Misunderstood concepts/phrases that make me crazy

[scootron]

Thanks for the unnecessary quotes link. However, that site doesn't seem to be taking into account emphasis quotes, which are an entirely legitimate aspect of English writing. For circumstances in which emphasis cannot be added with italics (for example, marquees), this is a common and, I think, acceptable practice. I think, if possible, we should make use of a richer vocabulary first, and if that doesn't work, and emphasis quotes would not send the wrong message (e.g. that child is "special"), it's alright.

What I love about language is that it's always changing. I don't know if I'd call it progress, but English is a living language.

Agreed on emphasis quotes, but they are still much overused, especially in advertising, informal notices, etc., where other devices could be used.

 

[wld3]

We use all of our brains constantly.

Observing the world around me this is either not true or very sad.

 

[hbarcat]

There is a theory of gravity as well as a law of gravity.


Scientifically, the word "law" is used to describe a relationship that can be specifically expressed mathematically.

Law describing the force of gravity:

F = G (m1*m2)/r^2


Whereas, the theory of gravity is a general description of our understanding of gravity.

 

[hbarcat]

As long as we're talking about pet peeves about phrases, "New and Improved" is as ridiculous as they come. Something can be new or something can be improved. By definition it cannot be both.

That bothers me almost as much as

"SAVE UP TO 50% ....OR MORE!"


By saying "up to 50%", you are necessarily limiting the savings to that amount or less. When you say "or more" you are exceeding the self described limit. You might as well say "SAVE ANY AMOUNT FROM 0-100%!" which is so ambiguous as to say nothing at all.

 

[Warpticon]

That bothers me almost as much as

"SAVE UP TO 50% ....OR MORE!"


By saying "up to 50%", you are necessarily limiting the savings to that amount or less. When you say "or more" you are exceeding the self described limit. You might as well say "SAVE ANY AMOUNT FROM 0-100%!" which is so ambiguous as to say nothing at all.

I can't say I've seen that, but I know it woul ddrive me crazy if I had.

Question: since when does the word "literally" mean exactly the opposite of its definition?

 

[DanielleMuscato]

Alpha, not sure exactly what point you're making...?

I agree that language changes over time (I said that back in post #26), but considering "begs the question" to mean "raises the question" as an acceptable evolution of the language is, to me, no different than saying that it's acceptable to use "waiting on" when one means "waiting for" ("waiting on" is what waiters & butlers do; "waiting for" is what people do at the train station). It's a clear giveaway of an uneducated speaker to deliver this faux pas.

This is expressly not a personal attack, but at some point, we (in general) need to bite the bullet, stop playing this depressing game where all points of view are considered equally efficacious regardless of erudition, and admit that there are correct and incorrect ways of expressing oneself in English. Anyone with even an undergraduate education knows that begging the question does not mean simply raising the question, and to consider this point a lost cause because "meanings of things change over time" is not something I'm willing to do just yet

 

[DanielleMuscato]

I hate when people say "my friend is so random"

Unless this is your friend [snip: static]

And sounded like static also.

Your friend is spontaneous.

Good one

 

[Scarlet Fire]

I actually think it came from a study that showed that at any given time, only 10% or so of our neurons were active. Which makes sense depending on what task our brain is undertaking, whether its trying to remember a phone number, putting together a bookshelf, writing song lyrics or anything else there are very different regions of the brain being incorporated to differing degrees.

The only problem is, that's totally untrue. You have to remember that our brains are responsible for much, much more than just cognitive thought. All of our sensations have to be processed, memories have to be stored and retrieved, our hearts have to beat, we need to breathe, emotions are being formed, and we need to move. All of those activities you mentioned require multiple parts of the brain to be working. And, if your cerebellum were to ever give out... well... you'd be dead.

 

[Jared Lash]

The only problem is, that's totally untrue. You have to remember that our brains are responsible for much, much more than just cognitive thought. All of our sensations have to be processed, memories have to be stored and retrieved, our hearts have to beat, we need to breathe, emotions are being formed, and we need to move. All of those activities you mentioned require multiple parts of the brain to be working. And, if your cerebellum were to ever give out... well... you'd be dead.

I'm not disputing that. I'm simply saying that at any given instant on average 10% of the brains neurons are firing. Which ones is dictated by what is occurring in the brain at that exact instant.

 

[Jared Lash]

This is expressly not a personal attack, but at some point, we (in general) need to bite the bullet, stop playing this depressing game where all points of view are considered equally efficacious regardless of erudition, and admit that there are correct and incorrect ways of expressing oneself in English. Anyone with even an undergraduate education knows that begging the question does not mean simply raising the question, and to consider this point a lost cause because "meanings of things change over time" is not something I'm willing to do just yet

I understand where you're coming from, but in all honesty this is like arguing about the exact color of bedsheets while the mattress is on fire.

In an ivory tower sort of way these types of discussions are inherently intriguing to me, but the reality is that we are witnessing a continuing and major decline of American education. People not understanding the exact nature of the phrase "begs the question" pales in comparison with the huge gaps in even the most basic knowledge that we should expect of people in this country.

 

[UnsungZeros]

Here's one that always gets to me and makes me want to punch people in the face when they say it:

Man descended from monkeys according to the theory of evolution, so why are monkeys still around?

NO. WRONG.

The theory of evolution would have us correctly believe that modern apes of today (including humans, because we ARE apes) all shared a distant common ancestor. We were not spawned from monkeys. We just share a common ancestor and forked off millions of years ago. Hence the present day existence of other apes.

EDIT: I just thought about my post for a second. I don't want to derail the thread into a debate about evolution. That wasn't the point of my post. I just wanted to correct a common error that is often made during such debates.

 

[DanielleMuscato]

Yeah, it's not about evolution; don't worry about that. It's about ignorance, and that is certainly something we can talk about here. It's something that drives me nuts, too. Fortunately, that's an easy one to knock out - you just say, "The theory of evolution doesn't say that humans are descended from monkeys; it says that modern humans and modern monkeys are both descended from a smaller, prehistoric primate that was neither the modern monkey nor the modern man."

 

[Jared Lash]

As a complete side note (that phrase seems to preface a large majority of my OT posts) and something that I hope isn't too political, I have to mention an incident I was just reminded of by this thread.

A few months ago I was flipping channels and I landed on public access where there was a video of Ann Coulter (on a book tour I think?) addressing a women's group at some college. Whether it was the nature of the college, this group or just strict enforcement at the door, there was no debate involved just complete agreement with whatever she said, which is fine.

And while I wish I could remember it verbatim, what killed me was when one girl got up and asked essentially why evolution was still being taught in schools when Coulter had so obviously proved it false in her book. I literally fell out of my chair laughing.

 

[wdinc01]

I hate when people say "my friend is so random"

Unless this is your friend

And sounded like static also.

Your friend is spontaneous.

I agree. It annoys me whenever kids (mostly preteens) describe themselves or friends as being "random."

To me, this either means that 1. Your friend is spontaneous (as you describe), 2. Your friend has a sense of humor that you think is unique or 3. Your friend can't structure a joke, and just throws in actual random words for comedic effect.

Or maybe I'm just grouchy.

 

[SpankyPants]

A scientific Law is a readily demonstrable fact, that cannot be disproved. It will ALWAYS happen a certain way.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested, and not found faulty, usually also having been found somewhat useful. Although it is still generally considered falsifiable, or uncertain/inconsistent, in different conditions.

That's why we only have a handful of laws (most of which exist in physics) and a gajillion theories.

 

[Vorago]

Yeah, it's not about evolution; don't worry about that. It's about ignorance, and that is certainly something we can talk about here. It's something that drives me nuts, too. Fortunately, that's an easy one to knock out - you just say, "The theory of evolution doesn't say that humans are descended from monkeys; it says that modern humans and modern monkeys are both descended from a smaller, prehistoric primate that was neither the modern monkey nor the modern man."

The difference between 'language evolution' and 'ignorance'/'uneducation' is purely in the eye of the beholder. In linguistics (in which I'm mastering next year) scientists are far beyond the point where there's 'good' and 'bad' language. Sadly, the public opinion isn't there yet.

Anyway, while I agree that in certain environments a certain language standard should be met, I think:

1) It's dangerous to judge people purely on the language they speak. I get comments on my accent as well, and I really don't give a flying **** . If you're judging me on the sound of my vowels I'd rather not know you in the first place.

2) There are more important things to worry about.

 

[SpankyPants]

Man, you sure have a short temper for a funny-talker.

 

[Marlat]

Without a doubt, THESE are very much misunderstood.

 

[vinny]

I don' know if this counts, but the post hoc fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc) always kills me. It seems as though is used to screw up the lives of the fuzzy thinking public, but not it seems to have become one of our fundamental tenets of national policy.

Fixed it for you.

 

[aborgman]

A scientific Law is a readily demonstrable fact, that cannot be disproved. It will ALWAYS happen a certain way.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested, and not found faulty, usually also having been found somewhat useful. Although it is still generally considered falsifiable, or uncertain/inconsistent, in different conditions.

A scientific law is naught but a theory which has a long history of not being disproved. It can be - or it wouldn't be science.

A perfect example:

Newton's Laws of Motion.

Not only CAN they be disproved, they HAVE been. The Theory of Relativity has done so.