gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon) (10/04/85)
Am I getting more sensitive, or is the English language, as used, becoming
less logical?
On all airlines now, for example, the landing message is always "We would like
to welcome you to ...". Well then, why don't they DO it? Isn't "We would
like to welcome you to New York" different from "Welcome to New York"? Don't
you expect the first to continue with "but, unfortunately, we landed in <some
other city> ..."?
Similarly, why do more and more people make statements about all cases when
their clear intention is to discuss exceptions? "Not available in all
areas" does decode into "available nowhere", doesn't it?
Grumble, grumble ...
FROM: Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems Division of Tektronix, Inc.
UUCP: tektronix!teklds!cae780!gordon
{ihnp4, decvax!decwrl}!amdcad!cae780!gordon
{nsc, hplabs, resonex, qubix, leadsv}!cae780!gordon
USNAIL: 5302 Betsy Ross Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95054
*UNTIL THE MOVE*
AT&T: (408)745-1440
*AFTER THE MOVE*
AT&T: (408)727-1234
Down 69 pounds, and holding ...mojo@kepler.UUCP (Morris Jones) (10/07/85)
You may be right, Brian.
My favorite local example is an ad for a finance company that has "loans
available up to $5000, and more!"
--
Mojo
... Morris Jones, MicroPro Product Development
{ptsfa,hplabs,glacier,lll-crg}!well!micropro!kepler!mojopeter@puff.UUCP (10/07/85)
> Am I getting more sensitive, or is the English language, as used, becoming > less logical? > Similarly, why do more and more people make statements about all cases when > their clear intention is to discuss exceptions? "Not available in all > areas" does decode into "available nowhere", doesn't it? Agreed that people do know less about using English logically, but "available nowhere" would be "Not available in any area". "Not available in all areas" would mean implies there are some areas where this is available but not all. Just to straighten the record, Pete
stadlin@hou2h.UUCP (Art Stadlin) (10/08/85)
> Am I getting more sensitive, or is the English language, as used, becoming > less logical? > > On all airlines now, for example... Where did "deplane" come from? I don't debus the bus so why should I deplane the plane? A no-frills airline with very little customer service does not have flight attendants; They have "Customer Service Representatives." We landed in Newark, New Jersey and they nearly always announce "Welcome to New York" or "Welcome to New York's Newark Airport." Grrrrr! I'm in New Jersey and it doesn't belong to New York. After a departure delay, they told us "We have a mechanical malfunction in the equipment so..." Now why couldn't they just have said "The plane is broken so..." If it can be said in a simple way, it can often be said better. -- \\\ \\\\ Art Stadlin \\\\\\________!{akgua,ihnp4,houxm}!hou2h!stadlin
galenr@iddic.UUCP (Galen Redfield) (10/08/85)
[] You must be getting more sensitive. I can still recall being scolded for bad manners as a youngster when my mother said to me at the dinner table, "Would you mind passing me the salt?" to which I replied, "No, mom, I wouldn't mind that!" She set me straight about how sometimes (often) people don't say exactly what they mean, but that I should try to understand what they mean instead of always being so literal. In the case of "not availiable in all areas," I think your translation is equivalent, but you shifted the negative. It would be "unavailable everywhere" instead of "available nowhere," but it means the same. The original statement should have been "not available in some areas." English has always been weird, especially when spoken. Warm regards, Galen.
kaufman@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (10/08/85)
> Where did "deplane" come from? I don't debus the bus so why should > I deplane the plane? You've obviously never been to Fantasy Island. The line is: "Bus, deplane! Deplane", not the other way around. Ken Kaufman (uiucdcs!kaufman)
showard@udenva.UUCP (showard) (10/09/85)
> Am I getting more sensitive, or is the English language, as used, becoming > less logical? > > Similarly, why do more and more people make statements about all cases when > their clear intention is to discuss exceptions? "Not available in all > areas" does decode into "available nowhere", doesn't it? > > Grumble, grumble ... > > FROM: Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems Division of Tektronix, Inc. It depends upon how you interpret the "not" i.e.: 1.) Not (avaiable in all areas) == available in some areas 2.) Not (available) in all areas == available nowhere Now will someone explain to me the logic behind the following signs 1.) (seen at the post office) "No Dogs Allowed. Except Seeing Eye Dogs." Who is that for? 2.) (seen at a going-out-of-business sale) "Save up to 50% and more" --Mr. Blore, the DJ who would not die -- ...udenva!showard -- "They pelted us with rocks and garbage"
lat@druil.UUCP (TepperL) (10/10/85)
> You've obviously never been to Fantasy Island. The line is: "Bus, deplane! > Deplane", not the other way around. > > Ken Kaufman (uiucdcs!kaufman) Come on! Everybody knows it's "zeplane", not deplane. -- Larry Tepper {ihnp4 | allegra}!druil!lat +1-303-538-1759
gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon) (10/11/85)
In article <282@kepler.UUCP> mojo@kepler.UUCP (mojo) writes: >My favorite local example is an ad for a finance company that has "loans >available up to $5000, and more!" The one I was trying to think of in the original posting (as an example of making a statement about all cases when the exception is meant) was "All phone companies are not alike", when they presumably mean to say that they are different from the rest -- i.e. "Not all phone companies are alike". FROM: Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems Division of Tektronix, Inc. UUCP: tektronix!teklds!cae780!gordon {ihnp4, decvax!decwrl}!amdcad!cae780!gordon {nsc, hplabs, resonex, qubix, leadsv}!cae780!gordon USNAIL: 5302 Betsy Ross Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95054 *UNTIL THE MOVE* AT&T: (408)745-1440 *AFTER THE MOVE* AT&T: (408)727-1234 Down 69 1/2 pounds, and holding ...
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Colonel'K) (10/11/85)
Ever hear someone say "I could care less"? Stop to think about what it REALLY means? The correct word is, of course, "couldn't". "I *LIKE* to watch..." Scott J. Berry ihnp4!hou2g!scott
diag@micomvax.UUCP (Hardware Diagnostics Group) (10/12/85)
The language isn't decaying; rather, civilization is decaying in the sense that overuse of the language is reflecting the personal gaps between people and their self-centered interests. There are countless examples in addition to the one you give of 'saying in ten words what can be said in two'; perhaps this is a manifestation of the angst of the human condition, of the need to say something when there's nothing to be said. I also find this trend annoying, yet I often find myself part of it. Perhaps t'was always thus! Listen to a politician talk to newsmen. A recent NET quote says it best: "Hypocrisy is the vaseline of social intercourse" Vlad the Re-mailer ...!philabs!micomvax!diag
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (10/13/85)
[Naw, I don't really believe there's a line-eater.] really believe there's a line-eater. > Now will someone explain to me the logic behind the following signs > > 1.) (seen at the post office) "No Dogs Allowed. Except Seeing Eye > Dogs." Who is that for? > > --Mr. Blore, the DJ who would not die > -- ...udenva!showard > Isn't it so that all the other people don't go up to the blind person and say "Get that dog outta here!" ? -- -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
bobn@bmcg.UUCP (Bob Nebert) (10/14/85)
> > > Where did "deplane" come from? I don't debus the bus so why should > > I deplane the plane? > > You've obviously never been to Fantasy Island. The line is: "Bus, deplane! > Deplane", not the other way around. > > Ken Kaufman (uiucdcs!kaufman) What I want to know is when did the word 'access' become a verb?
inc@fluke.UUCP (Gary Benson) (10/14/85)
> > Ever hear someone say "I could care less"? Stop > to think about what it REALLY means? The correct > word is, of course, "couldn't". > > > Scott J. Berry *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** You have mentioned one of my pet peeves from anti-Englishists. My really favorite, though is, "Let's see if we can't [do whatever]". Here the clear intent is to say, "Let's see if we CAN" do it, and for some perverse reason the exact opposite is said. I recently read a quote from Mr. R. Reagan, President of the United States, in which he stated that the US must see if we can't live in peace with the Soviets. I wonder how that particular "Americanism" gets translated...perhaps with a [sic] in the middle? -- Gary Benson * John Fluke Mfg. Co. * PO Box C9090 * Everett WA * 98206 MS/232-E = = {allegra} {uw-beaver} !fluke!inc = = (206)356-5367 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-ascii is our god and unix is his profit-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
rjw@ptsfc.UUCP (Rod Williams) (10/16/85)
> Now will someone explain to me the logic behind the following signs > > 1.) (seen at the post office) "No Dogs Allowed. Except Seeing Eye > Dogs." Who is that for? ...or a poster currently to be seen on many San Francisco busses: LEARN TO READ NOW - CALL (800) 555-5555 -- rod williams | {ihnp4,dual}!ptsfa!ptsfc!rjw ------------------------------------------- pacific bell | san ramon | california
roger@celtics.UUCP (Roger Klorese) (10/17/85)
In article <1190@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) writes: > >> Now will someone explain to me the logic behind the following signs >> >> 1.) (seen at the post office) "No Dogs Allowed. Except Seeing Eye >> Dogs." Who is that for? >> >> --Mr. Blore, the DJ who would not die >> -- ...udenva!showard >> > >Isn't it so that all the other people don't go up to the blind person >and say "Get that dog outta here!" ? > Kinda like the signs they used to have on the doors at IHOP's: "We have menus in Braille" ...Gee, if they'd make the signs bigger, all the blind drivers could see them from the road and pull in! -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ... "What were you expecting, rock'n'roll?" | |Roger B.A. Klorese | |Celerity Computing, 40 Speen St., Framingham, MA 01701, (617) 872-1772 | |UUCP: ARPA: | |decvax-\ bang-\ celerity!celtics!roger@sdcsvax.ARPA | |ucbvax--\ akgua-\ | |ihnp4----\-sdcsvax-\-celerity!celtics!roger - or - | |- or - celtics!roger@bu-cs.ARPA | |seismo----\harvard---\bu-cs!celtics!roger | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rich@aoa.UUCP (Rich Snow) (10/17/85)
Keywords:USE OF TONGUE In article <716@tpvax.fluke.UUCP> inc@fluke.UUCP (Gary Benson) writes: >> >> Ever hear someone say "I could care less"? Stop >> to think about what it REALLY means? The correct >> word is, of course, "couldn't". >> >> >> Scott J. Berry > > >You have mentioned one of my pet peeves from anti-Englishists. My >really favorite, though is, "Let's see if we can't [do whatever]". Here the >clear intent is to say, "Let's see if we CAN" do it, and for some perverse >reason the exact opposite is said. I recently read a quote from Mr. R. >Reagan, President of the United States, in which he stated that the US must >see if we can't live in peace with the Soviets. I wonder how that particular >"Americanism" gets translated...perhaps with a [sic] in the middle? >-- > Gary Benson * John Fluke Mfg. Co. * PO Box C9090 * Everett WA * 98206 Ah, but sarcasm (similar in it's flippedness) is a universal language... rich snow ...!{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!aoa!rich "you stuck your creamcheese in my choclate bar..."
kaufman@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (10/17/85)
>> Ever hear someone say "I could care less"? Stop >> to think about what it REALLY means? The correct >> word is, of course, "couldn't". > You have mentioned one of my pet peeves from anti-Englishists. My > really favorite, though is, "Let's see if we can't [do whatever]". Here the > clear intent is to say, "Let's see if we CAN" do it, and for some perverse > reason the exact opposite is said. I recently read a quote from Mr. R. > Reagan, President of the United States, in which he stated that the US must > see if we can't live in peace with the Soviets. I wonder how that particular > "Americanism" gets translated...perhaps with a [sic] in the middle? I don't like that one either. It's almost as bad as "That'll teach you to [insert something that shouldn't have been done]". It should be: "That'll teach you not to ..." Ken Kaufman (uiucdcs!kaufman) "Look Barony, it's a Penfold!"
rhm@entropy.UUCP (Bob Mauritsen) (10/20/85)
I would like to nominate the following type of sentence as being worthy of hate. "All <whatevers> are not alike." What is really meant is, "Not all <whatevers> are alike." There are more and more of these appearing in print and being spoken in tv ads. I cringe every time I hear one.
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (10/20/85)
> In article <282@kepler.UUCP> mojo@kepler.UUCP (mojo) writes: > >My favorite local example is an ad for a finance company that has "loans > >available up to $5000, and more!" > > The one I was trying to think of in the original posting (as an example of > making a statement about all cases when the exception is meant) was > "All phone companies are not alike", when they presumably mean to say that > they are different from the rest -- i.e. "Not all phone companies are alike". > > FROM: Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems Division of Tektronix, Inc. No, only one of them is alike. What they really mean is "Phone companies are not all alike." -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (10/20/85)
> > > > > Where did "deplane" come from? I don't debus the bus so why should > > > I deplane the plane? > > > > You've obviously never been to Fantasy Island. The line is: "Bus, deplane! > > Deplane", not the other way around. > > > > Ken Kaufman (uiucdcs!kaufman) > > What I want to know is when did the word 'access' become a verb? Verbing nouns is an old custom among people who speak English. :-) -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
chris@pixutl.UUCP (chris) (10/21/85)
> I would like to nominate the following type of sentence as being > worthy of hate. "All <whatevers> are not alike." What about 'last but not least'. Next time I hear that, I break something..., my TV screen is going to suffer a 'major upset', or in this case, a 'major breakthrough' (from a brick)... Chris -- Chris Bertin : (617) 933-7735 x2336 Pixel Systems Inc. : (800) 325-3342 300 Wildwood street : {allegra|ihnp4|cbosgd|ima|genrad|amd|harvard}\ Woburn, Ma 01801 : !wjh12!pixel!pixutl!chris
samson@h-sc1.UUCP (gregory samson) (10/23/85)
How about this one that appeared in a Harvard Crimson insert (yes, English decays everywhere, and most especially at Harvard)? They quote the ex-manager (?) of the Fogg Art Museum as saying that the Fogg was so overcrowded that it was "bursting to the seams". -G. T. Samson The Evil MicroWizard
perkins@bnrmtv.UUCP (Henry Perkins) (10/24/85)
A recurring source of irritation to me is all the supermarket signs which
say "x items or less" rather than "x items or FEWER".
--
{hplabs,amdahl,3comvax}!bnrmtv!perkins --Henry Perkinsrcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (10/24/85)
Don't forget that a large part of the population which allegedly speaks
English (American) is unable to distinguish the possessive pronoun "its"
from the contraction "it's". I have seen the contraction form used so
often where the possessive pronoun is intended that I now do a double-
take when I see "its" used correctly. It amazes me that so many people
have never gotten the use of a three-letter word right. For some reason,
one seldom sees the corresponding mistake "her's" and (I hope) never
"hi's", although I've run across "your's" a time or two.
Then there's "comprise". This word is so often misused that we might as
well remove it from the language! If you see the phrase "comprised of" in
someone's writing, you can probably toss it off right away as pretentious,
ill-conceived, or even marketeerish (sorry:-). The worst part of the abuse
of "comprise" is that it tends to be used in a sense almost opposite to its
true meaning.
--
Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086
...At last it's the real thing...or close enough to pretend.jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (10/25/85)
> > > You have mentioned one of my pet peeves from anti-Englishists. My > > really favorite, though is, "Let's see if we can't [do whatever]". Here the > > clear intent is to say, "Let's see if we CAN" do it... > > I don't like that one either. It's almost as bad as "That'll teach you to > [insert something that shouldn't have been done]". It should be: > "That'll teach you not to ..." > > Ken Kaufman (uiucdcs!kaufman) In both these cases, the intent is ironic. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (10/26/85)
> I would like to nominate the following type of sentence as being > worthy of hate. "All <whatevers> are not alike." What is really > meant is, "Not all <whatevers> are alike." There are more and > more of these appearing in print and being spoken in tv ads. > I cringe every time I hear one. No, what is meant is, "<Whatevers> are not all alike." Whenever I hear someone say, "Not all <whatevers> are alike," I reply, "No, only one of them is alike." -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Ada Arromdee) (10/27/85)
In article <197@bnrmtv.UUCP> perkins@bnrmtv.UUCP (Henry Perkins) writes: >A recurring source of irritation to me is all the supermarket signs which >say "x items or less" rather than "x items or FEWER". >{hplabs,amdahl,3comvax}!bnrmtv!perkins --Henry Perkins That is shorthand for "X items or less than X items". It isn't a mistake. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'. Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa
davy@pur-ee.UUCP (Dave Curry) (10/28/85)
While we're on the subject, this has always been one of my favorite comments on the English language: I came beneath a pint tree bough When I was searching for my cough. I could not reach the pine cones, though, The branch was high and I was lough. "Ah, me," I cried, with rueful laugh, "Would that I were a tall giraugh." Just then a wind came hurtling through, The branches cracked, so fierce it blough. This blast, so shrill it made me cough, And on it went with angry sough; I put my treasure in my mough And started home across the slough Forgetting what I'd come to dough. Bossy was standing by here trough; Did I mistake or did she scough? - Katherine Buxbaum --Dave Curry davy@purdue-ecn ihnp4!pur-ee!davy
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) (10/28/85)
It also seems that most people do not know or do not care for the difference
between "there", "they're" and "their." Looks simple, so why do so many otherwise
intelligent people flub it???
--
Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs
" Sot pa touye'-ou, li fe`-ou sue' "lat@druil.UUCP (TepperL) (10/28/85)
Let's not forget "regardless". Or rather, let's not remember
"irregardless".
--
Larry Tepper {ihnp4 | allegra}!drutx!druil!lat +1-303-538-1759
Back to you, Walter.krahl@druky.UUCP (R.H. Krahl) (10/29/85)
Okay. What about this one: Why do people say acrosst when they mean across? Rich Krahl @ AT&T -- The Right Choice. UUCP: ..!ihnp4!druky!krahl "You can't get what you want..'til you know what you want" -Joe Jackson
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Colonel'K) (10/29/85)
>Then there's "comprise". This word is so often misused that we might as >well remove it from the language! If you see the phrase "comprised of" in >someone's writing, you can probably toss it off right away as pretentious, > >Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 The following is from my Webster's (Ninth Collegiate), for your information: Although it has been in use *since the late 18th century*, sense 3 [the definition to which Dick alludes] is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses. You should be aware, however, that if you use sense 3 you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose a safer synonym such as "compose" or "make up". So I guess Dick is both right AND wrong! Just goes to show you how the language evolves... "Now see HERE! I speak over 50 languages fluently, but gibberish isn't one of them." Scott J. Berry ihnp4!hou2g!scott
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (10/30/85)
> >A recurring source of irritation to me is all the supermarket signs which > >say "x items or less" rather than "x items or FEWER". > > That is shorthand for "X items or less than X items". It isn't a mistake. AAARRRGGHHHHH. We just found another one. Yes, it IS a mistake. The difference between "less" and "fewer" is that "less" refers to a measure of a continuous quantity while "fewer" refers to a smaller number of discrete objects. For example, your gin&tonic may have less gin in it than you like. It may not have fewer gin than you like. On the other hand, you may drink fewer gin&tonics than I have. You may not drink less gin&tonics than I have. Of course, the situation is muddied by the fact that "more" is an acceptable opposite of both "less" and "fewer". However, my current gin&tonic contains no gin at all, so... -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...At last it's the real thing...or close enough to pretend.
suem@ihopb.UUCP (Sue McKinnell) (10/30/85)
>In article <197@bnrmtv.UUCP> perkins@bnrmtv.UUCP (Henry Perkins) writes: >>A recurring source of irritation to me is all the supermarket signs which >>say "x items or less" rather than "x items or FEWER". >>{hplabs,amdahl,3comvax}!bnrmtv!perkins --Henry Perkins >That is shorthand for "X items or less than X items". It isn't a mistake. -Kenneth Arromdee It *is* a mistake. The correct expression if "X items or *fewer* than X items." When the quantity is countable, the word is fewer, when the quantity is not countable, the word is less. (This is also one of my pet peeves.) -- Sue McKinnell ...!ihnp4!ihopb!suem IH 6N226 x5313
fred@mot.UUCP (Fred Christiansen) (10/30/85)
[]
here's my favorite:
"It must have fallen between the cracks." ah .. yes.. but there's wood (or
whatever) between the cracks. more correctly, "It must have fallen thru the
cracks."
--
<< Generic disclaimer >>
Fred Christiansen ("Canajun, eh?") @ Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ
UUCP: {seismo!terak, trwrb!flkvax, utzoo!mnetor, ihnp4!btlunix}!mot!fred
ARPA: oakhill!mot!fred@ut-sally.ARPA Telephone: +1 602-438-3472perkins@bnrmtv.UUCP (Henry Perkins) (10/31/85)
> >A recurring source of irritation to me is all the supermarket signs which > >say "x items or less" rather than "x items or FEWER". > >{hplabs,amdahl,3comvax}!bnrmtv!perkins --Henry Perkins > > That is shorthand for "X items or less than X items". It isn't a mistake. > Kenneth Arromdee > ..{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa Sorry, but it should be "X items or fewer (than X items)". Fewer is correct for things which are countable (i.e., with integers); less is used with things which must be measured instead. Thus "less than 1.5 quarts of milk" and "fewer than 7 bicycles". You wouldn't refer to .14567 bicycles or 5 milks, nor would you use 2.375 items. If you can answer yes to "Does it make sense to think of 2.3 whatevers?" or "Do I need to qualify whatever by weight/mass/volume/etc?" you should use less. Otherwise, use fewer. -- {hplabs,amdahl,3comvax}!bnrmtv!perkins --Henry Perkins
showard@udenva.UUCP (showard) (10/31/85)
> Don't forget that a large part of the population which allegedly speaks > English (American) is unable to distinguish the possessive pronoun "its" > from the contraction "it's". I have seen the contraction form used so > often where the possessive pronoun is intended that I now do a double- > take when I see "its" used correctly. It amazes me that so many people > have never gotten the use of a three-letter word right. > -- > Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 > ...At last it's the real thing...or close enough to pretend. As long as we're talking about apostrophes: 1.) Your vs. You're. Usually one sees the possessive used in place of the contraction, although the opposite seems to be occuring more and more fre- quently. 2.) Pluralizing a family name. There is no need (and no conceivable reason)to put an apostrophe in "the Smith's" or "the Jones's" or whatever. One more, not concerned with apostrophes, is what I call the Whom Syndrome. This syndrome is used by people who have been corrected for misusing a word several times (i.e. chastised for using who instead of whom, me instead of I, etc.). They then use the 'correct' term (whom, I, myself, you're) in place of the 'incorrect' one (who, me, me, your) when the 'incorrect' one is actually right. Examples of the syndrome include: "The two men agreed to congratulate whomever won." "...between you and I" "The message was sent to Mr. Smith and myself." And finally, a familiar one to anyone who's ever flown: "Both Miss Jones and myself have enjoyed serving you on this flight." --Mr. Blore, the DJ who would not die --aka Steve Howard, ...udenva!showard
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (11/01/85)
>Let's not forget "regardless". Or rather, let's not remember >"irregardless". [Larry Tepper] Also to be forgotten: secondly, thirdly, importantly, thusly, hopefully, allegedly, and all other adverbial abominations charli
dave@cylixd.UUCP (Dave Kirby) (11/01/85)
I object to this hole discusion on "Is English Decaying Rappidly?" Just becuase some poeple on the network make a few misteaks hear and their, you can't condemm us inferring we are a bunch of ilitterites. I got a good educcation, and even graduated colege with a degrie, why do you pick on triveal speling errers and miner misusageness, why don't you spend you're time with more profittable endevers. I don't mean too be to harsh, but when your always picking on varrius gramatticle points dont you think the rest of us know how to write you think your so high and mitey? When any body critisizes anothers writting, it should be objectionible to both you and I, insulting others on the network. We are all proffesionles as such we should be able to write irregardless of what others insulting us for not writting clearly. Being so snotty, the next thing will probaly be attacks on misplaced modifiers. Or warnnings to never split infinnitives. Being so judgementle, even incomplete sentennces. You might even start looking for run-on sentences we don't do much of that, but you can be issured if we do one you will find it your so concieted, we don't need to have to take this from you. In summery, why do you care if grammaticle errers so long as our stating our thoughts clearly and logically you should know what we mean saying it? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Kirby ( ...!ihnp4!akgub!cylixd!dave) (The views expressed herein are the exclusive property of Dave Kirby. Any person, living or dead, found with the same or similar opinions will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of law.)
gclark@utcsri.UUCP (Graeme Clark) (11/02/85)
>The difference between "less" and "fewer" is that "less" refers to a >measure of a continuous quantity while "fewer" refers to a smaller number >of discrete objects. Can you find a dictionary that agrees with you on this restriction on the use of "less"? Mine doesn't.
al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski) (11/03/85)
> > > >A recurring source of irritation to me is all the supermarket signs which > > >say "x items or less" rather than "x items or FEWER". > > > > That is shorthand for "X items or less than X items". It isn't a mistake. > > AAARRRGGHHHHH. We just found another one. > > Yes, it IS a mistake. > The difference between "less" and "fewer" is that "less" refers to a > measure of a continuous quantity while "fewer" refers to a smaller number > of discrete objects. This seems like an overly pedantic and outmoded distinction. Should we then also read "n < 5" as "n is fewer than 5" instead of "n is less than 5"? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Filipski, UNIX group, Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ U.S.A 85282 seismo!ut-sally!oakhill!mot!al, ihnp4!mot!al, ucbvax!arizona!asuvax!mot!al --------------------------------------------------------------------------
hobs@ihu1n.UUCP (John A. Hobson) (11/04/85)
> Don't forget that a large part of the population which allegedly speaks > English (American) is unable to distinguish the possessive pronoun "its" > from the contraction "it's".... For some reason, > one seldom sees the corresponding mistake "her's" and (I hope) never > "hi's", although I've run across "your's" a time or two. > > Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 Dick, you should stay away from Wautoma, Wisconsin. There is a place just outside of town called "Hi's and Her's Beauty Salon". I kid you not. -- John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihu1n!hobs
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (11/05/85)
--
Another oft-mangled word is "kudos". Most folks think, because it
ends in "s" I guess, that it's the plural of "kudo". Actually,
the singular and plural look the same, but to use "kudos" in the
plural is to say "glories be (to whomever)". English does let you
say that. Alas, it doesn't let you mean anything by it.
A kudos to all readers who use it correctly.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 05 Nov 85 [15 Brumaire An CXCIV]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7753 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***perkins@bnrmtv.UUCP (Henry Perkins) (11/05/85)
> >The difference between "less" and "fewer" is that "less" refers to a > >measure of a continuous quantity while "fewer" refers to a smaller number > >of discrete objects. > > Can you find a dictionary that agrees with you on this restriction on the > use of "less"? Mine doesn't. From the Oxford American Dictionary, 1980 (italics are denoted by /\): less (les) /adj.\ 1. not so much of, a smaller quantity of, /eat less meat.\ 2. smaller in amount or degree etc., /of less importance.\ less /adv.\ to a smaller extent. less /n.\ a smaller amount or quantity etc., /will not take less.\ less /prep.\ minus, deducting, /a year less three days; was paid one hundred dollars, less tax.\ [> The word /less\ is used of things that are measured by amount (for example in /eat less butter; use less fuel\). Its use with things measured by number is regarded as incorrect (for example in /we need less workers;\ correct usage is /fewer workers\). -- {hplabs,amdahl,3comvax}!bnrmtv!perkins --Henry Perkins
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (11/06/85)
One of the notable failures of some dictionaries and of many people who use
dictionaries is the failure to distinguish "meaning" from "usage". As much
as the authors of a dictionary might like to offer definitions which give
strict guidance, they cannot. In the interest of following evolving
language and making error-tolerant communication possible, they must
present information about commonly-understood meanings of words. A new,
somewhat peculiar meaning of a word may appear in a dictionary because the
new meaning has become common enough that the dictionary needs to provide
it to those who are trying to figure out what is going on. At that point
someone can pick up the dictionary and say, "See, it does so mean xxx" when
in fact all the dictionary is saying is, "Some people use this word to mean
xxx."
--
Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086
...Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (11/06/85)
> >The difference between "less" and "fewer" is that "less" refers to a > >measure of a continuous quantity while "fewer" refers to a smaller number > >of discrete objects. > > Can you find a dictionary that agrees with you on this restriction on the > use of "less"? Mine doesn't. Webster's 2nd Unabridged says, for its 3rd definition of "less": 3. Fewer;- now incorrect, according to strict usage, except with a collective; as, to wear less clothes. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
toma@tekchips.UUCP (Tom Almy) (11/06/85)
In article <433@mot.UUCP> al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski) writes: > >This seems like an overly pedantic and outmoded distinction. Should we >then also read "n < 5" as "n is fewer than 5" instead of "n is less than 5"? If n is an integer then it is "n is fewer than 5", but if n is floating point then it should read "n is less than 5". Tom Almy Tektronix, Inc.
ins_apmj@jhunix.UUCP (Patrick M Juola) (11/07/85)
In article <433@mot.UUCP> al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski) writes: >> >> Yes, it IS a mistake. >> The difference between "less" and "fewer" is that "less" refers to a >> measure of a continuous quantity while "fewer" refers to a smaller number >> of discrete objects. > >This seems like an overly pedantic and outmoded distinction. Should we >then also read "n < 5" as "n is fewer than 5" instead of "n is less than 5"? >>> AAARRRGGHHHHH. We just found another one. (Sorry about not citing the previous line, but I don't know who wrote it.) Anyway, Al, first of all, let's discuss what numbers are -- I'm not really sure what you consider to be 'continuous,' but *I* at least consider the real numbersto be a (almost by definition) continuous. If n refered only to integers, then there could be a case for referring to 'fewer than 5,' but without context, anyone would assume that a given variable refers to a real number. Second, OF COURSE this is an outmoded and pedantic discussion -- what we are discussing here is the decline of the Queen's English; the Queen to whom I refer being, of course, Victoria. The original complaint was that too many distinctions are being blurred, such as the less/fewer distinction, the "I couldn't care less" fallacy, and so forth. Pat Juola Johns Hopkins Univ. Dept of Maths
mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) (11/07/85)
>>>> A recurring source of irritation to me is all the supermarket signs which >>>> say "x items or less" rather than "x items or FEWER". >>> That is shorthand for "X items or less than X items". It isn't a mistake. >> Yes, it IS a mistake. >> The difference between "less" and "fewer" is that .... > This seems like an overly pedantic and outmoded distinction. Should we > then also read "n < 5" as "n is fewer than 5" instead of "n is less than 5"? (Only when n is an integer :-) No, it is OK to say that 3 is less than 5. It is not OK to say that three items are less than five items; you have to say that three items are *fewer* than five items. That is to say, one number can be less than another, but one number *of something* is not less, but fewer, than another number *of something* (unless it's not fewer at all, but equal or more :-). -- der Mouse USA: {ihnp4,decvax,akgua,etc}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse Europe: mcvax!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!as-above Hacker: One responsible for destroying / Wizard: One responsible for recovering it afterward
overlord@nmtvax.UUCP (11/08/85)
>> > You have mentioned one of my pet peeves from anti-Englishists. My >> > really favorite, though is, "Let's see if we can't [do whatever]". Here the >> > clear intent is to say, "Let's see if we CAN" do it... Actually, I use both depending on what I mean. If the concept is sound, I will usually say "let's see if we can do it" which to me is similar to "Let's see if we succede". In other words, an optimist's point of view. If the concept is unsound, even crazy or foolish but might.....just might work out, then I will use "Let's see if we can't do it" which, in this case, would be similar to "Let's see if we fail (we probably will but let's try anyway)." In other words, a pessimist's point of view. Alan Kerr New Mexico Tech -- ...{convex,ucbvax,gatech,csu-cs,anl-mcs}!unmvax!nmtvax!overlord ...{purdue,cmc12}!lanl!nmtvax!overlord
romain@pyrnj.uucp (Romain Kang) (11/14/85)
One peeve of mine is the use of "core dump" as a verb:
"This subroutine core dumps when you don't provide all arguments."
"Core dump that sucker so we can see why it bombs!"
...
Is not the correct verb be "to dump", with "core" as its object?
Or, how about "aggravate", as in "ring of aggravate monster"?
(oops, showing my Unix background again.....)
--
Romain Kang, Pyramid Technology Corporation
US Mail: 900 Route 9, Woodbridge, NJ 07095
Ma Bell: (201) 750-2626
UUCPnet: {allegra,cmcl2,pyramid,topaz}!pyrnj!romain
``!x09 dimaryP a fo edisni deppart m'I ,pleH''
``oNhwre eenraa sab dsab iegnt arppdei sndi e aAV X117/05!!''zwicky@osu-eddie.UUCP (Elizabeth D. Zwicky) (11/15/85)
In article <224@opus.UUCP> rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) writes: >One of the notable failures of some dictionaries and of many people who use >dictionaries is the failure to distinguish "meaning" from "usage". > .... At that point >someone can pick up the dictionary and say, "See, it does so mean xxx" when >in fact all the dictionary is saying is, "Some people use this word to mean >xxx." If you can accurately distinguish the use of a word from its meaning, you have solved one of the most intractable problems in the philosophy of language. In fact, maybe the only problem in the philosophy of language. At what point are you justified in saying that usage becomes meaning? If usage isn't meaning, what is? I happily admit that we can't all be Humpty Dumpty and have words mean whatever we want them to, and there are some cases which are clearly meaning and some which are clearly usage. However, the line between them is very vague, and may be a misconception altogether. -Elizabeth D> Zwicky
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (11/16/85)
> One peeve of mine is the use of "core dump" as a verb: > "This subroutine core dumps when you don't provide all arguments." > "Core dump that sucker so we can see why it bombs!" > ... > Is not the correct verb be "to dump", with "core" as its object? > Your problem is you don't realize that coredump is all one word. -Ron
mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (11/17/85)
> Or, how about "aggravate", as in "ring of aggravate monster"?
What about it?
Scott McEwan
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan
"A flash in front of my eyes ... I blink ... open my eyes to ... discover I am
a dog in a pickup truck full of garbage ... no one but me sees the lid blow
off the can ... it's 14 miles to the dump ... this is ... at last ... heaven."rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU (11/18/85)
/* Written 5:10 pm Nov 14, 1985 by benn@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP in uiucuxa:net.misc */
[]
[...] (Stewardess talking to passengers)
"Hi, we're glad you're here. This is flight x bound
for y. I'm ___, this is ___, and if you need anything just buzz."
[...]
/* End of text from uiucuxa:net.misc */
I wonder how many passengers start buzzing? :-)
Russell J. Price
University of Illinois
{ ihnp4, pur-ee, convex }!uiucdcs!uiucuxa!rp321
rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDUayers@convexs.UUCP (11/19/85)
>I happily admit that we can't all be Humpty Dumpty and have words >mean whatever we want them to... _I_ can... W.C. Fields
romain@pyrnj.uucp (Romain Kang) (12/02/85)
> > Or, how about "aggravate", as in "ring of aggravate monster"? > What about it? My dictionary seems to be buried, so I'll have to quote roughly (Random House): "The use 'to annoy, irritate, or exasperate' is avoided by precise writers and speakers in formal contexts, but its use has become widespread." > Your problem is you don't realize that coredump is all one word. Oh, well. That seemsthewayourlanguagedecayingevolvingoris... -- Romain Kang, Pyramid Technology Corporation US Mail: 900 Route 9, Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Ma Bell: (201) 750-2626 UUCPnet: {allegra,cmcl2,pyramid,topaz}!pyrnj!romain "Dictionaries at twenty paces!"
tainter@ihlpg.UUCP (Tainter) (12/31/85)
> > > >say "x items or less" rather than "x items or FEWER". > > > That is shorthand for "X items or less than X items". It isn't a mistake. > > The difference between "less" and "fewer" is that "less" refers to a > > measure of a continuous quantity while "fewer" refers to a smaller number > > of discrete objects. > This seems like an overly pedantic and outmoded distinction. Should we > then also read "n < 5" as "n is fewer than 5" instead of "n is less than 5"? Only if n is an integer. :-)