malapropisms and other misusage

[ejday]

On the topic, here's a depressing little bit I found...

Originally posted by KAREN W. ARENSON for the New York Times
Listings for academic jobs in literature and languages — a key barometer of staff positions in colleges and universities — are off 20 percent, the Modern Language Association of America said. It is the first decline since 1995 and the largest decline in about a decade.

"Deans and provosts are under tremendous pressure now because of a decline in financial support," said Stephen Greenblatt, a Harvard professor and president of the association, which has 32,000 members.

"If you have to cut, it is easier to do it in English or French than in chemistry or computer science," Professor Greenblatt added. "Part of that is structural — there are no laboratories that you have already paid for. The other part is that the job market in English and certain foreign languages has been depressed for the better part of a decade, so it is easy to find qualified part-time workers, who you can pay less, and give less time for research."

Emphasis added.
The last sentence hurt, too. How very corporate of our schools.

 

[Illustrious]

Originally posted by jpowers
Here are some pointers on how we could try to save some semblance of Anglophone Civilization:

I agree with you 100% on most of these, but I'm afraid there's one where you are quite wrong....

A 'Northerly' wind goes from the South to the North

A northerly wind blows from the north. Apart from winds, everything else uses "northerly" to mean "towards the north", but winds are different. This is confirmed in Fowler's Modern English Usage (2nd Edn rev. Gowers), which says:

easterly, northerly, southerly, westerly: chiefly used of wind, and then meaning east &c or thereabouts, rather from the eastern &c than from the other half of the horizon.



Incidentally, picking up on another of your examples, I note that an increasing number of Americans - especially in the Civ community - appear to think that Washington DC is the "capitol" city of the USA. Presumably they think it houses the capital building?

 

[Pillager]

"From whence?" is another one that annoys me.

 

[u-gene]

What's wrong with "from whence"? The dictionary has it as a pretty decent expression.

 

[Pillager]

One sometimes hear people say "From whence has he come?", which means "From from where has he come?", as 'whence' = 'from where'. FYI, 'thence' = 'from there'.

 

[col]

I can remember my latin teacher teacher drumming into us the difference between whither and whence. Flossie would be proud if she knew how pedantic I am now.

 

[u-gene]

OK. I'll throw my dictionary away, as it says

whence - 1. usu. "from whence", i.e. "from whence is he?"

 

[Pillager]

Well, it can be used as a pronoun and noun, such as "from which place" or "from which source", but people tend to use it in in place "from where", and in that sense it is just "whence" not "from whence".

 

[Illustrious]

Pillager:

"From whence" has a long and glorious tradition of usage. Unlike most of the solecisms listed in this thread, it has been used by and approved by the highly literate.

Also, don't forget the old legal formula for pronouncing the death sentence, which covers all of the bases: "you shall be taken from hence to the place from whence you have come; and from thence to a lawfully-appointed place of execution..."

Incidentally, if you want a "wh.." solecism to set your teeth well and truly on edge, why do so many people think "wherefore" means "where"...?

When Juliet asks "wherefore art thou Romeo?", she is not asking where he is, she is asking why that's his name. Wherefore means, of course, "why".

 

[Pillager]

Indeed, but it is still technically superfluous.

As for wherefore/why, yes, that's another good one.

The frequent "non-use" of the imperative annoys me too. The imperative is so easy in English compared to French, for example, you'd think it would be used more than it is.

 

[Illustrious]

Originally posted by Pillager
The frequent "non-use" of the imperative annoys me too. The imperative is so easy in English compared to French, for example, you'd think it would be used more than it is.

Sorry, but you'll have to provide an example. I don't recall ever noticing that the imperative is being neglected or used incorrectly.

Unless of course you're referring to a tendency to use "polite circumlocution" - for example substituting "patrons are requested to wash their hands" for "now wash your hands" over the basin in toilets. But that's hardly a solecism, albeit irritatingly twee.

 

[Pillager]

Scrap that. I was obviously sleeping. I meant 'subjunctive'. I should probably pay more attention to what I type.

 

[Illustrious]

Ah! Now if you're talking subjunctives, I agree entirely. Ironically, our American cousins use it more often and more consistently than we do...

 

[Pillager]

Yes, I've noticed that. It's funny isn't it?

My point was that it's so easy in English, i.e. based on the infinitive, that it shouldn't really be ignored. In French, it's awful, but one gets looked at rather strangely if one does not use it.