Author Topic: Grammar that makes you cringe (Read 856730 times)

Clare · « **Reply #6575 on:** 05 January, 2023, 12:30:55 am »

I want it to refer to pasta weaponry.

Mr Larrington · « **Reply #6576 on:** 05 January, 2023, 11:28:22 am »

It's a little-known fact* that the Italian army had a Regiment di Fusilli during the early part of WW2 but it was disbanded after a heavy defeat by the Duke of Rutland's Own Suet Puddingers outside Tobruk in 1941.

* Alright, lie

Nuncio · « **Reply #6577 on:** 05 January, 2023, 05:25:13 pm »

They should have thrown in the Regiment di Penne, who would have been mightier

Nuncio · « **Reply #6578 on:** 12 January, 2023, 08:39:58 pm »

Anyone else find this BBC headline befuddling?

Quote

Wales weather: Avoid water plea after rain and flood warnings

Cudzoziemiec · « **Reply #6579 on:** 13 January, 2023, 11:47:17 am »

Quote from: Nuncio on 12 January, 2023, 08:39:58 pm

Anyone else find this BBC headline befuddling?

Quote
Wales weather: Avoid water plea after rain and flood warnings

Not particularly, but maybe I would if I haven't been forewarned. Headlines have their own particular grammar anyway, only loosely related to that of English.

Cudzoziemiec · « **Reply #6580 on:** 09 February, 2023, 09:15:02 am »

Quote

In China, parts of the Yangtze River, whose surrounding provinces produce 45% of the country's economic output, were closed to ships because water levels were more than 50% below average.

Wouldn't "less than 50% of average" be clearer than "more than 50% below average"?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64553079

Cudzoziemiec · « **Reply #6581 on:** 12 February, 2023, 06:13:30 pm »

Okay, this one, unusually, I'm nominating not because it's a laugh but because it really does make me cringe. And it's from someone on here. Same on them! The offending sentence is:

Quote

I haven't yet, and might well not, searched for this.

Ugh! What a fugly, badly written sentence. Time to shame the guilty:

(click to show/hide)

Cudzoziemiec · « **Reply #6582 on:** 20 February, 2023, 08:49:24 pm »

I don't know if anyone's been playing Wordiply, but I've noticed that I rarely get the longest word. Instead I either get "more than 100% of the longest word" or miss it. Well, today's letters are JOY so my first guess was UNENJOYABLE. And the response is "rare long word found". If "unenjoyable" is rare than the Graunaid must be using some rather disappointing dictionaries.

Wowbagger · « **Reply #6583 on:** 20 February, 2023, 10:33:21 pm »

I used to watch that Pointless that was on the telly once (it may still be for all I know). There was a round in which contestants were invited to make the longest word they could from three given letters, and the letters had to appear in the word in the order that they were given, but not necessarily adjacent to one another.

In the case in point, the letters were HMS and I instantly produced

(click to show/hide)

.

I felt quite smug.

hellymedic · « **Reply #6584 on:** 22 February, 2023, 08:34:35 pm »

1/64th note in YankSpeak!

citoyen · « **Reply #6585 on:** 23 February, 2023, 04:19:34 pm »

Quote from: Cudzoziemiec on 20 February, 2023, 08:49:24 pm

If "unenjoyable" is rare than the Graunaid must be using some rather disappointing dictionaries.

In the OED, it says:
"This word belongs in Frequency Band 3. Band 3 contains words which occur between 0.01 and 0.1 times per million words in typical modern English usage. These words are not commonly found in general text types like novels and newspapers, but at the same time they are not overly opaque or obscure. Nouns include ebullition and merengue, and examples of adjectives are amortizable, prelapsarian, contumacious, agglutinative, quantized, argentiferous. In addition, adjectives include a marked number of very colloquial words, e.g. cutesy, dirt-cheap, teensy, badass, crackers. Verbs and adverbs diverge to opposite ends of the spectrum of use encompassed by this band. Verbs tend to be either colloquial or technical, e.g. emote, mosey, josh, recapitalize."

There are eight frequency bands. Band 8 words "occur more than 1000 times per million words in typical modern English usage".
More information on word frequency here: https://public.oed.com/how-to-use-the-oed/key-to-frequency/

So it's relatively rare in terms of actual usage - and rightly so, since it's an ugly word.

My word is in the OED but not as a headword so doesn't get a frequency score. It's...

(click to show/hide)

Cudzoziemiec · « **Reply #6586 on:** 23 February, 2023, 04:39:29 pm »

There was an article describing how they invented Wordiply, in which it said they decided to accept words which occurred in at least three out of six dictionaries. They said this was to rule out things like names of chemicals. But the implication was a word which only occurs in, say, two out of the six, would not be accepted at all. So I don't know what their criteria are for designating something a rare word. I would have thought "unenjoyable" was a far more common word than any of the examples of Band 3 words in the OED. But perhaps it's not actually more commonly used, just simpler.

Anyway, today's letters are "RIVA" so my first guess was "derivativeness", which is also a "rare word" – and in this case, I'd agree. In fact I'm surprised they accepted it, as they often don't accept words which are, erm, derivations of root words. And it's ugly too!

Cudzoziemiec · « **Reply #6587 on:** 24 February, 2023, 09:52:25 am »

Actually, I think it's that "unenjoyable" and "derivativeness", although they might be infrequently used, are basically simple. If you know the word "joy" you'll understand "unenjoyable" on first encountering it, and be able to make other derivations as well: there might be only two other people in the world who use the word "unenjoyability" and it might make billions wince, but it's pretty clear what you're trying to say – whereas there's nothing simple or common about "ebullition" or "argentiferous".

citoyen · « **Reply #6588 on:** 24 February, 2023, 11:02:11 am »

Quote from: Cudzoziemiec on 24 February, 2023, 09:52:25 am

Actually, I think it's that "unenjoyable" and "derivativeness", although they might be infrequently used, are basically simple. If you know the word "joy" you'll understand "unenjoyable" on first encountering it, and be able to make other derivations as well: there might be only two other people in the world who use the word "unenjoyability" and it might make billions wince, but it's pretty clear what you're trying to say – whereas there's nothing simple or common about "ebullition" or "argentiferous".

Yes, but that's precisely what they mean by "rare" - that people don't actually use the word. Nothing to do with it being abstruse.

Cudzoziemiec · « **Reply #6589 on:** 24 February, 2023, 11:11:35 am »

Sure, but that doesn't stop me being surprised that unenjoyable is in the same usage-frequency category as ebullition or "derivativeness".

TheLurker · « **Reply #6590 on:** 25 February, 2023, 02:53:12 pm »

Not grammar and more, "want to hurl a brick at the speaker" than cringe, but this seems to the most appropriate thread.

"One year anniversary, two year anniversary." instead of "first", "second" etc. "Anniversary". The annual* recurrence of a day or date made notable in some way.

The BBC is a particularly notable offender.

There are variations of this such as, "two time X", "three time X" instead of "double X", "triple X" which also irritate, but that's a grumble for another day.

*Of or pertaining to a year. As any fule kno.

Cudzoziemiec · « **Reply #6591 on:** 26 February, 2023, 10:19:22 pm »

They accept "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" as a word!

Tim Hall · « **Reply #6592 on:** 17 March, 2023, 02:42:39 pm »

The "less" versus "fewer" ship has probably sailed, and as my son says "Dad, was the meaning clear?", suggesting I should move on.

But today I was on a book search website where I recived this error message:

Quote

Sorry, no results as this time. Please double check your spelling or consider less search terms.

A book site. Harrumph.

(If anyone has Hand Dryers by Samuel Ryde and want to off load it, drop me a line)

Pingu · « **Reply #6593 on:** 17 March, 2023, 05:41:32 pm »

The ghastly "double check" as well.

hellymedic · « **Reply #6594 on:** 18 March, 2023, 09:42:10 pm »

Jacqueline Gold, CEO of Ann Summers has died after 7 years with breast cancer.

The news in the Jewish Chronicle includes this paragraph

Quote

It is her vision and creativity that saw Ann Summers grow from an unknown brand to a British household name and stable of the British high street.

More usage/wrong word choice than grammar.

I think they meant 'staple'...

Cudzoziemiec · « **Reply #6595 on:** 17 April, 2023, 10:05:57 am »

From a page about recycling on the council's website:

Quote

The paper is pulped and then injected between two wire meshes to make it paper thin.

I don't know if 'paper thin' is a conscious choice, which at least means one person is laughing, or just lazy fall-back.

Cudzoziemiec · « **Reply #6596 on:** 01 May, 2023, 01:09:14 pm »

Quote

King Charles Coronation: George VI's chair recycled for enthronement

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65447193

It's not recycled, it's reused FFS!

Pickled Onion · « **Reply #6597 on:** 01 May, 2023, 01:26:11 pm »

Quote from: Cudzoziemiec on 01 May, 2023, 01:09:14 pm

Quote
King Charles Coronation: George VI's chair recycled for enthronement
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65447193

It's not recycled, it's reused FFS!

Or even just "used". Like most chairs, it can be sat on more than once.

Kim · « **Reply #6598 on:** 01 May, 2023, 01:31:42 pm »

I think the word they're looking for is 'reupholstered'. Which it may or may not have needed.

Cudzoziemiec · « **Reply #6599 on:** 01 May, 2023, 01:37:16 pm »

'Reupholstered' is four syllables and thirteen letters, thereby probably breaking a BBC editorial rule.

The chair can be sat on many times but I expect there's a rule, or protocol, that they aren't sat on except at Royal Occasions. Maybe the Royal Grandchildren sit on it and giggle when they're feeling naughty. "Ooh! You sat on Grandad's Special Chair!"