Things that piss you off that shouldn't

[AVFC_Hitz]

Just now, sidcow said:

The days of good English is went. 

*Gonned

[Seat68]

Wrote a load of test scripts, uploaded them to a system we use. They were corrupted between now and when I uploaded them. Combined 80 scripts into 10. Requirements document has changed drastically between when they were written and now. The requirements document was flimsy to start with. Testing cycle started to day. Looks like I need to completely rewrite the scripts whilst I am testing. Its been fun. Locking my laptop and pouring something alcoholic. 

[sidcow]

35 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Wrote a load of test scripts, uploaded them to a system we use. They were corrupted between now and when I uploaded them. Combined 80 scripts into 10. Requirements document has changed drastically between when they were written and now. The requirements document was flimsy to start with. Testing cycle started to day. Looks like I need to completely rewrite the scripts whilst I am testing. Its been fun. Locking my laptop and pouring something alcoholic. 

If I had the slightest idea what you had just written there I would probably be very sympathetic! 

[It's Your Round]

41 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Wrote a load of test scripts, uploaded them to a system we use. They were corrupted between now and when I uploaded them. Combined 80 scripts into 10. Requirements document has changed drastically between when they were written and now. The requirements document was flimsy to start with. Testing cycle started to day. Looks like I need to completely rewrite the scripts whilst I am testing. Its been fun. Locking my laptop and pouring something alcoholic. 

Just do it tomorrow, or next week or whatever. 

[il_serpente]

5 hours ago, sidcow said:

The days of good English is went. 

Here, here!!

[Troglodyte]

18 hours ago, sidcow said:

At best it's just really annoying Americanisation of our language

Sorry @sidcow but this is one for me! People blaming an (often falsely) perceived decline in literacy or standards of English on 'Americanisation'.

While the USA certainly has a significant impact on the development of the English language today, many patterns and concepts believed to originate from over the pond actually don't at all. There's the classic 'soccer' for example, which is British English in origin. And many people seem to think that an '-ize' suffix is an American bastardisation of our language, when actually that was typical of British spelling patterns years ago which travelled to America from us but didn't change over time as British English did; in fact '-ise' became more popular over here due to the influence of French. (On a side note, this is why it's still Standard English to use '-ize' in most words such as 'organize', but not in words of French origin, such as 'televise'; the latter spelt with a 'z' would indeed be an Americanism.)

Plus, whether people like it or not (and as a teacher I do despair when it comes to how students often write and speak), language is always going to change and this provokes reaction. It's like when people moan about a word being entered into the dictionary - that really pisses me off. A dictionary is descriptive: it records common language use. Its purpose isn't to dictate what is correct. 

Edited June 3, 2020 by Troglodyte

[AVFC_Hitz]

3 hours ago, Troglodyte said:

Sorry @sidcow but this is one for me! People blaming an (often falsely) perceived decline in literacy or standards of English on 'Americanisation'.

While the USA certainly has a significant impact on the development of the English language today, many patterns and concepts believed to originate from over the pond actually don't at all. There's the classic 'soccer' for example, which is British English in origin. And many people seem to think that an '-ize' suffix is an American bastardisation of our language, when actually that was typical of British spelling patterns years ago which travelled to America from us but didn't change over time as British English did; in fact '-ise' became more popular over here due to the influence of French. (On a side note, this is why it's still Standard English to use '-ize' in most words such as 'organize', but not in words of French origin, such as 'televise'; the latter spelt with a 'z' would indeed be an Americanism.)

Plus, whether people like it or not (and as a teacher I do despair when it comes to how students often write and speak), language is always going to change and this provokes reaction. It's like when people moan about a word being entered into the dictionary - that really pisses me off. A dictionary is descriptive: it records common language use. Its purpose isn't to dictate what is correct. 

I could care less 

[mjmooney]

3 hours ago, Troglodyte said:

Sorry @sidcow but this is one for me! People blaming an (often falsely) perceived decline in literacy or standards of English on 'Americanisation'.

While the USA certainly has a significant impact on the development of the English language today, many patterns and concepts believed to originate from over the pond actually don't at all. There's the classic 'soccer' for example, which is British English in origin. And many people seem to think that an '-ize' suffix is an American bastardisation of our language, when actually that was typical of British spelling patterns years ago which travelled to America from us but didn't change over time as British English did; in fact '-ise' became more popular over here due to the influence of French. (On a side note, this is why it's still Standard English to use '-ize' in most words such as 'organize', but not in words of French origin, such as 'televise'; the latter spelt with a 'z' would indeed be an Americanism.)

Plus, whether people like it or not (and as a teacher I do despair when it comes to how students often write and speak), language is always going to change and this provokes reaction. It's like when people moan about a word being entered into the dictionary - that really pisses me off. A dictionary is descriptive: it records common language use. Its purpose isn't to dictate what is correct. 

All true, and I think most of us understand it really. Personally, I have no problem with American spelling if it's in an American context - I would never claim that U.S. spelling is 'wrong' - it isn't. But I value the differences. When in Rome and all that - I'm British so I use British spelling. What I DO dislike however, are plain misuses like "I could care less". And things like "How are you?"... "I'm good". Goodness describes quality or moral behaviour, not health - "I'm well" is what's required. Language change is fine, but not if it's at the expense of clarity. 

[Troglodyte]

1 minute ago, mjmooney said:

All true, and I think most of us understand it really. Personally, I have no problem with American spelling if it's in an American context - I would never claim that U.S. spelling is 'wrong' - it isn't. But I value the differences. When in Rome and all that - I'm British so I use British spelling. What I DO dislike however, are plain misuses like "I could care less". And things like "How are you?"... "I'm good". Goodness describes quality or moral behaviour, not health - "I'm well" is what's required. Language change is fine, but not if it's at the expense of clarity. 

I know where you're coming from, and I generally agree. However, I don't agree with your example. Everyone understands exactly what is meant by "I'm good". There's no lack of clarity there.

[sidcow]

4 hours ago, Troglodyte said:

Sorry @sidcow but this is one for me! People blaming an (often falsely) perceived decline in literacy or standards of English on 'Americanisation'.

While the USA certainly has a significant impact on the development of the English language today, many patterns and concepts believed to originate from over the pond actually don't at all. There's the classic 'soccer' for example, which is British English in origin. And many people seem to think that an '-ize' suffix is an American bastardisation of our language, when actually that was typical of British spelling patterns years ago which travelled to America from us but didn't change over time as British English did; in fact '-ise' became more popular over here due to the influence of French. (On a side note, this is why it's still Standard English to use '-ize' in most words such as 'organize', but not in words of French origin, such as 'televise'; the latter spelt with a 'z' would indeed be an Americanism.)

Plus, whether people like it or not (and as a teacher I do despair when it comes to how students often write and speak), language is always going to change and this provokes reaction. It's like when people moan about a word being entered into the dictionary - that really pisses me off. A dictionary is descriptive: it records common language use. Its purpose isn't to dictate what is correct. 

OK I get all that.  So where has the phrase "can I get" come from then? Why have people started saying it when no one did 10 years ago? Is it Australian? 

[Troglodyte]

6 minutes ago, sidcow said:

OK I get all that.  So where has the phrase "can I get" come from then? Why have people started saying it when no one did 10 years ago? Is it Australian? 

I've always heard it but I think you might be a little older than me!

With this example, the meaning is clear so I don't necessarily have a problem with it, although I do think 'can I get' sounds much less polite - and rude in some contexts - when compared to 'could I have' (as you suggested) for example. However, you stated that 'can I get' would imply that if they received an affirmative response, the linguistic implication would be that they would be allowed to go and retrieve the item themselves, when actually it would be your job to get it and hand it to them. This would imply that your issue is with the use of get (again suggested by you suggesting 'have' in your alternative). However, get can mean receive, so it makes sense that they use this verb.

If I were going to be pedantic with it, I'd say can is more of an issue, as traditionally this is related to ability - of course they can get it if they want to, unless they couldn't reach it for example. Or had no arms.  (I'm sure many of us encountered a teacher at school who said something along the lines of 'Of course you can go to the toilet, but what you mean is "May I go..."') But over time the meaning of can has broadened (upsetting prescriptive traditionalists aplenty) and is now generally accepted as meaning 'be permitted to', almost interchangeably with may.

[mjmooney]

51 minutes ago, Troglodyte said:

I know where you're coming from, and I generally agree. However, I don't agree with your example. Everyone understands exactly what is meant by "I'm good". There's no lack of clarity there.

That is true. Clarity yes (we know what it means, in context). I should have said lack of precision. Being good is not the same thing as being well. It doesn't actually matter, but it irritates me. 

Also, spoken language - I've noticed that almost everyone nowadays is dropping their 'G's - TV announcers will tell you that a programme features singin and dancin. 

And don't get me started again on the pronunciation of 'the' before a vowel (a regular rant of mine). 

[Troglodyte]

1 minute ago, mjmooney said:

That is true. Clarity yes (we know what it means, in context). I should have said lack of precision. Being good is not the same thing as being well. It doesn't actually matter, but it irritates me. 

Also, spoken language - I've noticed that almost everyone nowadays is dropping their 'G's - TV announcers will tell you that a programme features singin and dancin. 

And don't get me started again on the pronunciation of 'the' before a vowel (a regular rant of mine). 

Yes it doesn't really matter - it's definitely perfect for the thread!

I agree in terms of the importance of precision. I think a lack of vocabulary results in a lack of precision when communicating, and I often wonder about the extent to which this influences the ability to actually think critically. However, personally I think there's still a difference between that and your good/well example. Although using good in this context is more colloquial and removes the word from its more longstanding meaning,  I'd say its use here is no more precise than well. You just don't like the change in meaning 

 

[HanoiVillan]

3 hours ago, mjmooney said:

What I DO dislike however, are plain misuses like "I could care less".

A number of people insist that 'I could care less' is actually shorthand for 'I could care less but not much less' or 'I could care less but I'd have to try', and therefore isn't wrong. I don't really have a dog in this fight - ironically, I could/couldn't care less - but that's the other side of it anyway.

[HanoiVillan]

3 hours ago, Troglodyte said:

With this example, the meaning is clear so I don't necessarily have a problem with it, although I do think 'can I get' sounds much less polite - and rude in some contexts - when compared to 'could I have' (as you suggested) for example.

[...]

If I were going to be pedantic with it, I'd say can is more of an issue, as traditionally this is related to ability . . .

I will disagree with this though

If we're going to be pedantic, there is almost no difference between the *functions* that can and could can perform. The difference is that can is the 'immediate' form, while could is the 'remote' form. This duality of immediacy/remoteness can be expressed in terms of time ('I can play the piano [now]' vs 'I could play the piano [when I was younger]'), social distance ('Can you open the window?' vs 'Could you open the window?'), possibility ('I can book the holiday tonight [because I've been paid]' vs 'I could book the holiday tonight [if I had enough money in my bank account]') and then there's a kind of ideological distancing as well in the difference between 'A libertarian can argue' and 'A libertarian could argue', though that last one is less common.

[Troglodyte]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

I will disagree with this though

If we're going to be pedantic, there is almost no difference between the *functions* that can and could can perform. The difference is that can is the 'immediate' form, while could is the 'remote' form. This duality of immediacy/remoteness can be expressed in terms of time ('I can play the piano [now]' vs 'I could play the piano [when I was younger]'), social distance ('Can you open the window?' vs 'Could you open the window?'), possibility ('I can book the holiday tonight [because I've been paid]' vs 'I could book the holiday tonight [if I had enough money in my bank account]') and then there's a kind of ideological distancing as well in the difference between 'A libertarian can argue' and 'A libertarian could argue', though that last one is less common.

All true. Within the context of a customer asking 'Can I get...', though, I think the idea of social distance (as you mentioned) influencing the form used is what causes could to sound more polite - not that I think it carries a different grammatical function.

In the second part I was more referring to a slightly different idea, that some people see modals as carrying quite strict forms of (in this case deontic) modality. For example, they might see can as carrying some kind indicative of ability, as in your 'I can play the piano' example. In my experience, some people who have been taught quite prescriptive rules of grammar seem to think this way; using your examples again, they would see 'Can you play the piano?' as 'correct' (as can relates to ability) but 'Can you open the window?' as 'incorrect', preferring May in this context relating to permission rather than ability. I don't share these attitudes!

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, Troglodyte said:

All true. Within the context of a customer asking 'Can I get...', though, I think the idea of social distance (as you mentioned) influencing the form used is what causes could to sound more polite - not that I think it carries a different grammatical function.

In the second part I was more referring to a slightly different idea, that some people see modals as carrying quite strict forms of (in this case deontic) modality. For example, they might see can as carrying some kind indicative of ability, as in your 'I can play the piano' example. In my experience, some people who have been taught quite prescriptive rules of grammar seem to think this way; using your examples again, they would see 'Can you play the piano?' as 'correct' (as can relates to ability) but 'Can you open the window?' as 'incorrect', preferring May in this context relating to permission rather than ability. I don't share these attitudes!

Got you - I agree on all points.

[villa4europe]

Just as the maddie investigation fund was running dry they've managed to find a new lead... 

[Genie]

1 hour ago, villa4europe said:

Just as the maddie investigation fund was running dry they've managed to find a new lead... 

I thought that, no doubt they’ll need about £2m to chat to this guy in a German prison.

[Seat68]

I have probably mentioned this before but it is worth repeating. It is really **** me off at the moment. 
My wife refers to buying something online as buying offline, her reckoning is that its buying off the line. I tell her that it is the worldwide accepted term for NOT buying online, but she says that stupid. She is the only person to say this, until recently as my daughter has started **** saying it.