So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[Benny Holiday]

Don't forget the companions, "could of" , "would of", and "should of"!

As for antipodean accents, I find Kiwi harder than Aussie.

I'm fond of the now-wrapped-up New Zealand TV series "Brokenwood". I find myself turning on the subtitle feature so that I can pick up all the dialogue. Maybe it's not so much the accent per se, (some of it does sound odd to an American ear, like the very short vowel pronunciation in words like "pen" [How do Kiwis differentiate between "pen" and "pin" in spoken communication where the context might not make it clear?]) but the inclusion of Kiwi slang and Maori words that find their way into the scripts.

Yes indeed, the companions drive me up the wall just as much!

The NZ accent is certainly interesting. Aussies get a laugh out of trying to get them to say six. It always comes out as sex. "Would you like five?" "No, I want sex." Childish, but fun. I'm not up on their slang, but I know they call each other "bro" a lot!

 

[tonyb]

Tell me Tony, can something be “very” unique? No, it can't. Neither can it be “somewhat” unique or “rather” unique. Reason being, unique means “one of a kind,” and you can't modify that; it's either unique or it's not. Trivial? Of course and on the subject of grammar, overuse of filler words like: basically, evidently and literally get the hackles up.

That’s logical under the still commonly accepted definition, of course. I avoid such (mis)usage myself, for that very reason.

But that’s beside my point, which is that the language changes. Grammar isn’t static, nor are definitions. In popular usage, “unique” is coming to mean something other than “one of a kind.” That’s happening, whether I like it (I don’t) or not.

 

[tonyb]

^^^^^^
I might have better said “grammars (plural) aren’t static.” For there isn’t just one grammar.

 

[tonyb]

More changing definitions I don’t like but I suppose I’ll just have accept because the newer definitions are becoming the norm …

“Reticent” used pretty much synonymously with “reluctant.” It used to mean “quiet” or “hesitant to speak.” And it still means that, but the newer usage is now more common.

And …

Traditionally it was “home in,” as in narrowing one’s focus, as a homing pigeon would do, and not “hone in,” used to mean the same thing. It’s understandable how the newer version caught on, though, seeing how “hone” (as would be done to a knife’s edge) would carry over to sharpening one’s vision. So it’s not surprising that we hear (and read) “hone in” more frequently than “home in.”

 

[KILO NOVEMBER]

Here's something that has been going through my head this morning. It's not "trivial", but not serious, either. I was thinking about the challenges non-native English speakers have. Here's a perfectly ordinary sentence in past tense, subjunctive mood, that would surely challenge those ESL learners.

"In order to open that door, he would have had to have had both keys."

Four occurrences of variations of the verb "to have" in one sentence!
You might leave out the first one with no real damage.

Anyone else got one?

 

[LizzieMaine]

My peeve is speakers who use hackneyed phrases incorrectly and mindlessly, such that what they say is in many cases just the opposite of what they mean.

Example: “l could care less!”

There's a theory that "I could care less" is not an error, but is actually an assimilated Yiddish inflection along the same lines as "I should be so lucky." It's meant to be sarcastic, not literal, but as it's become absorbed deeper into mainstream language, it's lost its edge.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Of course we pronounce car like "cah" and far like "fah" and burger like "burgah". My Dad would pronounce Saturday as "Satdee" and sandwich as "sammich". And the other thing I hadn't noticed until an American pointed it out to me was that we tend to drop or change the T in some words. Like, twenty will become 'twenee" and thirty will become "thirdee", eighteen will become "eighdeen". I hadn't noticed that before.

Dropping -- or "stopping" into a d sound -- the post-consonant T in words like Twenty or Thirty is very common in Northeastern US dialects, including New York, Boston, and Northern New England. It makes sense Australia also has this habit because all of these dialects come from the same basic colonial-era English root.

 

[Trenchfriend]

I accidently bought a cup of strawberry joghurt substitute, instead of strawberry skyr. This substitute is based on field bean protein..

It's not bad. Some beany aftertaste, but not horrible.

 

[Edward]

Dropping -- or "stopping" into a d sound -- the post-consonant T in words like Twenty or Thirty is very common in Northeastern US dialects, including New York, Boston, and Northern New England. It makes sense Australia also has this habit because all of these dialects come from the same basic colonial-era English root.

I wonder if the Irish influx also impacted in the NE US, particularly the greater Boston area. In the North, particularly the Six Counties, it's a very common vocalism. (One much parodied in the British press wrt the use of terms like 'Briddish'.)

 

[LizzieMaine]

The classic Boston and New York accents are both very heavily influenced by Irish -- with smatterings of Italian and Yiddish. Fusion cuisine of the tongue.

Those accents are also very much on the decline in recent decades. The flat Boston "aaaaah" sound is heard mostly from older people, and the New York "awwr" seems also to be declining. The Maine "ahhhh," which is more nasal than the Boston "ahhhh," will be essentially extinct once my generation dies off. Non-rhoticity is now considered a negative class marker, where it was, fifty or sixty years ago, considered neutral.

This happens to a lot of dialect features. The most stereotypical feature of the old New York accent, the "curl-coil merger," was disappearing by the middle of the 20th Century and other than very faint traces it's essentially extinct now. And yet, sixty or seventy years ago you could hear it in the speech of even upper-class intellectuals -- watch old episodes of "What's My Line," and revel in the sound of Bennett Cerf talking about "boid watching." You'd never *ever* hear that in a highbrow voice today unless they were doing it on purpose.

 

[Edward]

The classic Boston and New York accents are both very heavily influenced by Irish -- with smatterings of Italian and Yiddish. Fusion cuisine of the tongue.

Those accents are also very much on the decline in recent decades. The flat Boston "aaaaah" sound is heard mostly from older people, and the New York "awwr" seems also to be declining. The Maine "ahhhh," which is more nasal than the Boston "ahhhh," will be essentially extinct once my generation dies off. Non-rhoticity is now considered a negative class marker, where it was, fifty or sixty years ago, considered neutral.

This happens to a lot of dialect features. The most stereotypical feature of the old New York accent, the "curl-coil merger," was disappearing by the middle of the 20th Century and other than very faint traces it's essentially extinct now. And yet, sixty or seventy years ago you could hear it in the speech of even upper-class intellectuals -- watch old episodes of "What's My Line," and revel in the sound of Bennett Cerf talking about "boid watching." You'd never *ever* hear that in a highbrow voice today unless they were doing it on purpose.

Dialects evolve, I suppose.... though I'm sure it's been accelerated, at least in the Anglosphere, by an increasingly homogenised entertainment world over time. It's widely reported here in the UK (both simply as a phenomenon, and with added handwringing in certain outlets) that so many kids in the London area now speak among themselves in totally faux patois and 'standard American' accents. Of course, if you go back in history far enough, the Kensington RP accent that was for so long pushed as "correct" and normative originated as the patois of the idle rich, so. Plus ca change...

 

[tonyb]

Hey you, guy in the Subaru sedan with the custom wheels ahead of me at the In-N-Out Burger drive-thru …

I can only imagine what that mom with a minivan full of kids is left to explain about your “I Heart Sushi” with the recumbent stick figures decal on your back window.

It’s not that I take exception with the sentiment, young man, but I strongly suspect that in another decade or so you’ll look back on this and be at least a little embarrassed. I hope so, anyway, for your sake.

 

[LizzieMaine]

If there's one thing about stupid car stickers it's that it makes it real easy to tell who you don't ever want to park next to.

 

[FOXTROT LAMONT]

so many kids in the London area now speak among themselves in totally faux patois and 'standard American' accents.

I've noticed this quite often.

 

[Trenchfriend]

Removed a very good plaster on my shin, today. You know, one of these flexible plasters, which are also nice water-repellent while showering.

OUCH, I didn't ask for waxing...

 

[tonyb]

This would seem clear enough, wouldn’t it?
I suppose it’s possible it was overlooked, but I think it likelier it was ignored.
Door-to-door soliciting is more annoying and intrusive than its cousin, telephone soliciting. When I become dictator, both will be capital offenses.

 

[Woodtroll]

You would certainly think so, but some folks can't seem to heed a polite message no matter how plainly it's presented to them. For what it's worth, trying to convert me to a different religion is also soliciting, in my book.

 

[tonyb]

^^^^^
Oh yes, it certainly is. I taped a sign to the front door reading …

No solicitors, survey takers, political canvassers, religious proselytizers

My lovely missus asked that I take it down, as in her view it seemed beyond unfriendly.

Well, okay, but intruding on my domestic tranquility is no way of making a friend of me.

 

[KILO NOVEMBER]

This would seem clear enough, wouldn’t it?
I suppose it’s possible it was overlooked, but I think it likelier it was ignored.
Door-to-door soliciting is more annoying and intrusive than its cousin, telephone soliciting. When I become dictator, both will be capital offenses.


View attachment 606984

I see that this is my 2^10 post. A retired computer nerd's milepost, for sure.

At the two entrances to my subdivision are prominently posted "No Soliciting" signs.
Nonetheless, from time to time a young person rings my doorbell and knocks on the door. I point out to each that "No Soliciting" signs are posted at each entrance.

Invariably, they reply, "Oh no, I'm not soliciting, I'm just ..."

I then explain that yes, in fact, they are soliciting, as the purpose of ringing my doorbell is, if not to ask for a sale on the spot, to generate leads for a follow-up call by someone else in their company.

This usually does not make the desired impression on the "solicitor", so I say, "Yes, you are soliciting and I'm going to close the door now." At which point I close the door.

I know they are trying to earn a little cash, but with the multitude of "Help Wanted" signs posted in so may local businesses, I don't feel sorry for them.

 

[tonyb]

^^^^^^^
The guy I chased off today opened by saying “Are you the homeowner?”
It’s among the things that most annoy me, that asking who I am before identifying themselves. If the first thing out of a caller’s mouth is “Who’s this?” or “Is this Mr. Mispronouncedname?” I just hang up. You called me, you rude ****, who TF are you?

It’s my habit to identify myself and succinctly state my business before making any inquiry of my audience. I’m asking for their attention, after all, when they could be doing any number of other things. I don’t wish to waste their time, or mine.