Author Topic: Grammar and Language Pet Peeves (Read 13181 times)

Russell Nash · **on:** June 02, 2007, 06:14:44 AM

What do you read or hear people say that drives you up the wall?

I have one. I have a physical almost violent reaction to the increasing misuse of the word myself. Grammar Girl covered this, but not completely.

Myself is,

1) a reflexive pronoun. It is used when the subject and object are the same. "I shot myself while preparing my guns for the zombie invasion."

2) an intensifier. "I, myself, don't see the problem."

3) In some idioms I can't think of at the moment.

It is not used as the object of a preposition. That would be the objective and not the reflexive form. "Todays episode was written by myself." is just wrong!! You can't say, "well in this use…". It is just wrong. "Todays episode was written by me."

I don't know why this mistake is so common, but it's everywhere.

FNH · **Reply #1 on:** June 02, 2007, 05:58:57 PM

Quote from: Russell Nash on June 02, 2007, 06:14:44 AM

I don't know why this mistake is so common, but it's everywhere.

I think schools care only that the meaning is got-across, rather then the "correctness" of message. At school my English lessons focused much more on reading naff books than on correct Gram'.

Russell Nash · **Reply #2 on:** June 02, 2007, 06:10:08 PM

Quote from: FNH on June 02, 2007, 05:58:57 PM

Quote from: Russell Nash on June 02, 2007, 06:14:44 AM
I don't know why this mistake is so common, but it's everywhere.

I think schools care only that the meaning is got-across, rather then the "correctness" of message. At school my English lessons focused much more on reading naff books than on correct Gram'.

I stipulate that the teaching of grammar is lacking. It's this one mistake I don't understand. And it's who says it. Lots of very well educated scientists use this. Anytime one of them is interviewed on the radio they'll say it if they're allowed to explain how they did thier experiment.

oddpod · **Reply #3 on:** June 03, 2007, 10:57:22 PM

OK.
so..
some of you may have noticed (despite nice Mr Steve giving me a spell checker) that i have a few litracy problems. this may have influenced some of my views on grama , but i still feel they are relevant.

i believe that buy restricting the form language takes, you are treading a dangerous path. language not only dictates how we communicate ideas and concepts but forms the bases of many thought processes, go on, think of something.
maby you think in 100% visualisation , but odds are there where words floating round some where in you noggin.
so the controle of language ultimately leads to the controle of idears, the control of what you can and cannot think.

these dictonarial dictators lock language in one form , enshore we all toe the grammatical line and ultimately i fear Thay sign the death warent of the thing they strive so hard to preserve.

language , like all things must evolve or die.
how can truly new idear be expressed if the medium cannot be adapted to accommodate them?
just like the bacteria swarming in feted ponds of prehistory, language can only evolve with the help of mutation,
yes 99.9% of mutations are doomed , aberrations and deadends but without those 1 in a 10000 happy accidents we would all still be grunting at eachother and rigting in cuniform.

this place is a Temple to the creative use of words.
should Monet have stuck to nice sensible colours?
Jackson Pollock suck to brushes?
van Gogh stoped messing about and do it properly?

who are you grammar poleace to say what is Right and wrong?

ideas should not be dictated by the language , language should be dictated buy the ideas

(at this point insert a small mob, Molotov cocktail's and a baton charge)

Russell Nash · **Reply #4 on:** June 04, 2007, 06:54:50 AM

The misuse of the word myself isn't caused by creative influences. It isn't caused by a need to expand the language. It isn't caused by there not being a proper word to use.

People are using it because they think, "written/read by me" sounds uneducated, but they end up sounded more uneducated by saying it wrong. When they use the wrong form, the best they can hope for is that people will understand despite the mistake. It doesn't make their prose transcedent. It makes them murky.

oddpod · **Reply #5 on:** June 04, 2007, 09:00:27 AM

so speaks "the man"
murk is good, it makes the world a more intresting place

Listener · **Reply #6 on:** June 04, 2007, 04:03:01 PM

Quote from: Russell Nash on June 04, 2007, 06:54:50 AM

The misuse of the word myself isn't caused by creative influences. It isn't caused by a need to expand the language. It isn't caused by there not being a proper word to use.

People are using it because they think, "written/read by me" sounds uneducated, but they end up sounded more uneducated by saying it wrong. When they use the wrong form, the best they can hope for is that people will understand despite the mistake. It doesn't make their prose transcedent. It makes them murky.

I was just about to make that comment.

oddpod · **Reply #7 on:** June 04, 2007, 05:25:33 PM

i shall have a comfy spot agenst the wall reserved for you both

Russell Nash · **Reply #8 on:** June 04, 2007, 06:52:57 PM

Quote from: oddpod on June 04, 2007, 05:25:33 PM

i shall have a comfy spot agenst the wall reserved for you both

If you make the mistake I'm talking about, you may end up being the one getting shot. That's the problem with murk.

oddpod · **Reply #9 on:** June 04, 2007, 07:09:34 PM

then i shall die a Martyr to the coarse!

wakela · **Reply #10 on:** June 05, 2007, 04:16:10 AM

Quote

murk is good, it makes the world a more intresting place

Our world is pre-murked. We don't need to make more of it.

I think specifics also make the world an interesting place.

Listener · **Reply #11 on:** June 05, 2007, 02:14:54 PM

Here's another pet peeve that bugs the hell out of me:

People using a wrong word, being told they used a wrong word, and not believing it. My wife does this all the time. She'll use a word that is related to what she wants to say, but doesn't mean what she wants to say, and I'll give her the right word, and she'll say "yeah, that's what I meant".

"But x doesn't mean y."

"It can."

"No it can't. Look it up."

"No."

(I look it up and prove it.)

"It doesn't matter. I still say I'm right."

Sounds an awful lot like political arguing in some ways. But when used with words, it really bothers me.

oddpod · **Reply #12 on:** June 05, 2007, 04:44:34 PM

lol
tip for you my man
some thing REALY arnt worth getting stressed out about, particularly with your lady

oddpod · **Reply #13 on:** June 05, 2007, 04:51:46 PM

as a foot note to this thread
i had my english GCSE exam this morning ,its the test most kids in the uk have when thare 14/15.
so thats...............18 year late for me

and my brain hurts

Listener · **Reply #14 on:** June 05, 2007, 05:02:40 PM

Quote from: oddpod on June 05, 2007, 04:44:34 PM

lol
tip for you my man
some thing REALY arnt worth getting stressed out about, particularly with your lady

I don't get stressed. It just bothers me.

Coyote · **Reply #15 on:** June 06, 2007, 04:35:36 AM

Something I've noticed recently is the misuse of the word "Robust" to mean large, or impressive. It just means Sturdy or durable, reliable, basically.

Rachel Swirsky · **Reply #16 on:** June 06, 2007, 04:59:22 AM

adj.
1. Full of health and strength; vigorous.
2. Powerfully built; sturdy. See Synonyms at healthy.
3. Requiring or suited to physical strength or endurance: robust labor.
4. Rough or crude; boisterous: a robust tale.
5. Marked by richness and fullness; full-bodied: a robust wine.

There's not much movement from there to the connotation you describe. Sounds valid, to me.

wakela · **Reply #17 on:** June 06, 2007, 06:28:09 AM

I've wondered why we only see robust used to describe coffee or servers (the computer kind).

Listener · **Reply #18 on:** June 06, 2007, 02:43:08 PM

Quote from: Coyote on June 06, 2007, 04:35:36 AM

Something I've noticed recently is the misuse of the word "Robust" to mean large, or impressive. It just means Sturdy or durable, reliable, basically.

I'm a web designer. I hear it a lot to mean "does a lot of stuff", and I've even begun using it that way, much to my dismay.

Rachel Swirsky · **Reply #19 on:** June 06, 2007, 04:25:20 PM

If you take the phrase 'powerfully built' literally, and acknowledge that its connotation has shifted in the world of technology, then it makes sense to describe a multi-functional computer product as robust.

Though, I admit, I'd laugh if I saw that in a product description. Alas, copywriters.

Russell Nash · **Reply #20 on:** June 06, 2007, 06:13:50 PM

Quote from: palimpsest on June 06, 2007, 04:25:20 PM

If you take the phrase 'powerfully built' literally, and acknowledge that its connotation has shifted in the world of technology, then it makes sense to describe a multi-functional computer product as robust.

Though, I admit, I'd laugh if I saw that in a product description. Alas, copywriters.

I always thought a robust server or operating system meant stable, not likely to crash. So to me robust went with the Timex definition: Takes a licking and keeps on ticking.

wakela · **Reply #21 on:** June 07, 2007, 01:41:39 AM

Funny. I was a web designer about 8 years ago, and then "robust" meant that a server or website was less likely to crash under a heavy load. It had nothing to do with the number of things it could do.

wherethewild · **Reply #22 on:** June 07, 2007, 07:28:31 AM

I always associate Robust with one of the skeletal body forms of ancient Australian Aborigines (the other one is Gracile).

Planish · **Reply #23 on:** June 20, 2007, 06:37:45 AM

You often see the word "alot", meaning "a lot", which is two separate words and always has been. There is no additional or enhanced meaning by joining them together, except as an indication to the reader that the writer can't spell. To me it's like writing up a "kick me" sign and taping it to your own back.

Anytime you see or hear the word "basically" used, mentally remove that one word and see if it changes the meaning. It rarely does. It's become a filler word, like "you know?"

"At this point in time" - Whatever happened to "now?

"Fundraise" - You can "raise funds", but "fundraise" was never a word (let alone a verb), and it gives no more additional meaning than the two separate words.

Quote from: oddpod on June 03, 2007, 10:57:22 PM

language , like all things must evolve or die.
how can truly new idear be expressed if the medium cannot be adapted to accommodate them?
just like the bacteria swarming in feted ponds of prehistory, language can only evolve with the help of mutation,
yes 99.9% of mutations are doomed , aberrations and deadends but without those 1 in a 10000 happy accidents we would all still be grunting at eachother and rigting in cuniform.

this place is a Temple to the creative use of words.
should Monet have stuck to nice sensible colours?
Jackson Pollock suck to brushes?
van Gogh stoped messing about and do it properly?

who are you grammar poleace to say what is Right and wrong?

ideas should not be dictated by the language , language should be dictated buy the ideas

(at this point insert a small mob, Molotov cocktail's and a baton charge)

Who are the Math Police to say that 2+2=4 ?

When, say, Jackson Pollock abandoned brushes, he created something new that he could not make if he was forced to stick to using brushes. Typically, grammar and spelling is abused without adding anything new to the language.

(About the math: "2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2")

wakela · **Reply #24 on:** June 22, 2007, 01:12:50 AM

Quote

You often see the word "alot", meaning "a lot", which is two separate words and always has been. There is no additional or enhanced meaning by joining them together, except as an indication to the reader that the writer can't spell. To me it's like writing up a "kick me" sign and taping it to your own back.

Someone on Fark said "Why do people write "alot?" They don't write "alittle."