I’m sure that’s true, but I did once see an airshow performer in something like an old Stearman biplane shut off his engine a few thousand feet above the runway, perform some aerobatics completely unpowered while descending towards the runway, and then glide to a perfect deadstick landing. It was very impressive. Of course, it’s all about trading potential energy (altitude) for kinetic energy (airspeed) (and vise versa in the case of the aerobatic performance).
50% of the time people say ‘actually Frankenstein was the guy who made the monster, not the monster itself’, they’re correcting someone who not only knew that, but used it in a valid and relevant way such as ‘I’m gonna Frankenstein these parts together’
And the other 50% of the time, calling the monster Frankenstein is correct anyway. By custom, a child takes the family name of his parent.
I’m with you.
But apparently there is a related issue with respect to “over” and “more than.” Did more than ten thousand people attend the rally, or did over ten thousand people attend?
Evidently there are some sticklers out there who distinguish between the two. I am not one of them.
Which reminds me … “between” vs. “among.” I am firmly in favor of reserving “between” for the space between two objects/concepts, and “among” for three or more. But it’s becoming increasingly common to hear sentences such as, “She chose between three dresses.”
And that reminds me of “such as” vs. “like.”
I’ll stop now.
The monster’s name was Victor Frankenstein. The creature he made appears to have been named Adam Frankenstein.
I can’t even conceive of what the difference could be.
And as long as we’re talking about idioms, a modern one that bugs me.
Leaving someone “on read” means not opening a message they sent, so the sender never gets the “read” check mark by their sent message. For all infants and porpoises the term should be “unread”. I don’t know if “on read” is an autocorrect, or if people have heard it spoken, and think the actual phrase is “on read”.
I’m sure someplace is an explainer, but I prefer to bristle in ignorance every time I read “I’m so angry at my boyfriend, I left him on read all weekend” or whatever.
Likewise “each other” vs. “one another.”
To me, “among” sounds positively awful to my ears there. I know that’s the distinction, but in my dialect and speaking with my peers, that sounds odd. I know it would stick out like a sore thumb if I heard someone say “She chose among three dresses.” The last time I heard “among” there was probably my eighth grade English teacher back in 1988.
That’s not complicated; it has simply elided the phrase “(I’m) hopefully (saying)…”. A suppressed premise. Enthymeme.
Countable versus noncountable. Same as less vs. fewer.
You’re misunderstanding the idiom, there. “Leaving someone on read” means you have read the message, but have not replied. Some people consider this rude, because it indicates you know they’re trying to talk to you, and you’re choosing to ignore them.
See, bristling in ignorance (now fought). Yeah, then I can see a distinction between “on read” and “unread”.
But how would the sender know I’d seen their message?
I sure as hell never permit my app to send read receipts. The mere fact one of my devices has downloaded a message from a server sure doesn’t imply my eyes have seen it.
Computer magic.
Not with my email system they won’t. Which is bog standard Outlook.
I’m pretty sure default with Google Messages (RCS) and Apple iMessage is to send a read receipt. It can be turned off in Google Messages, but requires caring enough to do so (I have). It can probably be turned off in iMessage, but I don’t use that, so can’t look.
Clicking through my messages, it looks like everyone (that I bothered to check on) that uses RCS or RCS over iMessage is providing me with a read receipt.
My read receipts are turned off, so on other people’s phones messages to me stay at “Delivered”.
The kids don’t chat with their partners on email.
Non-native English speakers often have problems with idioms that don’t make literal sense (yes, I’m using literal in the literal sense, referring to words, not in the modern metaphorical way to mean “in actuality” - sorry). “The proof is in the pudding,”* “head over heels,”** and many, many other examples exist, and this process happens faster than people generally imagine (my mother is old enough to remember when “Nimrod” wasn’t an insult).
Native English speakers pick up the meanings of the idioms the same way they pick up the meaning of every other word and phrase they learn before formal teaching (which means the vast majority of their core language skills) - from context, even if they later realize that the idioms don’t make sense if you dissect them into individual words. So many words in English mean something very different than what they meant when they were originally created (out of other English words or out of Latin, Greek or other languages) that it would be very difficult to speak a sentence today composed of words that haven’t changed their meaning (“very” - a corruption of “verily” - meaning “in actuality”). “Girl” meant "child, “boy” meant “servant” - etc., etc. - and “item” is Latin for “also”). I freely admit annoyance at some modern (and some ancient (sorry “antient” (I should use the old spelling))) usages, but that’s just language doing its thing, because it’s been conveyed from generation to generation by humans.
*A shortened form of “The proof of the pudding is in the eating” (which makes perfect sense - and hasn’t been used in ages)
**“Head over heels” was originally “heels over head” (as the Perfect Master taught us) - but people reversed it over time (just like “Could/Couldn’t care less”).
I am certainly a native English speaker, and more than that, someone who loves language, and sometimes enjoys being playful with it. But the other side of me is a computer science background that demands precision, and since the English language is anything but precise, the two passions are always in conflict. Hence my pedantry about the illogical use of language, as futile as the pedantry may be.
The reason that non-native English speakers have trouble with some of our idioms is that they’ve taken the time and trouble to learn the meanings of words in the English language, and the poor fools expect that words will be used in accordance with what they’ve learned they mean.
Fortunately ‘arse over tit’ still makes sense.