Linguistic Pet Peeves

randylsu writes:

quote:

---

Actually that brings up a pet peave of mine, although it may be an unfounded one; "used of" instead of "used to" to mean "accustomed to." Is that prevalent in other regions or is it only a Southern thing?

---

Not sure whether it's unique to the South, but I've heard it said that way. I think it comes from a slur of "used to", which if not pronounced correctly can come out as "used ta" or "used 'a", and from that could turn into "used of". Irritating, I agree.

OK, I've resisted ranting about my personal 'pet-peeve' until now (mainly to avoid looking like a moaning old fuddy-duddy) but as Scotty would put it "I canny hold it any longer Captain!"This is a relatively recent thing here in Britain, but the inappropriate use of the 'word' "Innit" has really got my goat! I know I'm not the most perfectist () person when it comes to grammar spelling, punktuation and, all that - but this is really getting on my pecs!!!I'm fine with the use of "Innit" to replace "Isn't it" (after all isn't isn't shorthand? ), it's the use of it as a general extention to the question mark that gets me going. For example:

"She's working down the Rat and Parrot, Innit?" What's wrong with "isn't She?"

​

"They're all down the chip shop, Innit?" Aren't they?!?

​

"He works nights on Thursdays, Innit?" Doesn't he?

​

"We can get in half price, Innit?" GRRRR!

​

Please someone tell me this annoys them as much as me!

​

*Rant over*

​

And relax

A British friend complained about the exact same thing, and this was a dozen or so years back. David Brent only began shaping your culture in 2001, if memory serves. Strange that languages like French and Spanish have similar phrases (n'est-ce pas? and no es as?) that are considered proper.regards,
Esteban HambreThis message has been edited by MrHambre, 10-28-2004 05:20 PM

Recent is probably a relative thing. I've only just settled in the London after bouncing from the west midlands to the South coast so it's probably been around for a while but I just haven't noticed it so much. I do remember being at a Cricket match in Birmingham a few years ago (India vs England) and there were a number of India supporters from the Midlands taking the mickey out of those from London by going "Innit, innit, innit!" all the time - I just didn't understand the context at the time Very good point!It's still flipping annoying!

Odd...the only time I've seen this usage was a few years ago in the excellent short stories of Sherman Alexie - and he has it a stereotypical trait of the Spokane Indians in the state of Washington.

Parasomnium responds to me:

quote:

---

I dare you to go to a florist and ask them for a nice bunch of flowers for "fewer than ten dollars". Let the flowers be a consolation for the blank stares.

---

I already do. Nobody seems to stare. What on earth is embarassing about speaking the language correctly?However, I will try to get onto A Way with Words (our locally produced PBS radio show that deals with language, its structure and use, and see what they have to say.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

And if you're going to quote a Wikipedia list to support your point, shouldn't the list actually contain what you say it contains? Just a thought.

---

Um, it did. It just didn't support the point you thought I was trying to make.That is, I was countering your claim of only four moods in English. I was not trying to say that the Wikipedia article included all the moods.How many times have I said this to others, crash? Surely you understand that I do not need to provide that actual answer in order to show that your answer is incorrect. I do not need to show that 2 + 2 = 4 in order to show that 2 + 2 != 5. Oh, that's a really good way to do it, but it is not necessary.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Suffice to say, crash, that there is some discussion as to what, exactly, the emphatic is in English.

---

​

Fair enough. You didn't really portray that level of uncertainty in your post, however.

---

Because to me, there is no doubt. To my mind, those that go apoplectic over this are fools.And since I knew that there probably would be people who would go apoplectic over this (say, you, for example), I tried to hedge my bets and go with the more nebulous term. But then, I doubt I could probably win no matter what term I used precisely because there are fools who can't seem to let it go on both sides.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

berberry responds to me:

quote:

---

Your usage is preferred, but this brief article makes clear that my usage is not necessarily incorrect.

---

Um, as I directly said: It's a pet peeve. I thought I had said in a previous post that I know that in the end it is a losing battle since language evolves all on its own and if "less" replaces "fewer," then so be it. If enough people say the same thing, then that's what everybody says.I don't have to like it.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

berberry responds to crashfrog:

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you wanted to go to the park, or were going anyway, then you "bring Junior." If you don't want to go to the park, or have no reason to go except to convey Junior there, then you "take Junior."

---

​

So your saying it's a question of motive and not point of reference? You may be right.

---

But motive affects point of reference. If all of you are going to the park in order to partake of the park, then "bring" is more appropriate. If you're simply the conveyance used to get Junior from home to the park but you aren't really there to do anything else, then you're "taking" him.In the former, you're going toward. Your motive of going to the park makes you the point of reference. In the latter, he's going away. Your motive of getting Junior to the park makes Junior the point of reference.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Being a member of the generation who uses "like" to mean "said" such as, "And then I was like 'No YOU go to hell." I would like to propose a hypothisis for this shift away from said.When someone says "like" instead of "said" they wish to call attention to their emotional state. The quotation that follows is probably only an aproxomation of what was actualy "said" but in the mind of the speaker it is identical to how they were "like."So "like" can be thought to mean "and the response was given in this manner".So when I say, "And then I was like 'No YOU go to hell" I may or may not have said those actual words but hte words I did say were deliverd in that manner.I do agree that "like" is overused but I think that it is interesting that we are moving away from directly quoting ourselves and trying, instead, to convey the emotional life of past events.This message has been edited by The Dread Dormammu, 10-29-2004 07:57 PM

Often "like" is used to discribe emotional responses that were never verbalized but were still important, for example, "And I was like 'What the heck is he talking about."

With a list of moods that appear in Indo-European languages? Even the list itself told you that not all of those moods appear in every Indo-European language. Or maybe you didn't read the article?Your points are all over the map, and once again you've displayed your slipshod habits in making sure your purported support actually supports your assertions, so it's not surprising that you're not sure what point you're making.English has four main moods. That's it. All the sources I've seen agree on this. If "emphatic mood" was actually recognized as a mood by a substantial majority of English linguists, then the sources would say so.Instead, what we have are several references to "emphatic tense" and one single cite that refers to "emphatic mood" in passing, and possibly by mistake.And remember how you annotated the Wikipedia list:

quote:

---

Not every mood is used in English, but many of them are.

---

Yes, exactly right. Four of them are used, mainly. As the wiki says:

quote:

---

English has four primary moods of verb. These are the declarative, the imperative, the conditional, and the subjunctive.

---

Now, perhaps it has additional secondary moods that the article doesn't list. Perhaps every additional item on your list is a secondary mood. But the article is very clear, and your list constitutes no rebuttal, as it is not a list of moods used in English. Hey, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong about this.But I need more than your half-remembered (or even full-remembered) 8th grade English classes. I took English in 8th grade, too. When I got to college I learned that most of it was wrong.And you can just keep your "fools" to yourself. Maybe the reason you remember your 8th-grade English so well is because your conduct is firmly rooted there, as well.But I'm willing to settle. I'll agree that this is the emphatic whatever. Maybe you can explain why I've never heard of it before now, despite 3 years as an English major and research in two style manuals and the Wikipedia.

How widespread is the pronunciation 'An-TAR-tica' for the Great South Land? Even our ABC radio announcers (once a national standard for spoken English)seem to have forgotten the Anti-Arctic source of the word. And then there`s secka-tree.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

That is, I was countering your claim of only four moods in English.

---

​

With a list of moods that appear in Indo-European languages?

---

No, with a reference that you provided which, if you had read it fully, would have shown you that there are more than four moods in English. There is also the Negative which, in English, is formed by using "do + not."Let it go, crash.

quote:

---

Your points are all over the map

---

(*chuckle*)This coming from someone who couldn't read his own reference?You asked, I showed you. The time has now come for you to say, "Oh. I didn't know that."And then let it go.Grow up and get over yourself, crash.

quote:

---

English has four main moods.

---

See, if I wanted to be you, I'd respond with, "Oh, so now it's main moods, is it? Nice backpedaling. When shown that your own source indicates that there are more than just four, you find yourself incapable of saying, 'Oops. My mistake.'"Let it go, crash. Grow up and get over yourself.

quote:

---

And remember how you annotated the Wikipedia list:

​

quote:

---

Not every mood is used in English, but many of them are.

---

​

Yes, exactly right. Four of them are used, mainly.

---

(*sigh*) I guess I am going to have to treat you the way you seem to want to be treated.Oh, so now it's main moods, is it? Nice backpedaling. When shown that your own source indicates that there are more than just four, you find yourself incapable of saying, 'Oops. My mistake.'Which is it, crash? Does English have four moods or does it have more? Your own source seems to indicate that English has a Negative mood which you didn't seem to list in your own insitence on only four. But now, you seem to be claiming "mainly."Grow up, crash, and get over yourself.

quote:

---

Now, perhaps it has additional secondary moods that the article doesn't list.

---

Didn't you read your own article? It talks about the Negative mood and shows you how to form it in English!Are you seriously saying that English rarely uses the "do + not" construction? Heck, it's one of the first things kids learn how to say: "I didn't do it."

quote:

---

Perhaps every additional item on your list is a secondary mood. But the article is very clear, and your list constitutes no rebuttal, as it is not a list of moods used in English.

---

Didn't you bother to read it?Are you seriously saying that "do + not" does not exist as a construction in English? Are you seriously saying that it is a rare construction?Grow up, crash, and get over yourself.Let it go.

quote:

---

Hey, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong about this.

---

Then go ahead and do it because you are wrong.Grow up, crash, and get over yourself.Let it go.

quote:

---

But I need more than your half-remembered (or even full-remembered) 8th grade English classes.

---

(*chuckle*)I show you at least five different references, a few of them curriculum materials for actually teaching eighth-graders, and you have the gall to claim that I am only showing you "half-remembered" stuff?George W. Bush? Is that you?

quote:

---

And you can just keep your "fools" to yourself.

---

I can't control what you post, crash. Only you have the power to stop making a fool out of yourself.Let it go. Grow up and get over yourself.

quote:

---

Maybe you can explain why I've never heard of it before now, despite 3 years as an English major and research in two style manuals and the Wikipedia.

---

Nope. I have no idea why you've never heard of it until now. Just because someone has experience doesn't mean he has experience in everything.Did you ever see Stand and Deliver? It's the movie about a teacher in LA who takes his high school math class and doesn't write the kids off simply because everybody else does. He thinks they have the ability to learn the material and go on to college.You may recall a scene where someone is struggling with a calculus question and he mentions "tic-tac-toe." Specifically, he's talking about integration by parts. It's a useful technique when trying to solve an integral that is particularly difficult if you try to do it directly. So, you break it down into certain pieces that are easier to solve that end up being multiplied and added together that turn out to be the correct. Specifically:Integral (u, dv) = u*v - Integral (v, du)But one thing about it is that you may have to do it over and over again. That is, u dv can be difficult to integrate, but so can v du. So you break that down into parts and repeat the process, substituting the results in, etc. This can get tedious, but there is a trick to make it easier: Place your u and dv in two columns and then add a third for the alternating sign. You differentiate down the u column, integrate down the dv column:   u  |           dv | +
  du  |            v | -
d(du) | Integral (v) | +
...You keep doing this until your u column goes to 0 and then add one more row just for the sign change. You then simply multiply down the left-to-right diagonals (tic-tac-toe) and add up the results:Integral [x² sin(x) dx]Let u = x². Let dv = sin(x).x² |  sin(x) | +
2x | -cos(x) | -
 2 | -sin(x) | +
 0 |  cos(x) | -
   |         | +Now, tic-tac-toe:Integral [x² sin(x) dx] = -x²cos(x) + 2x sin(x)+ 2cos(x)I made it all the way through three different teachers of calculus (eleventh grade, twelfth grade, and first semester college) without ever learning that method. It makes things so much easier because it becomes mechanical. The first time I was ever taught this was in a statistics class.Why? I don't know. Maybe the profs were cruel. Maybe they didn't know about it. Maybe they were more concerned with "understanding the process" rather than showing us a mechanical trick. This method only works when you choose a u that will go to 0. For example, trying to integrate e^2xcos(x) by this method won't work because neither of those parts will go to 0 by derivation. You're going to have to tough it out.Plus, when you choose your u to go to 0, that leaves everything else to be in dv and integrating those things might get hairy. It might be better to choose a better u and integrate by parts manually.In the end, there are some things that the great crashfrog doesn't know.Grow up and get over yourself, crash.Edited to fix a glaring typo.Twice!This message has been edited by Rrhain, 10-29-2004 11:25 PMThis message has been edited by Rrhain, 10-29-2004 11:28 PM

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Nighttrain writes:

quote:

---

How widespread is the pronunciation 'An-TAR-tica' for the Great South Land? Even our ABC radio announcers (once a national standard for spoken English)seem to have forgotten the Anti-Arctic source of the word.

---

Well, the problem isn't that it's supposed to be "an-ti-arc-ti-ca." It's that it's supposed to be "ant-ar[I][B]K[/i][/b]-ti-ca," with a /k/ sound in there.The same people who say "ant-ar-ti-ca" will also say "ar-tic" when referring to the complementary northern part.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!