The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Pet Peeves Options
Betsy D.
Posted: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:43:44 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/18/2009
Posts: 193
Neurons: 558
Location: Pennsylvania
valenarwen wrote:
risadr wrote:
I thought of another pet peeve, and someone please tell me that I'm not alone on this:

The use of "of" where one should say/write "have." Example:

INCORRECT: "He should of gone to the bathroom before we left."
CORRECT: "He should have gone to the bathroom before we left." OR "He should've gone to the bathroom before we left."


On a completely different note, I'm beginning to understand why my friends always called me a "Grammar Nazi" in high school. lol



I'm reading "No Country for Old Men" and the author uses the "could of" thing repeatedly. I also have an Irish friend who says it... Weird


I believe it stems from a misspelling based on the correct usage of "could've". Of course, that doesn't make it any less irritating...Sick

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." -- Mark Twain
juangaspar
Posted: Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:49:50 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 7/9/2009
Posts: 7
Neurons: 21
Location: Mexico
What bugs me is when people write using only capital letters. IT CAN MAKE IT HARD TO READ. Hate that!
Can top
Posted: Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:32:38 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/5/2009
Posts: 35
Neurons: 117
Location: Canada
tfrank wrote:
"There's" for "there're," as in "There's lots more of those."

Perhaps people make this mistake because "there's" rolls off the tongue more easily than "there're"? Too bad; "there are" is always acceptable.


It has nothing to do with how it rolls off the tongue. In speech, people use 'there plus singular verb [contracted] + plural noun' much more frequently than 'there plus plural verb + plural noun'.

We all also use it for "Here's your ____s; How's your parents?; Where's the ___s?

Quote:

I can't stand to read "which" when the word should be "that." There is a distinction (in American English) between the two for a reason.

American English has evolved much more slowly than British English, which is why the distinction between "that" and "which" is no longer observed across the pond.

It is also much more acceptable in England to use "they" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun in written English.


What would that important distinction be, tfrank? Why wouldn't this important distinction, if it's so important, be kept in BrE?

As "they" can be used as a gender neutral singular pronoun, what's the holdup for the USA?
Can top
Posted: Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:40:56 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/5/2009
Posts: 35
Neurons: 117
Location: Canada
Citiwoman wrote:
What a great forum! Pet peeves:
- split infinitives

Nothing at all grammatically wrong with them. Poorly thought out "rule". Has never been a rule that described English.

- "I could care less."

Perfectly natural English idiom.


- the word "very"

What's wrong with 'very'?


- sentences that begin with "There is," "It is," or "That is."

There is a ball on the table. It is cold. That is ice cream.

JPK
Posted: Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:50:12 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/13/2009
Posts: 644
Neurons: 1,998
Location: Canada
Can top wrote:

- "I could care less."

Perfectly natural English idiom.


- sentences that begin with "There is," "It is," or "That is."

There is a ball on the table. It is cold. That is ice cream.




Hey there people,

This is a great forum!

Regarding the post I am quoting, I would have to say that:

1) The correct idiom would be "I couldn't care less", which means you don't care at all. If you could care less, it would mean you actually do care. Yes, it is a pet peeve of mine.

2) I think sentences starting with "There is", "It is" and "That is" are grammatically correct, but I would personally phrase them differently:

A ball is (laying) on the table. The weather is (unbearably) cold. The bowl in front of me contains ice cream.

However, the thing that drives me off the walls (which has already been mentioned) is people typing "should of" instead of "should have". It doesn't even make sense, people! (not directed to people on these forums)

JP
Can top
Posted: Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:38:06 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/5/2009
Posts: 35
Neurons: 117
Location: Canada
JPK wrote:
Can top wrote:

- "I could care less."

Perfectly natural English idiom.


- sentences that begin with "There is," "It is," or "That is."

There is a ball on the table. It is cold. That is ice cream.




Hey there people,

This is a great forum!

Regarding the post I am quoting, I would have to say that:

1) The correct idiom would be "I couldn't care less", which means you don't care at all. If you could care less, it would mean you actually do care. Yes, it is a pet peeve of mine.

This is a fun place, isn't it, JPK?

It isn't a matter of 'correct versus incorrect'. An idiom is a group of words that hold a meaning different from the actual meaning of those words. The idiom, 'could care less' holds the same meaning as "couldn't care less".

No one thinks that a person who uses 'could care less' is staing that they care a great deal. No person who hears it directed towards their concern thinks that they are receiving sympathy.



2) I think sentences starting with "There is", "It is" and "That is" are grammatically correct, but I would personally phrase them differently:

A ball is (laying) on the table. The weather is (unbearably) cold. The bowl in front of me contains ice cream.

Actually, I don't really understand what that person was peeving about. You have to know the context before you can decide what is grammatical and/or natural.


However, the thing that drives me off the walls (which has already been mentioned) is people typing "should of" instead of "should have". It doesn't even make sense, people! (not directed to people on these forums)

JP


It makes perfect sense as to why it happens. It's just a simple error in spelling. The sound for the contracted form ('ve)is the same as the sound of 'of'. It's not that these people who make this simple error are ignorant of the correct form for if they were to write it in its uncontracted form, everyone would use 'have'.

The same thing can happen and does happen with other words that have the same sound, eg. they're/their/there; your/you're

The usual idiom is "drive one up the wall". It's no big deal though that you've chosen a slightly different form.



Orual42
Posted: Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:55:52 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/13/2009
Posts: 51
Neurons: 165
Location: United States
- People using "less" instead of "fewer" for discrete items ("I would like less apples this time, please.") Funnily, the mix-up never goes the other way.

Actually, I haven't many grammatical pet peeves anymore. Fact is, people, grammar is functionally descriptive and no amount of hollering on part of the elite will change that.
peterhewett
Posted: Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:59:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/15/2009
Posts: 2,454
Neurons: 3,698
Location: In my head


NickN posted

My biggest two are when "historic" is preceded by "an,"
Peter responded

Actually it is perfectly acceptable, and in my view better, to make use of the 'an' in the example you give.


How to Use Articles (a/an/the)
This resource was written by Purdue OWL.
Last full revision by Paul Lynch.
Last edited by Allen Brizee on June 3rd 2009
Using OWL Resources


Remember, using a or an depends on the sound that begins the next word. So...
•a + singular noun beginning with a consonant: a boy; a car; a bike; a zoo; a dog
•an + singular noun beginning with a vowel: an elephant; an egg; an apple; an idiot; an orphan
•a + singular noun beginning with a consonant sound: a user (sounds like 'yoo-zer,' i.e. begins with a consonant 'y' sound, so 'a' is used); a university; a unicycle
•In some cases where "h" is pronounced, such as "historical," use an:
An historical event is worth recording.
In writing, "a historical event" is more commonly used. (But not rigidly. Peter added)


He that increases in knowledge increases in pain.
Taranaga
Posted: Friday, August 14, 2009 6:41:46 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 4/9/2009
Posts: 5
Neurons: 15
Location: Spain
Hello Everyone!

I've been enjoying reading all about your pet peeves on here. I share most of them, but would like to add one more which, while reading the news online over the past week, has cropped up time and again to my GREAT annoyance! It's the incorrect use of "woman" and "women", can you believe!!??

I just wish journalists would re-read their work before publishing it online! I can understand that there is a lot of competition to get the breaking news stories of the moment online as soon as possible, but it actually contributes to the further eroding of general standards which seems to have taken root in society today. I mean, how can we expect English teachers to teach correct English grammar when it seems no-one in the "real world" bothers to use it?
JPK
Posted: Friday, August 14, 2009 10:34:14 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/13/2009
Posts: 644
Neurons: 1,998
Location: Canada
Can top wrote:

This is a fun place, isn't it, JPK?

1) It isn't a matter of 'correct versus incorrect'. An idiom is a group of words that hold a meaning different from the actual meaning of those words. The idiom, 'could care less' holds the same meaning as "couldn't care less".

No one thinks that a person who uses 'could care less' is staing that they care a great deal. No person who hears it directed towards their concern thinks that they are receiving sympathy.


2) Actually, I don't really understand what that person was peeving about. You have to know the context before you can decide what is grammatical and/or natural. [/color]


3) It makes perfect sense as to why it happens. It's just a simple error in spelling. The sound for the contracted form ('ve)is the same as the sound of 'of'. It's not that these people who make this simple error are ignorant of the correct form for if they were to write it in its uncontracted form, everyone would use 'have'.

The same thing can happen and does happen with other words that have the same sound, eg. they're/their/there; your/you're

The usual idiom is "drive one up the wall". It's no big deal though that you've chosen a slightly different form.


Hey there Can top, it is indeed a fun place, nice to meet you!

We could have this usage vs. theory debate all day long and nothing would be resolved, it's just a matter of what our perception of the problem (if it is even a problem) is.

Now before I reply to your last post, I wanted to say that I understand your point of view and hope I didn't come off as arrogant in my last post.

1) In my understanding, an idiom is an expression where the words don't actually mean what you are trying to convey. I like idioms, even though people not familiar with them will be utterly confused by them. But I see a difference between imaged idioms like "kick the bucket" (example stolen from dictionary.com) and idioms like "could care less" where the words used express the opposite of what you are trying to convey. People who know the expression will understand that you are saying that you do not care at all, but people who do not know it might be confused into thinking you do (depending of the context and how the conversation happens).

That said, your post really got me thinking. I would not be surprised if "could care less" (and other expressions that have been deformed) eventually enter the dictionary officially. Just like there are certainly expressions that we use regularly that would make our ancestors cringe because that's not what the idiom was supposed to be back then.

2) Agreed. I have nothing else to add, unless the poster of that pet peeve wants to clarify his/her thoughts.

3) Oh, I understand why it happens, but it doesn't make it correct. I would hope that most people would understand their mistake if they did take the time to stop and think about it. But yes, I know that life goes fast and few people care enough to stop for something as futile as grammar, especially since they get understood anyway.

And thank you for correcting me on my "up the wall" expression, that was a very humbling experience ;) To keep the "wall" thing going, I am now gonna do this: Brick wall

With all that said, you can go back to your regularly scheduled program. I haven't read many of your posts, but even if I don't agree with all your views, I think I'm gonna enjoy debating with you! (and feel free to correct if needed, I didn't have time to proofread my entire post)

Take care,
JP
Cathie8653
Posted: Friday, August 14, 2009 10:35:47 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/27/2009
Posts: 80
Neurons: 254
Location: London
lol can also be read as lots of love - depending of course - on the context. I love a hyphen, but as an English woman get peeved when my PC insists in trying to tell me how to spell words like 'organised' and 'realised'. If I have to change the default language one more time, I will throw the d--- thing out of the window. lol
JPK
Posted: Friday, August 14, 2009 10:36:41 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/13/2009
Posts: 644
Neurons: 1,998
Location: Canada
Taranaga wrote:
It's the incorrect use of "woman" and "women", can you believe!!??


Really?!?

Do you have an example or something? (yes, I believe you. I just want to see it with my own eyes.)

I also wish journalists would proofread, welcome aboard!

Hello Taranaga!
Rman
Posted: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:10:04 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/23/2009
Posts: 6
Neurons: 18
Location: United States
tfrank wrote:
"There's" for "there're," as in "There's lots more of those."

Perhaps people make this mistake because "there's" rolls off the tongue more easily than "there're"? Too bad; "there are" is always acceptable.


This is a big one for me as well. "There's" certainly does roll off the tongue more easily, but what is really happening is that the contraction disguises the singularity expressed in the word. Then, because the word does roll off the tongue so easily, "it must be right."

My biggest peeve is that you can't tell people that they have used the singular incorrectly, because they will tell you that you "know what they mean; right?"
Rman
Posted: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:33:16 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/23/2009
Posts: 6
Neurons: 18
Location: United States
Luftmarque wrote:

Of course, there's "choose" which rhymes with "lose" but that's part of English's richness, isn't it?


Is that a joke? (I'm really asking)

My girl is six. The richness of the Spanish language with regard to spelling allows her to read even if she does not know what a word means. She has much more trouble reading English. Consider, how do you pronounce "read"? It kind of depends.

There are so few irregularities of this type in Spanish, they are a non-issue.
Rman
Posted: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:45:43 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/23/2009
Posts: 6
Neurons: 18
Location: United States
JPK wrote:
Taranaga wrote:
It's the incorrect use of "woman" and "women", can you believe!!??

I also wish journalists would proofread, welcome aboard!


In video, the editor makes the videographer look good. :-)

With that in mind, I once read an article in the paper that said journalists take too long writing their articles, so the editors don't have time to do their job before the paper goes to print.

Not the editor's fault...necessarily.
Rman
Posted: Monday, August 24, 2009 1:17:51 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/23/2009
Posts: 6
Neurons: 18
Location: United States
Tito wrote:
Hi,
Very interesting discussion.
I'm an intermediate English student.

I have some questions:

Splitting infinitives is a no, no? I had been told otherwise.


If this has been addressed sufficiently, forgive. I did some research on this for something
I am working on. I'd like to offer this take on the split infinitive.

Lord Bishop of London, Robert Lowth (1710 – 1787 ) was a Bishop of the Church of England, and author of A Short Introduction to English Grammar, 1762. Lowth is known for prescribing English, much so based on the rules of Latin, which doesn’t do much for his reputation; but if people were as forgiving of Lowth as they are of Shakespeare, perhaps they wouldn’t advertise their displeasure with Lowth’s personal biases.
Lowth’s cross-lingual logic is not necessarily such a bad approach if the logic used is valid in both languages, but this was not always the case. Lowth spoke out against the split infinitive, for example. In Latin, the infinitive is a single unit, so there is no need for the proscription. In English the infinitive lends itself to being split.

That is my take, based on what I have read.
Minipisikil
Posted: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 3:53:12 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 78
Neurons: 234
Location: United States
Use of the prefix "pre" is annoying. The insurance industry uses "pre-existing condition" to describe an existing condition. The grocery store advertises meat that is "pre-marinated." Meat can be either marinated or not marinated; it would follow, then, that meat in a pre-marinated state would be meat that is not marinated, yet that is not the meaning the grocer intends to convey. These are just two examples of business and marketing people failing to recognize the meanings of words.
grammargeek
Posted: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 4:14:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/21/2009
Posts: 11,145
Neurons: 33,836
Location: Arizona, U.S.
Minipisikil wrote:
Use of the prefix "pre" is annoying. The insurance industry uses "pre-existing condition" to describe an existing condition. The grocery store advertises meat that is "pre-marinated." Meat can be either marinated or not marinated; it would follow, then, that meat in a pre-marinated state would be meat that is not marinated, yet that is not the meaning the grocer intends to convey. These are just two examples of business and marketing people failing to recognize the meanings of words.


Talk about redundancy! I recently heard the word "pre-prepared" used on more than one occasion by TV journalists.
peterhewett
Posted: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:27:07 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/15/2009
Posts: 2,454
Neurons: 3,698
Location: In my head
Peter posted

If you were to examine the great classical writers of the 20th century, say, or even those of this new century, you would find many ‘grammatical errors’ in their writing; so what. If their language has a beauty, if it flows as water flows along a winding riverbed, and it is understood, and catches the attention, then it has succeeded in its purpose, and is a joy to read. If in addition there is intellectual value in what is written, fiction or non-fiction, then it has achieved the best possible results.

Many ‘peeved’ grammarians have no idea at all how to write beautiful, clear, informative language. Ah…they are so good at spotting mistakes, that intellectual appreciation and beauty of language is lost on them, as they wallow in the mire of grammatical correctness.

How can we be ‘peeved’ at what we perceive to be grammatical errors? When we read are we annoyed or resentful? Are we vexed? Do we harbor a grievance against the writer? If we are peeved then the answer to the above is yes.

I posit it is silly to take this line. Don’t let us abandon good grammar, but on the other hand don’t let us be overly critical and, by doing so, lose sight of the much more important things in whatever it is we are reading.

Milton….Keats…Newton…Shakespeare…Dickens… Thackeray …Hardy…Mark Twain, to name a few of the great writers in the English language all made grammatical errors. Dickens was noted for very long sentences…but such was the beauty of his prose it did not detract from his work.

I say lighten up folks, don’t be pedantic. You are all like a bunch of old hens scratching the dust of the farmyard. Stop making a chicken out of a few feathers. Whoops.... better run now or you will all be chasing my tail. I'm off to General Knowledge.



He that increases in knowledge increases in pain.
early_apex
Posted: Thursday, August 27, 2009 10:33:59 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2009
Posts: 2,281
Neurons: 12,855
Location: Spindletop, Texas, United States
Minipisikil wrote:
Use of the prefix "pre" is annoying. The insurance industry uses "pre-existing condition" to describe an existing condition. The grocery store advertises meat that is "pre-marinated." Meat can be either marinated or not marinated; it would follow, then, that meat in a pre-marinated state would be meat that is not marinated, yet that is not the meaning the grocer intends to convey. These are just two examples of business and marketing people failing to recognize the meanings of words.


I agree. You would like to send some of these people to their pre-existing state! The airline industry seems to enjoy coining such terms as "pre-boarding" which is more of a condition than an act, yet they invite certain passengers to do it. "De-plane" is another term which could have any number of meanings, such as departure from a planar surface. I guess these things become industry jargon, because no one in their right mind would use them in everyday speech.

"Shut up, she explained." - Ring Lardner
Romany
Posted: Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:19:21 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 15,401
Neurons: 48,400
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
E.A. - "I guess these things become industry jargon, because no one in their right mind would use them in everyday speech."

What a refreshing idea! I've never thought of it that way before but, now that you've thrown it out there, I take great comfort - and amusement - in it.
TB
Posted: Friday, August 28, 2009 12:25:22 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/12/2009
Posts: 1,440
Neurons: 4,277
Location: America
early_apex wrote:
The airline industry seems to enjoy coining such terms as "pre-boarding" which is more of a condition than an act, yet they invite certain passengers to do it.."


For anyone who may be wondering about "pre-boarding":
"Pre-boarding" in the airline industry has a very specific meaning. It is when people needing special assistance (e.g. wheel-chairs, walking casts, crutches,old folks), families with small children and minors traveling alone etc are boarded before "general boarding" takes place.



"Never argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"
LeadPal
Posted: Sunday, August 30, 2009 7:29:09 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/26/2009
Posts: 461
Neurons: 1,413
Location: Beyond the Impossible
Unintentional tense shifts frustrate me. They bothered me when I hear people who will ask "How do I used tense?"

Currently Reading: Nothing but textbooks
Currently Watching: Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann (again)
Terri DC
Posted: Sunday, August 30, 2009 8:23:46 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 79
Neurons: 256
Location: South Africa
I've found that it's really useful to spot the mistakes in other people's work - in that it makes you more aware of them in your own writing. Perhaps it's because I have to edit many of the stories which we use in our section of the newspaper. I've caught myself, every now and then, about to make the same sort of mistake that drives me nuts when I see it in someone else's writing.

We've had this discussion at a few of our writers' group meetings before. You'd be amazed at how nitpicking really helps you to clean up your own writing.



peterhewett
Posted: Sunday, August 30, 2009 8:39:47 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/15/2009
Posts: 2,454
Neurons: 3,698
Location: In my head
Not for me Terri DCI look for other things ...leave the nit picking to proof readers...it's their job. Yes, edit your own work with care , but that is a different matter.

He that increases in knowledge increases in pain.
Terri DC
Posted: Sunday, August 30, 2009 8:52:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 79
Neurons: 256
Location: South Africa
Don't misunderstand, I don't enjoy nitpicking for the sake of being annoying. What I mean is that if I keep spotting the same annoying mistakes in other writing I am more aware of it in my own.

For example: We should try and improve.

That "and" drives me crazy. It should be "We should try to improve".

As soon as I started spotting that in the things I was reading, I realised that I was guilty of it too. So I was able (with a bit of work) to train myself not to do it anymore.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree, proof readers are there to correct our mistakes, but if we can spot them before we even submit them to the proofreader, or in mid-type, well then, the world will be a happier place.

There's nothing worse than a grumpy proof reader who has to keep correcting the same error just because the writer isn't learning after the first few edits.

peterhewett
Posted: Sunday, August 30, 2009 9:05:06 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/15/2009
Posts: 2,454
Neurons: 3,698
Location: In my head
Agreed... I do the same as you and correct myself...trying to improve all the time. Sometimes though, grammar gets in the way of the flow and beauty of the piece you are writing. Arguments on passive sentences for example. Sometimes the language is better when passive. Frankly I just write and do not concern myself as to whether I have an undue amount of passive sentences.

It is possible to have perfectly grammatical work and for it to be boring, dry, uninformative and hard to read. Grammar, in my opinion, is not an exact science, neither is punctuation.

He that increases in knowledge increases in pain.
Luftmarque
Posted: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 1:27:03 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/17/2009
Posts: 3,120
Neurons: 39,962
Location: Pau, Aquitaine, France
peterhewett wrote:
Agreed... I do the same as you and correct myself...trying to improve all the time. Sometimes though, grammar gets in the way of the flow and beauty of the piece you are writing. Arguments on passive sentences for example. Sometimes the language is better when passive. Frankly I just write and do not concern myself as to whether I have an undue amount of passive sentences.

It is possible to have perfectly grammatical work and for it to be boring, dry, uninformative and hard to read. Grammar, in my opinion, is not an exact science, neither is punctuation.

Yes & yes. At the creative margin one must (IMNSHO) pay more attention to "flow," "beauty," and effect than to grammaticality and over-absorbed "rules" about the passive voice. Which is one reason why I always turn off the grammar-checker in Word. It's an idiot. And, I believe, defaulted to an 8th-grade level. As for punctuation, that has become quite regionalized, and I can appreciate all of its variations. While I use the American convention with quotes and punctuation, e.g. "this phrase gets the comma inside," I don't think it makes any sense at all and welcome the British convention, e.g. "but this phrase won't get to ingest the period, or stop, or dot, or whatever you want to call it". I love the continental <<marks>> rather than double-quotes. And Joyce's use of the horizontal bar to set off
―Passages spoken by characters.


}- Luftmarque لوفتمارك -{ Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde.—Voltaire
early_apex
Posted: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 8:10:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2009
Posts: 2,281
Neurons: 12,855
Location: Spindletop, Texas, United States
Luftmarque wrote:
...I always turn off the grammar-checker in Word. It's an idiot. And, I believe, defaulted to an 8th-grade level.


MS Word was developed for business application primarily, so it must stay at the 8th grade level, so executives can understand the writing. :-)

"Shut up, she explained." - Ring Lardner
bird's eye view
Posted: Monday, October 5, 2009 7:29:51 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 167
Neurons: 504
Location: Port Elizabeth South Africa
We should start an international Pet Peeves Club. Most of the peeves in these three pages are are my peeves too. My worst at the moment are:

Compared to instead of compared with.
Different than instead of different from.
axe instead of ask.
dove instead of dived.
abnomally unstead of abnormality or anomaly.

"Although the moon is one sixth the size of the earth, it is much further away." Unknown author.
capo403
Posted: Monday, October 5, 2009 3:30:13 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/26/2009
Posts: 564
Neurons: 1,815
Location: United States
[quote=risadr]I thought of another pet peeve, and someone please tell me that I'm not alone on this:

The use of "of" where one should say/write "have." Example:

INCORRECT: "He should of gone to the bathroom before we left."
CORRECT: "He should have gone to the bathroom before we left." OR "He should've gone to the bathroom before we left."


Risa,

I came across that error earlier today. It made me cringe!


"God gave you a gift of 86,400 seconds today. Have you used one to say "thank you"? -William A. Ward
Geeman
Posted: Friday, October 23, 2009 4:15:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2009
Posts: 1,788
Neurons: 124,907
Location: Whittier, California, United States
Rman wrote:
Tito wrote:
Hi,
Very interesting discussion.
I'm an intermediate English student.

I have some questions:

Splitting infinitives is a no, no? I had been told otherwise.


If this has been addressed sufficiently, forgive. I did some research on this for something
I am working on. I'd like to offer this take on the split infinitive.

Lord Bishop of London, Robert Lowth (1710 – 1787 ) was a Bishop of the Church of England, and author of A Short Introduction to English Grammar, 1762. Lowth is known for prescribing English, much so based on the rules of Latin, which doesn’t do much for his reputation; but if people were as forgiving of Lowth as they are of Shakespeare, perhaps they wouldn’t advertise their displeasure with Lowth’s personal biases.
Lowth’s cross-lingual logic is not necessarily such a bad approach if the logic used is valid in both languages, but this was not always the case. Lowth spoke out against the split infinitive, for example. In Latin, the infinitive is a single unit, so there is no need for the proscription. In English the infinitive lends itself to being split.

That is my take, based on what I have read.

From what I understand, split infinitives are not generally considered grammatically incorrect so much as they are considered awkward and a little vulgar. In part, this has to do with the simple fact that they aren't necessary. It's just as easy to put the adverb on the other side of the verb as it is to stick it between the "to" and the verb. This is similar to the objection sometimes made about ending a sentence with a preposition. Some folks believe it sounds bad. But more English grammarians think they are acceptable than think they are errors.

Personally, I think it's easy enough to avoid the split infinitive issue, so I usually do, but I don't make a big deal out of it. Sometimes a split infinitive has a certain charm:

To boldy go where no man has gone before.

For some reason that just sounds wrong if "boldly" is moved over to the other side of "go." Maybe it's just that I'm so used to hearing the infinitive split....

Regarding the "an h..." thing:

I also say "an" if the stress in the h-word that follows is on the second syllable. Pronouncing a "soft h" with "a" sounds like a slur to me becuase the article "a" is really pronounced "uh" not "ae." So the "uh" sound is already breathy. Combined with a breathy "h" I hear "uhhistorical" or what sounds like "uh-istorical."

If someone says "a historical" they either have to artificially extend the seperation between the article and the adjective so it sounds like there is a tiny rest between the words or they have to stress both the first and second syllables of "historical." Both those options sound strange to me.

But this one is 50/50. I doesn't bother me if people say "a" or "an" before historical so long as I understand their pronunciation. However, if they are talking about "a history book" then it definitely has to be "a." "An history book" with the stress right there on the first syllable of "history" would definitely bug me.
musicwriter
Posted: Sunday, October 25, 2009 11:04:38 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/22/2009
Posts: 316
Neurons: 921
Location: United States- Ohio
risadr wrote:
NicoleR wrote:
I can't stand when people use affect/effect improperly. I see it all the time in online and print news articles, which is so annoying! A hint that I tell people to help them remember which is which is that "affect" is an "action", and both start with "a", and an "effect" is an "end result", and both start with "e".


Easy to answer this- 'affect' is a verb, 'effect' is a noun.

I feel the exact same way. Another one, like this, that bugs me is when people use sympathy/empathy incorrectly. If you empathize, that means that you've had the same experience. If you sympathize, you can only imagine.
hairball
Posted: Sunday, October 25, 2009 11:24:59 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 10/25/2009
Posts: 4
Neurons: 12
Location: United States
It bugs me when people use the word "share" when asking someone to talk about something. I can give an excellent example of why it's a bad usage:

A couple years ago, I was watching a television interview with a nutritionist, and the interviewer said, "Would you like to share with us what you had for breakfast this morning?" The expression on the nutritionist's face was priceless. You could almost hear him thinking, "No, you don't want me to do that."


789789
Posted: Monday, October 26, 2009 8:31:14 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/12/2009
Posts: 141
Neurons: 117
Location: Canada
Your, you're
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.