Language Peeves

[David]

Descriptively, probably largely correct, but that doesn't mean we don't have different language registers. English courses teach formal written English, which is quite useful if one has professional or social aspirations of certain kinds. (Compare, "Please disregard my inadvertent discourtesy" to "Fuggedabadit!")

Despite the inexorability of language change, I'm glad I won't live to see "Anyways" become acceptable in formal speech. You betcha!

[Ken, Moderator]

Anyways = Stage 5.

[David]

Aaaaarrrrggghhhh!

[Ken, Moderator]

No, no. Just me kidding, is all. I looked it up. Garner has it at a Stage 3. Up and coming, he says (alas and al-aaaaarrrrggghhhh).

[grebrim]

It may appall you, but after all 'anyways' is not harmful, just a neoligism. However once 'whom' is gone, you will lose some more of the possible variations in the word order.

[grebrim]

Btw, what stage is 'nucular weapon' at?

[Ken, Moderator]

There's only an entry on pronunciation and how Presidents have so often mispronounced it that their speechwriters have taken to writing "new-clear" in the text of speeches.

That joke's the bomb.

[Ruth]

grebrim wrote: "I think it wouldn't be too much off topic to start a rant on the 'whom/who/huh?' situation.

The actual rule is extremely simple, isn't it, 'whom' is for objects and 'who' for subjects. However, ..."

I'm not an arbiter . . . but since I recently EDITED Bryan Garner (& corrected a number of errors, as others would doubtless have to do for me if I wrote grammar/usage books), I shall take on that mantle & assure you that it's still safest to use who as subject (actor) & whom as object (acted upon).

Though the rule is simple, it does become tricky when the pronoun is the object of a verb but subject of a dependent clause. Subject trumps--or can others think of cases where that wouldn't hold?

We cast aspersions upon whoever eats the last slice of cake.

I think the only time you'd need to try hard to use who "incorrectly" as an object would be when deliberately writing in a conversational tone, as in novel/play dialogue: "Who did they choose?" But if your character is pompous & overeducated, you don't have to worry about it at all! :-)

[Ken, Moderator]

Ruth, did you edit the new Modern American Usage?

[grebrim]

Ok Ruth, thanks. Considering you're an expert, I will follow your advice and see how it will work for me.

[David]

Ruth, than whom there is none wiser.

[Sarah]

"I love me some X."

I hate that.

But I do love me some whom.

[Ken, Moderator]

Where would we be (except maybe where we were 2 minutes ago) without the venerable "To Whom It May Concern"?

It never concerned ME, of course.

(BTW: Ask Not for Whom the Bell Tolls, It Tolls for THEE!!!!)

[Sarah]

whom you gonna call? ghostbusters.

[Ken, Moderator]

Whom's to say whom I'll call? Whomever I wish. Right now I'm just enjoying my Whom with a View.

[Sarah]

& whomever the angels call Lenore.

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

vava whoooom!

[Carol]

To whom or not to whom? That is a definitive answer.

[grebrim]

Oh look, a cornucopia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zooay...

I teabag your pardon?

Or is that "I Beck your pardon?"

[Ruth]

Omigawd. Scary and embarrassing.

[grebrim]

It's a well-known phenomenon that in a group, when some do something stupid, the ones who feel ashamed about are those who have the least reason to.

[[deleted user]]

Whew. So much silliness!

I encounter countless language abominations daily at my job. I wanted to share some that plague me.

apostrophe misuse...always very painful (potatoe's, 10 years experience.)
misuse of "everyday." (Beer and wine everyday!)
complimentary vs. complementary (Complementary exam!)
ensure vs. insure (insure the lights are off)
misspelling "asterisk." (astric, astrix, asterick...)
also some other fun ones: chalk-full, tax right off

oh, and a favorite phrase my boss uses: "she has photogenic memory."

[David]

"tow the line" for "toe the line."

[grebrim]

I hate it when people say "conception" when they mean "concept" or "conceptionalize" when they mean "conceive." The arrival of the first conceptionalization is only a matter of time.

[Sarah]

I always thought it painful, but also funny, when someone used an "eggcorn" like "tow the line."

The other day I saw "ease drop" for eavesdrop. I also love "for all intensive purposes."

There's a whole site of such eggcorns here:
http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/

[David]

"Immaculate Conception," erroneously applied to the Virgin Birth, usually by critics of both concepts. If you're going to bash a religion, learn something about it.

[Ken, Moderator]

Dough-eyed? Good grief.

[David]

This from today's NYTimes.com:

"Once reflexively loyal, suppliers of Toyota in Japan are increasingly critical of the company, which has come to represent the rendering of Japan’s social contract."

Heart-rendering, to be sure.

[David]

Some exceptions:

Neither leisured foreigner seized the weird heights.

[Savvy]

I read somewhere that some news writers are writing "new clear" for "nuclear" due to some president(s) or others that have 'foozled' the pronunciation.

[Ken, Moderator]

I wrote that just recently -- but where, I forget. Ah, faithful readers!

[grebrim]

It was in this thread, about 25 comments earlier.

[Ken, Moderator]

Thanks, grebrim. I'm glad someone's keeping track of me (I'm a bit "spatial" as they say.)

[David]

Heart-rendering, that.

[grebrim]

You're welcome.

[Ben]

Hope this hasn't been mentioned yet, because I didn't have time to read the whole topic... but I prefer that "data" be used as a plural, because it is. Data are, and data say, not data is and data says. I'd like the same thing for agenda, but I've given up on that. I'm still fighting for data, though.

[Ruth]

Not to mention "media."

[Ken, Moderator]

Nevertheless, regular folks like the "sound" of "data is" better than "data are." Ditto "The media is...." vs. "The media are...."

[David]

Thy kingdom shall be divided between the media and Persia.

[Ken, Moderator]

In media res, I always say.

[Ben]

As an art student, I've often had the occasion to hear the word "mediums" used. I cringe every time. I mean, seriously, not only have you made the plural into the singular, but you must take the time to make a new plural?

[David]

Mediums connect you with the spirit world. You make art with media.

How about "octopus," where you see "octopi," which I think is wrong, "octopuses," and "octopoda," which I pedantically proclaim to be the best.

[Ken, Moderator]

And your opinion on "thesauri"? A dinosaur, I think.

[Lilyane]

Those who pronounce "often" with a hard "t" - usually people who speak for a living, such as newscasters, etc.

[Sarah]

The gratuitous T! I hate that, too.

[Carol]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. I have been trying to notice how I say often, I am of the the gratuitous T group. I think it comes from where I grew up. I never realized, or was conscience of how I said it. Now it is going to bug me.

How do you all pronouce it. Is the T suppose to be silent? Everyone in my family pronouce the hard T. hahahaha!!

[Ruth]

Don't know how that hard T sneaks in there. Nobody says "lisTen."

[Carol]

Point taken. So often rhymes with coffin.

[Lilyane]

it does - how depressing. It almost makes the hard "t" look good, but not quite.

[David]

On the other hand, the river in "Flow gently, sweet Afton, among thy green braes,' doesn't rhyme with "Laughin'."

And we say "oft," with an audible "/t/" in poetry.

And "sofTen," not "soffen."

Go figure.