Originally posted by ahinton
View Post
Phrases/words that set your teeth on edge.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by jean View Post
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ahinton View PostI don't understand, your link is to the term "différance", not "différence", between the two of which there is, I believe, a "difference"...[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
-
Richard Tarleton
Originally posted by jean View PostAn email from David Lloyd:
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
-
Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View PostYES - there is; hence my "hard stare" in response to your #3720!
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
-
-
Originally posted by Richard Tarleton View PostDid 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
-
-
Originally posted by Richard Tarleton View PostDid 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
-
-
Originally posted by Pulcinella View PostBut does the ideal adjectival insistence suggested not mean we should only have uses such as....I will give due deference to someone?
We are allowed to say things like The extreme pain I am suffering is due to your misuse of the phrase in question.
Comment
-
-
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.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by P. G. Tipps View PostI 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
-
-
Originally posted by ahinton View PostMy response was to you, not fhg and it related to the link that you, not fhg, had posted.[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
Comment