Completely unimportant language misuses that bug you

[Aedilred]

The French noun "fort" was borrowed as is. It means a "sturdy military structure". We still use that in English to mean "fortress" or "permanent military base".

The adjective "fort/forte" meaning "strong" was borrowed to mean "strong suit". Probably because the French noun form ("strength" in English) is already another common English word: "force".

You can't say "forte is an English word distinct from the original French so it's ok if they mispronounce it in English", because every English speaker who says "for-tay" thinks they're using a French word and not an English word that came from French.

People who say "hors d'oeuvre" or "savoir faire" instead of "appetizer" or "know-how" know they're French words and not just English words of French origin like "force", "fort", "private", "corporal", "lieutenant", and almost every other military word in use before the 20th century.

Pronouncing "forte" as "for-tay" is not using an English word. It's misusing a French word, just like people who say "coo duh graw" when they mean to say "coup de grace". It's a mistake born out of knowledge that the word is French and ignorance of how French actually works. They just imitate what they think French sounds like and they mistakenly think all French words ending with "e" must be "é" like "soufflé" or "fiancé" or "protégé".

Yeah, I understood this was an Italian word (as per the musical term, corresponding perhaps to the boldest and most forthright elements of someone's repertoire, like the forte passage in a musical rendition) or possibly Latin rather than a French one, and that therefore the pronunciation was correct both in English and in its original tongue.

Wiktionary suggests that it may in fact be borrowed from Portuguese and not related to the musical term (except to the extent that both derive from the same Latin word). In any case, the adoption and slight mangling of foreign words, and French in particular (half of the modern English lexicon being borrowed and mangled French), is common enough that I think "forte", being universal, is an accepted English word in its own right these days regardless of etymology. After all, nobody, either in the Commonwealth or USA, pronounces "forte" in the English sense as "fort"... do they?

I do know enough French to know that "forte" in French is pronounced "fort" and not "fortay" and on that basis when using the word in English it never occurred to me that I was using a fancy French word.

I also know enough French to know that the "grace" in "coup de grace" is pronounced roughly "grass" rather than "grah". And indeed that it is spelt "coup de grace" rather than "coup de gras".

[qbits]

That too. Either way, the "ee" part doesn't seem to have any obvious reason to be there.

I would guess it to be a result of an imaginary diphthong of the second "a" in "kara". /ˌkærəˈoʊki/ becomes /ˌkæriˈoʊki/ because an "ao" in English often sounds like "ayo", so I would guess people pronounced it that way, which eventually slipped into just "eeyo" (not far off from "ayo"). No, it makes no sense if everyone somehow understood its etymology, but yes, it makes sense as a "mixed-up" pronunciation in English. Silly of people to be so ignorant.

A question for the residents of this thread who are grammar sticklers: Why is there value in adhering to set "rules" of a language rather than just speaking in a colloquial way that maximizes understanding of communication? Correcting people seemingly doesn't maximize effective communication in the present, but is there possible future benefit behind not corrupting a language with colloquialisms? Is there fear of languages fracturing or devolving?

[Peelee]

A question for the residents of this thread who are grammar sticklers: Why is there value in adhering to set "rules" of a language rather than just speaking in a colloquial way that maximizes understanding of communication? Correcting people seemingly doesn't maximize effective communication in the present, but is there possible future benefit behind not corrupting a language with colloquialisms? Is there fear of languages fracturing or devolving?

Because English should be exactly what I was taught in school by strict prescriptivists, which is a good way to instill the formal flow of language in children, but who failed to then teach that as a living language it is subject to a natural evolution and the rules are not set in stone and are subject to change as the I age.

tl;dr - that's how we did it back in my day *shakes fist at offender*

[Grey_Wolf_c]

A question for the residents of this thread who are grammar sticklers: Why is there value in adhering to set "rules" of a language rather than just speaking in a colloquial way that maximizes understanding of communication?

I reject your statement that colloquialisms maximizes understanding. As an English as Second Language speaker (third, in fact, but for all practical purposes second at this point), colloquialisms are one of the biggest impediments to communication, second only to outright incorrect grammar. If you stick to the kind of English taught in schools around the world, you make it significantly easier for those who are not 100% proficient at English, which 1) happen to be the large, large majority of English speakers and b) are still perfectly understandable by everyone else. There are some ancillary benefits beyond those two, but those are certainly crucial.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

I reject your statement that colloquialisms maximizes understanding. As an English as Second Language speaker (third, in fact, but for all practical purposes second at this point), colloquialisms are one of the biggest impediments to communication, second only to outright incorrect grammar. If you stick to the kind of English taught in schools around the world, you make it significantly easier for those who are not 100% proficient at English, which 1) happen to be the large, large majority of English speakers and b) are still perfectly understandable by everyone else. There are some ancillary benefits beyond those two, but those are certainly crucial.

Grey Wolf

Hmmm... Have you had any issues with American English vs British English or Australian English?

[snowblizz]

Hmmm... Have you had any issues with American English vs British English or Australian English?

I've had. Depending on how you mean it.

People in Glasgow had trouble understanding I meant "mate" as friend. Because I've watched too much Crocodile Dundee as a kid.
The atmosphere in the pub we were in turned a bit ... interesting... until they figured out my friend and I were in fact not homosexuals.

For us foreign English speakers we pick up a lot of colloquialism out of dialects we hear for one. And then use them, not always realising it's not all English English.

I like to use "ya'll" e.g.

[factotum]

People in Glasgow had trouble understanding I meant "mate" as friend. Because I've watched too much Crocodile Dundee as a kid.

That sounds odd--I would be perfectly happy to refer to a friend as "mate". OK, I'm English, not Scottish, but the idea no-one in Scotland would have heard that usage is hard to swallow.

[snowblizz]

That sounds odd--I would be perfectly happy to refer to a friend as "mate". OK, I'm English, not Scottish, but the idea no-one in Scotland would have heard that usage is hard to swallow.

That is *not* what I said however. So please don't misconstrue my comment.

[Rockphed]

That sounds odd--I would be perfectly happy to refer to a friend as "mate". OK, I'm English, not Scottish, but the idea no-one in Scotland would have heard that usage is hard to swallow.

The question isn't how many native English speakers would understand that "my mate yonder" is "my friend over there" (which I suspect is above 95% of disinterested observers and above 50% of people looking for a reason to beat you up), but how many people in Okay, somehow I thought Glasgow was a place in Poland. Now I am incredibly confused.

And, for the record, "significant other" is fairly low on the list of meanings I ascribe to "mate", so I am probably a horrible person to comment on Snowblizz's language troubles.

[Vinyadan]

somehow I thought Glasgow was a place in Poland.

That would be Głasgow.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Hmmm... Have you had any issues with American English vs British English or Australian English?

Yes, in all possible combinations of those three. Plus extra for colloquialisms of South African English, Irish English, Scottish English, African American English, Indian English and a few others I'm probably forgetting.

Grey Wolf

[Lissou]

I reject your statement that colloquialisms maximizes understanding. As an English as Second Language speaker (third, in fact, but for all practical purposes second at this point), colloquialisms are one of the biggest impediments to communication, second only to outright incorrect grammar. If you stick to the kind of English taught in schools around the world, you make it significantly easier for those who are not 100% proficient at English, which 1) happen to be the large, large majority of English speakers and b) are still perfectly understandable by everyone else. There are some ancillary benefits beyond those two, but those are certainly crucial.

Grey Wolf

Seconded! Using "I" instead of "me" is one of the biggest offenders for me, because I'd just be waiting for the rest of the sentence until awkward silence would make it obvious that they meant "me". I'm used to it now but that was pretty tricky in the past.

English is a difficult language to parse at best. Add to that changes from the actual rules and it can become pretty impossible to understand because you group the wrong words together and get an entirely different meaning. I wish I could think of examples right now, but this happened to me many, many times a day when I first moved to North America. It's rarer now but happens sometimes.

When it's an actual mistake, I also prefer to correct people so they don't make that mistake later in front of people who would judge them for it, see them as uneducated, refuse them a job during an interview as a result, this kind of thing. And as a language learner, I had to tell you the most infuriating thing about native speakers, worse that the above described confusion, is when they don't correct a mistake you made because they figured out what you meant. Then you continue making the mistake until it's so ingrained that the proper way doesn't come easily. The word "focus" comes to mind, I pronounced it like "have sex with us" (except ruder) for the first 4 years of living in North America, until someone finally corrected my pronunciation. To this day I pause mid-sentence before the word to make sure I pronounce it properly, and I'm so embarrassed about all the times I said it wrong. Correcting me earlier could have avoided all that embarrassment. And I'll never know if that mistake changed the way some people treated me.

Seriously, correct people, please. At the very least if they sound like they're learning the language. We don't learn by getting it wrong and not being told so. Every sentence you're reading right now would be unintelligible if not for being corrected and taught better.

[veti]

That sounds odd--I would be perfectly happy to refer to a friend as "mate". OK, I'm English, not Scottish, but the idea no-one in Scotland would have heard that usage is hard to swallow.

A lot could depend on how it's said, and by whom. If the listener thinks you have a posh accent, then they are likely to make corresponding assumptions about your use of colloquialisms. A usage that they would take unblinking from a Geordie or a Cockney, might be interpreted quite differently if delivered in RP.

It's just one more reason why colloquialisms are a minefield.

The specific question you're responding to also matters, of course.

[qbits]

I reject your statement that colloquialisms maximizes understanding. As an English as Second Language speaker (third, in fact, but for all practical purposes second at this point), colloquialisms are one of the biggest impediments to communication, second only to outright incorrect grammar.

Sorry. When I said:

Why is there value in adhering to set "rules" of a language rather than just speaking in a colloquial way that maximizes understanding of communication?

I didn't mean that all colloquialisms maximize communication. But some colloquialisms do, in my experience. Rephrasing to avoid putting a preposition at the end of a sentence, for one. But I do see that it is much more difficult to understand a language when people don't speak the language the way you learned it; that would be a huge impediment to understanding.

What I really meant by my question was, why do people who have no problem understanding what someone means (and who know that everyone in the audience understands perfectly well) still feel the need to correct? I wasn't making a statement that mistakes do not impede understanding, but rather I was questioning why correcting other people might have value in itself. And I'm beginning to think that it does have value, often enough.

[BWR]

Sorry. When I said:

I didn't mean that all colloquialisms maximize communication. But some colloquialisms do, in my experience. Rephrasing to avoid putting a preposition at the end of a sentence, for one. But I do see that it is much more difficult to understand a language when people don't speak the language the way you learned it; that would be a huge impediment to understanding.

What I really meant by my question was, why do people who have no problem understanding what someone means (and who know that everyone in the audience understands perfectly well) still feel the need to correct? I wasn't making a statement that mistakes do not impede understanding, but rather I was questioning why correcting other people might have value in itself. And I'm beginning to think that it does have value, often enough.

Assuming we are excluding unintentional errors like typos and simply saying something you didn't mean to: If you ever come across stuff written by people who don't know the language very well you understand why adherence to rules is a good thing. While any one mistake might not be a big issue since you can often understand the meaning from context, a lot of mistakes in close proximity make things annoying and often tiresome/difficult. Pointing out errors will hopefully prevent future errors.
The reason lots of us do not continually point out errors is that we would be doing nothing but that in many interactions with people (e.g. trying to teach people, especially Americans, the difference between 'lie' and 'lay'). The reason we do occasionally do so is because those who make mistakes don't generally want to, especially if it's a particularly grievous or embarrassing one.

[Henry1122]

I realize that many individuals utilize the shortened forms that way and i don't resent them for it, it just bugs me since machine and number are in the shortened form itself...

[veti]

I realize that many individuals utilize the shortened forms that way and i don't resent them for it, it just bugs me since machine and number are in the shortened form itself...

Speaking of which, it bugs me when people for no discernable reason insert four extra letters in the middle of the simple English word "use". Spelling it with a 'z' doesn't make any difference to this irritation.

[Rockphed]

Speaking of which, it bugs me when people for no discernable reason insert four extra letters in the middle of the simple English word "use". Spelling it with a 'z' doesn't make any difference to this irritation.

You don't like "utilize"/"utilise"? I suppose it gets used too much, but I think it connotes a level of measured tool use that simply "use" doesn't. Also, if use sees a lot of use, it can be confusing to use use in the same sentence; utilizing utilize helps break things up.

[Kyrell1978]

Also, if use sees a lot of use, it can be confusing to use use in the same sentence; utilizing utilize helps break things up.

This is my favorite sentence of the day so far. Bravo...

[Vinyadan]

Hey, hey, hey, let's not forget "to make use of".

[Peelee]

Speaking of which, it bugs me when people for no discernable reason insert four extra letters in the middle of the simple English word "use". Spelling it with a 'z' doesn't make any difference to this irritation.

I, too, hate synonyms.

You don't like "utilize"/"utilise"? I suppose it gets used too much, but I think it connotes a level of measured tool use that simply "use" doesn't. Also, if use sees a lot of use, it can be confusing to use use in the same sentence; utilizing utilize helps break things up.

Huh. Utilize has a lot of utility.

[georgie_leech]

I realize that many individuals utilize the shortened forms that way and i don't resent them for it, it just bugs me since machine and number are in the shortened form itself...

I too hate PNS Syndrome

[veti]

You don't like "utilize"/"utilise"? I suppose it gets used too much, but I think it connotes a level of measured tool use that simply "use" doesn't.

I will concede that it can, potentially, have a distinct meaning. (Which is why I included the "no discernable reason" clause.) But that argument is inconsistent with using it as a synonym for "use".

Either it's a synonym, in which case I object on the grounds that it's a waste of everyone's time (7 letters, and 3 syllables, to those like me who like to "hear" the words in our minds, as opposed to 3 and 1) - or it's different, in which case I object on the grounds that it's being used as a synonym.

[Peelee]

I will concede that it can, potentially, have a distinct meaning. (Which is why I included the "no discernable reason" clause.) But that argument is inconsistent with using it as a synonym for "use".

Either it's a synonym, in which case I object on the grounds that it's a waste of everyone's time (7 letters, and 3 syllables, to those like me who like to "hear" the words in our minds, as opposed to 3 and 1) - or it's different, in which case I object on the grounds that it's being used as a synonym.

So I assume you object to hundreds, if not thousands, of words?

[veti]

So I assume you object to hundreds, if not thousands, of words?

Only when they are, in my sole and sovereign opinion, being misused. Which does happen a lot. But nearly all words I can think of do have at least one appropriate use.

Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change all this in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase - some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse - into the dustbin where it belongs.

[Peelee]

Only when they are, in my sole and sovereign opinion, being misused.

Now that's a statement I can respect.

But nearly all words I can think of do have at least one appropriate use.

So most words can be well utilized, you would say?

[Rockphed]

I will concede that it can, potentially, have a distinct meaning. (Which is why I included the "no discernable reason" clause.) But that argument is inconsistent with using it as a synonym for "use".

Either it's a synonym, in which case I object on the grounds that it's a waste of everyone's time (7 letters, and 3 syllables, to those like me who like to "hear" the words in our minds, as opposed to 3 and 1) - or it's different, in which case I object on the grounds that it's being used as a synonym.

I completely agree with you. My graduate writing class included a discussion about how to improve clarity by removing phrases and words that mean nothing. The professor specifically suggested that "utilize" was generally contraindicated and "make use of" was right out. We were, after all, writing engineering reports rather than trying to befuddle English professors into believing we had actually cared about whatever highly awarded book said professors had foisted upon us. There is no better way to detect snore-fest books than checking which awards it claims on the cover. General fiction awards indicate that the protagonist is going to lose something at the climax. Fantasy and Science Fiction awards mean that the book conforms to the social norms of the selection committee (which implies a very straight-laced sociopolitical outlook before about 1995, and a denigration of same after that). I haven't read enough Horror to know what their awards mean.

[snowblizz]

I completely agree with you. My graduate writing class included a discussion about how to improve clarity by removing phrases and words that mean nothing. The professor specifically suggested that "utilize" was generally contraindicated and "make use of" was right out. We were, after all, writing engineering reports rather than trying to befuddle English professors into believing we had actually cared about whatever highly awarded book said professors had foisted upon us.

After your third rejection of a scientific paper that needs to include more actual information you start learning to utilize quirks of language both for brevity and obfuscation.

Sometimes though that leads to a common useage of "fancy words".

With arbitrary limits of say 5000 words or 8 pages you got to use all the tricks in the book sometimes.

[halfeye]

I completely agree with you. My graduate writing class included a discussion about how to improve clarity by removing phrases and words that mean nothing. The professor specifically suggested that "utilize" was generally contraindicated and "make use of" was right out.

After your third rejection of a scientific paper that needs to include more actual information you start learning to utilize quirks of language both for brevity and obfuscation.

Sometimes though that leads to a common useage of "fancy words".

With arbitrary limits of say 5000 words or 8 pages you got to use all the tricks in the book sometimes.

The technique you want is called "precis" (pronounced prey-see).

[StarRaven]

Hi, I don't know if this has already been brought up, but the thing that gives me the irks is Irregardless. And I've just got even more upset because the forum spell-checker hasn't detected it! It is not a word! It's a double negative. It is most likely an amalgamation of two real words; Regardless and Irrespective. In my life it's most commonly used by two people I know, and they are both school teachers! I know that English is by and large a collection of words we've stolen from other languages and completely broken into things that don't make a lot of sense, and that it is constantly evolving into something that probably makes even less sense, but this word really bothers me.