Author Topic: Grammar quirks  (Read 46945 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wendelenn

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1523
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #120 on: July 24, 2012, 10:47:07 AM »
Ooh, ooh, thought of another one - "simplistic" instead of "simple." 

I think that one falls in the category of "it has more syllables, so it MUST be the better word!"

Same thing with "incident." The plural of it is apparently now "incidentses." I think people are confusing it with "incidence." I'm not sure how.

I think Gollum and the Orcses must have gotten to people. . . .
"I don't mean to be rude", he began, in a tone that threatened rudeness in every syllable.

"--yet sadly, accidental rudeness occurs alarmingly often," Dumbledore finished the sentence gravely.  "Best to say nothing at all."

Mental Magpie

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5578
  • ...for the dark side looks back.
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #121 on: July 24, 2012, 11:42:24 AM »
Oh, just popped over to a different ehell thread and saw this one.

Copywrite.

grrrrrr!  CopyRIGHT!

To add to that, it's copyrightED not copywritten; and one someone is strung up by his neck, he is hanged, not hung.
The problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that you're still choosing evil.

Thipu1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6892
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #122 on: July 24, 2012, 11:44:29 AM »
Ooh, ooh, thought of another one - "simplistic" instead of "simple." 

I think that one falls in the category of "it has more syllables, so it MUST be the better word!"

Same thing with "incident." The plural of it is apparently now "incidentses." I think people are confusing it with "incidence." I'm not sure how.

I think Gollum and the Orcses must have gotten to people. . . .

Simplistic instead of simple really makes my hackles stand up. 

Some years ago, an educator from the museum compiled a list of good books on the ancient world for children.  It was a nice piece of work except for one thing.  When she meant to say that information was presented in a 'simple way' that young children could understand, she consistently used 'simplistic'.

She meant it as a positive statement but I have never heard 'simplistic' used in a positive
 way before or since.

There's also the problem of 'utilize'.  'Use' is a perfectly good word but the extra two syllables sound classier to certain writers. 



People do think that an extra syllable or two makes writing sound more sophisticated.  It just makes the writer look pretentious and silly. 

Chickadee

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 238
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #123 on: July 24, 2012, 12:18:17 PM »
Just thought of another one. The patch of grass that separates the lanes of a highway or interstate is the median, not the meridian.

lady_disdain

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5937
    • Contemporary Jewelry
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #124 on: July 24, 2012, 05:58:48 PM »
I was looking through an artisan's online store and she kept describing her pieces as "simple but covetous" or "small but covetous". Either she means "coveted" or her pieces have amazing awareness of the world.

Slartibartfast

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 11842
    • Nerdy Necklaces - my Etsy shop!
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #125 on: July 24, 2012, 06:53:26 PM »
Although would someone who writes back-page copy be a copywriter?  *ducks*

kckgirl

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #126 on: July 24, 2012, 06:58:37 PM »
Just thought of another one. The patch of grass that separates the lanes of a highway or interstate is the median, not the meridian.

It's also not the medium.
Maryland

stitchygreyanonymouse

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 640
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #127 on: July 24, 2012, 11:14:20 PM »
One that I see a lot here on Ehell that I have to stop myself from jumping in as the grammar police for every time:

"vowel renewal"

So, I just tell myself that marriage certificates are printed with indelible ink only on consonants (and sometimes 'y'), requiring you to go get the vowels re-inked every few years to keep the marriage strong.  ;)

wendelenn

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1523
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #128 on: July 24, 2012, 11:17:18 PM »
One that I see a lot here on Ehell that I have to stop myself from jumping in as the grammar police for every time:

"vowel renewal"

So, I just tell myself that marriage certificates are printed with indelible ink only on consonants (and sometimes 'y'), requiring you to go get the vowels re-inked every few years to keep the marriage strong.  ;)

Or how about "walking down the isle"? I always have to stop myself from saying I hope it's not too big of an island!
"I don't mean to be rude", he began, in a tone that threatened rudeness in every syllable.

"--yet sadly, accidental rudeness occurs alarmingly often," Dumbledore finished the sentence gravely.  "Best to say nothing at all."

Mental Magpie

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5578
  • ...for the dark side looks back.
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #129 on: July 25, 2012, 01:10:17 AM »
"Bring'" being substituted for "take" drives me bonkers.

Not nearly as annoying but still pretty far up there is "Do you want to come with?"  I realize the "me/us" is implied, but I want to ask, "With what?  A spoon in my hand?  A drum on my knee?"
The problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that you're still choosing evil.

cabbageweevil

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1138
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #130 on: July 25, 2012, 04:57:42 AM »
When people say “I could care less”.  Most people do this, but if they would think about it for a second the correct expression is “I couldn’t care less”.

I might venture a little bit of defence of the “I could care less” version.  I agree, “couldn’t care less” makes more obvious sense, and it’s the form which I use.  However, the “could” usage is, I feel, not completely nonsensical.

“I couldn’t care less”:  I have no interest or concern whatever about this matter – there is no way I could care any less about it, than I do.

“I could care less”:  I have almost no interest or concern about this matter – perhaps I could indeed care even less about it, but I’d have to try hard, to perform that feat.

The discussion board Wordreference.com (English only), which focuses on points of English usage, once had a five-page thread about this issue.  Consensus was, that the “could care less” version is the one which very many people use, rightly or wrongly;  and that, as above, one can claim that it sort-of makes sense.
 


Redsoil

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2099
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #131 on: July 25, 2012, 06:41:57 AM »
There is a TV ad at present which grates terribly.  "A really better deal." 

REALLY???
Look out... 
It's one of the Aussie Contingent!


Thipu1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6892
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #132 on: July 25, 2012, 11:43:29 AM »
''I could care less' instead of 'I couldn't care less' is almost a given in NYC. 

Here, 'I could care less' is accompanied by a raising of the shoulders, a spreading of the hands and a rising tone at the end of the sentence to indicate a question. 

I would ask those who doubt this to stand up and do the schtick.  It's very emphatic.  It also feels great to perform.  :)

carol1412

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 369
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #133 on: July 25, 2012, 04:56:22 PM »
Our associate pastor makes an announcement to all the guests on Sunday to stop at the Guest Services desk to pick up a bag with information and a free gift.

A "Free" gift.

I cringe every time he says that.

MOM21SON

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3058
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #134 on: July 25, 2012, 05:19:23 PM »
I answer 20-25 emails per hour, 8 hours a day, at my job.  A lot of times I have to tell people their order has been canceled.  About once a month I get a response back from someone that says, "I have been a teacher for 20, 30, etc years and it's CANCELLED!

I am not allowed to write back that both are acceptable.

English being weird?  I personally use double-LL's, but I know both are okay.  Cancelled, levelled, travelled, however, drives Opera's spellcheck nuts. :)


The double-L is standard UK English.  I thought that US practice was to drop the second L, possibly as a result of Noah Webster's campaign to get a strong differentiation between UK and US English.

I am in the US, and we have only US customers.  I just giggle.