Author Topic: Grammar quirks  (Read 38904 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

baglady

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4548
  • A big lass and a bonny lass and she loves her beer
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #300 on: September 06, 2012, 05:17:50 PM »
I know this isn't technically a grammatical issue, but a pronunciation one. It still makes me crazy.

There is a woman on the Weather Channel that persistently pronounces "Gulf of Mexico" as "GOLF of Mexico". It makes me insane.

Golf is a game. The gulf is the place with lots of water.
The ones in the Baltimore area cannot say "temperature" with all four syllables.  They usually slur it to "temchur."

This one is coming up a lot lately because it's an election year in the U.S.: It's So-cial Se-cur-i-ty, people. Six syllables! But over and over again I hear politicians and commentators saying "Sosh-curty," or similar mushmouthed abominations. This isn't a regional pronunciation thing -- *everybody* does it. How hard is it to sound out a two-syllable word and a four-syllable word? And don't get me started on people who ask for your Social Security number with "What's your social?" or worse, "What's your sosh?"
My photography is on Redbubble! Come see: http://www.redbubble.com/people/baglady

Diane AKA Traska

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4412
  • Or you can just call me Diane. (NE USA EHellion)
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #301 on: September 06, 2012, 05:25:38 PM »
I know this isn't technically a grammatical issue, but a pronunciation one. It still makes me crazy.

There is a woman on the Weather Channel that persistently pronounces "Gulf of Mexico" as "GOLF of Mexico". It makes me insane.

Golf is a game. The gulf is the place with lots of water.
The ones in the Baltimore area cannot say "temperature" with all four syllables.  They usually slur it to "temchur."

This one is coming up a lot lately because it's an election year in the U.S.: It's So-cial Se-cur-i-ty, people. Six syllables! But over and over again I hear politicians and commentators saying "Sosh-curty," or similar mushmouthed abominations. This isn't a regional pronunciation thing -- *everybody* does it. How hard is it to sound out a two-syllable word and a four-syllable word? And don't get me started on people who ask for your Social Security number with "What's your social?" or worse, "What's your sosh?"

I don't mind "social" so much, I see it as the same as people refraining from saying "be sure to have you personal identification number handy when using your automated teller card."
Location:
Philadelphia, PA

baglady

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4548
  • A big lass and a bonny lass and she loves her beer
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #302 on: September 06, 2012, 05:52:24 PM »
I know this isn't technically a grammatical issue, but a pronunciation one. It still makes me crazy.

There is a woman on the Weather Channel that persistently pronounces "Gulf of Mexico" as "GOLF of Mexico". It makes me insane.

Golf is a game. The gulf is the place with lots of water.
The ones in the Baltimore area cannot say "temperature" with all four syllables.  They usually slur it to "temchur."

This one is coming up a lot lately because it's an election year in the U.S.: It's So-cial Se-cur-i-ty, people. Six syllables! But over and over again I hear politicians and commentators saying "Sosh-curty," or similar mushmouthed abominations. This isn't a regional pronunciation thing -- *everybody* does it. How hard is it to sound out a two-syllable word and a four-syllable word? And don't get me started on people who ask for your Social Security number with "What's your social?" or worse, "What's your sosh?"

I don't mind "social" so much, I see it as the same as people refraining from saying "be sure to have you personal identification number handy when using your automated teller card."

Instead they say PIN and ATM. Not "have your personal handy when using your automated," which is what "Tell me your social" sounds like to me. Couldn't we call it the SSN instead?
My photography is on Redbubble! Come see: http://www.redbubble.com/people/baglady

Diane AKA Traska

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4412
  • Or you can just call me Diane. (NE USA EHellion)
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #303 on: September 06, 2012, 06:11:29 PM »
I know this isn't technically a grammatical issue, but a pronunciation one. It still makes me crazy.

There is a woman on the Weather Channel that persistently pronounces "Gulf of Mexico" as "GOLF of Mexico". It makes me insane.

Golf is a game. The gulf is the place with lots of water.
The ones in the Baltimore area cannot say "temperature" with all four syllables.  They usually slur it to "temchur."

This one is coming up a lot lately because it's an election year in the U.S.: It's So-cial Se-cur-i-ty, people. Six syllables! But over and over again I hear politicians and commentators saying "Sosh-curty," or similar mushmouthed abominations. This isn't a regional pronunciation thing -- *everybody* does it. How hard is it to sound out a two-syllable word and a four-syllable word? And don't get me started on people who ask for your Social Security number with "What's your social?" or worse, "What's your sosh?"

I don't mind "social" so much, I see it as the same as people refraining from saying "be sure to have you personal identification number handy when using your automated teller card."

Instead they say PIN and ATM. Not "have your personal handy when using your automated," which is what "Tell me your social" sounds like to me. Couldn't we call it the SSN instead?
Ideally, yeah... but you'd have to explain to most people what the SSN is.  :)
Location:
Philadelphia, PA

Editeer

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 288
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #304 on: September 06, 2012, 07:50:09 PM »
It is not a pant.  A pant is only one part of it, hence why it is called a pair of pants.  A pant is just one side, so please do not insist on finding me a pant that fits my shape as I want a pair of them sewn together.  I realize this is big in the garment/fashion industry and that only bothers me more because it seems to me that it came about to make those saying it feel more refined.  This may not be the case, they may have always called it a pant but it is only leaking out of the fashion/garment world recently, but that is still how I interpret it.  I also just think it sounds stupid.

Meanwhile, the industry also adds unnecessary -ing to nouns. You don't buy sheets; you buy sheeting. Look at our lovely toweling. New, 100% cotton, no-iron shirting.

So when will they put the two trends together and offer us panting?  >:D

GreenHall

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 268
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #305 on: September 06, 2012, 09:07:55 PM »
Twitching... my eye is twitching. Just saw this in an employment ad:

"Do you pour over the pages of the latest trend magazine?"

I dunno..... I guess I could pour my milk over it, if I really wanted to. :o

...Alas, I must admit defeat...what is the proper usages there? Is it pore?


Mental Magpie

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4830
  • ...for the dark side looks back.
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #306 on: September 06, 2012, 09:10:32 PM »
It is not a pant.  A pant is only one part of it, hence why it is called a pair of pants.  A pant is just one side, so please do not insist on finding me a pant that fits my shape as I want a pair of them sewn together.  I realize this is big in the garment/fashion industry and that only bothers me more because it seems to me that it came about to make those saying it feel more refined.  This may not be the case, they may have always called it a pant but it is only leaking out of the fashion/garment world recently, but that is still how I interpret it.  I also just think it sounds stupid.

Meanwhile, the industry also adds unnecessary -ing to nouns. You don't buy sheets; you buy sheeting. Look at our lovely toweling. New, 100% cotton, no-iron shirting.

So when will they put the two trends together and offer us panting?  >:D

Haha!  I sure as shirting hope not.

That brings me around to another grammar thing that bothers me.  "I am wanting" or "I am getting to" or "I am needing", et cetera.  Why can't you just say "I want" or "I get to" or "I need"? 
The problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that you're still choosing evil.

violinp

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3372
  • cabbagegirl28's my sister :)
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #307 on: September 06, 2012, 09:22:08 PM »
It is not a pant.  A pant is only one part of it, hence why it is called a pair of pants.  A pant is just one side, so please do not insist on finding me a pant that fits my shape as I want a pair of them sewn together.  I realize this is big in the garment/fashion industry and that only bothers me more because it seems to me that it came about to make those saying it feel more refined.  This may not be the case, they may have always called it a pant but it is only leaking out of the fashion/garment world recently, but that is still how I interpret it.  I also just think it sounds stupid.

Meanwhile, the industry also adds unnecessary -ing to nouns. You don't buy sheets; you buy sheeting. Look at our lovely toweling. New, 100% cotton, no-iron shirting.

So when will they put the two trends together and offer us panting?  >:D

Haha!  I sure as shirting hope not.

That brings me around to another grammar thing that bothers me.  "I am wanting" or "I am getting to" or "I am needing", et cetera.  Why can't you just say "I want" or "I get to" or "I need"?

Well, depending on what context, the -ing construction should be used. For example:

She is wanting to see the play, but her father objects.

I am getting to the station around noon.

You are needing to buy a ship, yes? (This one's a bit stilted, I admit)

In other words, it's talking about an ongoing action in the present. I wouldn't use them when it would sound better to say wants/gets/needs, but they have their place in the language.
"It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but even more to stand up to your friends" - Harry Potter


Mental Magpie

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4830
  • ...for the dark side looks back.
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #308 on: September 06, 2012, 09:26:20 PM »
It is not a pant.  A pant is only one part of it, hence why it is called a pair of pants.  A pant is just one side, so please do not insist on finding me a pant that fits my shape as I want a pair of them sewn together.  I realize this is big in the garment/fashion industry and that only bothers me more because it seems to me that it came about to make those saying it feel more refined.  This may not be the case, they may have always called it a pant but it is only leaking out of the fashion/garment world recently, but that is still how I interpret it.  I also just think it sounds stupid.

Meanwhile, the industry also adds unnecessary -ing to nouns. You don't buy sheets; you buy sheeting. Look at our lovely toweling. New, 100% cotton, no-iron shirting.

So when will they put the two trends together and offer us panting?  >:D

Haha!  I sure as shirting hope not.

That brings me around to another grammar thing that bothers me.  "I am wanting" or "I am getting to" or "I am needing", et cetera.  Why can't you just say "I want" or "I get to" or "I need"?

Well, depending on what context, the -ing construction should be used. For example:

She is wanting to see the play, but her father objects.

I am getting to the station around noon.

You are needing to buy a ship, yes? (This one's a bit stilted, I admit)

In other words, it's talking about an ongoing action in the present. I wouldn't use them when it would sound better to say wants/gets/needs, but they have their place in the language.

I mean "I am getting to" as in "I am getting to go to the concert."  In your example, it is perfectly okay.  However, I still disagree with the other two.  It is shorter, more succinct, and to me just sounds better to say "She wants to go to the play, but her father objects," and "You need to buy a ship, yes?"
The problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that you're still choosing evil.

violinp

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3372
  • cabbagegirl28's my sister :)
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #309 on: September 06, 2012, 09:32:17 PM »
It is not a pant.  A pant is only one part of it, hence why it is called a pair of pants.  A pant is just one side, so please do not insist on finding me a pant that fits my shape as I want a pair of them sewn together.  I realize this is big in the garment/fashion industry and that only bothers me more because it seems to me that it came about to make those saying it feel more refined.  This may not be the case, they may have always called it a pant but it is only leaking out of the fashion/garment world recently, but that is still how I interpret it.  I also just think it sounds stupid.

Meanwhile, the industry also adds unnecessary -ing to nouns. You don't buy sheets; you buy sheeting. Look at our lovely toweling. New, 100% cotton, no-iron shirting.

So when will they put the two trends together and offer us panting?  >:D

Haha!  I sure as shirting hope not.

That brings me around to another grammar thing that bothers me.  "I am wanting" or "I am getting to" or "I am needing", et cetera.  Why can't you just say "I want" or "I get to" or "I need"?

Well, depending on what context, the -ing construction should be used. For example:

She is wanting to see the play, but her father objects.

I am getting to the station around noon.

You are needing to buy a ship, yes? (This one's a bit stilted, I admit)

In other words, it's talking about an ongoing action in the present. I wouldn't use them when it would sound better to say wants/gets/needs, but they have their place in the language.

I mean "I am getting to" as in "I am getting to go to the concert."  In your example, it is perfectly okay.  However, I still disagree with the other two.  It is shorter, more succinct, and to me just sounds better to say "She wants to go to the play, but her father objects," and "You need to buy a ship, yes?"

Yeah, that one just sounds silly.

I kinda see it as a present form of the imperfect tense - "was carrying" etc. By the first one, I meant to imply that her wanting was ongoing, not just a want at the moment. I also overthink these things a lot (as you can probably tell :-[), since a lot of this was drilled into me by my high school Latin teacher, who also "accidentally" helped us learn English grammar while in her classes.
"It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but even more to stand up to your friends" - Harry Potter


Mental Magpie

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4830
  • ...for the dark side looks back.
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #310 on: September 06, 2012, 11:09:24 PM »
Haha, it's okay, I over think a lot of things.  It is pretty much the present form, but I still don't like it :)
The problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that you're still choosing evil.

stitchygreyanonymouse

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 640
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #311 on: September 07, 2012, 09:02:33 AM »
It is not a pant.  A pant is only one part of it, hence why it is called a pair of pants.  A pant is just one side, so please do not insist on finding me a pant that fits my shape as I want a pair of them sewn together.  I realize this is big in the garment/fashion industry and that only bothers me more because it seems to me that it came about to make those saying it feel more refined.  This may not be the case, they may have always called it a pant but it is only leaking out of the fashion/garment world recently, but that is still how I interpret it.  I also just think it sounds stupid.

Meanwhile, the industry also adds unnecessary -ing to nouns. You don't buy sheets; you buy sheeting. Look at our lovely toweling. New, 100% cotton, no-iron shirting.

So when will they put the two trends together and offer us panting?  >:D

Iíve never seen this, though I donít doubt it happens and would also bother me.

However, the words shirting, sheeting, and toweling all do have a place in the industry: describing the fabric goods before they are made into shirts, sheets, and towels. Of course, instead of panting, we have "bottom-weight".

Giggity

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8622
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #312 on: September 07, 2012, 10:06:26 AM »
A bunch of attorneys who advertise on Houston radio are not licensed to do business in Texas. They are, instead, something that sounds like lysund. That second S sound disappears. AAAAAAAARRGH.
Words mean things.

Mental Magpie

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4830
  • ...for the dark side looks back.
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #313 on: September 07, 2012, 10:07:18 AM »
It is not a pant.  A pant is only one part of it, hence why it is called a pair of pants.  A pant is just one side, so please do not insist on finding me a pant that fits my shape as I want a pair of them sewn together.  I realize this is big in the garment/fashion industry and that only bothers me more because it seems to me that it came about to make those saying it feel more refined.  This may not be the case, they may have always called it a pant but it is only leaking out of the fashion/garment world recently, but that is still how I interpret it.  I also just think it sounds stupid.

Meanwhile, the industry also adds unnecessary -ing to nouns. You don't buy sheets; you buy sheeting. Look at our lovely toweling. New, 100% cotton, no-iron shirting.

So when will they put the two trends together and offer us panting?  >:D

Iíve never seen this, though I donít doubt it happens and would also bother me.

However, the words shirting, sheeting, and toweling all do have a place in the industry: describing the fabric goods before they are made into shirts, sheets, and towels. Of course, instead of panting, we have "bottom-weight".

That makes sense to me, but I have seen/heard them called that in the stores themselves, after they have been made into sheets, shirts, and towels.
The problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that you're still choosing evil.

MamaMootz

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2896
  • I'm a lumberjack and I'm O.K....
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #314 on: September 07, 2012, 10:10:06 AM »
Twitching... my eye is twitching. Just saw this in an employment ad:

"Do you pour over the pages of the latest trend magazine?"

I dunno..... I guess I could pour my milk over it, if I really wanted to. :o

...Alas, I must admit defeat...what is the proper usages there? Is it pore?

Yes.
"I like pie" - DD's Patented Bean Dip Maneuver