You can only say 'the animals who work here' if the animals have names.

I'm always torn between 'usage is king' - dictionaries only codify (and thereby petrify) the rich swirling broth that is human language evolution - and 'but sense should win'. That is, I can get behind changes, but if they decrease the sense or the information content of the communication, that's a problem. The examples above of number (singular/plural) to me are one instance of this - they make the sentence ambiguous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bravus:
You can only say 'the animals who work here' if the animals have names.

---

Then the people that work here will be
acceptable if I don't know their names?

All animals have names, I just don't know them.

Of course the language changes and develops over time. There was never a time when "correct English" existed, it was always being used, misused and altered.

Sometimes language changes because it works better the new way, or because new ideas have to be accommodated, or because a mispronunciation gets enshrined in a revised spelling.

You'd be foolish to insist on referring to a napron instead of an apron, just because that's what it used to be.

And I quite like the idea that "versus" can be transformed into a verb. It may be founded on a misunderstanding of the original word, but it's ingenious and seems useful.

But I don't like misuse of language based on carelessness (by which I mean "not caring", rather than simple inadvertence). And that covers everything from "could of" right up to corporate-speak.

Sure, that's one way the language has developed in the past. But there's a tension there, I think. I'm still working out where my comfort zone lies, somewhere along the range between "no change" and "laissez-faire".

Wow, only started yesterday and already three pages. Unfortunately at the moment I can't remember the errors that really bug me, although I have a friend whose head explodes when people qualify an absolute, as in "slightly unique".

I believe I have already expressed by deep contempt for political obfuscations like "I am humbled by this appointment." I'll repeat what I said there on the issue of language drift - finding new and interesting ways to use existing words and phrases while still communicating effectively is nothing that should disturb anyone. It is an essential feature of the development of language - indeed most words and phrases we currently use started their lives as metaphors. However, people who modify language to conceal, muddy, avoid or destroy meaning are enemies of civilisation who should be stapled to an anthill.

I don't think staples will stick to an anthill.

I'm talking muthafucken BIG staples here. Of iron.

[OT]Hey, who here hates anacoluthia? Man, I hate anacoluthia, I hate it so freakin' much![/OT]

Back to work. Or as it's more accurately described: staring at the ceiling until lunchtime.

Advise.

To advise is to give counsel. Yet the word has been so heavily used to mean "inform" or "notify" that its definition has actually mutated to reflect the misapplication.

"Please advise." Urk.

I never use that fucking word. It's just so wet.

Decimate.

Means to lop off a tenth, to reduce by ten percent. Of course, every war theatre and disaster-scene reporter uses it to mean "annihilate". Another sadly and incorrectly mutated word.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mean Old Man,

People who say "infer" when they mean "imply", and people who say "refute" when they mean "deny" should be super-glued to anthills if the staples aren't strong enough

i've heard people mix up Inappropriate and Misappropriate...

irregardless

The use of the word "outrageous" in advertisements and commercials directed at pre-teen girls.

It doesn't mean what you think it means, young lady.

English as spoken in TV promos.

outrageous = intended to be amusing
shocking = possibly surprising
blockbuster = a film which was shown in cinemas
a show you can't afford to miss = a television program
a show no parent can afford to miss = a television program that will probably mention children
based on a true story = an unimaginative fiction

They manage to come up about once a month with a slogan that makes me want to throw a brick through the screen. Most I strive to forget but two have stayed with me:

"It's no longer a question of Right or Wrong - it's a question of Justice."

"It's not just a war - it's a Tour of Duty." I hated that even more than the show itself.

We're in election mode now, so I guess it isn't surprising this one's come up...

Traction. As in - "do think the [insert name of political party] is getting any traction with [insert burning issue du jour]?".

Yes, it's a workable metaphor. But it annoys me, for reasons I haven't quite identified yet.

Another nasty that's always trotted out at election time is "on the campaign trail".

[colin] GAHHHHHHHH! [/colin]

I am so with you on traction.

Orrible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bravus:
irregardless

---

That is a good one. A good exmple of adding syllables to make youself sound smarter. My personal favorite is the single word "alot". Maybe this is peculiar to the southern US for some reason because I see it on signs and even in flyers at work but I rarely here about it from people in other places. Now my grammar isn't perfect by a long shot but I try to use actual words in most cases.

Another niggle I have is from the linguistic nazis who don't actually know the language they think they are protecting. A couple of years ago I was pulled up for using the word "dreamt" by a moaning pedant who said the word was dreamed. I pointed out that dreamt was a perfectly good word, but the pedant then said that it was archaic. I pointed out that there are many other words constructed in this way - slept, dealt etc.

I also noticed the used of "speeded" in a book the other day when "sped" would have been appropriate. I guess typesetters are paid by the inch nowadays rather than the word.

Fast food places that say they are open 'Everyday'. They mean 'Every day' - 'everyday' is a word, but it means something completely different.

Being educated in the South, I will Have You Know that in fact, the word you mentioned "alot" is actually two words " a lot." People often mispell "a lot" a lot... Ya'll get it?

and since a lot is meant to symbolize 'a great deal' of something, or ' a large quantity of' something, i've always figured the origins of the word came from the fact that lot means 'an area devoted to containing items' or something of that nature, since you can have a land lot, or a quantified area in a wherehouse, containing a lot of specific items... and so, being quite hot and disgusting in the south a great deal of the year, people would rather say something short like 'a lot' instead of anything with spiky syllables that requires moving the tongue about anymore than necessary, while we lean back in our rocking chairs hoping to catch a bit of the breeze...

Being a foreigner , I didn't really feel I could contribute to this thread.
But I would like to add that my spelling and grammar are even worse than they could have been because I first went to 4 years of British school, then 2 years of different American schools. Then schools (with English - classes) in my own country and universities here and in the US, in other words: language confusion. You guys should agree on one system. Or let it be. Whatever.

One traumatic instance: my (English) English teacher at school here insisting that purple is the same colour as red. Maybe she was colour-blind. (Not to mention arguments about the spelling of the word colour). Sigh.