any hammer is \very\ unique, because it’s unique among even imaginary apples. > > Admittedly it’s an extension of the word unqiue to include people’s instinctive perception of it, but I think it’s useful, and should be adopted into the langauge. No, “very unique” is simply wrong. The sense you are advocating would be “doubly unique” or something like that. Besides, we all know how “very unique” is used 99% of the time-- it’s used to mean “very unusual”. As I said, once “unique” degrades to where it means “unusual”, then we lose our single word descrpitor for “one of a kind”. And that is something up with which we should not put!! ---
**Author:** ![jebert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ec9cab/32.png) [@jebert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jebert)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493/72 "2005-03-09T18:31:33Z")
Here’s hoping that everyone here will never **plan on** doing anything ever again! Let’s all take the pledge to henceforth **plan to** do everything. And while we’re at it, we might as well **try to** never again **try and** do anything. Oops, spoke too soon; I must surely be preaching to the choir here. Let’s all plan to try to spread correct usage to the unwashed non-dopers. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493/73 "2005-03-09T18:33:46Z")
Love this thread–thank you, OP! I spent last noc at a meeting that would not end, listening to my manager say repeatedly, “smoking sensation literature”–instead of smoking cessation literature… And the borrow/lend thing is enough to make me need meds. And (this is regional)–you don’t go by someone’s house–you go _to_ someone’s house. People who go “by” a house–I always picture them in the side yard, next to the house! ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493/74 "2005-03-09T21:41:52Z")
> [@Large Marge](#): > > How about, “A near miss was reported over Dallas today. Apparently two aircraft avoided a mid-air collision at the last moment …” > > A “near miss” means they HIT EACH OTHER. > > AAAAARRRRRGGGHHHH! 😕 A “near miss” is a miss which is near the target, as opposed to a miss which is nowhere near the target. In aviation, a “near miss” as reported by a newspaper or TV announcer is usually a failure to maintain minimum separation, such as passing with only 4,500’ vertical separation distance instead of the required 5,000’. “Near miss” sounds more dramatic than “almost a mile apart but closer than they were supposed to be”, though. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493/75 "2005-03-09T22:29:05Z")
> [@Bookkeeper](#): > > 😕 A “near miss” is a miss which is near the **target** , as opposed to a miss which is nowhere near the **target**. In aviation, a “near miss” as reported by a newspaper or TV announcer is usually a failure to maintain minimum separation, such as passing with only 4,500’ vertical separation distance instead of the required 5,000’. “Near miss” sounds more dramatic than “almost a mile apart but closer than they were supposed to be”, though. :rolleyes: [sub]bolding by **kd99** [/sub] I appreciate the difficulty in finding a word that describes the plane in the scenario given, yet is not “target.” Nevertheless, I find the use of the word “target” to describe a civilian aircraft. . . unsettling. I just felt the need to put that out there. ---
**Author:** ![Large\_Marge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/50afbb/32.png) [@Large\_Marge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Large_Marge)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493/76 "2005-03-10T04:34:45Z")
> [@Shade](#): > > Well, I’ll admit that lots of people use it stupidly. But I don’t think that means the concept has no place in the langauge. > > Any apple is unique. > > The largest apple is more unique, ie. unique in more ways, or more important ways. > > An apple that plays Schubert’s Death and the Maiden in the presense of any hammer is \very\ unique, because it’s unique among even imaginary apples. > > Admittedly it’s an extension of the word unqiue to include people’s instinctive perception of it, but I think it’s useful, and should be adopted into the langauge. I had a news editor who would say otherwise. He would argue that something is either unique or it isn’t. There aren’t degrees of uniqueness. _Unique:_ 1. one and only; single; sole (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition) His pet peeve was “pristine.” Something is either pristine, or it isn’t pristine. There is no in between. How can you be “kind of” pure? It’s like being a little pregnant. ---
**Author:** ![Large\_Marge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/50afbb/32.png) [@Large\_Marge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Large_Marge)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493/77 "2005-03-10T04:48:18Z")
> [@Bookkeeper](#): > > 😕 A “near miss” is a miss which is near the target, as opposed to a miss which is nowhere near the target. In aviation, a “near miss” as reported by a newspaper or TV announcer is usually a failure to maintain minimum separation, such as passing with only 4,500’ vertical separation distance instead of the required 5,000’. “Near miss” sounds more dramatic than “almost a mile apart but closer than they were supposed to be”, though. :rolleyes: I am a private pilot. Your definition of “near miss” is not the same definition used in journalism (yup, I’m a journalist, too). A “near miss,” no matter the distance or target, is not the proper grammar to describe two planes NOT hitting each other, which would be a “near crash” or “near collision,” as in: They nearly crashed. “Near miss” implies that they _intended_ to collide and failed (that one was the “target”). ---
**Author:** ![bauble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f6c823/32.png) [@bauble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bauble)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493/78 "2005-03-10T15:39:04Z")
Can I play, too ? It’s corn **ed** beef, not corn beef. Corning is the process of seasoning and preserving the beef. It really irritates me when I see it spelled correctly on the packaging, but not on anything handwritten. Similarly, it’s ice **d** tea, not ice tea. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493/79 "2005-03-10T16:57:05Z")
I posted this in a recent grammar/spelling thread, but here it is again - moving stairs are escAlators, not escUlators. The coffee is in a percOlator, not a percUlator. I don’t understand why people are making it harder than it has to be. (This is totally regional - EDmonton is the capital of Alberta, not EMMonton.) ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493/80 "2005-03-10T18:53:42Z")
I wish people would realize that sometimes it’s correct to say “me” and not “I.” For just one of many possible examples: “This gift is from my husband and I”…is wrong because you can’t say “this gift is from I.” It’s “this gift is from my husband and me.” It’s from him, and it’s from me. See? Me, me, me! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-its-could-have/293493.md?page=5)