Completely unimportant language misuses that bug you

[Knaight]

I think my issue comes from the fact that I come from a zoology background educationally (technically my major was general biosci but I took very few human specific courses) and they pretty much exclusively go by gonads/gamete production. Thus the birds that lay eggs are female despite the fact that they have mismatched sex chromosomes and the males don't, peacock blennies that display behaviors typical of the females of their species but produce sperm are male, and there are non-male hyenas and lemurs despite the fact that all members of those species have phalluses and produce large quantities of testosterone

I have a more microbiology and biochemistry skewed background, and it doesn't take much with that background to see some core definitions start getting really fuzzy and situational. The species concept is already fuzzy in zoology compliments of ring species and hybrids, but those don't pose nearly the problem that horizontal gene transfer does. Viruses are basically a case study in how subtly different definitions of the word "life" encompass different things. There's an implicit training in looking at conflicting models and realizing where they apply, and that transfers fairly well for looking at how terms are applied to humans - and it gets complicated. It's also helpful for really understanding the complexity of biology, as something like M13 phage with it's whopping 13 different proteins still manages to be incredibly complex, and it's not hard to see that it can only get more convoluted once you get to prokaryotes, then introduce organelles, then multicellular organisms (itself a bit of a fuzzy concept because of how some bacterial colonies work).

[dehro]

Thus the birds that lay eggs are female despite the fact that they have mismatched sex chromosomes and the males don't, peacock blennies that display behaviors typical of the females of their species but produce sperm are male, and there are non-male hyenas and lemurs despite the fact that all members of those species have phalluses and produce large quantities of testosterone

What the actual....?
Mother nature, why you do this?!?

[Bohandas]

Not a misuse, but a source of confusion due to etymological roots:

The prefix "trans-" means "beyond; over ; across". So for example "transhuman" means "beyond humanity".

So it takes me a few extra seconds to grok a gender of a person when they are referred to as "transwoman" or "transman".

Then there's how petty people can get about what is or isn't polite language. In Finnish, "trans" is acceptable way to refer to a transsexual/-gendered person. "Transu", meanwhile, is considered a slur. (Compare "tranny" in English.)

Another weird case was when a Polynesian got offended by polyamorous people using "poly-" prefix as a shorthand for polygamous people. They argued "poly-" should be reserved as a shorthand for Polynesian people, as is common in Polynesia. But their argument for this was that Polygamous people were somehow cultural appropriation, erasure of Polynesians etc., and went on an impressive tangent about American cultural imperialism and so forth.

The joke, of course, being that "poly-" is Greek prefix for "many", "Polynesia" comes from Greek "poly" + "nesos", literally meaning "many islands". And it was given to a group of islands by French during 1700s. "Polygamy" likewise comes from Greek and probably has existed at least as long.

---

But if there is one misuse that really bothers me, it's using the word "inevitable" in reference to things which are not. Like change of language, in this thread.

More seriously: the inevitability of change is only true in an extremely general level and across long time spans. Contrast and compare to "it's the fate of all things under the sky, to grow old and wither and die". When it comes to specific words or phrases in the present, it does not apply and certainly isn't immune to human actions and intent. People can both accidentally and intentionally butcher words to the point communication becomes difficult.

Secondly, "change" is not inherently positive. Saying "eh, language changes" in response to someone being bothered by misuses is akin to saying "eh, meat rots" to someone worrying about their next meal.

Speaking of prefixes meaning "beyond" is anybody else bothered by the fact that most such prefixes ("super-" and "hyper-" for example) can mean either not something or very much that thing, on a word by word or phrase by phrase basis (so something supernatural is not natural and but something super effective is very effective)

Speaking of things that are their own antonyms, logically shouldn't "inflammable" in the sense of flammable be "enflammable"? That seems like it would make so much more sense than the actual spelling

[factotum]

Speaking of prefixes meaning "beyond" is anybody else bothered by the fact that most such prefixes ("super-" and "hyper-" for example) can mean either not something or very much that thing, on a word by word or phrase by phrase basis (so something supernatural is not natural and but something super effective is very effective)

Speaking of things that are their own antonyms, logically shouldn't "inflammable" in the sense of flammable be "enflammable"? That seems like it would make so much more sense than the actual spelling

"Supernatural" is being used in the sense of "beyond natural", not "unnatural", so it works fine.

As for flammable/inflammable, the two words actually have different roots in Latin--flammable is derived from "flammare" (to set on fire) while inflammable comes from inflammabilis (to inflame). The spelling comes from the source in both cases.

[Vinyadan]

Speaking of prefixes meaning "beyond" is anybody else bothered by the fact that most such prefixes ("super-" and "hyper-" for example) can mean either not something or very much that thing, on a word by word or phrase by phrase basis (so something supernatural is not natural and but something super effective is very effective)

Speaking of things that are their own antonyms, logically shouldn't "inflammable" in the sense of flammable be "enflammable"? That seems like it would make so much more sense than the actual spelling

I think that Tolkien mused very briefly on the supernatural thing in On Fairytales. He noticed that there were three traditional powers: evil and good, which were tied to religion, and were supernatural in that they were above and beyond nature; and then the third one, the various little people and talking trees and such, who were only supernatural in that they were extremely natural, and they had more "nature" in them than natural things are supposed to.

Inflammable seems to me a case of direct borrowing from Latin. There are many such examples in Romance languages (ubbidire vs obbedire in Italian for "obey", in which obbedire was taken directly from the old Latin form obedire, while ubbidire is its natural evolution according to historical grammar laws). French also has enflammer as a verb, but inflammable as an adjective. So it could be that:
French built enflammer according to normal historical grammar laws, but took inflammable from Latin at a later date, when i had ceased being turned into e, so that the i was maintained in French. English later took up both words from French. Enflame (XIV century English) later became Inflame because of the influence of Latin.
or
English took up enflame from French. However, inflame was borrowed directly from Latin and ended up superseding the French form enflame. Then inflammable was a. taken up directly from Medieval Latin or b. formed directly in English on the base of inflame.

Is there an English Germanic word for "inflame"?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Is there an English Germanic word for "inflame"?

"Burn"? [Old Norse brenna "to burn, light," and two originally distinct Old English verbs: bærnan "to kindle" (transitive) and beornan "to be on fire" (intransitive), all from Proto-Germanic *brennan/*brannjan]

(source)

Grey Wolf

[Bohandas]

And at any rate in English "inflame" is, in my experience, only rarely used to refer to fire; it usually refers to painful swelling.

[Lissou]

I think my issue comes from the fact that I come from a zoology background educationally (technically my major was general biosci but I took very few human specific courses) and they pretty much exclusively go by gonads/gamete production. Thus the birds that lay eggs are female despite the fact that they have mismatched sex chromosomes and the males don't, peacock blennies that display behaviors typical of the females of their species but produce sperm are male, and there are non-male hyenas and lemurs despite the fact that all members of those species have phalluses and produce large quantities of testosterone

So... you're naming example of animals whose sex isn't based on chromosomes (the birds you mentioned) or on whether they have a penis or not (hyenas and lemurs) or naturally produce tons of testosterone (same two examples) as your reason for having a very rigid definition of "man" and "woman"? Seems to me that background would lead to the opposite.

I never noticed that "inflamed" is only used for swelling in English. I'm guessing it comes from a metaphorical use of it burning as thought it were on fire?

[Frozen_Feet]

@Lissou: you missed the point. Since
definition of sex is based on gamete production, all those other traits are irrelevant. You'd only need terms for more than two sexes if a species produces more than two different types of gametes.

[factotum]

I never noticed that "inflamed" is only used for swelling in English. I'm guessing it comes from a metaphorical use of it burning as thought it were on fire?

One of the dictionary meanings for "inflame" is "to set on fire", although I confess to never having actually heard it used in that context.

[goto124]

Inflammation usually means the swelling, though one wonders if it could be used for the fire.

[Xuc Xac]

I absolutely hate it when people use Greek or Cyrillic letters in place of the Latin letters they resemble. A capital sigma is not an "E"! Using "Я" as a "Russian-looking R" makes as much sense as using "B" as a "double P"! Those letters already have their own meanings. If you try to be cute and write something like "Сяар", I don't think "haha, that's funny, it looks like 'crap' with a funny backwards Russian R". I think "What is 'syaar'? Is that a typo? Did you mean 'сябар'? Oh, damn it! Is that supposed to be 'crap'?"

[dehro]

One of the dictionary meanings for "inflame" is "to set on fire", although I confess to never having actually heard it used in that context.

In Italian it's a fairly frequently use of the word, specifically in expressions that carry the meaning of "rousing the spirits" (you're inflaming the souls, as it were), for instance by means of a compelling speech. My guess is that there's a Latin root somewhere lost over the centuries in English.

[tantric]

playing laguage games with pc terms for minorities

'people of color'? wtf am i, transparent? obama was not the first black president, unless one drop pollutes. he was, however, actually afircan-american.

take a 'white' person and have the color matched in paint and paint it on a wall - what is the name for that color? why is it that english doesn't have a word for that? i was in the dmv the other day and there were two high class japanese women with perfect educated tokyo dialect. both were white as porcelin with green eyes.

understand that i spent two years in a max sec prison in south georgia. when i got out, i was like the teacher in boondocks warning not safe for work, etc



i can speak standard american english, rhotic and a rhotic southern and ghetto with ease. the people i offend need to get out more.

[Bohandas]

@Lissou: you missed the point. Since
definition of sex is based on gamete production, all those other traits are irrelevant. You'd only need terms for more than two sexes if a species produces more than two different types of gametes.

Now you're getting it.

In the latter case of more than two kinds of gamete btw they're generally referred to as "mating types" or "mating strains" as "sex" is generally further reserved for cases where the gametes differ significantly in size and/or shape, whereas in systems with more than 2 types of gamete they are generally similar in size and differ in biochemical markers on the cell

[GolemsVoice]

Oh, I have one that bugs me to no end: when people combine words that just don't sound all that well toegther. Say, the word car, and the word armageddon. Combine it, you get carmageddon. That's nice, because car and the first syllable of armageddon sound the same, so the words flow together. It is pleasing to hear. Now take ANY other word, say price. Pricemageddon. That's ugly, and it sounds ugly.

[georgie_leech]

Oh, I have one that bugs me to no end: when people combine words that just don't sound all that well toegther. Say, the word car, and the word armageddon. Combine it, you get carmageddon. That's nice, because car and the first syllable of armageddon sound the same, so the words flow together. It is pleasing to hear. Now take ANY other word, say price. Pricemageddon. That's ugly, and it sounds ugly.

It's also missing the glorious quasi-alliteration that is Pricepocalypse.

And on that note, scandals being Whatever-gate. If modern news media covered the Nixon Scandals it would have been Watergate-Gate.

[Bohandas]

the problem is that the initial consonants need to be removed "pricegeddon" "priceacolypse"

[Vinyadan]

...priceputium?

[veti]

Oh, I have one that bugs me to no end: when people combine words that just don't sound all that well toegther. Say, the word car, and the word armageddon. Combine it, you get carmageddon. That's nice, because car and the first syllable of armageddon sound the same, so the words flow together. It is pleasing to hear.

No. I'm sorry, but "carmageddon" - is not, in any sense, "pleasing to hear". You can't combine a Hebrew word with an extremely specific meaning - with a Latin-derived word describing something so commonplace in our world. It shows a total and wanton disregard for the meanings of the words you're playing with.

It's like combining "death" and "weather" to give "deather", as a word for someone killed by a meteorological event. It's at least that offensive.

[Vinyadan]

Isn't that the point of the joke, though? The stuff you explained is what makes it good. It's like making a game about being a procurer and calling it Pimperium.

[factotum]

No. I'm sorry, but "carmageddon" - is not, in any sense, "pleasing to hear". You can't combine a Hebrew word with an extremely specific meaning - with a Latin-derived word describing something so commonplace in our world.

Um, why not? Are you also offended by the word "television" containing the Greek-derived root "tele" and the Latin-derived "vision" alongside each other?

[GolemsVoice]

Yeah, almost every language, especially in Europe, borrows so heavily from latin, germanic, greek and various other source that not using words from two different linguistical spheres is probably impossible.

[137beth]

Oh, I have one that bugs me to no end: when people combine words that just don't sound all that well toegther. Say, the word car, and the word armageddon. Combine it, you get carmageddon. That's nice, because car and the first syllable of armageddon sound the same, so the words flow together. It is pleasing to hear. Now take ANY other word, say price. Pricemageddon. That's ugly, and it sounds ugly.

Portmanteaumageddon?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

No. I'm sorry, but "carmageddon" - is not, in any sense, "pleasing to hear". You can't combine a Hebrew word with an extremely specific meaning - with a Latin-derived word describing something so commonplace in our world. It shows a total and wanton disregard for the meanings of the words you're playing with.

It's like combining "death" and "weather" to give "deather", as a word for someone killed by a meteorological event. It's at least that offensive.

I agree with factotum: I don't see where the offence lies. Television is perfectly fine, as is, say, "schmoozing", even though schmooze is semitic and -ing is indo-european.

"Deather", on the other hand, fails as a portmanteau because I cannot tell the second word used to be "weather" without the w.

Grey Wolf

[Aedilred]

It's also missing the glorious quasi-alliteration that is Pricepocalypse.

And on that note, scandals being Whatever-gate. If modern news media covered the Nixon Scandals it would have been Watergate-Gate.

Um, why not? Are you also offended by the word "television" containing the Greek-derived root "tele" and the Latin-derived "vision" alongside each other?

It kind of does bother me, actually... though it's not the worst offender. "Quad Bike" is one that always makes me frown sadly. Some day someone will be murdered lawfully killed for saying "quadrillogy" to me.

But to be honest it's a case-by-case thing, for me at least. "Carmageddon" is fine; indeed, when I first heard it all those years ago I thought it was wonderfully imaginative and evocative. But a lot of portmanteaus (portmanteaux?) are trying too hard, or not trying hard enough, or just generally irritating. I know it when I see it.

[Bohandas]

On a related note to borrowed words and affixes I'm extremely put off by people who insist the words "pegasi" and "octopi" are incorrect because "octopus" and "pegasus" aren't words that were borrowed from latin. What they fail to understand is that it isn't a matter of whether we borrowed the word from latin or not, what's actually going on is that the english language has a pluralization rule that was borrowed from latin

[georgie_leech]

Some day someone will be murdered lawfully killed for saying "quadrillogy" to me.

Sorry, Oxford says that one's been in use for over 150 years. Tetralogists/quartet-ists don't have the market cornered on that one.

[Aedilred]

On a related note to borrowed words and affixes I'm extremely put off by people who insist the words "pegasi" and "octopi" are incorrect because "octopus" and "pegasus" aren't words that were borrowed from latin. What they fail to understand is that it isn't a matter of whether we borrowed the word from latin or not, what's actually going on is that the english language has a pluralization rule that was borrowed from latin

The English language pluralisation rule, though, is to put -s or -es on the end. The only words where it goes to -i is where the plural forms as well as the singular were imported from Latin. On that measure, it should be "octopuses" and "pegasuses".

What bothers me more about "pegasus", though, is that Pegasus is a proper noun; it's the name of the particular flying horse, not a generic term for flying horses and thus can't really be pluralised anyway, any more than Achilles can. Flying horses in general are "pterippi", iirc. Same goes for Cerberus. Though I accept I lost that battle a while ago, probably around the first time a D&D monster manual was sold.

Sorry, Oxford says that one's been in use for over 150 years. Tetralogists/quartet-ists don't have the market cornered on that one.

That just means that people were wrong 150 years ago too!

[Grey_Wolf_c]

What bothers me more about "pegasus", though, is that Pegasus is a proper noun; it's the name of the particular flying horse, not a generic term for flying horses and thus can't really be pluralised anyway, any more than Achilles can.

Really? That sounds wrong. Let me google that. Nope, it seems that it's common to turn proper nouns into generic words. If you want, I'll use one of the xeroxes in the office to fax you the results, but it might have to wait until I take two aspirins and grab a bunch of kleenex, 'cause I have a wicked cold*.

Also, achilles tendon.

Grey Wolf

*No, not really