Phrases/words that set your teeth on edge.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • jean
    Late member
    • Nov 2010
    • 7100

    Originally posted by ahinton View Post
    (...only he'd probably have spelt it "différence" - sorry, I realise that it's not the pedantry thread, but)...
    (No he wouldn't!)

    Comment

    • ferneyhoughgeliebte
      Gone fishin'
      • Sep 2011
      • 30163

      Originally posted by ahinton View Post
      (...only he'd probably have spelt it "différence")...
      [FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]

      Comment

      • Serial_Apologist
        Full Member
        • Dec 2010
        • 37318

        "Withdrawrall" seems to have become a commonplace pronunciation by radio reporters, as happened this morning on Today.

        I've always assumed "Withdrawal" to be pronounced as two syllables, "with-drawal", not three.

        Comment

        • ahinton
          Full Member
          • Nov 2010
          • 16122

          Originally posted by jean View Post
          I don't understand, your link is to the term "différance", not "différence", between the two of which there is, I believe, a "difference"...

          Comment

          • ferneyhoughgeliebte
            Gone fishin'
            • Sep 2011
            • 30163

            Originally posted by ahinton View Post
            I don't understand, your link is to the term "différance", not "différence", between the two of which there is, I believe, a "difference"...
            YES - there is; hence my "hard stare" in response to your #3720!
            [FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]

            Comment

            • Richard Tarleton

              Originally posted by jean View Post
              An email from David Lloyd:
              Did David Lloyd's use of "due to" set your teeth on edge, jean?

              I've been enjoying the latest edn of The Times Style Guide, which puts it rather well (apologies if this has been discussed 16 times before on this thread): 'In an ideal world we might use "due" only as an adjective and insist on attaching it always to a noun....'

              So "The closure of the pool was due to a child weeing in it" would be correct, but David Lloyd's usage, 'beloved of railway announcers, treats "due to" as a compound preposition eqivalent to "because of" or "owing to". But, as it's widely used, The Times says 'there is no need to take elaborate measures to avoid it'.

              Comment

              • vinteuil
                Full Member
                • Nov 2010
                • 12664

                Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View Post
                YES - there is; hence my "hard stare" in response to your #3720!
                ... ah, thanks for the clarification. I wozzent sufficiently versed in Paddington lore -

                Paddington giving dat hard stare. You know. That look you give somebody when they are saying something so ridiculous it's actually offensive.I DO NOT OWN THI...



                .

                Comment

                • Pulcinella
                  Host
                  • Feb 2014
                  • 10672

                  Originally posted by Richard Tarleton View Post
                  Did David Lloyd's use of "due to" set your teeth on edge, jean?

                  I've been enjoying the latest edn of The Times Style Guide, which puts it rather well (apologies if this has been discussed 16 times before on this thread): 'In an ideal world we might use "due" only as an adjective and insist on attaching it always to a noun....'

                  So "The closure of the pool was due to a child weeing in it" would be correct, but David Lloyd's usage, 'beloved of railway announcers, treats "due to" as a compound preposition eqivalent to "because of" or "owing to". But, as it's widely used, The Times says 'there is no need to take elaborate measures to avoid it'.
                  But does the ideal adjectival insistence suggested not mean we should only have uses such as....I will give due deference to someone?

                  Comment

                  • vinteuil
                    Full Member
                    • Nov 2010
                    • 12664

                    Originally posted by Richard Tarleton View Post
                    Did David Lloyd's use of "due to" set your teeth on edge, jean?

                    I've been enjoying the latest edn of The Times Style Guide, which puts it rather well (apologies if this has been discussed 16 times before on this thread): 'In an ideal world we might use "due" only as an adjective and insist on attaching it always to a noun....'

                    So "The closure of the pool was due to a child weeing in it" would be correct, but David Lloyd's usage, 'beloved of railway announcers, treats "due to" as a compound preposition eqivalent to "because of" or "owing to". But, as it's widely used, The Times says 'there is no need to take elaborate measures to avoid it'.
                    ... for those prepared to take elaborate measures to avoid errors in the 'due to' / 'because of' quagmire, praps this might be of help -

                    Comment

                    • jean
                      Late member
                      • Nov 2010
                      • 7100

                      Originally posted by Pulcinella View Post
                      But does the ideal adjectival insistence suggested not mean we should only have uses such as....I will give due deference to someone?
                      No - due can be a predicative adjective as well as an attributive one.

                      We are allowed to say things like The extreme pain I am suffering is due to your misuse of the phrase in question.

                      Comment

                      • jean
                        Late member
                        • Nov 2010
                        • 7100

                        Originally posted by ahinton View Post
                        I don't understand, your link is to the term "différance", not "différence"...
                        But how did you know which one ferney meant?

                        Comment

                        • P. G. Tipps
                          Full Member
                          • Jun 2014
                          • 2978

                          Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post
                          "Withdrawrall" seems to have become a commonplace pronunciation by radio reporters, as happened this morning on Today.

                          I've always assumed "Withdrawal" to be pronounced as two syllables, "with-drawal", not three.
                          I cringed when I heard that too, S_A ... 'Lorr 'n' Awdah' has been another long-time favourite on the BBC!

                          Comment

                          • Serial_Apologist
                            Full Member
                            • Dec 2010
                            • 37318

                            Originally posted by P. G. Tipps View Post
                            I cringed when I heard that too, S_A ... 'Lorr 'n' Awdah' has been another long-time favourite on the BBC!


                            I've told my Canadian friend about that particular one, to gauge her reaction. "Who's this Laura Norder you're on about?" she then asked!

                            Comment

                            • ahinton
                              Full Member
                              • Nov 2010
                              • 16122

                              Originally posted by jean View Post
                              But how did you know which one ferney meant?
                              My response was to you, not fhg and it related to the link that you, not fhg, had posted.

                              Comment

                              • ferneyhoughgeliebte
                                Gone fishin'
                                • Sep 2011
                                • 30163

                                Originally posted by ahinton View Post
                                My response was to you, not fhg and it related to the link that you, not fhg, had posted.
                                I am aware that my feeble joculette was calculated merely to raise the tiniest kitten of a smile at most, but I don't think it merited you stuffing it with a few bricks into the sack of literalism and chucking it into the river of pedantry.
                                [FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X