Re: OT: Verbal Pet Peeves


Tim Daneliuk wrote:
cavello@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

JW wrote:


It came to pass that on 22 Feb 2006, mythdocSPAMSUCKS@xxxxxxxxxxx scribed
thusly to all in alt.smokers.pipes the following inspiration:



As a schoolteacher, I get paid to correct bad English. Sometimes I don't
know when to turn off the teacher brain. Here is a word usage that
occurs commonly on ASP and elsewhere that is a thorn in my side:

When did the word "gift" become a verb, as in "to gift someone a pipe or
some tobacco?" Does the verb "give" not cover this meaning? What is
the difference, then, between "to give" and "to gift?"

I don't bring this up to be a butthole (though no doubt I am coming
across as one) but to ask others what their verbal pet peeves are. What
words or expressions make you cringe whenever you hear them?

Discuss...


"Loan" has somehow become a verb as well, and has been known to make some
prescriptive linguists cringe. Doesn't really bother me too much, but it
is in the same vein.


This (sadly) is now accepted as correct.


I would contend that you're wrong in the sense that it isn't so much
accepted as correct as the idea of there being a correct language n the
first place is increasingly regarded as ludicruous. Those who insist on
"correct" English usage are a little like the Quakers who use horses
but not cars. They've drawn a completely arbitrary boundary.



Well .... yes and no. Certainly all languages actually in use (as
opposed to dead languages) are dynamic - they undergo evolution over
time. But this does not inherently undermine the idea of "correct"
usage. Language is intended to convey ideas. Absent some general
consensus of "standard" use, we have no way to communicate with one
another at all.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the consenses you speak of
doesn't have to be very big for a word to become common currency. There
are so many subcultures of the English language, and we hop from one to
the other all day. For example, I'm a teacher. I've never uttered a
single "bad word" in the course of my work, but as soon as I get back
to the staffroom, the air is blue. It's as if I'm speaking two
different overlapping languages.

We use different Englishes to communicate with different people. So
there are many different consensuses, some lasting centuries, some
lasting a matter of minutes.

Moreover, it is one thing to introduce a new word into
the vocabulary, and quite another to redefine the meaning of an existing
word.

It's not that big a deal. Context is the key.

In short, if there is no "correct" use of language, we should
abandon any pretense of teaching grammar, spelling, semantics, and
semiotics ... oh, wait, we already have - just listen to the "lyrics" on
MTV for an hour...

Well, seeing as they don't play too many songs on MTV anymore, it's
hard to. It's after occuring to me that if an alien came down from
space and just watched MTV, he'd probably think that the word "music"
had something to do with Ashton Kutcher playing pranks on b-list
celebrities and NFL stars showing you their collection of marbled
bathrooms.

I think what you're harking back to was a time when society wasn't so
fractured. People these days can live right next door to each other and
have next to nothing in common. There's no reason why everything one
says should be comprehensible to the other. However, most people (MTV
types aside) still retain a lot of overlap with almost everyone else in
terms of the English they use. Until you start encountering widespread
communication problems in English, I wouldn't worry. New words seem to
travel pretty fast.

By the way, I never listed my own pet peeve. I'd say it'd have to be
"Sinatra slang". E.g. that gal with that bum is some broad, wish I had
the smarts to be next to her etc. I hate watching films that go out of
their way to use that kind of talk, especially ones with frank Sinatra
in them. But I do still love "Tony Rome".



> Increasingly people see language simply as a means of communication -
> if the message gets across, then the language has been useful. What's
> the point in using the "correct" way if it's unneccessary and possibly
> even a barrier to communication?


This paragraph of yours only has meaning (i.e., "Communicates ideas")
because you are using a fairly *standard* form of English sentence
structure.

Well, I'd retort by asking you to imagine if it *wasn't standard
English, but rather English that, say, only people on usenet used.
You'd still understand me. I'd still have gotten the message across.

But if we say that all we want to do is "communicate" and
there is no common understanding of spelling, grammar, semantics, and
semiotics, don't we end up actually undermining the very meaning that
makes "communication" possible?

Again, how "common" does the understanding have to be? It depends on
how many people are communicating. If I were President Bush delivering
a State of the Union address, the language I'd use would necessarily
have to be a little more universal. But only because the audience is
bigger. My point is that the audience for most people usually isn't all
that big. So why worry?

(N.B. This is quite different than
the odd spelling error or typo which does not materially change the
meaning or intent of a sentence.)

Either does using a different word with the same meaning or intent. By
definition.


Orwell among many (Heinlein, Rand, Bradbury ...) noted famously that the
pollution of language is a precursor to cultural degeneration and,
ultimately, oppression.

Well were they right? Did it happen in Nazi germany? Did it happen in
Iran in the late 1970s? I mean, that's what I presume you mean by
"oppression", i.e. actual oppression of human beings. Cos if you're
talking about 21st century America or Europe, we are far from
oppressed. It's the sheer chaotic freedom we enjoy that has let to the
verydiversification of English that I'm talking about.

A politician does not "lie" they "mispeak".

No, *they* think they "mispeak". The voters still see a liar.

Someone who regularly contracts sexually transmitted diseases is not
"promiscuous" they are "sexually free", or more likely, "a victim".

Again, how many people actually believe bull*** like that?

The
perversion of language is at the heart of Political Correctness, a net
loss of meaning, and a general *decline* in the quality of
communication.

Except I don't think for one moment that it's been a success. I think
from the very first, people saw it for the bull*** it was. Yes yes,
people use certain words in a professional context that they're more or
less legally obliged to use, but it's all jargon to them. Vertically
challenged people are still fucking small. All is still well with the
world.

No, there may not be an absolute standard for language
use, but there has to be some large consensus on the matter or
civilization is doomed to degenerate into decline (cf aforementioned MTV
lyrics).

There only has to be a large consensus where a large amount of people
need to sing of the same hymn ***. But where smaller subgroups are
involved, the need for a consensus is, well, smaller. Thanks to our
affluent, free societies, there are a lot of smaller subgroups. Hence
the change.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

.

Loading