The English Language

[Clorox Bleachman 2,410]

On 20/02/2024 at 21:38, Clorox Bleachman said:

I've been annoyed by people on YouTube saying "the thing is is that ___". I have no problem with "the thing is", despite it being filler. I use it too. I'm not sure why it's mutated to have an extra "is".

I've discovered this is called a double copula. I'm trying to detox after years of writing run-on sentences, trying in vain to meet word counts for college. See, the thing is is, what it is is that it's everywhere.

[Toast 16,132]

9 hours ago, Clorox Bleachman said:

I've discovered this is called a double copula.

 

That sounds more exciting than it is.

[An Fear Beag 1,535]

Someone mentioned Don Tidey in another thread, and it reminded me of a programme I saw recently on RTE about his kidnapping. It featured something that is a real bugbear of mine: the tendency of the makers of history programmes to use the present tense when referring to historical events.

 

I can't remember the exact text, but it went something like: " As Tidey approaches his car, three men leap out of a waiting van. They strike Tidey over the head, bundle him into the van and drive off at high speed."

I presume they do this to make the events more vivid, but I just find it jarring to the ear. The events happened in the past. What is wrong with using the past tense to describe them? Do you think that I am incapable of imagining the scene if you said " As Tidey approached his car, three men leapt out of a waiting van. They struck Tidey over the head, bundled him into the van, and drove off at high speed"?

 

This style of presentation seems pretty much ubiquitous now in history programmes, so I guess that is now the accepted way of narrating. However I have almost given up watching these programmes, as I find myself getting increasingly irritated by it.

"Richard's army leaves the place of concealment, and catches the opposition completely off guard". Do they? What, every Thursday afternoon? Why the fuck have the opposition not copped on to this by now?

[En Passant 3,741]

1 hour ago, An Fear Beag said:

However I have almost given up watching these programmes, as I find myself getting increasingly irritated by it.

 

Expand that to almost all television for me now. It has always been the case that they've spiced it up and dumbed it down in pursuit of ratings but as I've aged I also find I've seen it all before and the combination of the two just has me reaching for the off button.

 

I also started from a minimal viewing position in the first place I suppose, since a great deal of what seems to pass for entertainment has always bored me rigid.

I can't even be in a room where somebody else is watching soaps, game shows, cookery programmes, house improvements and so on.

Even those now ubiquitous moving advertisement panels installed at all football venues have me screaming at them because they do what they are designed to and distract you and I'm not even a football fan most of the time. Those never used to be there.....

 

I used to watch 'grumpy old men' though. Probably sums it up

 

ETA: There's actually some quite good 'user made' type of content out there on you tube which I can watch a bit of, it has the added benefit of being fast-forwardable. A fellow by the name of Simon Whistler is involved in a few - also off the top of my head 'map men' and 'auto-shenanigans' though those are a bit niche. You can avoid youtube ads (especially on Firefox) with appropriate ad-blockers.

[time 8,596]

One (Another) thing that annoys me is the use of the word 'like' to mean 'including', as seen in the headline of this Telegraph obit for Robert Lansdorp.

 

He didn't take players 'like' Sampras and Sharapova, he took those actual players. 

[Toast 16,132]

Some annoying insertions of unnecessary words, no doubt a US import.  Who starts these things?

 

Example 1:  Hating "on" someone.  No, we hate them, we don't hate ON them.

 

Example 2:  "Of" in phrases like "It's not that big a deal" which has now become "It's not that big of a deal". Or  "It shows how slow of a year this is turning out" instead of "how slow a year".

An exception to this is "much" which has always taken "of" as in "That's not much of a bargain".  Perhaps because it refers to quantity.

 

[Death Is Not The End 3]

On 06/10/2024 at 15:23, Toast said:

Some annoying insertions of unnecessary words, no doubt a US import.  Who starts these things?

 

Example 1:  Hating "on" someone.  No, we hate them, we don't hate ON them.

 

Example 2:  "Of" in phrases like "It's not that big a deal" which has now become "It's not that big of a deal". Or  "It shows how slow of a year this is turning out" instead of "how slow a year".

An exception to this is "much" which has always taken "of" as in "That's not much of a bargain".  Perhaps because it refers to quantity.

 

 

See also totally and literally.

 

Yet Americans remove words in some situations for example:

 

He graduated high school instead of He graduated from high school.

 

She wrote me last week instead of She wrote to me last week.

 

There is no logic to it.

 

The overuse of "kind of" is also extremely annoying.

[Toast 16,132]

And yet Americans always talk of being "in the hospital" (as if there were only one), while Brits say "in hospital".

[Toast 16,132]

22 hours ago, Death Is Not The End said:

See also totally and literally.

 

Like here - a frequent habit with this poster, not that she's the only one. @ladyfiona
 

 

It's meaningless in this context.  It seems to be used as if it were some kind of intensifier, but it isn't. 

I think what she wants to convey would be better expressed by adding the word "only" or "just".

 

I had her move to Twisted Dead Pool on my main list only yesterday.

I had her move to Twisted Dead Pool on my main list just yesterday.

[ladyfiona 2,577]

2 hours ago, Toast said:

 

Like here - a frequent habit with this poster, not that she's the only one. @ladyfiona
 

 

It's meaningless in this context.  It seems to be used as if it were some kind of intensifier, but it isn't. 

I think what she wants to convey would be better expressed by adding the word "only" or "just".

 

I had her move to Twisted Dead Pool on my main list only yesterday.

I had her move to Twisted Dead Pool on my main list just yesterday.

 

I have a hatred for grammar and use punctuation in the wrong order. It doesn't help that i'm neurodivergent and my English teachers never helped me at school, lol. So now I write a sentance and hope for the best.

 

Also doesn't help the website I write on is American based. Don't get me started when it comes to speaking with the Australians.

[Toast 16,132]

[time 8,596]

From a (business) email received this morning - 

Quote

the documents are erroring when they try to send to us

 

[Toast 16,132]

Here's another thing that's crept in.

 

The Princess of Wales watched on from the balcony of the Foreign Office

 

"Watch" doesn't need a preposition.  "Look" does - we can look on or look at.  Looking on is broadly the same as watching, in the the context of a scene.

 

 

[time 8,596]

32 minutes ago, Toast said:

Here's another thing that's crept in.

 

The Princess of Wales watched on from the balcony of the Foreign Office

 

"Watch" doesn't need a preposition.  "Look" does - we can look on or look at.  Looking on is broadly the same as watching, in the the context of a scene.

 

 

You might (might not, of course) find this interesting, from 2014. Someone asking the same question. Most examples seem to be from sport. 

[Toast 16,132]

27 minutes ago, time said:

You might (might not, of course) find this interesting, from 2014. Someone asking the same question. Most examples seem to be from sport. 

 

Yes, so I was wrong to speak of prepositions.  Apparently its "a phrasal verb, where 'on' is an adverb".