Phrases/words that set your teeth on edge.

[Pulcinella]

The context was the BBC reporter querying whether the White House was 'a dump' (as Trump was alleged to have claimed). Photographs of official reception rooms looked pretty much like 'stately homes' but "But seeing as there are 132 rooms in total, are the non-pictured ones in such good nick?"

I think 'given that' is better, and perhaps more 'formal' is also more appropriate. I wondered whether it was dialectal, like 'I was sat'. The phrase 'in such good nick' lowers the tone, somewhhhhat, too

'Given that' could certainly be used more formally:

Given that there are 132 rooms in the hotel, it is surprising that there is no single-room provision.
Therefore we cannot award this hotel the top five-star rating.

[P. G. Tipps]

The British certainly didn't think much of the hotel. They torched the dump.

[french frank]

it is surprising that there is no single-room provision.

What is this about single rooms? Anyway, most hotels don't have single rooms. You get a double at the per person rate. If you're lucky.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I understood (?misunderstood?) Pulcie's comment to be merely illustrative of a sentence in which "given that" could appear "more formally" in a sentence which included the phrase which included the "132 rooms" - nothing to do with the comment on the original "132 rooms" which initially led to the dental reaction.

(Many Guest Houses have single rooms - I've stayed in them in Scarborough, Eastbourne, and Edinburgh in the past two years.)

[french frank]

I understood (?misunderstood?) Pulcie's comment to be merely illustrative of a sentence in which "given that" could appear "more formally" in a sentence which included the phrase which included the "132 rooms" - nothing to do with the comment on the original "132 rooms" which initially led to the dental reaction.

I thought it was a reference to Lat's comment about there being no single rooms - which I also didn't understand

(Many Guest Houses have single rooms - I've stayed in them in Scarborough, Eastbourne, and Edinburgh in the past two years.)

Yes, guest houses usually have a few (all of them booked already in my experience) because they're just in big houses which have some very small bedrooms - some of which are used as singles.

[Pulcinella]

What is this about single rooms? Anyway, most hotels don't have single rooms. You get a double at the per person rate. If you're lucky.

Nothing against single rooms!

I understood (?misunderstood?) Pulcie's comment to be merely illustrative of a sentence in which "given that" could appear "more formally" in a sentence which included the phrase which included the "132 rooms" - nothing to do with the comment on the original "132 rooms" which initially led to the dental reaction.

(Many Guest Houses have single rooms - I've stayed in them in Scarborough, Eastbourne, and Edinburgh in the past two years.)

Yes, an illustrative example (but admittedly picking up on having seen mention of a single room!).

[Stanfordian]

Nothing against single rooms!

Yes, an illustrative example (but admittedly picking up on having seen mention of a single room!).

What's not to like! It's good to go!

[P. G. Tipps]

Performers who appear on stage at theatres are now routinely referred to as 'actors' in the press and broadcasting media, irrespective of gender.

However, the female members of an international football team are regularly described as 'Lionesses' by the same press and broadcasting media. whilst their male counterparts continue to be called 'Lions'.

Why is this, I wonder? It seems most illogical to me.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Sports writers and commentators haven't yet come to terms with the very idea of women playing "men's" sports, whereas theatre critics have had since the Eighteenth Century to become accustomed to women actors.

(And, despite their significantly higher salaries on television at any rate, many Sports commentators until recently had attitudes which suggested that much of the later Twentieth Century had passed them by.)

[P. G. Tipps]

Sports writers and commentators haven't yet come to terms with the very idea of women playing "men's" sports, whereas theatre critics have had since the Eighteenth Century to become accustomed to women actors. ...

Oh, I see ... I just wondered ...

Maybe, therefore, the correct contemporary description should be Female Lions and not the ignorantly old-fashioned Lionesses ... ?

[jean]

Why is this, I wonder? It seems most illogical to me.

I don't think logic has much to do with it.

Gender in a language like English where nouns are not gendered is always an optional extra, and the use of separate feminine forms can indicate meanings which are nothing to do with grammar. Most people these days hear feminine forms like poetess, comedienne, as faintly disparaging, and don't use them. Buses used to have conductresses, orchestras don't. Fowler wanted us to call women doctors doctresses, but it never caught on.

Many women actors feel like that about the word actress, though the days when it was a euphemism for prostitute are long gone. And if they prefer a non-gendered form, that's good enough for me.

And if the women players want to call themselves lionesses, that's good enough for me, too.

[french frank]

Nobody has said why they think 'given that' is better than 'seeing that'.

I'm quite happy with 'seeing that'. I meant 'given that' was better than 'seeing as' which I'm still not clear how to categorise as a linguistic usage. Why would I want to? I want to do lots of things without being able to rationalise why I want to do them …

[ahinton]

I don't think logic has much to do with it.

Gender in a language like English where nouns are not gendered is always an optional extra, and the use of separate feminine forms can indicate meanings which are nothing to do with grammar. Most people these days hear feminine forms like poetess, comedienne, as faintly disparaging, and don't use them. Buses used to have conductresses, orchestras don't. Fowler wanted us to call women doctors doctresses, but it never caught on.

Many women actors feel like that about the word actress, though the days when it was a euphemism for prostitute are long gone. And if they prefer a non-gendered form, that's good enough for me.

And if the women players want to call themselves lionesses, that's good enough for me, too.

...and then of course there was Henry Reed's infamous "composeress"...

[french frank]

However, the female members of an international football team are regularly described as 'Lionesses' by the same press and broadcasting media. whilst their male counterparts continue to be called 'Lions'.

Why is this, I wonder? It seems most illogical to me.

If there is an obvious need to differentiate, isn't it logical to do so? The Three Lions are the men's football team. The Lionesses are the women. They are two different, but parallel, teams, each at any given moment a particular small group of players who are not interchangeable between the groups. They share the same international badge.

I think. I had to look up what was meant by 'Lionesses'.

Poet, actor, conductor, comedian are general terms which might designate men or women. There is no need to distinguish gender when they are carrying out their work

[ahinton]

If there is an obvious need to differentiate, isn't it logical to do so? The Three Lions are the men's football team. The Lionesses are the women. They are two different, but parallel, teams, each at any given moment a particular small group of players who are not interchangeable between the groups. They share the same international badge.

I think. I had to look up what was meant by 'Lionesses'.

Poet, actor, conductor, comedian are general terms which might designate men or women. There is no need to distinguish gender when they are carrying out their work

No, indeed - but then as there's already a male team called the "Lions" they'd have otherwise had to find a different name altogether to "Lionesses", surely?