Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Literature, Music, Art & Entertainment => Topic started by: SusanDoris on February 23, 2018, 01:15:21 PM
-
Dawkins support for the Atheist bus was not to increase the numbers of atheists?, His call for atheists to openly tackle religion was not a recruitment attempt for New Atheism? His campaign for census atheism was due to his disinterest in atheist numbers?
I think you mean 'lack of interest'; I do not think you mean 'disinterest'.
Apologies, but I'm picking this out because it is the thing that irritates me most in language use.
-
I think you mean 'lack of interest'; I do not think you mean 'disinterest'.
Apologies, but I'm picking this out because it is the thing that irritates me most in language use.
I think that's a lost battle, dictionaries now have lack of interest as non formal definition. And 'literally' has gone the same way.
-
Literally! Its sooooo annoying the way people use that word these days.
-
I think that's a lost battle, dictionaries now have lack of interest as non formal definition. And 'literally' has gone the same way.
That is sad indeed.
-
Literally! Its sooooo annoying the way people use that word these days.
See the below. It is still a knife to the heart, not literally, when I hear it used in that way,
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/literally
Anyway was Billy Graham literally anti gay rights?
-
Literally! Its sooooo annoying the way people use that word these days.
Yeah, it literally makes my blood boil... ;D
BTW according to Oxford Dictionaries (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/disinterested-or-uninterested), the earliest recorded sense of disinterested is for the 'incorrect' use.
-
Hi Susan,
I think you mean 'lack of interest'; I do not think you mean 'disinterest'.
Apologies, but I'm picking this out because it is the thing that irritates me most in language use.
Yes, though he’s pretty much indifferent to the meanings of words. Pedant that I am, what bugs me in particular by the way is not so much when meanings change but when people use words to mean substantially the opposite of their actual meanings (“invariably” when they mean “usually”, “underestimate” when they mean “overestimate” etc).
-
I think that's a lost battle, dictionaries now have lack of interest as non formal definition. And 'literally' has gone the same way.
Whs csres? The leid disna stay the same.
Inglis changes, like ony ither leid.
-
Anchs,
Whs csres? The leid disna stay the same.
Inglis changes, like ony ither leid.
I do. Not so much when words change their meanings (that happens all the time) but when the change coarsens the language or loses useful content. Take “anticipate” and “expect” for example. They’re pretty much used interchangeably these days (“I don’t anticipate rain today”) when they actually mean different things. To anticipate something you have to do something beforehand related to the subsequent event (“I anticipated rain by bringing my umbrella to work”), whereas what people usually mean is just that they don’t expect rain – ie, they don’t thinks it’s likely to happen.
And if I hear one more Radio 4 reporter telling me that it's "impossible to underestimate the importance of the PM's words" or some such when he actually manes that it's impossible to overestimate them I'll not be responsible for my actions...
-
Ah well now! On the subject of Radio 4, I have given up trying to point out that it is laziness to use an apostrophy smeaning 'has, and making it sound like 'is', thus changing the meaning....
Example:
... the PM's arranged a meeting...
It sounds like: the PM.is instead of, as it should, the PM has
Okay it doesn't happen every time, but too often for comfort!
-
If there is a moderator reading perhaps the branch of this thread concerned with the misuse of language could be spun off on to it's own thread.
-
"it's"?
-
"it's"?
Moderator....Please hurry.
-
Tell you what though, it might be good to have a "Language Corner" or similar permanently here ("Mind You Language" maybe?) so this kind of thing could be talked about. Linguistic quirks and oddities, derivations, "makes by blood boil" abuses etc would all have their space. Big topic, and one I find fascinating. Does anyone else think so?
-
"it's"?
IME this is often courtesy of Apple autocorrect.
-
Tell you what though, it might be good to have a "Language Corner" or similar permanently here ("Mind You Language" maybe?) so this kind of thing could be talked about. Linguistic quirks and oddities, derivations, "makes by blood boil" abuses etc would all have their space. Big topic, and one I find fascinating. Does anyone else think so?
Go for it!
-
Gordon,
Go for it!
How? Isn't it for the Mods to set up a new permanent space (or whatever it's called)?
-
Gordon,
How? Isn't it for the Mods to set up a new permanent space (or whatever it's called)?
You start it, they'll sticky it.
-
Good idea. Going back to 'literally', of course there is the argument that it can be used non-literally. So if you say, 'I was literally frying in the heat', you are using it non-literally. Well, hmm, dunno.
-
Rhi,
You start it, they'll sticky it.
Ah OK - I'll try that then. Thanks.
-
Hi Wiggs,
Good idea. Going back to 'literally', of course there is the argument that it can be used non-literally. So if you say, 'I was literally frying in the heat', you are using it non-literally. Well, hmm, dunno.
Bob Geldof's (from memory), "Every pound you send will literally go into the mouths of the starving children" comes to mind.
-
A place for all matters linguistic. Got something interesting about language to say? An oddity, a derivation, a "this really gets my goat" bugbear perhaps?
Is, "Got something interesting about language to say?" a dangling epithet for example?
Well, here's a place for it. I'll start - am I alone in wincing at "try and" rather than "try to" (as in, "I'll try and get the answer for you")?
Go for it!
-
I have a page in 'my documents' which is titled 'impersonal synonyms'.
It contains:
Impartial, independent, disinterested, objective, dispassionate, detached, impersonal, indifferent
It is quite annoying sometimes, though, when I want a word that isn't quite]/I] any of those...
Anyone know any more?
Anyone disagree with the ones I have?
I hope this fits in with this new thread, by the way. If not, I will happily delete!! :)
-
Shouldn't Reply 21 now be the OP? Looks a bit odd otherwise.
-
Shouldn't Reply 21 now be the OP? Looks a bit odd otherwise.
Software doesn't support that.
-
Oh OK.
-
I have a page in 'my documents' which is titled 'impersonal synonyms'.
It contains:
Impartial, independent, disinterested, objective, dispassionate, detached, impersonal, indifferent
It is quite annoying sometimes, though, when I want a word that isn't quite]/I] any of those...
Anyone know any more?
Anyone disagree with the ones I have?
I hope this fits in with this new thread, by the way. If not, I will happily delete!! :)
You could an online thesaurus, for example: impersonal (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/impersonal), which lists:
neutral, unbiased, non-partisan, non-discriminatory, unprejudiced, unswayed, objective, detached, disinterested, dispassionate, free from discrimination, without favouritism, with no axe to grind, without fear or favour
fair, just, equitable, balanced, even-handed
aloof, distant, remote, reserved, withdrawn, unemotional, unfeeling, unsentimental, dispassionate, passionless, cold, cool, frigid, unresponsive, indifferent, unconcerned
formal, stiff, rigid, wooden, starchy, stilted, restrained, self-controlled, matter-of-fact, businesslike, clinical
stand-offish
gelid
-
Well, here's a place for it. I'll start - am I alone in wincing at "try and" rather than "try to" (as in, "I'll try and get the answer for you")?
Go for it!
OK, well, what gets my goat is the inability of too many people to construct grammatical sentences containing "could" and "ought":
"I could of won, he ought to of been disqualified."
This is not necessarily a sign of poor educational achievement - I would be quite well off had I received £1 for every time I came across it when marking undergraduate assignments. I suspect that a combination of ineffective teaching of English grammar and limited reading of fiction for pleasure may be responsible.
-
Stranger #26
thank you! I'll copy and paste that onto the doc!
HH #27
I wonder if the phrase 'auxiliary verb' is used and whether it is understood. Perhaps a different phrase is used nowadays?
-
HH #27
I wonder if the phrase 'auxiliary verb' is used and whether it is understood. Perhaps a different phrase is used nowadays?
Could be. Of course, what people are doing is transcribing what they hear into into script without concerning themselves with grammar. It's the sort of thing I see in TV subtitles during live programmes.
And another old, old complaint. The presence of an apostrophe means that there has been some kind of elision. Nothing else.
-
I believe split infinitives are acceptable now .... 'To boldly go where nobody has gone before.'
-
I thought the idea that split infinitives were unacceptable was very unclear? It always seemed a very odd rule to me because often a non split infinitive just sounds clunky.
-
I thought the idea that split infinitives were unacceptable was very unclear? It always seemed a very odd rule to me because often a non split infinitive just sounds clunky.
It's based on a comparison with Latin (in which, so I'm told, the infinitive is always one word, so cannot be split). The rule is a 19th century invention, with no rational justification.
-
This is my understanding, too.
It reflects the strange belief that infected the grammar school that I attended in the middle of the last century that Latin was the criterion language and set the rules for studying the grammar of all other languages. English grammar had to be distorted so that it would fit inside the constraints of Latin. No one considered, for example, that Latin is a highly inflected, synthetic language while English is a largely uninflected, analytic language.
Mercifully in our now postChomsky era we can recognise that there is nothing special about Latin. If people wish to study dead Mediterranean languages they are free to do so. But they should not believe that this gives them any qualities which will make them uniquely qualified to be world statesmen.
Boris Johnson - take note.
-
I thought the idea that split infinitives were unacceptable was very unclear? It always seemed a very odd rule to me because often a non split infinitive just sounds clunky.
It was some rather stuffy Victorian, whose name escapes me at the moment, who wrote a book of grammar including the idea that a split infinitive was wrong and who was then referred to as an expert.
Posted before reading two subsequent posts.
-
IME this is often courtesy of Apple autocorrect.
It's not autocorrect's fault, you can still read the words and override its decisions.
-
HH,
This is my understanding, too.
It reflects the strange belief that infected the grammar school that I attended in the middle of the last century that Latin was the criterion language and set the rules for studying the grammar of all other languages. English grammar had to be distorted so that it would fit inside the constraints of Latin. No one considered, for example, that Latin is a highly inflected, synthetic language while English is a largely uninflected, analytic language.
Mercifully in our now postChomsky era we can recognise that there is nothing special about Latin. If people wish to study dead Mediterranean languages they are free to do so. But they should not believe that this gives them any qualities which will make them uniquely qualified to be world statesmen.
Boris Johnson - take note.
The problem I find with the split infinitive is that, while I know it's based on false alignment with Latin, I can't be sure that my audience is. Thus if, say, I draft an e-mail I avoid them - not because there's a good grammatical reason to, but rather because I don't want the person reading it to think, "he's a bit thick, so I'll treat the rest of what he has to say accordingly".
First world problems eh?
By the way, I just head someone on the radio talking about "unfilled vacancies" in nursing. What kind of vacancies other than unfilled ones could there be I wonder?
-
Ah, yes, and what about the times you hear someone say, 'repeated it again' when it is a repetition of the first time not the second/! :)
-
Hi Susan,
Ah, yes, and what about the times you hear someone say, 'repeated it again' when it is a repetition of the first time not the second/! :)
Or "unrealised potential", "close proximity", "new innovation", "revert back", "comprise of" etc.
My pedantry is such that I even wince at "under the circumstances" rather than "in the circumstances" - you can't be under something and surrounded by it.
I know, I know - I need help ;)
-
Hi Susan,
Or "unrealised potential", "close proximity", "new innovation", "revert back", "comprise of" etc.Agreed, particularly the 'revert back'.
My pedantry is such that I even wince at "under the circumstances" rather than "in the circumstances" - you can't be under something and surrounded by it.
I don't think that one bothers me so much! I'll have to pay attention to see how often I hear it!
I know, I know - I need help ;)
:D :D
:D :D
-
Heard on 'Up All Night' noun plus 'begun' as the verb. This by Dotum Adebayo who is usually good on English usage. I waited for a few minutes to see if he would correct himself, then switched off!
-
"Comedic" - unnecessary and annoyingly trendy word. It could be useful if it meant "to do with comedy, but not itself funny", e.g. a serious academic paper on the nature of comedy, but in fact it is simply a synonym for "comic", that wastes a syllable and two letters.
Similarly, "empathy", which has no discernible difference in meaning from "sympathy", but sounds (to me, at any rate) colder. (I am aware of that tiresome youtube video with the patronisingly childish animated animals, so don't bother posting a link; I am unconvinced.)
"Issues", when used as a euphemism for "problems".
"Sociopath" - means the same as "psychopath", but gives the user a fake aura of cleverness (they hope).
-
Just heard someone on Radio 4 say that his company wanted to "expand into the public sector space".
What I wonder did he think that "space" added to the meaning he was trying to convey? Management speak - yuk!
-
A place for all matters linguistic. Got something interesting about language to say? An oddity, a derivation, a "this really gets my goat" bugbear perhaps?
Is, "Got something interesting about language to say?" a dangling epithet for example?
Well, here's a place for it. I'll start - am I alone in wincing at "try and" rather than "try to" (as in, "I'll try and get the answer for you")?
Go for it!
One of the things which make me ... err ... disquieted is the transfer of technical terms into everyday language in which the original meaning is totally reversed.
A couple of examples:
Down beat - popular usage - weak, subdued; technical usage - the first beat in a bar, the strongest beat (indicated by a conductor).
Learning curve - popular usage - steep learning curve something which is difficult to learn; Technical usage - a graph shown amount of learning (as the dependent variable) against time (as the independent variable). Thus something which is learned easily is learned in a shorter period than something which is learned with difficulty. A "steep learning curve" means quick, easy learning.
-
It's not autocorrect's fault, you can still read the words and override its decisions.
I rarely bother to read back before posting.
-
"Sociopath" - means the same as "psychopath"
Poorly defined terms I'll grant you and regarded by many as pop psychology than properly academic or clinical/forensic psychology but that may not be the case: https://tinyurl.com/ycdzemvt
-
Poorly defined terms I'll grant you and regarded by many as pop psychology than properly academic or clinical/forensic psychology but that may not be the case: https://tinyurl.com/ycdzemvt
I thought that these days the umbrella term is 'anti social personality disorder'.
-
I thought that these days the umbrella term is 'anti social personality disorder'.
'Vicious little scumbag', surely?
-
Literally! Its sooooo annoying the way people use that word these days.
That's the way language changes. "Very" and "really" went the same way, from meaning "not metaphorically" to being simple intensifiers, long ago. Chaucer uses "very" a lot, but always means "truly", not just "more than most".
-
Hi Susan,
Yes, though he’s pretty much indifferent to the meanings of words. Pedant that I am, what bugs me in particular by the way is not so much when meanings change but when people use words to mean substantially the opposite of their actual meanings (“invariably” when they mean “usually”, “underestimate” when they mean “overestimate” etc).
"Temper" is aword that is changing its meaning to the opposite of its original meaning at the moment. It originally meant, and sometimes still does mean, "patience, slowness to become enraged", when applied to people: it's what you lose when you get angry. However, nowadays you hear people say of some obnoxious thug "he's got a hell of a temper", when temper is obviously what he lacks. "Temper tantrum" is an oxymoron. The original, literal meaning, of course, was a treatment for metal to make it more malleable and less brittle.
-
I believe split infinitives are acceptable now .... 'To boldly go where nobody has gone before.'
They were always acceptable, within reason, to the educated. The objection to them is an illogical superstition. Fowler, Partridge and Gowers all agree, though Gowers says that they are best avoided on stylistic grounds.
-
A similar rule was "Never end a sentence with a preposition." The justification (I was told) was that it did not happen in Latin. I recall that when I was at school there was some strange belief that Latin was the most important language of all and that its grammatical structure and syntax were exemplars for all other languages - including English. Latin sentences ended with the verb (and noun case was determined by inflection) therefore ending with a preposition was condemned.
Winston Churchill is reported to have sarcastically scrawled "This is the kind of English up with which I will not put" on one Civil Service document.
-
A similar rule was "Never end a sentence with a preposition." The justification (I was told) was that it did not happen in Latin. I recall that when I was at school there was some strange belief that Latin was the most important language of all and that its grammatical structure and syntax were exemplars for all other languages - including English. Latin sentences ended with the verb (and noun case was determined by inflection) therefore ending with a preposition was condemned.
Winston Churchill is reported to have sarcastically scrawled "This is the kind of English up with which I will not put" on one Civil Service document.
That's also why you're not supposed to split infinitives: in Latin and most other languages, you can't, because they're a single word. However, most grammarians, past and present (Fowlers, Gower, etc) dismiss that supposed rule asa superstition.
-
That's also why you're not supposed to split infinitives: in Latin and most other languages, you can't, because they're a single word. However, most grammarians, past and present (Fowlers, Gower, etc) dismiss that supposed rule asa superstition.
You can't say most other languages - because you don't know. There are about 6.500 languages spoken in the world today. You cannot assume that most will have single word infinitives - indeed, you cannot assume that all will have infinitives. All you can say is that, of the languages with which you are familiar, most have single word (possibly polymorphemic) infinitives. And that most of these have Latin as a significant contributor to their grammatical framework.
-
You can't say most other languages - because you don't know. There are about 6.500 languages spoken in the world today. You cannot assume that most will have single word infinitives - indeed, you cannot assume that all will have infinitives. All you can say is that, of the languages with which you are familiar, most have single word (possibly polymorphemic) infinitives. And that most of these have Latin as a significant contributor to their grammatical framework.
You should be in the 'Extreme Pedantry' group on Facebook.
-
And dare I say that you should learn to write with greater precision?
Indeed. I have,
-
And dare I say that you should learn to write with greater precision?
Indeed. I have,
I'm as pedantic as they come frequently, but I must grudgingly admit that you're right.
-
There's something that's bothered me for a while, but when did "terrorist attack" change to being "terror attack" in the media? To me they could mean quite different things?
-
You should be in the 'Extreme Pedantry' group on Facebook.
I think you'll find it's called the "extreme pedants" group.
-
I think you'll find it's called the "extreme pedants" group.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/133309454114/
-
https://www.facebook.com/groups/133309454114/
Woosh!
-
This might be known to all already but I just came across a linguistic explanation that made me do a metaphorical face palm and an "of course it is - why didn't I think of that before?"
The word "mall" (as in shopping mall). Before their invention you could only visit one store (ie, shop) at a time, but afterwards you could visit "them all" - ie, phonetically "the mall".
I know right?
-
This might be known to all already but I just came across a linguistic explanation that made me do a metaphorical face palm and an "of course it is - why didn't I think of that before?"
The word "mall" (as in shopping mall). Before their invention you could only visit one store (ie, shop) at a time, but afterwards you could visit "them all" - ie, phonetically "the mall".
I know right?
Interesting! I used to wonder why malls were called malls! I suppose that clears up the pronunciation too - rhymes with fall. Even the Americans do not say all to rhyme with gal.
-
So the word has nothing to do with the street in London where Brenda lives? ... Although that is pronounced differently.
-
Folk-etymology. It comes ultimately from Italian "maglio", mallet, which gives us the "mall" part of "Pall Mall", which was originally a game similar to croquet, and provided the name of the posh London Street. Details here. (https://www.etymonline.com/word/mall)
-
There's something that's bothered me for a while, but when did "terrorist attack" change to being "terror attack" in the media? To me they could mean quite different things?
I can't answer your question at the moment but it seems you are not alone in wondering about it.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/450107/what-is-the-difference-between-terrorist-attack-and-terror-attack
-
I can't answer your question at the moment but it seems you are not alone in wondering about it.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/450107/what-is-the-difference-between-terrorist-attack-and-terror-attack
Thanks for the link. Interesting.