Author
|
Topic: The thread on word usage that grates like blackboard fingernails...
|
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807
|
posted 22 May 2008 07:07 PM
...or is that "greats"?Over on EnMasse I noted a hockey writer who, in Gallivanian fashion, makes a habit of butchering the English language: quote: This isn't really about the Leafs, but one scribe (that's a sports cliché, folks) who writes on the Leafs keeps getting away with penalties against his language, and should be suspended or something. Fer example: Quote: "When Martin Brodeur's NHL career is done and there's a little corner of the Hockey Hall of Fame set up in his honour, it's doubtful many of the 2007-08 Maple Leafs will saunter over to Yonge and Front to pay it heed." Whaddya mean, "heed?" They should go over to the corner and pay attention to it? That's not the right word. Do you mean "homage" perhaps? Here's another: Quote: "It's all over expect the crying" Good gravy. Is this guy a dependant of Richard Sheridan?
I see Terry Koshan is up to his usual standards, as I came across this today:
quote: Kris Newbury has been the Marlies' best forward as a whole through the post-season, though he will have to reign in his emotions if he hopes to one day stick full-time in the NHL.
Are all the good editors taken? [ 23 May 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807
|
posted 23 May 2008 07:03 AM
Sorry, Cueb, but I changed the thread title from "writing" to "word usage," to accomodate more sports media. Someone worse than Terry Koshan is TSN's Pierre McGuire. After listening to him for a game, one feels the need to take English off the rack/waterboard and nurse it back to health. Earlier in this year's Stanley Cup playoffs I heard him repeatedly say that shooters had to "elevate" the puck past the goalies. We used to say "raise" when I was kid. His best comment this spring was his criticism of a coach, who McGuire said had to "activate his game in terms of his thought process," which I believe means "think." [ 01 June 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807
|
posted 28 May 2008 07:31 AM
Polly-Anna Spumonti just finished talking about regulating "natural" medications with Tony Clement on The Current this morning.I can't believe this guy could convince people to vote for him, given how he mangles language. I heard him use the phrase, "heart and stroke disease" (who has ever suffered from "stroke disease"?) as well as saying that he's concerned about regulating medications because at some point in the future he will be "a consumer of health." [ 28 May 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807
|
posted 29 May 2008 09:26 PM
quote: Isn't this thread kind of... dare I utter the word... normative?
Nah; it's formative, bordering on stormative. quote: Would the world split open if we were to acknowledge and propagate more freedom and levity in word usage?
No; but why don't you give it a shot anyway? quote: It seems to me that fingers are being wagged at outsiders in the world of linguistic correctness: Francophones, sportscasters, less-than-competent politicians...
Francophones? You'll notice that the speaker in every example I mentioned is someone presumed to have some expertise in his field, as well as being a professional communicator. Cabinet ministers, paid writers and broadcasters really shouldn't be considered "outsiders" when we think of their linguistic performance.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807
|
posted 27 June 2008 07:41 AM
While it's not as bad as fingernails across a blackboard, I find the use of "disinterested," which means one has no stake in the issue, instead of "uninterested," which means one doesn't care, to be mildly irritating.The headline on yesterday's Saskatoon Star Phoenix proudly hollered, "There's More of Us." Yep, and we's feelin' mighty crowded in these here parts now. I wouldn't wrap fish with that "newspaper." Doing so would be an insult to the memory of the poor departed fish. [ 27 June 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921
|
posted 27 June 2008 09:06 AM
quote: Originally posted by martin dufresne: Rosa L: How so? Do you feel that to point out and resist norm-setting (if you agree that this is what I was doing) is being normative? If so, is every statement, in your eyes?
Yes to the first. No to the second (e.g., "I like apples"). ETA: It's not a question of having norms or not having them. It's a question of what norms you have. [ 27 June 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 27 August 2008 05:08 PM
quote: Originally posted by martin dufresne: In fact, csuch lapses can be revealing, creative, subversive... not to mention highly funny in the right lips.
I think you should rain in your parade before it marches too far. ETA: I'm a union thug, and I carry that label with pride! [ 27 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 27 August 2008 06:18 PM
quote: Originally posted by unionist:
Doesn't it amount to the same thing, for all intensive purposes?
Argh!! That's one of mine!!! Intents And! Intents And!! unionist I curse you! May all your picket lines be rained and hailed on and may all your bagels be from Toronto! Round bread for you!! That'll learn ya!
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 27 August 2008 06:35 PM
quote: Originally posted by bigcitygal:
May all your picket lines be rained and hailed on and may all your bagels be from Toronto! Round bread for you!! That'll learn ya!
You really know how to dump on all that is most precious! Well, buy hooker, buy crook, I'll Juan up you yet! ETA: In all seriousness, though, I meant to respond: I could care less![ 27 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807
|
posted 28 August 2008 08:31 PM
quote: Originally posted by It's Me D:
I like it. There are a number of ways this actually could make sense as written though I'm quite confident that none of them was the student's intent.
I dug around and found exactly what the student wrote: "Civil engineers are also responsible for the products in which we take for granite everyday." He's probably out there designing bridges or water treatment plants as we speak. Actually, he was a nice guy, and this quote was one of the best bits in a stack of reports I had to mark that year. Two of his classmates copied their reports off the internet, which led to a whole lotta meetings with students, deans, disciplinary boards, etc., etc. I wrote about this episode on babble back in 2002. [ 28 August 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
It's Me D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15152
|
posted 29 August 2008 04:54 AM
quote: "Civil engineers are also responsible for the products in which we take for granite everyday."
Well the scenarios I was thinking were along the lines of, 1) A homeowner is purchasing a load of stone to construct a rock garden and is busily filling the back of his pickup when the owner of the establishment says to the fellow, "You're taking way to much for granite." The implication being that if the homeowner intends to use granite in some capacity in his project, he doesn't need so much as he is intent on loading into his truck. 2) Same scenario, only after loading the materials the customer is being charged by an employee who quotes a price that appears to high, the customer might reply, "You're taking way to much for granite." The implication being that the employee has quoted an incorrect and overly high price for granite. Etc... I enjoyed that anyway. Anyway I cannot make up a scenario to excuse the phrase "the products in which we take for granite everyday."
From: Parrsboro, NS | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791
|
posted 29 August 2008 02:22 PM
Worst earworm for me had to be Who let the dogs out (woof, woof, woof, woof) Who let the dogs out (woof, woof, woof, woof) although "YMCA" is a close second.
ETA: oops - worst earworm of all time was the Beach Boys Barbara Ann - Ba ba ba ba barbara ann Ba ba ba ba barbara ann [ 29 August 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807
|
posted 06 September 2008 09:57 AM
Another hockey guy...Earlier this week on Leafs Lunch, Ed Olczyk said "The line they are toeing [or did he say 'towing']..." referring to the story put out by Leafs' management on an issue. George Orwell has something to say about this quote: Dying metaphors. A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically "dead" (e.g. iron resolution) has in effect reverted to being an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves. Examples are: Ring the changes on, take up the cudgel for, toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day, Achilles' heel, swan song, hotbed. Many of these are used without knowledge of their meaning (what is a "rift," for instance?), and incompatible metaphors are frequently mixed, a sure sign that the writer is not interested in what he is saying. Some metaphors now current have been twisted out of their original meaning withouth those who use them even being aware of the fact. For example, toe the line is sometimes written as tow the line.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Farmpunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12955
|
posted 06 September 2008 04:25 PM
A grammar\word question. Below is a post of mine and Spector corrected my word useage. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Farmpunk: Far be it for me to nitpick your sources, Spector, but that Obama\Reuters link is from 2007. Of course, he's probably still in favour of invasive action. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well of course he is. He has said so many times. I just did a Google and picked the first one of thousands that came up. And while we're nitpicking, it's "far be it from me." With a nice smilie. Doesn't "far be it for me" work gramatically the same as "from me"?
From: SW Ontario | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Farmpunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12955
|
posted 07 September 2008 04:01 AM
Hmmm, interesting. I know the standard expression is "from me" and not "for me". Normally I use "from" and not "for" and until Spector pointed out my mistake, I assumed I had used "from."Still, the word "far" in both expressions is a trope expressing metaphorical distance. And in the sense that correcting Spector's links is far *for* me, ie, it's something that's a reach, a distance, for me to comment upon. We're not talking about physical distances. So... Far be it from me to comment upon another one of your links, Spector, but that tilde in your link makes me nervous. Or... Far be it for me to comment upon another one your links, Spector, but that tilde in your link makes me nervous. Stupid grammar.
From: SW Ontario | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 07 September 2008 08:40 AM
"Be it" is a surviving example of the subjunctive mood, which is not commonly used in modern English. It is used (in this instance) to express a wish or hope. [We are much more familiar with the indicative mood, which expresses a statement of fact, e.g. "it is"; or, in inverted word order, "is it."]"Far be it from me" is not a statement of fact, but a wish: may it be far from me. "Far be it for me to comment" is an unfortunate conflation of two different sentence fragments: "far be it from me" and "for me to comment". Each is perfectly acceptable when used as such in a sentence, but when you mush them together, the "for me" must give way to "from me", if the result is to make sense. The first two words in "for me to comment" are only there to identify who is being referred to as the commenter; "It would be inappropriate for you to comment" or "It would be inappropriate for Jack to comment" would indicate agency by someone other than the writer. Those words become unnecessary when it is clear that the writer is referring to his own agency; thus, "far be it from me to comment" leaves no doubt or ambiguity as to who is being referred to as the potential commenter, even though the words "for me" are not present. In contrast, dropping the word "from" leaves the expression incomplete. We don't say something is "far" without providing, or at least implying, a point of reference. In this case, the point of reference is "me". The full meaning of the expression "far be it from me," as I said, is may it be far from me - not may it be far. In fact, the whole point of using the expression "far be it from me" is to attempt to distance oneself from the kind of statement or action that is about to be mentioned in the sentence (= "I don't usually say this kind of thing, but..."). That point is blunted when the expression is truncated to simply, "far be it".
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807
|
posted 14 September 2008 08:32 AM
Michgael Enright is interviewing someone RIGHT NOW who should be sent to Gitmo for her crimes agianst communication.This person is purportedly an expert on terrorism, hence her presence on the radio. Wellsir, upon being introduced she said, "Thanks so much," a turn of phrase that's been bugging me for the past six months or so. When did that one ooze into the language? The interview is over. Enright just said, "Thanks so much for being here." She replied, "Thanks so much for having me." Bad as that is, here's the real howler. While assessing yanquis' feelings about the progress of the War on Terror®, she claimed that because Iraq seems to be more in US control following the Surge®, yanquis feel safer now. This is in contrast to how they felt a year ago, when violence in Iraq was at a "high ebb." I'll write that agian, just so you know your eyes are OK, and that you didn't read a typo: HIGH EBB. Later on she said she wasn't happy with the term, "War on Terror." She said it was "vernacular." Is there no process whereby some producer would assess whether a potential guest is credible? How did this violator of English slip through the screening process and unleash her verbal horrors upon innocent CBC listeners?
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529
|
posted 06 November 2008 10:08 PM
Oh, I see, instead of "trying". That hits new depths for sure.No offense to any particular Babblers, but it's like to "action" something, instead of to "act on". It sounds like a convenient way to give the impression that you're acting on something when in fact you're doing nothing of the kind. Instead, you put it on your "To Do" list, which then goes into your "To Do" box, to be done when you can next address this very important issue - that is, if you don't forget it. "Oh yeah, we did action that last month, but we haven't got around to it yet".
From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|