Language Peeves

[Indistinguishable]

@DChord568

But here’s the thing. It goes beyond what Tethered Kite says (though he/she is to be commended for introducing an important point that’s being skated around here). It’s more than just a social hindrance; it can be a practical hindrance if you have any aspirations beyond a minimum-wage job for the rest of your life.

It is a practical hindrance by way of being a social hindrance, nothing more. The problem is not defects in linguistic abilities; the problem is the misfortune of being unfashionable.

[TBG]

Using the word “actor” when referring to an actress. Really bugs the hell out of me for some reason.

[Indistinguishable]

@TBG

Using the word “actor” when referring to an actress. Really bugs the hell out of me for some reason.

I wouldn’t say it bugs the hell out of me, but I also find it rather marked. That having been said, I believe the reverse peeve is common as well, incidentally.

[BigT]

@Johanna

It’s called sarcasm, caballero. The rolleyes is much overused around here, often by those who are stumped for a valid argument and consider the rolleyes an adequate substitute. (It isn’t. Seriously.)

In this thread you’ve been tossing out a number of idiosyncratic a priori assumptions that aren’t referenced to any systematic set of linguistic data. You haven’t defined what “close” means in terms of phonetics. Are we playing linguistic poker and you don’t want to show your hand? OK, so I’ll offer a scientific definition.

Compare the phonetic transcriptions of the three pronunciations. Tally up the phonological features shared in common by the various pairs of pronunciations, and subtract the total phonological differences. I presume you’re conversant with IPA, being a language maven and all.

A. ˈmɛksɪkoʊ
B. ˈmexiko
C. meːˈʃiʔkaʔ

A compared to B: 3 phonemes in common, /m k o/, plus the stress, and count one point for vowel lengths being the same in both: 5 total. A contains 5 phonemes not found in B, /ɛ k s ɪ ʊ/. B contains 2 phonemes not found in A: /e i/.
Total of 5 similarities to 6 differences for a score of -1.

A compared to C: 2 phonemes in common, /m k/. A contains 6 phonemes not found in C: /ɛ k s ɪ o ʊ/. C contains 6 sounds not found in A: /e ʃ i ʔ a ʔ/ plus a difference in vowel length and a different placement of stress, making 8 differences in all.
Total of 2 similarities to 8 differences for a score of -6.

B compared to C: 4 phonemes in common, /m e i k/. A contains two phonemes not found in C, /x o/, plus a difference in vowel length and a different placement of stress, making 4 differences there. C contains 4 sounds not found in A: /ʃ ʔ a ʔ/, plus the length and stress differences: 6 in all.
Total of 4 similarities to 10 differences for a score of -6.

You asserted that the English pronunciation (A) was closer than Modern Spanish (B) to the Nahuatl pronunciation (C). I said neither the English nor Spanish pronunciation is closer to the Nahuatl. You speak of facts. OK. Here are the facts:

English compared to Spanish: -2.
English compared to Nahuatl: -6.
Spanish compared to Nahuatl: -6.

So both the Spanish and English pronunciations are equally “far” away from the Nahuatl one. And both are much closer to each other than either is to Nahuatl. This proves you wrong and me right. If you don’t understand phonology, I suggest you don’t get snarky about it with someone who does. Thank you for playing.

Nitpick:

[oʊ] is considered by many to be a single phoneme in English, an occasional allophone of /o/. I for one cannot come up with an English word that makes a phonemic distinction between the two.

[california_jobcase]

Printed media referring to a graduate of wherever as an “alum” makes my eyes bleed and my mouth dry up-

Come on, alumnus or alumna ain’t but one or two letters more. Act edumacated!

[Tethered_Kite]

@Indistinguishable

It is a practical hindrance by way of being a social hindrance, nothing more. The problem is not defects in linguistic abilities; the problem is the misfortune of being unfashionable.

“Nothing more” than a social hindrance? That’s a pretty big “nothing more.”

[Stealth_Potato]

@Superhal

That being said, my personal pet peeve are people … correcting other people’s grammar/spelling at bulletin boards.

Okay, seriously? Three whole pages and nobody’s done this already? I didn’t want to[sup]*[/sup], but I see that I have been left no choice…
I believe you mean “my personal pet peeve is.”

• Okay, I admit it. That is a lie.

(I regret nothing!)

[BigT]

@Tethered_Kite

“Nothing more” than a social hindrance? That’s a pretty big “nothing more.”

By definition a social hindrance only happens because of other people. In this case, people prejudging other people.

[Sunspace]

My peeves for the day?

Inspired by the thread about strippers now running: the use of ‘exotic’ when you mean ‘erotic’. “Exotic dancer”? Unless you’re talking about a style of dancing almost unknown in your area, you probably mean “erotic”.

Similarly, the use of ‘graphic’ for ‘explicit’.

I see this sometimes on news sites where they place a warning before linking to a picture of some gory real-world violence. If the warning read, “Warning: explicit violence. Proceed at your own risk.” I’d be fine. But they say, “Warning. Graphic image follows. Proceed at your own risk.”

People. It’s a photo gallery. They’re all graphic images. You’re just confusing things.

I’m a graphic artist. Does that mean my art is fill of gore and voilence? No.

Use the right word next time.

I blame the euphemism treadmill.

[Indistinguishable]

Well, I don’t think the idea of “exotic dancer” is by corruption of the similar-sounding phrase “erotic dancer”, but rather because it evolved out of a lineage in which sensual dancing was at least nominally dressed up with the association of coming from foreign cultures. So, yeah, the euphemism treadmill, but not (if this is what you were implying, though quite possibly you weren’t) a matter of switching letters in confusion. I can well understand being peeved by the conflation it plays into, though.

[Tethered_Kite]

@BigT

By definition a social hindrance only happens because of other people. In this case, people prejudging other people.

Social hindrance is not necessarily a matter of pre-judging.

We seem to be coming at this from two different assumptions. Don’t see how it can be discussed here without a thread derailment, though.