Overused terms/words

[shinta|hikari]

"Can you guess what I'm thinking of?" is similar, since "of" is tacked on by people who thought "Can you guess what I'm thinking?" didn't sound "right" to them.

It is incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition. However, in this case, they didn't simply tack it on. For example:

"Can you guess what I'm talking about?"

About is a preposition, and cannot be omitted in this case. Still, the format is technically incorrect. It has only become accepted because it is used so often.

"Can you guess what I'm talking?" is simply wrong.

[XanBcoo]

Otherwise, how the heck are you meant to differenciate what someone's trying to say? Guess?

A: "Why did you stand there and do nothing?"
B: "I didn't do nothing!"

Intonation. In a situation like you presented, when written it's obviously ambiguous. Read it out loud with both intended meanings and tell me you don't see the difference. In any case, just because something can be left to ambiguous interpretation doesn't mean that one interpretation is wrong. It just means it's...ambiguous.

So yes, you're meant to guess. But like I said, when spoken aloud it's not the shot in the dark you're making it out to be.

I think applying logic to language makes perfect sense, for language to make sense at all.

Language has form, and if you deviate from that form, then it's inherently incorrect to that language since it doesn't follow the rules. (discounting poetry)

Applying logic to language outside of the sphere of its every day use, is as I said, convoluted and completely arbitrary. As for deviating from form and following rules, I'm talking about the difference between saying "

'To boldly go where no man has gone before." and
"Go to where boldly no has man before gone."

Yes, you were taught that splitting an infinitive is wrong, but I know you can't tell me why. You can tell me why saying 'Go where to boldly man has no gone before" doesn't make sense. Obviously it doesn't. You'd sound like someone with Broca's Aphasia and no one could even understand what you wanted to say. The entire word order is screwed up and there's no meaning in the sentence.

Even Oxford agrees it's a stupid rule: http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexper...litinfinitives

"Can you guess what I'm thinking of?" is similar, since "of" is tacked on by people who thought "Can you guess what I'm thinking?" didn't sound "right" to them.

Shinta was getting to the point with this one. The "correct" way to say it would be "Can you guess of what I am thinking?" or "Can you guess about what I am talking?" But no one says that, do they? Well, some do, but most people find it an odd construction. Anyway, with either variation the meaning is left intact.

I suppose the reason it's evolved as it has is because people tend to just leave the entire constituent intact. That being "Thinking of [x]" where [x] is the direct object. People don't like to break up that entire chunk.

In either variation the interrogative word "what" is meant to take the place of the [x]. In the "correct" variation, "of" is moved to create a complete prepositional phrase "of what". In the "incorrect" variation, "Thinking of [x]" is left intact. However, neither is more logical, and neither is any more inherently correct than the other. I'd like to see the argument that says otherwise.

Usually it boils down to "because that's what I was taught in school."

"Try and achieve" is another slip commonly found around the place. People are really saying they'll "try to achieve". They'll try to achieve something, but they're not guaranteeing they'll achieve anything. "Try AND achieve" means otherwise.

Now this kind of bugs me too. Same with "could/would/should of" instead of "could/would/should have". You're right in that the mistake occurs because of phonological convenience. I have more trouble accepting stuff like this because it sounds really odd to me, and obviously hasn't occurred in all circles, but it is an entirely natural linguistic phenomenon.

What I assume is happening there is called Degrammaticalization. Basically that means that function words like "have/of" and "to/and" are now understood as part of an entire lexical item "Could of" and "Try and" where the meaning is found within that chunk instead of being interpreted individually.

"Making sense" don't make it right. My brother's got some language problems, and he says "Do you know what is it?" rather than "Do you know what it is?"

I understand him, but it doesn't make him right.

Yeah, I misspoke a bit. No, it doesn't make it right if you understand him, it makes it right if entire linguistic communities adopt the variation and comprehend it as being "right". That argument sounds weak as hell, but it's the reality of the situation. The main point is language is weird in that it is always changing based on trends and outside influence and such, and what is understood by those communities speaking it.

Is it obvious I was trained to be a Descriptive Linguist rather than a prescriptive Grammarian?

[Buffalobiian]

Otherwise, how the heck are you meant to differenciate what someone's trying to say? Guess?

A: "Why did you stand there and do nothing?"
B: "I didn't do nothing!"

Intonation. In a situation like you presented, when written it's obviously ambiguous. Read it out loud with both intended meanings and tell me you don't see the difference. In any case, just because something can be left to ambiguous interpretation doesn't mean that one interpretation is wrong. It just means it's...ambiguous.

So yes, you're meant to guess. But like I said, when spoken aloud it's not the shot in the dark you're making it out to be.

That's quite true. My main point here is if it CAN be easily misinterpreted, or argued convincingly to mean otherwise (eg, B arguing later that he meant otherwise to cover his ass), then I would rather it make definitive sense by applying those logical rules.

Maybe I just don't like "it's up to how you interpret it".

Yes, you were taught that splitting an infinitive is wrong, but I know you can't tell me why.

You're right, I can't. All I know is "to" and a verb is meant to go together. I still stand by my argument that understandable doesn't make it right. It's just that being understandable tends to make the phrase seemingly more acceptable to use (as in it gets the message across). Then, when more people use it, it unfortunately becomes "correct".

Even Oxford agrees it's a stupid rule: http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexper...litinfinitives

Oxford agrees that it's a poor style that's best avoided in formal writing, but people are so bad at correcting their usage of split infinitives that they end up with something worse.

"Can you guess what I'm thinking of?" is similar, since "of" is tacked on by people who thought "Can you guess what I'm thinking?" didn't sound "right" to them.

Shinta was getting to the point with this one. The "correct" way to say it would be "Can you guess of what I am thinking?" or "Can you guess about what I am talking?" But no one says that, do they? Well, some do, but most people find it an odd construction. Anyway, with either variation the meaning is left intact.

I suppose the reason it's evolved as it has is because people tend to just leave the entire constituent intact. That being "Thinking of [x]" where [x] is the direct object. People don't like to break up that entire chunk.

In either variation the interrogative word "what" is meant to take the place of the [x]. In the "correct" variation, "of" is moved to create a complete prepositional phrase "of what". In the "incorrect" variation, "Thinking of [x]" is left intact. However, neither is more logical, and neither is any more inherently correct than the other. I'd like to see the argument that says otherwise.

Usually it boils down to "because that's what I was taught in school."

I'm having trouble understanding this one. Which sentences were the "two variations" you mentioned? The ones you gave in that quote were by your definition the correct ones. I'll read it again after some sleep.

Is it obvious I was trained to be a Descriptive Linguist rather than a prescriptive Grammarian?

Yes, very.

[Animeniax]

You all are making a mockery of this thread. For shame!!!

[samsonlonghair]

One that always ticked me off was "meteorologist" when applied to local TV personalities. A meteorologist is a scientist who studies the atmosphere and weather patters. The man in front of the green screen wearing makeup is just a weather man, not a meteorologist.

[Kraco]

One that always ticked me off was "meteorologist" when applied to local TV personalities. A meteorologist is a scientist who studies the atmosphere and weather patters. The man in front of the green screen wearing makeup is just a weather man, not a meteorologist.

I might be wrong, but I'm under the impression they are usually fully educated in the field, that is, meteorologists. At least over here. There isn't a huge job market for meteorologists, I imagine, and on the other hand if the TV station can get away paying the same people to both understand and analyse the data they buy from somewhere and present it in front of the camera, they surely will. Unless they can buy fully prepared presentations so that it can be presented by somebody who hasn't got a clue what he/she's talking about.

[darkshadow]

Here they are fully educated meteorologists as well.

[Animeniax]

I don't like the overuse of the word "technician" in job titles. These days a janitor is called a "janitorial technician". There are other examples I've heard but that one bugs me the most.

[XanBcoo]

Sorry. Hopefully this'll be my last derail on this topic.

You're right, I can't. All I know is "to" and a verb is meant to go together. I still stand by my argument that understandable doesn't make it right. It's just that being understandable tends to make the phrase seemingly more acceptable to use (as in it gets the message across). Then, when more people use it, it unfortunately becomes "correct".

You're right, I can't. All I know is [a woman] is meant to [stay in the kitchen]. I still stand by my argument that [accepting womens' rights] doesn't make it right. It's just that [accepting womens' rights] tends to make the [woman] seemingly more acceptable to [society] (as in it [respects the rights of the opposite gender]. Then, when more people [accept womens' rights], it unfortunately becomes "correct"

I apologize for using such a snarky parallel, but it's the same line of thinking. I already asked you what made "correct" use of language "correct" and you couldn't answer. I even explained what made an example "incorrect" speech rather logical. Honestly, it's a weird mental hurdle to jump over, but your opinion of language is 100% based on arbitrary preconceptions about what you were taught was "right and wrong".

English and German are both descendants of an older West Germanic language. They evolved through natural changes like the ones we've been talking about. By your argument, either the entire English language is "incorrect" because of the changes it's gone through over hundreds of years (through Old English, Middle English, or even the English of 100 years ago), or German is "just plain wrong."

Oxford agrees that it's a poor style that's best avoided in formal writing,

Which is more or less what I said earlier. Using a formal standardization of language is advantageous in some circles and it's a useful skill everyone should learn, but otherwise it's a completely social construct. I would never use "y'all" in a professional email or job interview because it's seen as "incorrect", but elsewhere I use it all the time because that's what everyone says where I'm from, and to us it is perfectly ok. It's also logical in that most other romance languages have a 2nd person plural pronoun.

I don't like the overuse of the word "technician" in job titles. These days a janitor is called a "janitorial technician". There are other examples I've heard but that one bugs me the most.

Totally agreed. Most politically correct terms bug the hell out of me.

[Animeniax]

I don't like how the word "idol" is being used these days. I refer to "American Idol" as "American Idolater". And you know what the Ten Commandments says about idolatry.

Add to that the term "talent" in Japanese pop culture as a way to reference actors/singers/pretty people. Most of these "talents" are not talented; they are prefab, mix 'n match, easily replaceable caricatures who will no longer have any appeal when they turn 25 and are no longer cute. They dominate the Japanese music, TV, and movie scenes and block the actually talented folks from getting their air time. For shame, Japan!!!!!

[Sapphire]

I totally agree with you, Ani

[Buffalobiian]

"girlfriends"

"I'm going out with my girlfriends today"

That word used to denote a sexual partner, however casual one might see it. Now it's just gender+friend half the time. It also makes it harder to determine another's sexuality since you don't know if they're serious about it or not.

[darkshadow]

Actually in Dutch, friend is always male and girlfriend always female. The only way to denote a sexual partner is to add possession to it, like my girlfriend or my friend.

If a heterosexual male would introduce himself and a friend as: "Hi I am "" and this is my friend", people could think you are implying a homosexual relationship.
That's why we use "a (friend of mine)" for just friendship and possession for intimacy.

[shinta|hikari]

Isn't the word "mine" also indicative of possession in that statement?

[Animeniax]

Not if you're a rapper. According to 50 cent, "what's mine is mine... what's your's is mine." Which makes absolutely no sense at all.

[darkshadow]

Isn't the word "mine" also indicative of possession in that statement?

Yes but it is more of an indirect indication of possession, since it just tells the other person who the friend is aquintant with, a friend of mine, friend of hers, friend of danny's etc..

[Kraco]

Hmm... Over here boyfriend or girlfriend means someone you are dating. Friend means just a friend, even if you say "my friend", unless it's a situation where a homosexual is on the surface hiding the relationship but still suggesting something between the lines, but that's quite a non-textbook case. Usually it suggests nothing special.

Mugger leader: "Did you bring anybody? We need lots of men for this job."
Mugger: "I brought my friend. He has the strength of two men and the wits of half a man."