(DIR) Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
MS Speaks
(HTM) https://msspeaks.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
(DIR) Return to: MISCELLANEOUS
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3480--------------------------------------------------
Pet peeves about language
By: agate Date: November 29, 2021, 11:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
All my life I've dealt with words. They matter.
So some new developments in English usage attract my
attention--and annoy me. For instance:
wicked good--an e-mail today promises me "wicked good savings."
Something is wicked or it's good but it's not both. And wicked
isn't an adverb. It can't modify good in the way that a word
like very or astoundingly can.
fun as an adjective, as in "We had a fun time"--Who started this
horror? Fun is a noun. Say "We had fun." It's shorter--and
doesn't muddy up the language.
I sound like one of these schoolmarms who won't move with the
times even though any language moves with the times. I try to
go with the flow when it comes to changes in the language but
some of the changes really aren't for the better.
Just my opinion, FWIW...
#Post#: 4404--------------------------------------------------
More pet peeves about language
By: agate Date: April 30, 2024, 1:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Time for a few more of these:
transition as a verb - as in: "The agency will transition to a
new system next week." If you don't think transition sounds
terrible as a verb, try making a gerund of it: transitioning.
I've heard that too. There are plenty of other verbs that will
do the job.
Using granular to refer to just about anything, as in: "The
secretary gave a more granular presentation of the same facts."
This seems to mean "detailed" most of the time but when a word
is really meant to refer to something concrete (grains of sand
come to mind), it's hard to figure out just what it means.
Overuse of mathematical terms, such as algorithm and trajectory.
Yes, it's lovely that everyone is so conversant with such a
lofty subject as mathematics, but do these terms really need to
be flung around as often as they are these days?
#Post#: 4414--------------------------------------------------
Still more pet peeves about language
By: agate Date: May 10, 2024, 12:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A couple of verbs I could do without, but they are enjoying
great popularity:
valorize (verb) - There are many perfectly good verbs that could
be used instead of this horror. Valor originally means bravery,
especially in battle. "Valorize" as it is being used has nothing
whatsoever to do with bravery or battle.
critique (verb) - No, critique is a noun, as in: "That book
review is a critique of totalitarianism." What ever happened to
the verb criticize? Or analyze?
#Post#: 4450--------------------------------------------------
Still more language irritants
By: agate Date: June 13, 2024, 1:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
More of these irritants:
relatable--as in: "The characters in this movie are very
relatable." It apparently means that the movie viewer finds the
characters to be sympathetic, understandable people. The problem
is that "relate" means "to tell" as a rule, as in "relating a
story." It has another meaning: "to be in relation to," as in:
"How does this theory relate to the concept of utilitarianism?"
About 50 years ago we began to hear that someone was "a person I
can relate to," and that is probably where the problem began.
Does that mean "a person I can tell [something] to"? Probably
not since no "something" is mentioned. But "relate" meaning
"tell" is a transitive verb. "Relate" in this more recent sense
is probably psychobabble for "be on congenial terms with." OK,
this newer meaning is probably not going away. But do we have to
have "relatable"?
surveille (verb) - Please. This bastardization of a French verb
isn't needed in English. We have plenty of other words that will
do the job: "spy on," "monitor," "watch," etc.
gift (verb) - What ever happened to that fine verb, "to give"?
What was wrong with it? Why are we talking about "gifting her a
necklace"?
#Post#: 4461--------------------------------------------------
A couple of additional language complaints
By: agate Date: June 23, 2024, 1:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
And what's with going forward? Every time you hear someone
talking, the chances are pretty good that "going forward" is
going to enter into whatever the person is saying.
That's an exaggeration, of course. But my problem with it isn't
that it is wrong in some way but just that it's been so
overused. What is wrong with "in the future"?
Then there is the word prior--as in: "He sent in his application
two months prior."
Is something wrong with saying "ago"? Or if you're really fond
of that word "prior," why not use it in its older usage, coupled
with "to"--as in: "He sent in his application two months prior
to the time when it was due."
*****************************************************