does it bother you when... [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Jack Squat

2009-06-20, 02:28 PM

Wait, there's a difference other than that one is a colloquialism and the other is the proper name?

what, the clip/magazine thing?

A magazine is what feeds rounds directly into a gun's chamber. It's got metal sides and normally has a spring and follower (box magazine)

http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/v/vspfiles/photos/Magazines%20DH%20GT30%2010Pack-2T.jpg
USGI spec STANAG Mags; commonly used in AR-15/M16 type rifles

A clip is a metal strip that holds rounds, that you use to load a (normally internal) magazine
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/8mm_Mauser_stripper_clip,_1941_Turkish_military_pr oduction.JPG
8mm Mauser stripper clip; this is what most of them look like

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/303_British_stripper_clip,_civilian_sporting_round s.JPG
British .303 stripper clip for use in Enfield rifles

There's also En Blocks, which are clips, but unlike the above "stripper" clips, they actually stay in the magazine and "ping" out once it's empty.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/images2/e62-2.jpg
En Block clips for an M1 Garand

reorith

2009-06-20, 02:29 PM

Wait, there's a difference other than that one is a colloquialism and the other is the proper name?

yes. a clip is a bent piece of metal that holds cartridges in place used to load a magazine. a magazine is the part with a follower that feeds cartridges into the action. personally, i blame rap.

Coidzor

2009-06-20, 02:33 PM

yes. a clip is a bent piece of metal that holds cartridges in place used to load a magazine. a magazine is the part with a follower that feeds cartridges into the action. personally, i blame rap.

Personally, I blame FPSes.

2009-06-20, 02:39 PM

Envy/jealousy always gets me

Dogmantra

2009-06-20, 02:44 PM

Envy/jealousy always gets me

Oh, I completely forgot about that. I hate it even more when I point out the difference, and they say "But I want to say jealous". "Okay!" I feel like replying, "But you're wrong!"

EDIT: Just thought of another: Begs the question =/= Raises the question.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy.
Raising the question is bringing up another question in response to another.

Jimorian

2009-06-20, 02:44 PM

Effect and affect bother me an awful lot. I point out that the general rule is that effect is the noun and affect is the verb... of course, the fact that there's a verb "effect" doesn't help, but it's uncommon.

And to further (see, I used that correctly :smalltongue:) confuse things, there is also the noun "affect."

averagejoe

2009-06-20, 02:49 PM

No. That doesn't bother me at all.

What is the difference between envy and jealousy?

Dogmantra

2009-06-20, 02:51 PM

What is the difference between envy and jealousy?

Envy is what you probably think of as jealousy: Desiring something someone else has.
Jealousy is fear that someone will take what you have.

So a dragon guards his hoard jealously, and the adventurers who kill him are envied by nobles for their gold.

Kaelaroth

2009-06-20, 02:51 PM

Empathy and sympathy is one of my li'l peeves. Grr.

Dogmantra

2009-06-20, 02:58 PM

Empathy and sympathy is one of my li'l peeves. Grr.

Have a little empathy for the people who can't get it right.

That was painful to write, and I apologise profusely

Zocelot

2009-06-20, 03:23 PM

people inappropriately use words interchangeably like

robbery/theft/larceny/burglary
clip/magazine
effect/affect
weight/mass
context/subtext
empathy/sympathy

what do you usually do about it? i usually just make a mental note to converse with the person less.

I am guilty of the first one, and although I know that there is a difference between the second ones, but I'm not sure what it is. The others bother me a lot, but since some of my best friends misuse them, I just feel good knowing that I'm smarter then them in one very specific area.

snoopy13a

2009-06-20, 03:43 PM

You do know that many, probably most, people would find the correction of a minor misusage of words to be more offensive than the misusage of words itself?

If someone misuses "affect" and "effect" or writes "you're" instead of "your" it doesn't bother me. However, I find it rude when someone goes out of their way to correct them about it.

For example, if I said: "My house got robbed last night when I was at the movies", are you going to correct me and say I should have used "burgled"? If I said: "I'm jealous of Bob's new car" are you going to correct me and say that I should have used "envious"? If so, I'd make it a metal note to talk to you less.

2009-06-20, 03:43 PM

Oh, I completely forgot about that. I hate it even more when I point out the difference, and they say "But I want to say jealous". "Okay!" I feel like replying, "But you're wrong!"Its a bit of an odd one actually because its extremely common. These days whenever it irritates me I try to remind myself that language, in particular English, is first and foremost a social construct. I'll not be surprised if in a decade or two envy/jealousy become accepted as completely interchangeable... they already are in practice and its just a matter of the academics catching up

Dogmantra

2009-06-20, 03:49 PM

You do know that many, probably most, people would find the correction of a minor misusage of words to be more offensive than the misusage of words itself?
Anyone who knows me a bit knows that:
I am a bit odd
I am a perfectionist
I am very obsessive about these things

If they can't handle the odd "you mean envy" (because really, how often does it come up in normal conversation?) then they're not really suited to be my friend.

Also: It's totally misuse, not misusage :smallwink:

Berserk Monk

2009-06-20, 04:17 PM

people inappropriately use words interchangeably like

robbery/theft/larceny/burglary
clip/magazine
effect/affect
weight/mass
context/subtext
empathy/sympathy

what do you usually do about it? i usually just make a mental note to converse with the person less.

Don't be so anal.* People make mistakes. We're all not English majors. I mean, it's not like you haven't ever said something foolish in conversation.

*Tee hee! I said anal!:smallbiggrin:

evisiron

2009-06-20, 04:32 PM

Lufia

2009-06-20, 04:32 PM

The affect/effect one really annoys me when I hear it in English because one can't confuse them in my native language without being a complete moron.

I didn't know people confused context and subtext.

I'm more peeved when I see written confusion between your/you're, their/there/they're or its/it's, though. Not that I will go out of my way to correct people, that's often rude.

Exeson

2009-06-20, 04:52 PM

Not too much. However it does bother me when Americans pronounce route rout. I have no problem with accents and thing, indeed I think they are a good thing because they can make conversation interesting but really, Rout is a completely separate word with a different spelling and meaning, get it right.

Gem Flower

2009-06-20, 04:55 PM

It bothers me when people mix up empathy and sympathy. If I know them well, I point it out. If I don't know them well, I keep quiet.

Winter_Wolf

2009-06-20, 05:12 PM

If a person making the mistake is otherwise fluent in English and hasn't asked for my input on the matter, I just ignore it as long as I can get the gist of what they're trying to tell me. If a person making the mistake is not fluent in English and I believe they would welcome the correction (most do) then I'll tell them the correct way. A few times, anyway. After that I just let 'em go, because I don't teach English anymore.

lindorm

2009-06-20, 06:13 PM

Incorrect usage of they're/their or you're/your bugs me alot.
Other than that I'm not too bothered by stupid spelling in English (not my first language, arguably not even my second, so I too make mistakes).

But one thing that will set me off, and will make me correct the person saying it (even when they're complete strangers) is: coup de grace.
It NOT "koop dee graw" or "koo'd graw" !
It's "koo'd graz"!

There's an S-sound at the end there (or Z-sound, I'm not too steady on phonetics), use it! Otherwise you're standing there like a complete moron saying "blow of fat" (or "neck of fat" if you say the silent p in coup).
Compare with "Mardi gras" ("Mardy graw") == "Fat tuesday".

I've no idea why this bugs me so. I don't even speak french.

Hazkali

2009-06-20, 06:40 PM

I generally don't mind if it's a verbal thing. I flub words all of the time, it would be a whole motes/logs thing. On the internet, I'd probably be more annoyed; you've never more than a couple of clicks from a reliable dictionary, and Firefox comes with a spell-checker.

GoC

2009-06-20, 07:29 PM

If so, I'd make it a metal note to talk to you less.
Which is rather foolish IMO. Don't you have any desire to improve your use of the English language?
And even if you don't is this really worth missing out on all the potential intelligence the person could have?

It's ok when a word comes to mean something else but only if there is another word to replace it! Otherwise English get's more and more imprecise. I believe it would be best if each word had a single meaning otherwise we spend needless amounts of time clarifying things or misunderstanding them (the latter being far more common).

...
Wow, that sounded kindof stuffy...:smalleek:

Yarram

2009-06-20, 08:14 PM

To be honest, in conversation, I don't care. I stutter so why would I pick up other people making context mistakes. Written is entirely another thing. That frustrates me, but when speaking, I don't mind at all.

Being Elitist about who I hang with because they misquote/mispronounce words is a little shallow in my opinion.

North

2009-06-20, 09:20 PM

Yeah... If I knew anyone who tried correcting my words that much Id probably make lots more mistakes on porpoise just to tick them off more.

Thajocoth

2009-06-20, 09:34 PM

I wasn't aware people confused clip and magazine...

EDIT: OH! Weapons!

I thought of a paperclip and a magazine (book-like object).

Partof1

2009-06-20, 09:35 PM

What is the difference between empathy and sympathy? I know there is one, but not what it is.

Syka

2009-06-20, 10:39 PM

Partof1

2009-06-20, 10:55 PM

I thought it was something like that. I know empathy was generally just feeling what others around you, or close to you feel. Sympathy was a bit sketchier.

Innis Cabal

2009-06-20, 11:06 PM

Je dit Viola

2009-06-20, 11:08 PM

I thought Empathy was knowing how they felt because you've gone through something similar...and Sympathy was just feeling sorry for them. Does anyone have a dictionary handy?

xPANCAKEx

2009-06-20, 11:09 PM

words on my list:

love - horribly overused, rarely understood
awesome - very few things recieving this accolade come anywhere close to what it actually means

reorith

2009-06-20, 11:14 PM

robbery/theft/larceny/burglary

These are all synonyms (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/theft)

Every single one of them (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/theft)

Why do people seem to hate them? (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/theft)

Maybe you should just relax? (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/theft)

nice work. you get 2 for citing but -8 for still being wrong. -6/10. see me after class.
this is where context comes into play. theft is a generic term for taking the property of another person. larceny is taking the property of another person with the intent to keep it. burglary is entering a structure with the intent to commit a crime. robbery is directly taking property from an individual by violence or the threat of violence.

Sholos

2009-06-20, 11:25 PM

robbery/theft/larceny/burglary
Not really. They're legal terms, and I don't expect everyone to have even that intimate a knowledge of such terms.

clip/magazine
Meh. Again, they're somewhat specialized terms that if you're not familiar with the context, there's no real reason to know the difference.

effect/affect
Yes, but I really only notice it in writing.

weight/mass
Unless there's a real difference in the context of the conversation (there's generally not), I let this one slide.

context/subtext
I've never actually seen this one happen.

empathy/sympathy
Eh, only if I expect the person to know better. Again, they're fairly specialized words.

what do you usually do about it? i usually just make a mental note to converse with the person less.
For the most part, the most I'll do is make a small note to the person. Most of the time I ignore it.

Innis Cabal

2009-06-20, 11:28 PM

nice work. you get 2 for citing but -8 for still being wrong. -6/10. see me after class.
this is where context comes into play. theft is a generic term for taking the property of another person. larceny is taking the property of another person with the intent to keep it. burglary is entering a structure with the intent to commit a crime. robbery is directly taking property from an individual by violence or the threat of violence.

That hardly matters in every day normal conversation.

Sorry Teach, but I grade you F in basic human conversation.

people inappropriately use words interchangeably like

Thats what you said. Under -your- conext, I get a perfect grade. When used out of context? Fine. But your first post didn't indicate that. Sorry again Teach. :smallwink:

Also, shame on you for not making your thread title proper with a captial D in does.

The Orange Zergling

2009-06-20, 11:31 PM

It's a pet peeve of mine when people use the wrong you're/your or there/their/they're but I only correct them if I'm in a vindicative (is that a word?) mood anyway or if they're correcting other people on their grammar or spelling and still using the wrong term.

Oh, also lower-case I's.

Serpentine

2009-06-20, 11:32 PM

Sympathy is actually knowing what the persons going through because you have gone through it.

Empathy is more feeling for them because you feel bad or can imagine it or some such.

As far as I know it's basically a difference based on personal experience regarding the thing at hand. That's the way I understand it, anyway.Huh? Isn't it the other way round? To the Bat-Dictionary!
Empathy n the capacity for understanding and sharing another's feelings or ideas.
Sympathy n The act or capacity of sharing the feelings or interests of another.
Hmmm...
empathise v to understand and share the feelings of another person.
sympathise v to share in distress or suffering; to commiserate.

Huh... Looks like you're right. I'd like to hear from a better dictionary, though (mine's just a Penguin one).

I know I regularly get effect and affect wrong. I can never remember which is which. I'm pretty happy to be corrected on it, though. I don't think most of the rest have ever come up.

Sholos

2009-06-20, 11:37 PM

I know I regularly get effect and affect wrong. I can never remember which is which. I'm pretty happy to be corrected on it, though. I don't think most of the rest have ever come up.

Well, you can effect an effect by affecting a situation. :smallbiggrin:

Basically, an effect (the noun) is something that happens because of something else. Like a result.

The verb "to effect" means (basically) "to bring about".

"to affect" means "to change" (essentially).

"affect" as a noun is an emotion or a feeling. This is used in psychology.

Yeah... If I knew anyone who tried correcting my words that much Id probably make lots more mistakes on porpoise just to tick them off more.

I see what you did there. :smallbiggrin:

reorith

2009-06-20, 11:49 PM

That hardly matters in every day normal conversation. snip Thats what you said. Under -your- conext, I get a perfect grade. When used out of context? Fine. But your first post didn't indicate that.

as your sources indicate, these are all synonyms within common usage, so in every day normal conversation, it wouldn't be an issue. if you were to yell "hey that guy just robbed me!" it wouldn't really matter whether or not it was the appropriate term based on the denotative meaning of the word used. everyone would understand that the guy is now in possession of an item that belongs to you. if we can agree on that, nod your head. the key terms from my original post are inappropriately and interchangeably.

Sorry Teach, but I grade you F in basic human conversation.
f, more like ph

Coidzor

2009-06-20, 11:52 PM

All I know is that I was taught to never use the word "affect" by the various schools I've been to.

Em Blackleaf

2009-06-20, 11:59 PM

I'm really bad about "affect" and "effect." Usually, when I'm certain I've used the word right, someone proves me wrong. Then I correct the way I define each word, and it's still wrong. I think the English language should stick to one "a/effect," and make it mean the same thing.

I think so many people don't know how to use the words, that I'll get a different opinion each time I ask. :smalltongue:

I can retain a good amount of knowledge, but that's one thing I will never remember.

Innis Cabal

2009-06-21, 12:04 AM

as your sources indicate, these are all synonyms within common usage, so in every day normal conversation, it wouldn't be an issue. if you were to yell "hey that guy just robbed me!" it wouldn't really matter whether or not it was the appropriate term based on the denotative meaning of the word used. everyone would understand that the guy is now in possession of an item that belongs to you. if we can agree on that, nod your head. the key terms from my original post are inappropriately and interchangeably.

f, more like ph

My pet peeve is people who can't bother to put caps when needed. And I don't mean that to be snarky or mean. Its really annoying and hard to read, not to mention it makes your posts harder to give credit to from improper format. Yes, I know of your problem, but that dosn't excuse it. Type it up in word and paste it. That's what it's there for, it does it for you.

On to the quote. You arn't implying that for the rest of your list. So, going off that one can only infer that you do not in fact mean that. You can't list x annoys me, oh and y annoys me to for different reasons, without actually you know...stating it. People make mistakes and you have to spend your time dealing with extra posts. You can also tell that no one else caught your implied meaning for your words, as others seem to have ignored your "context". Probably should change that if your going to be so anal

Once again, F for you teacher.

Oh, also, people who use tho when typing when they should just spell it out. How annoying is that

WarBrute

2009-06-21, 12:04 AM

I really hate the when mass and weight are mixed. Probably because i am a science major.

Empathy/ Sympathy bother me as well, though i don't have a good reason.

I would like to think I know the difference between a clip and magazine but I know I don't.

Lastly I hate when people use the wrong "There." I wanted to shot myself on my first day of college when my English professor start going over the correct use of "there." I would have thought people would have know by then.

reorith

2009-06-21, 12:11 AM

Yes, I know of your problem, but that dosn't excuse it. Type it up in word and paste it. Thats what its their for, it does it for you. Once again, F for you teacher.

:smallsigh: if you and Ninja Chocobo can find twelve other playgrounders that are equally peeved by my lack of capitalization, i resolve to use my shift key with sufficient frequency. also, i have full use of all my fingers and both my thumbs.

Innis Cabal
Ninja Chocobo
Anuan
kpenguin
Sholos
Serpentine
Vizen

Innis Cabal

2009-06-21, 12:28 AM

Ah, my mistake, then you don't have an excuse :smallbiggrin:

If we're talking on why its a pet peeve, it just looks sloppy and...really makes it hard for me to take anything you post seriously. If you can't hit the shift key and make your post look nice/correct, what else are you just cutting corners on?

reorith

2009-06-21, 12:35 AM

RabbitHoleLost

2009-06-21, 12:39 AM

To be honest, I get more bugged by the people who think its their personal job to point out every mistake like this, or every grammatical mistake someone has made.
Unless its an internet debate.
And then everything's game.

Alleine

2009-06-21, 12:44 AM

The only one that bothers me is effect/affect, and that's solely when online. No one I know talks enough about robbery/theft/larceny/robbery to get them mixed up. Same with clip/magazine, although I wasn't aware of the difference(I knew there was one, just didn't care enough to find out) of course now I'll probably get bugged whenever a videogame gets it wrong :smallsigh:
Weight/mass, no one I talk to gets this wrong either, but same general idea of us not conversing using weight and mass often.
I have never run into anyone who uses the word subtext except for english teachers, and they haven't gotten it wrong yet.
Empathy/sympathy, yet again, no one seems to get this wrong.

Man, I never realized how little I use all of those words with the exception of effect/affect.

Rutskarn

2009-06-21, 12:46 AM

I had to stop reading this half way through as I realised these things would only bug me if I knew of the error. I was much happier with my wrong but widely used meaning for 'irony', but now when I would use it I feel like I am hitting a mental roadblock!

So yeah, it will bug me if I let it.

I think I'm going to start a movement to replace the vernacular use of irony with the word "morissette".

"Huh, his greyhound got hit by a Grayhound Bus?"

"Yeah. Pretty morissette, huh?"

Ninja Chocobo

2009-06-21, 12:47 AM

My pet peeve is people who lie about being involved in tragic accidents to garner sympathies and to excuse their abysmal grammar who look down on others for improper usage of the language; who expect at least fourteen people to actively speak out against them to change their mind about following one of the most basic rules of grammar while expecting others to change their minds to match their own opinion.

reorith

2009-06-21, 12:51 AM

Anuan

2009-06-21, 12:51 AM

:smallsigh: if you and Ninja Chocobo can find twelve other playgrounders that are equally peeved by my lack of capitalization, i resolve to use my shift key with sufficient frequency. also, i have full use of all my fingers and both my thumbs.

See, I used to get fairly bugged by this, but didn't mention anything out of the desire to be polite. Then you made the excuse of the hand accident, so I continued to not mention anything. Now that you've made that challenge and mentioned you actually have no excuse, I request my name go on the list with Inis and Ninja.

Edit: I got ninja'd with a harsher version of what I wanted to say AND a reply. Woah.

kpenguin

2009-06-21, 01:01 AM

*raises hand to be counted as a person who is annoyed at reorith's non-caps*

Pyro

2009-06-21, 01:02 AM

I'm bothered by fairly obvious ones such as there/their/they're because if you confuse them, then to me you are a) Lazy b) Never paid attention in English. Ever.

I'll correct someone about things like sympathy/empathy or effect/affect so they know and won't stir the ire of someone who cares more, but it doesn't really bother me personally. To me as long as you get the point across, you're good unless in specific circumstances (science) where the distinction between mass/weight does matter.

Larceny/theft/robbery has never bothered me because only now have I realized they're legal terms as well as colloquial synonyms. It's much like battery/assault to me. The difference only really matters in a court room.

What does bother me is mispronouncing words, like facade. It is not fah-kade! :smallfurious:

Also, friends misspelling my name on facebook bugs me.

Sholos

2009-06-21, 01:06 AM

Put me on the list, too. Poor capitalization is very annoying.

RabbitHoleLost

2009-06-21, 01:06 AM

reorith, please don't use caps.
I find its something very unique to you and it makes me smile =)

Rutskarn

2009-06-21, 01:13 AM

reorith, please don't use caps.
I find its something very unique to you and it makes me smile =)

D'aw.

Honestly, Reo, I don't mind one way or the other.

Serpentine

2009-06-21, 01:33 AM

My pet peeve is people who can't bother to put caps when needed. And I don't mean that to be snarky or mean. Its really annoying and hard to read, not to mention it makes your posts harder to give credit to from improper format. Yes, I know of your problem, but that dosn't excuse it. Type it up in word and paste it. Thats what its their for, it does it for you.I agree with you (add me to that list - if you're going to start a thread about how annoying it is when people use English incorrectly, be prepared for people to call you out on your own arrogant, persistent errors), but:
That's what it's there for, it does it for you.

I don't mind annoying little typos - I make plenty myself - as long as people don't whinge if they're corrected on it if they do it consistently. Once-off is one thing, constantly and wantonly and with the arrogance to attack people who correct them is another. What I really hate is when it's wrong in official texts, like school books, television and advertising. I refuse to shop at BiLo because of their "Why pay more!" If anything, it should be "Why pay more?!" Even my friend with Asperger's and truly horrendous English skills checks his work thoroughly when he's doing signwriting. What's their excuse?

Innis Cabal

2009-06-21, 01:37 AM

I agree with you.

This is a first

(add me to that list - if you're going to start a thread about how annoying it is when people use English incorrectly, be prepared for people to call you out on your own arrogant, persistent errors), but:
That's what it's there for, it does it for you.

I have the sense of decency to fix my mistakes. Thank you for pointing them out. Shame on all of you who support it. Shame! :smallwink:

Rockphed

2009-06-21, 01:37 AM

Firstly, please use capital letters. All of you. *Glares around thread*

Secondly, people who refuse to use the apostrophe key annoy me. Whether they are contracting "that is" improperly into "thats" or "it is" into "its" it is annoying.

As to the original list, the first set are all different types of stealing. Each is a slightly differently shaded word, so if they get used wrong it could get annoying. Since I almost never hear any of them used, I don't think I have ever heard them used improperly.

The rest of the list consisted of things that were either specialized enough as to be beyond common knowledge, or could be amended to the list of common English mistakes. I'm now trying to decide if the prevalence of common English mistakes in this thread qualifies as ironic.

I think I was being too harsh. I removed some pretty nasty parts of my post.

reorith

2009-06-21, 01:41 AM

I have the sense of decency to fix my mistakes. Thank you for pointing them out. Shame on all of you who support it. Shame! :smallwink:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that grammar savvy individuals do nothing.

Vizen

2009-06-21, 01:45 AM

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that grammar savvy individuals do nothing.

Well, in that case...

Put me on your list. :smallamused:

@V: Oh. Oh good gods yes. That was music in my ears.

Alleine

2009-06-21, 01:47 AM

No caps is far better than capitalizing the beginning of EVERY word.

Occasional Sage

2009-06-21, 01:56 AM

Most of the peeves in this thread bug me, yes.

The big one for me, that nobody has mentioned, is farther and further. The confusion drives me batty.

Apostrophe over- and under-use is maddening.

reorith, please don't use caps.
I find its something very unique to you and it makes me smile =)

Ohh, here's another one. The quality of being unique is not rated on a sliding scale, it's binary.

We all need lives.

yellowmonkal

2009-06-21, 02:00 AM

lets see how many people correct me for not using good grammar on the internet.
Anyone who knows me a bit knows that:
I am a bit odd
I am a perfectionist
I am very obsessive about these things

If they can't handle the odd "you mean envy" (because really, how often does it come up in normal conversation?) then they're not really suited to be my friend.

Also: It's totally misuse, not misusage :smallwink:
if you think that then your not suited to be anyones friend.

Serpentine

2009-06-21, 02:03 AM

^ He's plenty suited to be my friend. And no, I won't, because you weren't claiming that bad punctuators and spellers annoy you.

This is a firstNot really, you're the one who's disagreed with me, not the other way round.

Alleine: Most certainly. Thank goodness it doesn't happen much.

Oh, not really a specifically English problem, but it bugs me when people just won't believe me that my name is just Jessie, not Jessica. I've offered to show my birth certificate before. They just refuse to consider it :smallmad: Again, though, fortunately it doesn't happen much. More commonly, though, I'll, say, introduce myself, for example to some official on the phone, as "Jessie", and in the very next breath they'll say, "okay then Jessica..." If I wanted you to call me Jessica I would've said my name was Jessica! :smallfurious:
<.<
>.>
*cough*

Rutskarn

2009-06-21, 02:03 AM

if you think that then your not suited to be anyones friend. lets see how many people correct me for not using good grammar on the internet.

Now, that's a bit harsh, yellow. I mean, some people have quirks and eccentricities, and more often than not these aren't the fun-and-zany-for-everyone kind.

What I think he's saying is, if someone can't accept some of his neuroses, they shouldn't try to be his friend--which makes sense, really.

kpenguin

2009-06-21, 02:06 AM

This thread makes me angry and so I'm leaving.
Bye.

How do you "leave" a thread? You could stop posting in it and stop looking at it, but you were never really "there" to begin with.

Serpentine

2009-06-21, 02:09 AM

RabbitHoleLost

2009-06-21, 02:10 AM

Ohh, here's another one. The quality of being unique is not rated on a sliding scale, it's binary.

1: being the only one : sole
2 a: being without a like or equal : unequaled
b: distinctively characteristic : peculiar
3: unusual <a very unique ball-point pen

unusual isn't a one or the other kinda thing, here.
and when i said unique, i meant half of the definitions.

anyways, this thread bothers me, mostly because i've never understood why anyone would spend so much time being upset about something so trivial as grammar, unless one were in a debate, or, as Serp suggested, the nasty grammar in question was in a commercial, professional environment. i had to put the proper capitalization on Serp. it hurt me not to

kpenguin

2009-06-21, 02:14 AM

I thought you were leaving, RHL?

Vizen

2009-06-21, 02:14 AM

@^: Gah! Get out of my mind! Its unsafe!

anyways, this thread bothers me, mostly because i've never understood why anyone would spend so much time being upset about something so trivial as grammar, unless one were in a debate, or, as Serp suggested, the nasty grammar in question was in a commercial, professional environment. I had to put the proper capitalization on Serp. It hurt me not to

It depends on my mood really. Sometimes I'm very much a Grammar Nazi (or a Spelling Nazi if I'm being rather lazy), however most of the time it's not a big issue for me, you know, unless it impedes understanding.

I'm surprised I can read text language.

THAC0

2009-06-21, 02:15 AM

anyways, this thread bothers me, mostly because i've never understood why anyone would spend so much time being upset about something so trivial as grammar, unless one were in a debate, or, as Serp suggested, the nasty grammar in question was in a commercial, professional environment.

Personally, I've never understood why someone would be offended if a mistake is reasonably corrected. But that's life.

I don't think I've seen it here, but other times I've seen this discussion come up, someone usually misspells grammar. It makes me giggle.

averagejoe

2009-06-21, 02:15 AM

To go back a bit, frankly I find it quite offensive to be told that I'm being rude when I correct someone's error. If someone does it meanly and acts like a jerk about it, fair enough. If someone's correcting every little error that's obviously just a typo or a lapse of concentration, fair enough. But to accuse someone of being rude and offensive just for trying to fix an error, to correct a mistake someone has obviously made in their knowledge of the English language and to improve their grasp of it? That, I think, is rude and offensive. I would hope that people were open to improving themselves, to constructive criticism and to correcting mistakes in their knowledge.

It depends. There are at least a couple of spelling errors that I used to commonly do; people online corrected me, and I've never spelled those words incorrectly since. For this I am grateful. However, anyone who corrects me for something silly, like using robbery when I meant larceny or envy when I meant jealousy is being, well, silly. I wouldn't go so far as to call it rude, but I might give some dirty looks if I was in a bad mood.

arguskos

2009-06-21, 02:17 AM

Oh, not really a specifically English problem, but it bugs me when people just won't believe me that my name is just Jessie, not Jessica.
Two thoughts on this.

1. I believe you, but that is a touch odd, at least in my experience. I've met very few folks who's given name is a shortening of a more common longer one. Though, I did meet someone who's given name was Rob.

2. So, your name is Jessie. I didn't know that. Coolio. :smallsmile:

As for speech-related pet peeves, people who actively correct my writing piss me off. I can write and speak just fine thank you very much. Perhaps not amazingly, but my meaning is clear enough. If you can't understand something, ask, and I'll be happy to clarify. Don't correct me though. That's just insulting. :smallannoyed:

EDIT: to be clear, let me say that it's the act of saying "oh, this is wrong, it should be X" that I dislike. Not saying, "uh, dude, X actually means Y".

Serpentine

2009-06-21, 02:17 AM

It might be trivial, but it's also easy. When you look at every tiny facet of language, it's all trivial. But they all come together to create the artificial construct that is language - take away all these "trivial" details, and you no longer have language. And it's so easy to get right. All you have to do is hold down or type one tiny extra letter. Yes, it's trivial to pay attention to it. It's also trivial and, obviously, annoying and frustrating, to point-blank refuse to even consider attempting to improve it. Furthermore, I'm not really seeing "all the time" we're spending "being upset" about it. We're talking about it in this thread because there's a thread to discuss it in. Almost every other thread on this forum is "trivial" - should we not spend the time to discuss those topics? The rest of the time, there's maybe a single sentence or a passing thought, if that. A few seconds at most. It's not like we're sitting here spending hours examining every post for the slightest obscure punctuative(?) or grammatical error.

And thanks. I appreciate it :smallbiggrin:

edit: It's not a shortened name. It's a "variant", sure (of Janet, according to a number of sources, oddly enough :smallconfused:) but it is absolutely and very much a name in and of itself. Based on some tombstones I've looked at, I think it was fairly common around the turn of last century. To look at it another way, my mother's name is Roslyn. She absolutely hates it when, in similar circumstances, she introduces herself as "Roslyn" and the other person immediately refers to her as "Ros". It's just good manners to refer to someone as they refer to themselves, or to ask for permission to use a different term.
edit mk. 2: Also, I'm failing to see the distinction there :smallconfused: I really can't understand how someone would much prefer to continue in a mistaken belief about a convention than have someone spend a second or two (politely and respectfully) correcting it... Isn't it better to be corrected and subsequently right than ignored and forever wrong?

RabbitHoleLost

2009-06-21, 02:18 AM

Personally, I've never understood why someone would be offended if a mistake is reasonably corrected. But that's life.

I don't think I've seen it here, but other times I've seen this discussion come up, someone usually misspells grammar. It makes me giggle.

i'm not referring to the occasional "oh, hey, you misspelled such and such word." i'm talking about the people who actively search out such typos or errors and make a point of not only correcting the grammatically challenged, but berating them.
ala my dearest dear ninja chocobo.

Innis Cabal

2009-06-21, 02:21 AM

I'm not referring to the occasional "oh, hey, you misspelled such and such word." I'm talking about the people who actively search out such typos or errors and make a point of not only correcting the grammatically challenged, but berating them.
Ala my dearest dear ninja chocobo.

Its also pretty rude for people to make mistakes on purpose for the clear intent to bother others. Not that anyone here would do that. Actually...I think its far more rude to do that.

reorith

2009-06-21, 02:27 AM

Its also pretty rude for people to make mistakes on purpose for the clear intent to bother others. Not that anyone here would do that. Actually...I think its far more rude to do that.

It's. Now I'm freaked out because I can't tell if

You are messing with us.
It is an honest mistake.
I'm being overly sensitive due to the grammar heavy nature of this thread.

:smalleek:

RabbitHoleLost

2009-06-21, 02:27 AM

Innis, I respect you from hell to the great beyond, but I was trying to make a point, not to irritate you or anyone else. And, gawd, it was a hard point to make >.<
In my perspective, there are much more important things to be concerned about and nitpick eachother over than grammar screw-ups.
Reorith's lack of capitalization is distinctive of him. In my mind, its just as much of an identifier as an avatar (especially since he has one of the community ones).
It doesn't harm anyone, and though I typically disagree with anything he has to say, its not because his I's are lower case.
Since he chose not to stand his ground, I did it for him.

arguskos

2009-06-21, 02:31 AM

edit: It's not a shortened name. It's a "variant", sure (of Janet, according to a number of sources, oddly enough :smallconfused:) but it is absolutely and very much a name in and of itself. Based on some tombstones I've looked at, I think it was fairly common around the turn of last century. To look at it another way, my mother's name is Roslyn. She absolutely hates it when, in similar circumstances, she introduces herself as "Roslyn" and the other person immediately refers to her as "Ros". It's just good manners to refer to someone as they refer to themselves, or to ask for permission to use a different term.
edit mk. 2: Also, I'm failing to see the distinction there :smallconfused: I really can't understand how someone would much prefer to continue in a mistaken belief about a convention than have someone spend a second or two (politely and respectfully) correcting it... Isn't it better to be corrected and subsequently right than ignored and forever wrong?
I always refer to someone as they to themselves, but I never knew Jessie was considered a variation, not a shortening. Excellent, to learn something new. Thanks for sharing! :smallsmile:

As for why I dislike being corrected, it's mostly that I have a very distinctive writing and speaking style, one that isn't correct by the rules of language. And I know it. I use massive amounts of fragments, run-ons, strange juxtapositions of words, bad syntax, and all other manner of things that would cause a grammarian to have a heart attack. And I like it that way. It makes my writing a touch distinct. Now, if some bloke comes along and says, "this, this is TERRIBLE! Why do you write this way? Nonono, this is all wrong!" and starts scribbling all over, I'll be a bit upset, since now it's not my writing anymore, it's his. My writing is mine. I know how to speak and write clearly. No one is getting confused about what I'm saying. So, why correct it?

Let me put it this way: we don't speak correctly at all, yet no one corrects speech. I write like I speak: uniquely. I won't let a grammarian take that away from me.

Note: this is NOT an attack on you or anyone else Serp, just my stance on it. I'll understand if you disagree with my stance though, few people agree with it. :smallwink:

Innis Cabal

2009-06-21, 02:34 AM

Innis, I respect you from hell to the great beyond, but I was trying to make a point, not to irritate you or anyone else.

:smalleek: Huh? You do? Well now I am both confused and feel like a jerk.

RabbitHoleLost

2009-06-21, 02:36 AM

:smalleek: Huh? You do? Well now I am both confused and feel like a jerk.
Yes, quite.
Can't remember when it started. Somewhere in the Media section, I think.
I'unno.

But don't feel like a jerk! I've had a bad day and was irritable and didn't say the things I should have in the way I should have.
(And that made no grammatical sense at all. My apologies >>)

Serpentine

2009-06-21, 02:37 AM

Rockphed

2009-06-21, 02:43 AM

arguskos

2009-06-21, 02:45 AM

Arguskos: Eh, there's a difference between "honest mistake" and "writing style" - there's a reason why I haven't had a go at Reorith beyond noting that it bugs me a bit and that he should be prepared to receive criticism if he makes the very sort of mistake he started a thread to complain about. If that's just your thing, fine, but I don't think you should get up in arms if someone thinks that you've just made a mistake and tries to educate you on proper usage. As long as, of course, they do so in a polite and respectful manner. If someone's rude, tell them off for being rude. Don't lump everyone who tries to do the same thing without the rudeness in with them.
Fair enough. I never meant to, in any case. Glad that you understand my point, at the least. :smallsmile: Most folks gloss over it and keep hammering on the same button of "butbutbut, you're WRONG!". :smallfrown:

Now, to retire, for it is too early in the morning for civil conversation! Away! *teleports to bed*

reorith

2009-06-21, 02:46 AM

there's a reason why I haven't had a go at Reorith beyond noting that it bugs me a bit and that he should be prepared to receive criticism if he makes the very sort of mistake he started a thread to complain about.

Indeed Serp. So readily had I steeled my nerves to receive the numerous hurrfs and derps issued forth from the hall of earthnuts when I went about crafting my initial post. Forsooth would I had been hoist of my own petard had the scope of this yarn been so wide as to encompass all of the grammatical world, but nay I cast my net only to retrieve those also irked by malopropisms and those that perpetuate them.

Edit: "Hurf-durf" is the appropriate way summarize an insult directed at one's self. Derp is the sound a stupid joke makes.

Serpentine

2009-06-21, 02:48 AM

edit@^: Oooooh. What's a "herrf" and a "derp"? Looking at your first post, fair enough. You were specifically referring to that particular grammatic error of incorrect word usage, not grammar and punctuation/language errors in general. Though I did say "the very sort of mistake" <.< But yeah, I concede that point.
In that case... Nah, I can't think of many words people erroneously use interchangeably... I'm sure there's something my Boy says, but I can't remember it.

In primary school (and sometimes still now), I introduced myself as "just Jessie". One of my (oh-so-clever and witty) teachers started calling me "Just Jessie" :smallsigh: My sister got in the habit of introducing herself as "Seren. S E R E N", because people would call her things like Sarah and Soren and Serene and the like.
Interestingly, I had a doll called Jessica and she had one called Sarah...
<.<
>.>

Argus: Oh, that was sort of to everyone, not just you. Well, specifically the "it's rude to correct people's mistakes!" people as a whole.

Anuan

2009-06-21, 03:28 AM

MisplacedBunnyBurrow.

I d'awwwed out loud.

arguskos

2009-06-21, 03:31 AM

Argus: Oh, that was sort of to everyone, not just you. Well, specifically the "it's rude to correct people's mistakes!" people as a whole.
Well, you did use my name in the response, so :smalltongue:. It's all good though, I don't mind being used as a sacrificial lamb. I have lich-like rejuvenation, so it's all good.

Also, I am awful at actually going to sleep. :smallsigh: Let's try this again....

Serpentine

2009-06-21, 03:33 AM

Well, part of that was specifically directed at you, but other parts were not :smalltongue:
Also, I feel your pain :smallsigh:

arguskos

2009-06-21, 04:12 AM

Well, part of that was specifically directed at you, but other parts were not :smalltongue:
Also, I feel your pain :smallsigh:
Yup. Still here. It's been over an hour. :smallannoyed: BRAIN! GO TO SLEEP! AUGH! Last post in here, I swear!

Castaras

2009-06-21, 04:27 AM

robbery/theft/larceny/burglary

These are all synonyms (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/theft)

Every single one of them (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/theft)

Why do people seem to hate them? (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/theft)

Maybe you should just relax? (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/theft)

Not in a legal sense. Unfortunately, due to me having two parents working in the law, I have the urge to correct people on theft, burglary, robbery, etc.

*shrugs* I know I shouldn't, but I do.

No caps is far better than capitalizing the beginning of EVERY word.

QFT.

I'll admit, no capitalisation bugs me like hell. A few years ago I'd have been ignoring posts that don't have it. I'm much better with it now (mostly because I end up not capitalising sometimes. >.>), but the complete capitalising annoys me most.

Innis Cabal

2009-06-21, 04:34 AM

Not in a legal sense. Unfortunately, due to me having two parents working in the law, I have the urge to correct people on theft, burglary, robbery, etc.

*shrugs* I know I shouldn't, but I do.

We've been over this ;D Its not the issue within the context of this post. They are still all synonyms and thats my point. It dosn't matter if they mean different things in the law. How many people will know that on average? The english language is built around multiple words meaning the same thing. A chef would not correct you when you say "knife" when you clearly meant a pairing knife, or a butter knife if you were just going to use it to cut a piece of food up (well, I know -I- wouldn't, but hey....not all chefs are as cool as me). A doctor on the streets isn't going to correct someone when they say they have the flu and demand they use the proper strain(how they'd know it is beyond me but you get the idea). A landscaper is not going to demand you call it a spade, instead of a shovel.

Job terms are just that. Job terms. You leave them on the job.

Tiger Duck

2009-06-21, 04:37 AM

The thing is you can correct me as much as you want, I'll still keep making every mistake ocagionaly. There are just to many rules and exeptions for me to keep track of. I'm kinda dum like that.

but it never bothers me when people correct me.

I typed this without copy-paste-ing it in Word, I wonder how many mistakes I made.:smallsmile:

reorith

2009-06-21, 04:47 AM

We've been over this ;D Its not the issue within the context of this post. They are still all synonyms and thats my point. It dosn't matter if they mean different things in the law. How many people will know that on average? The english language is built around multiple words meaning the same thing. A chef would not correct you when you say "knife" when you clearly meant a pairing knife, or a butter knife if you were just going to use it to cut a piece of food up (well, I know -I- wouldn't, but hey....not all chefs are as cool as me). A doctor on the streets isn't going to correct someone when they say they have the flu and demand they use the proper strain(how they'd know it is beyond me but you get the idea). A landscaper is not going to demand you call it a spade, instead of a shovel.

Job terms are just that. Job terms. You leave them on the job.

Alack! Is there a place more suited for your wanton abuse of the English tongue? 'The folly of giving correction to a chef is grave, indeed as he is the one with the knife!

Ninja Chocobo

2009-06-21, 04:50 AM

Reorith's lack of capitalization is distinctive of him. In my mind, its just as much of an identifier as an avatar (especially since he has one of the community ones).
It doesn't harm anyone, and though I typically disagree with anything he has to say, its not because his I's are lower case.
Since he chose not to stand his ground, I did it for him.

Wellifwe'regoingtosacrificereadabilityandproperEng lishforthesakeofgimmickyidentifiersmaybeIshouldjus ttypewithoutspaces.

e:Andlettheforumfillthemininthewrongspots.

I'll admit, no capitalisation bugs me like hell. A few years ago I'd have been ignoring posts that don't have it. I'm much better with it now (mostly because I end up not capitalising sometimes. >.>), but the complete capitalising annoys me most.
Also,intheFanComicssubforumwhenpeopleusemultipleli nesintheirtextboxesanddon'tproofreadtoseeiftheirpr ogram'sputanextracapitalletteratthebeginningofalin e.

Innis Cabal

2009-06-21, 05:00 AM

Alack! Is there a place more suited for your wanton abuse of the English tongue? 'The folly of giving correction to a chef is grave, indeed as he is the one with the knife!

Better believe it. And no. Only the kitchen, i'd suppose.

Castaras

2009-06-21, 05:11 AM

We've been over this ;D Its not the issue within the context of this post. They are still all synonyms and thats my point. It dosn't matter if they mean different things in the law. How many people will know that on average? The english language is built around multiple words meaning the same thing. A chef would not correct you when you say "knife" when you clearly meant a pairing knife, or a butter knife if you were just going to use it to cut a piece of food up (well, I know -I- wouldn't, but hey....not all chefs are as cool as me). A doctor on the streets isn't going to correct someone when they say they have the flu and demand they use the proper strain(how they'd know it is beyond me but you get the idea). A landscaper is not going to demand you call it a spade, instead of a shovel.

Job terms are just that. Job terms. You leave them on the job.

I know that. I did read through the thread. ;P

And that's why I said *shrugs* I know I shouldn't, but I do. I do know that it's a bad habit. But I can't help it, and am unlikely to.

Oh - I call it spade, not shovel. =P

Dirk Kris

2009-06-21, 08:25 AM

I find myself correcting people in my life who make errors like that. Or pronunciation errors. The bad thing is that I don't even realize I'm doing it. AND, apparently, some people find it highly annoying. But generally those annoyed are repeat offenders, so...meh.

RabbitHoleLost

2009-06-21, 12:53 PM

Wellifwe'regoingtosacrificereadabilityandproperEng lishforthesakeofgimmickyidentifiersmaybeIshouldjus ttypewithoutspaces.

e:Andlettheforumfillthemininthewrongspots.

Also,intheFanComicssubforumwhenpeopleusemultipleli nesintheirtextboxesanddon'tproofreadtoseeiftheirpr ogram'sputanextracapitalletteratthebeginningofalin e.
Lack of capitalization doesn't make anything harder to read, its just improper grammar. Don't tell me the fact reorith doesn't have a big r in his name makes it near impossible for you to understand him.

Plus, if everyone had some grammar deficiency in their post, it wouldn't be iconic to reorith, would it? :smalltongue:

North

2009-06-21, 01:33 PM

Lack of caps do bug me sometimes, but I hardly ever use the ' button. So I typically wont call people on it unless overly critical of grammar.

What I really hate and cant listen to are " y are u 2 over there" type statements. Drives me buggy.

Anuan

2009-06-21, 07:23 PM

Oh - I call it spade, not shovel. =P

This has recently begun to irritate me, as they are different implements. One is more suited to 'shovelling' (Guess which one :smalltongue:) stuff from a pile and is usually more curved, so the holes dug with it tend to be loosely shaped affairs. The other is generally smaller and more straight and square, for cutting and removing earth. I don't actually pick anyone up on it though, unless we've got both and they're asking me to get one, I ask for confirmation of which they want.

averagejoe

2009-06-21, 08:17 PM

This has recently begun to irritate me, as they are different implements. One is more suited to 'shovelling' (Guess which one :smalltongue:) stuff from a pile and is usually more curved, so the holes dug with it tend to be loosely shaped affairs. The other is generally smaller and more straight and square, for cutting and removing earth. I don't actually pick anyone up on it though, unless we've got both and they're asking me to get one, I ask for confirmation of which they want.

You know, I don't think I've heard a discussion on this subject in which multiple professionals didn't disagree on the name. Just saying.

Joran

2009-06-21, 09:36 PM

Oh, not really a specifically English problem, but it bugs me when people just won't believe me that my name is just Jessie, not Jessica. I've offered to show my birth certificate before. They just refuse to consider it :smallmad: Again, though, fortunately it doesn't happen much. More commonly, though, I'll, say, introduce myself, for example to some official on the phone, as "Jessie", and in the very next breath they'll say, "okay then Jessica..." If I wanted you to call me Jessica I would've said my name was Jessica! :smallfurious:
<.<
>.>
*cough*

I believe you, I have a friend named Danny. It's not short for Daniel, but I'm sure he gets a lot of mail or invitations with Daniel as his name.

Just be careful about veering into this person's territory. ;)
http://www.politico.com/blogs/anneschroeder/0609/No_namecalling.html?showall

To be honest, I'm so bad with names that I rarely call anyone by his or her name to his or her face. (Ha! Caught myself there, I almost used "their".)

Raharu

2009-06-21, 09:45 PM

No, not really. More often than not, I have enough trouble with those sorts of things myself.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty darn articulate, but sometimes the exact right word eludes me, and I'll use the next best thing.

Joran

2009-06-21, 09:49 PM

Here's another test to see if something bothers you. All of these are incorrect uses, although I don't have a problem with them. These were taken from this chat: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/05/27/DI2009052700960.html

Someone says he "has a temperature," meaning a fever.

Someone says "I am nauseous," meaning she feels sick to her stomach.

Someone comments on the "enormity" of a problem, referring to its size and complexity.

Someone says that he had "the exact same" experience that you did.

Someone describes a situation as "very unique."

Someone says he "snuck into" a movie preview.

Someone says, "Hopefully, I’ll finish this project in time."

Someone says "I was so embarrassed I was literally dying up there."

Recaiden

2009-06-21, 09:58 PM

Only the last one bothers me. Some I've probably used myself.

Rutskarn

2009-06-21, 10:01 PM

Someone says he "has a temperature," meaning a fever.

A traditional and universally acceptable vernacular phrase.

Someone says "I am nauseous," meaning she feels sick to her stomach.

Little problematic, but in the right linguistic area.

Someone comments on the "enormity" of a problem, referring to its size and complexity.

That's just the wordsmith's fault right there.

Someone says that he had "the exact same" experience that you did.

In that the experience is conveyed in generalities, this is pretty acceptable.

Someone describes a situation as "very unique."

Eh.

Someone says he "snuck into" a movie preview.

Oh give me a goddamn break.

Someone says, "Hopefully, I’ll finish this project in time."

...what?

Someone says "I was so embarrassed I was literally dying up there."

Okay. Okay, yes, this one actually bugs me.

I'm with you, Joran, Recaiden. These are pretty much BS.

Pyrian

2009-06-21, 10:22 PM

Bah. Language is mutable. Anything "incorrect" becomes "correct" as soon as a sufficient number of people decide it is so. The very idea that usage can be "incorrect" is merely a holdover from the process of education - in real life, language can at worst fail to convey the intended meaning, and can certainly cause unnecessary confusion ("correct" or not!), but simply cannot otherwise be strictly speaking "incorrect" the way a mathematical statement can be incorrect.

ghost_warlock

2009-06-21, 10:23 PM

Someone describes a situation as "very unique."

:smallbiggrin:
I say this sort of thing all the time, and I giggle a little every time I do. I have very infinite love for the word 'very.'

Raharu

2009-06-21, 11:02 PM

[snip]

Hm, none of those really bother me either.

In my opinion, literalism isn't funny, nor is it cool or even particularly useful. I might go so far as to say those who put too much stake in it are missing out on a lot of the fun things that the rest of us can do with words.

Like someone said, language is mutable. Anything you want to do with it to express yourself more acutely, I am all for. I feel like punctuation, capitalization, sparing use of adjective and all such technical rules of language are best learned as a foundation, used when applicable, and the rest of the time bent or outright ignored at the author's whim.

Just as much of the meaning of someone's writing comes from how it diverges from the norm as comes from how strictly conventions are followed.

But, erm, I think I'd better stop before I get too tangential :smalleek:. Point I'm trying to make is, turns of phrase are what they are, and I think that's great. If they don't exactly apply to the rules, I could care less. (Or I couldn't care less; whichever irks you more :smallwink:)

North

2009-06-22, 12:31 AM

Someone says "I am nauseous," meaning she feels sick to her stomach.

Someone says he "snuck into" a movie preview.

Someone says, "Hopefully, I’ll finish this project in time."

I really dont understand the problems with any of these. Ive probably used them all.

Serpentine

2009-06-22, 12:41 AM

I believe the past tense of "sneak" is "sneaked", and I remember reading/hearing something about "nauseous" commonly being used wrong - I think it should be "I am nauseated" or possibly "I feel nauseous" or somesuch. Dunno about the other one.

If they don't exactly apply to the rules, I could care less.BUT THAT ONE MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO GODDAM FREAKING SENSE! :furious:

Occasional Sage

2009-06-22, 01:33 AM

Like someone said, language is mutable. Anything you want to do with it to express yourself more acutely, I am all for. I feel like punctuation, capitalization, sparing use of adjective and all such technical rules of language are best learned as a foundation, used when applicable, and the rest of the time bent or outright ignored at the author's whim.

Just as much of the meaning of someone's writing comes from how it diverges from the norm as comes from how strictly conventions are followed.

So when Bob D. Hypothetical deviates from standard English, how do I tell whether it's because he doesn't know any better, or he's making a subtle point with his choice to do his own wacky thing?

BUT THAT ONE MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO GODDAM FREAKING SENSE! :furious:

I think he means "adhere" rather than "apply".

Pyrian

2009-06-22, 01:41 AM

If you can figure out what he means, why should you even care?

Serpentine

2009-06-22, 01:47 AM

I think he means "adhere" rather than "apply"....
I was referring to that thrice-bedamned "could care less". I don't tend to take too much issue with poor word-choice or -placement or whatever, but when it completely changes the meaning of the sentence rendering it utterly nonsensical, then it annoys me. Especially when for some incomprehensible reason it's become commonplace! :smallfurious:

Occasional Sage

2009-06-22, 01:50 AM

Ah yeah that. I'm there with you on that one.

Lufia

2009-06-22, 01:54 AM

Someone says "I am nauseous," meaning she feels sick to her stomach.
What's the adjective corresponding to "nausea", then? Just say "I'm going to throw up on you in about 20 seconds." :smalltongue:

Someone comments on the "enormity" of a problem, referring to its size and complexity.
It doesn't bug me but I find the confusion amusing.

Someone says, "Hopefully, I’ll finish this project in time."
Should it be "on"? I've heard "in due time" though, so I may be completely wrong here.

Someone says "I was so embarrassed I was literally dying up there."
Okay, that one is slightly annoying.

Joran

2009-06-22, 10:02 AM

What's the adjective corresponding to "nausea", then? Just say "I'm going to throw up on you in about 20 seconds." :smalltongue:

I believe the correct word is "nauseated". Nauseous means something causing nausea, but through common usage the second meaning, "affected by nausea", has become part of the definition as well.

I personally use nauseous.

unstattedCommoner

2009-06-22, 10:08 AM

Someone says "I was so embarrassed I was literally dying up there."

This. I figuratively vomit whenever I hear or read someone use "literally" to introduce a metaphor.

Last_resort_33

2009-06-22, 10:11 AM

This. I figuratively vomit whenever I hear or read someone use "literally" to introduce a metaphor.

AHGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think I'm going to have a fit!

Fin

2009-06-22, 10:41 AM

My main problem with interchangeability of words (was that even a sentence?) Is may old room-mate who would constantly use the terms 'henceforth' and 'ergo' like saying it meant what he was saying was fact, and it never ever made sense I still don't think he knows what either of them mean!

Quincunx

2009-06-22, 11:48 AM

When I go to clarify what someone meant by using the wrong word in context, only to discover that their thoughts were so poorly defined that no word is more appropriate than another--that bothers me. People not speaking English as a native language get leniency on this, because of this sprawling beast of a language often going into finer detail than the language of the thought.

Katrascythe

2009-06-22, 12:23 PM

It drives me bats when people are writing research/technical papers and use fragments, run-ons, and first/second person. Since, I don't CARE what you think. Honestly. Truly. Leave the "I's" and "you's" for your flowery opinion papers. If someone is writing a paper that people need to read purely for the information, the paper needs to be grammatically correct for clarity, it needs to be in third person, and it needs to be concise. Writing how you speak can be extremely convoluted and messy, especially when the reader cannot read language "X" well.

I read a lot of papers to proofread them. I've found that 90% of people who write how they speak make zero sense on paper because they lack voice and gestures. I love people who write in plain English. The sentences can be plenty elaborate and can still sound like the person. Grammatically correct sentences are just simpler to understand and less painful to read. If I have to read your paper out loud because the writing makes no sense, you're doing it wrong.

I'm not an English teacher, I swear. I'm a Chem major.

Dogmantra

2009-06-22, 12:26 PM

The sentences can be plenty elaborate and can still sound like the person.

You mean like accidentally writing a sentence that went on for eight lines for an English essay? That sort of elaborate?
But I wouldn't know anything about that...

Katrascythe

2009-06-22, 12:30 PM

You mean like accidentally writing a sentence that went on for eight lines for an English essay? That sort of elaborate?
But I wouldn't know anything about that...

*twitch*

*twitch*

KILLLLLL

Actually, I just mean using a vocabulary more than 2 syllables and having an appropriate amounts of commas. If there's more than 5 in a sentence that's not a list, you might wanna rethink it :P Semicolons count, too. Most run-ons are easy to break up with like a period and a single word. That doesn't change the voice of the person noticeably but it's easier on the eyes.

Dogmantra

2009-06-22, 12:36 PM

If there's more than 5 in a sentence that's not a list, you might wanna rethink it :P

But... but... I like commas!

I'm just guilty of not being able to draw sentences to a satisfying close. The scary thing is that I think that when I write essays that they sound too choppy as it is, without adding more full stops...
I suppose I'm wrong. :smallwink:

Katrascythe

2009-06-22, 12:42 PM

But... but... I like commas!

I'm just guilty of not being able to draw sentences to a satisfying close. The scary thing is that I think that when I write essays that they sound too choppy as it is, without adding more full stops...
I suppose I'm wrong. :smallwink:

My essays used to sound like that, also. I had a prof a few years ago that suggested I combine shorter and longer sentences. That way, it shares more with spoken language and simply flows better.

I also tend to watch my language if I have to write essays. I try to think in more complete sentences. Therefore, if my writing reflects my speech it is still more or less correct.

Anuan

2009-06-22, 05:52 PM

We've recently been encouraged to use the first person in our essays. It's usually implied that we should through the question, which is often along the lines of '<random statement about the module/area of study>, how true have you found this in your study of blahdyblahblahblahi'mateacherandcanmakeyouwriteabo utbullcrap'

However I am -extremely- guilty of over flowery language (I have to sometimes, use of metalanguage is part of the marking criteria in Advanced and Extension english, I do both) in my essays. I'll upload to make people rage, if anybody wants XD

Raharu

2009-06-22, 07:59 PM

So when Bob D. Hypothetical deviates from standard English, how do I tell whether it's because he doesn't know any better, or he's making a subtle point with his choice to do his own wacky thing?

You could ask him?

Then again, it's the same thing that's been asked of nearly all literature ever, isn't it? "Is it accidental, or is it sublime? Perhaps even accidentally sublime?" You never do know for sure, and the least you can do is try not to lose sleep over it.

...

BTW, I did mean "adhere," but the point of "Could care less," was - as revealed - to make no sense whatsoever :).

TRM

2009-06-22, 09:07 PM

MisplacedBunnyBurrow: I've already explained why I think correcting grammar and punctuation is far from utterly unimportant *shrug*

Arguskos: Eh, there's a difference between "honest mistake" and "writing style" - there's a reason why I haven't had a go at Reorith beyond noting that it bugs me a bit and that he should be prepared to receive criticism if he makes the very sort of mistake he started a thread to complain about. If that's just your thing, fine, but I don't think you should get up in arms if someone thinks that you've just made a mistake and tries to educate you on proper usage. As long as, of course, they do so in a polite and respectful manner. If someone's rude, tell them off for being rude. Don't lump everyone who tries to do the same thing without the rudeness in with them.
I contend that, in many cases, no matter how polite your presentation, correcting speech in the middle of a conversation is rude and appears presumptuous. The goal of speech is communication, and adherence to grammar laws can improve the communication but this benefit rarely makes up for the rudeness of the act. Sure, interrupting someone to say "you mean nauseated not nauseous," may improve their English, but it still calls them out as incorrect and makes them appear uneducated—something that no one wants to be portrayed as. It's also unnecessary. In a real-time conversation people slip, mix-up words, or focus on the content rather than the presentation—and just because someone says "clip" when they meant "magazine" doesn't mean that their ideas are invalid or even that they are a poor speaker.

I would only consider grammar correction proper if a) the offense was frequent and blatant or b) the misuse was embarrassingly obvious and stupid—then the recipient will probably thank you for saving them further embarrassment.
For example, if someone was throwing around "****" thinking it was an acceptable term for vagina, it would be appropriate to correct them. If they said "a apple," instead of "an apple" it would be excessive and gratuitously rude. Even if you were perfectly polite: "Sorry, dude, but you made a mistake here—it's okay, everyone makes it. You said "a apple" when you meant "an apple." :smallsmile:

Of course, the written word and formal speeches or presentations follow completely different rules. In a document intended for publishing, grammatical mistakes or word-placement errors are inexcusable—as are typos. This applies at a lesser extent to informal writing venues, such as a forum. In a forum, or an email proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling are common courtesies because in impersonal mediums like those (these? correct my usage!) they are the best ways of improving communication (and they look nice too; they're the equivalent of not slurring your words, mumbling, or talking too fast).

RabbitHoleLost

2009-06-22, 09:11 PM

(and they look nice too; they're the equivalent of not slurring your words, mumbling, or talking too fast).

That's my actual weakness in speaking face to face. I talk too fast =/

Thanatos 51-50

2009-06-22, 09:18 PM

*twitch*

*twitch*

KILLLLLL

Actually, I just mean using a vocabulary more than 2 syllables and having an appropriate amounts of commas. If there's more than 5 in a sentence that's not a list, you might wanna rethink it :P Semicolons count, too. Most run-ons are easy to break up with like a period and a single word. That doesn't change the voice of the person noticeably but it's easier on the eyes.

I abuse commas.
Abuse them, like tie them up and take a nine-tails to their poor, unprotected hunchbacks until I flay the flesh open and they scream for mercy before sticking them in the most awkward places in a sentance ever.

And I enjoy it. Don't take my comma-abuse away.

snoopy13a

2009-06-22, 09:32 PM

It drives me bats when people are writing research/technical papers and use fragments, run-ons, and first/second person. Since, I don't CARE what you think. Honestly. Truly. Leave the "I's" and "you's" for your flowery opinion papers. If someone is writing a paper that people need to read purely for the information, the paper needs to be grammatically correct for clarity, it needs to be in third person, and it needs to be concise. Writing how you speak can be extremely convoluted and messy, especially when the reader cannot read language "X" well.

Every scientific paper I've read has been extremely concise and to the point. The primary reason is that space is at a premium in scientific journals so information is presented as brief as possible. Reading scientific papers is time consuming and can be difficult for this reason. Of course, this applies to published journal articles, your experiences may be from student lab reports.

Serpentine

2009-06-22, 10:52 PM

Sure, interrupting someone to say "you mean nauseated not nauseous," may improve their English, but it still calls them out as incorrect and makes them appear uneducated—something that no one wants to be portrayed as.Incorrect, sure. Because they are incorrect. To ignore it is to ensure that they continue being incorrect. Are you really saying you'd prefer to continue being wrong than have an instant of very mild embarrassment but be more likely to subsequently be right? I, at least, absolutely would not.
As for uneducated, not at all. I have a degree and, as I said, I still get effect and affect mixed up. Maybe if more people corrected me, I'd be getting it right. If someone correcting an error in your use of language makes you think that they're making you look, or having a go at you for being, uneducated, then you have more issues than flawed language use.
I'm not, mostly, talking about face-to-face live conversation, nor am I talking about bringing up every single minor error or slip of the tongue (nauseous/nauseated wouldn't cause me to bat an eye, although an "I literally died" would attract a "Really? Literally, huh? Wow, you're looking good for a dead person."). If someone makes a very serious (especially if damaging to communication) or repeated mistake, then yes, I will correct them, because I'd want someone to correct me (turns out epitome is not pronounced "EPPEE-toam"). If that offends them, I'll 1. try to remember not to do it again, and 2. quite possibly think less well of them, for taking constructive criticism personally and being unwilling to improve themselves. I'm not looking for perfection - there's far too much obscure stuff to always get it right, and truly perfect language just wouldn't be fun. I'm looking for attempts at self-improvement and getting the easy stuff right.

Innis Cabal

2009-06-22, 11:06 PM

Incorrect, sure. Because they are incorrect. To ignore it is to ensure that they continue being incorrect. Are you really saying you'd prefer to continue being wrong than have an instant of very mild embarrassment but be more likely to subsequently be right? I, at least, absolutely would not.

Doing it somewhere not in public I can understand, but no one wants to be made a fool of in front of people. It makes me want to slap people when they can't hold off for a moment and be polite. Its just manners really. Its not allowing people to be wrong, its allowing them the dignity not to look like a tool.

Serpentine

2009-06-22, 11:40 PM

Hrm... I don't think it's ever come up "in public", at least not in a situation that wasn't so fast-moving and hectic that there's just no time to do it. Amongst friends, sure - everyone makes fun of everyone else for worse, and hell I get made fun of for making the corrections. Big whoop. "In public" I can understand being inappropriate, if only because "in public" speed is often at least as important as true correctness. But noone specified "in public", just "ever".

averagejoe

2009-06-22, 11:50 PM

On "hopefully": The way it's most often used these days is to move the same thing as, "I hope," as a verb, where properly it is an adverb. That is, a proper use would be, "He looked up hopefully and said, 'Can I please have a turn?'" The improper, but these days more common usage would be, "Hopefully he can have a turn."

Of course, as the people here have clearly demonstrated, no one actually knows this anymore. It's only "incorrect" according to the most studious of English students. Which is why it is silly to harp on these little technical (but still understandable) misuses of language.

Other incorectnesses that no one even realizes are incorrect anymore:

Perfect: nothing is perfect. However, the word is now commonly used to express appreciation, to mean "really great" instead of "without flaw."

Since: It does not mean "because," it refers to time. For example, "He hasn't called since last year," is correct. "Since he hadn't called, I called him," is not.

Over: Does not mean "greater than," it refers to spacial position. "I traveled over ten miles," does not make sense.

Serpentine

2009-06-22, 11:54 PM

...
Dammit, now you've added more things for me to be (very mildly) annoyed about :smalltongue: "Hopefully" and "since", in particular, I think I'll start trying to keep an eye out for...

averagejoe

2009-06-22, 11:59 PM

...
Dammit, now you've added more things for me to be (very mildly) annoyed about :smalltongue: "Hopefully" and "since", in particular, I think I'll start trying to keep an eye out for...

I can add more if you like. :smallamused:

Pyrian

2009-06-23, 12:03 AM

Because they are incorrect.Except that (1) they're not incorrect (ref (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nauseous)), and (2) the very notion that language can be inherently "incorrect" is misleading and inaccurate; it can, at worst, fail in its purpose.

averagejoe

2009-06-23, 12:09 AM

Except that (1) they're not incorrect (ref (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nauseous)), and (2) the very notion that language can be inherently "incorrect" is misleading and inaccurate; it can, at worst, fail in its purpose.

Well, to a degree. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly fine with using the word, "Incorrectnesses," in my above post, and in general I'm all for creative conversational use of language. However, it is somewhat important to have a formal canon for those situations where things need to be as unambiguous as possible.

Serpentine

2009-06-23, 12:14 AM

Except that (1) they're not incorrect (ref (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nauseous)), and (2) the very notion that language can be inherently "incorrect" is misleading and inaccurate; it can, at worst, fail in its purpose.As I said before, I don't actually really care about the "nauseous" thing - there's an excellent chance I'd use it myself - it's just one example, used in my post only because it was used by the person I was responding to. Secondly, while I'm more than happy to have flexibility in language (hell, Jabberwocky is my favourite poem), if you don't have "correct" and "incorrect", you don't have language, you have nonsense.
edit: Actually, why did you bring up nauseous specifically in response to my post, anyway? :smallconfused: I specifically said, and I quote, "nauseous/nauseated wouldn't cause me to bat an eye". If it turns out that that's not incorrect usage, that makes absolutely no difference to my argument.

Pyrian

2009-06-23, 12:40 AM

EDIT 3: Short version:

Given that "correct" language is defined by common usage, complaining that common usage of language is incorrect is inherently a self-defeating stance.

Long version:EDIT 2: You know I love you, right? Don't take any of this as a personal attack. I'm just trying to express my opinion on the subject as clearly as I know how. :smallcool:

...it's just one example...It's not actually an example at all. The frequency with which long-documented usage is referred to as being "incorrect" with no justification whatsoever is IMO evidence that applying the notion of "correctness" to language is an inherently muddy process. Anything that could be written could potentially become common usage thereafter, even total nonsense.

So consider instead the abuse of "literally", which seems to bother people the most in this thread. Such abuse involves a statement in which "literally" means its opposite. A horrible abuse of language? Or a simple use of hyperbole which will never actually confuse the intended audience? Using a 4+ syllable word to describe something seems to magically make it acceptable.

Secondly, while I'm more than happy to have flexibility in language (hell, Jabberwocky is my favourite poem), if you don't have "correct" and "incorrect", you don't have language, you have nonsense.Language is nothing more than nonsense given convention. If your claim were true, then incorrect usage would be incomprehensible, rather than almost universally understood. Don't get me wrong; language can fail, meaning that the intended implication is not inferred, and can be judged quite harshly on that scale. But the fact that incorrect usage can convey intended meaning - and often more efficiently than correct usage, at that - makes your claim, well, silly. Language did just fine before anybody decided to try and regulate it.

Language likely predates the very concept of language being "correct" or "incorrect", a distinction which is mostly a tool for teaching and editing. The rules that form "correctness" of language are merely documentation of existing usage, not straightjackets for it. They are constantly in flux.

This means that pretty much ANYTHING you complain about being "incorrect" and commonly used today, may very well become "correct" in the future. You may as well put a screen door on a submarine as try to tell a language what it can and cannot do.

EDIT:
edit: Actually, why did you bring up nauseous specifically in response to my post, anyway?Because your statement, which I quoted, was in direct response to that specific example. I probably should have further quoted whom you were quoting at the time, but this forum software makes that an inconvenient process. Anyway, as I tried to explain above, I think the fact that lists of supposedly "incorrect" usage tend to be littered with examples of perfectly acceptable speech is instructive of my point, so I tend to harp on it.

Note that I am not particularly commenting on the discussion of when it is appropriate to criticize an adult's language usage, but rather on the more fundamental issue of whether "correctness" is even an appropriate descriptor for language.

reorith

2009-06-23, 03:45 AM

EDIT 3: Short version:

Given that "correct" language is defined by common usage, complaining that common usage of language is incorrect is inherently a self-defeating stance.

Good sir, direct your attention to the concept of diction. Diction serves to divide speakers into two elements. The population of the first element contains those capable of speaking, while the second element is comprised of those individuals actually worthy of speaking. I maintain the measure of a man is not his deeds, his wealth or his values, but whether or not he is able to express his thoughts in a manner free of confusing word choices. Common usage is a cancer that seeks only to reduce Mother English to an anemic patois. I present unto you this parable most fitting.

A long time ago in a far away kingdom called Deutschland there once lived a language called High German. It was a beautiful language with so very many pointless compound words. One day, the residents of the southwestern region decided that they needed to use words in a way unfit of the standard lexicon and crafted a new set of words and parlance. As time progressed the orthographic and phonological discrepancies between the old and new languages grew larger until almost by magic, the residents of the region did communicate with a new tongue known as Swabian!

Mitth'raw'nuruo

2009-06-23, 04:56 AM

Skipping to the end.

Yes it does bother me; and it should bother EVERYONE; proper use of the language is important. We all miss-use it; but unless someone corrects me; I have no way of knowing that I am ignorant.

Speaking of: What is the difference between: robbery/theft/larceny/burglary

(goes to read rest of thread)

Lufia

2009-06-23, 05:26 AM

Perfect: nothing is perfect. However, the word is now commonly used to express appreciation, to mean "really great" instead of "without flaw."
That's being a bit too nitpicky as far as I'm concerned. I see it as an hyperbole to show great appreciation, it doesn't mean people don't know what the word means anymore.

Since: It does not mean "because," it refers to time. For example, "He hasn't called since last year," is correct. "Since he hadn't called, I called him," is not.
In this example it does sound akward but, for what it's worth, that particular meaning made it into an oline dictionary. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/since) It's also taught to foreigners, like me.

Over: Does not mean "greater than," it refers to spacial position. "I traveled over ten miles," does not make sense.
Same as above. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/over) Well, deeming some uses correct and others not for a word like "over" is opening a can of worms. It's used in so many different contexts, as a preposition, an adverb, or whatever else, it's bound to develop new meanings by association. Same goes for "since", "as", "get" and many others.

Ninja Chocobo

2009-06-23, 05:34 AM

The extra two syllables in 'nauseated' mean that by the time you manage to get it out there's probably a lot more than words coming out of your mouth.

Mitth'raw'nuruo

2009-06-23, 06:23 AM

found my answer half way through the thread. Thanks

:smile:

To Jessie: I understand; I always introduce myself with my last name (and only my last name) because most people can not tell the difference between Brian and Ryan. It is very annoying to have to repeat myself five times to get them to say my name right.

Raharu

2009-06-23, 11:44 AM

A long time ago in a far away kingdom called Deutschland there once lived a language called High German. It was a beautiful language with so very many pointless compound words. One day, the residents of the southwestern region decided that they needed to use words in a way unfit of the standard lexicon and crafted a new set of words and parlance. As time progressed the orthographic and phonological discrepancies between the old and new languages grew larger until almost by magic, the residents of the region did communicate with a new tongue known as Swabian!

And I see no problem with that. Language evolves, and I feel something is lost upon a people should it happen that their language does not. Strive as anyone may to create a "beautiful" or "perfect" language, in the end the creator will most likely be the only one to use it as he or she intended.

The evolution of language is the beautiful part, as far as I am concerned. How people choose to use (some may prefer to substitute "abuse" here) their language, to change and mold it into a new form with greater utility and beauty than before (even if the process is not so apparent to them), is a fine gauge of where that people stands, in many respects.

I think where we're diverging here is that while one side of this discussion believes that the shifting and evolution of words and meanings causes confusion and breakdown of communication, the other maintains that this is not the case, and that by-and-large, the aforementioned changes arise from popular usage, and from a need for a new word or usage in a peoples lexicon.

I'm with the latter group. I don't feel we should discard dictionaries or the "proper" conventions of language. I just feel we should give breathing space to anyone who apparently uses it "incorrectly," as in the end they are entitled to their use of language as much as they are their opinions. I don't think we should let "improper" use bother us, as there is nothing inherently wrong or even negative about the evolution/corruption of language.

I completely understand that if one has been raised to use "Because" and not "Since," and then sees the opposite being taught to new speakers, one may be flustered. But it is simply an example of above evolution. If it is being taught and spoken, "since" has already gained a new meaning. It may or may not be in any dictionary, but practical use will reveal that it does represent the same idea that "because" does.

Edit: As for your first paragraph, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I understand what diction is, but drawing a dichotomy between "people who should be allowed to speak" and "people who shouldn't" seems just a little inflammatory, unless you're trying to make some kind of point that I've missed.

averagejoe

2009-06-23, 11:59 AM

*snipped*

Yes, I know. That is my point. At one point these words were in the same transitional state that the words people are complaining about now are in. However, the language has changed since then, and only those set in the old ways even attempt to use them "correctly." The only differences between these words and the words people are now complaining about is 1) the new uses haven't been popular for as long and 2) the dictionaries haven't caught up yet.

Dogmantra

2009-06-23, 12:07 PM

one side of this discussion believes that the shifting and evolution of words and meanings causes confusion and breakdown of communication,

This is sort of my position on the matter, but I'm not wholly against the evolution of language. I don't, for example, lament the loss of the word "gay" meaning happy, because there are other words that do the same thing... happy being one of them. What I do find irritating is words merging and becoming interchangable, like, as has been said, since/because. It's okay now (mostly because since has retained its original meaning too), but taken to (admittedly extremely far off) extremes, you could have a situation where the sentences meaning "I'll have a cheeseburger, please" and "This is a robbery, please shoot me in the face" are identical. That could lead to some confusion and a few annoyed people. When you get shot in the face and all you wanted was a cheeseburger, don't come crying to me! :smallwink:

I'm joking, but my point still stands. As long as a new word fills the gap left by the old one, that's fine, but if it doesn't, you've lost some clarity.

Telonius

2009-06-23, 12:09 PM

I generally let them slide, unless it really is important.

One exception that absolutely drives me up a wall: "most unique."

There is no such thing as "most unique." There are no degrees of unique. There is neither "more unique" nor "less unique." Either a thing is unique, or it is not. Nonexistent = 0. Unique = 1. "Not unique" = any whole number greater than 1. It's an on/off switch. Either one or the other, with nothing between them. If you mean "rarest," say "rarest." If you mean "least common," say "least common." Leave poor unique out of the picture.

Every scientific paper I've read has been extremely concise and to the point. The primary reason is that space is at a premium in scientific journals so information is presented as brief as possible. Reading scientific papers is time consuming and can be difficult for this reason. Of course, this applies to published journal articles, your experiences may be from student lab reports.

Please tell these scientists to submit more papers. I swear, the amount of time we spend sending overlong articles back to authors...

Regarding "proper" language, there is no l'Academie Englais. The market determines what language is "proper."

reorith

2009-06-23, 12:14 PM

Edit: As for your first paragraph, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I understand what diction is, but drawing a dichotomy between "people who should be allowed to speak" and "people who shouldn't" seems just a little inflammatory, unless you're trying to make some kind of point that I've missed.

Language is a tool and as such it requires skill and competence to use.

Fantasize if you will a scenario. On a day both hot and dreadful you procure a refrigerated vessel containing a single serving of a carbonated refreshment. Lacking the means to open said vessel you address me for assistance. "Reorith, have you an opener of bottles?" Only to elicit such a response by me "Nay Raharu of such an implement, I too am in absence. Perchance this chainsaw can serve in purpose. Gladly you receive the chainsaw but in an unforeseen occurrence while liberating the beverage you do unto yourself an injury most grievous. Who now will be found at fault? Reorith for the offerance of the powered saw? You by the merit of your misuse of it? The powered saw itself? When connotative meaning usurps denotative values by the abuses of the common man, this is the world we create!
So sayeth the man of straw!

Raharu

2009-06-23, 12:20 PM

As long as a new word fills the gap left by the old one, that's fine, but if it doesn't, you've lost some clarity.

I'm in agreement there, but I believe that as long as there's "demand" to communicate a certain idea, you won't be at a loss for a word to express it.

I agree that words can start to overlap in meaning, but I don't think we'd ever "lose" all the words for something we still wanted to talk about. Because, well... because we'd still be talking about it :biggrin:. It could be a problem for someone who has been "out of the loop," though. That's understandable enough.

Dogmantra

2009-06-23, 12:27 PM

I'm in agreement there, but I believe that as long as there's "demand" to communicate a certain idea, you won't be at a loss for a word to express it.

I agree that words can start to overlap in meaning, but I don't think we'd ever "lose" all the words for something we still wanted to talk about. Because, well... because we'd still be talking about it :biggrin:. It could be a problem for someone who has been "out of the loop," though. That's understandable enough.

I'm reminded of a Dinosaur Comic, where T-Rex says that if there was a word for giving friends pies, then he'd think about it more often.

I suppose that sums up the evolution of language.

Raharu

2009-06-23, 12:46 PM

Language is a tool and as such it requires skill and competence to use.
Requires skill and competence to use effectively. To ensure that your meaning gets across to a large pool of recipients, yes. But in casual conversation and correspondence, this extra level of cognition does not always take place - because the speaker and listener understand that they are both have a very similar view and understanding of their language. And because informal personal correspondence is where the majority of two-way communication takes place in this human world, that is the most fertile ground for the remolding and evolution of our language.

Therefore, I don't believe the evolution of language is based on skill, or is even done consciously.

When connotative meaning usurps denotative values by the abuses of the common man, this is the world we create!
So sayeth the man of straw!
:amused:

I'm reminded of a Dinosaur Comic, where T-Rex says that if there was a word for giving friends pies, then he'd think about it more often.

I suppose that sums up the evolution of language.
That's an interesting take on it. But to follow in our previous vein of words having different meanings for different people, what if his word for giving away pies were, say, the majority's word for "Hello?" Would they eventually start giving away pies :smalltongue:?

reorith

2009-06-23, 01:53 PM

Regarding "proper" language, there is no l'Academie Englais. The market determines what language is "proper."

Therein the problem is found. With only the market to dictate the direction of linguistic evolution, it is reduced to the lowest common denominator.

Telonius

2009-06-23, 02:06 PM

Therein the problem is found. With only the market to dictate the direction of linguistic evolution, it is reduced to the lowest common denominator.

No, the highest common denominator. The most useful words, phrases, and constructions - the ones with most value - survive. The least useful, die out.

reorith

2009-06-23, 02:23 PM

No, the highest common denominator. The most useful words, phrases, and constructions - the ones with most value - survive. The least useful, die out.

Fie Telonius. How doth one evaluate the usefulness of word, phrase or construction? Is the world an improved place since the abandonment of prithee, sooth, and nonce? Methinks it is not so.

averagejoe

2009-06-23, 05:23 PM

Fie Telonius. How doth one evaluate the usefulness of word, phrase or construction? Is the world an improved place since the abandonment of prithee, sooth, and nonce? Methinks it is not so.

One evaluates the usefulness of the word by whether people use it.

The world is an improved place since the abandonment of prithee, sooth, and nonce. However, I suspect you meant, "Was the world improved by the abandonment of prithee, sooth, and nonce." In that case, no it wasn't, but neither was it made worse.

Regarding language being worse off because, "With only the market to dictate the direction of linguistic evolution, it is reduced to the lowest common denominator. ":

This is silly. Language is meant to be used, not stuffed into books and kept by some stuffy people in the bowels of some university. It's fallacious to think that things are automatically worse simply because it is an opinion held by a lot of people, or the people which you label to be the "wrong people." I might as well say that with only scholars to dictate the direction of linguistic evolution, it is reduced to being controlled by a bunch of prats who would rather keep themselves locked in with their sterile ideals than experience the messiness of the world. This statement has all the logical and argumentative merit of yours, and there's no reason to prefer either one.

reorith

2009-06-23, 07:35 PM

One evaluates the usefulness of the word by whether people use it.

The world is an improved place since the abandonment of prithee, sooth, and nonce. However, I suspect you meant, "Was the world improved by the abandonment of prithee, sooth, and nonce." In that case, no it wasn't, but neither was it made worse.

Verily did I select my word with care. Your "since vs. because" is a nonissue.

DamnedIrishman

2009-06-23, 07:40 PM

This is silly. Language is meant to be used, not stuffed into books and kept by some stuffy people in the bowels of some university.

Dictionaries are important. There are far more things to have words for than the human brain could possibly hold.

I think I remember some statistics along the line of English having almost a million words, and the average speaker's vocabulary being no higher than ten thousand.

averagejoe

2009-06-23, 07:59 PM

Dictionaries are important. There are far more things to have words for than the human brain could possibly hold.

I think I remember some statistics along the line of English having almost a million words, and the average speaker's vocabulary being no higher than ten thousand.

I do believe I have said that having some sort of canon is at least somewhat important. My point is that this canon shouldn't be treated as some sort of sacred object, that use supersedes formal correctness, and that there's no reason to prefer the word of scholars on what "should" be correct over that of the so-called "common man." Any rational as far as what "should" be when it comes to language is ultimately arbitrary.

Edit:

Verily did I select my word with care. Your "since vs. because" is a nonissue.

Okay, then I have no idea what you were trying to accomplish by saying that. Is that the purpose behind talking in such a way, to straddle the line of understandability until your case is made? Because you hardly seem to be communicating at all.

DamnedIrishman

2009-06-23, 08:00 PM

I do believe I have said that having some sort of canon is at least somewhat important. My point is that this canon shouldn't be treated as some sort of sacred object, that use supersedes formal correctness, and that there's no reason to prefer the word of scholars on what "should" be correct over that of the so-called "common man." Any rational as far as what "should" be when it comes to language is ultimately arbitrary.

I agree with you in principle and yet, in practice, certain uses of language annoy the hell out of me. Cognitive dissonance, as it were.

reorith

2009-06-23, 08:05 PM

Okay, then I have no idea what you were trying to accomplish by saying that. Is that the purpose behind talking in such a way, to straddle the line of understandability until your case is made? Because you hardly seem to be communicating at all.

finally, someone who gets it.

DamnedIrishman

2009-06-23, 08:08 PM

averagejoe

2009-06-23, 08:41 PM

finally, someone who gets it.

Ah, so you were trying to point out the importance of correct language by demonstrating the misunderstanding that comes from using whatever words you like? I suspected as much, but don't like to presume. Even ignoring the fact that you're taking it farther than anyone would ever take it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman) and the fact that these cases are irrelevant to the whole of language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_accident), your words and sentences are perfectly understandable, you're just not speaking in an understandable way. I'm certain that, at the least you're omitting vital information. In short, you're not arguing in good faith.

Have you never met people who work in business management, advanced mathematics, theoretical sciences or the construction industry?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but yes to the middle two, and have done some work in those areas myself.

DamnedIrishman

2009-06-23, 08:46 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but yes to the middle two, and have done some work in those areas myself.

Then you should be familiar with the use of language to deliberately confuse, mislead, or establish a class of insiders who understand a jargon-heavy language to differentiate from the rest of the population?
Purely because you said:

Okay, then I have no idea what you were trying to accomplish by saying that. Is that the purpose behind talking in such a way, to straddle the line of understandability until your case is made? Because you hardly seem to be communicating at all.

Heavy use of archaic words, phrases and sentence structure has many purposes. One of these is to neatly divide the world into people who get it, and people who don't.

Hooray! Intellectual discrimination!

averagejoe

2009-06-23, 09:05 PM

Then you should be familiar with the use of language to deliberately confuse, mislead, or establish a class of insiders who understand a jargon-heavy language to differentiate from the rest of the population?

This is a bit off topic, but this isn't the case for science or mathematics. (I can't speak for the other two.) The use of specialized language in those fields isn't to establish a class of people who get it as separate from those who don't, the point is for those words is to be used. Both subjects draw heavily on specialized concepts that people simply don't encounter in the everyday world, and so the language of that world just isn't suited for use in such a way. Facts and jargon are secondary to learning to think properly in the higher levels of these fields. This is an issue of the nature of the subjects, not one of language. I've seen, and made, many attempts to simplify mathematics for the lay man, avoiding any jargon like the plague, and it just never works out very well.

Heavy use of archaic words, phrases and sentence structure has many purposes. One of these is to neatly divide the world into people who get it, and people who don't.

Hooray! Intellectual discrimination!

Yes, but, as I said above, it wasn't the archaic words that threw me off, it was the fact that he wasn't saying what he meant, and was speaking obtusely. At least, this was partially the case.

DamnedIrishman

2009-06-23, 09:07 PM

Yes, but, as I said above, it wasn't the archaic words that threw me off, it was the fact that he wasn't saying what he meant, and was speaking obtusely. At least, this was partially the case.

This is exactly the phenomenon I was describing.
:smallsmile:

averagejoe

2009-06-23, 09:30 PM

This is exactly the phenomenon I was describing.
:smallsmile:

Okay, then I don't know what you mean. Constructing a sentence to be ambiguous is different than using specialized language. Indeed, the latter is often produced to remove ambiguity.

Serpentine

2009-06-24, 12:39 AM

And I see no problem with that. Language evolves, and I feel something is lost upon a people should it happen that their language does not. Strive as anyone may to create a "beautiful" or "perfect" language, in the end the creator will most likely be the only one to use it as he or she intended.

The evolution of language is the beautiful part, as far as I am concerned. How people choose to use (some may prefer to substitute "abuse" here) their language, to change and mold it into a new form with greater utility and beauty than before (even if the process is not so apparent to them), is a fine gauge of where that people stands, in many respects.

I think where we're diverging here is that while one side of this discussion believes that the shifting and evolution of words and meanings causes confusion and breakdown of communication, the other maintains that this is not the case, and that by-and-large, the aforementioned changes arise from popular usage, and from a need for a new word or usage in a peoples lexicon.

I'm with the latter group. I don't feel we should discard dictionaries or the "proper" conventions of language. I just feel we should give breathing space to anyone who apparently uses it "incorrectly," as in the end they are entitled to their use of language as much as they are their opinions. I don't think we should let "improper" use bother us, as there is nothing inherently wrong or even negative about the evolution/corruption of language.

I completely understand that if one has been raised to use "Because" and not "Since," and then sees the opposite being taught to new speakers, one may be flustered. But it is simply an example of above evolution. If it is being taught and spoken, "since" has already gained a new meaning. It may or may not be in any dictionary, but practical use will reveal that it does represent the same idea that "because" does.

Edit: As for your first paragraph, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I understand what diction is, but drawing a dichotomy between "people who should be allowed to speak" and "people who shouldn't" seems just a little inflammatory, unless you're trying to make some kind of point that I've missed.I, at least, am not talking about evolution. Evolution is grand. I like evolution. It's what makes English so flexible and versatile. Sure, it's lacking in a lot of places, but where a new word is really needed we can just steal from another language (how long 'til we start using all the Inuit words for "snow"?). I am talking about getting things completely wrong. Lots of people making one mistake doesn't make that mistake not a mistake. "I literally died" is not evolution, it's WRONG, and it is starting to ruin the word for people who actually use it correctly. Putting a new spin on an old word in a similar context, or an entirely new meaning in a different context, is A-okay. Putting the exact opposite meaning in the original context, as in the case of "literally", is not okay. And that, specifically, is what I, at least, have an issue with. It's not me being "anal" or "picky" or "petty" or "proper" or "demanding". It's not me wanting language to stay the same. It's me wanting errors - errors, not developments or changes - corrected without fear of being labelled an "intellectual snob" or somesuch.

averagejoe

2009-06-24, 01:12 AM

I, at least, am not talking about evolution. Evolution is grand. I like evolution. It's what makes English so flexible and versatile. Sure, it's lacking in a lot of places, but where a new word is really needed we can just steal from another language (how long 'til we start using all the Inuit words for "snow"?). I am talking about getting things completely wrong. Lots of people making one mistake doesn't make that mistake not a mistake. "I literally died" is not evolution, it's WRONG, and it is starting to ruin the word for people who actually use it correctly. Putting a new spin on an old word in a similar context, or an entirely new meaning in a different context, is A-okay. Putting the exact opposite meaning in the original context, as in the case of "literally", is not okay. And that, specifically, is what I, at least, have an issue with. It's not me being "anal" or "picky" or "petty" or "proper" or "demanding". It's not me wanting language to stay the same. It's me wanting errors - errors, not developments or changes - corrected without fear of being labelled an "intellectual snob" or somesuch.

Well, to be fair, while I can see how the use could have evolved ("Literally" is often used as emphasis when used correctly, and it has similar cadence as "totally" or "completely" or other empathetic words.) this one does bug me, even though I know rationally that it shouldn't. Maybe it's because I happen to like the world literally, and I find many uses for it. Maybe because there isn't really a replacement for "literally." But, yeah, I see where you're coming from here.

Serpentine

2009-06-24, 01:33 AM

Dammit. The quote I'm about to contribute, quoted in Historical Evidence and Argument (doesn't say who originally said it) contradicts what I've been saying, but it fits so well, I can't just not post it...

[N]o word has a meaning inseparably attached to it; a word means what the speaker intends by it, and what the hearer understands by it, and that is all.

I do and do not agree with it. The "do not" is mostly specifically in the context of this thread, though I would argue that a speaker having an intended meaning but using an incorrect word, and the hearer understanding only through intuition, context and/or the fact that it's a common error, is not what the quote is referring to.