Pet Peeves of your native language

[pinball1970]

Or, they may be using the vast resources on the Internet in preference to a local library.

When I was at school I could play chess once a week at the school chess club. A child these days could take online lessons from grandmaster.

Yes there is a vast amount of resource on the net, there is also a huge amount of garbage to occupy a young mind and fast technology to facilitate it.
Text speak, chat room speak, Twitter, face book, face time, snap chat, Instagram, msn, what's ap, MySpace, myblog, Tumblr, are all about speed. Grammar and punctuation are not considered and this carries on into the workplace.

 

[Mark44]

And the Homoinsulae!

• colour vs. color
• recognise vs. recognize
• truck vs. lorry
• the pronunciation of either vs. either, issue vs. issue, fast vs. fast, can't vs. can't

The 1st and 2nd items are a result of changes made to American English back in the 18th Century in an effort to rationalize the spellings of many British words by Noah Webster in his dictionary. Other examples are honour, harbour, flavour, and others. An exception to this is the word glamour, which comes from Scots, not French. This wiki page has many examples of the differences between British English and American English spellings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences.

When two languages with common roots are separated by thousands of miles, it's not surprising that the languages evolve in separate directions for the same concept, as in truck vs. lorry.

Regarding the word truck, how many of you know that a truck is also a part of a flagpole?

Spoiler

From Merriam-Webster dictionary:

a small wooden cap at the top of a flagstaff or masthead usually having holes for reeving flag or signal halyards

 

[Mark44]

English has acquired umpteen elements of other languages, starting with Pictish, ranging through Greco/Roman, Anglo/Saxon, Skand via the 'Vikings', French via the Normans, Middle-Eastern tongues via the Crusades, a bunch of Romance stuff, Imperial India etc etc etc.

This hits the nail on the head as to why English is so chaotic. There are lots of words whose sources most people don't know, such as "cotton," which is derived from Arabic "qutn" or "al-qutn." The Spanish word "algodon" is linguistically related.
The period of the Raj in India brought lots of words of Indian origin, such as bungalow, dungaree, khaki, nirvana,pundit, thug, yoga, and many more.
Sources not listed above include Aleut and Eskimo, from which we now have igloo, parka, kayak, and a few others.

 

[Mark44]

In English it seems (to me) punctuation is not a dominant part and it is used in a slightly different way.

Including or not including commas can completely change the meaning of a sentence.
"Let's eat Grandma!" and "Let's eat, Grandma!" are obviously different, especially from Grandma's perspective.

There's a book about the importance of punctuation in writing: "Eats, Shoots & Leaves," by Lynne Truss, that makes the point that the sentences "A panda eats shoots & leaves." and "A panda eats, shoots & leaves." mean very different things.

A recent post here at PF mentioned a sentence from a recommendation letter: "I was moved to be honest!"
The writer no doubt meant ""I was moved, to be honest!" The first sentence implies that the writer was formerly dishonest.

 

[Vanadium 50]

"Let's eat Grandma!" and "Let's eat, Grandma!"

I'd like to thank my parents, Ayn Rand and God.

 

[Orodruin]

I'd like to thank my parents, Ayn Rand and God.

Oooooh! Missing Oxford comma! One of my favourites.
Time to get some popcorn.

 

[pinball1970]

Yes, in that context, as in "we were warned". But, that implies someone must have done it to you. You are then the object of an action, represented by a transitive verb.

But the simple intransitive act should be "sitting" not "sat".

Another thing that annoys me is the use of English words that actually means something else. Meme, cis and trans and I recently found out that the word 'girth' has a completely different connotation to meaning I was taught. The young are the main culprits again, if they want to hijack a good word then at least find out what it originally meant.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Missing Oxford comma! One of my favourites.

She lives in Cleveland with her husband, a banker, and their two cats.

 

[fresh_42]

The young are the main culprits again, if they want to hijack a good word then at least find out what it originally meant.

I guess this happens in a lot of languages and is part of the juvenile rebellion when growing up. Several words here changed more or less completely its meaning, either partially, or as a new possible meaning on top of the old one. This holds especially for exaggerations, and first of all for the word good. Things youngsters liked were called here: horny, hot, mega, fat, and presumably some I missed throughout the years. The first one almost lost entirely its original meaning, i.e. basically nobody uses it in its original meaning anymore. The latest one is 'runs' as synonym for: is fine, works, being lucky and such.

 

[dRic2]

@Mark44 I didn't mean that English speakers don't use punctuation. I was saying that English sentences require less punctuation than in other languages (in my opinion). Also I've noticed a slightly different use of some punctuation marks.

 

[pinball1970]

I guess this happens in a lot of languages and is part of the juvenile rebellion when growing up. Several words here changed more or less completely its meaning, either partially, or as a new possible meaning on top of the old one. This holds especially for exaggerations, and first of all for the word good. Things youngsters liked were called here: horny, hot, mega, fat, and presumably some I missed throughout the years. The first one almost lost entirely its original meaning, i.e. basically nobody uses it in its original meaning anymore. The latest one is 'runs' as synonym for: is fine, works, being lucky and such.

I am pointing out my peeves with the use and bastardisation of the language rather than the language itself which was not the op
For me all those annoying idiosyncrasies are what make it special.

 

[Bandersnatch]

@Mark44 I didn't mean that English speakers don't use punctuation. I was saying that English sentences require less punctuation than in other languages (in my opinion). Also I've noticed a slightly different use of some punctuation marks.

I've definitely had a similar experience as yourself. And a few other EFL learners I talked to reported the same thing.
I think it's just that in some languages it's acceptable to splice a few independent clauses into a single sentence using punctuation. Whereas in English it's in bad form (cf. 'comma splice' on Wikipedia).

 

[fresh_42]

I think it's just that in some languages it's acceptable to splice a few independent clauses into a single sentence using punctuation.

We have e.g. the general rule, that all parts of a sentence, which have an SPO structure, belong into commata. This includes parts introduced by conjunctions like 'that', 'which', 'who', 'because', 'whether' etc. An example is the first sentence here. I'm not sure, whether all commata in this response are really correct in English. I think, I would skip all of them, which do not belong to the list.

 

[dRic2]

That's interesting.

I'm beginning to think there are two ways to see punctuation: it can be a tool that helps you to read correctly for yourself, or it can be a tool that helps you to read things to other people. I think they are different although they may look similar. If you need just to read something for yourself then you don't actually need to be a good reader, as long as you can understand. On the other hand, if you have to read something to other people it is necessary that you have the right tone and you pause at the right time.

We have e.g. the general rule, that all parts of a sentence, which have an SPO structure, belong into commata. This includes parts introduced by conjunctions like 'that', 'which', 'who', 'because', 'whether' etc. An example is the first sentence here. I'm not sure, whether all commata in this response are really correct in English. I think, I would skip all of them, which do not belong to the list.

This seems a very useful rule that helps you quickly identify the part of complex period, but (I think) if you had to pause every time, especially in front of pronouns like 'which" or 'who', it would sound a bit off. In Italian for example we have a similar rule, but commas must be avoided (usually, there are exceptions too) before pronouns and conjunctions like 'and', whereas they must be placed before disjunctions like 'but'.

Some of the rules I know don't seem to apply to English so I get really confused at times.

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

 

[symbolipoint]

We have e.g. the general rule, that all parts of a sentence, which have an SPO structure, belong into commata. This includes parts introduced by conjunctions like 'that', 'which', 'who', 'because', 'whether' etc. An example is the first sentence here. I'm not sure, whether all commata in this response are really correct in English. I think, I would skip all of them, which do not belong to the list.

Examples would help to understand what you said there.

 

[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?"