We’re Not the Only Ones with Pet Peeves!

Posted on April 22, 2009 by languageandgrammar

This is another installment of your pet peeves, taken straight from the comment section of the Your Pet Peeves page. We’re doing this because we ran out of topics–I mean because we want to highlight your pet peeves.

Seriously, one of the great things about the blog has been hearing what bothers other people–whether it be a grammatical mistake or just an annoying or misused phrase.

Here are about 20 more of yours:

  • “Further” for distance (instead of farther)
  • Using “may” when it should be “might”
  • “Then/Than” confusion (Example: My pet peeves are better then yours)
  • “They’re/there/their” confusion (They’re, Their, They’re)
  • Using “of” instead of “have” (Could Of, Should Of, Would Of–I Mean, Have)
  • Misuse of “Person and me” (Example: Languageandgrammar.com is written by Sherry and myself or Languageandgrammar.com is written by Sherry and I) (Fun with Pronouns) (Me and You)
  • “whole entire” redundancy
  • “attempt to try” redundancy
  • “desire to want” redundancy
  • “same exact” redundancy (If It’s The Same, then It’s Exact)
  • “whole generation” redundancy–am I repeating myself?
  • “hunker down” “hunker in the bunker” overuse by the media
  • mispronunciation of “negotiations” as “nego-see-a-shuns” (I never thought of that, but I think she’s right–now I’ll be annoyed when I hear it.)
  • “Healthy/healthful” confusion (Is it healthy or healthful?)
  • “I will be going to…,” “I will be asking…,” and “I will be giving,” instead of “I will go,” “I will ask,” and “I will give”
  • “as per” and “going forward” (overly trendy) (Example: Going forward, we’ll follow the rules as per our agreement) (Meeting Doubletalk)
  • Overuse of “awesome”
  • Overuse of, like, “like” (It Was Like a Nightmare or Something)
  • “Two choices” when it’s two options (two, I mean, too subtle)
  • “Buy now and save” (Spend and Grow Rich)
Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on We’re Not the Only Ones with Pet Peeves!

Spring Greening?

Posted on April 19, 2009 by languageandgrammar

Spring is that special time of year. Flowers bloom, little woodland creatures awaken from their long winter’s nap, and the grass and trees start to green up.

Wait a minute. Everything starts to green up? What does that mean?

Maybe the term is simply a charming little Pennsylvania term–minus the charm. Or, it’s part of the national obsession of turning nouns into verbs–more specifically, in this case, the trend of turning colors into verbs.

Green is, of course, an adjective, and it describes the way something looks. In the example, it’s a green table cloth, the word green describes the tablecloth. In the example, it’s starting to green up, the word green means that you didn’t pay attention in English class.

In order for green to be a verb, it would have to be used in different tenses. For example, in the sentence I turn green when I’m sick, turn is the verb. You could also say I turned green…, I will turn green…, I have turned green…, etc. There are more tenses, of course, but you get the point.

Let’s try different tenses with green as a verb. The grass greens up; the grass greened up; the grass has been greening for some time now. At the risk of repeating myself, what does that mean? We would never say (I hope) that the grass browns down in the winter or that the leaves orange up in the fall.

Let’s show green up the lack of respect it deserves.

–Paul

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Spring Greening?

Only 70 Curses Today–Below Average

Posted on April 16, 2009 by languageandgrammar

I was shocked by a recent article that claims that teenagers use curse words 80 to 90 times per day on average (Curse words trendy language among teenagers). I was shocked because I thought it would be more like a thousand.

The need to use so many swear words says something–either about the state of our language or the state of our teenagers–but I choose to focus on the effectiveness of curse words.

The effectiveness of a curse word is in the effect that it has on the speaker or the listener. I’m not a psychologist, but I’m sure that both are reasons that teenagers use so many. They want to be perceived as tough or cool or trendy, so they use curse words; they also like the shock value that the words have on adults. Swear words and teenagers–it’s a match made it heaven–I mean hell.

While some of us can work five swear words into a sentence about grandma, puppies, and rainbows, it might be good to remember that they lose their effectiveness with overuse just like any other word. Back in the heyday of stand-up comedians in the late 1980s and early 1990s, most stand-up comedians prided themselves on how many swear words they could include in a 15-minute set; in fact, they depended on them for their comedy. At the end of the show, you’d be lucky to remember one f-filled joke. Most of those comedians, I will note, had a shorter shelf life than a carton of milk in a sauna.

That contrasted dramatically with Jerry Seinfeld, who refused to rely on curse words. In the one instance in which Seinfeld decided to use a swear word on his television show, it was done in the context of his being a mentor to a young boy. It was funny and memorable–because it was in context and was the exception to the rule.

I guess I’m not saying that you shouldn’t swear but that you should pick your spots…

–Paul “F-bomb” Yeager

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments

Pre-Prepare to Not Like This Word

Posted on April 13, 2009 by languageandgrammar

I recently heard the word pre-prepared, and not being a word historian, I don’t know whether this is an old word that’s being used again or a new word needed to meet the demands of our fast-paced society. (Please note the sarcasm.)

I’m guessing that it’s the latter–that somehow someone has decided that since some things, such as food, have two levels of preparation, we can call the first layer pre-preparing, as in How to Pre-Prepare Foods for Weight Loss. (By the way, the headline makes it seem as if it’s the food, not the person, who’s is being prepared, I mean pre-prepared, for weight loss–I guess when the food is eaten, it will weigh less.)

Prepare means to get something ready in advance, so pre-prepare must mean to get something ready before you get it ready in advance.

I’m not ready to be that prepared.

–Paul

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

What Annoys You…

Posted on April 10, 2009 by languageandgrammar

It’s time for more of your pet peeves, taken straight from comments left on the Your Pet Peeves Page. We’re grateful for all of the comments that we’ve gotten so far, so wanted to highlight them.

I’m listing them in the order that they were received and am including any links to posts that we wrote that match well with the peeve being mentioned.

  • confusing you’re and your (You’re/Your)
  • using the pronoun after stating the noun (such as a sportscaster saying “The Milwaukee Brewers they play the Cubs this afternoon)
  • Saying “What’s your name from home?” instead of asking about a maiden name
  • There she goes again coming back (What?!?!?)
  • Misuse of “I feel,” such as “I feel this will be a difficult election year”
  • Confusion between “every day” and “everyday” (Does this happen everyday or every day?)
  • “Down” for direction (such as “going down to the park.”)
  • Family name apostrophes on houses, etc. (Wilson’s residence)
  • VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) Number
  • Using a single hyphen instead of a double to indicate a dash (that was a shot at yours truly, but the problem was a glitch in my wordpress template–(double) how’s that for deflection?)
  • Plan ahead
  • Past history/past experience
  • Mispronouncing “a” and “the” in front of certain words
  • Where’s it at (Where are you at?)
  • Using “whenever” when it should be “when”
  • Skipping the “to be” verb (such as “Does it need painted?”) Note: This peeve is dedicated to western Pennsylvania
  • “They finally won their first game of the season” instead of something like “They finally got their first victory.”
  • “free reign” when it should be “free rein” (Wait–that was about a mistake in Literally, the Best Language Book Ever. If you don’t believe me, then you’ll have to buy and copy and look for the mistake–how’s that for not-so-subtle promotion?)
Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

Baseball’s What Not to Say

Posted on April 6, 2009 by languageandgrammar

I apologize to all of the people I know who will read this and think I’m singling them out because they will most likely make some version of the statement during the next 24 hours. I’m not, and that’s part of the point of the type of statement I like to call “You Thought You Were Clever, But….” We all do it–we make that non-clever, obvious statement even though when we hear the very same statement, we roll our eyes and shake our heads.

Do  your friends, family, and co-workers a favor, and don’t make any of these comments about the local Major League Baseball team after the first game of the season:

  • The Pirates are going 162-0 this year
  • At least we know that the Pirates won’t go 0-162 this year
  • At least we know that the Pirates will win one game this year

There are probably other versions, but you get the point.

It’s not funny. It’s not original. It’s as annoying as saying “See you next year” on December 31.

–Paul

Posted in language, sports | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Baseball’s What Not to Say

Cancel One L

Posted on April 6, 2009 by languageandgrammar

Remember that spelling rule you learned in elementary school about doubling the final consonant before adding -ed or -ing to a verb? Well, if you remember, then you know that there is a little more to the story.

When making a past tense or a present participle of a verb, we can’t just go doubling final consonants recklessly and assuming that all is right in the world of spelling; no, that would be too easy. Here’s the rule (oh that’s right, descriptivists, I said RULE): When a word of more than one syllable ends in a single consonant that is preceded by a single vowel, and the accent is on other than the last syllable of the root word, do NOT double the final consonant before adding the -ed or -ing. The final consonant in cancel is -l, which is preceded by the single vowel -e, and the accent is on the -can. The past tense of cancel, then, is canceled, and the participle is canceling.

There are, of course, exceptions to this rule—what would rules be without exceptions—but cancel is not one of them. Oh, and neither is benefit, which I’ve also seen written as benefitted and benefitting; the correct spellings are benefited and benefiting. And that goes for travel, too; it’s traveled and traveling.

And now you know the rest of the story.

Sherry

Posted in language | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Cancel One L

The People Have Spoken

Posted on April 1, 2009 by languageandgrammar

Now that we’ve received over 100 comments in our Pet Peeves page, I thought that it might be a good time to highlight what annoys readers of the blog–about 20 per post. This will be the first installment. I’m doing them in the order they’ve been received, not by category.

We’ve talked about some of them (I’ve included a few links), and others we might discuss in the future.

Remember, these are language pet peeves, not necessarily grammar pet peeves. Just as in Literally, the Best Language Book Ever, some pet peeves might be gramatically sound but be ineffective or inappropriate for a different reason.

Thank you to everyone who has contributed, and add any more peeves to the Your Pet Peeves Page.

  • Are you for serious?
  • Me and him, as in Me and him went to the mall
  • I could care less (instead of I couldn’t care less)
  • She had her appendix out (in the same way that you might take a dog out for a walk)
  • The reason why/The reason is because/The reason why is because (Reason is Because) (The Reason is Already the Why)
  • Asterisk/astrik/astrix (Spelling and Pronunciation)
  • For sale: 50% off
  • Responding with “No problem” to “Thank you”
  • For free (grammar equivalent of saying “for cheap”)
  • Good versus well (That’s All Well and Good)
  • Looking to (such as saying “looking to buy a new car)
  • Fallen soldiers (they’re dead, not fallen)
  • is is (double is, such as saying “The problem is is that…”) We have to write about that one soon.
  • It doesn’t get much better than this (such as sportscasters who say it often–it can’t always be getting better)
  • Let me put it this way (No, just give me the facts!)
  • Yes, we/I can do this (instead of yes/I can do that.
  • woken (instead of awakened)
  • asking yourself why and then answering (Why am I writing this blog? Because I want to highlight the great pet peeves we’ve received)
  • Lie/Lay (the conjunctions of lie and lay)

–Paul

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The People Have Spoken

Telephonically? Can’t We Just Use the @!&* Telephone?

Posted on April 1, 2009 by languageandgrammar

After having heard this from a certain former Alaska governor, I looked it up and did find the adverb telephonically in the dictionary.

I asked myself why in the world someone would use the ridiculous “word” telephonically when she could have easily said “was scheduled to participate in a meeting via telephone” or “was scheduled to participate in a telephone meeting” or….. The answer was obvious: The governor has fallen prey to the same disease to which so many of us have fallen prey: The desperate need to make ourselves and what we’re doing sound more important than we are or it is. It’s called being pretentious.

Nothing is functional any longer; it has functionality. No one is tall any longer; her or she has immense verticality. No one plays physical football any longer; he plays with great physicality. Storms are impactful, senses of humor are non-existent——–and now, we no longer make telephone calls; we communicate telephonically.

Sherry

Posted in language | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Adopt a Word

Posted on March 30, 2009 by languageandgrammar

I’ve heard it said that if you’re not ready to have children that you might want to start with a pet. I’ll take that a step further, though. If you don’t think that you’re ready for a pet, then you might want to start with adopting a word. They’re easy to take care of–no morning walks in the cold, no trips to the vet,  and no kennels needed for vacation.

A Web site, savethewords.org, encourages you to do just that–adopt a word. I believe it’s a creation of Oxford Dictionaries. After you go to the site, you will be sent a virtual room where words facing the possibility of extinction will vie for your attention. Clicking on the word will give you a definition, an example of how to use the word, and the opportunity to sign in and adopt the word.

Adoption is a responsibility, so signing up comes with a pledge:  “I hereby promise to use this word, in conversation and correspondence, as frequently as possible to the best of my ability.” Keep it up, and you’ll be able to get that dog soon.

I have to be honest. I have not adopted any words myself, and I have no intention of doing so. I’m more interested in clear communication than in just throwing around a couple of frutescents and senticouses just to prove how smart you are.

By the way, it’s just a coincidence that I have no children, no pets, and shaky record with plants–and I’m not going to adopt a word.

Of course, if hitherto and henceforth were on the list, that might be a different story.

–Paul

Posted in language | 4 Comments