I didn’t say they were less intelligent (that would be hard). Just that they were putting on airs.
Slight hijack, and I apologize for this, but this thread got me thinking about one of my biggest pet peeves and I just had to mention it: The use of the words “peoples” and “persons.”
People is already plural, dang it!! Quit adding an "s’ to it!
Person is singular, quit trying to make it plural!
Thank you for letting me vent. End hijack.
I know these have already been mentioned but they bug me. Penultimate and decimate.
Just yesterday someone was saying their father was decimated in the stock market recently.
I replied that he should be thankful to have lost so little.
This may be more of a “the meaning has changed” thing rather than a “people are using it wrong” thing, but I’d like to add the word sublime. Most of the time people seem to use it as a fancy way to say “really really good”. It originally meant an emotion growing out of an opposite emotion, like laughter through tears (as in Steel Magnolias), or an enmity that lasts so long it becomes a kind of friendship (as in Good Omens).
But “peoples” can be used correctly, to mean more than one group of people.
But the word “people”, which is already the plural form of word, can be used just as easily.
I don’t know, it just sounds stupid to me. Especially when newscasters use it. It just drives me nuts.
“Comprise”.
It means include, embrace, contain.
People seem to use it in place of “compose”, which means to be included in, to be part of. So “comprise” and “compose” are actually the inverse of each other, and certainly not synonyms.
In the active voice you could say: “A shopping center comprises several stores, a parking lot, public access areas, et cetera.”
In the passive voice: “These stores are comprised by the shopping mall.”
Persons is used in legalese to clarify that no one is exempt: “All persons will be searched.” This is also to indicate that is it a person’s body and clothing: “I had no weapons on my person.” And since many people pass through an airport security check, they make it plural.
It’s not a question of ease. In the social sciences and world studies, “the peoples of the world” is used to indicate that these are separate and distinct cultures. That’s why “fish” has two plural forms. You use “fish” when referring to two or more animals of the same species. But you use “fishes” when referring to more than one species.
Well, I agree that a newscaster has no reason to use these terms. (Except maybe “fishes”)
Has the usual mistake of “sentient” for “sapient” been mentioned yet?
“People” has two senses: “persons” (in which case it is constructed as a plural, and indeed as a suppletive plural of “person”) and “group of people; race, nation”, in which case it can certainly take a plural (“peace between our two peoples”).
For a more concrete example, “Aboriginal people” and “Aboriginal peoples” do not mean the same thing. One means “Aboriginal individuals,” and the other means “Aboriginal nations.” Matthew Coon Come, Max Gros-Louis, and Ghislain Picard are Aboriginal people from Quebec; the Cree, Wendat, and Innu are Aboriginal peoples from Quebec.
At any rate, here’s one: “sarcasm” and “irony” are not synonyms. Expressing a thought by saying its opposite is irony, but it need not be sarcasm; sarcasm is not necessarily ironic, but it is harsh. If you say, “I can’t read your mind, okay?” it’s sarcastic but not ironic; if you say “I have bad news: you just won a thousand dollars,” it’s ironic, but not sarcastic.
Which explains the phrase “tonight you sleep with the fishes.” Nobody wants to let somebody they’re about to rub out get the last word in with a grammatical correction.
Moot as in the phrase, “That’s a moot point”, means debatable, but has in the last couple of decades come to mean just the opposite. I have often wondered how that evolution of a word came about.
Livid
The way most people use it, they seem to believe that it means “Red in the Face” – “He was Livid!”
But it actually means “empurpled”, deriving from words implying “the color of lead”. Someone who is “livid” is so angry or agitated that his or her face has turned purple with the stress of the emotion.
(I once saw someone literally turn purple. They weren’t angry – they were having some sort of attack. It is a truly disconcerting sight. I think I’d have trouble recognizing someone I knew with a face that had turned purple. The expression “he turned livid” gained new force with me that day.)
You just blew my mind. You just BLEW IT!
That definitely goes on my list. Now to say something like, “That’s a moot point, so let’s really discuss it.” and wait for someone nitwit wearing a grammar badge to try to ‘correct’ me.
Seriously, though, I honestly do appreciate it when someone corrects me, if they are correcting me for real, and not just trying to score points in an argument. That kind of stuff takes the fun right out of a good brawl.
My guess: the “moot point” (and for that matter, the outcome) of a debate is generally an academic exercise and not of any practical significance. Similarly, there are no real parties at interest in moot court and nobody actually wins or loses anything. People are sometimes mocked in mock trials, however.
ad hominem
“Antisocial” should be used to refer to people who are actually harmful to society (vandals, etc), but it is often used to refer to harmless people who are just shy.
Imply does not mean infer.
Infer does not mean imply.
There’s at least one person I know who never uses either word properly, and defends her incorrect usage if I dare to question her use.
Momentarily, as in “we will be departing momentarily.” The word means “for a moment”, not “in a moment.” I have to restrain myself on airplanes from jumping up and screaming “We’re going to crash!!”
A long time ago I learned, perhaps incorrectly, that a verbal contract could be either oral or written. Contrast this with an implied contract. Today is seems when people speak of a verbal contract they mean an oral one only.
Am I wrong or is the common usage wrong in a technical sense?