Completely unimportant language misuses that bug you

[Peelee]

You mean a historical context. It's "a" before pronounced consonants (a hill, a house etc.), and "an" before vowels and silent h (an hour).

To paraphrase a very entertaining man, the only thing worse more than rules pedantry is incorrect rules pedantry.

A/an has no bearing on whether it comes before a consonant or vowel, it is based on whether the following word sounds like it starts with a consonant or vowel. That included much more than silent H's. A house, an hour. An umbrella, a uniform. A xylophone, an X-ray.

[DavidSh]

A/an has no bearing on whether it comes before a consonant or vowel, it is based on whether the following word sounds like it starts with a consonant or vowel.

It suppose that depends on whether you think of words primarily as sequences of letters or as sequences of phonemes. "Consonants" and "vowels" are at least as descriptive of phonemes as of letters.

[Bohandas]

When you're pluralising a word of foreign origin, either the native plural gets used (if that's also been adopted) or you use the English plural (i.e. add "s" or "es") but you can't just mix and match from whatever third language you feel like: that's self-evidently ridiculous. When it comes to the plural of "octopus", "octopi" and "octopodes" are both wrong, but "octopi" is more wrong.

Yhis is precisely what I was talking about. You're saying it's incorrect because for some inexplicable reason you are taking its origins into account. What you don't understand is that we didn't get the word from latin but we got the rule from latin, and now that we have the rule it doesn't matter where the word came from. There are no people who think "octopus" comes from latin, but apparently a bizarrely high number of people who think that other people think that. I guarantee you that nobody who says "octopi" says it because they think the word is from latin; I'd wager that well over 90% haven't considered the word's origin at all.

You mean a historical context. It's "a" before pronounced consonants (a hill, a house etc.), and "an" before vowels and silent h (an hour).

It's possible that the poster this is in response to has a stereotypical cockney accent. "'Ello guvna'. Wots all this then? 'Istorical context (etc)"

[Vinyadan]

He he, "isotopi".

[Peelee]

It suppose that depends on whether you think of words primarily as sequences of letters or as sequences of phonemes. "Consonants" and "vowels" are at least as descriptive of phonemes as of letters.

Why yes, I did include the example with "X-ray" for just this type of response! Very kind of you to notice!

[tyckspoon]

Yhis is precisely what I was talking about. You're saying it's incorrect because for some inexplicable reason you are taking its origins into account. What you don't understand is that we didn't get the word from latin but we got the rule from latin, and now that we have the rule it doesn't matter where the word came from. There are no people who think "octopus" comes from latin, but apparently a bizarrely high number of people who think that other people think that. I guarantee you that nobody who says "octopi" says it because they think the word is from latin; I'd wager that well over 90% haven't considered the word's origin at all.

I don't think it's even the 'well, other words are pluralized this way, octopus sounds like those other words, this must be the plural' a lot of the time - octopusses is just awkward to say. It creates an extended hissing sound on the end of the word that is not clearly distinguished from the singular version. It triggers the sense that this can't be right, because it doesn't flow right. So if you tell somebody "no, that really is wrong, say it this way," and your alternate is actually easier to pronounce - people go with it regardless of the actual grammars or etymology or anything, because it makes the word easier to use.

[Lissou]

"Mousseux" just means "foamy", so I don't think it's any better than "sparkling wine"

[Vinyadan]

In France, mousseux means "champagne" (the general name). However, in Quebec, it means all sparkling wines.

Literally, "spumante" would also mean "foamy" (well, "foaming" to be grammatically accurate), but its meaning is specialised for wines with a pressure above 3 bar.

[Aedilred]

You mean a historical context. It's "a" before pronounced consonants (a hill, a house etc.), and "an" before vowels and silent h (an hour).

"An historical" arose because "historical", coming from French, used to have silent h, and when it shifted, more educated speakers remembered the origin and hung onto the silent h as long as they could. Then, seeing the form "an historical" in writing, people developed the affectation of combining "an" with a pronounced h, which is just wrong.

To paraphrase a very entertaining man, the only thing worse more than rules pedantry is incorrect rules pedantry.

A/an has no bearing on whether it comes before a consonant or vowel, it is based on whether the following word sounds like it starts with a consonant or vowel. That included much more than silent H's. A house, an hour. An umbrella, a uniform. A xylophone, an X-ray.

I considered whether to say "an historical" or not, and decided that if I wasn't going to say it in this thread, would I ever?

I second Peelee's point. Regarding "historical" and related words, I have heard it said - though admittedly I cannot cite a reputable source off the top of my head - that where "h"s are concerned "an" is appropriate if the emphasis falls on the second syllable, to account for accent differences in pronunciation of the h. So it's "an historian" but "a history".

It also seems to be at least to some extent a dialect difference between the US and UK.

Yeah, but that's a legal matter not a language matter; Pretty much anything to do with the law is going to be pretty far divorced from anything to do with the way any language actually is or should be spoken. It's equivalent to the packaging restrictions on calling non-Band-Aid Brand band-aids "band-aids"; it doesn't mean anything to anyone who isn't designing box art or filming a commercial, nor should it.

Plus it pretty much only applies to non-english languages anyway since the EU's main english speaking country is leaving the alliance.

And as you conveniently ignored, it's not just a legal thing, it's a technical thing. You can try to sell a VW as a Ferrari. You can tell your friends you'll lend them your Ferrari and in fact lend them your VW. Or if you don't like the branding, you could try to sell a 1.4 litre diesel as a 2-litre V-6. Chances are you won't get away with it, but even if you do it's still wrong. Not just illegal, but plain inaccurate.

To wine afficionados, "Champagne" designates that it was grown in a certain region, contains only certain grape varieties, and was made to a certain method. It is a technical term for denoting a specific type of wine. If you're using it to refer to another wine, it's an inaccuracy.

There is an element of "who cares?" about it, sure, and a lot of the time it won't matter. But the same applies to almost anything, and the fact that you personally don't care about the distinction between two things that to you appear very similar, but to an expert in that field are differentiated, doesn't mean it doesn't matter at all under any circumstances.

On the latter point, that's overtly political and I'm leaving it well alone.

Yhis is precisely what I was talking about. You're saying it's incorrect because for some inexplicable reason you are taking its origins into account. What you don't understand is that we didn't get the word from latin but we got the rule from latin, and now that we have the rule it doesn't matter where the word came from. There are no people who think "octopus" comes from latin, but apparently a bizarrely high number of people who think that other people think that. I guarantee you that nobody who says "octopi" says it because they think the word is from latin; I'd wager that well over 90% haven't considered the word's origin at all.

You say we got the rule from Latin but it's not even a rule. Well, it is a rule in Latin, but it's not a rule in English. We say "buses", not "bi" (and that actually does have a Latin derivation, from "omnibus"). If we're just grabbing a plural from whatever language we think of first, why not use a German plural and call them "octopusen"? Or go Japanese and call them "octopus", relying on context to make the difference?

I'm sure that a lot of people who say "octopi" don't do it because they realise it's a Latin plural, but they are nevertheless doing it deliberately, because the natural plural in English is "octopuses". Now, they might think that sounds strange or unsophisticated and thus reach for an alternative, and end up applying a rule that's not actually a rule - but the point remains the same: they're self-consciously overcorrecting and getting it wrong.

It's like people who screw up the I/me distinction and say things like "he gave my friend and I a drink" or use "whom" inappropriately, or the stock characters in 20th-century comedies who put "h" on the front of all words beginning with a vowel to overcorrect for a tendency to drop them.

It's not just that they're wrong; it's that they're being disingenuous in trying so hard to appear right that they're abandoning their normal speech patterns. Like someone said earlier, the only thing more annoying than language pedantry is incorrect language pedantry, and that's almost exactly what that is.

Of course, if you want to go full Derrida and apply the "there is no right or wrong, up is down, black is white" mantra to everything then sure, etymological considerations are inexplicable, and rules are, like, evil and pointless, man. But we wouldn't have this thread if everyone thought that way.

Absolute prescriptivists may be supremely irritating but I think absolute descriptivists are actually worse.

[enderlord99]

My father refers to perfectly genuine statements of mine that happen to be said in an angry voice as "sourcasm" or "snarkasm" just to piss me off more. Then he blames me for it.

[Xyril]

There are no people who think "octopus" comes from latin, but apparently a bizarrely high number of people who think that other people think that. I guarantee you that nobody who says "octopi" says it because they think the word is from latin; I'd wager that well over 90% haven't considered the word's origin at all.

Somebody so precise about language should be more careful about using absolutes. I learned in elementary school that words like "cactus" followed different rules because they came from Latin, for a long time I pretty much extrapolated from the usage and pattern that "octopus" must have similar origins, and it wasn't until I actually took Latin that I ever had reason to correct that assumption. Humans are remarkably adept at pattern recognition and extrapolation, and there's a lot that we learn by inference rather than specific declaration--this tendency makes the learning process much more efficient, but it also bites us in the ass sometimes. Just look at every word you've used here--how many have you actually looked up in a dictionary, and how many did you learn implicitly by using it the way you see other people use it, until somebody corrected you?

In fact, the whole reason "common sense" is so often wrong is that people can collectively make a counter-intuitively incorrect logical inference, or draw information that ultimately came from the same inaccurate source, rely on it as if it were the truth, and go their whole lives without suffering any obvious consequences or disadvantages for that error.

[Rynjin]

What do we want to call the new language misuse thread?

I vote for Language Misuses II: Mother May I?

Whatever it is, I want it misspelled.

"Language Missuses' II: Mother May I?"

[HalfTangible]

"Language Missuses' II: Mother May I?"

Mother May II?

[Tvtyrant]

"Language Missuses' II: Mother May I?"

Alternatively:

Language misuses II: Hooked on fawniks worked for me.

I say pa-honics as a joke sometimes but it doesn't work well written.

[Vinyadan]

Whatever it is, I want it misspelled.

Language Misuses II: Professor, your Dwarves!

[InvisibleBison]

To wine afficionados, "Champagne" designates that it was grown in a certain region, contains only certain grape varieties, and was made to a certain method. It is a technical term for denoting a specific type of wine. If you're using it to refer to another wine, it's an inaccuracy.

It's only an inaccuracy if wine aficionados are actually able to tell the difference between "real" Champagne and "fake" Champagne, which they almost certainly are not.

[Xyril]

It's only an inaccuracy if wine aficionados are actually able to tell the difference between "real" Champagne and "fake" Champagne, which they almost certainly are not.

Wow, a lot to unpack from that. I'm not going to argue that there aren't a lot of folks who play up how well they can distinguish wine, or for that matter, a lot of things, but I've learned not to rely on assumptions about the upper bounds of human ability or the willingness of folks to devote a lot of time and effort to honing a skills that folks like you and me might not find as worthwhile. It invariably leads to me looking like an ass some time later, and sometimes the waiting period isn't even required.

As for the other thing, origin matters--or, to put it more accurately, origin matters if part of the meaning of a term is to convey origin. A lot of Asian cultures have their own form of rice wine--some have more than one--and I'm imagine that if you compare enough of them chemically, at least one will be identical to another (or at the very least, encompass a range of products that substantially overlaps with the range of products described by another term.) Now, you could make the argument that if they're physically identical, the distinction shouldn't matter, but the fact that these words have meaning to people implies that for at least some folks, it does matter.

[Bohandas]

Wow, a lot to unpack from that. I'm not going to argue that there aren't a lot of folks who play up how well they can distinguish wine, or for that matter, a lot of things, but I've learned not to rely on assumptions about the upper bounds of human ability or the willingness of folks to devote a lot of time and effort to honing a skills that folks like you and me might not find as worthwhile. It invariably leads to me looking like an ass some time later, and sometimes the waiting period isn't even required.

As for the other thing, origin matters--or, to put it more accurately, origin matters if part of the meaning of a term is to convey origin. A lot of Asian cultures have their own form of rice wine--some have more than one--and I'm imagine that if you compare enough of them chemically, at least one will be identical to another (or at the very least, encompass a range of products that substantially overlaps with the range of products described by another term.) Now, you could make the argument that if they're physically identical, the distinction shouldn't matter, but the fact that these words have meaning to people implies that for at least some folks, it does matter.

If two comestibles are chemically identical then, provided that they are also similar at the macroscopic level (more or less a given for drinks, although not a given for solid food (as in the case of a taco vs the same taco mashed up)), they are also interchangable. They are the same thing to the same extent as two different bottles of coke are the same thing. And given that they are the same thing it is nonsensical to give them different names.

[Xyril]

If two comestibles are chemically identical then, provided that they are also similar at the macroscopic level (more or less a given for drinks, although not a given for solid food (as in the case of a taco vs the same taco mashed up)), they are also interchangable. They are the same thing to the same extent as two different bottles of coke are the same thing. And given that they are the same thing it is nonsensical to give them different names.

Language is nonsensical. Different languages end up making distinctions between subtly different things, while others might cluster them all under a single word. Sometimes, when you go through the etymology and unpack the reason this happened, it makes sense in a neat little way, but often you find no explanation at all, or one that comes off as entirely arbitrary. I actually completely follow your logic--sometimes, we humans give too much significance to historical or social constructs in a way that, taken to extremes, can be terribly harmful to us. Chairman Mao had the very same concern as he oversaw the systematic destruction of millennia of historical and genealogical records, art, and literature. Hard as it is for me to admit, he wasn't entirely wrong in his reasoning--China had a certain obsession with lineage and the stratification of society that was arguably detrimental--because he ignored one seemingly tautological, but no less valid, insight: Arbitrary constructs and distinctions matter, because they matter to people.

I think the world would probably be a bit better if people realized that other sparkling wines could be as good--if not better--than the stuff made in a certain region of France. I'm not convinced happier, more efficient, more rational, or in any other way better to convince a bunch of folks who see a significance to distinguishing a specific industry and tying it to the history of a particular place that they're morons and should fall in line. Particularly if you have to use a mass spec to do so.

[Bohandas]

And as you conveniently ignored, it's not just a legal thing, it's a technical thing. You can try to sell a VW as a Ferrari. You can tell your friends you'll lend them your Ferrari and in fact lend them your VW. Or if you don't like the branding, you could try to sell a 1.4 litre diesel as a 2-litre V-6. Chances are you won't get away with it, but even if you do it's still wrong. Not just illegal, but plain inaccurate.

It's more like calling store brand band-aids "band-aids" even though they're not Band-Aid Brand (TM). It's not 100% accurate to the word's origin but close enough for all practical intents and purposes simce they don;t differ in any important respect; the two products are fungible with each other in function.

To paraphrase a very entertaining man, the only thing worse more than rules pedantry is incorrect rules pedantry.

A/an has no bearing on whether it comes before a consonant or vowel, it is based on whether the following word sounds like it starts with a consonant or vowel. That included much more than silent H's. A house, an hour. An umbrella, a uniform. A xylophone, an X-ray.

But in any case "historical" doesn't start with a vowel sound unless the speaker has a strong cockney accent

[Xyril]

It's more like calling store brand band-aids "band-aids" even though they're not Band-Aid Brand (TM). It's not 100% accurate to the word's origin but close enough for all practical intents and purposes simce they don;t differ in any important respect; the two products are fungible with each other in function.

That's true only if you ignore the all of the underlying assumptions motivating trademark law. The whole purpose of branding is to denote origin, which can correlate with quality, consistency, subtle design differences, manufacturing or business practices, or other things people care about. For some classes of products, there's no meaningful difference to consumers--bandages, for example, haven't seemed to experience any market pressures to produced particularly high quality versions, or 100% fair trade versions, or anything else like that. But there can be differences between sources, and sometimes those sources matter to consumers.

[Aedilred]

But in any case "historical" doesn't start with a vowel sound unless the speaker has a strong cockney accent

Cockney, let alone "strong Cockney" isn't the only accent that commonly drops the initial "h".

Although I do prononuce the "h" I do find that the shifted emphasis makes it easier to say "an historian" than "a historian".

[factotum]

Although I do prononuce the "h" I do find that the shifted emphasis makes it easier to say "an historian" than "a historian".

I also pronounce the H, and using "an" just sounds entirely wrong to my ears--I would say "a historian".

[Fiery Diamond]

Holy crap! This is the only thread I've ever started that reached max pages! Actually, it's the only thread I've ever started that reached beyond 2 pages.

Well, I'm off to start the new iteration, title based on greatest consensus.

[veti]

It's only an inaccuracy if wine aficionados are actually able to tell the difference between "real" Champagne and "fake" Champagne, which they almost certainly are not.

I haven't tasted good "champagnes" from everywhere, but I have tasted enough drinks that people have assured me are "just as good" (made with the same grapes and the same methods) to know that - well, apparently a lot of people are eager to make that claim on very flimsy grounds indeed.

Russian champagne was unspeakably foul (in sharp contrast to the wine at the same venue, which was excellent). The California sparkling wines I've had were not actively unpleasant, but I would never mistake them for champagne. Same goes for similar products from Italy and New Zealand. Though it's very likely I've simply never had the upmarket stuff from some of those places.

Once in my life, I had the pleasure of drinking some very fine champagne - at over $700 a bottle - and yes, I could taste the extra quality there.

[Bohandas]

Soil and rain conditions don't remain static forever though, and that's the part about location that affects taste. The location for what constitutes champagne ought to shift based on what area most closely matches the growing comditions in champagne france when the term champagne first went into use

EDIT:

Speaking of toponymic food names, why is "bologna" pronounced "baloney"? The name of the city in Italy isn't pronounced that way; it's pronounced how its spelled (except for the "g" being silent)

[factotum]

There's a new thread, Bohandas:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...-Mother-May-II