[NA] Proper use of adverbs make you sound smarter

To boldly do what you ought to smartly do.....

:D
 
my favorite (:no:) is "He'll be with you shortly"... what if I need him to hang around a while, answer some questions, not just pop in and then leave?
 
etsisk said:
my favorite (:no:) is "He'll be with you shortly"... what if I need him to hang around a while, answer some questions, not just pop in and then leave?
Click to expand...

That's funny. My wife tries to say "The doctor will be with you soon."
 
We have a good TV meteorologist on our NBC channel. However, I'm tempted to scream every time he proclaims something similar to "We won't be receiving any snow this weekend. The reason why is the storm hitting Virginia, D.C. and other areas will blow out to sea off Massachusetts.
The "why" isn't needed(or proper). Network announcers also use "reason why." Grrrrrrrrr!

HR
 
Last edited:
Or there is the old favorite of the "newsies" on TV or radio - John Smith, he was ..... " :yikes:
 
"In the ten o'clock hour" sounds puffy and pretentious, like so many of these bloated and incorrect phrases. "Mid-morning" might work in most cases. "Between ten and eleven o'clock" might work when a more precise time is required.

I enjoyed reading the article cited- it poked fun at some of my favorite wince-producing phrases uttered by people who want to sound uppah-clahs, and succeed only in sounding poorly educated.

It's hard to remember my manners and sympathize with people who claim to be 'nauseous.' I want to reassure them that no, they're, not making me the least bit sick. When they say "Hopefully you can join he and I," I hope my clenched jaw doesn't twitch.

Furthermore, what is it with law enforcement people? Why is it "the individual was observed to be operating a VEE-hickull in an unsafe manner," when "I saw Mr. Jones drive his truck into oncoming traffic" conveys more information in fewer words?

Yes, the language evolves. That doesn't mean we should accept and adopt silly and incorrect grammar just because most people seem to have slept through fourth grade.

/soapbox.
 
Last edited:
There's a great book (very small, easy to read) titled "Eats, Shoots & Leaves". British author, IIRC. And, of course, the Gold Standard, "Elements of Style" by Strunk & White. I don't know anyone who remembers the title, everyone calls it Strunk & White.
 
wsuffa said:
To boldly do what you ought to smartly do.....
Click to expand...

When I was younger I read the Physics of Star Trek. The professor who wrote it went around his campus asking other professors which error in the series irked them the most. An English professor responded, "They split an infinitive every damn time."
 
murphey said:
There's a great book (very small, easy to read) titled "Eats, Shoots & Leaves".
Click to expand...

That is a good one. Enlightening and fun to read, too.

My pet peeve is the use of "an" when referring to the word "historic/historical" by news reporters. "An historic event" has a nice pompous sound to it, but it's totally wrong (unless you're a Brit, and even then it's probably still incorrect). You don't live in an house, you don't ride an horse, and you don't read an history book. When Jimmy Doolittle launched his B-25s, it was a historic event.
 
wsuffa said:
In the 10-o'clock hour....
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this has become a common phrase. You'll hear it on most radio shows and frequently on the television news - and the broadcast networks are just as guilty.

Why is it incorrect? Events occur within a time streambut we have arbitrarily "named" parts of the time stream. What Person X considers "10 o"clock" is not necessarily what Person Y has named it.

More properly, and more stuffily, it should be "In the hour of news beginning at 10 o'clock". But we accept/tolerate more latitude in conversation.

Existentialism Rules!

And you've heard about the Zen monk who ordered lunch from the hot dog vendor on the street? "Make me one with everything".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top