gustav_errata
pfm Member
Add "data" to that but I think it's largely just due to people not even realising it's plural.
Ghastly expressions you want to see the back of in 2011
- Thread starter TheDecameron
- Start date
Add "data" to that but I think it's largely just due to people not even realising it's plural.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
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!
Enfield boy
pfm Member
Playing Satan's representative here, that's bollocks. Plural works perfectly!
In my field (computing) the word “data” is always treated as a singular. I am fully aware that it is the plural of “datum” (a word I also use reasonably often), but I cannot read something like: “the customer’s data are encrypted on the local device” without shuddering. For other meanings of “data”, I am happy with plural or singular, as long as the author/speaker is consistent.
On the subject of Latinesque plurals, though: fora, referenda, virii, octopi join my cut-list. They’re pretentious, and for extra annoyance, only the first two are in any way grammatically correct and aren’t correct in English either (Credit for “octopi” ramming a Latin plural marker on a Greek word, though: the lesser-used English plural octopodes would be closer to authentic, but the pronunciation isn’t).
But trust me when I say that “Dish soap” only sounds right to you because it’s familiar: to me it sounds like something you might keep beside the sink, on a soap-dish, waiting to rub it on your dirty plates (the reason is that “soap” in British English usually means a product in a solid block, not a liquid). “Dishwashing detergent”, similarly, sounds like something I would expect goes into a dishwasher (even though I also know that dishwashers don’t clean using detergents).
If abbreviations like “leccy” annoy you, all I can say is this: don’t ever go to Australia, where no word is safe from truncation.
On the subject of Latinesque plurals, though: fora, referenda, virii, octopi join my cut-list. They’re pretentious, and for extra annoyance, only the first two are in any way grammatically correct and aren’t correct in English either (Credit for “octopi” ramming a Latin plural marker on a Greek word, though: the lesser-used English plural octopodes would be closer to authentic, but the pronunciation isn’t).
As this is a thread for pedantic annoyances, let me start by saying that it’s “washing-up liquid”, with a hyphen.
But trust me when I say that “Dish soap” only sounds right to you because it’s familiar: to me it sounds like something you might keep beside the sink, on a soap-dish, waiting to rub it on your dirty plates (the reason is that “soap” in British English usually means a product in a solid block, not a liquid). “Dishwashing detergent”, similarly, sounds like something I would expect goes into a dishwasher (even though I also know that dishwashers don’t clean using detergents).
If abbreviations like “leccy” annoy you, all I can say is this: don’t ever go to Australia, where no word is safe from truncation.
PaulMB
pfm Member
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.
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...
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...
laughingboy
pfm Member
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.
gintonic
50 shades of grey pussy cats
In 1993 my primary supervisor from my first PhD pulled me up on this in my thesis.
GavinA
pfm Member
Also “off the back of” meaning “ due to”
GavinA
pfm Member
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’.
PaulMB
pfm Member
Thank you, for your heroic effort. I've read the Wiki entry, and it seems to boil down to using "should" as one would normally, today, use "would" is archaic and a bit Evelyn Waughish. While as, say, "I should think so!" as an exclamation it is perfectly clear. And in something like "I would/should imagine it will be sunny tomorrow" there is only a very tiny nuance of difference in tone, with "should" being perhaps just a fraction more positive about it being sunny tomorrow. All very interesting! And, as you say, languages are different and in Italian, for instance, the conditional can be used without reference to a specific condition. Just left dangling there as a hypothesis which could be true. Which I remember was absolute hell when translating news stories. "La banca centrale avrebbe deciso di alzare i tassi d'interesse." Which you would have to translate as "The central bank may have decided to raise interest rates." Which falls flat on its face in English as "news", but somehow stands up in Italian.
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 Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
'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.
LecsonQuad
pfm Member
Sue it's part of one's journey through life.
gintonic
50 shades of grey pussy cats
I prefer a meander or a stroll
martin clark
pinko bodger
Let's suggest a new term, like 'travail'...