The most frequently confused words I see in bicycling forums

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>, Mike
Kruger ([email protected]) wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > In the traffic reports, roads are not blocked, "roadways" are blocked.
> > We don't have rain but "rainstorms", we don't ride bicycle by pushing
> > on cranks, we use "crankarms", cars don't crash into the median but do
> > so into "the center divide." Who comes up with this jargon?
> >
> Good question. I'd guess there are several factors contributing, two of
> which are:
>
> 1. Consultant-ese. A consultant can't improve your accounting. They have to
> improve your "accounting process". We don't have files anymore, we have
> "database structures". Businesses will pay more for jargon. I used to write
> specs. Now I write "technical requirements". I don't talk to programmers
> anymore; I go to "Joint Application Design" meetings or "Tollgate Review
> Processes". These meetings aren't moderated (or refereed!). They are
> "facilitated".

Don't get me started on this kind of thing. Since the Nut Mines were
Borged by a BigCo a few years ago, we get more and more of this stuff,
to the extent that I may find myself running amok with a headset spanner
the next time someone uses the word "leverage" as a verb within earshot.

A friend reported the use of the word "path" as a verb recently. I have
not the words.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat
Him.

 

[Peter Cole]

[email protected] wrote:
> Peter Cole writes:
>
>
>> From m-w.com:
>
>
>>Main Entry: hope.ful.ly
>>Pronunciation:
>>Function: adverb
>>1 : in a hopeful manner
>>2 : it is hoped : I hope : we hope
>
>
>>Usage In the early 1960s the second sense of hopefully, which had
>>been in sporadic use since around 1932, underwent a surge of popular
>>use.

>>The second sense of hopefully is entirely
>>standard.
>
>
> Whether the use of hopefully has been taken up by the dictionary you
> cite or not has little bearing on its effective use.

It's unclear what you mean by "effective". The point in my post was that
the original complaint (of the word being misused because of confusion
over meaning) was wrong (as was the complaint about "momentarily"). All
this quibbling over small lapses in such an informal medium strikes me
as fussy. This isn't rec.bike.effectivewriting.

English is not precise or static, meaning is established through
convention, dictionaries merely describe those. It's a common phenomenon
for a word to acquire a new meaning, and not unknown for that meaning to
be even an antonym, with opposing meanings in simultaneous circulation,
relying on context to disambiguate.

> I disagree on
> the definition of it being an adverb.

That would seem to be a difficult claim to support.

> The dangling hopefully is none
> of the above and that is why its use is inappropriate. Appending a
> "hopefully" to the beginning or end of a sentence gives it a doubtful
> ring and most likely not what the author intended. Because being
> opinionated is a great faux pas in our society, "hopefully" is invoked
> to avoid that criticism. The speaker wants to underwrite a concept
> but is afraid to do so.

Or, more likely, it merely implies an outcome or opinion that isn't
certain, but likely and/or desirable. It is very much a matter of taste
to qualify opinions -- some find qualifications to be superfluous
because they're implicit anyway, others take their absence to confer
(inappropriately) the status of fact to conjecture. I think (note
explicit qualifier) that in a forum as contentious as this, qualified
opinions may be less provocative, even if they sound weak to some ears.

> For instance take a moment to compare: "This
> will work, hopefully." and "I hope this will work."

Perhaps this distinction is too subtle for my ear, I find the meanings
to be identical (as m-w.com describes).

> In that vein, many writers on this forum slide into the subjunctive to
> avoid actually voicing their opinion. "If I were to believe that, I
> would probably say it wasn't contrived.".. (aka, but I wont say that).
>
> As you may have noticed in this forum, when looking for a harsh
> criticism in response to something I wrote, "opinionated" is what
> comes out of people civil enough to not use four letter words in their
> response.

I think "opinionated" would be one end of a reasonable range of
adjectives. "Blunt", "gruff" or "crusty" might be more descriptive.
Hopefully, you won't mind my saying so.

 

[Colorado Bicycler]

And the original thread post stated:

"Just for fun."

 

[Buck]

[email protected] wrote:
> On that note, a few words in English could be banned from ones
> vocabulary because they emasculate words and concepts when they are
> used. Worst of these is "very" which maims adverbs or adjectives it
> is meant to enhance. There are better words if a superlative is
> needed. When running completely out of modifiers, "very very" comes
> out to kill all.

Ah, but we live in a society of superlatives. What was once described
as "neat" has now become "Awesome!" When everyday objects or events are
described as "awesome," what do we use to describe events which truly
inspire awe?

The only choices for our slang-ridden society are to either subvert the
use of another word or phrase or create new words and phrases to
replace the old. I agree with some observers on this thread that this
subversion is the direct result of widespread media coverage and the
need to generate more "hype" than the competitors.

-Buck

 

[Pat Lamb]

what does THIS button do? wrote:
> sneaux. I see sneaux here alot.
>

I always figured that was Quebecois snow. Or maybe yellow snow...

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:28:45 -0500, The Wogster wrote:

> Chris Z The Wheelman wrote:
>> Derailler - A device used to mace a (usually) runaway train to jump it's
>> tracks
>>
>> Derailleur - A french word for a device used to shift a (usually)
>> bicycle chain from one cog/sprocket to another.
>>
>> - -
> Actually derailleur is an English word, the French word is dérailleur,
> you will notice there is a difference.

No, derailleur is a French word typed on an English keyboard.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Some people used to claim that, if enough monkeys sat in front
_`\(,_ | of enough typewriters and typed long enough, eventually one of
(_)/ (_) | them would reproduce the collected works of Shakespeare. The
internet has proven this not to be the case.

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 05:25:21 -0800, Colorado Bicycler wrote:

> than and then
>
> ==========================
>
> Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in
> waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht
> the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae.
>
> The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm.
> Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef,
> but the wrod as a wlohe.

Amazing. My spellchecker didn't like this, though.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | And what if you track down these men and kill them, what if you
_`\(,_ | killed all of us? From every corner of Europe, hundreds,
(_)/ (_) | thousands would rise up to take our places. Even Nazis can't
kill that fast. -- Paul Henreid (Casablanca).

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:07:17 -0600, Pat Lamb wrote:

> what does THIS button do? wrote:
>> sneaux. I see sneaux here alot.
>>
>
> I always figured that was Quebecois snow. Or maybe yellow snow...

"Watch out where the Huskies go, don't you eat that yellow snow!" --
Frank Zappa

That song's been rattling around my head since the latest storm here; I
guess because my dog's been making plenty of yellow snow.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | It is a scientifically proven fact that a mid life crisis can
_`\(,_ | only be cured by something racy and Italian. Bianchis and
(_)/ (_) | Colnagos are a lot cheaper than Maserattis and Ferraris. --
Glenn Davies

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 02:21:35 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:

> On that note, a few words in English could be banned from ones
> vocabulary because they emasculate words and concepts when they are
> used. Worst of these is "very" which maims adverbs or adjectives it
> is meant to enhance.

My favorite is "very unique".

But close behind this are the newscaster-speak modifiers: I have yet to
hear "more good", but you hear "more safe", "more clear" from newscasters
who seem to think this is correct. I long gave up any expectation that
they would get who/whom or I/me usage anywhere near right. But these are
people who are paid to do nothing more than speak. They really ought to
be able to use decent grammar.


--

David L. Johnson

__o | I believe that the motion picture is destined to revolutionize
_`\(,_ | our educational system and that in a few years it will supplant
(_)/ (_) | largely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks -- Thomas
Edison, 1922

 

[Leo Lichtman]

"David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 02:21:35 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:
>
>> On that note, a few words in English could be banned from ones
>> vocabulary because they emasculate words and concepts when they are
>> used. Worst of these is "very" which maims adverbs or adjectives it
>> is meant to enhance.
>
> My favorite is "very unique".
>
> But close behind this are the newscaster-speak modifiers: I have yet to
> hear "more good", but you hear "more safe", "more clear" from newscasters
> who seem to think this is correct. I long gave up any expectation that
> they would get who/whom or I/me usage anywhere near right. But these are
> people who are paid to do nothing more than speak. They really ought to
> be able to use decent grammar.
>
>
> --
>
> David L. Johnson
>
> __o | I believe that the motion picture is destined to revolutionize
> _`\(,_ | our educational system and that in a few years it will supplant
> (_)/ (_) | largely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks -- Thomas
> Edison, 1922
>

 

[Leo Lichtman]

"David L. Johnson" wrote: My favorite is "very unique".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How about "in order to form a *more perfect* union?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>
But close behind this are the newscaster-speak modifiers: I have yet to
hear "more good", but you hear "more safe", "more clear" from newscasters
who seem to think this is correct.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
At least they're not redundant, like "more better."
And what about the weather casters who talk about *hotter* and *colder*
temperatures?

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

Dave Larrington wrote:

> A friend reported the use of the word "path" as a verb recently. I have
> not the words.

"Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin & Hobbes

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

David L. Johnson wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 05:25:21 -0800, Colorado Bicycler wrote:
>
>> than and then
>>
>> ==========================
>>
>> Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in
>> waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht
>> the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae.
>>
>> The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm.
>> Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef,
>> but the wrod as a wlohe.
>
> Amazing.

Also not true, I believe. I think in this example the order of the
internal letters was in fact carefully chosen, not randomized. I seem to
recall that Cecil Adams addressed this in a Straight Dope column at some
point; anyone interested could try searching the archives at

www.straightdope.com

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly

 

[[email protected]]

David L. Johnson writes:

>> On that note, a few words in English could be banned from ones
>> vocabulary because they emasculate words and concepts when they are
>> used. Worst of these is "very" which maims adverbs or adjectives
>> it is meant to enhance.

> My favorite is "very unique".

How about "Most uniquest."

> But close behind this are the newscaster-speak modifiers: I have yet
> to hear "more good", but you hear "more safe", "more clear" from
> newscasters who seem to think this is correct. I long gave up any
> expectation that they would get who/whom or I/me usage anywhere near
> right. But these are people who are paid to do nothing more than
> speak. They really ought to be able to use decent grammar.

Ah yes, but lie and lay have a special problem. Along with being
opinionated, lying is an even worse sin,so just using the word is
therefore dangerous. In that vein, lay and laying is used where lie
and lying should be. That "After hens lay eggs the eggs are lying
there." seems to be too complicated a construct to use safely.
Just lay down and take it easy...

Just the hazard of mentioning untruth is to great to use the correct
form.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Colorado Bicycler]

I gesus taht msut be the csae. You wulod not be tilelng us an utnrtuh
now, wulod you?

(Agerdarnd in roandm oderr)

 

[The Wogster]

David L. Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:28:45 -0500, The Wogster wrote:
>
>
>>Chris Z The Wheelman wrote:
>>
>>>Derailler - A device used to mace a (usually) runaway train to jump it's
>>>tracks
>>>
>>>Derailleur - A french word for a device used to shift a (usually)
>>>bicycle chain from one cog/sprocket to another.
>>>
>>> - -
>>
>>Actually derailleur is an English word, the French word is dérailleur,
>>you will notice there is a difference.
>
>
> No, derailleur is a French word typed on an English keyboard.
>

Except that English has adopted the accent free version of the word,
otherwise we would call it something else. It's why English is so hard,
it doesn't invent words, it just adopts a word from another language.
We could call it, a gear changer, or use the German way of inventing a
new word, gearchanger. Derailer would work, chain mangler would also
work, but someone decided to use the French word dérailleur, and called
it a deraileur, so that's that.

W

 

[Mike Kruger]

"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Don't get me started on this kind of thing. Since the Nut Mines were
> Borged by a BigCo a few years ago, we get more and more of this stuff,
> to the extent that I may find myself running amok with a headset spanner
> the next time someone uses the word "leverage" as a verb within earshot.
>
Give me leverage and a place to steal and I can remove the world.

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

Colorado Bicycler wrote:

> I gesus taht msut be the csae. You wulod not be tilelng us an utnrtuh
> now, wulod you?
>
> (Agerdarnd in roandm oderr)

Whether or not it's true, it's certainly more likely to be able to read
such a sentence when it contains shorter words. I don't think I would have
figured out "agerdarnd" very quickly without the context.

I'm fairly certain that at least the "according to Cambridge University
research" portion of the claim is false.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly

 

[John Pitts]

Voilà - "wallah", "wahlah".

Eg "Wallah! He pulled a rabbit out of the hat."

Took me ages to figure out what people meant.

--
John <[email protected]>
(Remove hat before emailing)

 

[Colorado Bicycler]

>I'm fairly certain that at least the "according to Cambridge University
research" portion of the claim is false.


You msut be kniddig!

A fhoasleod on the irnetent? Not lkeily. No way.

Taht wulod be cunfoisng.

Hvea a garet day!