Hi, I'm new here, so please bear with me if I've posted this in the wrong category.

I know that word usage changes and taht some words have almost reversed their meanings over the past couple of centuries, but I've noticed a rapidly growing tendency to misuse certain words.

Some common examples are using:

"DISinterested" for "UNinterested" - "I'm completely disinterested in this lesson".

"less" instead of "fewer" (a very common one) - "there were less people in the room than there were the day before"

"adaption" instead of "adaptation" - "The workshop made an adaption to the entrance to aid disabled people"

and "invite" instead of "invitation" - "I've had an invite to the party next week".

I've also heard "phenomenon" instead of "phenomena" and once a radio programme interviewee even said "phenomenas"!

Do you really think that it matters whether these words are misused, since most people know from the context what is meant? Am I just being pedantic, or does this annoy any of you too?

quote: Am I just being pedantic, or does this annoy any of you too?

Yes, and yes. Especially the less vs. few thing. And I may be the only person left on this planet who still cares about the distinction between each and both.

Welcome aboard! From your profile, I'd bet that you and Caterwauller (a/k/a CW) have a lot in common. (And please don't get confused to find that we have another 'Sunflower' here. Semi-duplication seems to be a characteristic of this board, which also has both a Caterwauler and a Cat.)

sigh... The word curmudgeon here.

I gave up a couple of years ago on hopefully. Still puts my teeth on edge. The less/fewer thing doesn't really bother me since the words really do mean the same thing. Invite for invitation seems to me to fall into the slang category. I haven't heard the others you referenced, but I would say they are simply erroneous. Kind of like affect/effect.

Spoken language continues to evolve and much faster than written language. Some of the evolution comes about because of sloppy usage, and I think it is those that grate on us.

Now, if we could fix one of my pet peeves...

Since when did kids stop graduating FROM high school? If I hear one more "She graduates high school next week" I will scream.

jo: The less/fewer thing doesn't really bother me since the words really do mean the same thing.

That's the exact reason this particular matter bothers me particularly. There is a distinction, and once the terms have become conflated a speaker loses to the ability to make that distinction easily. (In that, this particular matter is distinct from the grating use of 'invite'.)

But I fear the conflation is near-complete.

quote:

Originally posted by wordnerd:
quote: Am I just being pedantic, or does this annoy any of you too?

[quote]Yes, and yes. Especially the less vs. few thing. And I may be the only person left on this planet who still cares about the distinction between each and both.

I must admit that I find difficulty distinguishing between will and shall, even to the point where I find it slightly odd to read in books by pre-20th century authors such sentences as "Shall you be at the ball tonight?".

quote:

Welcome aboard!

Thanks .

quote:

From your profile, I'd bet that you and Caterwauller (a/k/a CW) have a lot in common.

I'll have to have a look at his (her?) profile and see in what way we're similar .

quote:

(And please don't get confused to find that we have another 'Sunflower' here. Semi-duplication seems to be a characteristic of this board, which also has both a Caterwauler and a Cat.)

I'm Sunflowers in the other forums I frequent. I like flowers, so I decided on Dianthus when I discovered that Sunflowers was already taken because Dianthus or Pink (a form of carnation) is small, attractive and fragrant .

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dianthus,

okay. Help me out here.

Less -- not as many as "x"

Fewer -- less than there were before? I also think it means not as many as "x".

Please explain; I truly am interested and a little confused.

They aren't being misused. Apart from 'adaption', which I don't know that I've ever heard or seen, all of these are perfectly normal English.

I feel the noun 'invite' to be colloquial register, and am surprised when I see it used where I could only use 'invitation', but that just means I'm out of touch with common usage.

The idea that you "can't"/"shouldn't" use 'less' when it's synonymous with 'fewer' is utterly baseless and absurd: 'less' is the plain English for it.

The shift of Greek '-a' words from plural to singular might be phonetically motivated, or it might (possibly) be by analogy with singulars such as 'agenda', though I think that presupposes too much sophistication. Basically, the ending [@] is familiar, and the alternant [@n] is then unnecessary: particularly in the relatively hard-to-pronounce 'phenomenon'. One [n] just drops out, and there is an existing word 'phenomena', so it's available for cooption. The same thing has happened with 'bacteria'. I avoid these mismatches myself, but they're so common that they can no longer be called error: they're established parts of the English language.

quote:

Originally posted by jo:
sigh... The word curmudgeon here.

I gave up a couple of years ago on hopefully. Still puts my teeth on edge. The less/fewer thing doesn't really bother me since the words really do mean the same thing. Invite for invitation seems to me to fall into the slang category. I haven't heard the others you referenced, but I would say they are simply erroneous. Kind of like affect/effect.

Less and fewer are not synonymous though. Fewer is used where the subject is a group, so "there were less people in the room" should read "there were fewer people in the room". Less is used where the subject is collective, so "there was less money in the account" is correct.

quote:

Spoken language continues to evolve and much faster than written language. Some of the evolution comes about because of sloppy usage, and I think it is those that grate on us.

Yes. Pronunciation has changed over the years as well. If you read Shakespeare and his contemporaries, you will see several examples:

"Blow, blow, thou winter wind,
Thou art not so unkind
As man's ingratitude;"

"Wind" in Shakespeare's day obviously rhymed with "unkind". Another example is found in verse 5 of the Christmas carol God Rest You Merry, Gentlemen":

"The shepherds at those tidings
Rejoiced much in mind,
And left their flocks a-feeding
In tempest, storm and wind:
And went to Bethlehem straightway
The Son of God to find.
O tidings of comfort and joy,
Comfort and joy
O tidings of comfort and joy"

The other famous example is Christopher Marlowe's The Passionate Shepherd to His Love

COME live with me and be my Love,
And we will all the pleasures prove
That hills and valleys, dale and field,
And all the craggy mountains yield.

Either love or prove must have changed its pronunciation since that was written because, from the rhyme scheme of the other verses, he obviously meant them to rhyme.

quote:

Now, if we could fix one of my pet peeves...

Since when did kids stop graduating FROM high school? If I hear one more "She graduates high school next week" I will scream.

That seems to be more of an American usage. We would still say from over here. Americans say "I will write you", whereas we Brits would say "I will write TO you".

You'll find this in AHD. But let me repeat that as AHD notes, I am being over-hyper here. Few people care.

Technically, fewer applies where the concept is that you are counting items, less when you are measuring in mass. Examples are helpful:

• You'd say, "You have less food in your cart than I do," but, "You have two fewer apples."
• (And, by the way, the check-out lane that says, "Twelve items or less" ought to say "Twelve items or fewer".)
• You'd usually say, "There is less sand in this sample of water," but in the odd situation that you were counting individual grains, you'd say "There are fewer grains of sand in this sample."

Or to put it in digital-age terminology, one could say that less is an analog measure, and fewer is a digital measure.

It's hard to keep this separation where the antonym-form makes no distinction. Thus more is the antonym of less, and is also the antonym of fewer.

Interestingly, we're much more apt to preserve the distinction when the adjective are not being used in the comparative form. If you were talking about a single high school, not comparing it to others, you'd say, "Few students go on to college," because you can count those students, one, two three. But you'd say, "There is only a little bit of sand" in the water-sample.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wordnerd,

Technically that's rubbish. In English (that's English the human language, not the made-up imaginary one) people say 'less' for any kind of comparison: I've got less apples than you, less people entered this year than last year. Technically, that's how English grammar works.

Welcome Dianthus.

Don't let aput put you off. Less/fewer is one of the great debates and admits no middle ground. Either you think that it's less traffic but fewer cars or you don't.

Aput isn't even saying the words are interchangeable. He's saying that however people use the language is automatically grammatical because that's how they use the language.
It's well trodden ground here.

You can't even refute by suggesting that if the words are interchangeable then why can't we say fewer traffic? The answer is we can't say it because we don't say it. It isn't part of anyone's spoken grammar. If everyone starts to say it then it may eventually reach some kind of linguistic critical mass and become correct.

I hope we can all agree on my pet hate though.

I would of gone instead of I would have gone.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
Welcome Dianthus.

Thanks . Everyone on here seems very friendly. I think I'm going to like it .

quote:

Don't let aput put you off. Less/fewer is one of the great debates and admits no middle ground. Either you think that it's less traffic but fewer cars or you don't.

I've been in quite a few debates like that .

quote:

Aput isn't even saying the words are interchangeable. He's saying that however people use the language is automatically grammatical because that's how they use the language.
It's well trodden ground here.

Ah, I'll bear that in mind.

quote:

You can't even refute by suggesting that if the words are interchangeable then why can't we say fewer traffic? The answer is we can't say it because we don't say it. It isn't part of anyone's spoken grammar. If everyone starts to say it then it may eventually reach some kind of linguistic critical mass and become correct.

I sincerely hope not .

quote:

I hope we can all agree on my pet hate though.

I would of gone instead of I would have gone.

Definitely! I hate that. I've even seen it written! I've also heard bored of instead of bored with, so I suppose that's going to be the next skittle to fall .

That may be so, but I have heard a LOT of Brits (Is that an acceptable nickname? I would NOT want to be using something insulting...) on the tube using the term "in hospital", which grates on my nerves also.

ah, the would have/would of debate. Now, written there is no excuse.

But any linguist worth her salt will tell you that the degredation from would have to would of is not a failure in grammar but a lazy vocalization. In fact, the evolution is from would have to would've to would of. And sometimes you may think you are hearing would of when in fact you are hearing a lazy speaker saying would have.

PS: WHERE ARE YOUR GUESSES ON SPHRAGYSTICS???

quote:

Originally posted by jo:
That may be so, but I have heard a LOT of Brits (Is that an acceptable nickname? I would NOT want to be using something insulting...)

That's fine - we use it about ourselves.

quote:

on the tube using the term "in hospital", which grates on my nerves also.

That's a regional variation though, which is perfectly correct usage this side of the Atlantic. There's a difference between regional variations, which are perfectly acceptable in a certain vernacular and sloppy usage, which is not acceptable anywhere.

One example of a regional variation over here is the tendency of people on the east coast of England to substitute while for until, so they would say "I stayed there while 7.30" instead of "I stayed there until 7.30". My own grandfather came from the south west of England and he would say "I be going up the hill" (pronounced "Oi be gwarn up yill") instead of "I am going up the hill". Again, these are not "proper" English, but they are perfectly valid dialect forms.

quote:

Originally posted by jo:
That may be so, but I have heard a LOT of Brits (Is that an acceptable nickname? I would NOT want to be using something insulting...) on the tube using the term "in hospital", which grates on my nerves also.

Which is of course the normal correct usage over here. There are no other variations that I know of in common use.

Kalleh recently asked, "What's Vulgar Latin?"

Comments posted here and elsewhere about the changing uses and meanings of words inspired me to take a look at Vulgar Latin.

The commentators use lots of negative words to describe their reactions ... "It annoys me ..." and "It irritates me ..." and "It nauseates me ... " and "It sets my teeth on edge ... "

It's amusing to imagine being a Language Purist bopping around from place to place in the Western Roman Empire 1000 to 1500 years ago. Imagine the feelings of annoyance, irritation, nausea, as Correct Latin is viewed as being twisted by its vulgar users into Spanish, Italian, French, and so on.

Living languages change and evolve. Don't push the river -- just let it flow.

quote:

That may be so, but I have heard a LOT of Brits (Is that an acceptable nickname? I would NOT want to be using something insulting...) on the tube using the term "in hospital", which grates on my nerves also.

What would Americans say when they wanted to say that someone was in hospital?

And related to the "...He should of..." is a similar verbal mangling that I once heard. A lady was trying to say something like, "...We'd better go soon, hadn't we..." but, obviously not realising that "we'd" was an abbreviation for "we had", had lost the verb.

So she said, "...We better go soon, bettern't we..."

Funny but sad.

Richard: What would Americans say when they wanted to say that someone was in hospital?

Conversely, what would Brits say when they wanted to say that someone was in the hospital?

Let me add my virtual voice to the welcomes, Dianthus!

RE, I'm guessing Americans might say someone is in THE hospital, although to me that seems rather too specific - it'd prompt me to say 'sorry, which one?' as it appears to suggest I should already know. Or something.

Lol - simul-posting there, Hic! I'm glad my guess was correct

In THE hospital.