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.

First off, Welcome, Dianthus! We always love new people...and especially Brits! BTW, I saw from your profile that you found us by Googling; specifically, do you recall what you Googled? I always love to see Wordcraft in Google. BTW, people, now Wordcraft is at the very top when someone Googles "Wordcraft." Woo Hoo! [It doesn't take much to please me!]

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.

Hmmm, it feels like fingernails on a chalkboard when I hear "less cars," or the equivalent. I don't know why, really. I have learned from some of our great language experts here to be less worried about strict grammatical rules or strict meanings. Still, that's one rule that I just can't let go of. [I did let go of not ending a sentence with a preposition!]

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
First off, Welcome, Dianthus! We always love new people...and especially Brits! BTW, I saw from your profile that you found us by Googling; specifically, do you recall what you Googled? I always love to see Wordcraft in Google. BTW, people, now Wordcraft is at the very top when someone Googles "Wordcraft." Woo Hoo! [It doesn't take much to please me!]

I can't remember now. I'm a Moderator on another Forum (see my profile) and my nickname (though not my screen name) there is "the Google Queen" because I love finding things out and also sharing that knowledge with others. If I, (or someone else), want to know something I'll google for it and post several links to the subject under discussion, so that particular google session may or may not have been word-related.

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.

So, let me see if I've got this right. According to aput, if I go around saying something like "Sat cat the mat on the" and persuade my all friends to say this too, that is perfectly valid and we should therefore not be corrected or ridiculed because "language is what you make of it" - even if it's obviously wrong and no-one else can understand it.

quote:

Hmmm, it feels like fingernails on a chalkboard when I hear "less cars," or the equivalent. I don't know why, really. I have learned from some of our great language experts here to be less worried about strict grammatical rules or strict meanings. Still, that's one rule that I just can't let go of.

It upsets me too, but it's insidiously creeping into universal use . Another thing I hate is the increasing use of "-self" as in "the union convenor asked myself if I would support the workers". I was a Civil Servant for several years and had daily dealings with solicitors (lawyers). I once read "In reply to our letter to yourselves dated *** ... please reply to ourselves as soon as possible". I've never forgotten that .

quote:

[I did let go of not ending a sentence with a preposition!]

Winston Churchill had no time for that either. There's a story about him that he once replied to an editor's rearranging one of his sentences to avoid ending it with a preposition: "This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put". There are several variations circulating (see here for a very interesting article).

Edit: is there any way to preview posts before posting them?

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

quote:

Originally posted by Cat:
Let me add my virtual voice to the welcomes, Dianthus!

Thanks

quote:

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.

They would. I've noticed that too. Another difference between US and UK English is when describing the act of driving after drinking too much alcohol. We were having a discussion about this in the other Forums I belong to and we got sidetracked into a secondary discussion because the Brits said "drink-driving" and the Americans said "drunk-driving".

quote:

Originally posted by Dianthus:
So, let me see if I've got this right. According to aput, if I go around saying something like "Sat cat the mat on the" and persuade my all friends to say this too, that is perfectly valid and we should therefore not be corrected or ridiculed because "language is what you make of it" - even if it's obviously wrong and no-one else can understand it.

Not exactly, but if this was a common usage by the whole country it would be part of the spoken grammar and it wouldn't be nonsense because everyone would understand it.

It's the basic descriptivist/prescriptivist argument that always crops up when you discuss grammar. Should a grammar describe what people say or should it lay down "rules" about what is correct.

I wouldn't "correct" my ESOL students if they said "There are less people here today." even though it grates for me too because that's what they are likely to hear everyday in the street. If they go around telling everyone who says it "You mean fewer" then sooner or later someone will punch them.
Like it or not it is part of most people's everyday spoken grammar.
I'd be more inclined to fix it if they wrote it in a formal letter particularly as less/fewer is one of the pieces of grammar that is specifically mentioned in the ESOL National Curriculum.

In England the meanings of "in hospital" and "in the hospital" are (usually) distinct. "In the hospital" means a specific one, usually the local one but it could be one previously mentioned in the conversation. "In hospital" means hospitalised and receiving medical treatment.

How would this distinction be made in US English? Would you need to actually name the hospital you were talking about.

Actually, yes it would be more specific. This use of "the" is fascinating to me. We Americans would generally say "in the hospital" when referring to just being in any old hospital. Then we might say "in the local hospital" if you were in a small town. In a larger city, or if the person had travelled, you might say "in Johns Hopkins" or "in Mayo."

"The" doesn't seem to convey the same kind of specificity for us that y'all are implying in your statements. IE, "the pencil" could mean any old pencil among several lying on the desk. It is a little more specific than "a pencil" but not much. "Get a red pencil" would mean any red pencil from anywhere, whereas "Get the red pencil" would usually indicate that there was a red pencil among several others, etc.

I suspect that the specificity usage of "the" is fairly similar between us, with the rare exception in phrases like in hospital as opposed to in the hospital.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
In England the meanings of "in hospital" and "in the hospital" are (usually) distinct. "In the hospital" means a specific one, usually the local one but it could be one previously mentioned in the conversation. "In hospital" means hospitalised and receiving medical treatment.

How would this distinction be made in US English?

I'm not sure I see any distinction. In each case the person is physically in a hospital -- which implies a specific one, since you can't be in two separate hospitals at once. And in each case he is presumably receiving medical treatment.

But to there extent a distinction exists: Bob, I think you've answered your own question when you noted, "'In hospital' means hospitalised." We'd say, "He's hospitalized." In the unlikely event that we wanted to emphasize that he was in only one hospital, not in several simultaneously, we'd say "in a hospital". That would also convey a sense of "I don't know which hospital you'll find him at, so I can't be more specific."

I'd imagine that for places other than hospitals, your phrasings are the same as ours. In a few cases we'd use your pattern of omitting the 'the': "I'll see you in the court," or "Throw him in the jail." But in most cases we, and I assume you, would use the 'the': "He's in the store."

I don't think either usage is 'wrong' in any logical sense.

While he was in school he was in the hospital. Now he's out, and he's in show business.

Would a Bringlish speaker say this differently?

quote:

Originally posted by jerry thomas:
While he was in school he was in the hospital. Now he's out, and he's in show business.

Would a Bringlish speaker say this differently?

Well I'd probably say "at school" and "in hospital". I'd probably also say "When" not "While".

Many people might be in the hospital; patients, doctors, nurses, porters, ambulance drivers, etc. However, the only people likely to be described as in hospital are patients.

Welcome, Dianthus! I guess I've really missed all kinds of interesting topics, and I have only been busy for a few days! Ack! Can't turn my back on you people for a moment!

I've noticed the lack of "the" in those sentences, as you've mentioned. I've also noticed the interchangable "less" and "fewer" and I can honestly say I have no idea if I do it correctly or not!

One thing that might just be a local problem, is the lack of "to be" in phrases. People will say "the lawn needs mowed" instead of "the lawn needs to be mowed." What do you think of that?

quote:

Originally posted by wordnerd:
(And, by the way, the check-out lane that says, "Twelve items or less" ought to say "Twelve items or fewer".)

I've seen one grocery chain change its signs from "Twelve items or less" to "Twelve items or fewer." Hallelujah!

Tinman

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:

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.

Isn't that begging the question?

quote:

Begging the question (petitio principii )

If you assume the very premise you’re trying to prove, you are “begging the question.” This fallacy is also known as “arguing in a circle,” or “circular reasoning.” The purpose of deductive reasoning is to get from one point in an argument (the premise) to another (the conclusion) in a logical manner. But a circular argument does not allow this progression. If the premise or beginning of the argument is identical to its conclusion, the argument doubles back on itself and becomes barren.

In his excellent book Introduction to Logic, Irving Copi offers the following example of a circular argument that clearly begs the question:

“...one may argue that Shakespeare is a greater writer than Robbins because people with good taste in literature prefer Shakespeare. And if asked how one tells who has good taste in literature, one might reply that such persons are to be identified by their preferring Shakespeare to Robbins.”
In other words, A equals A. The person making the argument for Shakespeare should provide evidence for his assertion, instead of merely repeating it.

Tinman

quote:

Originally posted by Caterwauller:
Welcome, Dianthus! I guess I've really missed all kinds of interesting topics, and I have only been busy for a few days! Ack! Can't turn my back on you people for a moment!

Thanks .

quote:

I've noticed the lack of "the" in those sentences, as you've mentioned. I've also noticed the interchangable "less" and "fewer" and I can honestly say I have no idea if I do it correctly or not!

Less is used for a single concept: "there is less money in the account" and fewer is used for individual items: "there are fewer coins in this purse".

quote:

One thing that might just be a local problem, is the lack of "to be" in phrases. People will say "the lawn needs mowed" instead of "the lawn needs to be mowed." What do you think of that?

We don't say that over here in the UK. The closest we would get to your example would be "the lawn needs mowing".

quote:

Originally posted by tinman:
Isn't that begging the question?

Tinman

Not really. It's saying the the definition of a spoken grammar is the language that people speak. And if that's the definition then whatever is accepted in speech is part of the grammar.

This isn't begging the question it's simply defining the concept.

To use an example from another recent thread.

In the US the phrase "I'll write him." with no to and no direct object is a normal everyday usage.
Over here noone would ever say it. If you heard someone use that particular combination of words in England I guarantee that he's either a visitor to England or he's intentionally aping an American accent.

The words are a part of the US spoken grammar but not a part of the UK spoken grammar. In other words for you they are right because they are right and for us they are wrong because they are wrong.

I'm not saying that I actually agree that any of this should be the case, I'm just putting it forward as devil's advocate. In teaching ESOL I have to take a pragmatic view.What my students need isn't a knowlege of what I think of as the rules of grammar. They need English that will allow them to function and integrate in the social circumstances that they are in. When I teach something like less and fewer I do usually point out what the rule is supposed to be but also that it's so commonly ignored that no-one will notice if they get it wrong. In the case of less/fewer the "incorrect" usage is nowadays probably more common than the correct one and is de facto an accepted construction.

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

"My hair needs washed" and "the floors need scrubbed" seem to be colloquial. I know that Kansas and Pennsylvania are places where some say these things. How about "waiting on line" rather than "waiting in line". Where'd the 'on' come from?...unless you're lined up in a classroom with actual lines on the floor. I've heard "I'm waiting on the mailman", which means, to me, that I'm serving him. >^--^<

quote:

Originally posted by Dianthus:
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?

You're right at home here. If the misuse or percieved misuse of words bothers you, you are definitly in the majority on this board! Welcome aboard, Dianthus!

Tinman

quote:

People will say "the lawn needs mowed" instead of "the lawn needs to be mowed." What do you think of that?

Or

quote:

"My hair needs washed" and "the floors need scrubbed"

CW and Amnow, I don't think that phrasing has reached Chicago yet.

Edit: is there any way to preview posts before posting them?

Unfortunately, no, Dianthus. That's why many of spend lots of time in the "edit" feature!

When I think of people here who have been educated in linguistics, aput, jheem and Jo (are there more?), I realize that those who study linguistics tend to be more liberal with the use of grammar and punctuation. Often, those who have been educated in English (not Bob), however, tend to be more persnickety (like my colleague who said you can never start a sentence with "it" or "that.") That intrigues me. First, I wonder if that observation is correct. If so, I wonder why.

quote:

Originally posted by amnow:
"My hair needs washed" and "the floors need scrubbed" seem to be colloquial. I know that Kansas and Pennsylvania are places where some say these things. How about "waiting on line" rather than "waiting in line". Where'd the 'on' come from?...unless you're lined up in a classroom with actual lines on the floor. I've heard "I'm waiting on the mailman", which means, to me, that I'm serving him. >^--^<

We say "waiting on" in some parts of the country (although it's a dialect form and definitely not standard usage) but as for "in line" or "on line" or any variation, we would all say "I queued for ages at the supermarket checkout" instead of "I stood in line ...".

quote:

You're right at home here. If the misuse or percieved misuse of words bothers you, you are definitly in the majority on this board!

Good ! Is this the last bastion of "true" English ? Seriously, I love language (English or foreign) and I was very pleaed to come across this site where I can discuss it with like-minded people .

quote:

Welcome aboard, Dianthus!

Tinman

Thanks .

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

quote:

Edit: is there any way to preview posts before posting them?

Unfortunately, no, Dianthus. That's why many of spend lots of time in the "edit" feature!

Oh dear . Ah well.

quote:

When I think of people here who have been educated in linguistics, aput, jheem and Jo (are there more?), I realize that those who study linguistics tend to be more liberal with the use of grammar and punctuation.

I took linguistics as a co-major subject in my English degree. Most English degrees concentrate on literature, but I enjoy the way language works as well as just reading it. I also love foreign languages and I used to be fluent in five (including Greek and I took two years of Latin at school). Unfortunately, although I can still (for example) read Greek, the vocabulary has atrophied through disuse and I would now need extensive study to return to my previous fluency level in any of the languages I used to know so well .

quote:

Often, those who have been educated in English (not Bob), however, tend to be more persnickety (like my colleague who said you can never start a sentence with "it" or "that.") That intrigues me. First, I wonder if that observation is correct. If so, I wonder why.

I never heard about not starting a sentence with "it" or "that", but I was sternly told never to start a sentence with a conjunction (and, but). I've since mellowed and now start sentences (and even paragraphs) with "however".

I was also told never to split infinitives (an example of which I used in my previous paragraph when I wrote "sternly told"), but that is a rather silly rule in English because it relates to Latin and other Romance languages where the infinitive is a single word (such as the French "Etre" - to be) and therefore cannot be split.

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

While we can disagree on the less/fewer thing, aput, I'm suprised at how strongly you feel about it.

By the way, does anybody still make the distinction between 'surprised' and 'astonished'? It is said that Noah Webster did.

His wife caught him in the act of sex with the chambermaid. "Noah!" she cried, "I am surprised!" "No, my dear," said the great lexicographer, untangling himself. "It is we who are surprised. You are astonished."

quote:

Originally posted by wordnerd:
While we can disagree on the less/fewer thing, aput, I'm suprised at how strongly you feel about it.

By the way, does anybody still make the distinction between 'surprised' and 'astonished'? It is said that Noah Webster did.

His wife caught him in the act of sex with the chambermaid. "Noah!" she cried, "I am surprised!" "No, my dear," said the great lexicographer, untangling himself. "It is we who are surprised. You are astonished."

I like that one ! There are many words which are becoming interchangeable.

Very few people nowadays (including me, I must admit ) make a distinction between can and may. May is giving or asking permission: "May I do this?" and can is demonstrating ability: "Can I do this?". However, may is now losing ground and the more common usage is "can I do this?" when asking permission. May is also being superseded by might, so the older form: "'Shall you go to the ball on Saturday?' 'I may.'" mutated through: "'Will you go ...?' 'I might'" into: "are you going ...?" and "Probably").

When I was a kid (1950s), we would say things happened "on purpose" or "by addicent." When my kids were young (1970s), they would say things happened "on purpose" or "on accident." It used to bug the hell out of me. I've found one site (the grammar doctor) that complains about this new "craze" in 2003, nearly 30 years after my kids were using it!

Tinman

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

quote:

Originally posted by tinman:
When I was a kid (1950s), we would say things happened "on purpose" or "by addicent." When my kids were young (1970s), they would say things happened "on purpose" or "on accident." It used to bug the hell out of me. I've found one site (the grammar doctor) that complains about this new "craze" in 2003, nearly 30 years after my kids were using it!

Tinman

I was a kid in the 1950s too .

I've never come across "on accident" on this side of the Atlantic - yet. We had a brief craze for Australian slang over here a while back because we get a lot of Australian soaps on our TV, but it didn't last very long.

I don't mind 'invite' but I hate 'least amount of' as in 'least amount of votes', mostly found on every reality TV show that ever existed.

quote:

Originally posted by tinman:

quote:

Originally posted by wordnerd:
(And, by the way, the check-out lane that says, "Twelve items or less" ought to say "Twelve items or fewer".)

I've seen one grocery chain change its signs from "Twelve items or less" to "Twelve items or fewer." Hallelujah!

Tinman

We have one chain over here, Marks and Spencer, that has always done that. It's fairly up-market though and it's the only store that I've ever seen which uses that wording on their checkouts. All the rest have "... or less".

Another affectation which is becoming increasingly prevalent over here is the use of double adjectives.

I don't have a TV, so I listen to the radio all the time - mostly BBC Radio Four, which is a predominently speech-centred channel. I hear many people (usually women, but it now seems to be spreading to men) saying things like "it was a tiny, tiny thing" or "he was a beautiful, beautiful person". It's starting to grate on my nerves somewhat .