Pedants' Paradise

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Sydney Grew
    Banned
    • Mar 2007
    • 754

    Pedants' Paradise

    A thread for all Members who enjoy being pedantic, about any subject at all. To begin:

    Upon looking through Thomas Gaspey's book Calthorpe, published in 1821, we came across some emendations evidently (from the hand-writing) inserted by some nineteenth-century pedant:






    Do Members think the pedant was right? About number two there can hardly be any question can there that he was, but we are less certain about the first and third. Indeed the O.E.D. would appear specifically to allow both "the same that" and "the same as" (when followed by a clause). But our anonymous pedant must have felt strongly about the matter. Perhaps the difference between "that" and "as" here is that one indicates identity and the other similarity.
  • verismissimo
    Full Member
    • Nov 2010
    • 2957

    #2
    Pedantry all seems to stem from the mistaken view that there are correct and incorrect meanings, usages, pronunciations etc. In global English, more than in any language, I guess, there are usually multitudes of possibilities, continuously shifting.

    Comment

    • Pianorak
      Full Member
      • Nov 2010
      • 3128

      #3
      Originally posted by verismissimo View Post
      Pedantry all seems to stem from the mistaken view that there are correct and incorrect meanings, usages, pronunciations etc. In global English, more than in any language, I guess, there are usually multitudes of possibilities, continuously shifting.
      Indeed - and one has got to be sure of one's ground before objecting. Until a couple of weeks ago I blamed McDonald's for the ubiquitous "I'm loving" etc. when to my mind "I love" should be quite sufficient. But then I heard some linguistics professor (on R4's Word of Mouth) explain that it actually hails from India where it is common currency.
      My life, each morning when I dress, is four and twenty hours less. (J Richardson)

      Comment

      • mercia
        Full Member
        • Nov 2010
        • 8920

        #4
        well, he didn't check the punctuation because on page 111 the comma after Burleigh needs to be moved to after the word if:
        but I think my friend Burleigh would have stared if, after a rat-tat at the door, he had ......
        I think these days we would say:
        but we must not expose ourselves to the jeers and reproaches of people who do not have the same liberal feelings as we have.
        (I wonder when the spelling of negotiation changed)
        personally I would insert 'been' after 'just' rather than before, though he is probably correct
        I think we need commas after negociation and concluded
        if they were plural negociations I would omit 'been'
        I think those semi-colons need replacing
        These days we would say 'condescension is all very well in its place'
        Last edited by mercia; 18-04-12, 17:06.

        Comment

        • Eine Alpensinfonie
          Host
          • Nov 2010
          • 20572

          #5
          personally I would insert 'been' after 'just' rather than before, though he is probably correct
          I would do the same, and I don't think he is correct. Correcting bad grammar isn't being pedantic. If usage determines what is acceptable, we may as well succombe to text-speak and accept the verbal ineptitude of Ronald Reagan (and the children I teach, who don't understand that "I was sat", "You are stood" and "If you are headed towards..." are all bad grammar. I used to enjoy the Radio 4 quiz programme, "Many a slip", with 2 points for a correct challenge and 3 points when exposing a mistake made by the team setting the questions.

          Comment

          • french frank
            Administrator/Moderator
            • Feb 2007
            • 30448

            #6
            I can't read the second example. What is it?

            There is a thin line between 'correcting' and amending to fit your own usage. (In the second, for example, I would have said: "I did not suspect him of being your accomplice", not "I did not suspect him to be your accomplice". But is the second one 'wrong'?

            I would take 1) & 3) as being unnecessary. 'Concluded' can surely be intransitive?
            It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

            Comment

            • mercia
              Full Member
              • Nov 2010
              • 8920

              #7
              Originally posted by french frank View Post
              I can't read the second example. What is it?
              whom do you call an accomplice? not who do you call an accomplice?

              Comment

              • french frank
                Administrator/Moderator
                • Feb 2007
                • 30448

                #8
                Thank you, hercule. I should have worked that out - I thought it was a small word.

                'Who' would certainly be accepted now, but 1821 seems quite an early example of the loss of the accusative. I suppose in conversation it was not unusual.
                It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

                Comment

                • Basil

                  #9
                  A warning?

                  Be careful with your grammar and pronunciation if you want to survive the boardroom!Originally broadcast 13th July 2010

                  Comment

                  • verismissimo
                    Full Member
                    • Nov 2010
                    • 2957

                    #10
                    "we may as well succombe to text-speak"

                    I think we have no choice in such matters, Eine. They are a present reality. And I hadn't realised that you're a teacher of French. :)

                    Comment

                    • Panjandrum

                      #11
                      Originally posted by verismissimo View Post
                      "we may as well succombe to text-speak"... And I hadn't realised that you're a teacher of French.
                      An old Cornish spelling perhaps?

                      Comment

                      • Eine Alpensinfonie
                        Host
                        • Nov 2010
                        • 20572

                        #12
                        "we may as well succombe to text-speak"... And I hadn't realised that you're a teacher of French.
                        Well, I like to think I speak French reasonably well, but, erm... I stand corrected.

                        Comment

                        • Uncle Monty

                          #13
                          This seems to be the only appropriate thread for me to register a moan about broadcasters . . . and people generally

                          My wife has had enough of being subjected to this particular rant over Christmas, so now it's your turn. . .

                          Do any others of you take violent exception to people saying, e.g., "This is one of the only moths that come out in winter"?

                          What the hell do they think this means?!

                          And while I'm at it, why are we suddenly hearing everyone sticking glottal stops between the definite article and a vowel? The weather forecasters are routine offenders, but almost everyone under 40 seems to have been infected as well. "In thuh east", etc., instead of "in thee east". Not only is it hard work, it could hardly be less melodious, imho.


                          Peace & Love

                          Comment

                          • Stillhomewardbound
                            Full Member
                            • Nov 2010
                            • 1109

                            #14
                            Ok, here goe's my rant, which I richly deserve, it being my birthday today!


                            When and why was the term 'national rail services' adopted over the more accurate 'main line' or 'overground'.

                            I grow tired of travelling local routes while being told, repeatedly, that I am using a 'national rail service' ie.
                            (on the underground) 'this is Charing Cross - change here for National Rail Services' etc.

                            This use is so tedious because it is making a distinction that, more often than not, is not there. Most services from
                            that particular station, for one, as with the likes of a Fenchurch Street or a Marylebone, will get you into the next county or not much beyond.

                            The term throws local, regional and genuinely national services into the one bag and so becomes a meaningless descriptor.

                            Furthermore, do the mainline stations serving Wales and Scotland then become 'international' rail services which is, literally, what they are?

                            If you ask me it is the lack of pedantry that leads to this sort of obfuscation

                            Comment

                            • gradus
                              Full Member
                              • Nov 2010
                              • 5622

                              #15
                              Haitch.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X