Grammarants

[Mel O'Drama]

Whether it's due to lockdown, age or the moon, I find myself increasingly intolerant when it comes to the deliberate mangling of English.

So here's a space to moan about those darned pesky kids and their millennialisms. I have two that I desperately need to get off my tight little chest.



Let's start with:


"Excited for" vs. "Excited about"


Is there no longer a difference?

Increasingly, I see "excited for" used when someone is looking forward to an event or product.

For example, "I'm excited for the new film". Which means "I'm excited on behalf of the new film". Or "I'm sharing the excitement the film is feeling".

Presumably, the person intends to say they themselves are feeling excitement in anticipation of said film. Or, in English, they are "excited about the new film".

Are people deliberately saying the wrong thing? In the same way that "sick" means "good" and "killing something" means doing it rather well? Is it now uncool to be clear that one is excited about something?

Incidentally, it's apparently not a new trend. This decade old article has the same complaint.

Anyway, I feel much better now that I've complained for it about it.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I love my Pointless, but the contestants on this series are the absolute worst for my other current gripe: the trend of beginning sentences with "so". Some days I just can't watch the first round when we're meeting the contestants. They typically go like this:

Welcome to the show. Tell us about yourself.

So I'm Mabel. I'm thirty-nine, from Chichester, and I'm currently training for the London Marathon.

That's a terrific way to stay fit and get some fresh air. Is this a long-term passion of yours

So this will actually be my first. But I have been working up to it and I've done some 5K runs and one 10K last year.

Wow. I'm feeling breathless just thinking about it. How did you get into running in the first place?

Yeah. So my friend got me walking with her and helped me lose half my body weight.

That's an incredible achievement. I hope this means you've got a great, low-scoring answer for this round on foreign names for salad ingredients. How's the board looking for you?

So I know a few of them....

I'm all for occasionally beginning sentences occasionally with "and", "but" or even "So" for informality. But doing it repeatedly and relentlessly irritates me no end. Listening to a series of sentences beginning with "so" makes one feel they've missed something. As though the speaker is summing up something they've already said or are halfway through a sentence and the listener has missed the beginning.

I'm trying to spot a pattern with this one. It seems more based on age and gender than it does geography. The general pattern on Pointless is that under thirties do it almost universally, with the occasional happy exception (like the two nice Irish boys who got voted off in the first round of both their shows this week). In the over 30 age bracket, women seem far more likely to do it than men. The people who are better at the highbrow questions don't do it. And if one of the couples does it, their pair invariably does it as well.

What does this all mean? Who knows. But I'm still skipping the first round.

 

[Angela Channing]

I love my Pointless, but the contestants on this series are the absolute worst for my other current gripe: the trend of beginning sentences with "so". Some days I just can't watch the first round when we're meeting the contestants. They typically go like this:

Yes, I completely agree with you, in fact I've raised this point before on this forum. I shudder every time it's used in this way. I used to hear it a lot when young people talk but now it seems to have crept into the speech of people of my generation (Generation X). Really annoying.

This is what I previously said on the subject.

So have you noticed the modern trend to begin sentences with the word "so"? So there are people use it even when it's not required and to me it often sounds ridiculous.

So when and why did this pattern of speech begin? So I find it quite annoying because I always thought "so" was primarily used as a conjunction in the middle of a sentence (e.g. that sentence wasn't very good so I'm going to phrase it differently) so hearing it used widely as an interjection at the start of a sentence seems very odd.

My current pet hate in speech is "being across" a subject meaning to fully understand an issue or being aware of all the facts. It may well be correct English but I never previously heard it and nowadays I hear with with annoying regularity.

 

[James from London]

I try to be sanguine about it. This is how language has always evolved, I guess. I think the only one that still grates on me (for me? across me? through me?) a bit is "should of". The mighty Pretenders even released a song called 'I Should Of' (even though Chrissie Hynde clearly sings "have") which made me sad.

the trend of beginning sentences with "so"

So that made me think of Adam Buxton who has fun with the "so" thing during this Squarespace ad, which also parodies the whole This American Life/Serial kind of delivery.

So it's Squarespace: Important Infopod which is the second one under the Squarespace heading:

Sponsor Ads — ADAM BUXTON

www.adam-buxton.co.uk

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Yes, I completely agree with you, in fact I've raised this point before on this forum.

This is what I previously said on the subject.

Ah - thank you. I had it at the back of my mind that you'd mentioned it somewhere and I even had a root around for it. When I couldn't find it I thought it must have been on the old forum. Turns out I just didn't look thoroughly enough.

Somehow, knowing someone else feels the same way seems to soften the blow. Perhaps I won't burst a blood vessel next time I hear it.

I try to be sanguine about it. This is how language has always evolved, I guess.

I used to be a lot more open-minded about it, but seem to have fallen into the middle-aged trap of becoming entrenched in rules.

That said, I find these evolutions easier to roll with if I can understand how they facilitate the language. There are some that make perfect sense because they say the same thing in a more concise way. Saying "hi" instead of "hello" or writing "OK" instead of "all right", for example.

The "so" thing doesn't do that. It's just an additional word that doesn't add any value to what's being said.

My gripe with the "excited for" thing is that it changes the meaning of what's being said. A bit like saying "waiting on" in place of "waiting for".

I think the only one that still grates on me (for me? across me? through me?) a bit is "should of".

Oh yes. I remember the classic "should of" thread of old.

This one used to bother me more than it does today. I think I've made some peace with it by following the path of how people could misheard "should've". But yes - it's grating all right.

So that made me think of Adam Buxton who has fun with the "so" thing during this Squarespace ad, which also parodies the whole This American Life/Serial kind of delivery.

That was great. I'm not familiar with Adam Buxton, but these ads sound very Kenny Everett (at one point I saw Cupid Stunt in my mind). The Creaky Voice one made me smile as well.

 

[James from London]

The "so" thing doesn't do that. It's just an additional word that doesn't add any value to what's being said.

So ... I wonder if it's got anything to do with the blurring between people posting on social media purely to be social, and posting because they want to sell or promote something. Instead of "I've just written a book and I want you to buy it", it's a way of sounding more anecdotal, more casual, "So, hey, by the way, I've just written a book ..." It's a way of sliding into the cold hard facts.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

So ... I wonder if it's got anything to do with the blurring between people posting on social media purely to be social, and posting because they want to sell or promote something. Instead of "I've just written a book and I want you to buy it", it's a way of sounding more anecdotal, more casual, "So, hey, by the way, I've just written a book ..." It's a way of sliding into the cold hard facts.

Ah. Now it's beginning to make some sense to me. And perhaps that's why it crops up during the introductions on Pointless. It's where people are talking facts about themselves and so is a way of sliding into those. A few years ago, people would probably have led with "Well..."*

The fact that I'm allergic to social media might explain why I'm seeing and hearing the trend through different eyes. To others it's part of their written etiquette that's bled over into the real world. To me it's just a superfluous word that began appearing at the beginning of sentences for no apparent reason.


*This reminds me of Peter Jones on Just A Minute who, when asked to speak, invariably opened with the word "well". The other panellists quickly picked up on this and if they were feeling less than charitable would quickly challenge him for repetition of "well" when he came in to speak for the second time during a round.

 

[James from London]

It's where people are talking facts about themselves and so is a way of sliding into those. A few years ago, people would probably have led with "Well...

Maybe in that sort of situation, it's an insecurity thing as well, like going up at the end of sentences cos you're looking for affirmation?

 

[Jason73]

I have to admit that threads that make people feel bad (badly? I'm paranoid now) about the way they speak are one of my least favorite things on the internet. I don't speak/type with perfect grammar and I'm certain, based on the various language/grammar threads on here, I've phrased things that make people cringe or sound horrifyingly "American." I know for certain I've used "excited for." I'm terrible with commas and not great with prepositions.

I guess I notice when people use glaringly imperfect grammar but I can't think of anything that causes a visceral reaction from (in? with?) me. Maybe working with young children, many of whom are second language learners or from families of poverty has given me a strong tolerance for it.

Edit: I've edited this thread for grammar and punctuation three times since I posted it.

 

[James from London]

I'm terrible with commas

There doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule with commas anymore. I just go with what feels right. (Or sometimes I cheat and use Grammarly.)

not great with prepositions.

I'm even not sure what a preposition is.

It's taken me years, but think I've finally figured semi-colons out. It's when two halves of a sentence are of equal value, eg, "He was hot; she was cold."

I've phrased things that make people cringe or sound horrifyingly "American."

Americans should feel free to sound American, there's nothing horrifying about that. But while it's nice to be influenced by other cultures, I don't love it when my iPhone automatically changes my spelling to American English.

 

[Jason73]

I just go with what feels right.

That tends to be my rule when using commas. Plus, I try not to overthink it--like I'm doing right now with that comma after "plus."

I'm even not sure what a preposition is.

I only know because when I taught third grade it was part of our curriculum. Luckily I only had to teach how to recognize them and not how to apply them properly.

I've finally figured semi-colons out. It's when two halves of a sentence are of equal value, eg, "He was hot; she was cold."

I'm always filled with self doubt whenever I use a semi-colon. Again, I go with the "just feels right" rule.

I don't love it when my iPhone automatically changes my spelling to American English.

That makes sense to me. If I had to retype "neighbour" to "neighbor" every time my iPhone auto corrected, I'd hate it too. I already have enough built up resentment towards my phone's ability to completely botch it's auto correcting duties.

 

[Ukdallasfan]

Use of the word impact as a verb e.g. he was really impacted by it, totally grates on me. I know, I’m old fashioned

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Maybe in that sort of situation, it's an insecurity thing as well, like going up at the end of sentences cos you're looking for affirmation?

Yes? I mean yes.

There's also a degree of uniformity to it. If the first two pairs of contestants do the "so", it becomes the done thing. Not exactly peer pressure, but a mirroring mechanism for fitting in.

Unusually only one contestant did the "so" thing tonight (but he did it a lot). And he was the only person under 50.

I have to admit that threads that make people feel bad (badly? I'm paranoid now) about the way they speak are one of my least favorite things on the internet.

I can appreciate that. There are many threads in the Rant Room that don't appeal to me at all. I tried to title this one so that people who don't care for this type of topic could choose to avoid it if they wished.

My opening points are somewhat trivial and petty, but they're rooted in my interest in language. I'm fascinated by its different uses, but also by my own growing resistance to changes. I opened with the caveat that it's based on my own experiences and I've tried to explore why these particular expressions might bother me while others don't. For my part, the first post was annoyance as much at myself for being a grumpy old fart who is no longer cool enough to keep up with or understand the language used around me as it is the language I'm intolerant towards. You've eloquently expressed self-awareness in your understanding of why your tolerance to imperfect grammar is high. I was trying to explore why mine - in the examples given - is low.

The thread wasn't opened with the intention of making anyone feel bad, and I'm truly sorry that this is the case. There are other Rant Room threads that have discussed pronunciation and have generated discussion. That was the intention with this one.

As well as venting a little bit (which is the nature of the beast in this forum), I hoped to gain an understanding about people's experience with these phrases. And I have. For what it's worth, thanks to the discussion in this thread I've gained some insight into one of the expressions that bothered me thanks to James's suggestion that it possibly originated in a world I don't visit (social media). The discussion has been helpful (to me, at least) on that level.

Edit: I've edited this thread for grammar and punctuation three times since I posted it.

Ha ha. Yes. I've found myself scrutinising what I've written more carefully in this thread than others. Earlier on, a line of Sid Fairgate's popped into my head: something like "If you're going to criticise others then your own behaviour needs to be above reproach". And my grammar and punctuation are far from perfect, as the semi-colon talk has reminded me.

I'm certain, based on the various language/grammar threads on here, I've phrased things that make people cringe or sound horrifyingly "American."

Americans should feel free to sound American, there's nothing horrifying about that. But while it's nice to be influenced by other cultures, I don't love it when my iPhone automatically changes my spelling to American English.

Yeah. I didn't think the things I've mentioned were necessarily an American/UK English difference and I fully enjoy seeing all members speaking in a way that reflects their locations.

 

[Jason73]

I tried to title this one so that people who don't care for this type of topic could choose to avoid it if they wished.

Yes, while I admit that I tend to perceive grammar discussions as quite "judge-y," I still get sucked into reading the threads when I see them. I don't know why, honestly. I guess I should explore that tendency.

Edit to add: Also, I'm embarrassed to say, "excited for" really struck a nerve with me this morning. Usually I'm good at reading and then ignoring the various grammar mistakes pointed out in similar threads.

My opening points are somewhat trivial and petty, but they're rooted in my interest in language. I'm fascinated by its different uses, but also by my own growing resistance to changes. I opened with the caveat that it's based on my own experiences and I've tried to explore why these particular expressions might bother me while others don't. For my part, the first post was annoyance as much at myself for being a grumpy old fart who is no longer cool enough to keep up with or understand the language used around me as it is the people using those expressions. You've eloquently expressed self-awareness in your understanding of why your tolerance to imperfect grammar is high. I was trying to explore why mine - in the examples given - is low.

I've spent a good part of the morning rationalizing to myself why I sometimes use "excited for" and feeling embarrassed that, to me, it sounds perfectly natural and correct. I guess that says something about my insecurities with my language and grammar. More things for me to self-analyze.

I didn't think the things I've mentioned were necessarily an American/UK English difference and I fully enjoy seeing all members speaking in a way that reflects their locations.

No, I didn't take this thread as being one that was looking down it's nose at how Americans speak inferior English. That was an off the cuff reference to discussions in other threads.

 

[Jason73]

intolerant when it comes to the deliberate mangling of English.

Also, this -- it truly isn't deliberate on my part. It's purely ignorance. It's interesting that your perception of it is that it is deliberate. (Not specifically with me, I understand.) I sort of tend to think think people just speak the way they speak based on various influences--including class, education, region, and time spent on social media and it all just sort of seeps in and comes out of the person's mouth as the way they speak. It's never occurred to me that it's deliberate. Maybe it's because I haven't thought about it that much in those terms.

 

[Jason73]

Anyways, I'm sorry I hijacked your Grammarant, by ranting about grammarants. I should have followed the rules and started my own thread for my own rant instead of ranting all over your right to rant.

 

[Sarah]

Let me add to this the language of Jim McDonald from Corrie which isn’t normal but for a few words spoke in Ulster-ish (which is a N Ireland made up way of communicating).

I am betraying my country by saying this but Charlie Lawson is TERRIBLE in Corrie (UK soap for those who aren’t aware) and his over exaggerated Ulster thing of saying ‘so it is’ after everything DOES NOT HAPPEN with the frequency he portrays it.

However it does happen sometimes, especially in East Belfast. But it’s usually just a “I’m doing that tonight so I am” or “It’s horrible, so it is”.

However, in keeping with the thread theme, one of the many colourful characters I work with, uses the colloquialism completely out of context or picks the wrong “so it” from described list. It drives me to distraction. For example:

“And I am going to Spain... so it was”

“And Liverpool took the cup last night... so I am”

“And we were left running up the road from the Man Utd fans... so it was”.

It adds more pain and unbearable annoyance to something that is already unbearably annoying.

 

[Willie Oleson]

but think I've finally figured semi-colons out

I've always thought it added more pause between the pre- and post-semi-colon text, whereas a full stop would result in two painfully short sentences.
It's always annoyed me that this symbol is the first (non-shift) option on the keyboard; but I think I'm going to use it more often now. Thanks, James!

That tends to be my rule when using comma

The comma is a devilish temptress when I feel that my text looks like I'm rambling on (which is probably exactly what it is).
However - and how I love that word, it's so dramatic! - sometimes it's fun to see how many commas, dashes and brackets I can cram into one sentence.

Use of the word impact as a verb

Depends on the how and when. We shouldn't be afraid to be playful with our languages and I feel that poetry/song lyrics can get away with pretty much everything.
But are you sure that "impact" is not an official verb? Although it does sound kind of modern-ish.

Either way, the overkill of any word is always going to irritate, y'know'm sayin'.

 

[Daniel Avery]

A local meteorologist irks me when he says "Bring an umbrella if you plan to go out this evening." Actually, he should say to take an umbrella if you plan to go out, but I can't compose a clear explanation of why this is the correct way of offering the suggestion. You take something with you as you leave on an open-ended journey. You'd only say to bring it to, like to a particular place. Like I said, I can't figure out how to explain it, but it just sounds incorrect.

A lot of pre-printed materials crosses our desks at work (stuff sent to a printer by our corporate overlords) and I shudder at the horrid misspellings, grammatical errors, syntax failures, and general inability to proofread. In the back of my mind I know it's not the fault of the printer, since they only "punch up" the copy that is sent to them and do not change anything---but man, I wish they would. If I worked for the printer and did not value my job I'd correct it all (in red ink) and send it back with a letter grade on top, plus "Try Again". The returns would look like I slit my wrists on them.

Just this week, we received a poster for Open Enrollment (insurance/benefits stuff) with improper use of "your/you're" and "its/it's". They even misspelled the word "mandatory" (there's no "I" in Team, nor is there one in "Mandatory"). I don't stay in the break room for very long, which is good because I'm the one who will pull out the red pen and edit if I have to stare at it very long. We've all gotten used to spotting the errors; now, it's just a matter of pointing out the degree of carelessness (bordering on apathy). I'd say it makes us think less of them for not even proofreading their materials, but it would be impossible for me to think any less of them at this point.

Also:
Add me to the "Impactful is not a word!" camp. I blame HGTV for that one, just as I blame the Food Network for the term "plating" (that is, putting food on a plate to serve it).

When did a "troop" (group of soldiers, think F Troop) become a single person?

People use "decimated" as a synonym for "totally destroyed" when it actually refers to being reduced by 10%. I've given up trying to fight for that one, though.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I've spent a good part of the morning rationalizing to myself why I sometimes use "excited for" and feeling embarrassed that, to me, it sounds perfectly natural and correct.

Oh gosh. The last thing I'd want is to think of you feeling embarrassed or bad off the back of my pedantry.

My question about there no longer being a difference between "excited for" and "excited about" was a genuine one. "Excited for" is widely used, but I suppose I've only really noticed it in the last couple of years, so I'm a bit behind the times (again, perhaps due to my lack of social media) and felt as though I missed the memo.

It's interesting that your perception of it is that it is deliberate.

Yes. On reflection, the word "deliberate" was a bit strong. In reality I'd agree that it's much more like this:

I sort of tend to think think people just speak the way they speak based on various influences--including class, education, region, and time spent on social media and it all just sort of seeps in and comes out of the person's mouth as the way they speak.

Anyways, I'm sorry I hijacked your Grammarant, by ranting about grammarants. I should have followed the rules and started my own thread for my own rant instead of ranting all over your right to rant.

Well, we may be coming at it from different angles but at least we're discussing, so it's all good.

“And I am going to Spain... so it was”

“And Liverpool took the cup last night... so I am”

“And we were left running up the road from the Man Utd fans... so it was”.

It's the stuff of sitcom.

A local meteorologist irks me when he says "Bring an umbrella if you plan to go out this evening."

Maybe he's asking you to pop by and help keep him dry.

They even misspelled the word "mandatory" (there's no "I" in Team, nor is there one in "Mandatory").

I can't even think where an "I" could be inserted. Was it "mandaitory" or something else?

People use "decimated" as a synonym for "totally destroyed" when it actually refers to being reduced by 10%. I've given up trying to fight for that one, though.

Same here. It's as futile as the fight to keep "literally" literal.