h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

And yes, when I was a kid and my mother went to Marks and Sparks, that counted as going to the shops because she always went to more than one when she went shopping. That would've been in the days when most husbands went to work, most wives stayed at home, and far fewer people had cars. Going shopping for people like my mother was an event that happened two or three times a week because it involved either walking a couple of miles, or getting on a bus and going to a place where all the shops she needed were concentrated and where she bought everything she needed for the next three or four days before the next trip. There was no 'I'm going to drive to Sainsbury's to get the next month's food', or 'I need a new mop, I think I'll go to - shopping was planned, not done on the spur of the moment or in several trips in the car, hence, going to the shops.

Perhaps that's a reason behind some of the changes in language - changing social conditions. You have no car, you have to go to the shops. You have a car, you can go to one shop today, another shop tomorrow, or go to one big shop and load the car up with everything you need for the forseeable future.

"And I'm fed up with people being 'fed up of' something"

I'm sick and tired of being told ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not, and I'm sick and tired of being told that I am.

SoRB

I'm surprised that the frequent confusion between borrowing and lending hasn't surfaced yet.

I HATE "I'm a bit short of cash. Can somebody borrow me a fiver?"

Noggin

My biggest bugbear is the way people seem to love tacking 'isation' (or 'ization' if you're from the US) onto the end of perfectly innocent words. I'm well aware that it's a valid part of the language (looks around nervously for Amy the Ant who told me off last time I bRought this up) but there's no excuse for words like 'internetisation' or 'telephonisation'.

I've even come across 'paradigmisation' and 'pro-activeisation'.

Yes, "isation"-isation is rife, and has been for some time. I remember ten years ago work being done on the A444/M42 roundabout near Coventry, where traffic lights were being installed. Or as the sign had it "Signalisation works in progress".

SoRB

This is all to do with poor English language teaching.

One of the things that really annoys me is people getting 'effect' and 'affect' mixed up.

I have noticed recently though that people are using 'whom' alot more rather than just using 'who' for any statement or question that could contain 'who' or 'whom'.

'Who' is pretty much all-purpose these days (meaning it can be used instead of whom), but 'whom' should only be used in specific situations. I think some people think it sounds somehow more posh to use 'whom' and end up using it when it isn't appropriate.

az

One thing I've noticed, and which has been mentioned on the BBC website, is 'upspeak'? Basically, upspeak is where people say statements in the same way they say questions? In other words almost every sentence spoken ends at a higher pitch thus creating a questioning tone?

You mean like how everyone in Bristol talks?


az

Drivin' my Cortinor in Brizzle.

You forgot the question mark?


az

I think the main difference is that this is how people in Bristol just tend to talk, it's not a recent development. It does seem that 'upspeak' is something that especially teenagers do world-wide now, and I have no idea how or when this started. Does anyone else?


az

I have a vague recollection from my English Language A-Level that this trend was sparked off by the popularity of Australian soap operas among teenagers and young people, as this linguistic trait is common in Australia.

I rarely watch Neighbours/Home & Away, and it's over 8 years since I did my A-Levels, so I'm not sure how accurate a statement this is. . However, I have heard Americans use upspeak, too - and I doubt they watch Neighbours.

I've tried looking for the BBC article on upspeak, but it doesn't come up on any of my searches.
If I remember correctly one of the possible origins mentioned was Californian middle-class teenagers in the 80's.

<>

You mean 'Valley Girls'?

I think you might be right.


az

<>

Yep. Couldn't remember the proper term for them.

No Butter has for a very long time been pronounced BUTTAH.

Oddly only when refering to bread that has had the butter applied do people sound the er BUTTER'D.

One of the reading books we use for remedial teaching actually stipulates these pronuonciations.

Unfortunately Ive never come across a book for remedial typoing.

I loathe the use of whom it is deliberately and contrarily archaic in the same way that axe for ask. Both get up my nose but if people wont to cast themselves as (chunk of butter) heads then let 'em.

"I loathe the use of whom it is deliberately and contrarily archaic"

It does have the distinction of being deliberately *correct*, though.

I tend to use "whom" instinctively in conversation in phrases like "to whom did you give it?" when I'm in a precise, information-intensive frame of mind. On the other hand, when my mind is less focussed, I tend to say "who did you give it to?", thus not only using the wrong word, but ending the sentence with a preposition, which normally is the sort of thing up with which I cannot put...

SoRB

Whomever are you referring to, blicky?




az

Oh come off it, SoRB, who the heckity EVER says in casual conversation - 'To whom did you give it?'

Get outta here.

'Who did you give it to' is more natural, and doesn't sound like you have a stick up yer bum.

There are more 'normal sounding' sentences where whom sounds more natural - can't think of any off hand but will get back to you on that.


az