Pointless rant thread

S

Sarkus

Hippomonstrosesquippedalophobe
Valued Senior Member
This is the linguistics thread, and so I consider this the best place to pointlessly rant about those things people say that just make one's inner linguistic-Nazi shudder and cringe.

To kick things off: I recently met a friend for a coffee, and in the middle of the conversation this friend, someone whom I considered reasonably educated, used the term "shotten down" instead of "shot down". As in "a plane was shotten down". While I didn't do the cliched spraying of coffee out of my mouth upon hearing such a cringing desecration of one's beautiful language, I did spend a noticeable moment in trying to process the fact that the word had just come out of my friend's mouth, and I realised that I had momentarily stopped listening to what else he had said.

Yes, i know it would be pointless to rant about such misuses, such awful constructions, so i won't, and instead offer this thread merely as an opportunity to document any other such instances one might have experienced. And to laugh about them. Lest we start crying. ;)

Have at it. :)
 
Sarkus said:
This is the linguistics thread, and so I consider this the best place to pointlessly rant about those things people say that just make one's inner linguistic-Nazi shudder and cringe.

To kick things off: I recently met a friend for a coffee, and in the middle of the conversation this friend, someone whom I considered reasonably educated, used the term "shotten down" instead of "shot down". As in "a plane was shotten down". While I didn't do the cliched spraying of coffee out of my mouth upon hearing such a cringing desecration of one's beautiful language, I did spend a noticeable moment in trying to process the fact that the word had just come out of my friend's mouth, and I realised that I had momentarily stopped listening to what else he had said.

Yes, i know it would be pointless to rant about such misuses, such awful constructions, so i won't, and instead offer this thread merely as an opportunity to document any other such instances one might have experienced. And to laugh about them. Lest we start crying. ;)

Have at it. :)
Click to expand...
There is also “dove”, as a made up past tense of dive, e.g. “We dove for cover.”

On the subject of past tenses, one of my pet hates is the substitution of the past historic or simple past tense for the perfect tense, as in “l just forgot how to use auxiliary verbs.” I see this all over the place now, especially in advertising.
 
Misusing the word "literally." A gross linguistic offense in America. If this idiotic usage tries to enter the UK, impound it immediately and began deportation proceedings.

"My head literally exploded." No, it didn't. If this event had literally happened, you wouldn't be around to describe the experience. Your exploding head is hyperbolic and figurative. Get a fooking dictionary.

I haven't checked an authoritative source on American slang, but my guess is that this started with baby boomers in their teens, possibly amplified through the 80s Valley Girl subculture in California and then spreading across the country from there. Like, totally, you know?
 
TheVat said:
Misusing the word "literally." A gross linguistic offense in America. If this idiotic usage tries to enter the UK, impound it immediately and began deportation proceedings.

"My head literally exploded." No, it didn't. If this event had literally happened, you wouldn't be around to describe the experience. Your exploding head is hyperbolic and figurative. Get a fooking dictionary.

I haven't checked an authoritative source on American slang, but my guess is that this started with baby boomers in their teens, possibly amplified through the 80s Valley Girl subculture in California and then spreading across the country from there. Like, totally, you know?
Click to expand...
Scanners? Remember that film, the laconic commentary in Halliwell being, “Probably not as many exploding heads as one might wish.”

But yes we have the same disease in Britain as well. (As for “like”, you’d think half the younger generation had Tourette’s.)
 
exchemist said:
On the subject of past tenses, one of my pet hates is the substitution of the past historic or simple past tense for the perfect tense, as in “l just forgot how to use auxiliary verbs.” I see this all over the place now, especially in advertising.
Click to expand...
It's not always wrong, though, but rather just shifts the meaning slightly, emphasising a different part of what you're saying, right? If so, how can you tell it isn't being used appropriately... unless you know the meaning and emphasis they were trying for? ;)
 
TheVat said:
Misusing the word "literally." A gross linguistic offense in America. If this idiotic usage tries to enter the UK, impound it immediately and began deportation proceedings.

"My head literally exploded." No, it didn't. If this event had literally happened, you wouldn't be around to describe the experience. Your exploding head is hyperbolic and figurative. Get a fooking dictionary.

I haven't checked an authoritative source on American slang, but my guess is that this started with baby boomers in their teens, possibly amplified through the 80s Valley Girl subculture in California and then spreading across the country from there. Like, totally, you know?
Click to expand...
I'm sure it has an increased usage in the non-literal sense, but I think the trend probably began back in the 19th century, when the likes of Dickens, Austen, and even Twain started to use it. I think it has just become so overused in the non-literal sense as to have provoked a backlash in some quarters.
 
Sarkus said:
It's not always wrong, though, but rather just shifts the meaning slightly, emphasising a different part of what you're saying, right? If so, how can you tell it isn't being used appropriately... unless you know the meaning and emphasis they were trying for? ;)
Click to expand...
I wondered about this - it seems like a fairly subtle error to spot sometimes.

I ate lunch. (Simple past, an event definitely in the past)

I have eaten lunch. (perfect past, this just happened and is mentioned with respect to the present)

Can the former, in certain contexts, be used in lieu of the latter?
 
TheVat said:
I wondered about this - it seems like a fairly subtle error to spot sometimes.

I ate lunch. (Simple past, an event definitely in the past)

I have eaten lunch. (perfect past, this just happened and is mentioned with respect to the present)

Can the former, in certain contexts, be used in lieu of the latter?
Click to expand...
A says "Have you eaten yet?"
B answers "I ate already"

Is that correct?(I would say yes on acount of it being so adopted and also it avoids repetition.)

Plus,(see what I did there?) the response acknowledges the sense of the question and gives it a little different approach.

If people have forgotten how to use the perfect tense that is a bit of a loss but there could be other reasons they use the simple past tense.

I am fairly sure some languages only use the simple past tense and no perfect tense but I can't remember which exactly (Ancient Greek?)

My pet peeves bother me so much I can't recall them off the top of my head but I thought "dove" was correct US English.Have some people over here taken a shine to it?

My primary English teacher had been a German POW and advised us against the use of anything gutteral in our speech eg "gotten" or even "got"
 
geordief said:
am fairly sure some languages only use the simple past tense and no perfect tense but I can't remember which exactly (Ancient Greek?)
Click to expand...
Japanese is the only one which I'm familiar with (i.e. learned a few simple phrases and bits of grammar when I was part of a Buddhist group in my youth).

A simple past can work if language supplies the contextual cues needed.

"I went to the basement and World War Three began." An example of where a more complex construction would help clarify meaning. "I had just gone to the basement when WW3 began." "Lucky, I guess."
 
geordief said:
[...] I thought "dove" was correct US English. Have some people over here taken a shine to it? Have some people over here taken a shine to it?
Click to expand...

It is. "Dived" is now traditional, albeit still co-correct. Always a degree of trans-Atlantic pollination going both ways (conceivable as minor insurrections against the respective grammar-fascist establishments).
_
 
Sarkus said:
It's not always wrong, though, but rather just shifts the meaning slightly, emphasising a different part of what you're saying, right? If so, how can you tell it isn't being used appropriately... unless you know the meaning and emphasis they were trying for? ;)
Click to expand...
In the case in which the verb is preceded by “just” it is always gratingly wrong, as it refers to something that has[sic] just happened, i.e. not an event significantly in the past. “Flights to Ibiza just got cheaper” and so forth. Should be “Flights to Ibiza have just got cheaper.” So yes, obviously it depends on the context but pretty obvious when it is wrong. Though it can be ambiguous. “Steve broke his leg” suggests an event in the past, from which he may well have recovered, possibly years ago when he was a child, but “Steve has broken his leg” implies it is still currently broken, demanding a response such as poor chap, how did he do it, or something.
 
exchemist said:
Though it can be ambiguous. “Steve broke his leg” suggests an event in the past, from which he may well have recovered, possibly years ago when he was a child, but “Steve has broken his leg” implies it is still currently broken, demanding a response such as poor chap
Click to expand...
Without context, the first sentence is also not necessarily clear on whose leg Steve broke. :cool:
 
exchemist said:
In the case in which the verb is preceded by “just” it is always gratingly wrong, as it refers to something that has[sic] just happened, i.e. not an event significantly in the past. “Flights to Ibiza just got cheaper” and so forth. Should be “Flights to Ibiza have just got cheaper.” So yes, obviously it depends on the context but pretty obvious when it is wrong. Though it can be ambiguous. “Steve broke his leg” suggests an event in the past, from which he may well have recovered, possibly years ago when he was a child, but “Steve has broken his leg” implies it is still currently broken, demanding a response such as poor chap, how did he do it, or something.
Click to expand...
Okay. This isn't one annoys me, though. Perhaps it should. ;)

Speaking of which: the use of "should of" instead of "should have", anyone? It's a great little difference to use when writing dialogue and you need to differentiate characters slightly, I find. :)
 
exchemist said:
In the case in which the verb is preceded by “just” it is always gratingly wrong, as it refers to something that has[sic] just happened, i.e. not an event significantly in the past. “Flights to Ibiza just got cheaper” and so forth. Should be “Flights to Ibiza have just got cheaper.” So yes, obviously it depends on the context but pretty obvious when it is wrong. Though it can be ambiguous. “Steve broke his leg” suggests an event in the past, from which he may well have recovered, possibly years ago when he was a child, but “Steve has broken his leg” implies it is still currently broken, demanding a response such as poor chap, how did he do it, or something.
Click to expand...
In American English that would be "Flights to Ibiza have just gotten cheaper".

The use of the noun "gift" as a verb "gifted" is annoying to me. It's grammatically correct, I guess, but annoying. "I was just gifted this book". Of course there is the common question (probably when English isn't their native language) of "how come" instead of "why".

There is also the quirk of saying "To the one, to the other" and then forgetting the one and just starting with "to the other".
 
TheVat said:
Misusing the word "literally." A gross linguistic offense in America. If this idiotic usage tries to enter the UK, impound it immediately and began deportation proceedings.
Click to expand...
I hear that dictionaries (which record how words are used in practice, remember) have had to add a new definition to the word "literally". The new meaning of "literally" is "not literally".
 
Footballers (UK) used to provide us with endless malapropisms and bad grammar, mainly in the post match interviews on a Saturday afternoon.
That trend fell off because they are all bloody foreigners now, speaking English as a second or third language.
Luckily, the smartest dumb English players became commentators, so we still get treated now and again.

" The boy's done good.."

Alan Shearer springs to mind.

For unnecessary words, "obviously" is a popular one.

"Er... obviously, after the Arsenal game, the manager didn't want to change things too much."

Really? That was not that obvious to me.

For phrases, "to be honest with you" has been used and abused, mainly by black British football players for some reason.

Why is that? I will have to get some examples from YouTube to illustrate. (Tiassa starts foaming at the mouth...( I knew that limey bastard was a racist!)

An assistant coach (white guy, you can cease foaming) praised his mentor and boss in an interview on the coach on the way back from a match.

"What he's learned me, is priceless."

Not something we can say about your English teacher obviously.

TheVat cited "literally," I have not come across that in the UK talking to (real) people, just on line so far. If I do encounter it, rest assured I will beat it down wherever I find it.
 
Last edited:
Sarkus said:
Okay. This isn't one annoys me, though. Perhaps it should. ;)

Speaking of which: the use of "should of" instead of "should have", anyone? It's a great little difference to use when writing dialogue and you need to differentiate characters slightly, I find. :)
Click to expand...
Oh yes, that one is really ignorant. But I’m also starting to see, in written media, “bored of”, instead of “bored with”. Mind you, I concede it has its uses, as in Trump’s Bored of Peace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top