Lingusitics Pet Peeves of your native language

[Greg Bernhardt]

There are so many bizarre traits of the English language, but for me the concept of Homographs, Homophones and Homonyms take the cake for me. It must drive English as a second language leaners bonkers!

• Homographs are words that are spelled alike, but have different meanings and sometimes different pronunciations.
• Homonyms are words spelled or pronounced alike but different in meaning.
• Homophones are a type of homonym that also sound alike and have different meanings, but have different spellings.

 

[jackwhirl]

Sometimes it's a wonder we understand each other at all.

I've decided I dislike the letter 'C'. It's kompletely unnesessary

 

[fresh_42]

You have forgotten the Homoinsulae: spell alike, mean alike, and pronounced differently (e.g. either, issue).

 

[fresh_42]

Sometimes it's a wonder we understand each other at all.

I've decided I dislike the letter 'C'. It's kompletely unnesessary

And it occurs twice: 'Z'.

 

[symbolipoint]

We gain the necessary understanding through the natural language-in-context process. Handling all these confusing things you classified we learn not overnight. ESL people are able to learn similarly. The bigger problem is of the native English speakers not taking care during communication with either other native speakers or with non-native speakers.

Some specific examples would be nice.

 

[fresh_42]

The bigger problem is of the native English speakers not taking care during communication

As far as my experiences count, there is a major difference between native Englishmen and native Americans. Europeans are far more used to either be themselves foreigners or have people around, which are not native speakers. The reactions towards people who do not understand the local dialect or have difficulties expressing themselves are accordingly. As said, in my experience. And I am talking about common people, not the educated upper class.

 

[symbolipoint]

I do not know what this means:

he reactions towards people who do not understand the local dialect or have difficulties expressing themselves are accordingly.

Not trying to be humorous; I just do not know what you said there.

 

[fresh_42]

When I had difficulties to find the correct words, I have been looked at as mentally handicapped, in the US. When this happened in Great Britain, they just said: don't worry, my German is worse than your English.
And a few other situations which were similar.

You said:

The bigger problem is of the native English speakers not taking care during communication

... and I insisted, that native English is not correct, as the amount of care depends on whether the native English speaker is an American or a British person. The reason that it might be caused by the frequency of meeting foreigners or be one was a hypothesis of mine, which could explain this phenomenon.

But maybe I misinterpreted your "not taking care during communication".

 

[Nik_2213]

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.

That infamous, oft-misattributed quote:
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."

And then throw in regional variations best described as 'Huh ?'

D'you wonder 'tis all a tad peculiar ??


ps: Remember the French have an organisation dedicated to ensuring the enduring purity of their language by strictly regulating novelty. But the English embrace such novelty, add it to the 'Oxford English Dictionary'...

 

[DaveE]

Sometimes it's a wonder we understand each other at all.

I've decided I dislike the letter 'C'. It's kompletely unnesessary

I'm not kertain of the kenterpiece of your askertation of obskoleskense, please kite your sourkes. Still I don't want to kertify the keiling of my previously kelebrated enkyklopedik kerebral ability. Perhaps, in future kenturies when we are in the kemetary because of kigarettes, kyklones, kirrosis, or kyanide, other kivilizations will kement new pronunketion and kease to kensure people for sukh korrekt koncepts.

 

[fresh_42]

I'm not kertain of the kenterpiece of your askertation of obskoleskense, please kite your sourkes. Still I don't want to kertify the keiling of my previously kelebrated enkyklopedik kerebral ability. Perhaps, in future kenturies when we are in the kemetary because of kigarettes, kyklones, kirrosis, or kyanide, other kivilizations will kement new pronunketion and kease to kensure people for sukh korrekt koncepts.

Maybe we could start and drop the 'k' in front of 'n's. How did they get there? And why?

 

[DaveE]

How did they get there? And why?

If ya'll (there's a necessary addition to english, a plural form of "you", and no I'm not from the south) can find it, Robert MacNeil (of the old MacNeil-Lehrer Report fame) did a series on the history of English that was really good.

 

[jackwhirl]

@DaveE, I'm sertain a solution kould be found in time.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Maybe we could start and drop the 'k' in front of 'n's. How did they get there? And why?

In Middle English, the k was voiced. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Vowel_Shift

 

[symbolipoint]

When I had difficulties to find the correct words, I have been looked at as mentally handicapped, in the US. When this happened in Great Britain, they just said: don't worry, my German is worse than your English.
And a few other situations which were similar.

You said:

... and I insisted, that native English is not correct, as the amount of care depends on whether the native English speaker is an American or a British person. The reason that it might be caused by the frequency of meeting foreigners or be one was a hypothesis of mine, which could explain this phenomenon.

But maybe I misinterpreted your "not taking care during communication".

Native English-speakers, whether british or american, if reasonably educated, have the choice to use their Standard form/version of English when they speak with or communicate with other people. Too often these native English-speakers use English in a sloppy way and may fail to give some care in how they hear (and sensibly interpret) what others with whom they are speaking with are saying.

 

[fresh_42]

and may fail to give some care in how they hear (and sensibly interpret) what others with whom they are speaking with are saying

That is what I said and where my hypothesis comes from: Interpretations are connected to certain expectations. If things are different from normal, people sort things out by a maximal likelihood decision. The number of encounters with foreigners does have an impact on what people consider most likely. Therefore it does make a difference whether people have in mind the possibility of meeting a foreign tourist or not. E.g. I can't walk 500 meters here without meeting a foreigner. This is not the case in Kalamazoo. Hence there is a difference between Europe where you are a foreigner every 500 miles, or the US where (att: rhetorical exaggeration) the only foreign language is Spanish, which automatically induces another set of most-likelies.

 

[symbolipoint]

That is what I said and where my hypothesis comes from: Interpretations are connected to certain expectations. If things are different from normal, people sort things out by a maximal likelihood decision. The number of encounters with foreigners does have an impact on what people consider most likely. Therefore it does make a difference whether people have in mind the possibility of meeting a foreign tourist or not. E.g. I can't walk 500 meters here without meeting a foreigner. This is not the case in Kalamazoo. Hence there is a difference between Europe where you are a foreigner every 500 miles, or the US where (att: rhetorical exaggeration) the only foreign language is Spanish, which automatically induces another set of most-likelies.

This part of the discussion can become very complicated. More productive results of our understanding could happen if a linguist member participates.

Maybe not the best example as I would have wanted from when I suggested someone give one; but a certain set of vocabulary in English, can have different interpretations, depending on how the elements are handled in someone else's culture. That set is { cracker, biscuit, cookie }; maybe maybe maybe also include {cake, muffin}.

 

[Mark44]

Maybe we could start and drop the 'k' in front of 'n's. How did they get there? And why?

In Middle English, the k was voiced.

Middle English arose from both the Angles (from what is now Germany) and the Saxons (ditto).
The word "knife,"comes from Old German, then to Old Norse kniffr, then Old English cnif. The word "knight" goes way back to proto-German, then Old English cniht or cneht (boy, youth, servant, et al. but also warrior), then Middle English knight, knyght.

I suspect that a lot of words starting with "kn" such as knave, knot, know, knowledge can be traced back to Old German or before.

 

[Mark44]

There are so many bizarre traits of the English language, but for me the concept of Homographs, Homophones and Homonyms take the cake for me. It must drive English as a second language leaners bonkers!

• Homographs are words that are spelled alike, but have different meanings and sometimes different pronunciations.

Such as prog' ress (noun) and pro-gress' (verb). Also, "I enjoyed reading about the city of Reading, Berkshire."
"Are you going to read that book?"
"No, I have already read it."

• Homonyms are words spelled or pronounced alike but different in meaning.

Lead and led/read and red are pairs that are pronounced the same, but differ in meaning.

• Homophones are a type of homonym that also sound alike and have different meanings, but have different spellings.

• "I was peeling an orange while the bells were pealing."

 

[PeroK]

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".

 

[pinball1970]

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".

The vast majority of British people would not understand any of that and this includes the educated ones. The only natives who understand English grammar are foreign language students. The reason for this is because we are not taught grammar at school particularly well, same with languages. Latin would help the situation but that subject tends to be reserved for expensive private schools.

 

[Bandersnatch]

There are so many bizarre traits of the English language, but for me the concept of Homographs, Homophones and Homonyms take the cake for me.

You'll love this then:

Spoiler

Oh, and one of the nuttier words in English is 'fast'. It's a noun, it's an adjective, it's a verb, it's an adverb. I mean, come on.

By the way, a lot of aspects of the language that native speakers find the hardest to iron out can be a complete non-issue for foreign learners (and vice versa).

 

[pinball1970]

When I had difficulties to find the correct words, I have been looked at as mentally handicapped, in the US. When this happened in Great Britain, they just said: don't worry, my German is worse than your English.
And a few other situations which were similar

Yes that is because we recognise we are the dunces of Europe when it comes to language.

 

[PeroK]

The vast majority of British people would not understand any of that and this includes the educated ones. The only natives who understand English grammar are foreign language students. The reason for this is because we are not taught grammar at school particularly well, same with languages. Latin would help the situation but that subject tends to be reserved for expensive private schools.

I remember asking a Yorkshireman once why he said "we were sat" but not "we were talked" or "we were watched the TV"?

He was genuinely puzzled and couldn't explain it.

 

[pinball1970]

I remember asking a Yorkshireman once why he said "we were sat" but not "we were talked" or "we were watched the TV"?

He was genuinely puzzled and couldn't explain it.

Yes on top of poor grammar nationally you add can local dialect and idiosyncrasies.

In Manchester we say, 'are you coming with us?' when we actually mean 'are you coming with me?'

It actually sounds like, 'yer comin wiv us?'

 

[dRic2]

Anyone having problem with punctuation ?

I know I should focus on more important issues to improve my English, but one thing that always got me on my nerve is punctuation. In my native language (Italian) it is everywhere and we have precise rule to follow for a correct use (of course 90% of the people doesn't know those rules, but that's another story). In English it seems (to me) punctuation is not a dominant part and it is used in a slightly different way. I think this is because English speakers prefer short sentences over long ones, thus they really only need '.' (full stop).

I'm not talking about what I read here on forums because that would be absurd, but books.Did anyone ever think about this or is is just me ?

 

[pinball1970]

Anyone having problem with punctuation ?

I know I should focus on more important issues to improve my English, but one thing that always got me on my nerve is punctuation. In my native language (Italian) it is everywhere and we have precise rule to follow for a correct use (of course 90% of the people doesn't know those rules, but that's another story). In English it seems (to me) punctuation is not a dominant part and it is used in a slightly different way. I think this is because English speakers prefer short sentences over long one, thus they really only need '.' (full stop).

I'm not talking about what I read here on forums because that would be absurd, but books.Did anyone ever think about this or is is just me ?

No you are correct, texting and social media has made a negative impact on the use of punctuation.
The young are the worst offenders.

 

[Orodruin]

No you are correct, texting and social media has made a negative impact on the use of punctuation.
The young are the worst offenders.

”The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.”

 

[pinball1970]

”The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.”

Ok I see what you did there and that is not what I meant, otherwise I would have said,

'our sires age was less than our grandsires. We their sons are more worthless than they, so in turn we shall give the world a progeny yet more corrupt.'

I was referring to the fact texting, e mailing and social media has had a negative impact on aspects of our wonderful language.
Since technology is embraced by the young they are the ones who will not visit libraries, write letters or understand why that blue underline appears in word.

 

[PeroK]

Ok I see what you did there and that is not what I meant, otherwise I would have said,

'our sires age was less than our grandsires. We their sons are more worthless than they, so in turn we shall give the world a progeny yet more corrupt.'

I was referring to the fact texting, e mailing and social media has had a negative impact on aspects of our wonderful language.
Since technology is embraced by the young they are the ones who will not visit libraries, write letters or understand why that blue underline appears in word.

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.

 

[fresh_42]

I suspect that a lot of words starting with "kn" such as knave, knot, know, knowledge can be traced back to Old German or before.

Probably. We still have those words with a voiced 'k' as in Knoten, Kniff (trick), Knick (kink) or Knopf (button). I wonder whether it will be dropped some time. Or whether 'ite' will win over 'ight', or the 'ise' vs. 'ize' controversy will be resolved. Before you object: "Yuck!, Never!" I like to add that the 'u' in 'ou' already got lost!

 

[fresh_42]

Such as prog' ress (noun) and pro-gress' (verb). Also, "I enjoyed reading about the city of Reading, Berkshire."
"Are you going to read that book?"
"No, I have already read it."Lead and led/read and red are pairs that are pronounced the same, but differ in meaning.

• "I was peeling an orange while the bells were pealing."

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

and presumably more than I'm aware of. This doesn't make the whole issue easier.

 

[symbolipoint]

I remember asking a Yorkshireman once why he said "we were sat" but not "we were talked" or "we were watched the TV"?

He was genuinely puzzled and couldn't explain it.

"We were sat", feels like it makes sense; "we" were seated, either on our own action to sit, or as directed to be seated by a host.

 

[fresh_42]

The only natives who understand English grammar are foreign language students.

This isn't unusual. Someone who learns a new language learns the grammar, too, whereas natives just use it as adapted. I remember, if we had a question about the correct use of a word, e.g. 'What is the correct genitive of Gauß?', we used to ask our American colleague who either knew it or knew where to look it up.

 

[PeroK]

"We were sat", feels like it makes sense; "we" were seated, either on our own action to sit, or as directed to be seated by a host.

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".

 

[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.