More to muck about than to actually rant, but still a kind of rant ...

[leethet]

... because, well, for a start, what the FUCK is going on with LJ (as well as what the FUCK is going on with Windows, but I know the answer to that [recent security updates are trashing fonts]). But really because I see this kind of regularly and I thought I'd do a mini-rant on language use.


That bike you ride in the gym that doesn't get you anywhere? It's not a recumbent bike. It's a stationary bike. Recumbent means you ride it in, basically, a supine position. Those are street bikes. Gym-style stationary bikes are quite upright in construction.

Also, stop saying "in regards to." It's "in regard to." Regards are greetings and well-wishes. You give someone regards. If you're referring to a particular topic, it is "in regard to the matter at hand."

Also also also ... this is, I think, a regionalism of the middle U.S. Just a theory. But certain folks have a penchant for "The reason why is because ..." It makes me want to scream. It's enough to be redundant, but doubly redundant? "The reason is [STATE REASON HERE]." God almighty.

And because I always enjoy other people's pet peeves regarding language, feel free to post anything that's recently made you grit your teeth.

Comments

[gilda-elise.livejournal.com]

Oddly enough, LJ is one of the few sites where I don't have a problem. I'm on an old IBM Mac, and nothing is supported. Come February 28, even my Norton Antivirus will no longer work, so it's my laptop only until I buy another desktop.

Regarding your rant (is that right? *g*,) it absolutely puts my teeth on edge when people say "went to see," instead of just "we saw," or "we're going to go," instead of just "we're going." Even worse, "we've got a dog," (we have got?!) "instead of "we have a dog."

[leethet.livejournal.com]

Whoa. Those are good ones and even pickier than mine! "Went to see" is invisible to me (or it was - thanks a lot!). It sounds kind of folksy - we bin an' gone an' done it, rather than just we done it.

However ... hm ... perhaps in my senility I'm making this up, but I think I read once a discussion about the difference between phrases like "We're going to go to the movies" v. "We're going to the movies" - the former announces an intent at some vague future time, the latter announces that immediate action will follow. I don't mean that technically Standard English makes that distinction, but that colloquially the "going to" is a qualifier, y'know?

"Got" is also usually invisible to me, except when English people use it, because they use it differently.

I like these - they're making me think about my assumptions. :-)