English Language - what "Does your head in" ??

[Si]

Being married to a grammar-Nazi I've inherited various angsts where previously there was but serene acceptance.

For instance: "fill out a form". This never caused me a problem in the past, but now I find it hard not to offer correction.

[Psamathe]

...
For instance: "fill out a form". This never caused me a problem in the past, but now I find it hard not to offer correction.

(To make a fool of myself here - I'm not good at English language) what should "fill out a form" be ?

Ian

[Richard Fairhurst]

"Uni" (it's really called a "University")

I think you can date that one pretty precisely to Neighbours being a popular TV programme in the late 80s/early 90s, though no doubt the abbreviation would have been imported eventually...

[Si]

what should "fill out a form" be ?

"Fill in a form". You write things _in_ the boxes not out the boxes. Apparently. Can't say that I was ever that bothered until I came under the influence of a teacher.

[williampiper]

Should of

[gaz]

If someone, apparently unknowingly, utters mangled sentences, uses the wrong parts of speech, or simply confuses the meanings of words, what are we to infer about their understanding of the subject or their ability to think straight?

Are you referring to George W Bush?

[661-Pete]

Many people (on this side of the Atlantic) get understandably grumpy when so-called 'Americanisms' creep into the language.

My view is, if the text originates from America (or other countries that mostly follow US English), then it should be left as it is. I always feel that there's something that doesn't ring true, if I read something by an American author that's been converted to English English. One feels that the text has been unnecessarily tampered with.

Conversely, I recall that way back in my student days, I co-authored a technical paper that was submitted to a US journal. It eventually got published and I noticed that all the spellings had been painstakingly converted to US English. I say 'painstakingly' because this was long before the days of word processors and the Replace All function: someone must have gone through the document word by word, marking it up and then getting it re-typed. I wasn't really bothered by all this, but I couldn't help thinking, what a waste of effort!

Another case: I'm at the moment working through a novel, on my Kindle, which is a joint authorship between a (very eminent, now sadly deceased) English author, and a (less eminent) American author. It is fairly evident that the edition of the book from which the Kindle version was transcribed, was originally published in US English. But they have gone through the text and substituted a lot of English spellings (e.g. "travelled" for "traveled"). But not all! I find the word 'pants' at one place, where we would write 'trousers'. This half-and-half Anglicisation is rather annoying. I would rather the book had been left in the original US version.

[Ray]

If someone, apparently unknowingly, utters mangled sentences, uses the wrong parts of speech, or simply confuses the meanings of words, what are we to infer about their understanding of the subject or their ability to think straight?

Are you referring to George W Bush?

Well spotted

There are others, though . . .

[Ray]

Many people (on this side of the Atlantic) get understandably grumpy when so-called 'Americanisms' creep into the language.

My view is, if the text originates from America (or other countries that mostly follow US English), then it should be left as it is. I always feel that there's something that doesn't ring true, if I read something by an American author that's been converted to English English. . . .
. . . . This half-and-half Anglicisation is rather annoying. I would rather the book had been left in the original US version.

Agreed. In a similar way, recorded readings from US writings just sound better in the appropriate local accent. Anyone reading an American novel would almost certainly be aware of the potential differences from British English, and should make allowances.

Some differences, however, can be troublesome. The use of alternate to mean alternative first occurred in the US (I believe?), and has now been adopted quite widely over here, despite the two words having completely different meanings previously. You mentioned 'pants' rather than 'trousers', which could cause confusion, or even embarrassment. It's enough to drive you 'nuts'; and there's another example!

[700c]

People who don't/won't/can't understand that language is fluid.

Words and phrases that we use now .. were not used a decade ago.
In a decade from now we will have words and phrases totally new.

Go back to the 1600s and try reading a manuscript.
Should the English language still be like that?

Fantabulous!

[Heltor Chasca]

Obviously

So

[661-Pete]

You mentioned 'pants' rather than 'trousers', which could cause confusion, or even embarrassment.

Indeed. I'm just hoping, if I'm ever in the USA and I get stopped by immigration or the cops or whatever, and asked to "take my pants down", that I remember in time!

[Graham]

The trousers / ( american) pants confusion still gives me some silly amusement, especially now that I am a grumpy, old pedant.

I like silly amusement and was pondering the cultural masterpiece that is the Three Word Story Game.
Is it a kind of anti-poetry ?? Or perhaps poetry itself by a wider definition ??
? Am I going mad ?

[Psamathe]

A few more (after the TV news)
UK plc
"Open for business" (as in Northern Powerhouse is open for business, London is open for business, UK is open for business)

Ian

[sjs]

"Ahead of", as in "ahead of the meeting". Why not "before"? Not sure how recent it is, but the BBC uses it a lot, and it irritates me.