I think kiddokat was referring to the annoying habit of sprinkling these phrases into conversations just to fill gaps, not when girls say them to get a response from someone who obviously has no interest in what they’re saying.
This did remind me of another one, though.
“We agreed to just be friends.”
Are there still women out there that believe this shit?
Maybe those “supposedly” educated people are actually educated well enough to know that orientated is a perfectly valid word. Check it out.
I realize this has been mentioned on here, oh, about 400 billion times, but perhaps it bears another mention: Just because a word is listed in a dictionary does not mean it is a “perfectly valid word.” It simply means the word has been used extensively enough to warrant a mention.
I’m appalled at some dictionariies’ criteria for adding words. One of them was “If it has appeared 3 times in any of the major newspapers.” So dictionaries are relying on a harried editor who must proof read a book-sized publication every day?
One of my least favorite examples of this sort of permissiveness is “aggravate.” As a (bad) example, “That really aggravates me.” Aggravate used to be defined as “to make worse.” You can aggravate an already negative condition (“Scratching aggravated her rash”) but you can’t aggravate a person. Dictionaries used to make this distinction, but recent editions have folded under the pressure of common usage and now define aggravate as synonymous with “irritate.” Irritate has two meanings: To make worse, and to annoy. People misusing “aggravate” irritates me, but dictionaries mis-defining “aggravate” infuriates me.
Another thorn in my side: “Wreck havoc”. It’s “wreak” and it’s pronounced like “reek”. Past tense is “wrought havoc.”
“The car needs washed.”
instead of
“The car needs to be washed.”
I don’t get that - it sound so foreign to me.
“Alls I’ve got to do…” instead of “All I have…”
True. A lot of people say things without knowing (or even listening to) what they’re saying. :mad:
I also am annoyed by the useless addition of syllables, as in “orientate” for “orient.”
“Facilitate” for “use,” and the entire “big words are better than small words” idea. Why “facilitate the comestibles heat enhancement device” instead of just using the oven?
That “the car needs washed” thing appears to be a Pittsburgh-ism. My husband and his family are from Pittsburgh, and they all use that particular verbal “tic.” It still sounds wrong to me, after many years. Unfortunately, I’ve now caught MYSELF using it on occasion.
Half right! It is indeed wreak havoc. However, the past tense of wreak is wreaked.
Wreak derives from the Middle English wreken.
Wrought is a past tense form of work.
I thought I’d had a stunning epiphany when it struck me that “wreak” and “wrought” were related, but when I looked it up, I found 'tweren’t so.
Someone mentioned “Where’s X at?” (Or, well, if they didn’t, they should have.) I spent a weekend in southern Illinios, and for some reason, everybody seemed to be using this construction all the time. I remarked upon it to my husband, who said, “You say that all the time, too.” What? Moi? But then I noticed that I do! I have no idea why it struck me as strange, then!
Half right! It is indeed wreak havoc. However, the past tense of wreak is wreaked.
Wreak derives from the Middle English wreken.
Wrought is a past tense form of work.
I thought I’d had a stunning epiphany when it struck me that “wreak” and “wrought” were related, but when I looked it up, I found 'tweren’t so.
Someone mentioned “Where’s X at?” (Or, well, if they didn’t, they should have.) I spent a weekend in southern Illinios, and for some reason, everybody seemed to be using this construction all the time. I remarked upon it to my husband, who said, “You say that all the time, too.” What? Moi? But then I noticed that I do! I have no idea why it struck me as strange, then!
Like “burglarize” instead of “burgle”?
If being in the dictionary is not enough, what criteria would you use to define whether a word is valid? I have three dictionaries: Websters, American Heritage and Concise OED. “Orientate” is in all of them and none of them give any indication that it is invalid word, or slang or archaic, or anything to undermine its validity.
If we can’t accept the unanimity of the positions in the dictionaries, how about Fowler’s Modern English Usage: “one can have no fundamental quarrel with anyone who decides to use the longer of the two words”?
Oh, yes. Or the even more concise “steal.” Although I suppose “burgle” may have a more precise legal meaning.
However, even if a word is a valid dictionary entry, IMHO it is pompous to use a big word when a small word will do.
Here’s another: It sets my teeth on edge every time I hear someone say she had her cat “spaded.” You scooped out the poor kitty’s innards with a shovel??? :eek: What’s wrong with the correct term: “spayed?”
I hate it when golf commentators talk about a “five-par”. It’s a “par five”.
That’s not what dictionaries are for. They are not there to determine whether a word is acceptable English, as most words that have entered the vernacular appear there.
One should always use the simpler of two words that have identical meanings. The definition of “orientate” according to the dictionaries I consulted is “to orient”; therefore, “orient” should be used. The same rule applies for “utilize” versus “use”; when two words are identical in meaning, use the more concise term.
And the counter to my quotation from Fowler’s Modern English Usage?
So you should not say “identical in meaning” but “mean the same”.
I would agree that for clear writing, it is better to use shorter terms, but that doesn’t make “orientate” wrong, let alone so wrong that people saying it should be derided as “supposedly educated.” That was my original objection. Orientated may not be the preferred term, but it is not wrong. At least, that’s my position until someone can persuade me that they are more expert in this matter than Fowler (or his subsequent editors).
I think Fowler’s a chump if he claims dictionaries are anything but representative of common usage, as opposed to being the “correct” usage. Dictionaries are not grammar bibles, anyway, so usage itself never enters into their raison d’etre, anyway.
I didn’t say that Fowler claimed anything about dictionaries. I’ll repeat the quotation. In his book on English usage, he comments on orient/orientate as follows: “one can have no fundamental quarrel with anyone who decides to use the longer of the two words.” So an expert on usage states that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with orientate.
Like I said, he’s a chump if he believes dictionaries are bastions of usage purity - I didn’t say you said he said that. (Got that? Makes one of us.)
Second, I can indeed have a fundamental quarrel with that statement. The simpler of two words is almost always the right way to go. Rarely is the longer word also the simpler word (in meaning, not in substance), and therefore the correct word to use. Is Fowler claiming specifically that “orientate” is the correct usage, or are you just using his “longer is better” argument to prove a weak point?
I’ve no idea why you keep saying this. I have no idea what Fowler’s views on dictionaries were. I never brought that up. You keep raising it as a possibility it was his view, then criticizing him for it.
Well, he isn’t claiming anything now, as he’s dead. However, the quotation I gave was with specific reference to orient/orientate, not a general view that longer is better.
Of course it’s a possibility that it was his view. It’s also possible it wasn’t. I guess we can move on.
Okay, if that’s a specific reference to orient/orientate, let’s see the original quote. If that’s what he said, he’s full of crap.