The English language - rants welcome, be warned

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Very true... but there aren't all that many people who misuse this in writing, I don't find. I think many/most of the people who lack the command to properly spell it also lack the command to think of using such a phrase in the first place.

Not to embarrass anyone but I did see this error here today. It seems to me that this mistake occurs fairly often but YMMV of course.

[yabanci]

annoying: She went to the concert with Joe and I.

[judicial clerk]

I can't stand that I always write in the passice voice. Active voice, active voice, dammit! *punches himself*

[Noop]

Some of you need help. Alot of it...

[dawgfan]

I don't see much of it any more, but here's another one:

Something or someone that dominates should be described as dominant, not dominate.

Very common, and yet annoying because they are so simple to remember:

there is a location, i.e. "Let's go over there.;
their is a possessive, i.e. "The Seahawks released their fastest LB today;
they're is a contraction of they are, i.e. "My friends are in town today, and they're going to see the Mariners game.

As well as:

too is in addition to something, i.e. "I want to see that movie too.;
two is the number, i.e. "One plus one equals two.;
to is used in every other circumstance

I know there's another one I've seen a lot of recently that bugs me, but I'm blanking on it at the moment.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by judicial clerk

I can't stand that I always write in the passice voice. Active voice, active voice, dammit! *punches himself*

I do this as well. This is, by far, the biggest thing that Word corrects me on, including spelling. I think it is because we often use the passive voice in every day speech.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Noop

Some of you need help. Alot of it...

Oh alot instead of A lot.

Thanks for pointing that out Noop.

[Glengoyne]

Dola,
Regarding piqued/peaked. My boss the other day mentioned that something had PEE-KAYED his interest. He didn't take it very well when I told him, but it did get me a free lunch.

[Simms]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I honestly don't understand the "I have got", "I've got" thing. I don't think it is common for folks to mixup have got and have, so I must be missing something.

In casual conversation, I don't mind it so much...it's generally quite prevalent, but it's said so fast, you almost don't notice it.

In business correspondence (or any kind of formal writing), however, it's sloppy and redundant. "I have..." is perfectly sufficient.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Shouldn't that just be "italics"?

It could have been. In this case I wanted to compliment (not complement) the action of using italics, not merely just the italics themselves.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

reign - this is the rulership of a leader

Rulership?

[Neon_Chaos]

of and off.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Rulership?

It's a valid word according to the dictionary I have...

[21C]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

of and off.

This reminds me of the annoying use of "off of" in place of "off".

"I got the ball off of my friend."
"He took the wrapping off of the present."

In each case, the "of" is redundant.

My other annoyance is with the word "secretary" pronounced as "seck-etary" as if the first "r" is silent. Up there with "library" and "liberry".

[ Runs eye over rant before hitting Submit Reply to ensure no errors in post ]

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by judicial clerk

I can't stand that I always write in the passice voice. Active voice, active voice, dammit! *punches himself*

This is absolutely rampant in the political realm, where someone discovered some time ago that the passive voice seems to absolve blame for things. (The all-time classic case of this is "mistakes were made." Apparently nobody made the mistakes, it's nobody's fault, and lord knows nobody should be punished ... the mistakes were just made, it seems)

My toes curl almost every time I see things in writing that read "It is recommended that..." or "The result of the legislation would be..." or "The State is desirous of..."

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Rulership?

Yes. Either the time period during which the ruler actually served, or alternatively the geographic domain over which the ruler presided. More often the first, but also colloquially the second. Sorry if I was unclear - didn't want to use the usually-preferable word "rule," which has another plain meaning, creating an avenue for more ambiguity.

[Huckleberry]

Hi. My name is Huck, and I write in the passive voice. It coincides with an apparent affinity for prepositional phrases. I am engaged in a continual battle against my passive voice demons.

[QuikSand]

Oh, news flash: An apostrophe is not necessary for every word that becomes a plural.



I know it's well-worm territory, but just incase someone is actually reading this thread with an open mind -- perhaps this can help.

[wheels]

Rant:

Websites and other media that list the possessive form of names as follows:
Brock Sheriff's, Michael Jordan's, Curly Culp's, Chicago Tribune's. They treat the 's as a separate typographic element.

The possessive forms ('s) of these proper nouns are inflections; they are part of the words, not to be treated as typographically different. It is the same as if they published dog's or boy's.

These examples should be Brock Sheriff's, Michael Jordan's, Curly Culp's and Chicago Tribune's.

Sadly, most publishing software has keywords, such as proper nouns, in a dictionary that automatically trigger a certain typographic style treatment. These keywords typically do not cover inflections of the words.

If publishers would stop using spell check and other software in lieu of actual editors, perhaps this wouldn't be so rampant.

[Glengoyne]

I think that Have got might be redundant, but I it's pretty well accepted. I'd say that "off of" falls into the same category. Maybe these were a problem at one time, but at least Have Got seems to have become acceptable.

[korme]

there/their/they're comes so easily with me that i don't even have to think about it in usage, so that is probably my biggest peeve when it comes to english.

i revise my roomies' english papers because they write horribly.


filling job applications, my roomie goes "hey how do you spell joseph?", i ask why, he replies "Oh it's my middle name"

sigh

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

Not to embarrass anyone but I did see this error [interest being "peaked" instead of "piqued"] here today. It seems to me that this mistake occurs fairly often but YMMV of course.

Now that you mention it, I saw it come up twice. Once incorrectly, and later in the same thread used correctly. I suspect the latter was inspired by the former.

[korme]

fill me in.

your interest gets piqued, not peaked?

i don't think i've ever used that in a sentence.

[korme]

also, it was brought up in a game i was playing where you had to rhyme with a word: here... someone said "mirror" and i was the only out of 8 people to object. people thought i was crazy but mirror and here have absolutely no rhyme, unless you are pronouncing it god awfully like "meer", but even in that case the real word is still not rhyming with the original, here. my argument was that if that was acceptable, you could rhyme any word with here as long as you put an accent on it..

i got really into that argument. especially when a fellow english major was trying to tell me they rhymed, wow.

[dawgfan]

Unless you're talking about the rapper, the word is spelled ludicrous, not ludacris.

[Vince]

Originally Posted by Shorty3281

also, it was brought up in a game i was playing where you had to rhyme with a word: here... someone said "mirror" and i was the only out of 8 people to object. people thought i was crazy but mirror and here have absolutely no rhyme, unless you are pronouncing it god awfully like "meer", but even in that case the real word is still not rhyming with the original, here. my argument was that if that was acceptable, you could rhyme any word with here as long as you put an accent on it..

i got really into that argument. especially when a fellow english major was trying to tell me they rhymed, wow.

Please, please, please, shorty. Tell me this "English Major" was WAY deep in the drink count. Honestly...I was a (for those of you that care...and I'm one of them...AN) History major, please, please, PLEASE tell me that this "english major" was really just joking with you? Mirror and here?

Is this the "Lil' John" school of rhyme?

[Vince]

I don't pretend to know everything about the english language -- lord knows that it's crazy enough without me trying to put my mark on it. Either way...the english language sucks. And I know that there are plenty more rules than I know about to make it worthy of keeping track of. But seriously -- mirror and here? Last time I checked, words that rhymed with each other had a similar last syllable. Here and mirror do not rhyme, have never rhymed, and will never rhyme, according to my count. Please tell me when this count fails, because at that point, I will fail to be a fan of music.


EDIT -- The point I'm trying to make is that they aren't even close. Mi-ROR, and HERE are quite different words. I'm in no shape to illustrate something different, but I will do so to the best of my ability, because there is no one else to do so. Well, there is probably someone else to do so, but I feel that somehow this is my responsibility, so I will do so.

[Vince]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

What is the opposite of more?

It depends.

If the things you are describing is measured in countable, discrete (not to be confused with discreet) units, then the word you want is fewer. If the noun is plural, then you almost always should use fewer. Fewer calories. Fewer touchdowns. Fewer problems. Fewer dollars. And so forth.

If the thing you are describing is not countable, but rather quantifiable as a masurement or just as a comparison -- then the word you want is less. If the noun is singular, then you almost always should use less. Less fat. Less scoring. Less trouble. Less money. And so forth.


This is a very widely made mistake (specifically using "less" all the time, rather than deliniating as above) -- and if you don't have a buzzer that goes off in your head when you say, write, or hear phrases like "less dollars" then it may be tough to learn, i'm guessing.

I really think this might be my personal favorite post of yours. And there are an awful lot to choose from. I can't really even describe why this is my favorite of yours...it just really strikes me as apporpriate in this case.

[dawgfan]

I've been seeing a lot of spelling errors recently where an "e" is being used in place of "i", for example rediculous instead of ridiculous, and enquiry instead of inquiry.

Seems to me to be a classic case of a common (though not precisely correct) pronunciation of a word causing someone to misspell it, i.e. phonetic spelling.

[Ksyrup]

Here's one that drives me crazy, and the bump of SD's thread about the current Tucker RB's college choice prompted me to bring it up...

The word notorious has a limited meaning; specifically, it relates to something that is well-known but also unfavorable. It refers to a bad reputation for some undesirable feature, quality, or act.

A criminal may be fairly described as notorious. A high school that places a large number of football players with Division I-A programs is not notorious for that. It might be well-known, but it is not an undesirable quality. A rock band could be notorious for trashing hotel rooms, but not for having a string of #1 hits.

This one bothers me greatly because it appears that professional writers have completely destroyed the meaning of the word by using it in any situation for which someone is well-known for some act or quality. That's not the case.

[21C]

I vaguely recall being taught that 'notorious' and 'infamous' had similar meanings but one referred to people and the other referred to events/things. But bugger me if I can remember which one was which.

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

This one bothers me greatly because it appears that professional writers have completely destroyed the meaning of the word by using it in any situation for which someone is well-known for some act or quality. That's not the case.

This reminds of writers, and in particular sports writers, who use the word 'tragedy' in the wrong context. By one definition, it is "a disastrous event, especially one involving distressing loss or injury to life". A team losing a game is not a tragedy!