xkcd

by **gmalivuk** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Derek wrote:but some Indian languages (not sure which ones) distinguish aspirated and unaspirated stops.

Sanskrit definitely did, and so the Devanagari alphabet has different characters based on aspiration, but I don't know which of the modern languages that use it maintain those same distinctions in their pronunciation.

by **raike** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 11:50 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Derek wrote:but some Indian languages (not sure which ones) distinguish aspirated and unaspirated stops.
Sanskrit definitely did, and so the Devanagari alphabet has different characters based on aspiration, but I don't know which of the modern languages that use it maintain those same distinctions in their pronunciation.

Most Indian alphabets (Northern and Southern) retain both sets of letters. Of course, in rapid or heavily colloquial speech, it's harder to hear the distinction, but these sounds are typically pronounced differently. But, I think it's a fair statement to say that some of the aspirated stops are generally encountered less frequently, such as the voiceless dental and retroflex aspirated stops.

by **Lazar** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:22 am UTC

Hindi maintains an aspiration distinction for voiced and voiceless stops. (And for what it's worth, I still have no idea how to pronounce a voiced aspirated stop.)

by **Iulus Cofield** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:34 am UTC

Icelandic also distinguishes aspirated and unaspirated stops.

The Scyphozoa wrote:I'm not sure if that's what you meant, but it seemed like you were referring to a false etymology instead. The thing about folk etymology is that they are the actual etymologies of the words.

You're right, I got those two mixed in my brain, because it seems like folks should be giving false etymologies.

by **raike** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:38 am UTC

Lazar wrote:Hindi maintains an aspiration distinction for voiced and voiceless stops. (And for what it's worth, I still have no idea how to pronounce a voiced aspirated stop.)

Use more tongue or lip, depending on the consonant (more force and more air) :wink:

by **goofy** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:48 am UTC

Lazar wrote:(And for what it's worth, I still have no idea how to pronounce a voiced aspirated stop.)

It's actually not aspirated, since aspiration is voiceless. The stop is voiced, then there is a short period of breathy voice (or murmur), then voicing starts. (according to Ladefoged's A Course in Phonetics)

by **Iulus Cofield** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 7:05 am UTC

According to Wikipedia's page on Hindi/Urdu phonology, there are both aspirated voiceless stops and breathy voiced stops.

My understanding of aspiration is that an unaspirated voiceless stop is a regular stop while the glottis is unconstricted and not vibrating.

by **Boingloing** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 4:35 am UTC

Ballin', chill

by **TheGrammarBolshevik** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 4:39 am UTC

Argh, fuck. Took a year of Hindi and I miss the one time it will probably ever be relevant.

by **SirBryghtside** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:50 pm UTC

Pretentious. It's the most abused word I've ever seen.

If someone says something about art, pretentious. If someone likes an arty thing, pretentious. If someone tries to make a point, pretentious.

If it was used right, I wouldn't hate it so much, but 99% of the time people who are called out for pretentiousness really shouldn't be.

by **nehpest** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:21 pm UTC

In (my experience of) American English, pretentious means you were right, they were wrong, and they want to feel better about said circumstance.

Similarly, arrogant is a synonym for correct.

/bitterjoke

by **_sw** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:56 pm UTC

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned "turd".

by **ratinhat88** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:01 pm UTC

hippoluvsmud wrote:I hate the term 'in terms of'. My boss said it 64 times in 2 hours at our last meeting. Why not say 'regarding', or re-hash the sentence so that you don't need to add extra words in the first place?

I had a Criminal Justice teacher in high school who almost literally said "or whatever the case may be" at the end of every sentence. Notice I was careful to say "almost literally" because it wasn't at the end of every sentence. But damn near. Damn near.

by **Grop** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:12 am UTC

nehpest wrote:Similarly, arrogant is a synonym for correct.

In xkcd English, pedant seems to means correct

.

by **ferrettt55** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:41 am UTC

I don't like "antidisestablishmentarianism". Mostly because everyone that I know says that it is the longest English word. It is not. The full name for Titen is.

by **Iulus Cofield** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:20 am UTC

I don't follow. What is the full name of Titen and also what is Titen? Google says it's a screw brand.

Also, I nominate "high voltage electricity grid systems supervisor" as the longest English word not invented for the purpose of being the longest word/not a name for a chemical compound/not a word invented to describe a very large number.

by **Eebster the Great** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:49 am UTC

ferrettt55 wrote:I don't like "antidisestablishmentarianism". Mostly because everyone that I know says that it is the longest English word. It is not. The full name for Titen is.

1. You mean titin.
2. The IUPAC name for titin is "titin."
3. If arbitrarily large macromolecules can be named by "systematic" names appropriate for smaller molecules are counted, would not the longest English word be the systematic word for the longest sequenced chromosome?

by **Magnanimous** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:11 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:Also, I nominate "high voltage electricity grid systems supervisor" as the longest English word not invented for the purpose of being the longest word/not a name for a chemical compound/not a word invented to describe a very large number.

But... It's a phrase...?

by **Iulus Cofield** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:36 am UTC

Due to the way the phrase functions, it can be well argued that it is actually a very large compound word. Although I mostly nominated because I like the idea of the longest word featuring five spaces.

by **Monika** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:26 am UTC

Yeah just because you Anglosaxons insist on putting spaces into the middle of the poor compound nouns this doesn't mean they are more than one word.

Or maybe it does, depending on who you ask / argue with

.

Donaudampfschifffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft!
Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz!!
Feuerwerksraketenanzündeschnursicherheitsverlängerung!!!

by **Corry** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:23 am UTC

I hate when people use the word 'myriad' with out putting it in the phrase 'a myriad of'. For instance, I've often seen people say something along the lines of "I have myriad reasons for . . . "

It's "I have a myriad of reasons for . . . "

I never noticed this at all until someone else complained about it. Suddenly, I'm seeing it everywhere.

Wiki says both are correct, but it just sounds terrible to me.

by **Iulus Cofield** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:06 am UTC

Well, in Greek of a very long time ago "myriad" meant "ten thousand" and, IIRC, would be accompanied with a genitive noun, but in later Greek and usually, or at least often, in English myriad just means "a lot of" so it can function as an adjective rather than a count noun like "lot", "bunch" or "tons", etc.

by **goofy** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:03 pm UTC

Thou of the many tongues, the myriad eyes! - Tennyson, Ode to Memory

by **animeHrmIne** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:14 pm UTC

I much prefer it with neither the "a" nor the "of". "A myriad of" sounds wrong. For instance, I can stand things like "There were a myriad stars in the sky," but I prefer "There were myriad stars in the sky," and "There were a myriad of stars in the sky," makes me shudder. I always learned that the word myriad has the "a" and "of" as part of the meaning.

by **Eebster the Great** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 2:36 pm UTC

Corry wrote:I hate when people use the word 'myriad' with out putting it in the phrase 'a myriad of'.

That's strange; most people have the opposite criticism.

That said, for the number 100 000 000, "a myriad of myriads" does sound better than "myriad myriads."

by **Iulus Cofield** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:43 pm UTC

Saw this on LanguageLog. I think it's a great article and, for the purposes of this thread, should go totally unheeded.

by **Adam H** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 3:50 pm UTC

I hate the word "issue". It means so many things but there is almost always a better word or phrasing. I guess it just strikes me as bland, vague, and sometimes confusing.

"I take issue with you using that word." Offense. You definitely mean offense.
"I have a major issue with that." I believe you mean problem.
"That's a separate issue." Do you mean problem again? Or perhaps topic? Or point?
"That's a non-issue." What does that even mean?

by **goofy** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 4:08 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:"I take issue with you using that word." Offense. You definitely mean offense.

OED wrote:13.c. To take up the opposite side of a case, or a contrary view on a question.

1899 J. Morris in Amer. Jrnl. Philol. XX. 438, I feel impelled to take issue with his conclusions.

by **Eebster the Great** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:36 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:"I take issue with you using that word." Offense. You definitely mean offense.

To "take issue" essentially means to "make into an issue" by beginning a debate. There is a difference between simply disagreeing with something, being offended by that thing, and taking issue with that thing.

Adam H wrote:"I have a major issue with that." I believe you mean problem.

Yeah, that usage sort of bugs me too, but it is pretty common, and I have come to accept it.

Adam H wrote:"That's a separate issue." Do you mean problem again? Or perhaps topic? Or point?

No, it means it is a separate item on some hypothetical agenda of observations, arguments, points, subpoints, contentions, etc. It makes sense to distinguish between two "separate issues" which are completely independent.

Adam H wrote:"That's a non-issue." What does that even mean?

It means either that it has already been fixed, that it has not been fixed but will not cause a problem, or will cause a problem but the problem will be completely irrelevant.

by **Adam H** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 2:43 pm UTC

Wow. You guys are really going to turn a thread called "Annoying words, and Words You Hate" into a "Annoying words, Words You Hate, and why the above poster's hatred is incorrect" thread? :roll:

"Issue" is a bland word. IMO it's similar to using "thing". Yes, I know that the connotation of it makes it useful in certain situations, but those situations are lame-o.

And I agree, my first example was poor. Let's change it to
"I take issue with you using that word." = "Let's debate!"

Eebster the Great wrote:
Adam H wrote:"That's a non-issue." What does that even mean?

It means either that it has already been fixed, that it has not been fixed but will not cause a problem, or will cause a problem but the problem will be completely irrelevant.

That's my point! It means anything you want it to mean! Say "it's irrelevent", or "it's already been fixed", or whatever you actually mean. It's lazy to use catch-all phrases instead of being precise.

by **Monika** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:16 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:Wow. You guys are really going to turn a thread called "Annoying words, and Words You Hate" into a "Annoying words, Words You Hate, and why the above poster's hatred is incorrect" thread?

This is a forum. This is not your blog. You cannot turn off comments.

by **Adam H** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:51 pm UTC

I'm just saying it's a bit pretentious to get on a thread about "words you hate" and then tell people that they are wrong. Especially when I am CLEARLY right.

by **alreadytaken4536** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:57 pm UTC

Just dropping by to say that when I looked at this thread, the view count was equal to 2^16 + 2^5 (65568).

by **Eebster the Great** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 6:39 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:Wow. You guys are really going to turn a thread called "Annoying words, and Words You Hate" into a "Annoying words, Words You Hate, and why the above poster's hatred is incorrect" thread?

Some people like to defend words they don't hate. And anyway, if I think it sounds like you were misunderstanding something, it figures that I would try to correct it . . . in a language forum.

"Issue" is a bland word. IMO it's similar to using "thing". Yes, I know that the connotation of it makes it useful in certain situations, but those situations are lame-o.

Well that may be, but "problem" doesn't rhyme with "tissue."

And I agree, my first example was poor. Let's change it to
"I take issue with you using that word." = "Let's debate!"

I mean, there aren't very many situations where the latter phrase would really be a suitable replacement, though. There are some other synonyms, but I'm not sure you would like them any more.

That's my point! It means anything you want it to mean! Say "it's irrelevent", or "it's already been fixed", or whatever you actually mean. It's lazy to use catch-all phrases instead of being precise.

Well it captures both related ideas of the issue not mattering and of it not existing at all. Logically the latter is implied by the former, but syntactically you run into problems if you try to describe non-existent things. That seems fairly useful to me, and I think there are definitely times it is the best fit for a given sentence. The fact that you could restructure the entire sentence to use a different synonym doesn't really seem relevant.

by **Adam H** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 8:43 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:if I think it sounds like you were misunderstanding something, it figures that I would try to correct it . . . in a language forum.

I really don't think I'm misunderstanding anything. My hatred of the word 'issue' is somewhat irrational (most word-hatred is...), but mainly I feel like it is a bland, catch-all word, which you don't seem to be denying. Useful? Sure (sometimes), but all words can be useful. It doesn't mean it should be used as frequently as it is.

Eebster the Great wrote:To "take issue" essentially means to "make into an issue" by beginning a debate.

Eebster the Great wrote:
Adam H wrote:And I agree, my first example was poor. Let's change it to
"I take issue with you using that word." = "Let's debate!"

I mean, there aren't very many situations where the latter phrase would really be a suitable replacement, though. There are some other synonyms, but I'm not sure you would like them any more.

I really would like to hear suitable replacements for "I take issue with that". I seriously do not know what people mean when they say it, although I generally assume it means "I disagree".

Eebster the Great wrote:Well that may be, but "problem" doesn't rhyme with "tissue."

OK now you're just trollin. :wink:

by **Eebster the Great** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:31 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:I really would like to hear suitable replacements for "I take issue with that". I seriously do not know what people mean when they say it, although I generally assume it means "I disagree".

I guess "take exception to" would be a synonym for "take issue with" while "have a problem with" and "disagree with" are fairly decent synonyms for "have an issue with." At least that would match my experience.

by **Adam H** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 3:41 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:I guess "take exception to" would be a synonym for "take issue with" while "have a problem with" and "disagree with" are fairly decent synonyms for "have an issue with." At least that would match my experience.

All I'm saying is that "I object" (another way of saying "I take exception"*), "I disagree", and "let's debate" are forceful, direct, and precise, while "I take issue with that" is wordy, bland, and vague.

There are plenty of situations that call for being wordy, bland, and vague. I hate those situations. :evil:

*EDIT: I guess "take exception" isn't an entry in an official dictionary, but thefreedictionary.com says take exception means "1. to take offense at something. 2. to disagree with something."

by **Monika** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:20 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:*EDIT: I guess "take exception" isn't an entry in an official dictionary, but thefreedictionary.com says take exception means "1. to take offense at something. 2. to disagree with something."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... 1313079604
take exception
: object <took exception to the remark>
Official enough?

by **Eebster the Great** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:23 pm UTC

What you are trying to say is that you take issue with "take issue with."

by **Adam H** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:10 pm UTC

Monika wrote:: object <took exception to the remark>
Official enough?

Uh huh, but i wouldn't call it an entry. I saw that but since the definition was a link to 'Object', it didn't seem as helpful as the other source I found (should have linked to it, sorry). I was already going on the assumption that it meant "to object" anyways so I'm not sure what your point in posting was.

Eebster the Great wrote:What you are trying to say is that you take issue with "take issue with."

I can't tell if you are serious. If not, then haha you're funny. If so, then no, I'm saying I don't like "issue" used in any phrase. I haven't stressed any of the other usages because I thought your refutations didn't deserve an argument.

But we can certainly bring it up again if you still think I'm "wrong" for being annoyed when people say "separate issue" or "non-issue".

I honestly do not understand where you guys are coming from. It seems like you are just screwing around with me. Hating bland language is surely not weird, is it?

Who is online