Completely unimportant language misuses that bug you

[Aedilred]

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*.

Psh, Americans.

Also, achilles tendon.

Not sure how that supports the point... but in any case I note that in the link you provide, "Achilles" is capitalised.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Psh, Americans.

You want me to use sellotape, then, mate?

Not sure how that supports the point... but in any case I note that in the link you provide, "Achilles" is capitalised.

Since the picture is clearly not of the actual Achilles, capitalised or not, is now "a generic term for flying horses the foot's tendon", just like Pegasus isn't a specific flying horse, but every flying horse.

GW

[Vinyadan]

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

Then can I pluralize ruckus into rucki? I think that Pegasi is wrong because there only was only one Pegasus: Latin didn't have any correct way to pluralize it. However, if you decided that there are more than one, then I am OK with it, because Pegasus isn't Greek any more, it's a Latin word borrowed from Greek, and it belongs to the second declension and is not neuter, so its plural nominative is -i. See Metellus, Metelli (Fato Metelli Romae fiunt consules)
Octopi also is wrong, because it completely misses the point. Octopus had a genitive in octopodos, and plural in octopodes: third declension. It has nothing to do with the -us > -i plural for Latin, as could other Greek words that Latin borrowed (like Centaurus > Centauri), which came from the second declension.

I don't think the pluralization rule actually allows you to pluralize in -i all words that end in -us, independently from their origin. I think it allows you to do so only with words from Latin's second declension, or that try to build themselves as second declension Latin words.

Since the picture is clearly not of the actual Achilles, capitalised or not, is now "a generic term for flying horses the foot's tendon", just like Pegasus isn't a specific flying horse, but every flying horse.

No, that's a different structure. Achilles here has turned into an adjective, not in a generic term. Saying "Achilles tendon" is like saying "football team" or "Mercedes-Benz engine". If it had been this same structure, you'd say "Pegasus horse", not pegasus, the same way in which you don't say "Achilles" meaning "heel cord".

[Grey_Wolf_c]

No, that's a different structure. Achilles here has turned into an adjective, not in a generic term. Saying "Achilles tendon" is like saying "football team" or "Mercedes-Benz engine". If it had been this same structure, you'd say "Pegasus horse", not pegasus, the same way in which you don't say "Achilles" meaning "heel cord".

I fail to see the difference. If Achilles was exclusively the Greek legend, Achilles tendon would only ever refer to the cording on the Greek hero. It doesn't. Therefore, Achilles is no longer exclusively the guy, but some generic word to refer to a body part almost everyone has. Compare that to your own "Mercedes-Benz engine", which can only refer to engines made by a specific manufacturer, whereas a xerox machine doesn't need to have been fabricated by Xerox.

Grey Wolf

[The Extinguisher]

No, that's a different structure. Achilles here has turned into an adjective, not in a generic term. Saying "Achilles tendon" is like saying "football team" or "Mercedes-Benz engine". If it had been this same structure, you'd say "Pegasus horse", not pegasus, the same way in which you don't say "Achilles" meaning "heel cord".

Ive for sure heard people say "my achilles" referring to the aforementioned tendon and not their own personal greek hero

[Vinyadan]

I fail to see the difference. If Achilles was exclusively the Greek legend, Achilles tendon would only ever refer to the cording on the Greek hero. It doesn't. Therefore, Achilles is no longer exclusively the guy, but some generic word to refer to a body part almost everyone has. Compare that to your own "Mercedes-Benz engine", which can only refer to engines made by a specific manufacturer, whereas a xerox machine doesn't need to have been fabricated by Xerox.

There is a very concrete difference. One is grammar: the difference between name and adjective.

Achilles = name

Achilles tendon = adjective followed by name

Pegasi = name

Pegasus horses = adjective followed by name

The point is that the Achilles in Achilles tendon is just the hero from the Greek legend. His name is used as adjective, to determine which tendon is being talked about within the frame of the human body. Since that is a tendon that (almost) all humans have, but was very meaningful in Achilles' case, it is named after him. It's not Achilles which is broader in its meaning: Achilles is used as a determiner to narrow down which tendon is of interest.

It is possible that my reading is due to the fact that everyone I know knows who Achilles is and how he died, and saying Achilles tendon would be clear even if they never had heard this tendon's name. In a place where people don't know this, I guess it could become like Béchamel sauce, where the name has survived in spite of the fact that very few know who Béchamel was. The difference is that there are terms for people who don't know who Achilles is, like heel cord, which are just as clear and would likely substitute Achilles tendon, if the reference were to become obscure.

[Vinyadan]

Ive for sure heard people say "my achilles" referring to the aforementioned tendon and not their own personal greek hero

Really? I never heard that. I guess I stand corrected.

[Peelee]

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.

Do you similarly complain about "hermaphrodite?" Because the noble Greek god Hermaphrodites, spawn of Hermes and Aphrodite, was so beautiful that a nymph fell in love with him. However, as he did not love the nymph, he turned himself into a woman to avoid her.* Yet now it's a term for someone born with both male and female sexual organs, and not the specific person. So it's not like there isn't precedence for this sort of thing, especially concerning Greek mythology.

*to the best of my recollection. What's a google?

[Bohandas]

The version I heard was that she stalked him so closely they eventually fused into a single creature or something like that; somehow they got fused together

[GolemsVoice]

Ive for sure heard people say "my achilles" referring to the aforementioned tendon and not their own personal greek hero

But that's obviously just because it's that much shorter, and everybody will know what you mean, like saying "The War" instead of the Second World War, or something. But Pegasus isn't just a common shortening of pegasus horse.

[Lissou]

What bothers me about portemanteaux is that they mean what they do in English. It's just the French word for coat-hanger. I know the reason for the etymology, it just annoys me. That and the random use of French words in otherwise English sentences when there are perfectly good English words.

For the plural of octopus, I understand that octopi, octopodes and octopuses are all considered correct, but I personally use "octopuses". I also say "cactuses". I don't think the English plural should ever be "wrong" in English, even when it's not the only accepted form. Although I guess "I'm having some spaghettos" may sound weird. Actually, it would probably sound like a coat-hanger.

[Peelee]

The version I heard was that she stalked him so closely they eventually fused into a single creature or something like that; somehow they got fused together

I'll cop to probably remembering it wrong.

[The Extinguisher]

But that's obviously just because it's that much shorter, and everybody will know what you mean, like saying "The War" instead of the Second World War, or something. But Pegasus isn't just a common shortening of pegasus horse.

Sure...

I may have missed the point of contention here

[goto124]

Although I guess "I'm having some spaghettos" may sound weird.

Pretty sure that's a type of pasta

[veti]

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?

Both "vision", meaning "sight/something that's seen", and the prefix "tele-", meaning "at a distance (as in 'telescope', 'telegraph', 'telephone', 'telegram') - with particular reference to 'enabled by new-fangled electrificial technology'" - were already well established in English by the time "television" was coined. They had each, independently, already been detached from their roots.

I would say that the same is true of "car". But not "Armageddon". (Independent verification: my browser's spellchecker marks the word as an error *unless* I capitalise it, in which case it's fine.)

[factotum]

I would say that the same is true of "car". But not "Armageddon". (Independent verification: my browser's spellchecker marks the word as an error *unless* I capitalise it, in which case it's fine.)

But the dictionary would disagree with you. The first meaning given on dictionary.com is the placename Armageddon, but the other meanings are:

2. the last and completely destructive battle:
The arms race can lead to Armageddon.

3. any great and crucial conflict.

Neither of those refers to a specific place.

[Lissou]

I will have to admit my ignorance, I didn't know Armageddon was a place. I though it was another word for apocalypse.

[Velaryon]

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.

I'll just throw "-holic" on that list as well, where it gets joined up weirdly with other words.

[Gnoman]

I will have to admit my ignorance, I didn't know Armageddon was a place. I though it was another word for apocalypse.

That's convoluted.

"Apocalypse" is derived from the greek word "apokalypsis", meaning "revelation". In ancient days, writings were often titled simply by their first word or line, so a certain important bit of prophetic writing from the first century AD became known eventually as "Apokalypsis", and later "The Apocalypse of John". This work is heavily concerned with the end of the world, and mentions that the final battle ever will take place at a mysterious location called "Armageddon".

After a little under 2000 years of popcultural osmosis, both words are now little more than synonyms for the end of the world.

[Vinyadan]

I think it was called Apocalypse "of St. John" because there were a good number of such texts running around. It is rather strange that the writer is supposed to be John, because his other works are very Hellenized, while the Apocalypse is very, very Jewish.
Using the first word to set the theme of the work was very common in the ancient times, so the first word of the Iliad is "wrath" (because it revolves around Achilles' wrath), and the first word of the Odyssey is "man" (the man being Odysseus), the first ones of the Aeneid are "weapons and man" (Aeneas and the heredity of Troy), the first words of Aristoteles' Poetics are "About poetics"... So choosing the first word as a title was often done if the first word already was something of a title.
I am not sure of how the habit of giving titles developed itself, it must be an interesting story. In the middle ages, it was still normal not to use titles, using instead the first verse of a poem, or a general name + the author's name (Dante's Comedy being a very famous and debated example).

[137beth]

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

A few years back, the Watergate building underwent some renovation. Part way through, it was observed that the construction was slightly behind schedule. Probably the delay was due to any of the normal reasons a construction project could be delayed. However, some in the media speculated that the so-called "delay" was in fact part of a cover-up for a sinister scandal, to which the entire renovation of the Watergate building was just a pretext. I don't think anyone actually believed in this scandal, so much as they really wanted it to be true so that they could call it Watergategate.

[InvisibleBison]

the final battle ever will take place at a mysterious location called "Armageddon".

It's not so much "a mysterious location" as "a specific hill in northern Israel".

[Gnoman]

It's not so much "a mysterious location" as "a specific hill in northern Israel".

That is the most popular interpretation, but it is not the only one - there is a huge amount of debate on the subject. That is as far as we can go here.

[Jormengand]

A few years back, the Watergate building underwent some renovation. Part way through, it was observed that the construction was slightly behind schedule. Probably the delay was due to any of the normal reasons a construction project could be delayed. However, some in the media speculated that the so-called "delay" was in fact part of a cover-up for a sinister scandal, to which the entire renovation of the Watergate building was just a pretext. I don't think anyone actually believed in this scandal, so much as they really wanted it to be true so that they could call it Watergategate.

Let us not forget the incident involving Andrew Mitchell, which among other names is known as gategate.

[Rockphed]

A few years back, the Watergate building underwent some renovation. Part way through, it was observed that the construction was slightly behind schedule. Probably the delay was due to any of the normal reasons a construction project could be delayed. However, some in the media speculated that the so-called "delay" was in fact part of a cover-up for a sinister scandal, to which the entire renovation of the Watergate building was just a pretext. I don't think anyone actually believed in this scandal, so much as they really wanted it to be true so that they could call it Watergategate.

So, that these news outlets were purposefully making a scandal out of nothing should have been labeled "Watergategate-gate", right? I'm surprised nobody tried to do that. It would have ended the practice of labeling things "gate" right quick. I guess it is too much to expect reporters to be that quick on their feet.

[137beth]

That's convoluted.

"Apocalypse" is derived from the greek word "apokalypsis", meaning "revelation". In ancient days, writings were often titled simply by their first word or line, so a certain important bit of prophetic writing from the first century AD became known eventually as "Apokalypsis", and later "The Apocalypse of John". This work is heavily concerned with the end of the world, and mentions that the final battle ever will take place at a mysterious location called "Armageddon".

After a little under 2000 years of popcultural osmosis, both words are now little more than synonyms for the end of the world.

This process is known as "distinction between apocalypse and armageddon ocalypse."

So, that these news outlets were purposefully making a scandal out of nothing should have been labeled "Watergategate-gate", right? I'm surprised nobody tried to do that. It would have ended the practice of labeling things "gate" right quick. I guess it is too much to expect reporters to be that quick on their feet.

Huh, I never thought of that. I guess my failure to think of the name Watergategategate shall henceforth be known as Watergategategategate!

[Jay R]

I don't think the English plural should ever be "wrong" in English, even when it's not the only accepted form.

As a general rule, that's not bad, but I can't accept it universally. My counter-example is "hypothesis". The only acceptable plural is "hypotheses", because "hypothesises" sounds really dumb to my ear.

In the other direction, I find the plural-plural form "operas" to be grating, but it's still correct English.

[Aedilred]

As a general rule, that's not bad, but I can't accept it universally. My counter-example is "hypothesis". The only acceptable plural is "hypotheses", because "hypothesises" sounds really dumb to my ear.

In the other direction, I find the plural-plural form "operas" to be grating, but it's still correct English.

In general it only really doesn't work with words that are already plural but their singular form is so uncommon as to be relatively obscure. Nobody says "datums" or "criterions", but it would still sound wrong if people talked about "datas" or "criterias".

[OracleofWuffing]

When at work and a customer is going to pay for their goods.
"Do you have the chip?"

No, we do not. The chip is on your card. You have the chip. Our terminal utilizes chip and pin features on credit and debit cards, yes, but we do not provide you with the chip. That is the exact opposite of what needs to occur in this transaction. You provide us with the chip. That's how the chip works. That's the point of the chip. The chip lets your bank know that you're there in person. If we had the chip, we would be you. And, of course, since I'm in a place that's slow to adopt supporting these features, the most direct response that gets the customer taken care of and happy?

"Yes."

Over. And over. Again.

[goto124]

I assume what they're asking is "can your terminal read the chip on my card"?