Completely unimportant language misuses that bug you

[VoxRationis]

French loanwords are commonly spelled with their native accent marks, although when using them forces us to remember how to make them on an English-typing keyboard, we commonly omit them in casual contexts. If we wish to be prescriptive about the matter, Merriam-Webster, as well as the spellcheck on several computer programs, prefers creme brulee spelled with more inclines than a doorstop factory.

[Bohandas]

The modern English alphabet does not have any accent marks, ligatures, or diacritics. The umlat does appear occasionally, but it's only correct English usage is inside of a proper noun to indicate that the word is the name of a heavy metal band.

EDIT:

also...

Spoiler

Show

[Aedilred]

The modern English alphabet does not have any accent marks, ligatures, or diacritics. The umlat does appear occasionally, but it's only correct English usage is inside of a proper noun to indicate that the word is the name of a heavy metal band.

Fiancé(e)
Naïve
Façade

Printed English also includes a large number of ligatures. You just don't notice them because they resemble the separate letters closely and you're conditioned to seeing them.

[Velaryon]

Fiancé(e)
Naïve
Façade

Printed English also includes a large number of ligatures. You just don't notice them because they resemble the separate letters closely and you're conditioned to seeing them.

Naive and facade are more commonly spelled with the standard 26 letters. You have a point with fiancé(e) though.

[Aedilred]

Naive and facade are more commonly spelled with the standard 26 letters. You have a point with fiancé(e) though.

I was trying to vary up the marks a bit, but I think (in actual writing rather than forum posts, where unless you have a special keyboard it's a pain) I think I see "façade" more often than the alternative. "Naïve" can go either way.

There might be an element of transatlantic divide at play too, of course. Commonwealth English has hung onto a lot more of its digraphs than US English, especially where vowels are concerned (manoeuvre, encyclopaedia, foetus, etc.) and I wouldn't be surprised if the same applied with diacritics.

[Bohandas]

There might be an element of transatlantic divide at play too, of course. Commonwealth English has hung onto a lot more of its digraphs than US English, especially where vowels are concerned (manoeuvre, encyclopaedia, foetus, etc.) and I wouldn't be surprised if the same applied with diacritics.

And also usage of "-re" to represent a terminal "-er" sound, don't forget that. And "r" can't follow "o", there has to be a silent "u" that doesn't do anything but waste ink in between them.

[factotum]

And "r" can't follow "o", there has to be a silent "u" that doesn't do anything but waste ink in between them.

Well, we bourrowed that from the French.

[Bohandas]

I think I see "façade" more often than the alternative.

I don't know what that accent mark is even called.

[Jormengand]

I don't know what that accent mark is even called.

It's a cedilla.

---

I generally use accents in naïve, fiancé(e) and façade, but I also use ligatures in æther and œstrogen, so maybe I'm just weird.

[YossarianLives]

I generally use accents in naïve, fiancé(e) and façade, but I also use ligatures in æther and œstrogen, so maybe I'm just weird.

We've clearly found the Donnadogsoth alt-account.

This was probably a bad joke. I'm sorry.

[Aedilred]

And also usage of "-re" to represent a terminal "-er" sound, don't forget that. And "r" can't follow "o", there has to be a silent "u" that doesn't do anything but waste ink in between them.

Well it was not my intention to go through every distinction between Commonwealth English and US English, or we'd be here all day. I was merely speculating that perhaps CE (and British English particularly) may have retained more of its accents and diacritics than US English has, given that I see them fairly frequently and apparently some others did not.

[Jormengand]

We've clearly found the Donnadogsoth alt-account.

This was probably a bad joke. I'm sorry.

Insert comment about how western society has capitulated to negative influences from the rest of the world and/or homosexuals (though if I really were Donnadogsoth, I wouldn't even use that word because it's not archaic enough) here. Also insert general mediæval western chauvanism here.

Ehh, it's clearly meant in good faith, and I doubt you'd accuse me of being them unironically because you would have to be literally incapable of coherent thought to do that.

[Peelee]

Well, we bourrowed that from the French.

Well, that explains why the French and English have had so many problems with each other through history. You should give back the stuff you've borrowed, already!

[Aedilred]

Well, that explains why the French and English have had so many problems with each other through history. You should give back the stuff you've borrowed, already!

It wasn't so much borrowed as forced upon us at swordpoint. I guess it's a testament to the innate spirit of the Englishman and the laziness of their Norman overlords that the English language survived at all, etc.

That instance being one of the reasons I chuckle at that old American chestnut "if it weren't for us you'd be speaking German". We don't speak French, or Danish, or Dutch. No invader's managed to eradicate the native tongue in 1500 years; why should Hitler be any different?

[Vinyadan]

It wasn't so much borrowed as forced upon us at swordpoint. I guess it's a testament to the innate spirit of the Englishman and the laziness of their Norman overlords that the English language survived at all, etc.

That instance being one of the reasons I chuckle at that old American chestnut "if it weren't for us you'd be speaking German". We don't speak French, or Danish, or Dutch. No invader's managed to eradicate the native tongue in 1500 years; why should Hitler be any different?

A good question is also why the Ango-Saxons managed to uproot local languages almost everywhere in England. Maybe they ended up being more local than the feudal aristocracy, which often had interests in other countries. A bit like the Slavs in the Balkans, or the Germans on large parts of the Alps: they came in late, but left little trace of what used to be there.

[Peelee]

It wasn't so much borrowed as forced upon us at swordpoint. I guess it's a testament to the innate spirit of the Englishman

Where you say "innate spirit," I say "too awkward to say anything about it."

As for speaking German if it weren't for us, that's your own fault for showing up to the war on time. America has now twice shown that the way to win a World War is to show up late, after everyone else did like 95% if the work for us.

[Bohandas]

Don't forget atomic weapons. Those help too.

[Rockphed]

Don't forget atomic weapons. Those help too.

Also, not having our factories bombed into the next century. Being a net exporter of food probably helps as well.

[factotum]

That instance being one of the reasons I chuckle at that old American chestnut "if it weren't for us you'd be speaking German". We don't speak French, or Danish, or Dutch. No invader's managed to eradicate the native tongue in 1500 years; why should Hitler be any different?

You do realise that if you were transported 1500 years into the past you wouldn't understand a word anyone was saying in "English"? It was a totally different language back then. Not only has the language evolved naturally over time, but many of the words we take for granted now actually date back to the Norman Conquest--we have one of the only languages that refers to the meat of an animal by a different word to the name of the animal itself for that reason.

[Aedilred]

A good question is also why the Ango-Saxons managed to uproot local languages almost everywhere in England. Maybe they ended up being more local than the feudal aristocracy, which often had interests in other countries. A bit like the Slavs in the Balkans, or the Germans on large parts of the Alps: they came in late, but left little trace of what used to be there.

You do realise that if you were transported 1500 years into the past you wouldn't understand a word anyone was saying in "English"? It was a totally different language back then. Not only has the language evolved naturally over time, but many of the words we take for granted now actually date back to the Norman Conquest--we have one of the only languages that refers to the meat of an animal by a different word to the name of the animal itself for that reason.

This is true, but in linguistic terms English is still a Germanic language with a Romance superstrate rather than a Romance language with a Germanic substrate. Norman French changed English dramatically, but it didn't replace it.

As Vinyadan implies, really the remarkable thing is that the Anglo-Saxons did accomplish this when the Anglic languages displaced the Brythonic (and other Celtic) languages in mainland Britain, almost completely in England and in most of southern Scotland. The wholesale replacement of the native language on such a scale is pretty rare anywhere in post-classical Europe that I can think of. (Hungary being the other that leaps obviously to mind and even that is debatable).

[2D8HP]

It wasn't so much borrowed as forced upon us at swordpoint. I guess it's a testament to the innate spirit of the Englishman and the laziness of their Norman overlords that the English language survived at all, etc...

This is true, but in linguistic terms English is still a Germanic language with a Romance superstrate rather than a Romance language with a Germanic substrate. Norman French changed English dramatically, but it didn't replace it....

Wit well had Harold Godwinson lost the battle of Hastings to William of Normandy the wittingship of tonguecraft may have been ken as "the science of linguistics".

[Bohandas]

You do realise that if you were transported 1500 years into the past you wouldn't understand a word anyone was saying in "English"? It was a totally different language back then. Not only has the language evolved naturally over time, but many of the words we take for granted now actually date back to the Norman Conquest

As do a lot of the wacky British spellings like "colour" and "theatre" IIRC

[Xuc Xac]

You do realise that if you were transported 1500 years into the past you wouldn't understand a word anyone was saying in "English"?

Maybe you wouldn't. I'm an Eddie Izard fan so I know enough to negotiate the purchase of a brown cow to make milk and butter.

[DavidSh]

As Vinyadan implies, really the remarkable thing is that the Anglo-Saxons did accomplish this when the Anglic languages displaced the Brythonic (and other Celtic) languages in mainland Britain, almost completely in England and in most of southern Scotland. The wholesale replacement of the native language on such a scale is pretty rare anywhere in post-classical Europe that I can think of. (Hungary being the other that leaps obviously to mind and even that is debatable).

Were there any Pictish speakers left after the Gaelic takeover of Scotland?

[Aedilred]

Were there any Pictish speakers left after the Gaelic takeover of Scotland?

It's hard to say when Pictish became completely extinct, or what its original range was, I guess. I was considering that among the Celtic languages displaced/replaced by Anglic ones, which is probably overly simplified since it's not certain that it even was Celtic, and it was done over by Gaelic at least as much as it was by Scots. Still, it was all part of the strange British anomaly.

Celtic languages seem to have been unusually vulnerable to linguistic loss, for some reason. Considering how widespread the Celts once were, and that many of the languages were still widely spoken into late Antiquity, their range is remarkably small now. Probably part of that was long-term homogenisation of a Romanised population and the language falling out of use rather than aggressive conquest, I suppose. I doubt it's entirely a coincidence that the places where Celtic languages have proven most durable are those that were least (or not at all) Romanised.

[Bohandas]

Ok I recently came across something on another thread:

Early Modern is actually 1600-1800 by most counts. You are looking for either Great War Fantasy, or Late Imperial Fantasy. I know it's pedantic to make that correction, but I feel it needs being said.

This raises the question: If a phrase is technical - but also idiomatic - is it ok to correct someone who strings the words together to form their literal non-idiomatic meaning (in the case of the thread in question "early modern" was used to refer to the World War 1 era) (or a meaning that is, in any case, more literal than the idiomatic technical meaning)

[Xuc Xac]

In the context of "history" (which that thread was referring to), "early modern" means the ink hasn't dried on Shakespeare's plays.

If you use "modern" to refer to the present day and recent past, "early modern" means the World Wide Web is getting popular and people are excited that the internet now has pictures.

Neither use is really appropriate for WWI.

[Xuc Xac]

I thought of another one of mine. There is a game system called "One Dice". I've heard good things about it, but I just can't get past the stupid name.

[Aedilred]

Ok I recently came across something on another thread:



This raises the question: If a phrase is technical - but also idiomatic - is it ok to correct someone who strings the words together to form their literal non-idiomatic meaning (in the case of the thread in question "early modern" was used to refer to the World War 1 era) (or a meaning that is, in any case, more literal than the idiomatic technical meaning)

Shorn of at least some technicality, "early modern" has no meaning at all, because "modern" becomes impossible to define. I don't think it actually has an idiomatic meaning other than the technical one. The non-technical use of it in that instance is not so much idiomatic as idiosyncratic, and consequently I think fair game for correction.

[Tvtyrant]

Shorn of at least some technicality, "early modern" has no meaning at all, because "modern" becomes impossible to define. I don't think it actually has an idiomatic meaning other than the technical one. The non-technical use of it in that instance is not so much idiomatic as idiosyncratic, and consequently I think fair game for correction.

I have heard of it referred to as both the Gunpowder Era and the Eurodominant era, with them both ending roughly 1950 when we entered the information era.