Grammar that makes you cringe

[Basil]

Oh dear.  Literally is literally not.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10240917/Uproar-as-OED-includes-erroneous-use-of-literally.html

[Cudzoziemiec]

That use of literally does make me cringe or, just as often, burst out laughing. Now I'm more conservative than the OED.
Pipe, slippers.
Or should that be "tweed, fixie"? No, too hip.

[citoyen]

Ms McPherson said: “Our job is to describe the language people are using. The only reason this sense is included is because people are using it in this way."

[meddyg]

On 16/08/2013 17:45, CTC, the national cycling charity wrote:

CTC welcomes the  'cycling revolution'
"Gift CTC membership to a friend or family."

(they did it last week too)

'Arrgh ! No, please stop ! no - 'gift' is a noun and 'Give' a verb'
I Emailed them today (I did it last week too)

'may we have 'Give CTC membership to a friend or family (member)' next time around ?'


please help

[rogerzilla]

Is that "literally" with no literalism, in the same way that the Alannis Morissette song contains no examples of irony (the only irony being that a song called "Ironic" isn't ironic, so it works on a sort of meta-ironic level).

[Squarewheels]

It should be figuratively...

"I have to go"

"But you literally just got here..."

"I really hate it when people misuse that word"

"So do I, but you literally just here"


^That was a bit random - you had to be there...

[Pickled Onion]

On 16/08/2013 17:45, CTC, the national cycling charity wrote:

CTC welcomes the  'cycling revolution'
"Gift CTC membership to a friend or family."

(they did it last week too)

'Arrgh ! No, please stop ! no - 'gift' is a noun and 'Give' a verb'
I Emailed them today (I did it last week too)

'may we have 'Give CTC membership to a friend or family (member)' next time around ?'


please help

Not according to the OED, which says

verb
[with object]
    give (something) as a gift, especially formally or as a donation or bequest:
the company gifted 2,999 shares to a charity

I agree it has suddenly started being overused and does tend to grate in sentences like the one you quote. It can be useful to show that something was given as a gift - the word give is much looser, eg you can be given a speeding ticket, but not gifted one.

[Gareth Rees]

'Arrgh ! No, please stop ! no - 'gift' is a noun and 'Give' a verb'

Gift as a verb was good enough for:
* Henry Fielding (Tom Jones "Nothing but the Inspiration with which we Writers are gifted, can possibly enable any one to make the Discovery")
* Jane Austen (Persuasion "It seemed as if Mr Shepherd ... had been gifted with foresight")
* Charlotte Brontë (Jane Eyre "he was just the sort of wild, fierce, bandit hero whom I could have consented to gift with my hand")

We discussed this previously: gift has the advantage, in the kind of context that the CTC is using it, that it unambiguously means "bestow gratuitously", whereas give has multiple meanings (the OED gives 14 major senses).

[Gareth Rees]

Ms McPherson said: “Our job is to describe the language people are using. The only reason this sense is included is because people are using it in this way."

You don't say why you're quoting this—is it because you're surprised? or because this is an important point that you think people here are missing?

[rogerzilla]

I agree it has suddenly started being overused and does tend to grate in sentences like the one you quote. It can be useful to show that something was given as a gift - the word give is much looser, eg you can be given a speeding ticket, but not gifted one.

That Kylie Minogue - i'd gift her one.

[citoyen]

You don't say why you're quoting this—is it because you're surprised? or because this is an important point that you think people here are missing?

The latter.

CBA to add further comment because like most of this stuff, it's been gone over countless times. People who get indignant about particular words/meanings being included in dictionaries either don't know what a dictionary is for, or are French.

[citoyen]

'Arrgh ! No, please stop ! no - 'gift' is a noun and 'Give' a verb'
I Emailed them today

Out of interest, what is it about the particular use of "gift" as a verb that piques you so? Clearly the same problem doesn't apply to use of "email" as a verb.

[hubner]

'Arrgh ! No, please stop ! no - 'gift' is a noun and 'Give' a verb'

Gift as a verb was good enough for:
* Henry Fielding (Tom Jones "Nothing but the Inspiration with which we Writers are gifted, can possibly enable any one to make the Discovery")
* Jane Austen (Persuasion "It seemed as if Mr Shepherd ... had been gifted with foresight")
* Charlotte Brontë (Jane Eyre "he was just the sort of wild, fierce, bandit hero whom I could have consented to gift with my hand")

We discussed this previously: gift has the advantage, in the kind of context that the CTC is using it, that it unambiguously means "bestow gratuitously", whereas give has multiple meanings (the OED gives 14 major senses).

But all those examples are historical/obsolete usages, ie not from current English. If you're going to use descriptive grammar to judge current "correct" usage, then you have to use the language as it is used now.

And yes, "gift" is used by some as a verb but is considered by many others as "incorrect" and they don't use it as a verb.

[hubner]

'Arrgh ! No, please stop ! no - 'gift' is a noun and 'Give' a verb'
I Emailed them today

Out of interest, what is it about the particular use of "gift" as a verb that piques you so? Clearly the same problem doesn't apply to use of "email" as a verb.

Language is not based on logic like maths. Eg, 3 very common words that sound the same: two, to, too.

The reason people get so worked is because they have learnt and speak and write a language, it's closely connected with who they are, their identity etc, at least for their native/first language. So when someone comes along and uses a word in a different way or the opposite meaning, people don't like it.

For some "gift" is OK as a verb, but what about "car"?

"I'm going to car to work today."

It would have the specific meaning of driving by car, "drive" could mean driving any motor vehicle.

If you object to "car" as a verb, then you are reacting in the same as someone objecting to "gift" as a verb.

Email: noun and verb
Letter: noun
Write (to somebody): verb
Write (somebody): US verb, wrong in the UK
Email (somebody): verb, OK in the UK

It's basically what you're used to.

[Cudzoziemiec]

You can bike to work so I see nothing wrong in carring. If enough people start saying it, it becomes part of the language.

Certainly our reactions to language are illogical. Figurative uses of "literally" still grate on me, but "totally" used in a similar way no longer does.

And to be "gifted with foresight" or inspiration or a similar quality is still a pretty common saying, IMO.

[Gareth Rees]

But all those examples are historical/obsolete usages, i.e. not from current English.

Certainly they are historical, but what makes them obsolete? Can you actually make an argument to that effect? My point in picking these examples was to demonstrate that this verb has been used by some of the best writers in English. Here are some modern examples, courtesy of Google Books search:

1999   H. Abts How to settle your living trust 117   it may be desirable for the partner with the larger estate to gift a portion of his or her estate to the partner with the smaller estate
1999   P. Yeoman Pilgrimage in medieval Scotland 109   in 1497 he gifted a silver case for a cross
2000   M. Angold Church and Society in Byzantium Under the Comneni 143   he suggested that prosperous suffragans should gift monasteries to their metropolitan bishops
2000   M. Stackpole Dark tide: Onslaught 148   Jacen had never really felt he'd been gifted a vision by the Force

For some "gift" is OK as a verb, but what about "car"?

Funnily enough, the OED says:

car, v. Now rare.
 1. trans. To place or carry in a car; (also) to transport in to a marketplace, etc.
 2. intr. To go by car (in various senses). Also trans. with it (colloq.).

[citoyen]

If you object to "car" as a verb...

I don't.

I was commenting on meddyg objecting to gift as a verb  but not email as a verb, so you're just agreeing with me really. The use of email as a verb will be frowned on by some people for the same reason they object to gift as a verb. Personally, I object to neither. 

People get worked up about language because they've been trained to have fixed ideas about what is right and what is wrong.

Gareth's reference to historical use of gift merely served to show that it's not a neologism. But even if it were, would that be a bad thing? Not all neologisms are bad.

[citoyen]

Language is not based on logic like maths. Eg, 3 very common words that sound the same: two, to, too.

I have literally no idea what this is supposed to mean.

[citoyen]

While we're on the subject of "car", it's worth noting that the word predates the automobile by hundreds of years.

[Cudzoziemiec]

As do coach and truck (not sure about lorry).

[mattc]

I'm not trucking going to stand for "

automobileing your brother from the station"

[Cudzoziemiec]

This, from the index to a report, is completely correct:

4.15 Basis for identification and selection of stakeholders with whom to engage.

But I can't help feeling, especially as it's going to be read by people who don't have English as their first language, it might be better if it weren't. The "with whom" jars, but it's not wrong, so I'll leave it.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I also found in the same document that MS Word does not recognise "carers" and wants to change "MWh" to "Mwah". Which could say something about the psychology of whoever it is that compiles their dictionary.

[Bledlow]

'Arrgh ! No, please stop ! no - 'gift' is a noun and 'Give' a verb'

Gift as a verb was good enough for:
* Henry Fielding (Tom Jones "Nothing but the Inspiration with which we Writers are gifted, can possibly enable any one to make the Discovery")
* Jane Austen (Persuasion "It seemed as if Mr Shepherd ... had been gifted with foresight")
* Charlotte Brontë (Jane Eyre "he was just the sort of wild, fierce, bandit hero whom I could have consented to gift with my hand")

We discussed this previously: gift has the advantage, in the kind of context that the CTC is using it, that it unambiguously means "bestow gratuitously", whereas give has multiple meanings (the OED gives 14 major senses).

But all those examples are historical/obsolete usages, ie not from current English. If you're going to use descriptive grammar to judge current "correct" usage, then you have to use the language as it is used now.

While some of Austen's & Fielding's usages may sound odd today, I think there might be (small, restrained, rather polite) riots if you tried to bar one of Jane's usages on the grounds that it's obsolete.

"Gifted" has never ceased to be current, & it's a form of 'gift' the verb.

Note that I feel that 'gift' as a verb is overused nowadays, & 'give' would very often be more appropriate, but I can't find any reason to argue against it in other cases.

[red marley]

This, from the index to a report, is completely correct:

4.15 Basis for identification and selection of stakeholders with whom to engage.

But I can't help feeling, especially as it's going to be read by people who don't have English as their first language, it might be better if it weren't. The "with whom" jars, but it's not wrong, so I'll leave it.

It's the word 'stakeholders' that jars with me. They are precisely the people with whom one does not engage (i.e. disinterested parties, 'holding the stake' as they have no interest in a bet going one way or the other). But I think I might have lost that one to the forces of common usage.