Completely unimportant language misuses that bug you

[2D8HP]

I meant that as well. At some point untranslated words or phrases become English.

Also, I'll be deep in the cold, cold gound before I stop doing the stereotypical French laugh after saying a French word like a Frenchy. The laugh always makes it better.

À propos?

[Peelee]

À propos?

Love that scene.

[dehro]

I have no issues with anglicised foreign words like rendezvous or de ja vu. But please, please don't affect a french accent whilst you say it. I've heard this happen more times than I'd care to count...

sorry but no.
appropriating a foreign word may give you a pass at butchering it, but if someone just happens to pronounce it as it should be (And as it originally entered your language in the first place), then you don't get to complain that they're doing it wrong or being posh or being snobby...
it makes you sound like a creationist complaining because someone explains dinosaurs with science.

[Fin]

sorry but no.
appropriating a foreign word may give you a pass at butchering it, but if someone just happens to pronounce it as it should be (And as it originally entered your language in the first place), then you don't get to complain that they're doing it wrong or being posh or being snobby...
it makes you sound like a creationist complaining because someone explains dinosaurs with science.

I think you may be missing my point.

I say rendezvous as ron-day-voo I have no complaint with that, I haven't butchered it and again to be clear my complaint isn't against pronuniation it is against people suddenly developing a french accent which is completely unnecessary when faced with a french rooted word.

But for some reason, that remains a mystery to me, people do it and it sounds so unnatural.

[Peelee]

I think you may be missing my point.

I say rendezvous as ron-day-voo I have no complaint with that, I haven't butchered it and again to be clear my complaint isn't against pronuniation it is against people suddenly developing a french accent which is completely unnecessary when faced with a french rooted word.

There's an argument to be made.

[kyoryu]

Frankenstein is the name of the scientist, not the monster! Get your facts straight!

Intelligence is knowing that Frankenstein was the name of the scientist, not the monster.

Wisdom is knowing that Frankenstein really was the name of the monster.

[tomandtish]

Given where I work, the difference between run away and runaway. Your child can be a runaway, or they can run away from danger. They are not a run away, and they don't runaway from danger.

[thorgrim29]

I for one will always pronounce French words in a French accent. Further, "Wipers" and "Ore-Leens" physically hurt me. Fortunately, we seem to have decided that pronouncing German words like German words are pronounced is okay, so I don't have to deal with the Third Rayitch and the Nazzy party.

Oh is that why english speakers always insert a t in Nazi? That has always confused the hell out of me. Also, Wipers? Anyway usually when I speak english I will anglisize the words that have a usual english pronounciation. At some point usage trumps ethymology, it's not like I pronounce latin or greek derived words properly, or even english words that made it to french (like internet for instance). I do refuse to use week-end and parking in French though, we have perfectly good words for both of those. And the less said about drugstore in France the better.

Finally, did not know Pétain was in the Académie, that is hilarious and I must remember it.

[BWR]

Oh is that why english speakers always insert a t in Nazi? t.

Because 'z' is very often pronounced /ts/ in many languages, including German.
Do you also wonder why there is a t sound in 'pizza'?

[factotum]

Also, Wipers?

"Wipers" was a common mispronunciation of "Ypres", usually heard among British soldiers serving in the First World War.

[thorgrim29]

Because 'z' is very often pronounced /ts/ in many languages, including German.
Do you also wonder why there is a t sound in 'pizza'?

I did not know that. And I just figured that that was the double z sound, not like there are many other words with that.

About Ypres, ok I get it. Though I wouldn't think Ypres would be so hard to pronounce in english, it's basically E-pre like the beginning of president without the s. (it's moments like there I wish I had bothered to learn phonetic). Also it's a Flemish town, maybe that had something to do with it.

It's sort of like how the beginning of WW1 is called the "Drôle de Guerre" in French because british newspapers were calling it a phony war and french people misunderstood that as funny war.

[Xyril]

I say rendezvous as ron-day-voo I have no complaint with that, I haven't butchered it and again to be clear my complaint isn't against pronuniation it is against people suddenly developing a french accent which is completely unnecessary when faced with a french rooted word.

So to be clear, you would prefer if people pronounced French words as if they were speaking French with an American accent if they don't actually speak French, and presumably you wouldn't be bothered if someone who is French/English bilingual uses a French accent?

[Xyril]

If you would prefer a better example, how about when people use the phrase "a certain je ne sais quoi" to describe a positive quality that they don't have the right words for? It literally just means "I don't know what," but in French, so why not just say that?

Honestly, because it doesn't mean the same thing. Because I'm lazy, this is what wiktionary has to say about it:
"1. An intangible quality that makes something distinctive or attractive."

I've heard--less frequently--people use "I don't know what" to describe a quality or a characteristic something or someone has, but unlike how the French phrase is used in English, there isn't the neutral or positive connotation. If I say something "has a certain je ne sais quoi," there is the implication that I am speaking admiringly, or at the very least recognizing a quality that makes that something stand out from the crowd. If I'm talking about something, and describe some hard to define quality as "I don't know what," it doesn't (necessarily) connote a negative judgment, but it does imply a certain confusion or even exasperation at not being able to pin down the quality you are trying to describe and understand.

In fact, often borrowed foreign words and phrases match neither the word for word translation to English nor the literal meaning in the context of that foreign language. "Hombre" literally translates to "man" in Spanish, and when speaking in Spanish, it almost precisely matches how we use "man" in terms of what it denotes and what it connotes. However, when we use "hombre" in English, we don't precisely use it interchangeably with "man." I had a lot of trouble articulating precisely how it was different myself, so once again I fell back to wiktionary:

"a man, especially one of a particular type."

A bit helpful, but not great. All I can really say is that when I hear someone called "one bad hombre," or "one tough hombre," to me it implies something different than calling them "one bad man" or "one tough man."

Whenever I see people say "Why don't you just use this word instead?" it's usually clear that the answer is that the allegedly simpler word means something slightly different. I can completely understand why people might think they're being talked down to if someone uses a word they don't understand, but the whole point of language is communication, and it just seems that language would be a whole let less rich if people didn't take advantage of the full range of shades of meaning in order to best match their words to their thoughts.

[Bohandas]

If you would prefer a better example, how about when people use the phrase "a certain je ne sais quoi" to describe a positive quality that they don't have the right words for? It literally just means "I don't know what," but in French, so why not just say that?

How do you feel about "n'est pas" vs "innit"? :D

[Lissou]

I don't like when people say "nauseous" instead of "nauseated".

[Aedilred]

I don't like when people say "nauseous" instead of "nauseated".

"Nauseous" is a valid word; is it just that they're using it incorrectly?

[Ebon_Drake]

About Ypres, ok I get it. Though I wouldn't think Ypres would be so hard to pronounce in english, it's basically E-pre like the beginning of president without the s. (it's moments like there I wish I had bothered to learn phonetic). Also it's a Flemish town, maybe that had something to do with it.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone pronounce it as "Wipers" unless they were either reading it for the first time or were specifically using/referencing the pronunciation of it by WW1 soldiers. It's not so much that it's hard to pronounce, it's more that the name was being said by large numbers of poorly-educated soldiers who (to some extent jokingly) pronounced it exactly how it's written. There's also a black comedy aspect to it, in that hundreds of thousands of people were fighting and dying over a place they'd never heard of before and couldn't even pronounce properly.

The one example of foreign language usage I can think of as being ultra-pretentious is pronouncing Paris as "Paree". The English pronunciation of the city's name is widespread enough that there's no need to affect a French pronunciation for it. However, I will accept it when saying the name of the football team Paris Saint-Germain since it's far preferable to the Franglais alternative.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

"Nauseous" is a valid word; is it just that they're using it incorrectly?

Presumably the issue is that they didn't use to be synonymous. Back in the day, nauseated is what you felt when presented with something nauseous. I.e. if you are nauseous (by the old definition), it meant that you caused those around you to feel nauseated (e.g. you might be nauseous if someone vomited all over you).

The words started being synonymous quite some time ago, as far as I have been able to determine, though.

Grey Wolf

[Fiery Diamond]

Presumably the issue is that they didn't use to be synonymous. Back in the day, nauseated is what you felt when presented with something nauseous. I.e. if you are nauseous (by the old definition), it meant that you caused those around you to feel nauseated (e.g. you might be nauseous if someone vomited all over you).

The words started being synonymous quite some time ago, as far as I have been able to determine, though.

Grey Wolf

The best part is that we still have a word for what nauseous used to mean: nauseating.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The best part is that we still have a word for what nauseous used to mean: nauseating.

As a foreigner who may have misused the term at some point, I have to say that the evolution of nauseous from "causes nausea" to "the person has nausea" is inevitable. Too many words in English that end in -eous can be defined as "the person has the characteristic x":

• curvaceous - person has curves
• courageous - person has courage
• corteous - person has courtesy

None of them mean "the person causes x on others", so nauseous just gets lumped in with them, I'm afraid. Like the fact that literally is its own antonym, I can see how it would bug someone aware of the distinction, but it's a losing battle. I feel in a similar way about poisonous and venomous - I know one of them means "I can't eat it" and the other "I shouldn't let it bit me", but heck if I can remember which one is which, and at this point if you are not trying for biological accuracy, they might as well be synonymous.

Grey Wolf

[Lissou]

"Nauseous" is a valid word; is it just that they're using it incorrectly?

Presumably the issue is that they didn't use to be synonymous. Back in the day, nauseated is what you felt when presented with something nauseous. I.e. if you are nauseous (by the old definition), it meant that you caused those around you to feel nauseated (e.g. you might be nauseous if someone vomited all over you).

The words started being synonymous quite some time ago, as far as I have been able to determine, though.

Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf is right. Including being right that the word has now changed meaning. Languages evolve, and there is no point in trying to stop it, so I know being bugged about it is not reasonable, but it seemed fitting for this thread.

In French the difference between poisonous (vénéneux) and venomous (venimeux) is even harder to remember because the words are so similar, but people seem to care more if you use the wrong one.

[Fiery Diamond]

As a foreigner who may have misused the term at some point, I have to say that the evolution of nauseous from "causes nausea" to "the person has nausea" is inevitable. Too many words in English that end in -eous can be defined as "the person has the characteristic x":

• curvaceous - person has curves
• courageous - person has courage
• corteous - person has courtesy

None of them mean "the person causes x on others", so nauseous just gets lumped in with them, I'm afraid. Like the fact that literally is its own antonym, I can see how it would bug someone aware of the distinction, but it's a losing battle. I feel in a similar way about poisonous and venomous - I know one of them means "I can't eat it" and the other "I shouldn't let it bit me", but heck if I can remember which one is which, and at this point if you are not trying for biological accuracy, they might as well be synonymous.

Grey Wolf

Agreed.

As for poisonous (don't eat it) and venomous (don't let it bite you), native speakers frequently use poisonous to mean venomous, but I've never heard anyone use venomous when they meant poisonous. So, not entirely synonymous; more like the definition of poisonous expanded to include venomous.

[dehro]

Agreed.

As for poisonous (don't eat it) and venomous (don't let it bite you), native speakers frequently use poisonous to mean venomous, but I've never heard anyone use venomous when they meant poisonous. So, not entirely synonymous; more like the definition of poisonous expanded to include venomous.

in italy we use the same word to signify both venomous and poisonous.. so most people who intend to translate it into english will look it up and pick any one of the two translations without ever realising it doesn't cover what for us is the other meaning for the same word.... so we'll end up using it indiscriminately in English
(we also don't make the distinction between poison and venom, in italian)

[Jormengand]

I have to say that I've never heard someone say "Nauseous" to mean "Nauseated", mainly because anyone IME using those words instead of sickening/sickened is either playing D&D (where the condition is called nauseated because Wizards know how to speak English) or are generally the kind of person intelligent enough to know the correct uses of the words.

[veti]

As for poisonous (don't eat it) and venomous (don't let it bite you), native speakers frequently use poisonous to mean venomous, but I've never heard anyone use venomous when they meant poisonous. So, not entirely synonymous; more like the definition of poisonous expanded to include venomous.

All venoms are poisons. So if something is venomous, it's also correct (although less precise) to call it poisonous.

And then there's toxic. To say nothing of noxious. English has a delightful range of ways to describe something nasty.

[Fiery Diamond]

I have to say that I've never heard someone say "Nauseous" to mean "Nauseated", mainly because anyone IME using those words instead of sickening/sickened is either playing D&D (where the condition is called nauseated because Wizards know how to speak English) or are generally the kind of person intelligent enough to know the correct uses of the words.

... You do know we just established, including the person who brought it up as something that annoyed them, that the language has changed and it is now actually correct to use "nauseous" to mean "nauseated," right? Also, maybe we just have different experiences, but I pretty much never hear the word nauseated; nauseous (while uncommon) is used instead.

Tl;dr: You can be annoyed at people using nauseous to mean nauseated rather than using nauseous to mean nauseating, but you can't call them incorrect. Language changes.

This thread is supposed to remain fairly lighthearted. Indirectly calling people who disagree with your stance unintelligent is an attack and thus uncalled for.

[Jormengand]

... You do know we just established, including the person who brought it up as something that annoyed them, that the language has changed and it is now actually correct to use "nauseous" to mean "nauseated," right? Also, maybe we just have different experiences, but I pretty much never hear the word nauseated; nauseous (while uncommon) is used instead.

Tl;dr: You can be annoyed at people using nauseous to mean nauseated rather than using nauseous to mean nauseating, but you can't call them incorrect. Language changes.

This thread is supposed to remain fairly lighthearted. Indirectly calling people who disagree with your stance unintelligent is an attack and thus uncalled for.

I'm aware that language changes. I'm also aware that anyone with any knowledge will avoid using words in ambiguous ways when non-ambiguous ways are still available, and in fairly significant use (at least here). It's entirely possible that what is generally agreed as wrong in some areas isn't in others, because there are tens of different standards of English: in the one I speak and most of the people I've met speak, it's simply incorrect to say "Nauseous" when you mean "Nauseated", and therefore unlikely that an intelligent person will do so. I don't mean to imply that everyone who disagrees with me is stupid, and you would have to read what I wrote extremely deliberately to get that impression.

[danzibr]

All venoms are poisons. So if something is venomous, it's also correct (although less precise) to call it poisonous.

And then there's toxic. To say nothing of noxious. English has a delightful range of ways to describe something nasty.

I must be missing something. I thought (and a quick Google search confirms this), few venoms are poisonous.

[Rockphed]

I must be missing something. I thought (and a quick Google search confirms this), few venoms are poisonous.

That depends on what you mean by "poisonous". To quote smithsonianmag:

Some people use the words interchangeably because once in the body, the chemicals do similar damage, attacking the heart, brain or other vital targets.

Bee venom is a poison. Spider venoms are poisons. Now, sometimes people use poison to mean "it could kill you", which, unless you are allergic, neither bee nor most spider venoms will do.

[Bohandas]

I must be missing something. I thought (and a quick Google search confirms this), few venoms are poisonous.

Wait, how are you defining "poisonous"?