Phrases/words that set your teeth on edge.

[Serial_Apologist]

And why is(')n't all this in the Pedantry thread when any question of incisors, premolars, canines, molars and wisdoms being set on edge seems long since to have disappeared from the discussion?(!)...

Because it's a woman's right to chews?

[ahinton]

on the Pedantry thread a poster recently thought that people had problems with lie/lay because "one problem is not understanding what transitive and intransitive mean"

...to which I am sorely tempted to answer, in true ISIHAC "Uxbridge English Dictionary" tradition, that "transtive" is a term applied to certain verbs that possess the characteristics of an action verb expressing an activity such as kick, want, paint, write, eat, clean, etc. that must have a direct object, i.e something or someone who receives the action of the verb, whereas "intransitive" is a Tory supporter in a van. It sounds better when relayed deadpan by Jack Dee, believe me...

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, I can understand that in terms of how it might make it difficult to transfer particular posts to this thread to the Pedantry one, so I wonder whether you might consider there to be sufficient commonality in principle between the two - i.e. between one about phrases and words that bother people and another dealing with pedantry of which at least a fair proportion seems to centre around spoken and written issues (including idioms and grammatical niceties); what say you about the possibility of a wholesale merger (which would presumably be easier than picking of posts one at a time to move elsehere)?

On a related topic, mightn't your "English-as-she-is-spoke..." and P. G.'s "mother country" (and perhaps "mother tongue") risk being considered less than politically correct? Whilst they don't exactly set my teeth on edge, I do not seek to espouse pedantry by asking...

By definition, a vote would have to be taken on the Pedantry thread on a motion to amalgamate, surely?

[ahinton]

But any discussion of "the putting of teeth on edge" is no fun at all without "esoteric dicussions of certain finer points of English grammar and aspects of its history"

I have but two answers to that; firstly, "oh, yes it is!" - "oh, no it isn't!" and secondly (as it's rather early for Pantomime season) who said that such discussion was "fun" in the first place?(!)...

[ahinton]

Because it's a woman's right to chews?

Nice one! - but mightn't it also beg the question as to whether it's also a woman's right to be pedantic?...

[Serial_Apologist]

I have but two answers to that; firstly, "oh, yes it is!" - "oh, no it isn't!" and secondly (as it's rather early for Pantomime season) who said that such discussion was "fun" in the first place?(!)...

It's behind you!!!

[ahinton]

By definition, a vote would have to be taken on the Pedantry thread on a motion to amalgamate, surely?

I don't imagine so; FF has amalgamated threads before without balloting their contributors beforehand, methinks. Anyway, it would be up to FF as to whether she wants to do this or whether to decide that, for whaever reason, she cassn't (although I hope that she won't bristle at the latter)...

[ahinton]

It's behind you!!!

Who? Scotty? No, some here believe that he might be behind P. G. Tipps but, as I've suggested previously on more than one occasion, I remain to be convinced...

Anyway, one thing is for certain in this otherwise uncertain demi-monde of tooth-dislodging pedantry and that's that it's a woman's right to decide whether or not to merge the threads...

[jean]

It's true that this thread started with posters just listing the words and phrases that upset them.

But qute early on there was this:

.... (which is grammatically incorrect).

And after that, well, what happened was bound to happen...

[ahinton]

It's true that this thread started with posters just listing the words and phrases that upset them.

But qute early on there was this:


And after that, well, what happened was bound to happen...

You mean that it was somehow inevitablised. Yes, I suppose that it was.

[gurnemanz]

...to which I am sorely tempted to answer, in true ISIHAC "Uxbridge English Dictionary" tradition, that "transtive" is a term applied to certain verbs that possess the characteristics of an action verb expressing an activity such as kick, want, paint, write, eat, clean, etc. that must have a direct object, i.e something or someone who receives the action of the verb, whereas "intransitive" is a Tory supporter in a van. It sounds better when relayed deadpan by Jack Dee, believe me...

Just to be pedantic for a moment ... "eat", "paint" and "write" do not need an object and are often used intransitively. He eats like an animal. He writes for a living. She paints as a hobby. Even "kick": The baby was kicking in the womb. He kicked in the finishing straight. That horse kicks. He was dragged out kicking and screaming.

[french frank]

Anyway, no rhyme or reason behind what sets anyone's teeth on edge:

I hate invite for invitation. So there!

[jean]

I hate invite for invitation.

I'd be only too grateful for either...

[ahinton]

Just to be pedantic for a moment ... "eat", "paint" and "write" do not need an object and are often used intransitively. He eats like an animal. He writes for a living. She paints as a hobby. Even "kick": The baby was kicking in the womb. He kicked in the finishing straight. That horse kicks. He was dragged out kicking and screaming.

OK, excise the examples, then and see how the statement works! (I'd taken them from an article on the subject rather than chosen them myself, incidentally).

[ahinton]

I'd be only too grateful for either...

...but be careful for what you wish(!)...