COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Favorite mis-used words and phrases....

Hypoxia said:
Are or should dictionaries be descriptive or proscriptive or both or neither?
Click to expand...

It's best, to avoid confusion, because few really know how to use a dictionary even when it's kept simpler, to stick to one of those--and to know which is which. For the U.S. style, Merriam-Webster's ("Webster's" is a generic name of a type of dictionary. It's only Merriam-Webster's that U.S. publishing uses as an authority) is a descriptive dictionary. It provides "what is" and it follows trends in current use fairly closely. Although the current edition is the eleventh, the dictionary actually updates several times a year and adjusts the words/definitions it includes each time. The most authoritative prescriptive (not proscriptive--which would be about what not to use) dictionary in U.S. style is the American Heritage dictionary. It's more conservative about including new words and it concentrates on explaining the background and the "why" to use or not of the words.

I have a "how to" here on how to use a dictionary (https://www.literotica.com/s/dictionary-smarts-can-up-ratings).

The American Heritage, by the way, has a good, concise, and affordable U.S. style grammar and style manual, The American Heritage Book of English Usage: A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English.
(https://www.amazon.com/American-Her...395767857/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_pdt_img_top?ie=UTF8)
 
Bramblethorn said:
I've mentioned before that there are a couple of stories on this site where authors didn't know the difference between "burglar" and "bugler".
Click to expand...

On that theme, also those who don't know the diff between "Site" and "Sight", "Waste" and "Waist". There's more but at the moment they escape me.
 
latecomer91364 said:
'First used in dialectical American speech in the early twentieth century'. This from the type of people one would expect to be scholarly, but in fact pander to the modern masses by putting stuff like 'Jiggy' in the dictionary (as in Will Smith 'Getting jiggy with it').
Click to expand...

Apparently, it's use goes back almost 100 years, mainly in speech, but it has appeared in publication including some reputable ones.

It's similar to Ebonics. It has no useful link to the actual etymology of words. To add the suffix 'less', indicates that there would be the word 'irregard' that could stand on its own. Of course, the actual operative word would be disregard
Click to expand...

It is not a non-word "irregard" with the suffix "less" added. It is a blend of "irrespective" and "regardless".

Kory Stamper points out that "irregardless" is a word, it has a part of speech, a definition and an etymology, but it is a nonstandard word. "Regardless" should be used instead of "irregardless".

Etymology shouldn't be populist. I am more of a purist than some, but putting shit in a dictionary to remain relevant used to be beneath those from who we expect linguistic authority.

'Irregardless' belongs in the Urban Dictionary, not Mirriam-Webster, who has obviously prostituted their tradition.

It's just another example of the decline of pure scholarly pursuit, thrown over for the crumpled bills a whore grabs off the dresser.
Click to expand...

You sound French.

rj
 
latecomer91364 said:
When I was a kid, there was a joke: "'Ain't' ain't in the dictionary."

What's missing? Any reference as to whether it is regarded as a 'real' word or not.
Click to expand...


'Ain't' is listed in my Concise Oxford (but then, it's quintessentially English word).
As far as I know, it comes from "Ay Not" from a dialect of English still spoken in the West Midlands.
:)
 
SimonDoom said:
Re "irregardless", Merriam-Webster treats it as a word, but it says this about it:

"Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."
Click to expand...

Yep. It's not exactly an endorsement; if anything, it's about as strong as M-W gets in discouraging a word.

It's like the word "utilize." It's a dopy, pretentious, pseudo-scientific, and unnecessarily long synonym for "use." There are no situations where "utilize" is better than "use", except in dialog, where you would use it to show that the speaker is a pretentious fool, or a corporate tool trying to gild a presentation to the bosses with five dollar words. It's a ridiculous, jury-rigged word (let us now ize our utils).
Click to expand...

It wasn't always thus. It used to have a more specific meaning, with connotations of effective use. (cf. related "utility function" in economics.) Unfortunately that nuance seems to have been swamped by the kind of pretentious use that you describe.

There is one remaining reason why I might invoke "utilize". Unlike "use", which can be either noun or verb, "utilize" is only a verb. That could make it helpful for disambiguation or smoother parsing, on rare occasions, but I'm not going to try to construct an example before breakfast.

(And then there's "usage"...)
 
Bramblethorn said:
Yep. It's not exactly an endorsement; if anything, it's about as strong as M-W gets in discouraging a word.



It wasn't always thus. It used to have a more specific meaning, with connotations of effective use. (cf. related "utility function" in economics.) Unfortunately that nuance seems to have been swamped by the kind of pretentious use that you describe.

There is one remaining reason why I might invoke "utilize". Unlike "use", which can be either noun or verb, "utilize" is only a verb. That could make it helpful for disambiguation or smoother parsing, on rare occasions, but I'm not going to try to construct an example before breakfast.

(And then there's "usage"...)
Click to expand...

I think "usage" has a sufficiently different connotation from "use" that it can be acceptable. "Use" can be either a single use or a pattern of use of something, while usage refers to a pattern or custom of using something. It's still clunkier than "use", but it's not as bad as "utilize."
 
rjordan said:
You sound French.

rj
Click to expand...

Is that supposed to be an insult? If it is, it's pretty lame for a guy using a rattler for an AV. I'm probably more of a Californian than you are, 'mon ami'.

BTW: Either copying and pasting or slightly rephrasing what you found on Google doesn't make you a scholar, as in:

"It is not a non-word "irregard" with the suffix "less" added. It is a blend of "irrespective" and "regardless."

You might want to check your (or whoever's) syntax on that one, Francois. Either form your sentences better, or plagiarize from someone who does. See, quotation marks don't do what you think they do, which is to fashion a coherent sentence where other conventions, even parentheses may do the job. Even a comma after 'word' could have helped, but a mess nonetheless.

For those who seek to be a pedant, but merely copy from others, and clumsily at that, you may want to consider riding a horse that is somewhat shorter in stature.

Poser.
 
Last edited:
latecomer91364 said:
Is that supposed to be an insult? If it is, it's pretty lame for a guy using a rattler for an AV. I'm probably more of a Californian than you are, 'mon ami'.
Click to expand...

I believe RJ was pointing out that your prescriptivist position on this issue is one that's more popular/influential in French than in English, thanks to the Académie Française. If so, then that's not so much an insult as a simple statement of fact.
 
When British people want to take the piss out the way American officials talk, we add spurious suffixes : EG

"We need to extentionate the utilizationabiliy of our vocabulariness"


Officialdom avoids simple words, and prefers the passive tense (in the UK in particular):

"Passengers are required to remain seated" instead of "Passengers must stay seated" - or even just "Stay in your seat"
 
I like to misuse words in my stories for comedic purposes and even sometimes to poke fun at people who do it out of ignorance. But it's all in pun...

I mean phun...

Fun.

Debbie :heart:
 
Elloelle said:
I like to misuse words in my stories for comedic purposes and even sometimes to poke fun at people who do it out of ignorance. But it's all in pun...

I mean phun...

Fun.

Debbie :heart:
Click to expand...

I like to play around that way as well. But here in the forums, there are a few people who, missing the point completely, are more than willing to jump in when they see an opportunity to 'school' posters on their perceived error.

One would think there would be more people with a sense of humor, or at the very least, the ability to think somewhat in the abstract.
:)
 
latecomer91364 said:
One would think there would be more people with a sense of humor, or at the very least, the ability to think somewhat in the abstract.
:)
Click to expand...

There's some people here who know what funny is, but some of them think they're too skollerly to eat ice cream and stuff but I bet most of them don't even get that joke either so I just let 'em be and do my own thing and stuff cause who cares what snooty pooties think anyway?

Debbie :heart:
 
My favorite is:

"The customer is always right."

Nope. Sorry. You screwed that one up in translation. The correct phrase is, "The customer is never wrong."

Now you might say WTF is the difference but there's a HUGE difference. If the customer is always right and says that new refrigerator he wants is marked down to $5, then he must be right and gets the fridge for $5. And that would not be correct. The customer doesn't get to set the prices in my store.

However, by saying the customer is never "wrong" you don't necessarily have to admit he is right. The customer may be mistaken, misinformed or just bat shit crazy but never wrong.
 
Elloelle said:
There's some people here who know what funny is, but some of them think they're too skollerly to eat ice cream and stuff but I bet most of them don't even get that joke either so I just let 'em be and do my own thing and stuff cause who cares what snooty pooties think anyway?

Debbie :heart:
Click to expand...

OMG! Whould ever pay attention to someone who spells it 'skollerly'? Everybody who is anybody knows it's spelled 'Scaulourly'! Christ, it's like you never went to skool at all.

:)
 
latecomer91364 said:
OMG! Whould ever pay attention to someone who spells it 'skollerly'? Everybody who is anybody knows it's spelled 'Scaulourly'! Christ, it's like you never went to skool at all.

:)
Click to expand...

I thought scaulourly was where they wash the dishes and stuff.

Ooops.

Debbie :heart:

Edit: And me too.
 
My I said:
I thought scaulourly was where they wash the dishes and stuff.

Ooops.

Debbie :heart:

Edit: And me too.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, that may be the 'skullery', but I always thought that was about the art of giving head, or as the experts call it, felayshio.
:)
 
Bramblethorn said:
I believe RJ was pointing out that your prescriptivist position on this issue is one that's more popular/influential in French than in English, thanks to the Académie Française. If so, then that's not so much an insult as a simple statement of fact.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Bram. That's exactly what I meant. I guess I should use emojis. I normally think writers should be able to do without them.

rj
 
latecomer91364 said:
Is that supposed to be an insult? If it is, it's pretty lame for a guy using a rattler for an AV. I'm probably more of a Californian than you are, 'mon ami'.

BTW: Either copying and pasting or slightly rephrasing what you found on Google doesn't make you a scholar, as in:

"It is not a non-word "irregard" with the suffix "less" added. It is a blend of "irrespective" and "regardless."

You might want to check your (or whoever's) syntax on that one, Francois. Either form your sentences better, or plagiarize from someone who does. See, quotation marks don't do what you think they do, which is to fashion a coherent sentence where other conventions, even parentheses may do the job. Even a comma after 'word' could have helped, but a mess nonetheless.

For those who seek to be a pedant, but merely copy from others, and clumsily at that, you may want to consider riding a horse that is somewhat shorter in stature.

Poser.
Click to expand...

Heh heh. You're wound a little tight today, aren't you.

If you were born in downtown Los Angeles in the 40's, you might be more of a Californian than I am. But how would we measure it, and who would care?

My avatar is a photo of my neighbor. It's a Red Diamond rattlesnake as big around as my forearm and about 6' long. My property adjoins a regional wilderness park and this one visits my yard from time to time. I hike in her yard so it's only fair.

In the current world, calling someone American could be considered an insult. Saying you sound French wasn't as Bram pointed out. They strongly defend the French language as most people know.

Without help from the French, Americans might all be speaking English!

rj
 
latecomer91364 said:
I like to play around that way as well. But here in the forums, there are a few people who, missing the point completely, are more than willing to jump in when they see an opportunity to 'school' posters on their perceived error.

One would think there would be more people with a sense of humor, or at the very least, the ability to think somewhat in the abstract.
:)
Click to expand...

Ironic given our recent exchange, wouldn't you say?

rj
 
rjordan said:
Heh heh. You're wound a little tight today, aren't you.

Hahaha right back at you: It's better to be wound a little tight on one day, than to be wound quite rudely most days.

If you were born in downtown Los Angeles in the 40's, you might be more of a Californian than I am. But how would we measure it, and who would care?

My avatar is a photo of my neighbor. It's a Red Diamond rattlesnake as big around as my forearm and about 6' long. My property adjoins a regional wilderness park and this one visits my yard from time to time. I hike in her yard so it's only fair.

You missed or ignored the point yet again, so I'll go along with 'Who cares?'

In the current world, calling someone American could be considered an insult. Saying you sound French wasn't as Bram pointed out. They strongly defend the French language as most people know.

What? Unless I'm mistaken, that's exactly what Bram was saying.

Without help from the French, Americans might all be speaking English!

So? Without the help of the Americans, the French might be speaking German. Granted, the USSR probably would have won the war eventually without us, in which case they would be speaking Russian, although technically, in all the satellite states under Soviet control after WWII, the original languages remained in effect.
rj
Click to expand...

Since you don't bother reading, comprehending or responding to that which I have written before, except for the most trivial excerpts, I will only say read back above this if you want any response to the overall issues in discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Devinter
My 'gift' and homage to the Author's Hangout
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
1K
M_K_Babalon
M_K_Babalon
DarkCosmos
Post your favorite MILF archetype!
2 3
Replies
67
Views
2K
MetaBob
MetaBob
StillStunned
What I wrote and why: Fairytale of New York
Replies
23
Views
488
StillStunned
StillStunned
AG31
Why do you spend time in the Lit forums?
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
2K
JJ82490
J
EmilyMiller
What is your most erotic, but non-sexual passage of writing?
2
Replies
35
Views
494
Kumquatqueen
Kumquatqueen
Back
Top