Overuse of "Due to..."
Because people have forgotten when it's "Owing to..."
There are a few words that mean the opposite of what they used to.
Restive used to mean lazy, now it means fidgety. Terrific used to mean terrifying.
A lot of people dislike double negatives but nobody never didn't misunderstand what you mean.
I'm always puzzled by "aren't I". Shouldn't it be amn't I?
On the subject of Americans again, why have they changed the 'couldn't' in 'I couldn't care less' to a 'could'? It makes no sense.
Meh
Could of, would of.
My girlfriend says this.
I used to pull her up on Messenger and she'd go 'oh, yes,' and correct herself.
But she doesn't just type it. She says it.
*twitch*
On the subject of Americans again, why have they changed the ‘couldn’t’ in ‘I couldn’t care less’ to a ‘could’? It makes no sense.
I think this is just a mistake? But you're right, it makes no sense, "I could care less" means the opposite of its intended meaning.
See also, "if you think that then you've got another thing coming." Utterly nonsensical and for all practical purposes didn't exist until the Judas Priest song.
Helping your uncle, Jack, off his horse
And they’re all wrong as you help someone from their horse.
Jack isn't looking for help dismounting his horse - this is about a man conspiring with his nephew to have his horse murdered, gangland style.
The sound of the word defines the word, not the spelling. The spelling is merely an attempt to put it into letters. And there aren’t enough letters to properly express all the sounds that we have in English. We could spell tomato like ‘tomarto’ but if someone from America, the West country or possibly Scotland were to read ‘tomarto’ it’d come out wrong. So it’s actually pretty difficult to transcribe words when you don’t have enough letters.
Which is where letter combinations come in I guess - some letters are there to be spoken some are there to give very minor accents to a word - there are certain words we think of as homophones but they're not really. The difference in spelling isn't just to indicate a different meaning* its also a different way of making a sound even if its the same sound. We tend to think 'threw' and 'through' sound the same so why should we spell them differently - but say them and think about what your mouth is doing when you do - sometimes its very subtle sometimes not - you can feel the difference in your mouth when you say different homophones - an good example is 'free' and 'three' - really quite similar sounds even though your mouth is doing very different things to make that sound. Mite and Might. Flower and Flour; Hear and Here. Idol and Idle.
The speaker knows which of those words they are saying but a listener can only hear those very subtle nuances if they also read and write. Someone who has only learned English by speaking and hearing it rather than by also reading typically doesnt say 'three' or 'free' differently and can't really hear the difference either.
* we've never needed different spellings for all 430 different meaning of 'Set' and the next Oxford English Dictionary is anticipated to have 645 different things that can be meant by the word 'Run
On the subject of Americans again, why have they changed the ‘couldn’t’ in ‘I couldn’t care less’ to a ‘could’? It makes no sense.
It's probably time to put this one to bed as well. 1. It isn't an Americanism (the phrase appears in British newspapers in the mid 19th C all the time), 2. Strictly speaking; it's an idiom, so it doesn't have to make any sense. 3. both are understood to mean the same thing, so just use the one you prefer.
The ones I like best, are words that used to have a general meaning, but now mean just one thing. The best one is Ejaculation. It used to be a reasonably common word for surprise or exclamation, and as my partner is a Lecturer in 18thC literature, the bookcases are filled with novels where the hero of the story is often "ejaculating in surprise", or when confronted with surprising news, it'll say; "What d'you mean?" He ejaculated... which must take a terrible toll on the trousers...
(the phrase appears in British newspapers in the mid 19th C all the time)
You made this up.
I heard Sam say it in a re-broadcast of Cheers. Pretty old, but not 19th century 😂 (“I could care less”)
You made this up.
The writer evidently has no more heart for the appreciation of Canning and his errors than Lord Palmerston himself has, and evidently cares no more about Lord Palmerston, whom he tries to praise, than we ourselves do. It is impossible that he could care less.
— The Morning Post (London, Eng.), 18 Jul. 1840
His bearing towards male acquaintances, of whom he knew little or nothing and could care less, was marked by an affectation of gushing friendliness, which overdid itself.
— The Dundee Courier (Dundee, Sc.) 12 Jul. 1865
Now, there's no way of knowing whether the first was a typo, but I think after that date, it's reasonably common.
The difference in spelling isn’t just to indicate a different meaning* its also a different way of making a sound even if its the same sound. We tend to think ‘threw’ and ‘through’ sound the same so why should we spell them differently – but say them and think about what your mouth is doing when you do – sometimes its very subtle sometimes not – you can feel the difference in your mouth when you say different homophones –
Sounds improbable, and impossible for those of us who aren't grate at spelling. Anyway...
It is impossible that he could care less.
The preceding text means that makes sense. Different to just stating I could care less which just sounds stupid. The second one was obviously written by an idiot 😂
At my local Sainsbury’s [...] “12 items or fewer”
I've never quite understood the issue with this one. "12 items or less" is not a sentence. It's a contraction. What it means is something like: "[This queue is for people who have] 12 items or fewer [in they're basket]".
But it could equally be written as "[This queue is for people who have] 12 items or less [stuff]".
Now, I think "12 items or fewer" is probably more correct, the second example sounds a bit clunky. But I think the reason it upsets some people is because fewer / less are used in common parlance in situations where one is clearly incorrect. So it's not really the supermarkets' fault.
Also, this:
nobody is confused by the meaning of “ten items or less”.
A sign is there to efficiently convey a meaning. Writing 'fewer' takes more space and probably increases the chance of someone misunderstanding it.
The ones I like best, are words that used to have a general meaning, but now mean just one thing. The best one is Ejaculation.
Which reminds me: When I was at primary school (aged 6-7 IIRC), I remember doing some reading with a student teacher and came across (lol) that word in an old book. The guy was completely aghast and made a big deal out of it, so obviously I immediately looked the word up in a dictionary to see what the fuss was about. That has been seared in my brain ever since:
v. Ejaculate. To forcibly eject. Usually of semen.
Different to just stating I could care less which just sounds stupid.
Sure, but when you stop to think about it, all idioms make no sense: Kick the bucket, piece of cake, raining cats and dogs...That's sort of the point.
Sure, but when you stop to think about it, all idioms make no sense: Kick the bucket, piece of cake, raining cats and dogs…That’s sort of the point.
I'm not sure that applies. There are plenty of non-literal idioms like the ones you list, but there are also expressions which are intended to be taken very literally. "I could not care less" is a perfect example. It's not really an idiom, it just means what it says!
When you're used to hearing a common expression that also makes complete logical sense, hearing "I could care less" which is a non-sensical idiomatic version of the same thing is just super-grating. I guess it's akin to saying "literally" when you mean the opposite. Which is also pretty annoying.
hearing “I could care less” which is a non-sensical idiomatic version of the same thing is just super-grating
But not the people that use it all the time...
Someone who has only learned English by speaking and hearing it rather than by also reading typically doesnt say ‘three’ or ‘free’ differently and can’t really hear the difference either.
My daughter couldn't - we tried to explain this many times and she flat out denied there was a difference. I'm not sure she does now at 12 either but I've stopped noticing so maybe she does, maybe she doesn't!
The follow-on point from spellings reflecting sounds is that the sounds have changed loads even in the last few hundred years, never mind since mediaeval times. The ght in night used to be pronounced - compare with German nacht. However the Dutch word for 'wait' is 'wacht' - in English we have dropped the fricative in both words, but in wait we dropped it from the spelling and for night we didn't! This would appear to be the explanation for all the different pronunciations of stuff like 'ough' - they weren't all difference once, but they've morphed.
In typical English English, court and caught are homophones, but to an American they aren't. Possibly also not for Scottish or Irish (can anyone confirm?) either. However, in parts of South Wales, court and caught and coat are homophones! This also highlights the effect of regional languages in how English is pronounced. In Wales, the accent of English is actually the Welsh accent even if the speaker knows no Welsh. When they pick it up they often get the sounds right automatically, far more easily than English people do who sometimes never can.
This also highlights the effect of regional languages in how English is pronounced
And throw in the great vowel shift, and it all starts to get very confused very quickly. The evolution of language is super interesting though. Take snow; in German and Dutch it's pretty much the same word as English (no surprise) schnee and sneeuw, but even in French Italian and Spanish it is as well, just they've lost the "s" at the beginning and shifted the vowel sound ; neige, neve, neive...It's endlessly fascinating.
There is no way court and caught are homophones. Caught and cot are, though.
Someone who has only learned English by speaking and hearing it rather than by also reading typically doesnt say ‘three’ or ‘free’ differently and can’t really hear the difference either.
I remember my French teacher trying and failing to teach me that au-dessus and au-dessous were in fact completely different sounds (one means below, the other, above, confusingly).
Meanwhile, she was absolutely insistent that the words mouse and mouth sounded the same to her.
It's just what we're used to hearing. Apparently, more Mandarin-speaking people have perfect pitch, because their (tonal) language relies on differentiating pitches between sounds - something that we largely ignore.
There is no way court and caught are homophones.
They are for me. Where are you from?
It is impossible that he could care less.
... of whom he knew little or nothing and could care less,
But both of these are valid. The first is still saying "he couldn't care less" only using more words. The second example has a run-on from the preceding part of the sentence, it's saying "he... could care less [than little or nothing]." Whereas "I could care less," in isolation, is stating that you do actually care.
Is it the negative that's problematic in parsing these perhaps? Consider, are "I could care more" and "I couldn't care more" interchangeable?
there are certain words we think of as homophones but they’re not really.
In received pronunciation perhaps. In practice I'd argue that it wholly depends on your accent. From your examples I'm going to take a punt and guess you're a Londoner?
in parts of South Wales, court and caught and coat are homophones!
There is no way court and caught are homophones. Caught and cot are, though.
None of those are homophones for me, and I'm from East Lancashire where we're all born with only one functional vowel.
Consider, are “I could care more” and “I couldn’t care more” interchangeable?
Of course not. Compare with the following:
"I could eat more" meaning you're not full.
"I couldn't eat more" meaning you are.
I'm convinced the whole thing with "I could care less" is just a massive troll.
It's so obviously and infuriatingly wrong, clearly designed by sadists to drop into polite conversation just to watch the other person internally screaming and twitching with the desire to strangle you.
And if you do bring up the subject the best defence that anyone's ever come up with is "it doesn't have to make sense". SO BLOODY WELL USE THE VERSION WHICH DOES MAKE SENSE NO ONE'S FORCING YOU TO SOUND LIKE AN IDIOT AAARGH
and breathe
Of course not. Compare with the following:
Exactly the point I was making. So does this logic suddenly break if we replace "more" with "less"...? As a wise man once said, "of course not."
I’m convinced the whole thing with “I could care less” is just a massive troll.
It literally makes my head explode.
It literally makes my head explode.
Must.....not..... can't....... even. Aaarrrgghhh.
I always thought it was another think coming. That's what my gran said and it makes sense.
This queue is for people who have] 12 items or fewer [in they’re basket]”.
Ironic.
But it could equally be written as “[This queue is for people who have] 12 items or less [stuff]”.
But 12 stuff or less makes no sense. You have to give a discrete number to measure against, otherwise no one would know how much less stuff they need to be eligible to use that line. Once you have established that the limit is discrete, fewer is the only option.
Having said that, language is not the biggest problem for the people in those lines, counting is.
But 12 stuff or less makes no sense. You have to give a discrete number to measure against, otherwise no one would know how much less stuff they need to be eligible to use that line.
Are you saying you don't understand the meaning of a sign at the till which says "12 items or less"?
If you do understand what it means then what's the problem?
Furthermore, whilst "fewer" can't be used with continuous nouns as in "eat fewer red meat" is obviously wrong, less can be used with countable nouns perfectly comfortably: "eat less sweets".
...from wikkipedia:
the distinction between less and fewer as a rule is a phenomenon originating in the 18th century...
in 1770 as a comment on less: "This Word is most commonly used in speaking of a Number; where I should think Fewer would do better. 'No Fewer than a Hundred' appears to me, not only more elegant than 'No less than a Hundred', but more strictly proper." (Baker 1770). Baker's remarks about 'fewer' express... his own taste and preference... generalized and elevated to an absolute status and his notice of contrary usage has been omitted."
Less is fine.
Are you saying you don’t understand the meaning of a sign at the till which says “12 items or less”?
No.
Less is fine.
Like a lot of grammar, it is debatable. Less OF is certainly fine, as it was originally, and still is in some languages (moins de). Less with the of dropped as english has, is less clear.
If you are saying it is fewer important to follow rules than be clear, that language grows and changes, then I and you more or fewer agree. I find it odd that if the words are interchangeable in one context, why shouldn't they be in others. I am fewer worried about people understanding ideas than I am about grammar making language easy to grasp, but also pleasing. I mean Nick Hornby could have said "willing to accept the fewer and the more that he was suggesting" but it doesn't scan as well.
Still, if you understand it, it's probably fewer important than I think.
Of course not. Compare with the following:
You can compare all you like. The thing is; it's an idiom, it's allowed not to make sense. You're trying to apply rules to something that by definition doesn't follow those rules.
It's raining rats and penguins? The bucket hasn't been kicked?
Plus, of course, none of us are the King of Language Who Must Be Obeyed...so it's allowed do you head in and there's nothing you can do about it. The people who like to say it, could care less.
Still, if you understand it, it’s probably fewer important than I think.
The issue is usage. Less and fewer aren't synonyms. Less is often used in natural language when referring to items, which is fine. Fewer is only used for items. The quote above is not common usage hence coming across as, let's say, uncomfortable.
Court, caught and cot are all completely different to me. Phonetically they'd respectfully be kort, kawt and kott.
One interesting (well to me) anomaly is the difference in usage between UK & American English in how the word "of" is used. Sometimes we use it but the Americans don't: "I threw it out of the window" vs "I threw it out the window" and at other times the Americans use/add it but we don't: "I got it off of him" vs "I got it off him". No real rhyme or reason either side of the pond regards usage.
Less is often used in natural language when referring to items,
And momentarily is often used in natural language to mean in a moment. If you put a moment switch where a momentary switch should be, you'll have a problem.
Just because it's often used, doesn't mean it should be.
And momentarily is often used in natural language to mean in a moment.
In the US, mainly. Perhaps we should invade?
Just because it’s often used, doesn’t mean it should be.
But as long as the meaning is clear, it can be. if 99 people think it means one thing, and you're the one in the corner grinding your teeth, thinking "you're all fools, it means something else". Who has the problem?
In the US, mainly. Perhaps we should invade?
If only
if 99 people think it means one thing, and you’re the one in the corner grinding your teeth, thinking “you’re all fools, it means something else”. Who has the problem?
If they think inflammable is the opposite of flammable, all of us.
If all it requires to change the meaning of something is a bunch of people decide it's the opposite of what it was, we're all buggered, and no one will understand what anyone else means. See Brexit.
If you try constructing a bunch of phrases using fewer, less, and less of and add the correct is/are, you will immediately discover the issue.
in they’re basket
WHAT?!!
If they think inflammable is the opposite of flammable, all of us
Missing out the first part of what I said to make a narrow point about language use, kinda of makes my point about "as long as everyone is clear, it can be"
Grammar is important, if you're writing a book, or a presentation, I think you should at least aim at good grammar that's elegant, scans well, obeys the rules and is clear. beyond that, less constraint about language is probably not a bad thing.
Unconscious and subconscious
Got me thinking 😉
What about unconcious bias?
Bias based on zero conciousness? Surley not a bias then?
Subconscious bias is probably what we mean.
Less /fewer
From memory, such signs started off a '1 basket(full) or less'. '12 items or less' was an attempt to prevent the arguements that came about from shopper A not being able to take their trolley with a single bulky / heavy item through the same check out as shopper B who had a hand badket stacked full of dozens of small individual items. A half arsed solution: they should have supplemented it with '(rule 1 applies)'
I could care less
Probably means
'I could care less... But i don't.'
The inferance being, you know me so well, surely i do not need to finish this sentence.
The inference being, you know me so well, you know I'm an idiot?
I always thought it was another think coming. That’s what my gran said and it makes sense.
It is. You can blame Judas Priest for "thing".
less can be used with countable nouns perfectly comfortably: “eat less sweets”.
One could argue, if one were a pedantic git on the Internet, that this could mean for each sweet you should eat less of it. Eg, if you have ten sweets that you'd normally eat and you eat five, you've eaten fewer sweets; if instead you eat half of each one, you've eaten less sweets.
The thing is; it’s an idiom, it’s allowed not to make sense.
The thing is, it's not an idiom. It literally, literally literally, means what it says. That is, somewhat appropriately, the opposite of what an idiom is. If you're going to argue that "it's an idiom" is an idiom and you really meant that it's not an idiom then I'm going to need a lie down.
Using the wrong words doesn't magically make it an idiom, it just makes it wrong. If it's raining really hard then "it's raining cats and dogs" is an idiom, "it's not raining" is not. And nor is "another thing coming."
obeys the rules and is clear. beyond that, less constraint about language is probably not a bad thing.
Couldn't agree more. The rule is fewer for discrete, less for not. The logic behind that is partly to make it work with other rules that are aimed at clarity, like is/are etc. As I said, try it.
My example doesn't take one thing and ignore the rest. It makes the very important point that if 99 people decide inflammable means the opposite of what it does, and the one that wrote the warning label subscribes to the original meaning, then clarity is lost. The one around the corner gritting his/her teeth is correct, they are fools and it isn't what that means. You have to have a universal accepted rule. As you pointed out subsequently.
Eat less Sweets
Perfect example.
Americanisms that wind me up are the things like “Deplane”. You mean “get off” presumably?
Queensland Rail used 'Detrain' in their announcements. Hearing that over and over again every day commuting was painful. It was all i could do to not stand up and scream...
Then i didn't get a train for years. And guess what? I went on a train and they've changed it to "disembark" (or something much more suitable). It felt so good to hear that.
Not sure if it's already being mentioned.
A couple I've noticed in the past.
- Loose and lose.
- Lend and borrow
Train station.
I've never had an issue with this but apparently it should be railway station.
Petrol station when people are buying diesel.
Road signs that can be understood differently like.
"SLOW CHILDREN CROSSING"
Well tell them to hurry up then! I think there should be an exclamation mark after the slow. 🤷
"BALL GAMES PROHIBITED" Signs on grassy areas where I grew up were quite common. Funny thing was, we as 8 year olds didn't know what prohibited meant.
Surely "NO BALL GAMES ALLOWED!" would be more comprehendible to the kids who the signs are aimed at? 🤦♂️
I remember asking what fornicator meant when I was a kid. 😄
The way words can fall out of normal use or change their meanings entirely is pretty cool 😎. like the word gay. Once meant happy, then meant a homosexual but now apparently means uncool.
Phobia used for a rational fear. I thought phobia meant an irrational fear, but then what do I know.
SLOW CHILDREN CROSSING
Try
POLICE SPEED
CHECK AREA
Road signs that can be understood differently like.
We have some crackers in Oz:
"High pedestrian activity" - like off their heads?
"Soft shoulders" - roadside massage?
That said, i remember Americans laughing at the "Way out" signs in the London Underground when i was a student. It seemed perfectly normal to the English, but to them it was a really odd phrase, a version of far out.
rest assured that the quickest way to devalue the language would be to insist on a proper version like what various Frenchies are trying to do.
“Can I get?” bugs me however. There’s being incorrect and there’s being obnoxious, and this is both.
Both statements have my wholehearted support.
It’s probably time to put this one to bed as well. 1. It isn’t an Americanism (the phrase appears in British newspapers in the mid 19th C all the time), 2. Strictly speaking; it’s an idiom, so it doesn’t have to make any sense. 3. both are understood to mean the same thing, so just use the one you prefer.
I frequently use ‘I could care less’, by which I mean ‘I could care less, but by such a minuscule amount as makes no difference’.
And I’ll continue to do so, irrespective of whether it makes people’s heads explode! 🤯 😁
Train station.
I’ve never had an issue with this but apparently it should be railway station.
I'm with you. A station is where something stops or is positioned. Railways don't move (or shouldn't) so they don't stop. Trains stop, and the place where they are intended to stop is a station.
The one I find difficult is "That's not an option". Does it mean "That's impossible" or "That's compulsory"? I honestly don't know - sometimes you can guess from the context.
rest assured that the quickest way to devalue the language would be to insist on a proper version like what various Frenchies are trying to do.
Indeed or like textbook Latin, though English being a world language and also a living one this could never be enforced. Though I get that there are people of a more mechanical mindset who'd like rules of speaking English to be laws of physics...
