GalacticCactus Forum
Forums => English & Linguistics => Topic started by: Ela on February 13, 2012, 09:48:38 AM
-
It drives me up the wall when I read an article - especially one in a publication that has presumably been edited, and I see stuff like this, from an article on infection control and handwashing:
After pouring over infection control materials...
It's "poring" not "pouring"!
Another one that drives me crazy - and that I have to power to edit but haven't gotten around to yet - is this, in an article on using internet sources and critical reading:
Does it "pass the mustard" when it's read critically?
I'm pretty sure they meant either "pass muster" or "cut the mustard." I personally prefer the former.
Along those lines, this (http://www.yelp.com/topic/new-york-pass-the-mustard) was amusing.
-
I don't have many phrases that I get wrong, but cut the mustard and pass muster are two I sometimes (edit) incorrectly combine.
-
All I can say is "pass the mustard" gives me the hankering for a good hotdog. :p
-
I don't have many phrases that I get wrong, but cut the mustard and pass muster are two I sometimes juxtapose.
You, uh, might have just misused "juxtapose."
-
Partially juxtapose. Is that better?
edit: Oh whatever, I don't even care anymore. Post edited.
-
Sorry, Taylor. It just struck me as a funny sort of corollary to Muphry's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law).
-
My hair remains ruffled, so I'm getting out of the kitchen, since I'm getting cold shoulders.
-
???
-
What just happened here?
-
I don't know.
-
/me
-
/me feels even more confused.
-
/me feels even more confused.
Perhaps a picture would be worth a thousand explanations. Let me see if I can find one, it is after all like finding a needle in a needle factory. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a penny for your thoughtfulness is like water for one travailing.
I'm intentionally misusing phrases.
-
:D
-
Ow. My head. >_<
-
I like to call it Davidson's law, but I guess explaining why I call it Davidson's law to non jatraqueros has led to some unfortunate incidents. Like the time I tried describing him to my sister as "like mom, but evil."
-
???
-
I didn't get it, either, Brinestone.
-
You know how "matrix" means mother? It's a bit like that. I used to think I was an ENFP because my mother is an ENFP. But really I'm an INTJ.
-
You know how "matrix" means mother?
No, I didn't know that.
It's a bit like that. I used to think I was an ENFP because my mother is an ENFP. But really I'm an INTJ.
I'm not sure what that means.
-
It's a myers briggs personality typology. I don't know that the personality type is so important, like I don't know what Tom's type is. They just both are kind of larger than life and I find it difficult for either of them to let me agree to disagree with stuff.
-
"Matrix" means womb, actually.
-
"Matrix" means womb, actually.
It's used that way in the Bible.
-
"Matrix" means womb, actually.
It is derived from the Latin word for "mother," though.
-
Really? For some reason I thought matrix was Greek.
-
Nope. It comes from the Latin mater with the -trix suffix of feminine agent nouns (so "xtrix" means someone who does x). It looks like mater originally just meant "mother" but came to be used in postclassical Latin to mean "womb" in translations from Greek. Greek had the related words meter for "mother" and metra for "womb."
The word metropolis comes from the Greek for "mother city," meaning a city that had established colonies.
-
It still means womb in French.
-
Was the movie of that name released in France? If so, what did they call it?!?
-
And what do they call matrices in French linear algebra?
-
Matrix means lots of things in English; I wouldn't be surprised if it also meant lots of things in French. In fact, I'd kind of expect it.
-
Quelle surprise! Wiktionary (http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/matrice) records ten different meanings for the French matrice, most of which correspond pretty directly to the English meanings.
-
Matrix means lots of things in English; I wouldn't be surprised if it also meant lots of things in French. In fact, I'd kind of expect it.
Ok, but if they used the same title, I'd expect all sorts of vulgar jokes.
Maybe they had 'em. Think what we missed. ;)
-
Apparently in France the movie was released retaining the English spelling.
(The French spelling is matrice)
-
The question is whether they giggled incessantly at the titles of Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions.
-
Neil DeGrasse Tyson just "misused" comprise (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D05ej8u-gU). I'm counting it as a sign we can all move on to the new usage ;)
-
:angry: :p
-
I'm just going to step in it. What's wrong with the phrase, "The atoms that comprise life on earth?"
-
The "correct" usage is the opposite -- life is comprised of the atoms. Life does the comprising, not the atoms.
-
He should have used "compose" instead.
-
The "correct" usage is the opposite -- life is comprised of the atoms. Life does the comprising, not the atoms.
Wrong again! Life comprises the atoms. Or the atoms compose life. Or life is composed of the atoms, or the atoms are comprised in life. But never "comprised of" according to the rule.
You can see why it confuses people.
-
The "correct" usage is the opposite -- life is comprised of the atoms. Life does the comprising, not the atoms.
Actually, you used it "wrong" too, which all the more evidence that since nobody uses it "right," the usage has, indeed, moved on.
It should have been, "life comprises the atoms." "Is comprised of" is always wrong.
-
ahem
*looks up* :innocent:
-
"Is comprised of" is always wrong.
I'm OK with being wrong on this one.
-
"Is comprised of" is always wrong.
I'm OK with being wrong on this one.
Yeah, me too. I forgot the scare quotes on "wrong," but that was essentially the point I was trying to make.
-
I thought you said "comprised of" still bugs you.
-
I'm curious as to why specifically Neil DeGrasse Tyson's "misuse" counts as a sign we can all move on to the new usage. Because he's famous? Because he's famous for being smart? Famous, smart, and well-spoken? Or because it's physicists that we should look to for linguistic advice? ;)
-
I thought you said "comprised of" still bugs you.
Maybe I did, but I'm overcoming it. How's that?
-
Or because it's physicists that we should look to for linguistic advice? ;)
THE HORROR! :angst:
-
I'm curious as to why specifically Neil DeGrasse Tyson's "misuse" counts as a sign we can all move on to the new usage. Because he's famous? Because he's famous for being smart? Famous, smart, and well-spoken? Or because it's physicists that we should look to for linguistic advice? ;)
I think that was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but you could make the argument that because educated speakers set the bar for standard usage, anything that's common enough among educated users should be accepted.
-
I'm curious as to why specifically Neil DeGrasse Tyson's "misuse" counts as a sign we can all move on to the new usage. Because he's famous? Because he's famous for being smart? Famous, smart, and well-spoken? Or because it's physicists that we should look to for linguistic advice? ;)
I think that was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but you could make the argument that because educated speakers set the bar for standard usage, anything that's common enough among educated users should be accepted.
^ this.
Mostly the tongue in cheek part.
-
The winkie was a dead giveaway bout the cheeky tonnguiness. Hence my own winkie.
-
I was going to say something about the Guns, Germs and Steel guy's usage of decimate. But I couldn't remember his name. Neil Diamond isn't it.
-
Jared Diamond.
-
I don't think anybody uses decimate to mean what it originally meant. Now it basically means destroyed to a large extent.
-
It was used in the latinate sense on Doctor Who, in Sound of Drums, which was kind of a pretty good episode, if it hadn't been so inextricable from Last of thr Time Lords.
-
I don't think anybody uses decimate to mean what it originally meant. Now it basically means destroyed to a large extent.
Word.
I once read a great quote about how sticking to the original meaning would simply ensure that almost nobody ever used it.
-
Found it. (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/07/01/when_in_rome/)
-
You'll note I didn't call it the proper usage, just the latinate usage. But I think the misappropriation of decimate came from the idiotic rules of not using the same word repeatedly and avoiding adverbs. It's not like we don't have enough words that mean destroy. I look on the use of decimate as equivalent to the use of temblor.
I'd argue that the centuries old wider use is different from how it is used today, which is not only to destroy, but to destroy with recklessness or cruelty. The reckless and cruel sense comes from the Roman Legion meaning.
From the Globe column:
That doesn't mean anything goes, decimation-wise. Since the word implies partial destruction, most usage mavens don't like it as a synonym for "wipe out"; decimation is not devastation. Many, including Fowler, think it sounds odd when applied to single entities: A career or a car might be damaged, but not decimated
-
I'm pretty sure the world now needs some Neil Diamond/Jared Diamond mashups.
"Sweet New Guinean Caroline"
"America (North/South Axis)"
"Girl, You'll Be A Woman in a Collapsed Society Soon"
-
"Her heart rate and respiration are off the charts!"
Really? You need some better charts then.
-
:D
-
:D
-
Okay I just read, an article on "insights in our philosophy."
It's "insights into", folks! At least, for the way it was intended in this particular phrase.
-
That's just weird. Apparently some people use "insight(s) in", but it's overwhelmingly "into" (http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=insight+into%2Cinsights+into%2Cinsight+in%2Cinsights+in&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3).
-
Yeah, that's what I found when I looked around. There were a few isolated cases where "insights in" seemed to make sense, but in most cases it sounds awkward.
-
A new leash on life
I should have been taking these down, I'm sure I've seen several watching Biggest loser. Most were just bad negatives.
-
*cringe*
-
My son shared this with me:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/999434_10151630076991275_1509703904_n.jpg)
So wait . . . it's "You've got another think coming", not "You've got another thing coming"? Apparently, I've been saying it wrong all my life. "Another think"? How does that even make sense?
-
I've been saying "You've got another thing coming" my entire life as well. I'm scared now.
-
The fighters at Google (http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22another+think+coming%22&word2=%22another+thing+coming%22) are with us.
-
"You've got another think coming!" means you've been thinking incorrectly and you're going to realize it soon. Like, "If you think I'd let you walk all over me like that, you've got another think coming, mister!"
One they didn't list was "I'm a little weary of . . . "
-
I think "another thing coming" is so common now that it has displaced the original. Some of the others on that list might be headed that way.
But in Utah, it's still "your guys's". "What's your opinion, guys?" sounds kind of dumb.
-
I think "another thing coming" is so common now that it has displaced the original.
uuuuurrrrrgggggggggggggggggggg!
*goes off to a quiet corner*
-
Wait! It's not "hone in?"
-
Nope! Hone means 'sharpen'. Home in this sense means to seek or go after an objective, which is an extension of the original sense of returning home.
-
My reaction to at least half of them was a horrified "people SAY that?!" This just keeps getting more depressing.
-
I want to know how they know when someone is saying phase/faze wrong.
Several of them made me roll my eyes. But who actually says "old timer's disease"? I thought that was a joke. But I knew someone who said "mine as well" for "might as well", so I really don't know.
-
I disagree with #9. Doing good and doing well are both correct, and mean different things.
Have you done any good in the world today?
Have you done anything well today?
-
I disagree with #9. Doing good and doing well are both correct, and mean different things.
Have you done any good in the world today?
Have you done anything well today?
But you are saying "any good" not, "Have you done good?" Likewise for "well" you are asking if they have done a specific task well. You wouldn't say, "Have you done any well?"
-
But that's not what #9 says. The words "any" and "anything" were added in the later examples by me to show what the different meanings are.
#9 says that "He did good" is wrong, and that it should be "He did well".
I'm saying that they're both valid, but mean different things.
"He did well" is the opposite of "He did poorly".
"He did good" is the opposite of "He did evil".
-
Yes, the list is missing possible contexts in which some things might be grammatical or at least acceptable. (I can't say "sorta" in casual speech?) But I think it's clear that the list means "good" as an adverb (opposite of "poorly"), not an absolute adjective.
-
But who actually says "old timer's disease"?
Sadly, I have heard this as a genuine misunderstanding of what it's called.
-
I think "another thing coming" is so common now that it has displaced the original.
That must be regional. I'm fairly certain I've never heard it said that way.
-
I highly doubt it's regional. The wrong form is almost indistinguishable phonetically from the original, and it's widespread enough that it's obviously not limited to a particular region.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc6cfJztR8A
-
I think "another thing coming" is so common now that it has displaced the original.
That must be regional. I'm fairly certain I've never heard it said that way.
I'm fairly certain that I've only heard it said that way.
-
There could be a lot of perception bias both ways. The difference between [θɪŋ kʌmɪŋ] and [θɪŋk̚ kʌmɪŋ] is pretty slim, and if you're expecting to hear it a certain way, you probably will.
-
:nod:
-
"Least we all forget" (Blog posted for 9/11)
I'm a terrible terrible person.
-
But who actually says "old timer's disease"?
Sadly, I have heard this as a genuine misunderstanding of what it's called.
Late to this party, but I have only ever heard "old timer's disease" as a joke.
The only one that surprised me was "another think coming." I have never heard it said that way at all. I can't even understand why someone would say "you've got another think coming."
Oh, and this was hilarious:
The fighters at Google (http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22another+think+coming%22&word2=%22another+thing+coming%22) are with us.
-
"Another think coming" was originally supposed to be humorous, I think. "If you think x, you've got another think coming" = "If you think x, you need to think again."
-
Gotcha.
-
Uh. huh. Sure. (http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/why-do-so-many-people-say-like-and-totally-all-the-time/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0)
-
I take it you don't buy his argument?
-
Nope.
-
Why not?
-
It's linguistic laziness, not linguistic politeness. It's a filler word.
-
I don't understand how inserting an extra word is lazy. That sounds like more work to me.
I think that, as a general rule, people don't insert extra words that don't have any kind of meaning. If people are using it, it's for some kind of reason. And one of the reasons for using "like" seems to be to hedge or soften a statement.
That doesn't mean you have to like it, of course.
-
It's often not an extra word. It's substituted for several other words.
When it is an extra word, it's a filler sound, like "um".
Edit: To be clear, I mean "like". I have no opinion on his theory as regards "totally".
-
But even "um" is not lazy. It's a signal to whoever you're speaking to that you're pausing to think of a response.
-
But even "um" is not lazy. It's a signal to whoever you're speaking to that you're pausing to think of a response.
Which I think is a lazy way of talking because the alternative is to speak slower and more calculatingly. It actually takes effort to slow down a conversation and form full sentences than it does to just say whatever comes to mind and use "um" and "like" and "totally" as filler words to buy you time to continue with your narrative.
-
But even "um" is not lazy. It's a signal to whoever you're speaking to that you're pausing to think of a response.
Which I think is a lazy way of talking because the alternative is to speak slower and more calculatingly. It actually takes effort to slow down a conversation and form full sentences than it does to just say whatever comes to mind and use "um" and "like" and "totally" as filler words to buy you time to continue with your narrative.
Yes, exactly.
-
No, using um IS slowing down and taking the time to form full sentences. Or at least it can be and often is.
-
No, using um IS slowing down and taking the time to form full sentences. Or at least it can be and often is.
Maybe I'm creating a false dichotomy.
The act of just unleashing your words without planning them first is not a lazy way to talk in the sense that it takes the least quantity of effort. Obviously that requires more work because you are trying to keep up with high velocity communication. When you've set a pace that's too fast for yourself you use filler words. You can't possibly keep up, so you need to stall for time without permitting a pause.
Some people genuinely are worried a pause will lead to the other person jumping in. But I think most people are terrified of silence because we aren't used to it. It's not how we are trained to speak.
When you take presentation classes however this way of speaking is completely inappropriate. Filler words are lazy in the sense that it's what people are used to so they try to fall back on it. The amount of effort to force yourself to control your pace of speech and construct good sentences and refrain from using a filler word is I think in the balance harder to do, at least until it becomes a habit, then of course it takes less effort.
edit: So I guess I see filler words not as a means to form full sentences, but rather to let your mind move further ahead while your mouth stalls for time. What you should be doing is form a full sentence first, and then as you talk speak as fast (or as slow) as you need to let your mind stay on top of things. Sprint to the edge of your prepared notes and your brain stops preparing and just says things as they come, and the result is lazy speech in that it's thoughtless.
-
Or at least it can be and often is.
Perhaps. IME, with teenagers using "like" as filler and substitute, it's almost always laziness. And the article I linked (as opposed to the one he linked to) is targeting teenagers.
-
Mr. McWhorter perfectly described how I use like and totally. I'm not sure how teenagers use them, but I was a teenager when the like craze started, so I remember adults criticizing the usage. I remember trying to stop, but not really wanting to because like served a purpose, and eliminating it left my sentences meaning something different than I intended.
-
Perhaps. IME, with teenagers using "like" as filler and substitute, it's almost always laziness.
You know that this is something that professional academics have studied, right? McWhorter isn't just pulling this out of his butt.
The act of just unleashing your words without planning them first is not a lazy way to talk in the sense that it takes the least quantity of effort. Obviously that requires more work because you are trying to keep up with high velocity communication. When you've set a pace that's too fast for yourself you use filler words. You can't possibly keep up, so you need to stall for time without permitting a pause.
Some people genuinely are worried a pause will lead to the other person jumping in. But I think most people are terrified of silence because we aren't used to it. It's not how we are trained to speak.
When you take presentation classes however this way of speaking is completely inappropriate. Filler words are lazy in the sense that it's what people are used to so they try to fall back on it. The amount of effort to force yourself to control your pace of speech and construct good sentences and refrain from using a filler word is I think in the balance harder to do, at least until it becomes a habit, then of course it takes less effort.
edit: So I guess I see filler words not as a means to form full sentences, but rather to let your mind move further ahead while your mouth stalls for time. What you should be doing is form a full sentence first, and then as you talk speak as fast (or as slow) as you need to let your mind stay on top of things. Sprint to the edge of your prepared notes and your brain stops preparing and just says things as they come, and the result is lazy speech in that it's thoughtless.
I don't think so-called filler words really have that much to do with being terrified of silence of being worried about someone else jumping in. It's usually just a way to signal that you're going to respond but don't have a response yet, because it can be weird or even rude to just sit there silently when someone is expecting a response.
Sure, it takes effort to train yourself not to use those words and to compose well-thought-out replies on the fly, but that doesn't make the alternative lazy. And yes, it's inappropriate to speak that way in certain settings, but that's a social construct, just as it's a social construct to hate whatever it is kids now days are doing.
-
I don't hate it because kids nowadays are doing it. I've caught myself doing it, but I feel it's really no different than going, "um..." which nobody says enhances your speech or is valid in copious amounts.
-
Someone I know, a professor, never uses fillers like "um" or "like". His sentences are always carefully planned, his words carefully chosen, even in the most casual of conversations. He speaks very slowly and deliberately, and, to my ear, it is stilted and irritating. Not all speech is better because it is proper and formal.
-
You know that this is something that professional academics have studied, right? McWhorter isn't just pulling this out of his butt.
Yes. That doesn't necessarily make it so.
-
What would necessarily make it so, out of curiosity?
-
You know, when the two of you tag team me, it makes me regret having replied to the previous comment. It does not actually make me any more likely to continue the discussion.
-
I know this is going to sound rude, but I haven't gotten the feeling that you're interested in discussion on this.
-
Fair enough.
-
Fair enough.
Like totally? ;)
-
It is me or is posting a "lactation consultant job position" redundundant?
What's the difference between a "job" and a "position"? And why would you use both words in one phrase?
I would say either "lactation consultant job" or "lactation consultant position."
-
Yeah, that sounds redundant to me too.
Also, I don't know if "redundundant" was an accident or not, but it seems apt. ;)
-
Redundunant was meant to be a joke. :p
-
Well, it made me laugh.
-
Yay. ;D
-
I used "like" and "totally" because they were presented in the media as making you cool, back in the mid 80's. I don't know if it was a conscious choice, though. I think I just mimicked people I wanted to be like.
-
Have you ever heard of the department of redundancy department? I've heard it's the most stupidest office that I've heard of!
-
Gah!
We are 100 percent reliable on our people to create a memorable experience. (http://www.qsrmagazine.com/exclusives/burgers-design)
-
If they'd said "memorant" there would have at least been some kind of symmetry to it.
-
Gah!
We are 100 percent reliable on our people to create a memorable experience. (http://www.qsrmagazine.com/exclusives/burgers-design)
WHY?!?! :cry:
-
Why indeed!
-
In an online discussion on breastfeeding, people started talking about "discreet" nursing. At some point one person misspelled it as "discrete" and others picked up on that. I was dying to point out the error (and difference in meanings), but it seemed kind of rude to do so, so I refrained. Everyone knew what we were talking about - discreet not discrete. But it was really bugging me every time I saw "discrete" instead of "discreet."
Further down the thread, it appears that someone else didn't think it inappropriate to correct the error. But I expect some will blip over her comment and still make it.
-
That's one of those distinctions that I know exists but can't make stick in my head - I have to look up which is which every time I want to use it. I think it might be because "discrete" is such an abstract concept? It's hard to make an easy example of the concept stick in my head. And it's used rarely enough that I imagine a good number of people might not ever encounter it. All the contexts that I can think of seeing it in are scientific or mathematical.
-
Discreet nursing means covering up.
Discrete nursing would be nursing in 5 minute sessions, with 2 minute gaps between each session. ;)
The word discrete may primarily be used by scientists and mathematicians, but it could be a useful word in many other contexts. Except for the fact that most people who are not scientists or mathematicians will think you mean discreet.
-
Annie: Would it make you feel better to know that discreet and discrete are really the same word? link (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=discreet&allowed_in_frame=0)
They originated as spelling variants, and eventually one variant became attached to one meaning while the other became attached to the other. (See also mantle/mantel, complimentary/complementary, palette/pallet, borne/born, passed/past, to/too, and than/then. Here's a Grammar Girl post (http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/homophones) I wrote about it.)
-
Interesting!
-
That is interesting!
Yeah, I know both meanings, but I guess I just haven't used them in writing enough to ever remember which spelling goes with which meaning. I feel like it's a distinction that might be on the road to extinction. It's a distinction . . . headed for extinction. This calls for a linguistic rap battle, I think.
-
My mnemonic is that in the one that means "separate", the e's are separated.
-
Good one!
-
My mnemonic is that in the one that means "separate", the e's are separated.
I was taught more or less the same. Except since I was taught the mnemonic I know by a mathematician, it's "the e's in discrete are discrete". ;)
-
The e's in discreet aren't just hanging out there on the end of a word.
-
Was that to me? If so, I don't understand the objection.
-
I'm just proposing a different mnemonic, not directed at anyone in particular. :)
-
Ah!
-
And now someone is using "died in the wool."
Oh the images that brings to mind! :p
-
This seems the best place to discuss a word that supposedly means something I didn't know it meant until this, my 54th year. (I don't mean dildo, people got on my case about that, which I was using to mean "doofus" in high school).
The strict or archaic meaning of flavor was smell, taste, and other qualities combined, and meant smell/scent more than taste, as well as character (such as of a neighborhood).
I'm reading about this in Bill Bryson's "The Body: a guide for occupants" which I generally enjoy due to his frequent tracking down of myths to old but unfounded publications, i.e. that tongues have zones for different taste receptors.
These two ideas together make me wonder, if one is saying that taste can only be sweet, salty, bitter, sour and umami, if umami really is a taste in this sense (of the word)*, or if this is like how all colors are made from red, green, blue and then light or its absence. I shall read on and maybe find out. The wikipedia page on taste receptors indicates that sweet and bitter are the foundational receptors in mammals.
Definitely a tomato [fruit] and tomato [vegetable] distinction.
*eta
-
When most people describe tastes, they are definitely talking about something more elaborate than sweet/salty/bitter/sour/(umami). So if we are going by usage . . . .
-
Now this guy is saying Diphtheria starts with dif and not dip sounds. Though he also said Alabama borders Arkansas, which is not quite true, and if it were, there's a mile wide river between. (This is the chapter on infectious disease).
"Give him a hand! He's British!"