Pedants' Paradise

[Pabmusic]

If we really thought the more syllables the better, this sort of thing would be admirable rather than amusing:

Scintillate, scintillate, globule vivific,
Fain would I fathom thy nature specific,
Loftily poised in the ether capacious,
Strongly resembling a gem carbonaceous!

When torrid Phoebus removeth his presence,
Ceasing to lamp us with fierce incandescence,
Then you illumine the regions supernal,
Scintillate, scintillate semper nocturnal.

The traveller on lustreless perigrination,
Gratefully hails your minute coruscation,
He could not determine his journey’s direction,
But for your bright scintillating protection.

And we'd all clamour for Alexander Pope.

[jean]

Unfair! Plenty of monosyllables in Pope!

Though he did recognise that too many of them together can produce an unfortunate effect when he wrote:

...And ten low Words oft creep in one dull Line...

[Pabmusic]

Unfair! Plenty of monosyllables in Pope!

Though he did recognise that too many of them together can produce an unfortunate effect when he wrote:

...And ten low Words oft creep in one dull Line...

Just shows how a (slightly mistaken) impression from teenage years can linger.

[gurnemanz]

[QUOTE=mercia;326126]what do we think of the verb to up ?

Alleged Reader's Digest article: "I upped my income. Up yours!"

[Ferretfancy]

[QUOTE=gurnemanz;326176]

what do we think of the verb to up ?

Alleged Reader's Digest article: "I upped my income. Up yours!"

How about the Hollywood director Michael Curtiz to the film crew - " You tell me I know f---k nothing! But I tell you I know f---k all ! "

[french frank]

How about the Hollywood director Michael Curtiz to the film crew - " You tell me I know f---k nothing! But I tell you I know f---k all ! "

Rather like the MP who, when asked by the Speaker to withdraw his comment that the opposition 'had the intelligence of headless chickens', apologised and withdrew his comment, saying 'the opposition does NOT have the intelligence of headless chickens'.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

If we really thought the more syllables the better, this sort of thing would be admirable rather than amusing:

Scintillate, scintillate, globule vivific,
Fain would I fathom thy nature specific,
Loftily poised in the ether capacious,
Strongly resembling a gem carbonaceous!

When torrid Phoebus removeth his presence,
Ceasing to lamp us with fierce incandescence,
Then you illumine the regions supernal,
Scintillate, scintillate semper nocturnal.

The traveller on lustreless perigrination,
Gratefully hails your minute coruscation,
He could not determine his journey’s direction,
But for your bright scintillating protection.

Fewer syllables, too, from Roger McGough:

I have outlived my youthfulness

so a quiet life for me

Where once

I used to scintillate

Now I sin Till ten Past three

[Alain Maréchal]

"Nurses set to face three-year checks"

which in the body of the story becomes:

"Nurses and midwives in the UK will face three-yearly checks"

My initial reaction was "that seems a long time to conduct a test", but aware that my command of English is not perfect, I appeal to the pedants (no "appeal to " jokes please). Assuming the checks will happen every three years, are either of these constructions correct, or should they be triennial checks, (or yet again, triannual checks?).

Also a subordinate question: is anybody else irritated by the "set to" expression which seems to have crept into usage. What is diffficult about use of the future tense?

[Sir Velo]

"Nurses set to face three-year checks"

which in the body of the story becomes:

"Nurses and midwives in the UK will face three-yearly checks"

My initial reaction was "that seems a long time to conduct a test", but aware that my command of English is not perfect, I appeal to the pedants (no "appeal to " jokes please). Assuming the checks will happen every three years, are either of these constructions correct, or should they be triennial checks, (or yet again, triannual checks?).

I would say "triennial" would be my preferred option; "three -yearly" also correct, but less elegant. If the article had meant checks lasting three years, "three years of checks" would have been a better form of words. "Triannual" would mean it happened three times in one year!

Also a subordinate question: is anybody else irritated by the "set to" expression which seems to have crept into usage. What is diffficult about use of the future tense?

I dislike the "set to" expression. It's typical of headline writers to use colloquial expressions which are rarely, if ever, used in ordinary conversation. Cf. "Football manager blasts ref" or "Sugar fires apprentice."

Perhaps we should start a thread for misleading or inelegant headlines. Here's a sample of ambiguous ones just from this morning's BBC News website:

"Pole in 19 year coma"
"Spain rail crash driver in new tape"
"Strictly celebs seek ballroom bliss".

[Alain Maréchal]

"Triannual" would mean it happened three times in one year!

Which might not be a bad idea!

[gurnemanz]

Also a subordinate question: is anybody else irritated by the "set to" expression which seems to have crept into usage. What is diffficult about use of the future tense?

I hadn't thought about it until you mentioned it. What might be wrong about is that if you say the nurses are "set" for it, it implies they are in some way prepared for it, whereas in fact it is simply that someone has ordained that the checks should take place. I suppose it would be more correct to say: "Checks are set to to introduced..." i.e. they have been put on the schedule.

If I was translating it into German, I would probably use the modal verb "sollen" which can be used to convey what has been ordained to happen (not the same as the future tense). The future is by its very nature uncertain. Although you can confidently state that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, you cannot be so sure the train will arrive at the ordained time - even in Germany. Germans would say: "Der Zug soll um 18.35 ankommen". (the train is due to arrive..). Why not simply: "Nurses are to face.." or in a headline: "Nurses to face ..."? or indeed "are due to face".

[jean]

I would say "triennial" would be my preferred option; "three -yearly" also correct, but less elegant..."Triannual" would mean it happened three times in one year!

I think we need clarity rather than elegance in an item like this! I'd go for three-yearly or every three years.

The OED tells me that triannual has variously meant three times a year and every three years, so it's probably best avoided whatever you mean.

We do seem to be losing these special words for so many times something; nobody seriously uses thrice any more, and even twice seems threatened - I see two times more and more.

Biennial is almost entirely confined to art exhibitions, whether in Venice or Liverpool.

[Nick Armstrong]

is anybody else irritated by the "set to" expression which seems to have crept into usage. What is diffficult about use of the future tense?

I am!

[Pabmusic]

I am!

So am I. 'Set to' might be appropriate for a rocket launch, I suppose.

[Serial_Apologist]

So am I. 'Set to' might be appropriate for a rocket launch, I suppose.

'Set up' might be appropriate for being framed.