Lingusitics Pet Peeves of your native language

[fresh_42]

BTW '-' is the one that gets me the most: I suspect it is fairly used in English while I kind of never used it.

Yes, that's another difficult sign. I use it randomly ;-)

I learned at school that it basically doesn't occur in English, with very few exceptions. But nowadays I'm completely confused: is it non-linear, nonlinear, or non linear; non-negative, nonnegative or non negative; semi-simple, semisimple or semi simple etc.; and what about eigen + value/vector/space/function? And the worst of all: I've seen all of them at times. As someone who is used to concatenate nouns, I reach my limits with those, too. Is it a water wave, a water-wave or a waterwave, or none of them and a wave of/in/on water? And why is it a quarterback, but a wide_receiver; a halfback or tailback, but a running_back?

 

[fresh_42]

Examples would help to understand what you said there.

I think all red commata are wrong and only the ones in the list are correct. All commata would be mandatory in German.

 

[dRic2]

As someone who is used to concatenate nouns, I reach my limits with those, too.

Right! Sooo many doubts! And the worst part is that you will never be sure unless you ask, but they are too many to ask every time.

 

[symbolipoint]

Right! Sooo many doubts! And the worst part is that you will never be sure unless you ask, but they are too many to ask every time.

The high schools and junior high schools in some English speaking countries (or should that be, English-speaking) often would give or assign a specified guide book about things like that. I do not remember what these kinds of books were called... some kind of "manual". Manuals of Usage And Style?

dRic2 and fresh_42,
In most cases, as long as what is read is quickly and naturally understood, the spelling or punctuation as chosen may be very acceptable. Check one of those manuals when you are unsure.

 

[atyy]

One thing that is almost universal now is to use "sat" and "stood" instead of "sitting" and "standing".

The other is to confusion over the verbs to "lie" and to "lay". The first is intransitive, as into "lie down" and the second transitive, as in "to lay down your burden". Their forms should be:

I lie down, I lay down, I have lain down.

I lay down my burden, I laid down my burden, I have laid down my burden.

In fact, when I mentioned this to someone they had never even heard of the word "lain".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Now_I_Lay_Me_Down_to_Sleep

 

[Mark44]

I don't see anything wrong with "Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep," other than being a bit archaic. Here the verb "lay" is used in a transitive sense (and reflexive), similar to "I lay myself down."
Without "me" in the construction, it should be written, "Now I lie down to sleep."

 

[fresh_42]

"Now I lie down to sleep."

This is an interesting word. In the first moment I wanted to mock or joke about its double meaning of lie down and speak falsely, then I recognized, that in German it is 'legen' (to put) and 'lügen' (speak falsely) which also hardly differs. That made me curious, and of course the words are of corresponding origin. The interesting part is, that both have been almost the same already in Proto-Germanic: legjan (for 'legen' and 'lie' as to rest or put, literally 'to make lie'), leuganan (and later liogan, for 'lügen' and 'lie' as to speak falsely; further roots are unclear).

So if anyone will ask again, it is justified to tell them that it has been so for three thousand years!

 

[atyy]

I don't see anything wrong with "Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep," other than being a bit archaic. Here the verb "lay" is used in a transitive sense (and reflexive), similar to "I lay myself down."
Without "me" in the construction, it should be written, "Now I lie down to sleep."

You are probably one of those who would object to "How are you?" "I'm good".

Anyway, https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=opdWDwAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s Usage has an interesting entry which says that Francis Bacon used "lay" intransitively in his most polished work. The entry does, however, advise that at present "Many people use 'lay' for 'lie', but certain others will judge you uncultured if you do. Decide for yourself what is best for you."

 

[Mark44]

You are probably one of those who would object to "How are you?" "I'm good".

Nope, I don't object to this, even though there is a difference between "I'm good" and "I'm well".

 

[fresh_42]

Nope, I don't object to this, even though there is a difference between "I'm good" and "I'm well".

I think one answers "How are you" and the other one "How you're doing" or "How do you do".

 

[Mark44]

I think one answers "How are you" and the other one "How you're doing" or "How do you do".

If you reply with one of these, you haven't answered the question "How are you?"
The point of @atyy's comment was the grammatical correctness or incorrectness of the response "I'm good."

 

[fresh_42]

If you reply with one of these, you haven't answered the question "How are you?"
The point of @atyy's comment was the grammatical correctness or incorrectness of the response "I'm good."

Yes, but "How are you" requests an adjective, whereas "How do you do" or "How are you doing" requests an adverb.

 

[Mark44]

Yes, but "How are you" requests an adjective, whereas "How do you do" or "How are you doing" requests an adverb.

But that wasn't the point of @atyy's comment, which was strictly about the question "How are you?"

 

[pbuk]

non-linear, nonlinear either are acceptable
non linear but not this ('non' cannot stand on its own)

non-negative correct
nonnegative no, the hyphen is needed to avoid the "nn"
non negative no, 'non' cannot stand on its own

semi-simple preferred
semisimple ok, particlarly as this is a technical term so it only exists through its definition, however prefixes with more than one syllable are usually hyphenated otherwise they become difficult to parse e.g. miscible = can be mixed; immiscible = cannot be mixed; something that could be part-mixed could be called semi-miscible but if I wrote it semimiscible you would have to read it three times to work out what I meant.
or semi simple no, again semi- is a prefix so cannot stand on its own

eigen + value/vector/space/function? - ah, this is the exception that proves the rule: always eigenvalue, eigenvector, eigenspace and eigenfunction! This is presumably partly because they are technical terms, partly because phonetically eigenanything is quite easy to parse and pronounce, but probably mainly in homage to its unadulterated German origin, which I am sure you will appreciate!

Is it a water wave, a water-wave or a waterwave, or none of them and a wave of/in/on water?
A water wave is a wave of water in the same way that an apple pie is a pie containing apple (but if you make it in the right way it could be Apfelstrudel).

And why is it a quarterback, but a wide_receiver; a halfback or tailback, but a running_back? Because once you cross the Atlantic you lose all hope of linguistic logic and consistency

 

[fresh_42]

But that wasn't the point of @atyy's comment, which was strictly about the question "How are you?"

I don't get it. If the answer to "How are you?" is an adjective, then "I am good!" is a valid and correct answer, ergo nothing to object, ergo what has been the subject of @atyy's post.

 

[Mark44]

I don't get it. If the answer to "How are you?" is an adjective, then "I am good!" is a valid and correct answer, ergo nothing to object, ergo what has been the subject of @atyy's post.

It's not about adjectives or adverbs -- it's about the meaning of good vs. well.
"I am good" implies that I am not evil.
"I am well" implies that I am not suffering from any disease or ailment.

 

[fresh_42]

It's not about adjectives or adverbs -- it's about the meaning of good vs. well.
"I am good" implies that I am not evil.
"I am well" implies that I am not suffering from any disease or ailment.

I understood this. I was just saying that "How are you?" is interpreted as "How are you doing?" An answer to the former is "I am not evil." whereas an answer to the latter requires an adverb. It is the faulty question which I have objections to. It is about the question, which provokes a seemingly false answer which actually is perfectly correct, and only the lack of precision in the question makes the answer look incorrect whereas it actually is correct.

 

[Orodruin]

"I am good" implies that I am not evil.

Not necessarily. It can also refer to a skill that may be subtextual (although this most often is not going to be the case).
”I’m pretty bad with maths. How are you?”
”I’m good!”

 

[Mark44]

Not necessarily. It can also refer to a skill that may be subtextual (although this most often is not going to be the case).

I disagree. If the question is "How are you?" and there is no additional context about skills or abilities, then it's a leap to consider that a response of "I am good" is about skills.

 

[Mark44]

I understood this. I was just saying that "How are you?" is interpreted as "How are you doing?" An answer to the former is "I am not evil." whereas an answer to the latter requires an adverb.

Right, one could interpret the question as you have done, but that's not the point. We're talking about the question as it is asked.

It is the faulty question which I have objections to.

How is the question faulty?

It is about the question, which provokes a seemingly false answer which actually is perfectly correct, and only the lack of precision in the question makes the answer look incorrect whereas it actually is correct.

You're overthinking this, I believe. Consider the question exactly as it is asked, not as some interpretation that isn't an exact parallel to the semantic meaning of "How are you?" This is similar to the difference between "What are you?" vs. "What are you doing?"

 

[pinball1970]

I disagree. If the question is "How are you?" and there is no additional context about skills or abilities, then it's a leap to consider that a response of "I am good" is about skills.

I think 'feeling' is implied and therefore missed out.
Good has more than one meaning in this context whereas well has only one.

 

[symbolipoint]

Posts #69 through 71:
Is this about "pet peeves" of our native language (in this case, English), or about how logic is or is not applied to some phrases or common questions?

 

[Orodruin]

I disagree. If the question is "How are you?" and there is no additional context about skills or abilities, then it's a leap to consider that a response of "I am good" is about skills.

You may disagree all you want. The leap is not so large that it cannot be considered as at least a possibility, even if it most likely not to be the case in most situations - which is what I was saying. In addition, context can also be non-verbal.

 

[Mark44]

What I wrote in post #69, with added emphasis:

If the question is "How are you?" and there is no additional context about skills or abilities, then it's a leap to consider that a response of "I am good" is about skills.

The leap is not so large that it cannot be considered as at least a possibility, even if it most likely not to be the case in most situations - which is what I was saying. In addition, context can also be non-verbal.

I specifically said no additional context, which would preclude nonverbal cues. Again, if someone walks up to you and asks, "How are you?" I maintain that the chances of them inquiring about your abilities is vanishingly small. In that sense, it's a leap to interpret the question "How are you?" as anything other than your state at the moment.

 

[symbolipoint]

"How are you?" is an interesting one.
Literally, it is an inquiry about the person's current status, conditions, health, feelings. Depending on the way it is used, such as maybe addressing the person by name, it can be intended as "Hello", or "hello and tell me what is happening or how things are happening for you this day." A typical response is "Fine".

 

[pbuk]

I do not know any language other than English where "How are you?" is a normal inquisitive greeting; more common is "How is it?"

I wonder why?

 

[Mark44]

Posts #69 through 71:
Is this about "pet peeves" of our native language (in this case, English), or about how logic is or is not applied to some phrases or common questions?

The thread went astray with this question in post #58.

You are probably one of those who would object to "How are you?" "I'm good".

 

[fresh_42]

The thread went astray with this question in post #58.

I don't think it is astray. It is about an unspoken complement "doing, feeling" which in reverse affects the answer. Without it the question asks for a property, which is an adjective, with it, imagined or outspoken, the question asks for an adverb. However, the unspoken part is almost always assumed, which makes the correct answer seem wrong whereas it is not. This is about one of many imprecisions of language as a whole. And as such, subject to the thread.

As I closed a thread about infinity yesterday, I recognized another lack of precision. Infinite as a variety of cardinalities can be seen as opposite of finte, whereas infinite in the sense of beyond all borders has nothing to do with cardinalities.

Hence a discussion about the pet peeves of a language is in my opinion always a discussion of ambiguities, too; very likely in any language. How long did it take us to settle the meaning of the word set?

Is this about "pet peeves" of our native language

In this case, it is the fact that people far too often use the english apostrophe for genitives. We do not use it that way. In fact an apostrophe usually marks an elision, but never a genitive.

 

[Orodruin]

I specifically said no additional context, which would preclude nonverbal cues.

And I specifically said that things may be subtextual, which would include non-verbal clues.

 

[Mark44]

Without it the question asks for a property, which is an adjective, with it, imagined or outspoken, the question asks for an adverb. However, the unspoken part is almost always assumed, which makes the correct answer seem wrong whereas it is not. This is about one of many imprecisions of language as a whole. And as such, subject to the thread.

Are you thinking that "good" is an adjective and "well" is exclusively an adverb? The latter is not true.
Again, as responses to the question "How are you?", "I am fine" and "I am well" are both correct, but have different meanings. The point that @atyy was making in post #58 was about the distinction between these two responses.

 

[Mark44]

And I specifically said that things may be subtextual, which would include non-verbal clues.

The scenario that I described and quoted, specifies that there are no contextual clues of any kind - overt, subtextual, ESP, whatever.

 

[fresh_42]

Are you thinking that "good" is an adjective and "well" is exclusively an adverb?

Yes. Well, if not a noun or verb, and if not combined with another word as e.g. in well-being it is an adverb, the adverb to good.
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=well

 

[Orodruin]

The scenario that I described and quoted, specifies that there are no contextual clues of any kind - overt, subtextual, ESP, whatever.

But what @fresh_42 was talking about was not that. It was whether or not it would be grammatically correct or not, which it is. Whether or not it has a relevant meaning in the context is not relevant.

 

[fresh_42]

But what @fresh_42 was talking about was not that. It was whether or not it would be grammatically correct or not, which it is. Whether or not it has a relevant meaning in the context is not relevant.

I would even say that "How are you?" - "Well." is wrong as "Quickly." would be wrong.

 

[kent davidge]

What intrigues me in English is why you speakers (I don't consider myself one) frequently don't use only the verb, but have "up, down" etc in front of them. For example, why

- the events leading up to the war, instead of just the events leading to the war
- the bird ended up free, instead of just the bird ended free

I once even asked @PeterDonis via private message if I should use "write out" or "write down" in a PF thread.

 

[Mark44]

Yes. Well, if not a noun or verb, and if not combined with another word as e.g. in well-being it is an adverb, the adverb to good.

No, "well" is also an adjective. See entry 5 here - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/well. Other English dictionaries would be similar.

 

[Mark44]

would even say that "How are you?" - "Well." is wrong as "Quickly." would be wrong.

"Well" is the grammatically correct answer. This is exactly what atyy was talking about almost 30 posts back.

 

[fresh_42]

"Well" is the grammatically correct answer. This is exactly what atyy was talking about almost 30 posts back.

I am not convinced. An answer: "I am well". looks wrong. Well what? Well done?
"I am quick." is correct, "I am quickly." is not. So it all comes down to whether "well" might be used non adverbial. The examples in Webster all have an elision or are directly adverbial as in "our garden looks well". This is not an adjective here and Webster isn't right: The garden either looks good, or pleases the eye, in which case well refers to how it looks and not how it is.

 

[Mark44]

I am not convinced.

I guess it takes a lot to convince you, but then you are not a native speaker of English.

"I am well". looks wrong. Well what? Well done?

But it is correct. "Well" here is an adjective that describes the subject, "I".

The examples in Webster all have an elision or are directly adverbial as in "our garden looks well".

No, not so. From the same page: "he's not a well man" and "the wound is nearly well". In both cases the adjective "well" modifies the subject.

 

[Mark44]

Another peeve that is back on topic is its vs. it's. English is very inconsistent on these two words. We typically use 's to indicate ownership, as in "the dog's bone," but we write "the dog ate its bone."

OTOH, it's is shorthand for "it is."
I would guess that at least 1/3 of native English speakers get this wrong.

 

[Orodruin]

Another peeve that is back on topic is its vs. it's. English is very inconsistent on these two words. We typically use 's to indicate ownership, as in "the dog's bone," but we write "the dog ate its bone."

OTOH, it's is shorthand for "it is."
I would guess that at least 1/3 of native English speakers get this wrong.

This is a significant portion of the illness of not knowing when to use ’ correctly. Other examples include your vs you’re and their vs they’re.

 

[symbolipoint]

Another peeve that is back on topic is its vs. it's. English is very inconsistent on these two words. We typically use 's to indicate ownership, as in "the dog's bone," but we write "the dog ate its bone."

OTOH, it's is shorthand for "it is."
I would guess that at least 1/3 of native English speakers get this wrong.

"its" is third-person to say "of it". This whatever it is is taken as genderless in English.
"his" or "her" is third person but made for either of the two genders, "of him" or "of her".
NO apostrophe needed for these. Apostrophe EXCLUDED.

"it's" is the contraction for "it is", and here, the missing "i" is replaced with the apostrophe.

 

[pinball1970]

This is a significant portion of the illness of not knowing when to use ’ correctly. Other examples include your vs you’re and their vs they’re.

We were taught that some European languages ask, 'how do you go?' rather than, 'how you are?'
'Ca va?' Springs to mind for French
I googled a few others and they exist but I do not know how common they are used in spoken language or what is considered proper.

 

[pinball1970]

This is a significant portion of the illness of not knowing when to use ’ correctly. Other examples include your vs you’re and their vs they’re.

This is absolutely a young verses old issue.

Their and there and too and to.

On the apostrophe issue, I believe this is ok as long as you are quoting someone but not ok as part of formal written language.

 

[fresh_42]

I googled a few others and they exist but I do not know how common they are used in spoken language or what is considered proper.

In German as well. To be fine is "gut gehen" = going well.

On the apostrophe issue, I believe this is ok as long as you are quoting someone but not ok as part of formal written language.

There is another difficulty hidden.

If we want to speak about a certain word or phrase within a normal sentence, i.e. if the sentence is on the meta level, what is the correct version, especially in contrast to an emphasis of a certain word:

• I never confused "two, too, to" at school,
  but now that I regularly write in English without "translating" it first, those sometimes slip through.
• I never confused 'two, too, to' at school,
  but now that I regularly write in English without translating it first, those sometimes slip through.
• I never confused two, too, to at school,
  but now that I regularly write in English without 'translating' it first, those sometimes slip through.

or whatever combination of these. When to use 'one apostrophe', a "quotation mark", or simply italic or bold?

 

[symbolipoint]

In German as well. To be fine is "gut gehen" = going well.

There is another difficulty hidden.

If we want to speak about a certain word or phrase within a normal sentence, i.e. if the sentence is on the meta level, what is the correct version, especially in contrast to an emphasis of a certain word:

• I never confused "two, too, to" at school,
  but now that I regularly write in English without "translating" it first, those sometimes slip through.
• I never confused 'two, too, to' at school,
  but now that I regularly write in English without translating it first, those sometimes slip through.
• I never confused two, too, to at school,
  but now that I regularly write in English without 'translating' it first, those sometimes slip through.

or whatever combination of these. When to use 'one apostrophe', a "quotation mark", or simply italic or bold?

Nice. Check a style manual, and make your best judgement.

 

[skeptic2]

A Russian friend asked me, "Why do people say, 'The alarm went off' when they mean the alarm went on."

A Mexican father told me about one time he was boarding a boat with his son through a low doorway with a sign that said, "Watch your head" and his son asked him, "Daddy, how can I watch my head?"

One difference between English and other languages including Spanish is when someone is called, in English they answer, "I'm coming." and in some other languages they say, "I'm going."

 

[Mark44]

I do not know any language other than English where "How are you?" is a normal inquisitive greeting; more common is "How is it?"

Spanish: "Como estás?" or "Como está usted?"
Both mean literally "How are you?"
Portuguese: "Como está?" or "Como vai". The first is "how are you," and the second is, "How does it go?"

 

[pinball1970]

In German as well. To be fine is "gut gehen" = going well.

There is another difficulty hidden.

If we want to speak about a certain word or phrase within a normal sentence, i.e. if the sentence is on the meta level, what is the correct version, especially in contrast to an emphasis of a certain word:

• I never confused "two, too, to" at school,
  but now that I regularly write in English without "translating" it first, those sometimes slip through.
• I never confused 'two, too, to' at school,
  but now that I regularly write in English without translating it first, those sometimes slip through.
• I never confused two, too, to at school,
  but now that I regularly write in English without 'translating' it first, those sometimes slip through.

or whatever combination of these. When to use 'one apostrophe', a "quotation mark", or simply italic or bold?

I would use the third option without quotation marks on the 'translating.'

 

[fresh_42]

O.k. it's not as bad in German as it is in French, who say four times twenty ten seven, but we say seven and eighty instead of eighty seven. This is a notorious hurdle for foreigners. Now where do foreigners use a lot of numbers? Right, at the Chinese restaurant. I just listened to a dialogue where the customer had ordered 45 (Thai Curry) at the phone and came to fetch his meal. Now imagine, if the waiter desperately tries to figure out the difference between 45 and 54 while the customer confuses it, too. It's been hilarious!