# More language peeves **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 11, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814 "2005-04-11T17:24:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814/101 "2005-04-13T04:33:22Z")
No, not me, C.S. Lewis. In a 1956 letter to Joan, an American girl with whom he corresponded for nearly ten years, he addressed her query about first person singular contractions. > [@](#): > > About _amn’t I_, _aren’t I_, and _am I not_, of course there are no right and wrong answers about language in the sense in which there are right and wrong answers in Arithmetic. “Good English” is whatever educated people talk; so that what is good in one place or time would not be so in another. _Amn’t I_ was good 50 years ago in the North of Ireland where I was brought up, but bad in Southern England. _Aren’t I_ would have been hideously bad in Ireland but very good in England. And of course I don’t know which (if either) is good in modern Florida. Don’t take any notice of teachers and text-books in such matters. Nor of logic. It is good to say “More than one passenger was hurt”, although _more than one_ equals at least two and therefore logically the verb ought to be plural _were_ not singular _was_\*. What really matters [some Dopers take note!] is: > > 1. Always try to use the language so as to make quite clear what you mean and make sure your sentence couldn’t mean anything else… - This may be expressed as preferring notional agreement (concord) to logical agreement (concord). Those interested in Lewis’s thoughts on language mght be interested in his _Studies in Words_. He is exceptionally good at pointing out, for example, the tendency among academics (and I dare say politicans in the age of “spin”) to ‘interpolate senses later than those intended’ when analysing non-contemporary texts. ---
**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:** [April 13, 2005, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814/102 "2005-04-13T06:48:01Z")
> [@Silver Fire](#): > > This has been explained a number of times on this board by people better and smarter than me so, really, it’s a shame you missed it. Anyway, the “near” in “near miss” illustrates the proximity of one object to another. When an object experiences a near miss, it just means that whatever other object missed them happened to do so by a very small margin. The objects were **near** each other but avoided collision. I understand the intended meaning with the common usage. I just disagree with it. When you shoot at a target, and you only catch the outside area of the target, you would say, “I nearly missed it.” THAT was a near miss, because the target was, indeed, hit. ---
**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:** [April 13, 2005, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814/103 "2005-04-13T06:50:34Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#): > > No need to venture so far. Quite a few inhabit [the Straight Dope](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=308335). > > \*\*Exgineer \*\* (forgive me if you’re a Repug after all) spells out what I take to be [the liberal position](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5978815&postcount=14) pithily. Liberals who own guns in the United States are few and far between compared to the number of conservatives who own guns. I think you’ve confused the two. ---
**Author:** ![Imasquare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Imasquare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Imasquare)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814/104 "2005-04-13T08:53:59Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > \*A professor at my university insisted this was pronounced _neesh_ and not _nitch_. I just try not to use the word. Neesh is how I’ve always heard it pronounced (in UK & Australia). ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814/105 "2005-04-13T09:37:29Z")
> [@Large Marge](#): > > Liberals who own guns in the United States are few and far between compared to the number of conservatives who own guns. > > I think you’ve confused the two. You got a cite for that claim? My point is not that cons own more guns than libs (or more cons own guns than libs), BUT that loads of libs own guns and defend the right of people to own and carry guns (in particular, handguns, which are almost be definition mainly for self-defence rather than for sport or recreation). There’s a [whole thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=304681&page=1&pp=50) on this subject right now, and individuals who don’t self identify as cons, for example,[Mr2001](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5361157&postcount=77), elsewhere support the right of Americans to own and bear guns. From a European perspective, as [Casdave](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5355876&postcount=23) points out, “the Dope is pretty right wing [economically]; on guns, on taxation, on employment issues, on state intervention, the Dope is right wing, at least most of us Yurpeans think so.” ---
**Author:** ![TellMeI\_mNotCrazy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tellmei_mnotcrazy/32/3419_2.png) [@TellMeI\_mNotCrazy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TellMeI_mNotCrazy)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814/106 "2005-04-13T11:19:18Z")
Aside from politics, is there any topic on this board so hotly contended as grammar? ---
**Author:** ![TellMeI\_mNotCrazy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tellmei_mnotcrazy/32/3419_2.png) [@TellMeI\_mNotCrazy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TellMeI_mNotCrazy)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814/107 "2005-04-13T11:22:23Z")
Contended, of course, being a pre-caffeine synonym for contested. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814/108 "2005-04-13T11:36:15Z")
I want to apologize for introducing spelling a ways up above (a ways? :rolleyes:) in what is patently (rhymes with latently) a _language_ thread. Spelling is to language as the buttons on his dress blues are to a Marine. Indispensable (-ible?), but not essential. To make amends, I will include some of **Mama Doug** ’s home-canned malapropisms, which you are guaranteed to love, especially spread over hot rolls or biscuits: “Stop poo-hooing me.” “He was a prevert.” “You’re going to need orthodonchy.” “Let’s make them some breakfasses.” ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814/109 "2005-04-13T13:33:47Z")
> [@jimpatro](#): > > Hey, **FatBaldGuy**. It’s actually “ever so often” which means “a lot.” Most folks confuse it with “every now and then” or “every once in a while” which mean “rarely.” I must have led an extremely sheltered life; I’m 46 and have NEVER heard the expression “ever so often”. How is this possible? ---
**Author:** ![MizQuirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/94ad74/32.png) [@MizQuirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MizQuirk)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814/110 "2005-04-13T17:14:05Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > I must have led an extremely sheltered life; I’m 46 and have NEVER heard the expression “ever so often”. I’m even older than you and have never heard it either, but if I did, I’d think it meant “quite often,” rather than the familiar “every so often,” which seems to mean occasionally but regularly, IMO. ---
**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:** [April 14, 2005, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814/111 "2005-04-14T05:12:06Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#): > > No need to venture so far. Quite a few inhabit [the Straight Dope](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=308335). Um, yeah, I posted in that thread. I am a Democrat and a gun owner. I don’t know that I’m really a “liberal” anymore, though I do have some liberal viewpoints. I also have some conservative viewpoints, and I don’t fit in either category very well. However, I think I’m the exception, not the rule, and I do know that you cannot consider SDMB to represent the U.S. majority in any way. We are, well, exceptional. 😉 > [@roger thornhill](#): > > \*\*Exgineer \*\* (forgive me if you’re a Repug after all) spells out what I take to be [the liberal position](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5978815&postcount=14) pithily. I disagree with his opinion (pithy or otherwise) that his opinion is mainstream. > [@roger thornhill](#): > > You got a cite for that claim? It’s common knowledge. But here’s [one of about a gazillion](http://www.liberalspeak.com/) links that can be found on the web. And here’s [another](http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm) that I think tells the story. A clip: LOBBYING - The National Rifle Association is the largest gun rights lobbying organization in the United States. From 1997 through 1998, their political action committee gave $1,330,111 to Republicans and $285,700 to Democrats. (10) - Handgun Control, Inc. is the largest gun control lobbying organization in the United States. From 1997 through 1998, their political action committee gave $136,892 to Democrats and $9,500 to Republicans. (11) The problem with this statistic, though, is that not all Republicans are conservative and not all Democrats are liberal, but most do fit nicely into their parties. Anywho, my point is that yes, liberals own guns, but NOT to the extent that conservatives do. And liberals also have very different opinions about gun ownership, registration and the type of guns that are acceptable to own. > [@roger thornhill](#): > > There’s a [whole thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=304681&page=1&pp=50) on this subject right now, and individuals who don’t self identify as cons, for example,[Mr2001](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5361157&postcount=77), elsewhere support the right of Americans to own and bear guns. That thread is not about gun owners who don’t identify as conservatives. > [@roger thornhill](#): > > \My point is not that cons own more guns than libs (or more cons own guns than libs) …\ Back to the matter at hand … 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Dusty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a183cd/32.png) [@Dusty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dusty)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814/112 "2005-04-14T05:36:54Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > But isn’t **forte** one of those words, like **niche** \*, that if you pronounce it right people look at you funny and don’t understand you? > > \*A professor at my university insisted this was pronounced _neesh_ and not _nitch_. I just try not to use the word. Well, I wouldn’t put “niche” on the same level as “forte”. If I said “neesh” (and I tend to, if I’m referring to a purpose-built one), I can’t picture anyone not understanding me. Most people seem to know that pronunciation of the word “niche” and quite a few people use it. Perhaps it’s regional? Where was your professor from? ---
**Author:** ![MizQuirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/94ad74/32.png) [@MizQuirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MizQuirk)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814/113 "2005-04-14T12:08:49Z")
Waiting on when what is meant is waiting for “I’m waiting on Joe.” If you’re not a waitress/clerk/waitperson, you’re probably waiting FOR Joe. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814/114 "2005-04-14T12:55:33Z")
> [@MizQuirk](#): > > Waiting on > > when what is meant is > > waiting for > > “I’m waiting on Joe.” If you’re not a waitress/clerk/waitperson, you’re probably waiting FOR Joe. Huh? From [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=waiting) (emphasis added) > [@](#): > > Phrasal Verbs: > wait on or upon > To serve the needs of; be in attendance on. > To make a formal call on; visit. > To follow as a result; depend on. > **To await: They’re waiting on my decision.** Prepositional use is highly idiomatic in English. What possible theory of prepositional use would invalidate the fourth meaning here? I guess the thread is about pet peeves, but some of these are downright bizarre. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![seosamh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@seosamh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/seosamh)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814/115 "2005-04-14T13:40:26Z")
People who say “that’s **down** to you” when they actually mean "that’s **up** to you. The first implies responsibility, whereas the second merely allocates choice. And while I’m at it, what does “upwards of” mean? Is it just “more than”? If so, just say that and stop confusing a poor simpleton like me. ---
**Author:** ![MizQuirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/94ad74/32.png) [@MizQuirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MizQuirk)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814/116 "2005-04-14T13:55:16Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Huh? From [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=waiting) (emphasis added) > > Prepositional use is highly idiomatic in English. What possible theory of prepositional use would invalidate the fourth meaning here? > > I guess the thread is about pet peeves, but some of these are downright bizarre. > > Daniel Dictionaries often present substandard entries. I don’t know about theories of prepositional use, only what sounds right to me. When it doesn’t sound right, it peeves me to hear it. For me to think it bizarre would give it too much importance; it’s just a peeve. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814/117 "2005-04-14T14:51:49Z")
> [@MizQuirk](#): > > When it doesn’t sound right, it peeves me to hear it. For me to think it bizarre would give it too much importance; it’s just a peeve. Interesting–when something sounds unusual to me, it piques my curiosity, and I try to find out the origins of the phrase. I _like_ new things. They’re rockin. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814/118 "2005-04-14T21:19:37Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > The ultimate origin of it is rather unanswerable, since (as I mentioned in my above post) both words ended up subsumed under the one contraction. I’d be curious to see what the OED says, since they provide citations, but the oldest ones I’m aware of were used as a contraction of “am not”. I’ll reserve judgment for the present, but Merriam-Webster have not supported their claim, and it’s pretty firmly a contradiction to the (fully cited) explorations I’ve read on the topic. In the OED (compact edition), the first cite of _ain’t_ is from 1778: “Those you are engaged to ain’t half as near related to you as we are.” The word is a later form of _an’t_. OED’s earliest cite of this is from 1706: “But if your eyes a’n’t quick of motion, they’ll play the rogue, that gave the caution.” (Maybe the _i_ in _ain’t_ was a misreading of the single quote between the _a_ and the _n_.) The OED does say _ain’t_ and _an’t_ are also “colloquially” used for _am not_, _is not_, and other forms. If the OED has updated these entries, I’d like to know about them. > [@roger thornhill](#): > > The Master Speaks > > No, not me, C.S. Lewis…Those interested in Lewis’s thoughts on language mght be interested in his _Studies in Words_. He is exceptionally good at pointing out, for example, the tendency among academics (and I dare say politicans in the age of “spin”) to ‘interpolate senses later than those intended’ when analysing non-contemporary texts. While I like that last sentence, apparently Tolkien was not impressed with Lewis’s philological efforts. ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814/119 "2005-04-15T02:52:16Z")
> [@rowrrbazzle](#): > > While I like that last sentence, apparently Tolkien was not impressed with Lewis’s philological efforts. That may be, or it may be that he mentioned to someone once something along those lines, and then it was carved on stone by the Lewis-freaks or the Tolkein-nutters! Heck, I say some things I may not mean (or I say some things which, if given the opportunity, or taking it, to explain at length, would make it plain that I don’t believe what I appar to believe through the abbreviated version).\* Then, there are all the people who want to misrepresent others for whatever reason, etc. etc. What I do know is that they were friends - good friends, whose friendship endured. They read their books to one another in smoky pubs in Oxford (how beautiful is that?) and they criticised and praised generously as they felt fit. Lewis thus heard The Hobbit at a pre-publication stage, and regarding LOTR in his essay on it he describes it as “lightning appearing in a cloudless sky”. Pretty cool, eh? One gracious dude. It’s believed that Tolkein was a bit miffed that while he was salving away on his monumental task of creating “Tolkein-land” (with invented languages and all), Lewis dashed off not one, but seven, kiddies’s book in the space of 2-3 years (with rather cursory “back-stories”), which became more or less instant bestsellers and never stopped selling till Tolkein’s death (indeed, to this day). Perhaps, as the older man, Tolkein had to be better at something than his great friend. After all, he was just a human being like the rest of us! - Just saw The Princess Bride today (starting a celebratory thread in CS soon) and there’s a nice bit where one of the characters is asked to recount something and he says: “Okay, I’ll explain it. No, I haven’t got time for that - I’ll summarise it.”) ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814/120 "2005-04-15T03:55:04Z")
**rowrrbazzle** , for the moment I’ll take your word on it. I’m quite certain that “an’t” is attested before that, but I don’t have any resources at hand to prove it. 1706 seems awfully late to me. I’ve always believed that “an’t” was a cognate of the dialectual “amn’t” (which I think still occurs in some places, but don’t quote me on that.) If not, then that means “am not” never really had a contraction in standard English. Problem is, I don’t have any books on English linguistics to argue this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-language-peeves/298814.md?page=7)