Currently acceptable word usages that you don't like.

[Kalbear]

Yes, Bronn, I know. The subject of this thread is currently acceptable usages that I don't like. I realize that momentarily, could care less and loose are all acceptable usages.

I DO NOT LIKE THEM.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

I agree that "momentarily" and "could care less" are acceptable. I'm not sure I agree with "loose" -- I think that's just people not knowing the difference, or not caring enough to point out the error.

[Kalbear]

But that's how the horror starts, eef. Soon loose will replace lose, your will replace you're (or more likely, ur will replace both of 'em), its will just be used entirely, we'll lose all contractions entirely...

MADNESS

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Hopefully not!

(OOh, ooh, [s]you see what[/s] uc wot I did there? :P)

[Teri]

[quote name='eef eef cummings' post='1563920' date='Oct 22 2008, 09.45']I agree that "momentarily" and "could care less" are acceptable. I'm not sure I agree with "loose" -- I think that's just people not knowing the difference, or not caring enough to point out the error.[/quote]

Right. The loose/lose and than/then errors irk me every time I see them too, but they aren't "accepted usage", they're just very common spelling mistakes. (No doubt increasing in frequency relative to other common errors due to the fact that spell checkers won't catch mistakes where the incorrect spelling is also a word.)

Loose/lose bothers me the more of the two, because the pronunciations are so different, and I cannot help but read "loose" with the proper pronunciation (it rhymes with "goose", "moose" and "noose", not with "choose"), so the sentences that misuse it [i]sound[/i] very wrong. The pronunciation difference between "than" and "then" is less glaring.

"Could care less" has become an accepted usage, and it bothers me because the meaning as a whole is exactly the opposite of the meaning implied by the constituent parts.

Kalbear's vehemence seems overblown, though. Do you [i]really[/i] feel so dismissive of the people who misuse those words, Kal, or is the anger feigned?

[JGP]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1563687' date='Oct 22 2008, 08.28']Ummm... the OT is about correct and/or accepted usage. Situations where people are confusing "then" with "than" are plain mistakes. As far as I know, mistakes like that have not been widely accepted yet. Thank goodness.[/quote]

Ummm?

[size=7]Ummmmm?[/size]



You are correct, of course, but- 'bah,' I say. 'Bah!'

[Kalbear]

I get really angry in grammar/word threads. I blame my upbringing. And Eef.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

[quote name='Iskaral Pust' post='1563829' date='Oct 22 2008, 11.51']This person has been in the US for 10+ years as a graduate student and consultant. The poor quality of [b]their[/b] verbal and written communication is incredible. I actually thought it was a joke at first. Worse, [b]they[/b] were completely oblivious of this shortcoming. However, there has been little to no improvement since the big revelation.[/quote]


You just did one that drives me nuts. :P I'm a lawyer. I'm allowed to be nitpicky.

Also, "an" is proper before "h" words where "h" isn't pronounced. That is, one says "an honest answer", not "a honest answer" because the "h" in "honest" is not pronounced.

*laughing at self.*

[Ser Barry]

Actually I hate the use of the word usage. Does it even exist?* That is an unacceptable use of words in my eyes.

Usages can just do one. That is way over the line.


*No I am not just saying this to be a prick.

[Iskaral Pust]

[quote name='Zabzy' post='1564199' date='Oct 22 2008, 15.44']You just did one that drives me nuts. :P I'm a lawyer. I'm allowed to be nitpicky.[/quote]

I deliberately avoided gender specific pronouns so as not to make the object of ire identifiable to anyone who recognizes me. (If anyone here knows me IRL, I would be easily recognizable from some of the personal information I have included in my posts). I wouldn't expect a lawyer to understand such human traits as discretion and consideration for others. :)


Naz: I understand about having appropriate expectations for non-native English speakers, but there is a minimum acceptable level for a consultant who must communicate technical, abstract concepts to clients in a meaningful and persuasive manner. There is also the issue of not making any attempt at improvement.

[Joanna vander Poele]

[quote name='nazfyratu' post='1563843' date='Oct 22 2008, 08.59']I know what you're saying. Being from an immigrant family, I've borne witness to more than my share of grammatical disasters. However, I still expect someone who was born and/or raised in a predominantly English-speaking country to know better. I.e., the level of criticism with regards to grammar and vocabulary should be commensurate with the object's expected familiarity with the language.[/quote]
Often, those who know English as a first language seem capable only of spewing it out in dreadfully grammatically incorrect, misspelled nightmaric forms. Ughh. And yes, nightmaric is probably not a word. It should be.

I, on the other hand, know it as a second language. Alors, m'anglais est parfait ;)

[b]ETA:[/b] Ah, it was "nightmarish" I was looking for. I like my spelling better :mad:

[Mlle. Zabzie]

[quote name='Iskaral Pust' post='1564249' date='Oct 22 2008, 16.30']I deliberately avoided gender specific pronouns so as not to make the object of ire identifiable to anyone who recognizes me. (If anyone here knows me IRL, I would be easily recognizable from some of the personal information I have included in my posts). I wouldn't expect a lawyer to understand such human traits as discretion and consideration for others. :)[/quote]

I completely understand the desire (shockingly, clients hire us to be discreet!). However the third person plural pronoun is not a grammatically acceptable compromise IMO. I personally would have used either (i) the much hated and awkward "he/she" or "(s)he" approach or (ii) variations of "the person", "the underling," "the insufferable employee," etc., each time a reference was needed. :dunno:

(Oh, and if you tried not that hard at all, you could probably figure out who I am IRL in maybe two seconds with a google search - probably true for a lot of us. I just personally post with the thought that people COULD figure it out if they wanted.....) :)

[naz]

[quote name='Iskaral Pust' post='1564249' date='Oct 22 2008, 16.30']Naz: I understand about having appropriate expectations for non-native English speakers, but there is a minimum acceptable level for a consultant who must communicate technical, abstract concepts to clients in a meaningful and persuasive manner. There is also the issue of not making any attempt at improvement.[/quote]

Oh, hey... I agree. What I meant was... well let me quote myself:

[i]"...the level of criticism with regards to grammar and vocabulary should be commensurate with the object's [b]expected familiarity [/b]with the language."

[/i]The expected familiarity has as much to do with where the speaker was raised as with the expectations involved with their job/field/situation. So I would expect a person who was born/raised in the US to speak English fairly correctly, and I would expect a non-native English speaker in the US to speak it somewhat less correctly, but still well enough to adequately perform their job.

[Iskaral Pust]

[quote name='Zabzy' post='1564258' date='Oct 22 2008, 16.37']I completely understand the desire (shockingly, clients hire us to be discreet!). However the third person plural pronoun is not a grammatically acceptable compromise IMO. I personally would have used either (i) the much hated and awkward "he/she" or "(s)he" approach or (ii) variations of "the person", "the underling," "the insufferable employee," etc., each time a reference was needed. :dunno:[/quote]

This is an example why non-lawyers dislike reading legal documents. Just in case you were not aware. :)

[Mlle. Zabzie]

[quote name='Iskaral Pust' post='1564277' date='Oct 22 2008, 16.52']This is an example why non-lawyers dislike reading legal documents. Just in case you were not aware. :)[/quote]

And here I managed to draft something without a single "whereas," "(t)hereof," "thereunder," "therein," "therefor" (yes, spelled correctly) or even a "such." I thought I was getting BETTER.

[Kalbear]

I really think that the non-gender specific pronoun should henceforth be 'the cockhead'. Here's an example of how elegant it sounds:
[quote]This person has been in the US for 10+ years as a graduate student and consultant. The poor quality of the cockhead's verbal and written communication is incredible. I actually thought it was a joke at first. Worse, the cockhead was completely oblivious of this shortcoming. However, there has been little to no improvement since the big revelation.[/quote]

[Iskaral Pust]

[quote name='Zabzy' post='1564295' date='Oct 22 2008, 17.11']And here I managed to draft something without a single "whereas," "(t)hereof," "thereunder," "therein," "therefor" (yes, spelled correctly) or even a "such." I thought I was getting BETTER.[/quote]

Keep working on it. We appreciate the effort.

"theretofore" is my personal favorite.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

[quote name='Iskaral Pust' post='1564304' date='Oct 22 2008, 17.15']Keep working on it. We appreciate the effort.

"theretofore" is my personal favorite.[/quote]

:lol: I have all kinds of verbal tics now from drafting so much. E.g.:

"notwithstanding the foregoing...."

"in respect of...."

"for the avoidance of doubt" (that's actually sloppy drafting, but it's used, oh, it's used....)

[Maltaran]

[quote name='Zabzy' post='1564295' date='Oct 22 2008, 22.11']And here I managed to draft something without a single "whereas," "(t)hereof," "thereunder," "therein," "therefor" (yes, spelled correctly) or even a "such." I thought I was getting BETTER.[/quote]

What about "hereinafter"?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

[quote name='Maltaran' post='1564339' date='Oct 22 2008, 17.37']What about "hereinafter"?[/quote]

Oh useful, very useful. Just like supra., id., and cf. I used none of the above though in my post ;)