Grammar that makes you cringe

[citoyen]

Perhaps chosen so as not to confuse it with hydrophobia--rabies?

Indeed. When I looked it up, I discovered that aquaphobia is "abnormal and persistent fear of water" whereas hydrophobia is "the physical property of a molecule that is repelled from a mass of water". As a symptom of the latter stages of rabies, it refers to being physically incapable of swallowing water.

It's a useful distinction, I suppose, but the mixed Latin and Greek still grates. I admit I've never had a problem with "television" but that's because it's a word I grew up with and was familiar with before I knew much about Latin and Greek. But now that it has been brought to my attention, I am mildly irritated by it.

d.

[tatanab]

Lots of trendy grammarisms have grated over the years - such as "I, myself, personally", "I will send a copy to yourself", "I have to actually physically do something".

The one that riles me at present is the use of "I am" in examples such as "I am liking this forum".  So, you like it now but you didn't yesterday and will not tomorrow.  This one started less than a year ago.  I wonder how long before it fades into yesterdays outmoded trendy speak, but I also wonder how on earth these things get started.

[Ian H]

I notice an increasing appearance of elisive apostrophes in printed English, particularly can't, or won't. In my schooldays I was taught that this was entirely incorrect except in reported speech.

Here's something to consider: If, in prose, a shortened word with an initial apostrophe (eg. 'twas or 'bout) occurs at the beginning of a sentence, is the letter after the apostrophe capitalised?

[HTFB]

'Tis capitalised indeed.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves, &c.

I know people who use the Carrollian double apostrophe. I ca'n't, and wo'n't, get used to that.

[Ian H]

'Tis capitalised indeed.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves, &c.

But I did say 'in prose'.

[Salvatore]

Perhaps chosen so as not to confuse it with hydrophobia--rabies?

It's a useful distinction, I suppose, but the mixed Latin and Greek still grates. I admit I've never had a problem with "television" but that's because it's a word I grew up with and was familiar with before I knew much about Latin and Greek. But now that it has been brought to my attention, I am mildly irritated by it.

d.

veisalgia

How does mixed Norwegian and Greek affect you?

[hellymedic]

Your Amazon order ****** has shipped.

No it hasn't; It's been shipped.

PS. Thank you for sending me such an email today, after the item in question arrived...

[mattc]

I notice an increasing appearance of elisive apostrophes in printed English, particularly can't, or won't. In my schooldays I was taught that this was entirely incorrect except in reported speech.

Do you mean that one should write "cannot" ? Or something too smart for me?!?

[I shall lookup 'elisive' ... ]

[Ian H]

I notice an increasing appearance of elisive apostrophes in printed English, particularly can't, or won't. In my schooldays I was taught that this was entirely incorrect except in reported speech.

Do you mean that one should write "cannot" ? Or something too smart for me?!?

Yes: is not; cannot; will not; etc.

[I shall lookup 'elisive' ... ]

I made it up.

[mattc]

[I shall lookup 'elisive' ... ]

I made it up.

According to google, you've started a trend.

[Cudzoziemiec]

The one that riles me at present is the use of "I am" in examples such as "I am liking this forum".  So, you like it now but you didn't yesterday and will not tomorrow.  This one started less than a year ago.  I wonder how long before it fades into yesterdays outmoded trendy speak, but I also wonder how on earth these things get started.

Surely this is just an attempt to reflect in writing the use of emphatic particles in speech. I am liking this forum - surprisingly so, in fact.

[Wendy]

...and surely makes no implication about any past like or dislike?

[peliroja]

From an American colleague I just had 'Thanks for a great gather!'. Grr.

[clarion]

Perhaps he meant 'garter', and it was a text for someone else?

[citoyen]

I notice an increasing appearance of elisive apostrophes in printed English, particularly can't, or won't. In my schooldays I was taught that this was entirely incorrect except in reported speech.

The house style of the publication I currently work for is to always use elided forms, the idea being to keep the tone informal, friendly and reflecting the way people talk. The house style of the last publication I worked for was to never use elided forms.

Personally, I think any rule that says "always" or "never" is silly - you need to judge each case on its merits, otherwise you can end up with sentences that sound very unnatural and clunky. And some elisions are really ugly (eg "should've" or "would've").

Fortunately, as chief sub on my current publication, I get to enforce the rules as I see fit (though most of our style rules predate me and are firmly entrenched, so I can't get away with making major changes), so while I tolerate most elisions, the rule for me is not a blanket "always do this" or "never do that" but to make sure that the flow and rhythm of a sentence is natural and doesn't make the reader stop to think about it.

d.

[citoyen]

Ugly they may be but they are preferable to should of and would of.

Can't argue with that!

d.

[Ian H]

some elisions are really ugly (eg "should've" or "would've").

Ugly they may be but they are preferable to should of and would of.

The latter is a phonetic misspelling of the former, which then feeds back into speech.

[HTFB]

The house style of the publication I currently work for is to always use ... to never use ... as chief sub ... .

I think I can infer what the style guide says about split infinitives, too.  

[citoyen]

I think I can infer what the style guide says about split infinitives, too.  

I follow the Guardian style guide's example on this matter...

split infinitives
"The English-speaking world may be divided into (1) those who neither know nor care what a split infinitive is; (2) those who do not know, but care very much; (3) those who know and condemn; (4) those who know and distinguish. Those who neither know nor care are the vast majority, and are happy folk, to be envied." (HW Fowler, Modern English Usage, 1926)

It is perfectly acceptable, and often desirable, to sensibly split infinitives – "to boldly go" is an elegant and effective phrase – and stubbornly to resist doing so can sound pompous and awkward ("the economic precipice on which they claim perpetually to be poised") or ambiguous: "he even offered personally to guarantee the loan that the Clintons needed to buy their house " raises the question of whether the offer, or the guarantee, was personal.

George Bernard Shaw got it about right after an editor tinkered with his infinitives: "I don't care if he is made to go quickly, or to quickly go – but go he must!"

Guardian and Observer style guide: S

Believe it or not, I did carefully consider the split infinitives in my last post (probably spent far longer thinking about it than was necessary, in fact) and decided that to split was the better option.

d.

[Bledlow]

"You and I" when it should be "you and me", e.g.

X isn't trying to convert the likes of you and I to his cause.

It's easy to get right: take out the "you and" (& a bit more in this example, to make it clearer),  & consider whether you'd say -

X isn't trying to convert I to his cause.

It annoys I. It makes I want to shake people.

[RJ]

From an American colleague I just had 'Thanks for a great gather!'. Grr.

Shepherd, are they? 

[Cudzoziemiec]

There was an article on Language Log Language Log about two years ago titled something like "The death of whom". It showed a photo of some demonstrators in the US with a banner using "whom" as a nominative.

I think sometimes people use "whom" and "I" incorrectly because they think it sounds somehow posher.

[rogerzilla]

From an American colleague I just had 'Thanks for a great gather!'. Grr.

Isn't that something to do with curtains?

[tatanab]

Adoption of more Americanisms, specifically newer and older.  e.g "for sale, newer bike frame",  "for sale older rear mech".

I always want to ask "older than what?".  It seems "newer" means not new but nearly so, and "older" means old but not old enough to be called old.  Can a user of these terms explain what is meant and at what point something that is newer becomes older?

Now a purely British one.  The singular of pence is penny.  I cannot receive one pence change.  This includes the middle aged newsreader who used "one pence" one TV a few evenings ago.

[Andrij]

Adoption of more Americanisms, specifically newer and older.  e.g "for sale, newer bike frame",  "for sale older rear mech".

I always want to ask "older than what?".  It seems "newer" means not new but nearly so, and "older" means old but not old enough to be called old.  Can a user of these terms explain what is meant and at what point something that is newer becomes older?

If that truly is an Americanism, then it's a recent one (been away for a few years).  I've never heard newer/older used in such a way.