Most annoying phrases!!!

[Dr. Shoe]

ask my question, and get off the air.

I bet you wouldn't!

[jmc]

For those of us on this side of the big puddle:

"Internal Revenue Service"

Just who exactly are they serving?

[Dr. Shoe]

The Government...

[chris100575]

I've heard both "return back" and "reply back" used quite a bit just recently. Chris

[Dr. Shoe]

I've heard both "return back" and "reply back" used quite a bit just recently.

Chris

Why use one word when four will do! :-)

[chris100575]

Indicative of the decline in the standard of English in this country methinks. One of the girls at work also uses "like" three or four times every sentence and it annoys the hell out of me. Chris

[Dr. Shoe]

Whenever that happens to me I'm like: "Talk to the hand!". That's so going to come into proper english through common usage!

[chris100575]

If it does, I'm going to learn French and emigrate over there! Chris

[Dr. Shoe]

The trouble is is that all the french will be speaking the same kind of English as will everyone on the planet!

[Puffer]

As a lover of the English language, I dislike it being abused in speech or writing, although I can accept that intentional colloquialism and idiom (as distinct from sloppiness or simple carelessness) are part of life. Here are a few of my pet hates (not all of which might jar with those outside the UK) with the objectionable word in bold:

1. Subject/verb confusion: ‘The company is expanding and have new products’; ‘The staff are mostly female’.

2. Solecisms such as these two: ‘£10 will be debited from your account’. (Debits (or credits) can only be made to an account, whatever the major UK banks are now frequently telling us.) ‘I am bored of reading Puffer’s posts. (Maybe so, but I should much prefer that you were bored with them.)

3. Slavish avoidance of alleged sexism or ‘inclusiveness’ by using ‘they/them/their’ instead of ‘he’, ‘she’, (or indeed ‘he/she’) etc, especially when a false plural is then introduced. Even worse when the subject is clearly identifiable as being of a particular sex, as in this comment quoted in a recent posting by dr1819: "I love it when a man is secure enough in their masculinity that they can wear heels."

4. Misuse of the apostrophe, especially after a non-plural word ending in s, as in: ‘Mr Jones’ book’ (where Jones’s is better, and is probably how we would speak it).

5. Abbreviations used in texting and the like – far too numerous (‘2 numerous’??) to mention, even if I understood them all! And, for that matter, when someone has sent a text to his friend, why is he more than likely to say that he has text/texed him, rather than textedhim (as if the correct verb were ‘to tex’)?

6. Double negatives; usually used carelessly but some people justify it as being a legitimate reinforcement of the negative concept rather than a cancellation of it. So, ‘I haven’t done nothing’ = ‘I have done something’. If you must speak like a cockney would when answering a policeman, it’s better to say ‘I haven’t never done nothing’ as there are then three negatives and one is left with what was probably the intended meaning – ‘I have never done anything’. (A further thought: there is a difference between ‘I have never done anything honestly’ and ‘I have never done anything - honestly’ so beware of incriminating yourself when trying to emphasise your innocence!)

I might well add to this list next time my feathers are ruffled by what I read or hear – be warned!

[Dr. Shoe]

[1. Subject/verb confusion: ‘The company is expanding and have new products’; ‘The staff are mostly female’.

Indeed. This always grates on me too, people never consider "the fleet is, the ships are." which is how I learnt this rule. Applying this you'd say "the fleet has, the ships have". (I also hate to see no punctuation inside a closing quote but it is correct in this case).

2. Solecisms such as these two: ‘£10 will be debited from your account’. (Debits (or credits) can only be made to an account, whatever the major UK banks are now frequently telling us.) ‘I am bored of reading Puffer’s posts. (Maybe so, but I should much prefer that you were bored with them.)

3. Slavish avoidance of alleged sexism or ‘inclusiveness’ by using ‘they/them/their’ instead of ‘he’, ‘she’, (or indeed ‘he/she’) etc, especially when a false plural is then introduced. Even worse when the subject is clearly identifiable as being of a particular sex, as in this comment quoted in a recent posting by dr1819: "I love it when a man is secure enough in their masculinity that they can wear heels."

4. Misuse of the apostrophe, especially after a non-plural word ending in s, as in: ‘Mr Jones’ book’ (where Jones’s is better, and is probably how we would speak it).

Don't get me started! "Cucumber's and lettuce's from the greengrocers stall." is a phrase I actually saw in a newspaper! I wonder to this day whether the journalist was being clever or just wrong.

5. Abbreviations used in texting and the like – far too numerous (‘2 numerous’??) to mention, even if I understood them all! And, for that matter, when someone has sent a text to his friend, why is he more than likely to say that he has text/texed him, rather than textedhim (as if the correct verb were ‘to tex’)?

I've only ever heard "texted". I don't like seeing texting abbreviations where the article has clearly been written on a proper keyboard. If it's an email, I reply that I didn't understand what they were saying LOL

6. Double negatives; usually used carelessly but some people justify it as being a legitimate reinforcement of the negative concept rather than a cancellation of it. So, ‘I haven’t done nothing’ = ‘I have done something’. If you must speak like a cockney would when answering a policeman, it’s better to say ‘I haven’t never done nothing’ as there are then three negatives and one is left with what was probably the intended meaning – ‘I have never done anything’. (A further thought: there is a difference between ‘I have never done anything honestly’ and ‘I have never done anything - honestly’ so beware of incriminating yourself when trying to emphasise your innocence!)

A policeman once told me that they sum up the intellect of a suspect by how they react to the initial arrest. If they try to escape shouting that they "haven't done nothink," they know (or believe) that they're a bit thick and would crack quite easily under questioning. If they say; "I believe you are making a mistake, I have done nothing," then they know that they will have to put their best interrogators on the job.

I might well add to this list next time my feathers are ruffled by what I read or hear – be warned!

[Dr. Shoe]

I always feel like firebombing "Toys R Us" too. What sort of example does it set their pre-school customers? I hate to see signs that start with "would all customers..." and then end with a full stop instead of a query. I hate poor or absent punctuation abberrant apostrophe's, misuse of: colons and; semi-colons, commas, in, the, wrong place and quotes used where the words should have been "underlined or written in italics". I see it at petrol pumps: "Would all customers please not that under 16's must not use the pumps." A better use of English would be: "Customers are reminded that under 16s must not use the pumps." Or :"Over 16s only."

[Puffer]

Thanks, Dr Shoe (or should that be 'Dr.' with an arguably superfluous stop?). We speak the same language - and with care and respect, it seems!

As to 'Would all customers ... ', I don't entirely agree with the need for a question mark; the question posed is rhetorical (and is really an instruction equivalent to 'All customers must ...') and idiom at least allows us to recognise this and not to treat it as a question requiring the conventional mark. (Next time my wife says 'Will you tidy up your workshop', I must ask her 'Is that a question or a command?' - although I think we both know the answer.

Another common error I meant to mention is the 'less/fewer' confusion: I just love the supermarket queue for '10 items or less'. The distinction is easily remembered in a phrase such as 'fewer wagons carry less coal'. I was once told not to correct this error in a subordinate's work as 'she has a English' degree; my response was that I knew the difference even though I had 'fewer education' than she did - point made! (Similarly, another colleague accused me of 'pedanticism' and was not then pleased to be reminded that the alleged offence was correctly one of 'pedantry'.)

How many people realise that the Dad's Army (or should that be Dads' Army?) theme song should really say 'Whom do you think you are kidding, Mr Hitler ... ?' (rhetorically or otherwise), rather than 'Who ...' ? How many care? (That's quite enough of confusing questions-within-questions for now!)

Finally (for the present), I dislike the growing US-influenced trend to use incorrect (or additional and usually superfluous) prepositions, as in 'talk with', 'meet (up) with', 'outside of' etc. Yes, I know that to 'meet a friend' is not quite the same as to 'meet up with' him, and that to 'meet with disaster' is something different again, but few (less?) people seem to care about such distinctions these days and therefore lose precision in expression. O tempora, o mores!

I will not suggest that we collaborate to write a style guide for this board as I doubt it would be respected any more than would the views of the fashion police; 'freestyle' prevails!

[Puffer]

Sorry, Lindsay, but I must leap to the learned Doctor's defence:

1. I think that most children would indeed understand that 'Toys-R-Us' (with or without the reversed 'R') means 'toys are us', but that excuses neither the 'text speak' nor the ignorance of an expression equivalent to 'we are toys', whatever that might truly mean. Colloquial and catchy, yes; helpful and logical, no. I had to explain both points, with some difficulty, to my puzzled son aged about 7 when he first saw the store many years ago. It was only by going inside that he satisfied himself that it was a (more or less) 'normal' toyshop.

2. 'I see it ...' correctly implies a current and/or repetitive viewing, rather than the historic sight suggested by 'I've seen it'. A legitimate construction which I could truthfully state that I see quite frequently, as in the song which says, 'I see trees of green ...'.

3. I must ask you how many 15 year olds you allow to travel at half-fare on your bus because they are not yet (by your reckoning) 'over 15'! In law, one attains a particular age at the first moment of the corresponding birthday. An instant later, one is 'over' that age threshold and on the way to the next birthday. So, one is 'over 16' an instant after one's 16th birthday commences and remains 'over 16' (but not yet 17) until the 17th birthday arrives. '16 or more' would be a clearer expression.

(The confusion may arise because, in counting most items, one tends to ignore fractions, so that 'more than 16' implies a number/quantity not smaller than 17, especially if fractions are impossible, as with a number of people. 'Over 16' is a less precise equivalent but does perhaps more clearly open the door to something only fractionally greater than a bare 16.)

Two further thoughts on the subject of imprecise instructions:

I once saw a school rulebook which stated that 'No pupil is expected to smoke'. Presumably, it meant that pupils were expected (if not actually commanded) not to smoke, but it could have merely meant that the school did not require its pupils to smoke - smoking was, historically, a requirement in some establishments to guard against air-borne disease etc. ('And that concludes my defence, Headmaster.') Let us speculate further: 'No pupil is expected to wear heels over four inches'; readers' varied interpretations welcome!

An oft-quoted 'howler' from the early years of the UK National Health Service arose in a leaflet issued to mothers with babies. It sternly told them that 'If the baby won't drink milk, boil it'. (A painful thought, and long before 'battered babies' became headline news - although I've always preferred mine in breadcrumbs. In case you're wondering, I love children - but I couldn't eat a whole one.)

[Dr. Shoe]

I think that a child would understand.

Yes they might understand what it was but would they understand that it is very bad English and so avoid using similar expressions in written assignments at school?

Because if it's not a query, but rather an instruction, then a full stop is correct.

If a sentence starts with Who, What, How, Which, Would and When then it is a query and so must end with a question mark. Even if you say "when you have finished, put the tools away,(?)" you could legitimately answer the "command" with a negatory. If your wife asks if you would tidy up the workshop (as in Puffer's example) it is still in the passive voice and phrased as a request so therefore a question. A command would be "tidy up the workshop!" see what I mean? LOL

I've never seen that. What petrol stations have you been visiting? Also, you should have said: "I've seen it at...", rather than: "I see it at...". And a sign saying: "Over 16s only" implies someone must be 17 or older.

At virtually every Tesco filling station and a few Esso ones too. I used the word "see" rather than "seen" to imply past, present and future tenses. To be over 16 years of age (as Puffer rightly points out) one needs to have celebrated their 16th birthday, whether this was several years ago or merely a few days, they will be over 16.

[Dr. Shoe]

I loooove the difference between less and fewer. If you have fewer balls [of string] then you have less string, unless the balls are bigger. I also have a snigger at phrases like "twice as light".

[Puffer]

If a sentence starts with Who, What, How, Which, Would and When then it is a query and so must end with a question mark. Even if you say "when you have finished, put the tools away,(?)" you could legitimately answer the "command" with a negatory. If your wife asks if you would tidy up the workshop (as in Puffer's example) it is still in the passive voice and phrased as a request so therefore a question. A command would be "tidy up the workshop!" see what I mean?

Sorry, Doc, I think this is now getting even more tangled. 'Would' is not in itself an interrogatory word but (commonly) a conditional and a sentence beginning with 'would' is not automatically a question, with or without a question mark. Would that the situation be otherwise! The same is true of all the other words you mention, e.g. 'What high heels she's wearing!' (And, by the way, your list omitted the obvious 'why'.)

In The Complete Plain Words, for example, Gowers states: 'Only direct questions need question marks; indirect ones do not. ... It is usual but not necessary to put question marks at the end of requests cast into question form for the sake of politeness.' So, a statement such as 'Would customers please note that ...' rather than 'Customers are reminded/advised/warned that ...' can legitimately end with a question mark but this is not essential.

In speech, of course, it should be fairly obvious from the inflection whether a true question is intended (as in my ' tidy workshop' example earlier). This is not so easily demonstrated in writing but I would suggest that the omission of the question mark might usefully prevent the reader from being difficult and responding to your petrol station 'request' by thinking 'No - I will not note it, let alone go along with it!' Politeness is one thing; weasel words leading to doubt are another. (Go on, admit it - you and I are usually tempted into going against an instruction we see which is susceptible to an alternative and more convenient interpretation.)

[Puffer]

I forgot to add, Doc, that my ‘tidy workshop’ example is not in the passive voice as it is directed to ‘you’, the listener (i.e. me). If it had been framed along the lines of ‘Can it be arranged that the workshop is now tidied’, that would have been a command in the passive dressed up as a question – but to be ignored or answered in the negative at my peril!

(Coming, dear, I’m just finishing on the internet …)

[Dr. Shoe]

Some good points but in the main the usages quoted as examples are common errors and as such are passing into English. Eventually through "common usage" they will be deemed correct, if this has not already happened. The example "What high heels she wears!" is phrased to illicit a response from the speaker's companion though this is usually a affirmation and so is not an open question. I can see merit in the assertion that "would" can be used outside of a query but I don't entirely agree with Gower. For example: He gives an example "He is one of those men who likes to smoke." He puts this as an example of poor english and on the face of it I would agree except that you have a single man as the subjective and so the entire sentence should be constructed to reflect the subject ("...those men..." being irrelevant to the sentence meaning. Written as "He is one who likes to smoke," it is suddenly correct...? However, if he was challenged he would doubtless contend that common usage now makes "...those men..." into the subject so his example is now wrong. Whether using Would, What or How or whatever outside of the context of a query is right or wrong, it is good grammatical practice to avoid it.

[Dr. Shoe]

Except that 'Toys-R-Us' is a name and can be spelt however you wish and pronounced however you wish. Why does it have to be logical?

I wasn't saying that they don't have a right to use whatever brand name they wish, all I was saying is that it is a source of the kind of corruption that is sneaking in and destroying the English language and turning it into a language of morons.

[Puffer]

And I'm NOT learned?.

I didn't (and don't) suggest that you are not also learned, only that the good Doctor was, on that occasion, a little more learned than you! (I'm glad you put the question mark after your assertion - we wouldn't want it to be treated as a statement of fact, would we?)

Except that 'Toys-R-Us' is a name and can be spelt however you wish and pronounced however you wish. Why does it have to be logical?.

Indeed, but that is not the point. George Bernard Shaw demonstrated that the word pronounced as 'fish' could be spelled 'ghoti' [i'll explain if necessary] which was demonstrably logical but (because it was unconventional) initially confusing and unhelpful. Not a very good example, or grounding, for children - but certainly thought-provoking and memorable.

Actually, 14 is the threshold.

I am obliged. 14 was the traditional 'adult fare' age on all UK public transport (including Poole Horse Tramways) but is not now the case everywhere. (My 16 year old stepson is an expert on this - his case comes up next week.)

[chris100575]

I have to agree with Dr Shoe, I hate the proliferation of badly spelled trademarks, "Kwik Fit" and "Phones 4 U" for example. I know that as a name it can be spelled anyway they choose, but I still think it's sloppy and annoying. I also dislike seeing footwear described as "faux leather". What's wrong with just saying "man made"? Calling it "faux" doesn't make me think it's going to be a high quality item because they've stuck a French word in the description. Chris

[Dr. Shoe]

Yeah, I hate the term "vegetarian leather" to describe plastic too, it's sooooo patronising! Actually, you can get real leather that is vegetarian leather, it comes from animals that have either died naturally or by accident and has not been used for meat.

[jmc]

"faux leather" or "vegetarian leather" -- Do you suppose they are using those "euphemisms" just so they can sneak that word "leather" in there -- even though the product being advertised is not leather? It is a sleight-of-hand on the part of marketers.

[Dr. Shoe]

"faux leather" or "vegetarian leather" -- Do you suppose they are using those "euphemisms" just so they can sneak that word "leather" in there -- even though the product being advertised is not leather? It is a sleight-of-hand on the part of marketers.

Absolutely! Especially when you consider the prices they charge for this tatt!

[gary0618]

If I do not eat meat, I am considered a vegetarian...

Cows do not eat meat....

So, aren't their hides all vegetarian leather ?

:academic:

[Dr. Shoe]

Not if they come from Goats or Pigs (omnivores) and you can get leather from big cats too. Seriously though, I think that they use the term to describe the kind of person it's suitable for not its source.

[ShockQueen]

Having been in customer service roughly half my life, the two phrases that annoy the piss out of me are: "Well, (x) did this for me before!" and "This never happened when I was with (x)!" Well........if (x) was so otherworldly wonderful, then why didn't you stick with them/go back TO them??? This question still counfounds people to this day. I guess free choice got sapped out of those twits. *goes back to waiting for latest shoe shipment*

[Dr. Shoe]

Probably X was more expensive or they were banned for complaining too much. I overheard an assistant in the shoe shop I worked in (Charles Jourdan, I don't work in cheap shoe shops!) replying to a customer. "No madam, I think you'll find that the pair you saw in Harrods was a lot more expensive than £30." I was still laughing an hour later.

[chris100575]

Yeah, I hate the term "vegetarian leather" to describe plastic too, it's sooooo patronising!

Actually, you can get real leather that is vegetarian leather, it comes from animals that have either died naturally or by accident and has not been used for meat.

Speaking of which, the phrase "but I eat fish" when uttered by a so-called vegetarian. Last time I looked a fish wasn't a vegetable...

Chris