Completely unimportant language misuses that bug you

[veti]

My biggest problem with masochism is how to pronounce the dang word. I'm certain that there is a pronunciation that makes sense, but I can't tell what it is by just looking at the word.

This may help.

[darkrose50]

[1] Answering any (most) questions with "Honestly . . .".

A: "What do you think is better X or Y?"
A: "Honestly I like X." Just say "X".

Honestly implies that you would normally be dishonest about your answer. Sometimes being dishonest about an answer is the expected answer in polite society. One would never tell a child that they are the most hideous creature you have ever had the displeasure of viewing . . . even if they ask you how they look.

[2] Answering any (most) questions with "I do . . .".

Q: "What is your favorite game?"
A: "I do like D&D." Just say "D&D".

Unless the question is "do you", then the answer should not start with "I do". Else the answer just sounds pompous to me, as if the opinion given is super special.

[3] Assault and Battery . . . I was a victim of being attacked-attacked. Murder-death-kill!

[4] Quag-mire . . . two kids of mud . . . I am stuck in a mud-mud.

[darkrose50]

A debate which I wager has been had since before the first dictionary was published.

The answer, I believe, is "both". Dictionaries record the living language, but people will also use them as references and authority sources for what is/isn't correct usage, so they will have an influence over the language too.

I think problems tend to arise when dictionaries are over-hasty to adopt - and therefore legitimise - non-standard, ironic or hyperbolic use of certain words.

Words change meaning.

Meta means itself.

Meta: (of a creative work) referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential.

Metacognition means to think about thinking, for example.

Thinking about how rules interact is straggly and/or tactics . . . now people use the word meta . . . it changed.

The common meta is to use X + Y + Z squads means the common theme in this game is to use the X + Y + Z squads.

-----

Thing no longer means meeting.

-----

Rascal is no longer an insult that would result in a duel to the death . . . much less be looked at as a grave insult.

----

Dot is a period in a URL.

[Peelee]

[3] Assault and Battery . . . I was a victim of being attacked-attacked. Murder-death-kill!

Assault and battery are often two different charges with distinct legal meanings. Typically, assault is ability and threat to cause physical harm while battery is the act of causing physical harm (NAL).

This is a big reason why I embraced descriptivision when I discovered it. It's too easy for prescriptivists to be hoisted on their own petards.

[Kyrell1978]

Assault and battery are often two different charges with distinct legal meanings. Typically, assault is ability and threat to cause physical harm while battery is the act of causing physical harm (NAL).

This is absolutely true. I was asked that question about a million times when I was going through college (CJ degree).

[Rockphed]

[1] Answering any (most) questions with "Honestly . . .".

A: "What do you think is better X or Y?"
A: "Honestly I like X." Just say "X".

Honestly implies that you would normally be dishonest about your answer. Sometimes being dishonest about an answer is the expected answer in polite society. One would never tell a child that they are the most hideous creature you have ever had the displeasure of viewing . . . even if they ask you how they look.

[2] Answering any (most) questions with "I do . . .".

Q: "What is your favorite game?"
A: "I do like D&D." Just say "D&D".

Unless the question is "do you", then the answer should not start with "I do". Else the answer just sounds pompous to me, as if the opinion given is super special.

Both of these introductory phrases serve as a way to start a remark and give some breathing space to the ideas. Also, sentences that start with "Honestly," typically have that comma. Finally, saying, "I do like [x]," can imply that you haven't given the question full thought and are just now thinking about it.

[4] Quag-mire . . . two kids of mud . . . I am stuck in a mud-mud.

In current usage, a "quag" is a "quagmire". Historically, a "quag" was a marshy/boggy spot. So a quagmire was a marshy/boggy place that was muddy enough to get stuck in, as opposed to a marshy/boggy place that was mostly water.

And I have to agree with Peelee that prescriptivists get lifted by their own explosive flatulence far too easily. It is like the time I had a professor in my English class question my usage of "whit" (as in "to whit") thinking that "whit" wasn't a word. Or when my father-in-law writes a note that "the plural of antenna is antennae" when I am talking about antennas (metal objects for converting electromagnetic waves in free space into voltages and currents on wires).

[factotum]

[1] Answering any (most) questions with "Honestly . . .".

A: "What do you think is better X or Y?"
A: "Honestly I like X." Just say "X".

That, to me, is a sort of verbal tic that many people have, like people who insert the phrase "You know?" at the end of every sentence, rather than a specific language issue. Case in point: there's a contestant on the current series of Celebrity Masterchef in the UK who keeps saying "Happy days" when anything goes right, and I find that faintly annoying!

[Xuc Xac]

[3] Assault and Battery . . . I was a victim of being attacked-attacked. Murder-death-kill!

[4] Quag-mire . . . two kids of mud . . . I am stuck in a mud-mud.

Words change meaning.

Meta means itself.

Maybe these supposed redundancies wouldn't bother you so much if you knew what they were. Do you also complain about chocolate-vanilla swirl ice cream being "bean-bean swirl"?

Quags are soft and wet, so they are easy to sink into. Mires are gooey and sticky, so they are hard to get out of. A quagmire is both easy to get in and hard to get out.

Assault is a credible threat of violence and battery is actual physical harm. If you hold up your fist like you're really going to punch someone, that's "assault". If you threaten to punch them and then actually punch them, it's "assault and battery". If you sucker punch them without any warning, it's just "battery".

It's a dual charge like "breaking and entering", because you can do one action without the other (e.g. You can break a window without going into a house and you can go in without breaking anything).

"Meta" means "beyond". A creative work that references itself is called meta because it "breaks the 4th wall" to do it: it's "meta" because of how it makes the reference and not because of what it references. "Metacognition" is awareness of your own thoughts because you consider them from an external point of view.

In "Raiders of the Lost Ark", Indiana Jones simply shoots the large swordsman because it's safer and faster than trying to engage him in a fair fight when he has a better weapon. The meta reason (from outside the movie) is that Harrison Ford was too sick to film the action scene.

[snowblizz]

"Meta" means "beyond". A creative work that references itself is called meta because it "breaks the 4th wall" to do it: it's "meta" because of how it makes the reference and not because of what it references. "Metacognition" is awareness of your own thoughts because you consider them from an external point of view.

Thinking about how rules interact is straggly and/or tactics . . . now people use the word meta . . . it changed.

The common meta is to use X + Y + Z squads means the common theme in this game is to use the X + Y + Z squads.

And in the case of games it used correctly. Really it's meta tactics (but who can be bothered to add the word we all know it's about). You are looking at the rule/game itself and how that affects what you do. It's self-referrential.

Wargaming tactics is how to move some guys around using cover and flank a tank. Meta (tactics) is picking tactics based on the rules and gamestate. The rules give an advatange to X over Y regardless of the situation on the board, hence I do the meta tactical choice of X. It works the same way for armylists in tournaments which is also called meta. You tactically select X because you know there will be lots of Y. It is self-referrential. You follow the meta for no other reason that it is the meta.



Re: de Sade, Masoch, Orwell and Kafka. Apparnetly there's a word for it too, eponym. An eponym is a person, place, or thing after whom or after which something is named, or believed to be named. The link also goes into why and why not it's capitalised.

[Razade]

It's not exactly whether you know of the people. I bet quite a few talking about Orwellian or Kafkaesque (why isn't it Orwellesque or Kafkian?) actually know who the authors were or the works themselves. We are miles closer to Orwell and Kafka though than the kinky guys of history. But basically both sadist and masochist have lost connection to the original source of the words in language.

That was my point in bringing it up in the first place?

[darkrose50]

Maybe these supposed redundancies wouldn't bother you so much if you knew what they were. Do you also complain about chocolate-vanilla swirl ice cream being "bean-bean swirl"?

I enjoy complaining. I like the bean-bean swirl thing! I will for now on order bean-bean swirl!

[Aedilred]

[1] Answering any (most) questions with "Honestly . . .".

A: "What do you think is better X or Y?"
A: "Honestly I like X." Just say "X".

Honestly implies that you would normally be dishonest about your answer. Sometimes being dishonest about an answer is the expected answer in polite society. One would never tell a child that they are the most hideous creature you have ever had the displeasure of viewing . . . even if they ask you how they look.

[2] Answering any (most) questions with "I do . . .".

Q: "What is your favorite game?"
A: "I do like D&D." Just say "D&D".

Unless the question is "do you", then the answer should not start with "I do". Else the answer just sounds pompous to me, as if the opinion given is super special.

You have the soul of a poet...

Communication isn't just about getting across the minimum amount of information in the shortest amount of time. Human interaction isn't just a barked series of questions and one-word answers. The way an answer (or indeed question) is phrased can tell you a lot about both the person speaking and the certainty of their answer. That applies in both the above examples. Nuance is a thing.

[Peelee]

You have the soul of a poet...

Communication isn't just about getting across the minimum amount of information in the shortest amount of time. Human interaction isn't just a barked series of questions and one-word answers. The way an answer (or indeed question) is phrased can tell you a lot about both the person speaking and the certainty of their answer. That applies in both the above examples. Nuance is a thing.

[Kyrell1978]

You have the soul of a poet...

Communication isn't just about getting across the minimum amount of information in the shortest amount of time. Human interaction isn't just a barked series of questions and one-word answers. The way an answer (or indeed question) is phrased can tell you a lot about both the person speaking and the certainty of their answer. That applies in both the above examples. Nuance is a thing.

Awesome. So what you're saying is from now on we should bark one word answers.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

You have the soul of a poet...

Communication isn't just about getting across the minimum amount of information in the shortest amount of time. Human interaction isn't just a barked series of questions and one-word answers. The way an answer (or indeed question) is phrased can tell you a lot about both the person speaking and the certainty of their answer. That applies in both the above examples. Nuance is a thing.

And even if you have the soul of an engineer, redundancy in a sentence is a significant help to communication. It is the equivalent of having parity bits.

Grey Wolf

[Rockphed]

And even if you have the soul of an engineer, redundancy in a sentence is a significant help to communication. It is the equivalent of having parity bits.

Grey Wolf

As an engineer-poet, I take umbrage at the implication that the two are incompatible.

[factotum]

As an engineer-poet, I take umbrage at the implication that the two are incompatible.

Of course they're incompatible! The engineer soul requires 3/8" screws, whereas the poetic one uses unicorn horns.

[Kyrell1978]

Of course they're incompatible! The engineer soul requires 3/8" screws, whereas the poetic one uses unicorn horns.

So if an engineer were to write instructions in iambic pentameter, would that qualify as compatible?

[Rockphed]

Of course they're incompatible! The engineer soul requires 3/8" screws, whereas the poetic one uses unicorn horns.

Wait, your supply room doesn't have three eighths inch un'corn horn?
What soulless desert free from joy unto your mind is borne?
Far be it from me to tell you how to live your pagan way
But in my heart the joy of rhyme will always hold is sway.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

As an engineer-poet, I take umbrage at the implication that the two are incompatible.

Hardly incompatible, but some of us are 100% engineers, even if other configurations are perfectly possible. And yet even for us, there is value in more than minimum word count.

Grey Wolf

[Bohandas]

And I have to agree with Peelee that prescriptivists get lifted by their own explosive flatulence far too easily. It is like the time I had a professor in my English class question my usage of "whit" (as in "to whit") thinking that "whit" wasn't a word.

"Whit" is a word but you've used it incorrectly here. The phrase it "to wit"

Whereas "whit" means "a tiny amount or unit"

[Rockphed]

"Whit" is a word but you've used it incorrectly here. The phrase it "to wit"

Whereas "whit" means "a tiny amount or unit"

Huh, I have only ever seen it with "whit". I assumed it meant, "precisely/to a small level of detail".

[Xuc Xac]

Huh, I have only ever seen it with "whit". I assumed it meant, "precisely/to a small level of detail".

The verb "wit" means "have knowledge of". You see it more often as "(un)witting(ly)". The noun "wit" (as in "keep your wits about you") are the senses you use to gain knowledge of your environment.

Using "to wit" to introduce explanatory details in a sentence is just a classy, archaic equivalent of "you know, like..."

[georgie_leech]

Spoiler: And XKCD continues its quest to always have a relevant comic

Show

[darkrose50]

You have the soul of a poet...

Communication isn't just about getting across the minimum amount of information in the shortest amount of time. Human interaction isn't just a barked series of questions and one-word answers. The way an answer (or indeed question) is phrased can tell you a lot about both the person speaking and the certainty of their answer. That applies in both the above examples. Nuance is a thing.

A professor would say something like X number of pages. I was often under X, and was never penalized for it. I always got my A. I just seem to communicate in a lower word count. On the reverse side of the coin I can sometimes go off and write an extremely longer-than-needed paper, if it is an interesting topic.

It always amazes me on how much people can talk or write without saying anything. Sometimes I time a Youtuber on how long it takes them to get the point of the video . . . try it and be amazed!

[darkrose50]

And even if you have the soul of an engineer, redundancy in a sentence is a significant help to communication. It is the equivalent of having parity bits.

Grey Wolf

Oh it drives me nuts when I call in someplace and say "I am calling in about X", and have the representative say "I understand that you are calling in about X, is that correct?"

I once asked if the representative could please stop doing that, only to be told that it was policy. It drove me nuts!

[Yuki Akuma]

Oh it drives me nuts when I call in someplace and say "I am calling in about X", and have the representative say "I understand that you are calling in about X, is that correct?"

I once asked if the representative could please stop doing that, only to be told that it was policy. It drove me nuts!

Hi are you aware that telephones are not 100% accurate at reproducing sounds and that humans are not 100% efficient at understanding words just from the sounds they make anyway?

It's hard to understand people over the telephone sometimes. You have to be sure you're both on the same page.

[darkrose50]

Hi are you aware that telephones are not 100% accurate at reproducing sounds and that humans are not 100% efficient at understanding words just from the sounds they make anyway?

It's hard to understand people over the telephone sometimes. You have to be sure you're both on the same page.

Yes, I 100% agree. Without audio issues, it is an annoying procedure. With audio issues it is understandable.

[Tvtyrant]

Yes, I 100% agree. Without audio issues, it is an annoying procedure. With audio issues it is understandable.

You haven't lived until you have given a password reset code out over a bad phone connection to someone with a different accent from you.
"A like alpha. "
"Alpha"
"Okay but you know is the letter alpha not the word."
"A-l-p-h-a"
"Just A"
"E-h"

It is a true joy.

[Peelee]

Yes, I 100% agree. Without audio issues, it is an annoying procedure. With audio issues it is understandable.

If only there were some way to detect some audio issues. Maybe have the employee confirm what the caller says as a quick and dirty failsafe?