What over-used, or wrongly used words and phrases annoy you the most

[monkrules]

'
Some days ago, a poster on another site (about whom a merciful veil of obscurity shall be thrown) wrote "apparati" as the plural of "apparatus."

After I had recovered from my faint, and restored myself with a dose of smelling salts, I thought that I was obliged to correct such a frightful floater, but it slipped my mind, no doubt still affected by shock.

"Apparatus" is NOT a 2nd declension Latin noun like "amicus", whose nominative plural is, of course, "amici".

"Apparatus" is a 4th declension noun, whose plural differs from the singular only by a lengthening of the final vowel : this apparatus, these apparatûs.

Until Utopia is achieved, or the Garden of Eden is restored, I suppose it is too much for which to hope, that Americans might write a macron over the final "-u-", or at least leave the word unchanged, when they intend the plural, but at least they might practice the barbarism of putting "-es" at the end when they intend the plural. It is ugly, and treason to the Latin language, to write "apparatuses", but it is better than the ultimate horror of using a 2nd declension ending on a 4th declension noun!!

For those who weep and wail in the outer darkness beyond the sunny climate of Latinity, I will mention that the following nouns, commonly used in English, are also 4th declension, and form their plurals after the fashion of "apparatûs" :

hiatûs, sinûs, impetûs, statûs, censûs, nexûs, plexûs, coitûs, Jesûs, fetûs, prospectûs, conspectûs, afflatûs, meatûs, lusûs naturae, lapsûs linguae, saltûs, and senatûs.


A little learning is a dang'rous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There, shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
---Alexander Pope

Absolutely beautiful post. Hilarious, interesting, enlightening.
==
"Apparatus" is a 4th declension noun, whose plural differs from the singular only by a lengthening of the final vowel : this apparatus, these apparatûs.

— Funny....I never knew this. Lol...
==
How many Americans actually know something like this? One out of a thousand?

Thanks for your time and effort, I appreciate and enjoy your posts.

 

[HenryBHough]

"Absolutely"

when a simple "yes" is all that is needed.

 

[numan]

'
My bibles of grammar and usage are H. W. Fowler's Modern English Usage and The King's English.

As an American, I particularly enjoy the more than twenty pages in The King's English which he devotes to the distinction between shall and will.

At the beginning of the article, he remarks:

"It is unfortunate that the idiomatic use, while it comes by nature to southern Englishmen (who will find most of this section superfluous), is so complicated that those who are not to the manner born can hardly acquire it; and for them the section is in danger of being useless. In apology for the length of these remarks it must be said that the short and simple directions often given are worse than useless. The observant reader soon loses faith in them from their constant failure to take him right; and the unobservant is the victim of false security."
[emphasis added]

In future, I shall continue to take Fowler as my guide; I am determined that I will never quit my allegiance to him. No matter what you or anyone else will ever say, you shall fail to shake my resolution in this matter!
.

 

[numan]

'
Though I am somewhat of a stickler about using academic grammar in writing (because it encourages clarity), I make an exception in the case of using "they," "them," and "their" in reference to a singular noun of indeterminate gender.

Condemnation by prescriptive grammarians dates only from the very end (1795) of the eighteenth century; but the usage [Everyone uses it, don't they?] has been deeply ingrained in the English language for many centuries, back to at least the 1300's:

Both were made, sun and moon, either with their owen light.
--- Cursor Mundi

The scholars who translated the King James' Bible, scrupulous as they were, used it:

Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
--- Philippians, 2:3

So did Shakespeare:

God send every one their heart's desire!
--- Much Ado About Nothing, iii:4

Even Jane Austen, whose Pride and Prejudice is probably the most perfect "suppliance of a moment" in the English language, uses it:

"To be sure, you knew no actual good of me -- but nobody thinks of that when they fall in love."

English is deficient in that it lacks a singular, third-person epicene pronoun. In Chinese, there is ta, meaning he/she/him/her/it, and ta-de meaning his/her/its.

Until such time as we adopt these two Chinese pronouns, the next best choice is the use of they/them/their as singular pronouns referring to a singular indefinite antecedent --- especially as this usage is well-established in the long history of the English language. What people must wrap their heads around is that, in these cases, they/them/their are not plural pronouns; they are singular pronouns --- by almost universal usage, extending far into the past.

P.S. On first glance, it might seem that it would be the appropriate pronoun to use in this situation, but, in practice, it is quite intolerable. Try using it in the examples above! The only one that would not induce a shiver of horror is the Cursor Mundi example; but that is because we moderns have lost the strong sense of earlier English speakers that the sun is female, and that the moon is male --- as is still the case in German [Remember the "Man in the Moon"?].

The problem is that it is strongly neuter, whereas what is necessary in the above examples is a singular pronoun which is epicene --- that is, of common, or indeterminate, gender.
.