Words that annoy me for no particular reason.

[raleighnut]

Train staff/announcers saying "we are arriving into..." One arrives AT.

I'm always quite relieved when they say that they are arriving 'into' a .............. station rather than 'at' a ................town

 

[All uphill]

Train staff/announcers saying "we are arriving into..." One arrives AT.

"Our next station stop is..."

Grrr!

 

[DCBassman]

"Our next station stop is..."

Grrr!

Yes, that's the other abomination! It's 'next stop' or 'next station', not both!

 

[figbat]

I hate tautologies or other redundancies - abbreviations or acronyms are a rich territory:

PIN number.
VIN number.
Please RSVP.
Etc.

There is also the use of "et cetera" by speakers who want to indicate that there are more things included in what they are referencing, but they either can't remember them or don't know them.

Are we allowed to divert into mis-use of quotes or proverbs? One that really grates on me is "the proof is in the pudding", which for some reason I have been hearing a lot recently.

Since I have the floor and an empathetic audience I'll push on to a big one for me - leaving a clause open. Example: "If you'd like to follow me". What? What happens if I'd like to follow you? An "if" clause should be followed by a "then" consequence. "If you'd like to follow me, then I will show you to your table". Perhaps people are simply too busy to use all the words, although I recognise that implication will usually fill in the gaps appropriately.

 

[Chris S]

Around here some refer to buses as 'buzzes'. There's a bloke i know of who refers to Middlesbrough as 'Migglesburra'.

They might from Birmingham, it's the standard pronunciation here.

 

[Chris S]

Yes, that's the other abomination! It's 'next stop' or 'next station', not both!

You obviously haven't been stuck at signals for ages on end

 

[mistyoptic]

Train staff/announcers saying "we are arriving into..." One arrives AT.

and why does the train have to come "to a stand" at the platform? Since when did trains have legs?

 

[RichardB]

Legos is the worst.

And, in the same vein, "New Year's".

No, it's New Year.

 

[RichardB]

If only it were that simple.

'Less' would normally used in front of counting nouns denoting distance, amounts, or time.

Few people would say something is due to happen in 'fewer than six weeks', it would be 'less than six weeks'.

Or: 'the bomb is due to explode in fewer than ten minutes' doesn't work, it would be '...in less than ten minutes'.

'My bike ride today was fewer than 60 miles', no, accepted usage is '...was less than 60 miles'.

There are further complications, some of which I don't claim to fully understand.

Not really that complicated. Some expressions of quantity are taken as singular rather than plural items, for reasons of common sense. Six weeks, ten minutes, 60 miles are being treated approximately in the examples you quote. I appreciate it is a fine distinction, but to pick one example apart, these two sentences make perfect sense to me:

I was tired today; managed less than 60 miles. (Approximate statement of a satisfactory distance.)​

Riders who cover fewer than 60 miles will not qualify. (Precise number needed for specific purpose.)​

When we say 'ten minutes', we are usually referring to a vague chunk of time, rather than 600 seconds precisely.

The rule I gave is easy to understand and covers 99% of situations. The examples you quote here are what makes the study of language so fascinating.

 

[RichardB]

More a phrase than a word

”the below”

what is a below? Apparently I can have “two each of the below” if I accept a recent email offer. I’ve seen it also in the context of “I agree with the below”

I completely agree with you. Using 'the below' seems to be a very recent thing. I have had this argument at work. The trouble is, I can't explain why "I agree with the above" is perfectly acceptable and "I agree with the below" sounds wrong.

Same with "The above people should attend the meeting" and "the below people should attend the meeting". One is fine, one is not, and I don't know why.

 

[RichardB]

There is also the use of "et cetera" by speakers

Sometimes, for fun, I use 'ect'. It's a useful way of flushing out any Molesworth fans in your readership.

 

[MichaelW2]

I hate tautologies or other redundancies - abbreviations or acronyms are a rich territory:

PIN number.
VIN number.
Please RSVP.
Etc.

There is also the use of "et cetera" by speakers who want to indicate that there are more things included in what they are referencing, but they either can't remember them or don't know them.

Are we allowed to divert into mis-use of quotes or proverbs? One that really grates on me is "the proof is in the pudding", which for some reason I have been hearing a lot recently.

Since I have the floor and an empathetic audience I'll push on to a big one for me - leaving a clause open. Example: "If you'd like to follow me". What? What happens if I'd like to follow you? An "if" clause should be followed by a "then" consequence. "If you'd like to follow me, then I will show you to your table". Perhaps people are simply too busy to use all the words, although I recognise that implication will usually fill in the gaps appropriately.

Just for you:


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c3y0CD2CoCs

 

[classic33]

The children's toy is Lego. The individual pieces are Lego bricks or pieces of Lego. There is no such word as 'Legos'.

 

[rockyroller]

And, in the same vein, "New Year's".

No, it's New Year.

I think the possessive is for eve or day, as-in happy new year's eve & happy new year's day. without the eve or day, I agree, a simple happy new year is definitely more appropriate

 

[mistyoptic]

View attachment 557783

It doesn't need a plural, any more than sheep needs a plural. You have a pile of Lego or a flock of sheep