|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: I've been told--- (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
Must've been Rudyard Kipling who told you - he was the only person I can remember who used excrutiate as a verb!
Welcome.
|
Nov 04 '03
6:17 am PST
|
|
I've been told--- (Reply to this comment)
by gaviidae
---20 billion times not to excrutiate, but sometimes I just can't he'p it!
Proofreading is GOOD!!
Thaks for amusing and effective advice!
Gavia
|
Nov 03 '03
9:34 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Oh yeah - another one! (Reply to this comment)
by Penguinlady
Oh man, I blew it. I meant assure, insure, and Ensure, of course.
Proofreading is an equally important skill!
sheesh.
Margaret
|
Mar 18 '03
8:16 am PST
|
|
Re: Oh yeah - another one! (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
You said,
"How about the people whoa re unable to distinguish between assure, insure, and insure. "
Having a hard time distinguishing between insure and insure myself, Margaret! (laughing with you, not at you there...) I counsel that the best way to handle 'em is to avoid 'em -- that's what I do!
"Lay when it should be lie is another."
Yup -- and the other way 'round, too.
"And far from finally, a distressing number of people ALWAYS say I instead of me."
Just as grating are those who use the reflexive case as objective: "a paper written by Joe and myself." Urk.
Rex
|
Mar 17 '03
5:54 am PST
|
|
Re: One of my most least favorite goofs (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
Wow! another person who eschews those commonplace dogs and cats when choosing pets. miselainis has her "peeve" and now you tell me you keep a "bugaboo"! What do you guys feed them?!
[chortle]
Rex
|
Mar 17 '03
5:48 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: As a technical writer, (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
You quoted:
"I don't know the rules of grammar... If you're trying to persuade people to do something, or buy something, it seems to me you should use their language, the language they use every day, the language in which they think." —David Ogilvy
Ogilvy (is | was) a fool: Which person's language should I use? the one who can distinguish "affect" from "effect" but doesn't know the difference between "lie" and "lay"? or should I use the language of that person who thinks "regurgitates into" means something? If I'm speaking to a single person face to face, it makes sense to adopt his or her idiom (if only to close the deal), but if I would speak to thousands or millions of people simultaneously, the only sensible way to write is to use the core of language on which all their different idiosyncratic speech patterns are based. That way, every last one of them has a chance of understanding me.
Take for instance the idiomatic phrase "on line." To a native New Yorker, to "wait on line" has always signified queuing up, as at a ticket window or a turnstile. An Oklahoman might reasonably construe that usage as meaning "waiting while logged in to a computer." Both, however, will understand "to wait in line" as denoting a place instead of an event.
If I wished to be understood by an audience restricted to Manhattanites, I could use "wait on line" with impunity. If, however, I wanted to be easily understood by an audience that spans the nation (and likewise spans all intellectual and educational levels) I would have to use the form that everyone understands -- or at the very least, that the majority understands.
Yours for the preservation of good grammar,
the GC
|
Mar 17 '03
5:46 am PST
|
|
Oh yeah - another one! (Reply to this comment)
by Penguinlady
How about the people whoa re unable to distinguish between assure, insure, and insure. Each has a very specific meaning and use, but very few people get them right.
Lay when it should be lie is another.
And far from finally, a distressing number of people ALWAYS say I instead of me. I think back in third grade, Miss Grundy told them that "me" was impolite, and now I see and hear a lot of "Thanks for the gift you sent Joe and I."
Aaaiiiieeeee!
Margaret
|
Mar 15 '03
9:54 am PST
|
|
One of my most least favorite goofs (Reply to this comment)
by Penguinlady
My beloved Penguinman consistently - and I mean ALWAYS - uses "purposefully" when he means "purposely." It really grates on this writing-teacher's ears, but irregardless - another pet bugaboo - of the number of times we've discussed the difference between those two words and the fact that they are NOT interchangeable, he keeps doing it.
He's prefect in every other way, though, so I just grit my teeths!
Margaret
|
Mar 15 '03
9:47 am PST
|
|
Re: As a technical writer, (Reply to this comment)
by sleeper54
.
miselainis said earlier...
"my pet peeve is 'effect' vs. 'affect.' That one drives me nuts!"
That one drives me nuts when I try to pick which I really want to use. Even when I stop and try to 'think it out' with a resource I still wonder if I have made the right choice.
It really affects (effects?) me . . ..
...tom...
"I don't know the rules of grammar... If you're trying to persuade people to do something, or buy something, it seems to me you should use their language, the language they use every day, the language in which they think." —David Ogilvy
|
Mar 14 '03
4:14 pm PST
|
|
Re: More Peeves (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
You said, "Another verbing going on in the workplace, is 'messaging'..."
Yuck. Hate it already.
"Other favorites of mine, 'should of' instead of 'should have'. (The Red Sox should of won the 1986 World Series. I will never get over it.)"
That one - obviously - derives from the contraction "should've" and speaks to people's inability to think through how verbs work.
"Supposably instead of supposedly."
Never seen that one in print; hope I never do!
"You rock, grammar curmudgeon,"
You, too, Drew! Keep fighting the good fight!
GC
|
Mar 14 '03
6:20 am PST
|
|
More Peeves (Reply to this comment)
by redsox75
Another verbing going on in the workplace, is "messaging" (We have to begin messaging the new rule to the employees). To quote someone else, it drives me up the wall. "Growing" a business also grates on me. It is a short cut and people love short cuts, hence the proliferation of little nicknames. Just ask J-Lo and A-Rod.
Other favorites of mine, "should of" instead of "should have". (The Red Sox should of won the 1986 World Series. I will never get over it.)
Supposably instead of supposedly.
This is verbal. How about when someone asks you a yes or no question and has to tack on "or no" at the end of it? I sometimes say, is there a third option? I realize no is an option, but thanks for reminding me.
You rock, grammar curmudgeon,
Drew
|
Mar 13 '03
10:56 am PST
|
|
Re: As a technical writer, (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
Pet peeve? I thought you preferred dogs. :)
It's on the list of topics... Thanks for the visit.
-r
|
Mar 12 '03
5:12 am PST
|
|
As a technical writer, (Reply to this comment)
by miselainis
my pet peeve is "effect" vs. "affect." That one drives me nuts!
As usual, very eloquently said!
m.
|
Mar 11 '03
11:18 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: fun piece (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
Interesting interpretation, one that hadn't occurred to me; but from the true context, it didn't look as though the writer meant "reverberated" -- as a rule, that's a complimentary word and the context of the actual statement was resoundingly negative. I remain puzzled, but thanks for the suggestion.
As for the citation of mid-sixteenth century for a use of "gift" as a verb, consider this: children learning math have used "5" as the sum of "2 + 2" since time immemorial; that still doesn't mean it's right! In general, I don't put much stock in citing old uses (or misuses) of a word as grounds for their correctness; a "first citation" seems valuable to me only in the sense of a new word or sometimes a different apllication of an old word. Retreadng a noun as a verb doesn't seem a new application to me, rather a mis-application.
My least favorite usages, by the way, are biz-buzz: "to grow your company," "to impact your bottom line," and such.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
scmrak
|
Mar 10 '03
6:57 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: fun piece (Reply to this comment)
by lorendiac
I found myself wondering if the original writer might have meant to say that characters "reverberated" instead of "regurgitated."
On the other hand, AOL's online dictionary service (drawn from the resources of the Merriam-Webster dictionary people, it seems) claims that "gift" has been used as a verb since around 1550. I think it's a bit late to try to turn back the tide on that issue.
Similarly, while I may occasionally be annoyed by a specific case of a noun having been verbed when I feel it was unnecessary, I don't frown on all such activity as a matter of principle.
Of course, I also believe that anyone who has never split an infinitive just isn't trying hard enough! So you can see I'm not exactly the most conservative of commentators on such issues. :)
|
Mar 08 '03
3:28 pm PST
|
|
Re: Rex . . . (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
Yeah, ed_, the verbing of nouns has always driven me bats!
Cheers!!
Rex
|
Mar 07 '03
12:46 pm PST
|
|
Rex . . . (Reply to this comment)
by ed_grover
great stuff, these grammer thingies. Would you please do one for all the people who insist on using adjectives as verbs, such as "so-an-so gifted me" something rather than saying "gave me" something. It drives me up a wall. I'm tired of leaving comments telling them they're using the wrong word.
Ed
|
Mar 07 '03
10:40 am PST
|
|
Re: fun piece (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
I have no idea what the writer meant; s/he may have used "regurgitate" for a concept that's foreign not just to that word but other words that look like it, such as the ones you've mentioned. I remain mystified...
Rex
|
Mar 07 '03
5:19 am PST
|
|
Re: I must say........ (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
No, you're not anal-retentive. There's worlds of difference between "Desert Storm" and "Dessert Storm": the former was a war, the latter sounds like a food fight in a House of Pies.
Haven't seen much of that one -- I've been keeping my head buried in the sand (or, since Iraq's in the dessert, in the whipped cream).
I repeat, groan...
Rex
|
Mar 07 '03
5:17 am PST
|
|
Re: Problem is... (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
Took me a moment or two...
Groan.
Thanks,
Rex
|
Mar 07 '03
5:14 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Hey thee... (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
Yeah, "breaks" vs "brakes." Unless you're reviewing Chilton manuals, that's a pretty rare homonym switch for books.
Got 'em both - they're bold now. Thanks.
Rex
|
Mar 07 '03
5:13 am PST
|
|
fun piece (Reply to this comment)
by jankp
I'm still wondering if regurgitates was what was meant or resonates or replicates and the list goes on!
Jan
|
Mar 07 '03
12:36 am PST
|
|
I must say........ (Reply to this comment)
by kamel622
....these reviews have me double and triple checking my reviews...and that is a good thing. :)
One spelling error that I'm seeing a lot of lately is dessert...meaning the Sahara type. UGH, drives me nuts! Guess I'm a little anal. LOL
Keep up the great writing and keep pointing out those mistakes and I'll keep triple checking my reviews..........kath
|
Mar 06 '03
5:03 pm PST
|
|
Problem is... (Reply to this comment)
by researchguru
...there'll be people who will read your fine piece of work and think, cool, 'monotonous marriage' is a great phrase. Have to use it in a review sometime. And so the cycle continues...
My current 'malapropism of the moment' is courtesy of Joe Millionaire. Melissa M stares penetratingly at Evan across the candlelit table and shares her thoughts about what she would do with $50 million.
"Well, I'd go to Africa and save children or something. I'm a real mercenary".
Evan smiles and nods. Mercenary sounds like a fine and noble thing (whatever it is).
rg
|
Mar 06 '03
1:58 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Hey thee... (Reply to this comment)
by sleeper54
.
'Breaks' ??
'Breaks' vs. 'brakes' I take it. Ya, we never see that one in 'books'...
Oh, and bold ludicrous also !!
I missed that on earlier. . .
I'll go a weigh now...before you tale me two...:smilie moment:
...tom...
|
Mar 06 '03
1:54 pm PST
|
|
Re: Hey thee... (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
Oops, and it was on my list, too...
No, the most overabused homonym at Epinion is "breaks." Since I read in A & M all the time, I see it several times a day. Just about given up on mentioning it.
Will fix the dissent thingie. Thanks.
Rex
|
Mar 06 '03
1:49 pm PST
|
|
Hey thee... (Reply to this comment)
by sleeper54
.
How could you ?!
How could you skip the most abused homonym here at Epinions?!? I apologize if you have included it elsewhere before but it certainly deserves to be included here...
Your essay really peaked my interest but I am left crestfallen...
Feel my pain...
...tom...
P.S. You forgot to bold dissent...
P.P.S. Loved it, you big 'Curmudgeon'...
|
Mar 06 '03
1:44 pm PST
|
|
|
|
