Irksome solecisms

11011131516

Comments

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Well fwiw, “birth” as a verb dates back to the mid-13th Century—around the same time that “birth” as a noun appeared.
    Yebbut. Since then, it's become settled and normally been accepted that the noun has been 'birth' and the verb 'bear'. 'The love that bore creation' doesn't even have a different number of syllables. So it says the same, doesn't grate and fits the scansion.

    Incidentally, it's quite straightforward to turn nouns into verbs in most languages. What's more prevalent in English than many languages is the ability to do so without having to change the form of the word. One reason for that is that in a Latin verb, the endings do the job that in English pronouns do. It's not a universal freedom in English. That accounts for much of the argument about whether any particular verbalisation is legitimate - as exampled by my use of the word 'verbalisation' 'verb' i.e. noun + suffix 'alise' = verb + suffix 'action' = noun again but this time meaning 'the act of turning a verb into a noun'. And as exampled also by my use of 'example', usually a noun, as a verb. Note how once it has become a verb, it conjugates as one.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Bear can just mean carry; birth is more specific.

    The isolating tendancy in English does seem to make us more inclined to play with language; we freely put compound verbs after the objects they refer to (see what I did there?). We boldly split infinitives because we can

    These things are all possible in other languages (OK most can't split infinitives) but we make an art form of it.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Well fwiw, “birth” as a verb dates back to the mid-13th Century—around the same time that “birth” as a noun appeared.
    Yebbut. Since then, it's become settled and normally been accepted that the noun has been 'birth' and the verb 'bear'. 'The love that bore creation' doesn't even have a different number of syllables. So it says the same, doesn't grate and fits the scansion.
    I’d have to agree with @KarlLB that “bore” can be interpreted as not meaning quite the same thing. Even in the sense of pregnancy, “bear” (which is related etymologically to “birth”) can mean “carry” as well as “give birth to.” But it can also mean what Atlas did with Earth.

    I agree use of “birth” as a verb isn’t common. My only point was that it’s not new either.

  • Verbs will be nouns and nouns will be verbs
    It's a mixed-up, mumbled-up, shook-up world
  • But the unthinking way nouns are verbed (!). can be irksome. I dislike, 'fundraise', when 'raising funds' is a more natural (and elegant). "I'm raising funds for ...." and not "I'm fundraising for". It's very common (especially now when we've all been lockdowned.

    But that's English for you. Trouble is, sloppy grammar is probably an indication of sloppy thinking. As a tutor, I had to precisify many a student's prose. Sometimes this was rewarding, occasionally deeply frustrating when they just did not understand.

    Done with humorous intent, turning nouns into verbs is fun.
  • The one that irritates me is the way that "gift" has almost completely ousted "give" as the verb, over quite a short period.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Penny S wrote: »
    The one that irritates me is the way that "gift" has almost completely ousted "give" as the verb, over quite a short period.
    I agree. That one really irritates me, as does 'giftings' to mean abilities. It's become much favoured recently in some church circles. If one wants to describe abilities as something God has given us, use 'gifts'.

  • Speaking of church circles (a rich seam of solecisms, irksome or otherwise). We have just been invited to take part in the 'Advent Experience'. Is this 'advert speak'? What', in Heaven's name is inadequate about just saying 'Advent' ? Why do things these days have to be an 'experience'? It made me want to, after my breakfast experience, to have a lie down in a darkened room experience.
  • Two that irritate me : Have a listen to & The athlete medalled at the Olympic Games when it should be just 'listen to' and 'won a medal'
  • I thought there would be a ton of posts citing noun/verbs. Book.

    And nouning verbs as well: my pet peeve seems to pop up a lot in the sporting world:

    " . . . it's a big ask."

  • At my local church the Vicar usually sets great store by the 'Christmas Experience', which I would call a sort of church trail, involving checkpoints, barriers, passports etc - a reference to present-day Israel/Palestine. We won't have it this year, which I count as an up side of Covid.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    At my local church the Vicar usually sets great store by the 'Christmas Experience', which I would call a sort of church trail, involving checkpoints, barriers, passports etc - a reference to present-day Israel/Palestine.
    To me that sounds quite a good idea - but strictly as a one-off.

  • Get, instead of have.
    As in requesting the cafe assistant.
    “ could I get a latte”
  • Don't we all enjoy 'fellowshipping' after church? Jehovah's Witnesses, so I am told, go one better and can be disfellowshipped.

    (Interesting: the spell check flagged 'fellowshipping' but not 'disfellowshipped')
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Get, instead of have.
    As in requesting the cafe assistant.
    “ could I get a latte”

    I guess the answer is, ‘No, no. Let me get it for you. That’s what I’m paid for.’
  • Don't we all enjoy 'fellowshipping' after church? Jehovah's Witnesses, so I am told, go one better and can be disfellowshipped.

    (Interesting: the spell check flagged 'fellowshipping' but not 'disfellowshipped')

    No
  • Get, instead of have.
    As in requesting the cafe assistant.
    “ could I get a latte”
    I think this might fall in the regional differences category. That would be seen as a very normal and acceptable use of “get” where I live.

  • "Ask" as a noun meaning "request, asking, thing asked" dates to the year 1000 according to the OED.

    Gift as a verb ("to give (s-o) a gift") is not nearly so old, dating merely to 1608.
    RockyRoger wrote: »
    Speaking of church circles (a rich seam of solecisms, irksome or otherwise). We have just been invited to take part in the 'Advent Experience'. Is this 'advert speak'? What', in Heaven's name is inadequate about just saying 'Advent' ? Why do things these days have to be an 'experience'? It made me want to, after my breakfast experience, to have a lie down in a darkened room experience.

    I wonder if they chose "Advent experience" because "Advent event" sounds somewhat stupid?

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Get, instead of have.
    As in requesting the cafe assistant.
    “ could I get a latte”
    I think this might fall in the regional differences category. That would be seen as a very normal and acceptable use of “get” where I live.

    Makes perfect sense to me. I want to receive (get) a latte from the server.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Get, instead of have.
    As in requesting the cafe assistant.
    “ could I get a latte”
    I think this might fall in the regional differences category. That would be seen as a very normal and acceptable use of “get” where I live.
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Get, instead of have.
    As in requesting the cafe assistant.
    “ could I get a latte”
    I think this might fall in the regional differences category. That would be seen as a very normal and acceptable use of “get” where I live.

    Of course I don’t know where you live, so can’t really comment, but even so I’m not sure. It has certainly become common usage, quite widely in my experience, but only in the last couple of decades or less.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Get, instead of have.
    As in requesting the cafe assistant.
    “ could I get a latte”
    I think this might fall in the regional differences category. That would be seen as a very normal and acceptable use of “get” where I live.
    mousethief wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Get, instead of have.
    As in requesting the cafe assistant.
    “ could I get a latte”
    I think this might fall in the regional differences category. That would be seen as a very normal and acceptable use of “get” where I live.

    Makes perfect sense to me. I want to receive (get) a latte from the server.
    I think that this is one of those ones where there are different interpretations on each side of the Atlantic
    You are correct Mousethief, that it makes perfect sense to use ‘get’, but to older UK ears, it can seem a bit abrupt. ‘Please may I have’ sounds gentler, and more polite to me. But no big deal. Vive la difference.

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    I agree with @BroJames. This may well be my age, but to me 'get' doesn't imply 'receive', or a request to be served. It would imply my asking to serve myself.

  • Enoch wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I'm somewhat at a loss to understand how to use "Hi" if not as a salutation. Has it any other use?
    What need is there to use it at all?

    Because it’s relaxed, informal and friendly. Not in use in my youth, but I use it freely. Things change
  • Enoch wrote: »
    I agree with @BroJames. This may well be my age, but to me 'get' doesn't imply 'receive', or a request to be served. It would imply my asking to serve myself.

    To me both meanings exist, distinguished in part from context and in part from helping verbs. If I say "can I get a triple no-foam no-fat late with two pumps of chocolate?" it's clear I'm not asking for permission to fetch it for myself. But if I say "Is it okay if I get the mop?" I'm clearly wanting to go grab it myself.

    And clearly "I've got a fifth of Glenfiddich" says nothing whatever about how it came into my possession.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Get, instead of have.
    As in requesting the cafe assistant.
    “ could I get a latte”
    I think this might fall in the regional differences category. That would be seen as a very normal and acceptable use of “get” where I live.
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Get, instead of have.
    As in requesting the cafe assistant.
    “ could I get a latte”
    I think this might fall in the regional differences category. That would be seen as a very normal and acceptable use of “get” where I live.

    Of course I don’t know where you live, so can’t really comment, but even so I’m not sure.
    Sorry. I usually try in threads like this to be clear about that, but I failed to do so here. I’m in the American South, so the same side of the Atlantic as @mousethief. As you say, there could be a Pond Difference at work here.

  • Here's a question for you got-haters. When kids are talking about their haul at Christmas, over here, the discussion might go like this:

    What did you get for Christmas?
    I got a bike and an X-box and three Super Mario games. What did you get?
    I got an iPad and a new pair of ski boots.

    Would kids on the other side of the pond use a different verb, since "get" means to go and fetch it yourself?
  • Newspaper report of a murder: "while she was laying in her bed" !
    What was she laying: eggs?
    This laying/lying confusion is becoming sadly prevalent.
  • I get what you're saying, @mousethief.
  • @cgichard - I'm glad somebody got it.
  • cgichard wrote: »
    Newspaper report of a murder: "while she was laying in her bed" !
    What was she laying: eggs?
    This laying/lying confusion is becoming sadly prevalent.

    Why ssdly? Language change just is. It's hardly a moral issue.
  • Whilst not a moral issue, it is an indication of ignorance or carelessness, or being unaware of the possibility of a double entendre (sorry!). Was the murderee just 'lying' there, 'laying (a duvet perhaps? or somebody, as in 'getting laid')? Careful writing ensures that the reader is not distracted by these thoughts. Which is why the unthinking usage of 'laying' is, at present, to pedants like me with a 'Carry on' sense of humour, irksome.
  • RockyRoger wrote: »
    Whilst not a moral issue, it is an indication of ignorance or carelessness, or being unaware of the possibility of a double entendre (sorry!). Was the murderee just 'lying' there, 'laying (a duvet perhaps? or somebody, as in 'getting laid')? Careful writing ensures that the reader is not distracted by these thoughts. Which is why the unthinking usage of 'laying' is, at present, to pedants like me with a 'Carry on' sense of humour, irksome.

    I find letting it go saves me a lot of irritation while focusing on it helps no-one.

    I an naturally inclined towards pedantry but I think Canute ably demonstrated the limits of what you can achieve against reality which doesn't care what goes on in your head.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Here's a question for you got-haters. When kids are talking about their haul at Christmas, over here, the discussion might go like this:

    What did you get for Christmas?
    I got a bike and an X-box and three Super Mario games. What did you get?
    I got an iPad and a new pair of ski boots.

    Would kids on the other side of the pond use a different verb, since "get" means to go and fetch it yourself?

    Ha ha,my goodness I started something with this one. Children in UK would also say got. Nothing wrong with the word, its accurate. Describes a past event ie the children have already received the presents, so there is no request component by that stage.
    Clearly there are cross Atlantic cultural and generational differences in the use of get, when asking for something.
    Happens in Europe too. Many people in the UK take holidays in Spain. In an attempt to be polite, tourists over use please, even for casual matter like ordering cafe. A Spanish person would just say to the waiter “ un cafe”. A UK person would likely add “por favour” wishing to be polite. But to Spanish ears , adding por favour indicates impatience, even irritation, or sarcasm perhaps suggesting that the waiter has been slow. Por favour would be perfectly appropriate for more formal requests, but not casually, although both useages are linguistically accurate.
    Same with can I get, or please may I have. Both are accurate, but can be interpreted in different subtle ways according to the listeners cultural perception. No right or wrong, just different.
  • Does anyone else get annoyed by the Government’s anti Covid message - “Wash hands, cover face, make space”? I always want to put “your” in - wash YOUR hands, cover YOUR face, make space. Otherwise, whose hands are you supposed to wash and whose face are you supposed to cover?
  • There is a different problem with 'got' and 'get'. I remember an exercise in English This would be circa 1961) when we were given a piece of prose (about a camping trip, I seem to remember) where we had to change every instance or 'get' or 'got' to something a little more interesting. F'rinstance, changing instead of 'water had got into the paraffin stove' to, 'water had found its way into the camping stove'. Ok, a bit pretentious, but you get the idea.

    It's an exercise I have never forgotten, and when editing I apply this procedure mercilessly. I don't get (I mean receive) any thanks for this, of course, and some authors get (become) quite shirty with me.
    I maintain 'get' and 'got' should be used very sparingly. As you may gather, their overuse rather gets on my tits.
    I also agree with Priscilla about the government's anti Covid [19, please] message. For one thing, it doesn't scan nicely. But, I suppose, "Wash your hands, cover your face, say a little prayer and make some space", won't catch on!

    I must get out more.
  • A lot of this hinges on speech and writing. In speech, I would say good luck with trying to change instances of "get", whereas in writing there might be a conscious effort to write with a mellifluous style. Got it?
  • @RockyRoger - We had a similar exercise with "said". We were to turn it into exclaimed, opined, responded, and so forth. 20 years later they were saying "just say said for God's sake, cool it with the ten-cent words." There are apparently fashions in vocabulary.
  • There are. And speaking as a writer, I don't want to have a uniform level of interestingness throughout my text. There are points I'm trying to make, and I want the reader engaged with those, not considering my fabulous way with synonyms.
  • LC: agreed, but we all differ as to what we find irksome. I like 'ten cent' words, but not in every sentence. Balance is all. In the UK we have a writer, Will Self, infamous for his meretricious prose. He gets right up my nose.
  • Heh. Yep, I use variation, but sparingly. I have had the lovely experience of proofreading a very very long manuscript where the author tried to avoid the word "said" like mad. Ugh. Swallowed a thesaurus.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    RockyRoger wrote: »
    I also agree with Priscilla about the government's anti Covid [19, please] message. For one thing, it doesn't scan nicely. But, I suppose, "Wash your hands, cover your face, say a little prayer and make some space", won't catch on!

    I must get out more.

    But only if your hands are washed, your face is covered and you allow space between yourself and other people. :wink:
  • Heh. Yep, I use variation, but sparingly. I have had the lovely experience of proofreading a very very long manuscript where the author tried to avoid the word "said" like mad. Ugh. Swallowed a thesaurus.

    I have been taught, and I think it is current practice, to avoid any verb. If you need a verb, said is fine, as it should then be sparing. But using (say) "exclaimed" rather than making the words exclaim is current bad practice. Making your dialogue so tedious that you need to indicate who is speaking and how they are speaking each time is also considered bad.

    And there are fashions in vocab - or in writing style as a whole. They come and go. It is hard to keep up.
  • 'Iwas like' makes me want to scream. Likewise 'like' used as a filler.
  • I think the current best practice (damn, I'm soaking up management speak! :open_mouth: is to use "said" every so often in a long conversation, so your reader doesn't lose track of who is speaking. I know I sometimes have to count paragraphs, particularly when the two parts in the conversation are not dramatically distinct from one another.
  • In a three-way conversation, where the people aren't merely taking turns but interrupting and so forth, SOME way of indicating who is speaking is absolutely essential.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    In a three-way conversation, where the people aren't merely taking turns but interrupting and so forth, SOME way of indicating who is speaking is absolutely essential.

    For that, you are supposed to use distinct voices - so from the words or style, it is clear.

    And yes, periodically, you do need to add in who spoke in some way.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    It's the first obligation of any decent writer to make sure his or her readers can easily understand what they are reading. It's not up to your readers to try to work it out or to get inside your head.

    Good style is doing that. Failing to do that is bad style. That's irrespective of whether the writer complies with style manuals or writes exciting, expressive prose. Cleverness that gets in the way of that first obligation is not clever but 'clever-clever'.

    The second obligation - and a very useful maxim - is 'do not bore your reader'. I was told that by a wonderful chap, sadly now long-dead - who made his living checking through books as part of the publishing process.

    Both the same, incidentally, apply to film makers, directors and producers.

  • I don't think that's true. Modernism did not view clarity or transparency as a lofty ideal. There are many difficult writers and artists and film makers, should we ask them for a Ladybird version?
  • No, we should ask them to think through their ideas, and if they are worth sharing, to present them clearly and as concisely as possible.

    A lot of Modernism is under the delusion that inpissated prose equals profundity. Richard Feynman, talking about quantum theory ,said that 'if you can't present your ideas clearly, you don't understand them'.

    There are difficult concepts out there - for example, the problem of consciousness, and to write clearly about them takes a lot of hard work. But clarity and transparency really should be the aim of good writers. That is what will make them good writers .
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Modernism did not view clarity or transparency as a lofty ideal.
    Actually, yes, it did. Modernist writing is difficult because it is trying to be clear about difficult things. In particular many of them believed that the language that looks clear and transparent often isn't: for example, that the word red gets in the way of envisaging the actual variety of shades of red about us.
Sign In or Register to comment.