The Pet Peeves thread is locked (another pet peeve! ), so I am going to start another. I don't even know if this is a legitimate pet peeve, and I doubt that it is. Yet, I just hate this use of "prescribed", as I saw it today:

"Children under 18 shouldn't be prescribed Paxil." I think it is so much better to say, "Paxil shouldn't be prescribed to children under 18." But, is it wrong? It is written all the time, both in publications for laymen and for professionals. In fact, I have submitted papers where the editors have changed my sentence to read that a drug was presribed to the patient.

You wouldn't say, "He was walked" or "He was sat"; yet you might say, "He was loved." Thoughts?

I think it's quite common to miss out prepositions, although it sounds vaguely American to my ear.

They had to flee from the fire -> They had to flee the fire.
They protested about the decision -> They protested the decision.
They appealed about the vedict -> They appealed the verdict.
The drug should not be prescribed to them -> The drug should not be prescribed them.

This is definitely becoming common in US writing but I think it is dangerous.The preposition has an important job to do in clarifying exacly what is meant.

So, "...he protested the decision..." would usually mean "...he protested against the decision..." However, it could mean, "... he protested for the decision...." Less likely, I know, but possible.

So why not keep the preposition where it belongs? It's a very inoffensive part of speech and it just might save a misunderstanding.

Richard English

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Yet, I just hate this use of "prescribed", as I saw it today:

"Children under 18 shouldn't be prescribed Paxil." I think it is so much better to say, "Paxil shouldn't be prescribed to children under 18."

---

I agree, Kalleh, though I can't say exactly why. The first sentence emphasizes "children", while the second emphasizes "Paxil". And since the item that shouldn't be prescribed is Paxil, the second sentence sounds better.

Actually, I like children (some children) and think they should be prescribed (but not to everyone). Rather than walking down to the drug store to pick up a prescription, a couple should concoct their own at home. The recipe is really quite simple.

The first sentence takes on a different meaning if you assume 'prescribed" is an adjective. If children under 18 shouldn't be prescribed Paxil, what should they be?

The first sentence should be taken out and shot!

Tinman

Just to add to the confusion - I would only prescribe something for somebody. If you must you can give children Paxil, with children the indirect object and "to" understood.

Good point, haberdasher. I have seen many other variations, such as "putting her on" paxil; or "giving her paxil"; or "he is receiving" paxil. However, of all those, my biggest annoyance is "he is prescribed" paxil.

quote:

---

The Pet Peeves thread is locked (another pet peeve )

---

Kalleh, I believe I have taken care of that problem for you. See this message.

Sorry, Sarah, I didn't meant to plague you! But...thanks a lot!

Oh, I see your problem now, and it's not to do with prepositions at all.

It's to do with the subject and object of prescribe. The thing prescribed is a drug, not a child, so to say "the children were prescribed" is wrong, even if the next word is "Paxil".

There's a similar problem with evacuate (which also has unfortunate medical connotations, I guess). It's the building which is evacuated, not the people. So to say (as a sign in one of my lecture rooms does) that "In case of fire, lecturers are responsible for the evacuation of their students" is either grammatically wrong or medically unlikely.

And who remembers their basic grammar? I was musing about subject and object, and I thought that in:

Paxil was prescribed for the children

that Paxil would be the subject of the verb was prescribed and the children would be the object.

But in:

We prescribed Paxil for the children

We is the subject and Paxil is the object of the verb prescribed. So in my first sentence, which was in the passive voice, was I right about subject and object, or is Paxil still the object and there is no subject?

I must look it up ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
You wouldn't say ... "He was sat"

---

Sadly all too common in British English. "He was sat" and "he was stood" are now almost universally used, even by educated speakers (instead of "he was sitting" and "he was standing"). Bizarrely, this usage only seems to occur with "sat" and "stood", and with no other verb.

There used to be a Northern comedienne (Hlyda Baker) who used the catchphrases "stood standing" and "sat sitting"; I wonder if she started it off?

This all reminds me of a very old joke:

"Ladles and jellyspoons,
I come before you to stand behind you
To tell you about something I know nothing about.
The fee is free, you pay at the door,
Take a seat and sit on the floor.
This week Thursday, which is Good Friday,
We will have a woman's meeting for men only.
We will discuss the four cornered round table."

I was in a bookstore last night and became enamored with a fun book, entitled, "Junk English". I didn't buy it, but I may have to!

As the review shows, he really is very judgemental, and though he did not discuss mentee, I am sure he would loathe that word, with the rest of you (me excluded!).

He brings up some good points in his book though. How overused are the following:

quality of life - From a health professional's viewpoint, it is not only hackeyed, but arrogant besides.
address How often do you hear that? does the person mean "confront"? "discuss"?
issue I have issues with that word as well!

There were others, such as "quite" that he thinks are just too nebulous. It is worth taking a look at, especially if you tend to be a bit of a word snob.

One of mine is "basically," which can usually be deleted without changing the meaning

Clearly (another of mine!), you're right.

And don't forget "actually".

Tinman

I always tell my students that you can delete every word you find after a Word search for ly and improve your writing immensely. Such words are for vague indecisive types.

I very rarely use "basically" after getting sharply rapped over the knuckles (metaphorically) by my chemistry teacher. In chemistry, basic is the opposite of acid (equivalent to alkaline), so using the word with the English sense rather than the chemical sense is just asking for trouble!

Whereas it is possible often to delete an adverb (such as clearly) without affecting the essential sense of a sentence, such deletions might affect the shade of meaning.

It is such subtleties that can make the difference between a carefully crafted piece of prose and an item of communication.

For example, take the two sentences:

"Clearly it is better to use a source which is basically accurate" or

"It is better to use a source which is accurate"

There is a difference between the two sentences which goes beyond simple and overt meaning.

Which you prefer depends on your attitude to the nicer points of communication.

Richard English

Richard, I think this author's issue with particular adverbs, such as "quite", is that they are just too vague.

Now, in one of my favorite word books, Elster's "There's a Word for it", he has a word for "junk food": "lubber-wort". Perhaps "Junk Words" should be renamed "lubber-words".

[Funny, I tried to find a synonym for "word", and I couldn't find anything. "Morpheme" or "lexeme" are the closest, but they indicate fundamental or linguistic units of language.]

Another of my "pet peeves" is "... everything from ___ to ___", as in ...

.....HOME ON THE RANGE
......... by
..... Jerry Thomas
..... (circa 1991)


Old Farmer’s Almanac (1992) p. 118: “Native Indians used [basil] for everything from snakebite to childbirth.”

The topics I have chosen to write about during the past five years include everything from Ants to Ziploc bags.

What does that tell you?

If the order of the categories of topics is alphabetical as it appears to be, then somewhere in the middle we must confidently expect to find Monocotyledonous flora. Indeed, I did write about that, in a book about Wheat Grass in the Human Diet, which I edited. But i digress.

My writing topics obviously do not include “everythng’ from Ants to Ziploc bags. Montgomery, for example, until this very moment, was nowhere in my writing. Nor Bears, nor (except for a time or two) Yaks. Thus we see that my original statement is a gross exaggeration, not to say an outright lie.

To be truthful, more writers should write as W. S. Gilbert wrote, in the Major General’s Song;

“I am the perfect model of a modern major general
I’ve informatiion vegetable, animal, and mineral.
I know the kings of England and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo in order categorical.”

Gilbert is specific about the order of items in that range. There is no built-in exaggeration.

Here are some examples where the writers were not so specific:

Book review, Cahill & Company Reader’s Cataogue, Federalsurg, MD 21632-0039:

BRIT-THINK, AMERI-THINK

by Jane Walmsley

quote:

---

If you’re perplexed by the Tansatlantic Psycho-Gap here’s a handy tongue-n-cheek guide to the great cultural divide. Anyone who has ever puzzzled over British American divergencies will find here illuminating and hilarious good fun on subjects ranging from sex to food, pets to religion, sports to money, war to -- most divergent of all -- humor. Jane Walmsley an American married to an Englishman, hits the nail right on the head time and again. You’ll end by understanding your transatlantic neighbors better, and you’ll see yourself a bit mre clearly too.

---

Paperboud: No. 3672 $6.95

Questions: What lies between sex and food that does not lie between nuts and religion?

Apparently there is a larger gap (and therefore more items?) between war and humor than between sports and money.

THE NEW NUTS AMONG THE BERRIES, by Ronald M. Deutsch, Bull Publishing Company, 1977, page 98:

quote:

---

“Tea in the 18th Century was costly, so it was tempting to sellers to adulterate it. Iron filings, clay, and gypsum were added to make it weigh more. Old tea leaves were bought from inns and used to stretch out the new. The tea was sometimes thinned with whatever leaves came to hand, which were then colored with everything from molasses, clay, logwood, dyes, and paints to sheep dung."

---

Observation: To understand this, I picture sheep dung in the center, with infinitely long lines radiating to molasses, clay, logwood, dyes, and paints; along those lines lies “everything.” But here again, what lies between molasses and sheep dung that does not lie between clay (for example) and sheep dung? Does horse manure fit anywhere in that array, or is it beyond all those limits?

[This message was edited by jerry thomas on Sat Jan 24th, 2004 at 0:25.]

Why on earth does everyone say DSL line? Isn't that redundant?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Why on earth does everyone say DSL line? Isn't that redundant?

---

Also

PIN number
ATM machine
VIN number

I think we discussed it once but I don't have time to check. I'm sure I remarked on a Dilbert cartoon where he says he's working on the TTP project. When asked what TTP stands for he replies "The TTP Project...".

Every silver lining has a cloud.
Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

Yes, I suppose we have discussed it. While I know I have heard "PIN number," I also hear it said as the "pin," as in "What is your PIN?" The same for ATM. I am sure along the way I have heard "ATM machine," though often I just hear "I am going to the "A" "T" "M." However, I always hear "DSL line," which to me is like fingernails on the chalkboard!