This is a forum to discuss the gray areas of the English language for which you would not find answers easily in dictionaries or other reference books. You can browse through the latest questions and comments below. If you have a question of your own, please submit it here.
Search Pain in the English
A change that has happened in my lifetime is the use of ‘1800s’, ‘1900s’ and so on. When I was young they referred to the first decade of the century. They would be followed by the ‘1910s’, ‘1920s’ et al. Now they’re used to mean the whole century. I’m not whinging - just noting the changes that happen with the years.
I seem to be pretty fond of the adverb ‘pretty’ used as a modifier, so was rather surprised when one of my young Polish students told me that his teacher at school had said that this use was ‘OK with his mates’ (his words), but inappropriate in the classroom. Looking around I see that this is not an isolated objection, although people didn’t seem to complain about it much before 1900.
Why has this word, much used by eighteenth and nineteenth century writers, writers of prescriptive grammar included, attracted this opposition in more recent times?
In this question, I deliberately misspelled “mispelling.”
Is (sp!) an appropriate abbreviation to stand for “deliberately misspelled?”
Many people use
(sp?) for (I don’t know how to spell that word)
Julie Andrews sang Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious (sp?) with great gusto.
(sic) or [sic] is not appropriate here. I understand that [sic] is used to indicate that the word was spelled that way in document that is being quoted or cited.
The new commander consumed [sic] control of the military base.
(illustration modified from an actual case of using the wrong word)
So, it seems to me that we can use
(sp!) for (I am deliberately mispelling (sp!) this word
QUESTION: Is there a better abbreviation, or a well-known abbreviation for this usage?
a) “Could I borrow your pen please?” “Of course.”
b) Teacher: “Did you do your homework?” Student: “Of course.”
c) Interviewee: “May I sit down?” Interviewer (thinking: what a twit!): “Of course.”
d) Police: “Do you have ID, and license?” Driver: “Of course, officer. Good of you to ask”.
e) Called from the shower: “Is it raining out?” Spouse: “Of course.”
f) In hallway to home-comer: “Is it raining out?” Dripping home-comer: “Of course.”
g) At party: “Could I borrow your wife for a quickie?” “Of course.”
h) After party: “Are you coming?” Only sober car-owner/driver: “Of course.”
i) Boss: “Can you have that report on my desk by 2300?” “Of course.”
Of course it may depend on how it is said, but where would it be dangerously ambiguous?
What alternatives are there which are safer?
Why do some people, especially pseudo eloquent corporate types, insist on substituting “I” for “me” under the misplaced guise of speaking formal English: “Between you and I, the meeting was substandard”, “Thanks for taking Julie and I for dinner”. I know there’s not much to discuss here. It’s simply wrong but it represents a deeper misunderstanding of the use of nouns/pronouns. Personally I tolerate the incorrect use of “me” as the subject to a much greater extent (“me and Geoff went to the beach”) because although grammatically incorrect, it is acceptable to many in colloquial English. The use of “I” as the object is neither grammatically correct nor colloquial or formal. It is in a sense a clumsy grammatical over compensation. Besides people who make this error usually (but not always) over rate their own eloquence.
Many years ago using the prefix co- and co meant two different things. Now they are used interchangeably, but is this correct? I was taught if you used co- you were a subordinate and if you used co you were equals. An example. A co-pilot is subordinate to a pilot, however coauthors means both writers were equal in the endeavor. Once upon a time, a co-chairwas subordinate to the chair. Now co-chair and cochair are used flagrantly to mean the same thing, they are equally sharing the duties of chairperson. What are your thoughts on this?
All of a sudden spectators are not “looking on” but “watching on”. Does that make them onwatchers?
They no longer say “welcome to” but “welcome along to”.
“Early on” has become “early doors”.
Players now “contest for” the ball.
They now “update you” with the latest scores.
To me all of that is rather more idiotic than idiomatic. :-))
I’m sure there are many more examples that I have (thankfully) missed.
- You are an antipodean cricket commentator and during a broadcast you realise that your Indian co-commentator is pronouncing some words/names differently from you.
- You are at a social gathering and notice that everyone else pronounces words/names differently from you.
The words/names in question could be for or example:
- Tendulkar with a soft ‘oo’ sound as opposed to your hard ‘u’ (as in dull).
- Nepal with “paul” as opposed to your ‘pal’.
- Debut as ‘dehbyew’ as opposed to your ‘dayboo’.
In each situation how do you react?