Register  Login  Active Topics  Maps  

Misused English words in EU publications

 Language Learning Forum : General discussion Post Reply
37 messages over 5 pages: 1 24 5  Next >>
Serpent
Octoglot
Senior Member
Russian Federation
serpent-849.livejour
Joined 5718 days ago

9753 posts - 15778 votes 
4 sounds
Speaks: Russian*, English, FinnishC1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese
Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish

 
 Message 17 of 37
22 May 2014 at 4:31pm | IP Logged 
I love the entry for Anglo-Saxon
1 person has voted this message useful



Doitsujin
Diglot
Senior Member
Germany
Joined 4441 days ago

1256 posts - 2363 votes 
Speaks: German*, English

 
 Message 18 of 37
22 May 2014 at 4:41pm | IP Logged 
Iversen wrote:
Quote:
(...) ‘Dean’ is now the official title at the Court, but, in our dealings with the outside world, we should not be surprised if people think that we have our own in-house clergy (see also ‘hierarchical superior’ and ‘college’). When explaining the role to outsiders, ‘chair’ (-woman,- man -person) or ‘doyen’ might be more informative.

Well, Merriam-Webster gives the defintion "a person who has a lot of experience in or knowledge about a particular profession, subject, etc" ...

Merriam-Webster is a US dictionary and as such reflects current US English use. However, I don't remember seeing "dean" being used in the USA as a generic term to refer to a chairperson or the most senior member of a group or organization.

IMHO, they should have picked doyen instead, which is a well-known international term in diplomatic circles.

BTW, I agree with pretty much all suggestions in the style-guide, except for "badge."
Quote:
The noun ‘badge’ is widely used in the EU institutions to indicate either a service pass or
a tag used by employees (‘agents’) to clock in and out. Neither is usually called a badge in
English, as the word generally refers to something that is worn (usually pinned, stuck or sewn to the bearer’s outer clothing).

At least in the USA, "badge" is commonly used to refer to plastic RFID ID cards used to access restricted areas. It's also used as a verb. For example, you can badge someone in.

P.S. The PDF link in my first post works; it links to the same .pdf file that you linked to.
1 person has voted this message useful



dampingwire
Bilingual Triglot
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 3786 days ago

1185 posts - 1513 votes 
Speaks: English*, Italian*, French
Studies: Japanese

 
 Message 19 of 37
22 May 2014 at 5:21pm | IP Logged 
Iversen wrote:
Well, Merrian-Webster gives the defintion "a person who has a lot of
experience in or knowledge about a particular profession, subject, etc" (and then you
don't even need to have a certain employment). Most other sources state that the doyen is
the oldest or at least the oldest in a certain function, like the ambassador which has
been accredited for the longest time span to a certain government. And he/she/it doesn't
have to be the chairsomething of anything.


The MW definition of "dean" may well be current usage in the US, but in the UK, that's
not how I've (ever) seen it used.
1 person has voted this message useful



dampingwire
Bilingual Triglot
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 3786 days ago

1185 posts - 1513 votes 
Speaks: English*, Italian*, French
Studies: Japanese

 
 Message 20 of 37
22 May 2014 at 5:27pm | IP Logged 
s_allard wrote:
Wait a minute. Who says that these cEU forms are not idiomatic? A bit
of searching on the Internet shows that all
these forms are quite current amongst native speakers of English.


I would suggest that, in this case at least, a quick search of the internet has found
that many people write sloppily.

Normally I'd have to preface this with a warning that these might be acceptable English
in some other part of the world, but in this case the article does specifically say the
English of the UK and Ireland.

(1) sounds completely wrong to me.
(2) is very stilted.
(3) is wrong.
(4) is not wrong, but it is awkward and I don't recall hearing it.
(5) is wrong.


1 person has voted this message useful



s_allard
Triglot
Senior Member
Canada
Joined 4551 days ago

2704 posts - 5425 votes 
Speaks: French*, English, Spanish
Studies: Polish

 
 Message 21 of 37
22 May 2014 at 7:18pm | IP Logged 
dampingwire wrote:
s_allard wrote:
Wait a minute. Who says that these cEU forms are not idiomatic? A bit
of searching on the Internet shows that all
these forms are quite current amongst native speakers of English.


I would suggest that, in this case at least, a quick search of the internet has found
that many people write sloppily.

Normally I'd have to preface this with a warning that these might be acceptable English
in some other part of the world, but in this case the article does specifically say the
English of the UK and Ireland.

(1) sounds completely wrong to me.
(2) is very stilted.
(3) is wrong.
(4) is not wrong, but it is awkward and I don't recall hearing it.
(5) is wrong.


I"m always amused when people make themselves into arbiters of proper linguistic taste. When I look at usage, I
don't consider myself the authority. I prefer to observe what other people, especially respected authors and good
sources, are saying. Who cares if (1) sounds completely wrong to you or to me? I note for example that The
Guardian newspaper, which is not exactly some foreign rag, writes:

" Can I specify other targeting?
We recommend you avoid applying targeting to activity in the first instance – our optimisation strategy is goal-
seeking against your KPI."
The
Guardian FAQ


I won't comment on the other items but to say that it's usage that counts and not somebody's individual likes and
dislikes.

Edited by s_allard on 22 May 2014 at 7:31pm

1 person has voted this message useful



Doitsujin
Diglot
Senior Member
Germany
Joined 4441 days ago

1256 posts - 2363 votes 
Speaks: German*, English

 
 Message 22 of 37
22 May 2014 at 7:53pm | IP Logged 
s_allard wrote:
I won't comment on the other items but to say that it's usage that counts and not somebody's individual likes and dislikes.

If you google "recieve," you'll get almost 9 million hits. However, that doesn't mean that "recieve" has become an accepted alternative spelling of "receive."

As for Urban Dictionary, the quality of the entries is a mixed bag. IMHO, at least 30-40% of definitions for each entry are utter garbage.

Don't believe me? Check out the definitions for Serge.

Edited by Doitsujin on 23 May 2014 at 12:17am

2 persons have voted this message useful



s_allard
Triglot
Senior Member
Canada
Joined 4551 days ago

2704 posts - 5425 votes 
Speaks: French*, English, Spanish
Studies: Polish

 
 Message 23 of 37
22 May 2014 at 9:36pm | IP Logged 
Doitsujin wrote:
s_allard wrote:
I won't comment on the other items but to say that it's usage that counts
and not somebody's individual likes and dislikes.

If you google for "recieve," you'll get almost 9 million hits. However, that doesn't mean that "recieve" has become
and accepted alternative spelling of "receive."

As for Urban Dictionary, the quality of the entries is a mixed bag. IMHO, at least 30-40% of definitions for each
entry are utter garbage.

Don't believe me? Check out the definitions for term=serge">Serge.


Who is talking about the spelling "recieve"? Let's keep our eye on the ball. What is so bad about the second
example from the above list?

cEU English: It is not allowed to smoke in enclosed public places.

Some people find this stilted. So be it. That may be so. But here is a quote from that infamous rag, The Guardian:

"It is a particular challenge for BBC World News because it isn't a rights holder and is under the same restrictions
as Sky News, for example. It is not allowed to use much stuff shot on Olympics premises," said a BBC source."

Well, actually, it's the BBC source who used the stilted expression.

The point of all this, if it needs repeating, is that one must be careful before making broad statements on what is
wrong or right in matters of language because of personal tastes. There are things that I myself do not like nor
use, but I observe that a lot of people do. But I don't go around calling things garbage because I don't agree.

Take for example slowlier. I don't use it myself, and I don't hear it much, but I'm sure that I'll see it more now
that I'm paying attention. I think the reason it exists is that it is constructed on the same model as costly -
costlier. There's even costliest in the Oxford dictionary.

So what's the fuss about? There's nothing wrong with slowlier except that it irritates some people. Not me.

Edited by s_allard on 22 May 2014 at 9:36pm

1 person has voted this message useful



Medulin
Tetraglot
Senior Member
Croatia
Joined 3789 days ago

1199 posts - 2192 votes 
Speaks: Croatian*, English, Spanish, Portuguese
Studies: Norwegian, Hindi, Nepali

 
 Message 24 of 37
22 May 2014 at 11:06pm | IP Logged 
'' It is not allowed to smoke in enclosed public places''. is not correct unless by IT we mean a dog, a cat or another animal.
the correct formula is ''somebody is (not) allowed to do something'' (that is "(for someone) to be allowed to" requires a 'someone' who is given the permission. ) or ''something is not allowed''.''something is (not) allowed to do'' is ungrammatical in English, according to the book called ''Practical English Usage'' written by Michael Swan and published by Oxford University Press, the author states:
''The passive structure with IT is only possible with PERMIT'' (and not with ALLOW).'':


compare:
No smoking (here)! (the most idiomatic).
You are not permitted to smoke here / It is not permitted to smoke here / You are not allowed to smoke here / We don't let you smoke here. (okay)
It is not allowed to smoke here / It is not let smoke here / You are not let smoke here (unidiomatic or wrong).



I asked a native speaker of American English about various expressions with ''dummy it'', and here is his reply:

''
It is permitted to smoke here. / OK
It is allowed to smoke here. / IMO NO, unless you're really talking about an "it"
It is able to smoke here. / NO, unless you're talking about an "it"
It is supposed to smoke here. / Again, NO.
It is likely to smoke here. / Nope.

Other "be" pseudo-modals:
It is going to smoke here. / Nah.
It is about to smoke here. / No can do.
It is to smoke here tomorrow. / Hell no. ''

---
Another cEU/L2 English structure I regularly hear: ''quite many''.
It should be just ''many'', or if you want to use quite ''quite a few''.

I've heard Indian usage ''The film is releasing tomorrow'' in Europe,
and I don't know if it's correct English or not.
I would say ''The film is being released tomorrow'' or ''The film is going to be released tomorrow''.


Edited by Medulin on 23 May 2014 at 12:13am



2 persons have voted this message useful



This discussion contains 37 messages over 5 pages: << Prev 1 24 5  Next >>


Post ReplyPost New Topic Printable version Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page was generated in 0.3438 seconds.


DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
Copyright 2022 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved
No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization.