[OT] today's random language gripe

[Emiricol]

My current, most hated example is the word "transition." Transition is a noun, not a verb. You make a transition from one thing to another. You don't transition from one thing to another.

That must be very frustrating, since using it as a verb is so common now! Even in "AP-style" press releases you can find companies "transitioning" all over the place

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

There's a dialect distinction there too. Some dialects prefer to form a participle from a sort of dummy verb, so you get "iced coffee" or "spiced cider" while others prefer to construct those as with attibutive nouns "ice coffee" or "spice cider."

Interestingly, I do both in my own "idiolect".

Spiced Cider

Ice Coffee

Ice(d) Tea?? (Who knows, as I mentioned, I can't tell from my pronunciation)

It would be fun to structure a test to find out if I apply an underlying rule, or if each is learned on an individual basis. My suspicion is that the "ice coffee" is the exception to my "rule".

I'm constantly noticing such consistent "mistakes" in my own speech, and wondering how they arose. While linguists find such observations fun, and can go on endlessly about them, many (perhaps most) non-linguist take exception when we take note of these distinctions in their own idiolects. I think linguists are more inclined to be able to view these differences as just that--differences--while the non-linguist will often feel that these observations are instead criticisms, and feel offended at the implication that their speech is somehow "non-standard" or incorrect. Personally, I think the standard is an ideal that is probably achieved by no one, but is nonetheless a necessary concession to prevent our idiolects from straying too far afield, and leading to even greater ambiguity--or even unintelligibility.

Wouldn't be a linguist yourself, would you?

(I specialized in syntax myself, and had a fondness for phonology and diachronic linguistics as well.)

 

[Emiricol]

[EDIT: deleted comment.]

 

[Negative Zero]

wow Gez, that was a very very cool exposition. i didn't know that bit about using different parts of your brain for speaking and writing. thanks! very interesting observations about the familiarity of language too

i think the primary reason for the misuse of "it's" for "its", is that normally, with nouns, you use the 's to denote possesion. so it's often an easy mistake to think that the 's does the same for "it."

Pielorinho
that's cool, i'll remember to those rules so i too can use "BOO YAH!"

~NegZ

[EDIT]

Emiricol
7 minutes between posting and deleting! now i REALLY wanna know what was in there couldn't pursuade you to email me that post, could i?

[/EDIT]

 

[the Jester]

I direct you to the last paragraph of the post you quoted from. Language does get into the dictionary based on how it is used, but that doesn't make it correct!

Well, what makes language correct?

In fact, where do the 'rules' of language come from?

I'd say that the rules evolved from use. Dictionaries are the result of people writing down their take on how the language should work. Authoritative, certainly- but I don't think there is any such thing as 'correct' when it comes to language, because it's subjective. There is no objective rule on what makes language correct or incorrect- especially English, which is well-known for its horrible amount of irregularity.

 

[d100]

After taking German in both high school and college my pet peeve has become how almost completely impossible it is to tell how a word in English is to be speeled form how it is pronounced.

for example

cove
dove
move

From looking at the spelling of these words, one might assume that they should rhyme, but in modern English they do not. (I am not a linguistic historian, so I can not speak about the past). Even if they came from different sources, in my view the spelling should reflect how they sound, not the source.

I realize that this is because English has been assembled from many languages and dialects, and seems to have an aversion to systematically changing the spellings of words to match the pronounciations.

I will probably be back when I think of a few more complaints, while I am gone please don't attack my grammar or spelling too much. My B.S. is in Physics, not English.

 

[Syunsuke]

An interesting side effect is that people who express in a foreign language they don't know how to pronounce are less likely to make these mistakes (but, as they use a foreign languages, more likely to do grammar errors...). I've constated that, the better I grasp speaking English, the more frequent the they're/there/their confusion I made...

As a non native English speaker, I agree.
Foreign language speaker don't make your / you're type mistake, and can't understand why people make this kind of mistake

(And because I'm Japanese, I make lots of r / l misspelling )


And Gez, I'm sorry I haven't reply for your last mail for months.

 

[johnsemlak]

Interestingly, I do both in my own "idiolect".

Spiced Cider

Ice Coffee

Ice(d) Tea?? (Who knows, as I mentioned, I can't tell from my pronunciation)

It would be fun to structure a test to find out if I apply an underlying rule, or if each is learned on an individual basis. My suspicion is that the "ice coffee" is the exception to my "rule".

Well, in theory---

An attributive noun, or a noun which acts as an adjective, generally represents a 'type of'.


So, Ice coffee is a 'type of' coffee.

A past participle adjective generally indicates that the verb actuaually has happened to the noun.

iced tea is tea which has been iced.

other examples:

salad fork -- a type of fork
chilled salad fork -- a salad fork for which has been chilled

teacup-- a cup for tea (a type of cup)
cup of tea -- a cup with tea in it.

a grammar book -- a type of book dealing with grammar
a bound book - a book which has been bound.


This is all theory of course. Ultimately such distinctions become very arbitrary and riddled with exceptions.

 

[Cor Azer]

"i could care less"

I can't vouch for its veracity, but I seem to recall that this phrase is actually the correct use (albeit shortened from the original), and not "I couldn't care less". My possibly distorted memory recalls that the original phrase was akin to "I could care less , but then I'd have to try" (emphasis added to show usually deleted content).

As to other comments in this thread. Capitilization (or lack thereof) doesn't bother me, as long as punctuation is used properly (or at least, periods; run-on sentences may be difficult to read, but if you have a period at the end, I can just skip it and move on).