You might in a thread about ugly jewellery.
Hard to think of any now that this particular word has been on my mind for the past day.
I don’t like seeing “drug” instead of “dragged”, “hung” instead of “hanged”, or “pled” instead of “pleaded” but they’re not quite in the same ballpark as “alternate”.
The thread is about misused words. Like using “stigmatism” for “stigmatization”.
So talking about word usage you irrationally dislike doesn’t fit with the theme of the thread.
Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
But we’re not talking about aesthetics, we’re talking about utility.
In this thread, I have to mention the misuse of “literally.” I have broken teeth because I physically grind them when I hear that word. Notice: “physically,” not “literally.”
“Literally” indicates that a metaphor actually happened. “It was literally raining cats and dogs” means actual cats and dogs were dropping from overhead.
“That alarm system literally saved my life.” NO, “SAVED MY LIFE” IS NOT A METAPHOR. Now, if you almost drop your bacon but catch it before it hits the floor, you can say “I literally saved my bacon,” because “saved my bacon” can be a metaphor for “saved my life.”
Inevitably, somebody’s going to respond to this post with “Yeah, that literally drives me insane.” If you do, you’re saying to the world that you’re mentally ill. No argument there.
I know that “Parks and Recreation” is literally your favorite show. Literally. – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgnxlpSQgqg
wut
A point I made earlier is that I think the more interesting question in all of this is the social phenomenon of why so many people feel such strong emotions about their language gripes, real or imagined. How is it appropriate to feel angry about such a thing?
It’s time to pull up Mark Libermann’s essay:
I wrote some comments in an earlier thread (links below) about what I think is going on with this use of the word literally. It seems to me that it’s a natural development that’s simply doubling down on the “lie” of a metaphor.
My own reaction to this kind of usage tends to be “that’s really interesting, I wonder what’s going on?”. It astonishes me that so many people just seem to get angry about it.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19366994&postcount=112
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19370814&postcount=151
Or a brief tl;dr summary here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19370831&postcount=152
I’m not sure if XKCD has ever done a comic on grammar and language (It wouldn’t surprise me if they have), but barring that here’s an obligatory Weird Al video.
Thanks. That pretty much describes 95% of threads about language on the this message board.
We could even christen another “law” here (a la Gaudere, etc.)–Libermann’s Law: ***“Any thread regarding English usage will inexorably give rise to at least one post decrying errors in apostrophe usage, no matter how irrelevant to the OP.”***I think complaining about apostrophe usage is the lowest common denominator in what Libermann describes, because it’s such a simple rule of mechanics that anyone can learn it easily, and thereby bestow upon themselves an honorary badge permitting endless hours of recreational self-righteousness pointing out errors.
Actually, no. “Alternate juror” is what’s called a “collocation”: certain words always go together, certain expressions are always used in that specific way even though similar words exist. And in this case it’s a term d’art: it’s an expression which has a specific professional context and a specific professional meaning. That your understanding does not match the understanding of legal professionals is, from the point of view of the legal system, your problem, not theirs.
Speaking as someone who has studied law and is licensed in law and works in a legal profession, “alternate juror” is not a term of art so far as I know. No legal procedure or process of reasoning is going to be derailed if someone says “alternative juror.”
Just because a term is commonly used by lawyers or in conjunction with people working adjacent to legal proceedings doesn’t make it a term of art.
For example, “domicile” is a term of art. It makes a difference in certain legal proceedings whether something is simply an address or whether it is your domicile. “Heir” is a term of art in the law because it has a specific meaning that is different from how it is commonly used. (In the common law, only a dead person has heirs. A living person doesn’t have heirs.)
A term of art is a term that has some significance. If you change it, you are confusing people about what you mean. Alternate versus alternative juror is not one of those terms. No one will be confused.
And in any case, even if it were a term of art in a legal context, that doesn’t mean that the rest of us in the world would be obligated to use it unaltered, even if we were talking about the law.
Those are some great posts, but I think you’ve misread Knowed Out’s point:
Which, I think, gives people on both sides of the “figurative literal” debate common ground to go, “What the hell?”
You are mistaken.
An alternative juror could just be somebody else who might make a good juror if we didn’t have to deal with these twelve schmucks. An alternate juror is somebody appointed to a specific well-defined role through formal legal procedures.
Now, maybe it’s possible in principle for the world to come to a consensus to change the language in accord with your preferred proscription, and we could all agree to use the term “alternative juror” for this formal role instead; along with your desired restriction on the general use of the adjective “alternate” to refer to things that change back and forth. But I think you should be clear that it’s a change that you’re advocating. Perhaps such a change would be a good idea, but don’t kid yourself that maybe the current English language conforms to your ideas. Objectively, it does not.
Mary is the project manager assigned to a particular project.
Barry is another project manager who is her designated back-up (and vice versa).
One day, Mary can’t attend an important meeting with a client. Her boss assures the client that her alternate will be substituting for her.
“Alternative” just doesn’t fit very well here, sorry. “Alternate” implies someone who is on stand-by for situations exactly like this one and is thus prepared to take charge at a moment’s notice. “Alternative project manager” makes me think the boss in this scenario is just going to pick the first staff member he sees, regardless of their level of preparation. Anyone can be an “alternative something”. But not everyone is someone’s alternate.
Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
I have to give you kudos for having beef with “literally” that isn’t the same tired beef that gets rehashed over and over again everywhere.
Only in your own head, because it’s what you’re used to. For those of us who do use “alternative”, it’s perfectly fine.
And it’s perfectly fine that the two of you feel that it’s perfectly fine. But that doesn’t make it part of the English language.
This sounds like an alternative fact.