pet peeve thread

[kenberg]

I hate off-ten. Surely most English speakers know how to spell the name of a swimming animal: GHOST.

 

GH as in "enough", O as in "women", S as in "sugar", O as in "often". OK, usually "listen".

 

Growing up I learned many ad hoc pronunciation rules, some valid, some maybe not. I was told we do things offen, not often. No reason was given. Also, far up north we find the Artic regions, not the Arctic. And, for some reason, February was to be pronounced Feb u air ee, first r silent. No reasons were given. The Cambridge online dictionary at

http://dictionary.ca.../british/arctic

gives a silent r in arctic for British pronunciation and a non-silent r for American English. I can't imagine how the British pronunciation took hold in Minnesota, but anyway Brits seem to drop the r not the c. At least we still spoke of Mary Magdalene in a recognizable way. I was in Oxford oncce and for quite a while I had no idea where this Maudlin College was.

 

 

In Minnesota we went wading in the crick, not the creek. And we fished for croppies, despite the correct spelling of crappies.

 

When I was 13 or so I had a friend who I think never lived two years in the same state. His pronunciation was literally all over the map. If I won a point at deuce in tennis, he would say "Your odd". Later there was a friend from Boston who always wanted to go to the pork. He was not hungry for ribs, he liked to go hiking out in the woods.

 

I remembered GHOST from a long ago quiz book. Something like "What swims in the lake and is pronounced ghost?". I had to look up the answer.

[barmar]

I hate off-ten.

My dictionary says either pronunciation is acceptable, but "offen" is more common.

 

Grammarphobia has an article about how this situation came about: in the 15th century, many letters became silent to make clusters of consonants easier to pronounce. In the 19th century, as public education spread, more people learned to spell, and they saw these letters, and started pronouncing some of them again. So pronouncing the "t" in "often" was a sign of being educated.

[Cyberyeti]

My dictionary says either pronunciation is acceptable, but "offen" is more common.

 

Grammarphobia has an article about how this situation came about: in the 15th century, many letters became silent to make clusters of consonants easier to pronounce. In the 19th century, as public education spread, more people learned to spell, and they saw these letters, and started pronouncing some of them again. So pronouncing the "t" in "often" was a sign of being educated.

 

You should come to Norfolk if you want to see consonants and indeed whole syllables go missing. Examples from our placenames:

 

Garboldisham - pronounced Garblesm or Garbleshm

Tacolneston - pronounced Tackleston

Stiffkey - pronounced Stukey

[mikeh]

I used to be, and still am on occasion, a pedant in terms of the correct usage of language. As an example, I used to chafe at television announcers (predominantly sports announcers) using the word 'good' when they meant 'well'. As in: he's playing really good right now.

 

However, languages are living, evolving concepts. This includes not only neologisms, but also variations in usage. That includes the meaning to be given to words such as unique.

 

So I personally am not troubled by anyone who claims that going to see, say, Clapton in a concert that is the 9th out of 16 scheduled concerts over 3 months offers me a 'unique' opportunity to see a rock genius live.

 

However, I remain absolutely appalled by the use of absolutely when the word absolutely ought absolutely not to be used in the context in which it often appears.

 

As in Clapton is absolutely the best rock genius of all time. Anyone who argues with me is absolutely wrong. Am I sure I am right? Absolutely.

 

Anyway, I absolutely love the pet peeves thread. It is absolutely the best part of the WC.

[blackshoe]

I was somewhat amused (and somewhat bemused) when many years ago I first read L. Neil Smith's alternate world story The Probability Broach, wherein the Vice-President of the North American Confederacy is one Dr. Olongo Featherstone-Haugh, whose surname is pronounced "Fanshaw". BTW, Dr. Fanshaw is a Mountain Gorilla. B-)

[mikeh]

my favourite example of how difficult it must be for a non-English speaker to learn UK English is the name Cholmondeley.......an old aristocratic name, pronounced, of course, chum-li. Try getting that right in a spelling bee if you haven't seen it before.

[Cyberyeti]

my favourite example of how difficult it must be for a non-English speaker to learn UK English is the name Cholmondeley.......an old aristocratic name, pronounced, of course, chum-li. Try getting that right in a spelling bee if you haven't seen it before.

 

I think the worst bit of English particularly for people with phonetic languages as their first one is getting your head round things like:

 

plough

though

thought

through

tough

trough

[helene_t]

What I find difficult in English is that you cannot see on a word which grammatical function it has. When reading a convoluted sentence I sometimes have to read it three times before I figure out what is the subject and what is the verb. More commas, hyphens and brackets would sometimes help.

[gwnn]

Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.

[barmar]

Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.

And:

 

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

[Cyberyeti]

Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.

 

The old WW2 headline "Monty flies back to front".

[ggwhiz]

Anyone been to Ba Habba Maine?

 

Went to a tournament in Al bany (and pronounced it that way) and was taken to task so said I guess it's All abama then.

[Al_U_Card]

Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.

Time flies you cannot their flight is too erratic

 

Make grammatically correct ;)

[cherdano]

I can't stand accusations of hypocrisy any more. Yes, human beings aren't 1000% consistent about taking the actions suggested by their beliefs. That does not prove them wrong.

 

Yes, some people believe society should attack climate change, and yet get on airplanes. That does not prove that global warming does not exist. Some want society to strengthen the traditional family structure and be less tolerant of other forms of couples/families, yet fail to live up to that standard in their own lives. Well, I hope we have better arguments in favour of tolerance than that. Yes, some are in favour of a smaller government yet get their pay check from government. Yes, some are in favour of higher taxes but use all legally available tax deductions in their annual tax filing. Yes, you can be in favour of campaign spending reform yet still accept all money you can get until such reform has passed. Yup, some care more about terrorist attacks at a place they have visited many times and where they have friends than one in a country they have never been to. Yup, some are in favour of abolishing charter schools yet that's where they send their kids as long as they exist.

 

Not only does such an inconsistency fail to prove them wrong - some of them aren't even inconsistencies. It can be completely logical and consistent to believe "society would be better off to set incentives for everyone to do X" and yet not do X yourself as long as such incentives aren't in place.

 

/rant

[barmar]

My pet peeve is the TV promos that say things like "the last episode before the fall finale". In other words, it's the 2nd to last episode in the fall -- nothing special about that.

[Al_U_Card]

I can't stand accusations of hypocrisy any more. Yes, human beings aren't 1000% consistent about taking the actions suggested by their beliefs. That does not prove them wrong.

 

Yes, some people believe society should attack climate change, and yet get on airplanes. That does not prove that global warming does not exist. Some want society to strengthen the traditional family structure and be less tolerant of other forms of couples/families, yet fail to live up to that standard in their own lives. Well, I hope we have better arguments in favour of tolerance than that. Yes, some are in favour of a smaller government yet get their pay check from government. Yes, some are in favour of higher taxes but use all legally available tax deductions in their annual tax filing. Yes, you can be in favour of campaign spending reform yet still accept all money you can get until such reform has passed. Yup, some care more about terrorist attacks at a place they have visited many times and where they have friends than one in a country they have never been to. Yup, some are in favour of abolishing charter schools yet that's where they send their kids as long as they exist.

 

Not only does such an inconsistency fail to prove them wrong - some of them aren't even inconsistencies. It can be completely logical and consistent to believe "society would be better off to set incentives for everyone to do X" and yet not do X yourself as long as such incentives aren't in place.

 

/rant

3 point plan:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Live and let live.

Learn to let go (of that which is unimportant in the grander scheme).

Simple yet effective.

[Zelandakh]

My pet peeve is the TV promos that say things like "the last episode before the fall finale". In other words, it's the 2nd to last episode in the fall -- nothing special about that.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to the latest trend in series as highlighted by GoT. The penultimate episode is fast becoming the climactic one with the final episode just rounding off storylines and acting as a teaser for the next series. Of course, when that itself becomes too predictable it gets changed up too, as per the last series.

[barmar]

You obviously haven't been paying attention to the latest trend in series as highlighted by GoT. The penultimate episode is fast becoming the climactic one with the final episode just rounding off storylines and acting as a teaser for the next series. Of course, when that itself becomes too predictable it gets changed up too, as per the last series.

But it's not just the penultimate. Sometimes it's "only 3 episodes before the season finale". The peave is about all these different ways of counting everything except the finale, making it seem like we're closer than we actually are.

[Zelandakh]

But it's not just the penultimate. Sometimes it's "only 3 episodes before the season finale". The peave is about all these different ways of counting everything except the finale, making it seem like we're closer than we actually are.

Fair enough, I don't watch American TV channels very often so have not seen that myself. It could be worse though - some shows run a 2-part finale, in which case 3 shows before the finale would be 5 episodes to go!

[y66]

Statements like these in stories like this one We're Thinking About ADHD All Wrong, Says A Top Pediatrician:

 

Attentional capacity, Christakis says, is chief among a cluster of non-academic skills that education researchers have recently become very excited about: executive functioning, self-regulation, grit. Basically, these involve the ability to delay gratification, manage your time and attention and stay on a path toward a goal.

Diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are up around 30 percent compared with 20 years ago. These days, if a 2-year-old won't sit still for circle time in preschool, she's liable to be referred for evaluation, which can put her on track for early intervention and potentially a lifetime of medication.

 

Parents, schools and doctors, he says, should completely rethink this highly medicalized framework for attention difficulties.

The notion that education researchers, in 2016, are just now becoming "very excited" about things like executive functioning is peeving. Ditto for the use of the word rethink in that last sentence which suggests that thinking has anything to do with the current highly medicalized framework.

[kenberg]

Statements like these in stories like this one We're Thinking About ADHD All Wrong, Says A Top Pediatrician:

 

 

 

The notion that education researchers, in 2016, are just now becoming "very excited" about things like executive functioning is peeving. Ditto for the use of the word rethink in that last sentence which suggests that thinking has anything to do with the current highly medicalized framework.

 

I like much of what is said in that article. A particular point:

 

 

"If you fall on this side of the line, we label and medicate you," says Christakis. "But on the other side of the line, we do nothing."

 

People get medicated, and they get classified.

 

Later:

 

Christakis says that, instead, we should be thinking more about a spectrum of "attentional capacity" that varies from individual to individual and situation to situation.

 

 

Yes, and this applies to many sorts of difficulties.

 

 

Often a young person needs some specific help. Extreme cases may well require extreme measures. But often, some supportive guidance and some strategies for dealing with issues can, I think, keep the child from being labeled and medicated. Most of us are, in one way or another, a bit weird. Some more than others, granted. It's OK. We can learn to cope and maybe even channel that weirdness productively. And yes, sometimes it requires medication. When really needed, give it.

[barmar]

The notion that education researchers, in 2016, are just now becoming "very excited" about things like executive functioning is peeving.

I think this reflects the fact that scientists and educators now treat this as a distinct intellectual activity. As they've come to understand more about how the brain functions, scientists have broken it down into more finely-grained abilities.

[gwnn]

I think it makes more sense as an xor relationship, personally (and not an iff) :)

The place I recently moved in actually has an AND connection between the two light switches in the hallway, which is much stupider than I could ever imagine. Except it's not even an AND because the first one must be up and the second one down. I learned today that this is a "material nonimplication" (or converse nonimplication) which must be the stupidest and least useful truth function, with or without light switches. :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

[Vampyr]

The place I recently moved in actually has an AND connection between the two light switches in the hallway, which is much stupider than I could ever imagine. Except it's not even an AND because the first one must be up and the second one down. I learned today that this is a "material nonimplication" (or converse nonimplication) which must be the stupidest and least useful truth function, with or without light switches. :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

 

I have 4 or 5 lights in my house that have two switches. In 8 years I still have not noticed whether the switches are up, down, the same, different. (This is not really relevant to your post but to an earlier one where the poster mentioned that not only did he notice it, but it bothered him.)

 

You definitely need an electrician to sort out your situation,

[kenberg]

We moved ten years or so ago and had a house inspector look over the house we would be buying. These guys seem to concentrate on trivia and overlook substance. He was very critical of the light witches in our bedroom. The switch by the door turns the overhead light on and off, as does a switch beside the bed. This seemed fine by me. He explained that with the wiring done this way I might turn the switch on at the door and turn it off by the bed, with the result that the light would be off but the switch at the door would be up. Yes? And so? This was wrong, very wrong, he assured me. I paid him his fee anyway.

 

For some safety deposit boxes (I don't have one but so they tell me), opening them requires a key from the holder and a key form the bank. I can see the purpose. But my bedroom light?

 

As for the "this but not that" logic, I guess conditional convergence of a series is an example. The series must converge and must not converge absolutely. It converges on the condition that you don't do anything to it, as my long ago calc prof explained it. This is probably what the electrician was thinking of when he wired it up.