Friday, July 21, 2006
Pet Peeves (Language edition)
WMUB Forum's topic on 7/21/06 was "Uses (and Misuses) of English". We received a number of calls and emails about pet peeves, in fact too many to get on the air. Here's a sample of some emails:
Two primarily verbal tics that at one point I didn't even notice-- even in my own speech-- but that now drive me crazy whenever I hear them: 1. Contraction of "another" when referring to some kind of difference, e.g., "That's a totally 'nother thing", which essentially creates a nonsense word; 2. The imprecision of "the reason is *because*"; "because" is completely unnecessary.
--Brian from Richmond
The use of "I" vs. "me" drives me crazy. Many broadcasters/talking heads get it wrong most of the time. "Just between you and I" may sound correct, but it is pretentious and
gramatically incorrect. Please remind us of the gramatical rule.
--Dr. Tim from Arden, NC
"Severe storm." This is everywhere, from television to weather writing on the Web. Whatever happened to "strong," "significant," to anything less than "severe?" To me, "severe" weather is, maybe, a tornado, or a Category 5 hurricane. What can we expect next, "severe clouds"? "severe sunshine"? Here's another: The word "spokesperson" is generic, for use when the gender is unknown. To say "Jim is the spokesperson" is WRONG. To say "The committee will elect a new spokesperson" is CORRECT, presuming that the committee has both male and female members. And, don't even get me started on using "impact" as a verb. In my working life as a writer and editor I quickly learned that people write and speak just like they think. Hence, sloppy speech, sloppy thinking. There is no hope for them, short of rewiring their brains.
P.S. Read H.L.Mencken. He taught me so much; for example, someone is "in hospital," not "in the hospital."
--Jim from Liberty
During the news break your reader said: "one thousand new jobs will be created." This is redundant.
--followup from Jim from Liberty
I teach writing to honors and college-bound high school students. We strive to use language correctly and concisely. Public radio should be a model of American English, but more and more passive voice (ex. Oxford was his by a thunderstorm, rather than, A thunderstorm hit Oxford.) and some bulky verb expression (He plans on writing another novel, rather than, He plans to write another novel) seem to make it past editiors for news casts. Are these verb uses becoming accepted as the language changes?
--Tina from Tipp City
If "vicious" means "prone to vice" as opposed to virtuous... can animals truly be referred to as vicious?
--Chris from Richmond
How about when people say "real good" or "real pretty" instead of using the -ly adverb!
--Dana from Dayton
I find the conversation on pet peeves in relation to language interesting, but unrealistic. Languages are constantly changing and over time rules of a language change. I find it hard to say that something in a language is wrong or right when the rules of right or wrong change over the years. Obviously there is a standard of language that should be observed if one wishes to excel in today's society, but today's society is changing. What seems wrong today may be the standard, even the business standard, in years to come.
--Matt
The use of the word, " absolutely " when all the speaker really means is "yes" drives me up the wall. It is heard frequently in interviews.
--Stefi from Springfield
This is an impressive show. I try to teach composition and rarely have I heard such clear explanation of the rhetorical impetus of news-reporting in the popular media. I especially impressed with the level of rhetorical awareness your listeners are displaying--the guy who talked about the break-in, car-jacking, etc. "gone bad" was very intriguing. I don't have a peeve with what I hear on NPR usually; although I can see where, in the Israel/Hezbollah (sp?) conflict, folk may get their dander up over the even-handed nature of the reporting. You just mentioned good English in today's language, I may be crucified for this, but doesn't President Bush in his misuse of the language display a rhetorical awaredness that others don't? If his audience is people who may or may not use the language "correctly" doesn't he do a good job of pandering to this audience?
--David from Oxford
"Hopefully" has changed meanings, I have never heard hopefully used in the "proper way", only in the improper, nor have I seen birds with scales and teeth. Things evolve.
--John from Oxford
I have heard "you-ins, we-ins and they-ins" for a long time in this area. I've been told that you-ins is two more than Ya'll. I'm used to hearing these slang terms but it is "you guysez" that rakes me the wrong way and it is even used by the media but never in print. Also, the use of the word license is often used as if it is a plural word. As in a driver's license, people ask, "When are you going to get them"? Good show, thanks.
--Ron from Connersville
(0) comments
Two primarily verbal tics that at one point I didn't even notice-- even in my own speech-- but that now drive me crazy whenever I hear them: 1. Contraction of "another" when referring to some kind of difference, e.g., "That's a totally 'nother thing", which essentially creates a nonsense word; 2. The imprecision of "the reason is *because*"; "because" is completely unnecessary.
--Brian from Richmond
The use of "I" vs. "me" drives me crazy. Many broadcasters/talking heads get it wrong most of the time. "Just between you and I" may sound correct, but it is pretentious and
gramatically incorrect. Please remind us of the gramatical rule.
--Dr. Tim from Arden, NC
"Severe storm." This is everywhere, from television to weather writing on the Web. Whatever happened to "strong," "significant," to anything less than "severe?" To me, "severe" weather is, maybe, a tornado, or a Category 5 hurricane. What can we expect next, "severe clouds"? "severe sunshine"? Here's another: The word "spokesperson" is generic, for use when the gender is unknown. To say "Jim is the spokesperson" is WRONG. To say "The committee will elect a new spokesperson" is CORRECT, presuming that the committee has both male and female members. And, don't even get me started on using "impact" as a verb. In my working life as a writer and editor I quickly learned that people write and speak just like they think. Hence, sloppy speech, sloppy thinking. There is no hope for them, short of rewiring their brains.
P.S. Read H.L.Mencken. He taught me so much; for example, someone is "in hospital," not "in the hospital."
--Jim from Liberty
During the news break your reader said: "one thousand new jobs will be created." This is redundant.
--followup from Jim from Liberty
I teach writing to honors and college-bound high school students. We strive to use language correctly and concisely. Public radio should be a model of American English, but more and more passive voice (ex. Oxford was his by a thunderstorm, rather than, A thunderstorm hit Oxford.) and some bulky verb expression (He plans on writing another novel, rather than, He plans to write another novel) seem to make it past editiors for news casts. Are these verb uses becoming accepted as the language changes?
--Tina from Tipp City
If "vicious" means "prone to vice" as opposed to virtuous... can animals truly be referred to as vicious?
--Chris from Richmond
How about when people say "real good" or "real pretty" instead of using the -ly adverb!
--Dana from Dayton
I find the conversation on pet peeves in relation to language interesting, but unrealistic. Languages are constantly changing and over time rules of a language change. I find it hard to say that something in a language is wrong or right when the rules of right or wrong change over the years. Obviously there is a standard of language that should be observed if one wishes to excel in today's society, but today's society is changing. What seems wrong today may be the standard, even the business standard, in years to come.
--Matt
The use of the word, " absolutely " when all the speaker really means is "yes" drives me up the wall. It is heard frequently in interviews.
--Stefi from Springfield
This is an impressive show. I try to teach composition and rarely have I heard such clear explanation of the rhetorical impetus of news-reporting in the popular media. I especially impressed with the level of rhetorical awareness your listeners are displaying--the guy who talked about the break-in, car-jacking, etc. "gone bad" was very intriguing. I don't have a peeve with what I hear on NPR usually; although I can see where, in the Israel/Hezbollah (sp?) conflict, folk may get their dander up over the even-handed nature of the reporting. You just mentioned good English in today's language, I may be crucified for this, but doesn't President Bush in his misuse of the language display a rhetorical awaredness that others don't? If his audience is people who may or may not use the language "correctly" doesn't he do a good job of pandering to this audience?
--David from Oxford
"Hopefully" has changed meanings, I have never heard hopefully used in the "proper way", only in the improper, nor have I seen birds with scales and teeth. Things evolve.
--John from Oxford
I have heard "you-ins, we-ins and they-ins" for a long time in this area. I've been told that you-ins is two more than Ya'll. I'm used to hearing these slang terms but it is "you guysez" that rakes me the wrong way and it is even used by the media but never in print. Also, the use of the word license is often used as if it is a plural word. As in a driver's license, people ask, "When are you going to get them"? Good show, thanks.
--Ron from Connersville
Doesn't like Fresh Air Weekend
Sorry, I just don't find this show of "repeats" at all fulfilling. I tune in to WMUB to hear things that are new and different, and therefore, engaging. I've already heard Fresh Air throughout the week, and don't want to listen again. I'd welcome another choice in this time slot.
--Donna in Dayton
(0) comments
--Donna in Dayton
Appreciates Williams commentary
Professor Peter Williams of Miami gave a synopsis . . . regarding his take on the politics of the our current State Government leaders' push to have the State motto more readily available to all of our elementary and high school students. The State's motto (With God, all things are possible) would be printed and donated by someone, we don't know exactly who, and distributed to all of our schools. I have one thing to say to Professor Williams' comments: "AMEN". To our State Legislators: Is this an election year, or what?? To WMUB: You and NPR provide us with broad coverage, each day, of what's happening locally, in our Country, and in our World. We thank you for your fine efforts to inform. With appreciation,
--Betty
(0) comments
--Betty
