Pet Peeves v. 5.0

[drugfukkdrockstar]

OH and another pet peeve is people not cleaning their own dishes at work and just leave food all int he sink. Fucking gross!!

 

[voxmystic]

Anyways, my pet peeve for the day is people antagonizing me for using "big" words. More accurately, accusing me of trying to show off. The fact of the matter is, I get pleasure from communicating more efficiently and if that means being economical with my diction at the expense of using polysyllabic words then so be it. u mad, dropouts?

This used to happen to me, so I dumbed it down. Now I have to read everything ebola? says 3 times.

 

[Assphace]

Anyways, my pet peeve for the day is people antagonizing me for using "big" words. More accurately, accusing me of trying to show off. The fact of the matter is, I get pleasure from communicating more efficiently and if that means being economical with my diction at the expense of using polysyllabic words then so be it. u mad, dropouts?

this happens to me a lot, most of the time with words that i don't really consider all that "big". like the other day i was explaining to my dad lack of evidence of physical toxicity of 2ce in humans (he freaked out when that kid died because i like to do similar chemicals). he looked at me and went "don't use fancy words to sound smart. you're not changing my mind." i shook my head and sighed and said "it hasn't killed anyone before now, why would it now?"

really? "physical toxicity" is a big, fancy, smart people word?

 

[Max Power]

ebola? isn't even human. He's zorn smart. And that's god tier.

 

[Fjones]

if the comma was part of the text you are quoting, it should be inside the quotes. if not, it is not part of the quote and should be outside .

alasdair

You might be correct but I am not sure. I'll try to look this up. See if you can find a source or two.

Edit:

I just looked in several books and the comma is always inside the quotation marks. Either you are incorrect or we are talking about two different things.

Additional edit: Dude, What the fuck? We are talking about the same thing and you are just completely wrong. Commas go inside the quotation marks. Pick up any book on your bookshelf and you will see this to be the case. Whoever is giving you your grammar lessons needs to be fired.

 

[Fjones]

^ Hahaha, I concur. Unfortunately people are that stupid.

Got another one for ya that's probably been mentioned in the 20 pages of this thread, but I feel it's important enough to reiterate:

People who say they "could care less." If you could care less, that means you still care! Saying you "could not care less" means that you do not care.

I've heard three people (two over the age of 30) in the past week say that they "could care less" and have corrected them on it--And they gave off the impression that they "could care less" about the correct phrase. 8)

This horse has been beaten to death many times over, going back to the original pet peeves thread. I no longer find the misstatement nearly as irritating as the lame justification people give for making it - the "idiom" justification, or worse, they claim they were being sarcastic and thus did not actually make a misstatement.

Examining these absurd justifications one at a time:

1) Saying "I could care less" is NOT idiomatic. It never was and never will be. It is idiotic, for sure, but not idiomatic. "I couldn't care less" is ALREADY an idiom of sorts. "I could care less" is just ignorant nonsense.

2) If anyone eve says "I could care less" and then claims to have been speaking sarcastically, I will lose my mind. Sarcastic statements are said with SOME HINT OF SARCASM. That hint, be it a facial movement, bodily gesture, or more likely, an altered tone of voice, it always absent from the statement "I could care less."

"Bye" is pronounced exactly like one might think it is - "bye." Not "mmmmmmmbye." I don't get why people do this, but it's bleeping annoying.

Over the phone:

RL: "Thanks for helping me clear that up."
Service Rep: "Let us know if there is anything else we can do."
RL: "Thanks. Bye."
Service Rep: "mmmmmmmmmmmmmmbye."

Seriously, what's with the m's?

Why the fuck are you censoring yourself? What's with the use of "bleeping" in your pet peeve post?

Where the hell is Fjones?

I was delayed by circumstances beyond my control. But upon returning to the thread and clicking the "go to first new post" button from my user CP, it brought me to page 34, skipping over three pages of new posts. What the fuck is that all about?

I have close to two dozen peeves to rant about; I just haven't had a chance to put them into words yet.

 

[Fjones]

I've been guilty of pressing that button in the past, albeit rarely.






Anyways, my pet peeve for the day is people antagonizing me for using "big" words. More accurately, accusing me of trying to show off. The fact of the matter is, I get pleasure from communicating more efficiently and if that means being economical with my diction at the expense of using polysyllabic words then so be it. u mad, dropouts?

Never use a big word when a diminutive word will suffice.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Never use a big word when a diminutive word will suffice.

suffice? why didn't you say work instead of suffice?

Sometimes the less common, possibly bigger word is just better by a more precise meaning or euphony or maybe the other word just seems worn out.

 

[Fjones]

suffice? why didn't you say work instead of suffice?

Sometimes the less common, possibly bigger word is just better by a more precise meaning or euphony or maybe the other word just seems worn out.

I didn't want to misquote the great William Safire

Actually, I think his line should be amended so that every word (not just "diminutive") in the sentence is unnecessarily large." We should be writing,

"Never employ a gigantic word when a diminutive on will suffice."

 

[Keaton]

I was delayed by circumstances beyond my control. But upon returning to the thread and clicking the "go to first new post" button from my user CP, it brought me to page 34, skipping over three pages of new posts. What the fuck is that all about?

I have close to two dozen peeves to rant about; I just haven't had a chance to put them into words yet.

I missed you tbh.

 

[dokomo]

A huge pet peeve of mine is when people click their teeth together as a nervous habit. I sat near someone today in a restaurant and they just kept doing this over and over. The sound makes me cringe just thinking about it

 

[voxmystic]

I was actually just about to peeve that Fjones wasn't here

 

[alasdairm]

I just looked in several books and the comma is always inside the quotation marks. Either you are incorrect or we are talking about two different things.

Additional edit: Dude, What the fuck? We are talking about the same thing and you are just completely wrong.

a short investigation suggests that, in common with many things, the rest of the world gets this and the u.s.a. does not.

placing the comma logically inside or outside the quotes depending on whether the comma is part of the quote or not would seem to make sense to any reasonable observer. this approach seems to be known as 'the british standard' and, further, seems to be followed throughout the english speaking world, with the exception of the u.s.

in the u.s. the convention is to place the comma indisde the quotes regardless of whether it is part of the original quote. i know you are a big fan of logic, fjones, so i know you'll agree with me that this approach, logically, makes no sense whatsoever.

it's not that important for me to be right all the time but i know it's important to you along with the rest of the u.s., on this matter, you are certainly 'wrong'.

alasdair

 

[fizzle]

^Actually thats the way I've always been taught as well... in every (American) school that I have ever been to. (Comma being inside or outside the quotations, depending on its use, just for clarification.)

 

[Fjones]

a short investigation suggests that, in common with many things, the rest of the world gets this and the u.s.a. does not.

placing the comma logically inside or outside the quotes depending on whether the comma is part of the quote or not would seem to make sense to any reasonable observer. this approach seems to be known as 'the british standard' and, further, seems to be followed throughout the english speaking world, with the exception of the u.s.

in the u.s. the convention is to place the comma indisde the quotes regardless of whether it is part of the original quote. i know you are a big fan of logic, fjones, so i know you'll agree with me that this approach, logically, makes no sense whatsoever.

it's not that important for me to be right all the time but i know it's important to you along with the rest of the u.s., on this matter, you are certainly 'wrong'.

alasdair

I am not sure I am following what you are saying. If there is a rule of grammar or writing that is illogical, I'll be first in line to sign a petition to change the rule.

But, I am not sure I follow your reasoning regarding whether the comma is part of the original quoted material. In my post in which you originally called out my placement of the comma, I wasn't really quoting anything, I was merely placing quotation marks around two words in my sentence to add clarity to my point.

Could you give me two examples of what you consider proper placement of comma and quotation marks, one where the comma is inside the quotes and one outside? Based on what you are saying, I don't understand a scenario where a comma would ever go inside the quotation marks, since people don't often end quoted material at a point in the quoted material that ends with a comma. Quoted portions usually end with a sentence-completing punctuation mark or an ellipsis indicating that the rest of the quote has been truncated.

So, if I wrote the following:

According to Smith, "The house was elegant and spacious,"

what exactly am I saying? Did Smith just forget to finish the sentence? No. There is more to the quoted sentence, which means I should either finish the sentence, or use an ellipsis to indicate I have truncated the rest of the quote.

 

[alasdairm]

i might write:

the constitution of the united states declares that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States," the composition of which is subsequently described.

i might write

i was reading the note from john which said "i'll be back later", shortly before the phone rang.

all the reading that i have done on this subject - including webster's which is, i think, a reasonably well-respected source - confirms that the u.s. approaches this issue conventionally and the rest of the world uses the more logical approach.

let me ask you this. given that quote marks essentially say (in this context) "the bit inside the quote marks is from somewhere else", what is the logic in placing the comma inside the quote marks?

i have no problem with the u.s. settling on a different convention - why didn't they decide that the convention would be to always place the punctuation outside the quotes?

alasdair

 

[China Rider]

Drivers in the left turn lane at a light that do not 'cheat' forward, they wait until the oncoming car is completely past them to 'start' their turn.
Taking forever to accelerate in general...if I can see a light turn green from 1/4 mile away there is no reason why I should have to come to a stop, or even use my brakes unless there is more than say 5 cars stopped at the light.
Drivers who don't drive around drivers ahead of them that are stopped trying to make a left hand turn.
People who get to a 4 way stop sign like five seconds before me, and then wait for me to turn.

 

[Fjones]

i might write:

the constitution of the united states declares that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States," the composition of which is subsequently described.

i might write

i was reading the note from john which said "i'll be back later", shortly before the phone rang.

all the reading that i have done on this subject - including webster's which is, i think, a reasonably well-respected source - confirms that the u.s. approaches this issue conventionally and the rest of the world uses the more logical approach.

let me ask you this. given that quote marks essentially say (in this context) "the bit inside the quote marks is from somewhere else", what is the logic in placing the comma inside the quote marks?

i have no problem with the u.s. settling on a different convention - why didn't they decide that the convention would be to always place the punctuation outside the quotes?

alasdair

I would have little objection to moving commas (and all other punctuation) outside the quotation marks unless they actual exist in the quoted material. Unfortunately, I lack the power to make this happen, and when I am teaching students how to write properly, I can't teach them the "wrong" way even though it makes more sense and is used elsewhere in the world.

Similarly, I would like to do away with our silly system of measurement and adopt the metric system. But again, I lack this power, and when I teach, I have to use what we have.

As times change, rules change; but change for this rule doesn't appear to be imminent.

I must ask though, in the quote from the constitution, since you placed the comma inside the quotes, that means there is a comma at that point in the quoted material? I don't have a problem with that, IF we were to adopt the system you recommend. But a it stands now, it makes it look as though the sentence ends there, when apparently your intent is to show that there is another clause following that comma. I would prefer to see you replace the comma with an ellipsis to indicate that the rest of the sentence following the comma has been truncated.

 

[dokomo]

i have no problem with the u.s. settling on a different convention - why didn't they decide that the convention would be to always place the punctuation outside the quotes?

Simple. Placing the punctuation inside the quotes is more aesthetically appealing.

 

[cletus]

I'm in the midst of finding some inspiration for decorating my home & my peeve today is television programs, especially the home improvement variety. Over the last few years, the quality of TV shows in the UK have really gone downhill. I'm not necessarily talking about the subject matter, I'm talking about the production itself. A half hour program only seems to have 10 minutes of proper filling & the rest is now made up of "coming up this episode" which then procedes to spoil the surprise by showing the big unveil before we even get started.

Not content with showing us on several occasions what to expect in the next 4 minutes & then show it, they also have a recap of something you only saw 7 minutes ago. Do they really think everyone is retarded with the smallest of memory spans? I find it pretty damn insulting, but I also see they are padding out their allocated time as much as they can.

This is no anti-american onslaught, but I'm sure you guys started this type of show editing years ago & it really is catching on big time here. You can also keep the "in your face" interview scenes with the main characters that gets intertwined with the main 'action'.

Watch Extreme Makeover or Mythbusters & you will get what I am talking about, because I saw it there first.