I Am A Language Nerd
Posted by
Kevin
There are certain expressions that always make me cringe. When someone says something is “very unique,” my skin crawls. Something either is unique, or it is not; there can be no degrees. Go ahead and give me the “language is arbitrary” argument and say that over time alternative meanings for “unique” have become acceptable, and I’ll counter that we then need a new word that means what “unique” used to mean.
I know people (including my wife, and I’m guessing Kevin T. Keith) who have a similar reaction to “irregardless,” which isn’t even really a word at all.
Today, I found another one that bugs me:
What’s nice is that the images that we use and the music we use run the gambit from things that would appeal to kids to teenagers, young adults and older adults.
[Emphasis mine.]
AUGH! The expression is “run the gamut”; “run the gambit” doesn’t even make sense. Yet another expression to add to my lexicon of mauled English.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled leftist rants…
UPDATE: I thought I was bad about this stuff, but Jesus, Dvorkin needs to seek counseling.
Irregardless is a word. Like the word flammable, it has become a word due to years of misuse.
Comment 6/23/2004
That’s not entirely accurate. “Flammable” became a word to avoid confusion. Because of the nature of the “in-” prefix, the word “inflammable” could easily be mistaken to mean “nonflammable,” which actually has the opposite meaning. In virtually every case, words with an “in-” prefix mean “not” whatever. Since there are safety issues surrounding whether or not something is easily combustible, it’s a good idea to avoid risking such confusion.
In the case of “irregardless,” there’s no practical reason why people started using it; they likely simply confused “regardless” with “irrespective,” the latter being a word that Kevin T. Keith seems to use fairly frequently.
In one case, there are legitimate practical reasons for the change; in the other case, there are not.
Told you I was a language nerd.
Comment 6/23/2004
“I could care less” or “I couldn’t care less”? Why?
Comment 6/23/2004
So, you tell me it’s not entirely accurate then tell the reasons why it is actually accurate :^)
Comment 6/23/2004
Uncle:
“Years of misuse” would imply accidental. The switch to “flammable” from “inflammable” was intentional.
Little Davey:
That’s another one that gets me, thanks for reminding me. “I could care less” would seem to imply that you do care, at least a little, whereas “I couldn’t care less” means that you don’t care at all.
Comment 6/23/2004
I always understood “I could care less” as ironic. Its literal meaning is the opposite of “I couldn’t care less,” but the sarcastic intention reverses that meaning and conveys a kind of insouciant contempt. In that way, it fulfills a communicative function with, arguably, a finer shading of implication than its literal parent. I have never objected to it, though it does sound odd.
Irrespective of such ambiguous idiomatic nicety, however, I do cringe at “irregardless,” which is both sloppy and incorrect. I resent being stereotyped as a cringer, though. Laxity in the pursuit of meaning is no virtue; fastidiousness in the defense of precision is no vice.
For that matter, I think “irrespective” is a very useful word (especially when writing argumentative passages, where it serves to distinguish relevant from irrelevant factors). It is a mark of a careful and sophisticated mind. Scoff if you dare.
Comment 6/23/2004
I had a business partner who would write proposals with bad usage, including things like “very unique.” I’d proofread and take them out, along with about 60% of his adjectives. He’d put about half of what I took out back in. And then we’d repeat the cycle a couple of times if the proposal was important. We would often argue about it. The whole thing was way too stressful.
Now I save my ire for the misuse of “problematic,” a once useful word now devoid of distinction from “troublesome.” Grrr.
Comment 6/24/2004
“disorientated” v. “disoriented.” That one’s been fingernail-on-blackboard material for me for years.
Comment 6/24/2004
“behind the eight-ball”. If you are behind the eight-ball you ought to be cosily placed and lined up on a pocket, not in a meeting without having read the brief.
Comment 6/24/2004
Is not everything unique?
Take cars for example. Two civics off the same assembly line with the same options and all are still unique vehicles. There will be differences even if they aren’t readily observable. A few milimeters here and there, a gram or two off or on, etc.
Now rice-boy Slim down at the hop up shop has a Civic that’s painted chromatic purple, has a lawnmower engine in it, a wing halfway to Valhala and air shocks that’ll let the ass drop. Couldn’t one say this one is “very unique” as compared to the near-identical stock cars which are “barely unique”?
Comment 6/24/2004
I hate ‘whole ‘nother thing.’
No, it’s “whole other.” Pardon me why I beat the crap out of you…
Grr…
Comment 6/24/2004
KTK:
It is a mark of a careful and sophisticated mind.
It’s also a key reason why you and I will never get ahead in life.
I heard a news story recently about a study that showed that people who obsess over the nuanced details of language and finer points of grammar tend not to advance as far in life, supposedly because they get too hung up on details and lose sight of the big picture.
Larry:
I’m not sure I’ve heard “problematic” misused (in fact, I’m more likely to hear “troublesome” misused). Got some examples of what you think is proper vs. improper usage?
Linkmeister:
Ouch! Forgot about that one; I hate that!
Phil:
(1) You’re assuming that the 8-ball is your next shot. If it’s not, being behind the 8-ball can be a Very Bad Thing.
(2) Can’t “behind” simply mean “on the wrong side of?”
Tuttle:
No. The production car analogy reminds me of one of my favorite expressions, though: “Remember, you’re unique, just like everybody else.”
Scott:
I’m guilty of that one sometimes, but I use it tongue in cheek, much the same way I sometimes use “fixin’ to” — I’m emulating a dumb guy when I use those terms.
Comment 6/24/2004
Over the years, I accumulated a catalogue of such annoyances, so I finally put together a collection of Web pages on the subject. (http://www.dvorkin.com/essays/anglophonia)
Now I keep thinking of things I want to add to it. It could grow into something immense.
Comment 6/24/2004
“Run the gambit” can also stand for “run the gauntlet”.
Comment 6/28/2004
I heard a news story recently about a study that showed that people who obsess over the nuanced details of language and finer points of grammar tend not to advance as far in life, supposedly because they get too hung up on details and lose sight of the big picture.
Was that by any chance a story about our “big picture” president? Irregardless of how many times he uses the word nukular, eksetera, its “it’s” that kills me… Oh, hell, there are more English transgressions you run across every day than you can shake a stick at. It wouldn’t bother me half as much if Americans didn’t pretend to be so superior. What surprises me is how often they turn up in official business literature and such, places where you’d think there’d be proofreaders at least checking things out first. Ebonics speakers ain’t got nothin’ on the rest of the population when it comes to mangling language. But Bushisms! God, now that makes you embarrassed to be an American!
Comment 7/2/2004
im a jimmy
Comment 9/9/2004
im a super jimmy
Comment 9/9/2004