|
I have a lot of experience in the English language, and I truly love it and find no fault in considering it to be the greatest complete language in the world--I'm sure Her Majesty The Queen would agree.
Nonetheless, we Americans often butcher words, spellings, styles and necessary grammar with impunity; we're just itching for someone, anyone, to correct us. I usually write just as I speak, but my style of form is some strange amalgam of Chicago, sprinkled with Harvard, with a daub of British Standard, all glued together with a hodgepodge of archaic, anachronistic and obsolete forms and patterns.
So, quite often, I learn that I've totally been frakin' it up--and I'm not alone.
This thread is devoted to sharing discoveries in language, and to that end, I'll start with three that I made today...
Often, we make our 'best' mistakes with loanwords ;-)
The correct plural form of Cappuccino is Cappuccini. Likewise, Espresso becomes Espressi, and the singular of biscotti is, naturally, biscotto.
|
As an English teacher currently living and teaching in Europe, what an interesting thread!
First off, "frakin'" isn't a real word in English.... ;)
Re: cappucino, espresso, et al.:
Of course, the plurals of those are correct in Italian (4 years of high school Italian, baby! Woo!), but are they necessarily the same in English? Just because we adopt a word into our langauge, doesn't mean we adopt its grammar as well. Just curious if you found an official source for that.
What's interesting to me is certain phrases or sayings I habitually say - some anachronistic, some picked up from movies, etc. - that are part of my "personal speech." No one else says these things (except for maybe a few phrases that some old friends an I share), but they're easily understandable from an American geek cultural standpoint. I've never really thought much about it before, but my fiancee (who is not a native speaker) has started picking these phrases up from me and using them. And it's really weird, because I've never heard anyone else use these phrases like this before! Which raises the question, do I sound weird to everyone else I talk to, or is it just because she is starting to sound a little to much like me?
|
I've noticed a big one, from geek/gamer perspective, and that is the use of "focus" in relation to spells in D&D.
Now, the term focus is not the problem - it is an apt description of an object used to focus your energy for the casting of a spell.
The problem comes up when discussing, of course, plurals.
I have seen, in more than a few RPG books, the term "focuses".
I believe the more correct plural would be "foci".
|
|
George Orwell, in 1946, finding himself decrying the perceived decay of English, and despite his genius, somewhat blinded by his stoic antiestablishment views, wrote the following--
"I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:
'I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.'
Here it is in modern English:
'Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.'"
George had it, knew it, and knew how to use it.
Outside of a building I used to work in was a sign that said, "No smoking is allowed here."
So, all the smokers would stand next to it and smoke, smirk, and say, "You can stand next to us and not smoke if you want to. It is even allowed."
Apparently, university professors give better grades to essays written using less familiar terms and phrases, even when more pedestrian vocabulary explains the subject more clearly.
Even as an enthusiastic proponent of obscure vocabulary, I consider that finding a bit disturbing.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
George Orwell, in 1946, finding himself decrying the perceived decay of English, and despite his genius, somewhat blinded by his stoic antiestablishment views, wrote the following--
"I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:
'I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.'
Here it is in modern English:
'Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.'"
George had it, knew it, and knew how to use it.
Ah, academic-ese. I was an English undergrad and I saw the most egregious examples of that kind of obfuscation in certain schools of literary critical theory. Ye gads, men, spit it out already!
[See there? I can use "egregious" and "obfuscation" and you can still understand the sentence, even if you might have to look up the words. Some critical theory I've read just boggles the mind. I'm looking at you, Derrida.]
EDIT: Semi-ninja'ed by Sir_Wulf. We ought to be teaching high school students and undergrads conciseness and clarity instead of purple-prose verbosity. I am reminded of the scene from A River Runs Through It in which one of the sons hands in a paper to his father, who glances at it and says, "very good. Now do it again, half as long."
Ah shor kin simperthighs with ya. Folks awtuh speek Inglish proper like.
Ah shor kin simperthighs with ya. Folks awtuh speek Inglish proper like.
Aye, s'tright nah, me droogy, eh?
|
|
A couple of days ago, I was waiting for the chronically late SCAD bus to show up, and I overheard a group of girls discussing the best ways to spell out exclamations in IM-speak. It devolved quickly into two camps, one insisting that the sound one makes when one is aggravated is spelled "HUUUUURGGGHHH," while the other insisted that it was spelled "UGGGGGGGHHH."
And at that moment, a little piece of my soul died.
Apparently, university professors give better grades to essays written using less familiar terms and phrases, even when more pedestrian vocabulary explains the subject more clearly.
Even as an enthusiastic proponent of obscure vocabulary, I consider that finding a bit disturbing.
That's just plain silly. I am entusiastic proponent of obscure vocabulary as well, but I have also worked as a newspaper journalist. The standard you are to write to when communicating to others is an eighth-grade comprehension level. Short, effective verbage is better all around. Ask any editor if they'd prefer purple prose or short effective words in a submission.
A teacher of mine gave me this example:
"I have beheld the infernal conflagration in all its red-tinged glory and gazed upon the driving aquaeous percipitation that descended from the glowering heavens."
|
|
A teacher of mine gave me this example:
"I have beheld the infernal conflagration in all its red-tinged glory and gazed upon the driving aquaeous percipitation that descended from the glowering heavens."
And I have beheld waking hours filled with the burning solar glory of the heavens, believing it to be everlasting and unceasing.
|
|
I'm amazed that no one has linked to Bill Garvin's infamous MAD Magazine article on political language.
A couple of days ago, I was waiting for the chronically late SCAD bus to show up, and I overheard a group of girls discussing the best ways to spell out exclamations in IM-speak. It devolved quickly into two camps, one insisting that the sound one makes when one is aggravated is spelled "HUUUUURGGGHHH," while the other insisted that it was spelled "UGGGGGGGHHH."
And at that moment, a little piece of my soul died.
Actually, I believe it's "AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH".
Me, I'm just trying to get my (US high school age) students to stop putting an apostrophe in every word than ends in "s" -- plural, contraction or other.
And academic (in addition to most other) jargons are tremendously annoying -- educationese, anyone?
I've noticed a big one, from geek/gamer perspective, and that is the use of "focus" in relation to spells in D&D.
Now, the term focus is not the problem - it is an apt description of an object used to focus your energy for the casting of a spell.
The problem comes up when discussing, of course, plurals.
I have seen, in more than a few RPG books, the term "focuses".
I believe the more correct plural would be "foci".
Yes, the old question of just how Latin you want to be. I can see both sides here: on one hand, I am a classicist snob ('snob' doesn't really need to be said by people who identify themselves as classicists). I want to say, "Yes, the nominative plural of that masculine noun of the 2nd declension should of course be used." On the other hand, I am a realist. We are speaking English, not Latin, and a classical education, for better or worse, is exceedingly rare nowadays. So, I think 'focuses' is fine. We can all understand it. There is no need to torture ourselves with the particulars of Latin grammar.
Apparently, university professors give better grades to essays written using less familiar terms and phrases, even when more pedestrian vocabulary explains the subject more clearly.
Even as an enthusiastic proponent of obscure vocabulary, I consider that finding a bit disturbing.
That's just plain silly. I am entusiastic proponent of obscure vocabulary as well, but I have also worked as a newspaper journalist. The standard you are to write to when communicating to others is an eighth-grade comprehension level. Short, effective verbage is better all around. Ask any editor if they'd prefer purple prose or short effective words in a submission.
A teacher of mine gave me this example:
"I have beheld the infernal conflagration in all its red-tinged glory and gazed upon the driving aquaeous percipitation that descended from the glowering heavens."
** spoiler omitted **
It is always amazing to go back and read old newspapers, like William Lloyd Garrison era. Education was incredibly rigorous in those days, and my goodness, those guys could write the heck out of a newspaper.
|
And academic (in addition to most other) jargons are tremendously annoying -- educationese, anyone?
My partner has gone back to school for education, and there has been no end to my amusement at "educationese". I assured him that once he graduates, he never needs to use "literacies" in the plural again, and it can revert to its original singular form meaning "the ability to read and write."
|
|
Often, we make our 'best' mistakes with loanwords ;-)
The correct plural form of Cappuccino is Cappuccini. Likewise, Espresso becomes Espressi, and the singular of biscotti is, naturally, biscotto.
Whether one is allowed to use English pluralizations when the words have been imported into English is a fair one that I am not going to address here, but as a curiosity, here are some more notes about Italian words in English.
Panini is plural, meaning "sandwiches". If you want to order one, it is a "panino."
The same is true of cannoli. If you are only eating one it is a "cannolo".
"Pasta" is a singular word, as in English, but the types are plural. You can have a dish of spaghetti, but one strand is a spaghetto. Likewise you have one fettucino, gnocco, linguina, manicotto, or raviolo.
Whether we should be importing the Italian grammar with the words is a good question, but for those who are interested in what the Italian grammar would be, there it is.
And for the last time: it's "a large number of people" not " a large amount of people" unless you mash them into a pulp!
God. People say that all the time. It drives me nuts.
And for the last time: it's "a large number of people" not " a large amount of people" unless you mash them into a pulp!
God. People say that all the time. It drives me nuts.
See, I don't like "large amount of people" cause it just doesn't sound right. Amount and people just seem to make the sentence awkward to say. "Large number of people" just rolls off better.
Now I'm all for standards and practices in a language, and I'm personally a fan of sesquipedalianism, but I also think that we shouldn't really worry too much about the nitty gritty unless it affects comprehension. I say this as someone who personally smacks himself when he makes just about any grammatical or spelling error. I hold myself to a high standard, but I at least try not to hold others to it as long as I understand them.
...
That's just plain silly. I am entusiastic proponent of obscure vocabulary as well, but I have also worked as a newspaper journalist. The standard you are to write to when communicating to others is an eighth-grade comprehension level. Short, effective verbage is better all around. Ask any editor if they'd prefer purple prose or short effective words in a submission....
Sad to say -- when I was young I was told newspapers were written to a sixth-grade level. Assuming newspapers are trying to read the same audience ....
You may draw any number of conclusions.
...
That's just plain silly. I am entusiastic proponent of obscure vocabulary as well, but I have also worked as a newspaper journalist. The standard you are to write to when communicating to others is an eighth-grade comprehension level. Short, effective verbage is better all around. Ask any editor if they'd prefer purple prose or short effective words in a submission....
Sad to say -- when I was young I was told newspapers were written to a sixth-grade level. Assuming newspapers are trying to read the same audience ....
You may draw any number of conclusions.
Funny thing:
If you can pull of communicating the news story using sixth-grade comprehension, that's actually BETTER. Remember it's not about showing off your verbal chops, it's about communicating information. Making it easier to understand by more people is always preferable. And it is actually much harder to 'tone down' your vocabulary. Believe me...
And for the last time: it's "a large number of people" not " a large amount of people" unless you mash them into a pulp!
God. People say that all the time. It drives me nuts.
I've run into this same problem with trying to drive home the difference between "less" and "fewer."
For example, one orders a whole pizza and eats a portion of it. One now has less pizza, but fewer slices of pizza. It has to do with whether one is able to number the remainder, or must refer to it as a collective.
And yet, I constantly hear references to things such as having "less people in the room" than before.
Oh, and how about the use of "one" as the singular in conversation, as opposed to "you," which implies one is referring to one's conversational partner?
|
Possibly my biggest pet peeve with language arises only at work. As a computer technician, I try to put on my best vocabulary when speaking about computers, the reasoning being that a given customer is likely to be more cooperative if I sound like I know what I am doing.
My coworkers don't subscribe to the same reasoning, and I've all but given up on trying to help them adapt to the correct terminology.
The biggest offender is "emails" which I see and hear on a regular basis. The term "e-mail" is already plural! Why do people insist on adding an 's' to the end of words that are already plural?
To refer to an individual piece of e-mail, it is an e-mail message. My wife teases me because I take it so seriously, but I consider it to be a matter of taking pride in my work.
I gotta go read my emails. L8r.
I can't stomach "Aren't I?" How did this become popular? Is there a special rule I'm missing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My misapplication even has a word to define it.
cat•a•chre•sis (kt-krss)
n. pl. cat•a•chre•ses (-sz)
1. The misapplication of a word or phrase, as the use of blatant to mean "flagrant."
I looked up the meaning of the term "go to pot" the other day, and was surprised to find the term defined as meat being only useful for stew, had gone to pot, and that the reference existed in Shakespearean times.
Meat that bad in those times would not have gone to a stew pot, but to another pot in the house.
The chamber pot.
One of the words that drives me completely insane when used is: irregardless. Well, that is interesting. The spell checker even accepts this word as being spelled correctly even though it doesn't exist. It is utterly amazing to me how many words are added to our acceptable language on a daily basis. Someone, somewhere hears someone else use a word completely out of context and decides that it's cool, so they emulate that person by continuing to use the word. I find it unacceptable.
|
|
One of the words that drives me completely insane when used is: irregardless. Well, that is interesting. The spell checker even accepts this word as being spelled correctly even though it doesn't exist. It is utterly amazing to me how many words are added to our acceptable language on a daily basis. Someone, somewhere hears someone else use a word completely out of context and decides that it's cool, so they emulate that person by continuing to use the word. I find it unacceptable.
ir·re·gard·less
adv \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Definition of IRREGARDLESS
nonstandard
: regardlessUsage Discussion of IRREGARDLESS
Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
Examples of IRREGARDLESS1. I told them that irregardless of what you read in books, they's some members of the theatrical profession that occasionally visits the place where they sleep. —Ring Lardner, The Big Town, 1921
Origin of IRREGARDLESS
probably blend of irrespective and regardless
First Known Use: circa 1912
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Words that roll off the tongue...
Patience
Doorway
Imbroglio
Elixir
Diaphanous
Fellatio
You're - You Are (abbreviation)
Your - possessive. Your (Insert noun)
(I screw this next set up all the time so correct me if i'm wrong)
There- Loacation; as in "Over There"
Their- Belonging to that group
they're- They are
(I suck at phonetic spelling, but you get the idea)
Espresso - Pronounced "S Press O" NOT, I REPEAT NOT, "EXX Press O" (that drives me up a wall and makes the speaker sound more ignorant than I can express)(See how that works?)
Vodka - Pronounced "V odd ka" NOT "Vo Ka" because it has a friggin "D" in it. (I'm looking at you P. Diddy. AKA the Ciroc Vodka commerrcial)
"In America you say "erb" in England we say Herb, because it has a F***ing "H" in it." ~Eddie Izzard
Basically I dislike any use of language the intentionally screws up ponunuciation either to make it rhyme or as some sort of idiotic status symbol. Yes, I'm refering to much of the Hip Hop and to a lesser extent Country music community. Deal with it.
I'm sure there are more, but you get the idea.
A couple of days ago, I was waiting for the chronically late SCAD bus to show up, and I overheard a group of girls discussing the best ways to spell out exclamations in IM-speak. It devolved quickly into two camps, one insisting that the sound one makes when one is aggravated is spelled "HUUUUURGGGHHH," while the other insisted that it was spelled "UGGGGGGGHHH."
And at that moment, a little piece of my soul died.
Well, in there defense it is Scad. "Artsy" and "smart" are not necessarily present in the same person.
Thought of another one:
The word "data" is plural.
Correct: The data are...
Incorrect: The data is...
|
Irregular verbs: Happy accident of the Great Vowel Shift or bane of an English teacher’s existence? I have grown to hate the verb “to be” so very much over the past few years.
Also the extraneous use of the apostrophe to form possessives that aren’t possessives drives me crazy. Ex: CDs not CD’s
Though I admit I had to pause and think “Did I use that right in the sentence above this?”
|
|
Apparently, university professors give better grades to essays written using less familiar terms and phrases, even when more pedestrian vocabulary explains the subject more clearly.
Even as an enthusiastic proponent of obscure vocabulary, I consider that finding a bit disturbing.
That's just plain silly. I am entusiastic proponent of obscure vocabulary as well, but I have also worked as a newspaper journalist. The standard you are to write to when communicating to others is an eighth-grade comprehension level. Short, effective verbage is better all around. Ask any editor if they'd prefer purple prose or short effective words in a submission.
A teacher of mine gave me this example:
"I have beheld the infernal conflagration in all its red-tinged glory and gazed upon the driving aquaeous percipitation that descended from the glowering heavens."
** spoiler omitted **
It is always amazing to go back and read old newspapers, like William Lloyd Garrison era. Education was incredibly rigorous in those days, and my goodness, those guys could write the heck out of a newspaper.
Education has improved but not at sufficient pace to keep up with the widening opportunities to write and be published in some way.
Incidentally, you should check the grammar of your final sentence: I believe that the foul affliction known as the Oxford comma has confuzzled your writing. I prepare to stand corrected but I believe that this would be more accurate:
Education was incredibly rigorous in those days and, my goodness, those guys could write the heck out of a newspaper.
|
|
All you need to know is that -ng appears in every word refering to: tongue, voice, speak, mouth, talk, chasm. As an Indoeuropean Root it appears in every language from english to indonesian. So put away your made up language child, the elder god is here to teach you how to speak your monkey grunts better.
|
|
Instinctual.
Every time I hear that word I feel the pain of the real word instinctive having its ribs kicked in.
It's not just that it is an error, instinctive has a cadence I enjoy while instinctual falls to mush at the end.
Instinctual seems to be especially popular amongst young actors and actresses who can't explain what they do for a living.