Completely unimportant language misuses that bug you

[Dr.Samurai]

"Also" is used to mean "too", too.

"As well" can be used as well to mean "too" or "also" 😏.

[Fiery Diamond]

Wow, thirteen pages. I've never had a thread I started go beyond three pages before.

Life goals!

[Peelee]

Wow, thirteen pages. I've never had a thread I started go beyond three pages before.j

Life goals!

Man, I really hate when people follow their punctuation with a j.

[Fiery Diamond]

Man, I really hate when people follow their punctuation with a j.

Heh. I didn't even notice. This keyboard is kind of annoying; my fingers must have brushed the key.

[Gnoman]

One I've encountered today that has always bugged me is arbitrarily narrowing a definition. In this case, insisting that an umbrella term can only be used to refer to one of the terms it is under.

[Rockphed]

One I've encountered today that has always bugged me is arbitrarily narrowing a definition. In this case, insisting that an umbrella term can only be used to refer to one of the terms it is under.

I think you have that backwards, but just to be sure:

If I insist that "soda pop" can only refer to carbonated drinks bottled by the Pepsi Company, that would bother you.

[Gnoman]

That is a good example, and I did in fact word it wrongly.

Another example would be claiming that the word "Whiskey" can only ever be used to refer to Bourbon, and using it to refer to Jameson is wrong.

Most of the cases I encounter it are more narrow, but of similar sort.

[137beth]

A related one is when people insist that "fantasy" can refer only to a work of fiction that fits an extremely narrow set of criteria, typically modeled after the speaker's favorite franchise. For example, if someone's favorite author is C.S. Lewis, they might insist that any work of fiction which is neither written by Lewis nor an extremely derivative clone of Narnia is "not really fantasy." Lewis can be swapped out for whoever the speaker's favorite author happens to be

A slight variation is when someone asserts that "standard fantasy" is whatever their favorite author wrote, while "really weird, obscure" fantasy is everything else.

[Rockphed]

A related one is when people insist that "fantasy" can refer only to a work of fiction that fits an extremely narrow set of criteria, typically modeled after the speaker's favorite franchise. For example, if someone's favorite author is C.S. Lewis, they might insist that any work of fiction which is neither written by Lewis nor an extremely derivative clone of Narnia is "not really fantasy." Lewis can be swapped out for whoever the speaker's favorite author happens to be

A slight variation is when someone asserts that "standard fantasy" is whatever their favorite author wrote, while "really weird, obscure" fantasy is everything else.

I have never seen anyone do that. I'll buy categorizing "standard fantasy" as works in the same milleau as Tolken or Lewis with a generally medieval society and technology, magic, dragons, and sword-fights. "Urban Fantasy" I would define as "magic and magical creatures in the modern world, masquerade optional." I'm not sure what I am missing, so please elucidate further.

[Lissou]

In French, I'm used to "fantastique" being used for the type of fantasy that takes place in our world/universe, especially when it doesn't affect everyone's life (Harry Potter would be an example. Lovecraft would probably qualify too) and "fantasy" for the type of fantasy that takes place in another wolrd/universe with no indication that ours exists (Tolkien falls into that category). I wasn't aware of a similar distinction in English but I guess "Urban fantasy" (with your definition) probably matches what I call "fantastique" (which really is just the old French word for "fantasy", before we adopted the English one).

[factotum]

I always thought the term for fantasy set in the "real" world was magic realism?

[Knaight]

I always thought the term for fantasy set in the "real" world was magic realism?

Magical realism is set in the "real" world (at least generally), and urban fantasy doesn't really have to be. With that said, there's plenty of stuff that is very obviously urban fantasy and is set in a real city. Magical realism doesn't tend to have magic users in any real sense, or even magical beings - it has characters that generally fit cleanly in literary fiction, in settings that almost fit cleanly in literary fiction except for they have magic as a setting element as something that just sort of happens - usually in such a way as to emphasize the emotional weight of a scene.

Just look at the books categorized in these genres - One Hundred Years of Solitude and Dresden Files are clearly in different genres. Then there's stuff like the Narnia series or the Fionavar Tapestry, which has characters from the real world, who spend time in the real world, but which are mostly secondary world fantasy.

[thorgrim29]

In French, I'm used to "fantastique" being used for the type of fantasy that takes place in our world/universe, especially when it doesn't affect everyone's life (Harry Potter would be an example. Lovecraft would probably qualify too) and "fantasy" for the type of fantasy that takes place in another wolrd/universe with no indication that ours exists (Tolkien falls into that category). I wasn't aware of a similar distinction in English but I guess "Urban fantasy" (with your definition) probably matches what I call "fantastique" (which really is just the old French word for "fantasy", before we adopted the English one).

I think you're right about the colloquial usage but "fantastique" has a rather strict definition and this is the thread to be pedantic about that sort of thing so... It's a story where the supernatural intrudes on the rational world in a way the characters usually either reject or fight. Maupassant is probably the best known author of "fantastique" in French, a lot of Poe's and Lovecraft's work also qualifies. What we call fantasy in english is usually referred to as "merveilleux". But most bookstores I've been to make the same mistake as you so I won't hold it against you :)

[Bohandas]

In French, I'm used to "fantastique" being used for the type of fantasy that takes place in our world/universe, especially when it doesn't affect everyone's life (Harry Potter would be an example. Lovecraft would probably qualify too) and "fantasy" for the type of fantasy that takes place in another wolrd/universe with no indication that ours exists (Tolkien falls into that category). I wasn't aware of a similar distinction in English but I guess "Urban fantasy" (with your definition) probably matches what I call "fantastique" (which really is just the old French word for "fantasy", before we adopted the English one).

I think in English "fantastique" would be "low fantasy" and "fantasy" in your sense would be "high fantasy", if I remember the distinction between those terms correctly

[Bohandas]

This is going to be controversial but I object to the redefinition of the words "man" "woman" and "gender" that have been forced down our throats in recent years. It's may be well intentioned, and it may make some people feel better and better reflect how they feel on the inside, but it's simply not what the words mean or have ever meant prior to the past several decades. The closest it's ever been is a social role or affect display, but never the affect itself or an affinity for the social role (at least not primarily, these things may have occasionally factored into a usage but never had a controlling share as it were). And to be clear I'm talking about those specific words, I'm sure there must be a language somewhere with a word connonly translated by these words that had a different specific historical meaning (and if there is I suggest switching to using those words as loanwords)

I also object to the redefinition of the redefinition of the word "planet". It was needless and it wasn't applied consistently; if I understamd it correctly then technically Neptune shouldn't be a planet for the same reason that Pluto doesn't meet the definition, the orbits of the two bodies intersect

[Peelee]

I also object to the redefinition of the redefinition of the word "planet". It was needless and it wasn't applied consistently; if I understamd it correctly then technically Neptune shouldn't be a planet for the same reason that Pluto doesn't meet the definition, the orbits of the two bodies intersect

Earth's orbit and Halley's Comet's orbits intersect. Should Earth not be a planet?

Pluto should never have been classified a planet to begin with. It's a Kuiper Belt Object, and not even the biggest one.

[Bohandas]

If dwarf planets don't qualify as something big enough to need to be cleared to qualify as a full planet then half of them should be back to being full planets again

[Peelee]

If dwarf planets don't qualify as something big enough to need to be cleared to qualify as a full planet then half of them should be back to being full planets again

Wait, let me see if I have this right. You're saying that if dwarf planets don't qualify to be full planets, then half of them should be full planets anyway?

[Bohandas]

Wait, let me see if I have this right. You're saying that if dwarf planets don't qualify to be full planets, then half of them should be full planets anyway?

The thing stopping them from qualifying is that their orbits intersect with those of other dwarf planets (and other smaller celestial bodies). If dwarf planets are too snall for intersecting with one's orbit to matter for full planet status then a significant chunk of them of them stop being disqualified from being full planets (but the remaining ones remain dwarves because they are now intersecting with the orbits of full planets)

[Peelee]

The thing stopping them from qualifying is that their orbits intersect with those of other dwarf planets (and other smaller celestial bodies). If dwarf planets are too snall for intersecting with one's orbit to matter for full planet status then a significant chunk of them of them stop being disqualified from being full planets (but the remaining ones remain dwarves because they are now intersecting with the orbits of full planets)

This is the first I've ever heard of intersecting orbits mattering. The criteria it fails is that Pluto hasn't "cleared the neighborhood." It's kind of a way of saying that Pluto doesn't have enough gravity to be a planet. Orbits intersecting with other bodily orbits can still happen. As you yourself put it, Pluto's and Neptune's orbits still intersect, and Neptune is still a planet. The difference is, Neptune has enough gravity to dominate it's area. Pluto doesn't, which is why it hasn't.

[georgie_leech]

This is the first I've ever heard of intersecting orbits mattering. The criteria it fails is that Pluto hasn't "cleared the neighborhood." It's kind of a way of saying that Pluto doesn't have enough gravity to be a planet. Orbits intersecting with other bodily orbits can still happen. As you yourself put it, Pluto's and Neptune's orbits still intersect, and Neptune is still a planet. The difference is, Neptune has enough gravity to dominate it's area. Pluto doesn't, which is why it hasn't.

To put it another way, Neptune has an orbit that crosses over with some junk, but doesn't have much in the same orbit that it has that isn't also orbiting Neptune. Pluto, meanwhile, is in roughly the same orbit as every other hunk of rock and ice in the Kuiper Belt. They aren't planets for a similar reason that we don't usually call Saturn's rings, moons.

[Sajiri]

The only language thing that bugs me irrationally is when people write u, ur, etc instead of you, your, and so on. Im not trying to be judgemental or anything, but the moment someone does that they instantly become less of a person to me. I feel like I'm talking to a wall or a robot or something, but then that's probably because of the amount of times I'll be playing an online game or something, and someone is typing like that and they just seem stupid. Not everyone of course, but its happened so many times that I see people doing that, along with spamming multiple ??????????? instead of just one, and they can't seem to grasp a single thing I say to them.

I let it slide in text messages, since it can be a little more awkward to type the whole word out, but people doing it on a computer (or the way my sister used to do it in handwritten letters) would make me so angry. It just seemed so lazy.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

This is going to be controversial but I object to the redefinition of the words "man" "woman" and "gender" that have been forced down our throats in recent years. It's may be well intentioned, and it may make some people feel better and better reflect how they feel on the inside, but it's simply not what the words mean or have ever meant prior to the past several decades. The closest it's ever been is a social role or affect display, but never the affect itself or an affinity for the social role (at least not primarily, these things may have occasionally factored into a usage but never had a controlling share as it were). And to be clear I'm talking about those specific words, I'm sure there must be a language somewhere with a word connonly translated by these words that had a different specific historical meaning (and if there is I suggest switching to using those words as loanwords)

30-ish years ago, this exact argument was done about the word 'gay', and how it was "meant" to mean 'happy'. Language usage evolves - it is not a misuse, it is the natural process by which meanings adapt.

I also object to the redefinition of the redefinition of the word "planet". It was needless and it wasn't applied consistently; if I understamd it correctly then technically Neptune shouldn't be a planet for the same reason that Pluto doesn't meet the definition, the orbits of the two bodies intersect

In 1846, Neptune was discovered, and it became the 13th planet of the solar system, for about 5 years. The current issue with Pluto mirrors the issue then with Ceres. The solution now is the same as the solution then: accept that objects in an asteroid belt aren't planets.

The only language thing that bugs me irrationally is when people write u, ur, etc instead of you, your, and so on.

Agreed, but, like with 'gay' and 'gender' above, and the 'centre-center/colour-color' divide, I can see it catching on, and 'u' becoming a valid spelling for 'you'.

Grey Wolf

[Aedilred]

This is going to be controversial but I object to the redefinition of the words "man" "woman" and "gender" that have been forced down our throats in recent years.

You mean we should go back to "man" being a gender-neutral term? I agree. Course, if I start describing myself as a wepman people will give me funny looks, I imagine.

[Bohandas]

30-ish years ago, this exact argument was done about the word 'gay', and how it was "meant" to mean 'happy'. Language usage evolves - it is not a misuse, it is the natural process by which meanings adapt.

I'm fine with language changing naturally. I'm not fine with it changing as a result of political action. It's Orwellian.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I'm fine with language changing naturally. I'm not fine with it changing as a result of political action. It's Orwellian.

Political action is not the same as governmental action. Arguably, every action undertaken by a collection of people is political including ones you now think of as "natural" (hint: gay parades and similar popular movements had a lot to do with the general propagation of the current meaning of 'gay'), but given they lack any dominance of any of the four estates in any country I can think of, it cannot be called Orwellian.

GW

[Jormengand]

I'm fine with language changing naturally. I'm not fine with it changing as a result of political action. It's Orwellian.

We get that you think that we, and the things that we do, are unnatural and we get that you're not fine with us. You don't have to tell us again.

Though "Orwellian" is a bit of a laugh given the attempts to teach us that we don't exist, that we should act like "Normal" people, and that we love big brother. The "You're not allowed to use language to describe yourself in the way which is natural to you because it isn't natural to ME, dammit" attitude is also concerning.

[NotThog]

"Oh, the irony," I'd say, if these were posted by the same person. But they aren't, of course, so that would be a misuse of the word irony.

Don't get me started on people who think irony and sarcasm are the same.

Which also reminds me: a lot. Two separate words. "Alot" is not a word.

Is too! :D Come to think of it, there must be a "monster" (quotes because it doesn't look like a monster, just derpy and cuddly) description for an alot.

To look at another word that's been with us for some time, there's the infamous "lieutenant", for instance. Now, fairly obviously from the spelling that should be prounounced "lyoo-tenant", after all "lieu" and "tenant" are words in their own right and follow all the normal rules. But in America it's "lootenant" and in Britain it's "leftenant"* and to argue that both of those are wrong and we should all be saying "lyootenant" is just to be in denial of reality, no matter what the spelling.

Which reminds me, the pronounciation of "Indianapolis". Etymologically it's obviously Indiana-polis, but it seems everyone pronounces it India-napolis.

Well, Farmer Giles lived in Ham. Not Nottingham, not Bleedingham, not Gotham, not Birmingham. Just Ham. I guess Tolkien liked this sort of things.

Well, Ham is obviously the thing that a hamlet is the diminutive of.

are you sure? I got 101% in my physics class.

I once got 10.5 in an English test because the teacher had added up the total max incorrectly. :D

What's overtext?

More properly called "alt text".

[Bohandas]

We get that you think that we, and the things that we do, are unnatural and we get that you're not fine with us. You don't have to tell us again.

I know transsexual people exist. I never said that they didn't or anything even close to denying that they do. There are many men who identify as women and many women who identify as men and they are men and women respectively because the words refer to reproductive structures rather than states of mind or quarternary sex characteristics in the brain. I'm not saying that how the language works is a good thing either; it's bad and it's sad but that's still the fact of what the words mean. Just because it's bad doesn't mean it isn't true. Global warming isn't good either but it's true and people have to deal with it.

Just as faith can not really move mountains, how you feel on the inside doesn't change the facts of language or biology It is impossible for things of the mind to directly override things of the world or of culture.

I daresay that in 20 years time it will be an accepted mainstream meaning, and if it becomes so then I shall have to accept it as such because my mind has no more power or relevance to the world than anybody else's, but it is not a correct mainstream usage now, so until that time I will continue to be bothered by it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

still the fact of what the words mean

Just like gay can only mean happy.

GW