Another common mistake is stating that something "centers around". Something can "revolve around" and "center on" but not "center around". It's amazing how often one finds this mis-usage in major newspapers and on the network newscasts.
If all the pedants would read "The Unfolding of Language" by Guy Deutcher this kind of silly nitpicking would cease. Language evolves, it's not static, and as long as the writer or speaker is understood, there's nothing wrong with changing the meaning. How many of you cringe when you hear the pilot announce "we'll be landing momentarily"? Do you really want to correct him or her with "It's 'in a moment' you moron"? Come on, get over yourselves. Well all know very well what's meant.
This is just a case of the etymology fallacy. The meaning of a word in Latin does not affect its grammaticality in English. I assume you wouldn't go around saying "stamina are", even though "stamina" was plural in Latin.
I think lots of "phrases" are grammatically incorrect.
ReplyDeleteAnother common mistake is stating that something "centers around". Something can "revolve around" and "center on" but not "center around". It's amazing how often one finds this mis-usage in major newspapers and on the network newscasts.
ReplyDeleteIf all the pedants would read "The Unfolding of Language" by Guy Deutcher this kind of silly nitpicking would cease. Language evolves, it's not static, and as long as the writer or speaker is understood, there's nothing wrong with changing the meaning. How many of you cringe when you hear the pilot announce "we'll be landing momentarily"? Do you really want to correct him or her with "It's 'in a moment' you moron"? Come on, get over yourselves. Well all know very well what's meant.
ReplyDeleteThis is just a case of the etymology fallacy. The meaning of a word in Latin does not affect its grammaticality in English. I assume you wouldn't go around saying "stamina are", even though "stamina" was plural in Latin.
ReplyDelete