gustav_errata
pfm Member
I dislike plurals used as singular, two particular niggles being criteria and phenomena.
Add "data" to that but I think it's largely just due to people not even realising it's plural.
I dislike plurals used as singular, two particular niggles being criteria and phenomena.
That one is close to my heart (I work in data protection) and you’re right, but sometimes you have to admit defeat. It tends to get used as an implied singular so “the (block of) data is…” rather than “these data are…”. But yes, I should have mentioned that one, but I’m inured to it after constant and repeated exposure!Add "data" to that but I think it's largely just due to people not even realising it's plural.
As this is a thread for pedantic annoyances, let me start by saying that it’s “washing-up liquid”, with a hyphen."washing up liquid" (sounds like what a drunk or a young child says in frustration after giving up on remembering the words "dishwashing detergent" or even "dish soap"), and unnecessary diminutives like "leccy", "brekkie", "chippy", etc. Please don't inform the Home Office.
English is a mess, as it relies on modal verbs whose usage is more fluid than most grammar books are comfortable with. Also it doesn't have a full subjunctive. People who study languages that do have a subjunctive and don't have messy modal verbs, often try to reverse engineer a full subjunctive into English or try to tidy the modal verbs somehow. So there are 'rules' around these things, but many authorities (including Webster's dictionary) suspect that they are made up.Given all the experts available, what is the difference in meaning between "I would think....." and "I should think..." Or "I would like like..." and "I should like." From what I've seen in books, using "should" rather than "would" has a slightly antiquated upper-class flavour, but in these contexts no difference in meaning.
Technically, shall is present/future and should is its 'past tense' equivalent. Will is present/future and would is its 'past tense' equivalent. But apart from specific uses of will or shall, who cares?
Also “off the back of” meaning “ due to”"see the back of"
This reminds me of a conversation in Belgium between a Belgian teacher of English and an English teacher of English. The Belgian said ‘there is no subjunctive in English’. The Englishman replied ‘would that were so’.Yaay! English modal verbs! The scourge of anyone trying to speak fluently...
To my ears, there isn’t really a difference, except that “should” comes across as more emphatic, and also a bit more old-fashioned. There used to be a rule that you used “should” after “I” or “We”, but “would” in other cases, but it was a bit arbitrary, and I think it’s one of those peculiarities of British English that has stuck around mainly to show who has gone to a grammar school, rather than for any solid grammatical reason.
“Should be” still survives in some stock-phrases, where it’s an ironic or emphatic version of “would be”. Certainly, if you’re singing an up-tempo pop-song about unrequited love, “Would that I were so lucky!” might convey the same sentiment, but is much harder to fit into a 4/4 measure...
English is a mess, as it relies on modal verbs whose usage is more fluid than most grammar books are comfortable with. Also it doesn't have a full subjunctive. People who study languages that do have a subjunctive and don't have messy modal verbs, often try to reverse engineer a full subjunctive into English or try to tidy the modal verbs somehow. So there are 'rules' around these things, but many authorities (including Webster's dictionary) suspect that they are made up.
Would and should are part of this messy modal verb soup. Technically, shall is present/future and should is its 'past tense' equivalent. Will is present/future and would is its 'past tense' equivalent. But apart from specific uses of will or shall, who cares? Here's the wikipedia on would and should, if you want more detail.
'Journey' can be a useful expression, either for a literal travelling experience, or perhaps for a personal 'voyage of discovery' sort of concept, but it's most definitely overused now. The airport management might have had reason to look at the 'passenger journey' for its own analysis (wait times, choke points, maximising shopping uptake, that sort of thing) but that needn't and shouldn't translate into something the public actually has to read or see. For passengers, it's less of a 'journey' and more a 'test of endurance'. Calling it a journey just makes it worse.Not sure this has been mentioned, but everything is now a "journey" - arriving at Heathrow T5 recently I was amazed to find that I was not in Arrivals but part of an "Arrivals Journey" according to large and no doubt expensive signage plastered all over the terminal. I was pleased to end that and get started on my "Car park journey" followed by my "sitting in a queue on the M25 journey". Even Google Chrome is doing it - you have to switch "journeys" off unless you want to put up with it there - or give your laptop a "travelling through the air journey" in frustration.
Sue it's part of one's journey through life.
'Journey' can be a useful expression, either for a literal travelling experience, or perhaps for a personal 'voyage of discovery' sort of concept, but it's most definitely overused now. The airport management might have had reason to look at the 'passenger journey' for its own analysis (wait times, choke points, maximising shopping uptake, that sort of thing) but that needn't and shouldn't translate into something the public actually has to read or see. For passengers, it's less of a 'journey' and more a 'test of endurance'. Calling it a journey just makes it worse.