....fore sale
Printable View
....fore sale
Oh, I hate this one. Whenever I see "we guarantee to be discrete" or something of the kind, I want to add "what? one little step at a time??" :DQuote:
Originally Posted by nc tam
I've run across discreet numbers--in a professionally translated economics text. Truly cringe-worthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by lph
I guess the numbers are good at keeping secrets.
Veronica
This thread has drifted into snippy spelling sourpuss snivelers. :p
for spazz and sk:
http://comics.com/pearls_before_swine/2009-06-02/
this one cracks me up!
And when did "renown" become an adjective? Grrrrrr.
Renown or renowned? If the latter, a heck of a long time.
The former. That's what drives me crazy about it. Your post is the first time I've even seen the word "renowned" in about five years. Everyone writes "renown" to mean "renowned."
ETA: Oh, I get it.... it's been re-nouned. ;)
:D I'll have to send that to my English teach dad.Quote:
Originally Posted by OakLeaf
Regime used in place of regimen. I see / hear it WAY too frequently, and am afraid it is becoming generally accepted. Even on Masterpiece Theater last night, on PBS (it was "Emma", by Jane Austen, of all things - her father made a remark about his exercise regime). A regime is a government, a regimen is a system of training or treatment.
And how about all of the nouns that have become verbs, all of a sudden?
That might be more of a style thang.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regime
This is particularly obvious in the IT industry. A few months ago, I had to sit through a sales spiel in which the speaker described how they "productised" a service. Instead of just saying "We decided to sell our services", he said "We productised our service". ARGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! And he did this all through the presentation. I wanted to take him aside and slap him, but I think that might've been unprofessional. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Skierchickie
Max
The rain put a rein on the lead cyclist's reign.Quote:
Originally Posted by spazzdog
You could've productised a slap ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxxxie
A bit lost in translation maybe, but similar: there's a trend in Norwegian for people to describe typically chocolate or luxury foods by using "wine taster terms" like: "deep, rich, good on taste".... I hate that! There's nothing wrong with saying that something just plain TASTES GOOD! :mad:
how about "should of" instead of "should've" -- aaarghhh
It's "should have"! :-)
Let's not forget "Alot" (not even a word!) instead of "A lot". Thankfully, I've never seen anyone try to use "Allot" in place of "A lot", but I suspect it's only a matter of time. :rolleyes:
Max
Advice & advise...AGHGHGHG..
*beats head on desk*
email as a verb....am I the only one still irritated by this?
Do you use just "mail" as a verb?Quote:
Originally Posted by Catrin
Specially instead of Especially. As in, "Specially prepared for you."
Lack of adverbs. Maybe they have gone the way of the carburetor. I can be found yelling at television news reporters, "BUY AN 'LY'". But that only happens during certain times of the month. :D
I have to admit, that the repeated misspelling of the same words, by the same poster(s) on this list bugs me. But, I never would say anything. Most people think it's nit-picky. And I guess the accepted practice is that spelling in on line communication doesn't matter. But, I still proofread what I write.
I must admit that I started this post in hope that it would enlighten some people and get them to start using correct spelling. My thought was that maybe no one ever told them correct usage. All through junior high I would guess in my essays about using then or than. It wasn't until my freshman year in high school that anyone took the time to explain which was which. Thank goodness for Mrs. Woodbrey, my awesome Latin teacher!
My MIL once told me that she had trouble spelling their. She knew when to use it, but couldn't remember if it was i or e first. I pointed out that all three start with the.
Now when my 5th graders can't remember that it is A LOT, two words, despite the numerous times I've told them... that's a mystery. :D
Veronica
Sure, but the term started out as a noun for an electronic letter. Common useage has changed to allow the use of the term as both noun and verb, but it still catches my ear. "Google" does the same thing when it is used as a verb rather than a reference to a specific search engine. It is interesting to see this useage regardless of the actual choice of search engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by OakLeaf
Yes, you are. :p Perhaps you'd prefer it if people phoned you instead? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Catrin
Max
"Electric" was used as a noun into the last century. Perhaps you'd prefer not to have electrified washing machines, sewing machines, computers, etc.? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Catrin
Language evolution is a fascinating thing.
Voila! Perhaps she meant regiment.:pQuote:
Originally Posted by Skierchickie
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/regiment.html
Actually, this is a very interesting site.
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/index.html
You will find certain words or phrases criticized here listed in dictionaries. Note carefully labels like dial. (dialectical), nonstandard, and obsolete before assuming that the dictionary is endorsing them. The primary job of a dictionary is to track how people actually use language. Dictionaries differ among themselves on how much guidance to usage they provide; but the goal of a usage guide like this is substantially different: to protect you against patterns which are regarded by substantial numbers of well-educated people as nonstandard.
List of errors with a search engine
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html#errors
A particularly good one.
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/poopoo.html
Note use of "which" as opposed to "that." Okay, I need to stop this. ;-)
argh! I've been spelling "ad nauseam" wrong for years. Damn.
eeeeeeeeks! So have I. :-(
Arg! I've been spelling it wrong ad nauseam also. :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by SadieKate
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah [running screaming out of room]!
kjay, I'm SO glad I'm not the only one who's bothered by that!
Hey, I didn't make that statement. Feel free to correct your quote . . .
And read the website author's statement about which/that.
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/which.html
And more comments from the author of English language guide (and found through comments on Brians' site -- and notice the italics and a redundant indent to show that I am quoting someone else):
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch...ng/t.html#that
That versus Which.
According to the more quibbling self-styled grammar experts, that is restrictive, while which is not.
Many grammarians insist on a distinction without any historical justification. Many of the best writers in the language couldn't tell you the difference between them, while many of the worst think they know. If the subtle difference between the two confuses you, use whatever sounds right. Other matters are more worthy of your attention.
For the curious, however, the relative pronoun that is restrictive, which means it tells you a necessary piece of information about its antecedent: for example, "The word processor that is used most often is WordPerfect." Here the that phrase answers an important question: which of the many word processors are we talking about? And the answer is the one that is used most often.
Which is non-restrictive: it does not limit the word it refers to. An example is "Penn's ID center, which is called CUPID, has been successful so far." Here that is unnecessary: the which does not tell us which of Penn's many ID centers we're considering; it simply provides an extra piece of information about the plan we're already discussing. "Penn's ID Center" tells us all we really need to know to identify it.
It boils down to this: if you can tell which thing is being discussed without the which or that clause, use which; if you can't, use that.
There are two rules of thumb you can keep in mind. First, if the phrase needs a comma, you probably mean which. Since "Penn's ID center" calls for a comma, we would not say "Penn's ID Center, that is called CUPID."
Another way to keep them straight is to imagine by the way following every which: "Penn's ID center, which (by the way) is called CUPID. . . ." The which adds a useful, but not grammatically necessary, piece of information. On the other hand, we wouldn't say "The word processor which (by the way) is used most often is WordPerfect," because the word processor on its own isn't enough information — which word processor?
A paradoxical mnemonic: use that to tell which, and which to tell that.
This opinion would support Brians' choice of "which" over "that." I'm now outta here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SadieKate
I didn't think it was you. I just didn't bother to put in a sub-quote (since you didn't ;)). Italics aren't preserved in auto-quote.
It was part of our Law Journal's style manual. Let them call our faculty "quibbling self-styled grammar experts" if they like [I mean honestly, how is that rule any different from any of the ones we've been complaining about in eleven pages of this thread?], but I had not only to know the rule, but to apply it to manuscripts submitted by law professors.
That would be because there is visual differentiation between regular and italic text, and included a link to the statement, in my post.:cool:
That versus which is a style question. US publishers tend to prefer the distinction, whereas the Brits almost never do--they freely use which as both restrictive and nonrestrictive. I personally edit my authors following the that/which distinction based on my publishers' expressed preferences, but strictly speaking, which is grammatically correct.
"That" is used with a restrictive clause, "which" with a nonrestrictive clause. For that reason, it's important to use the correct word; therefore, it's not simply a matter of style, in my opinion.