Yes. Another one: Hot water heater. If the water's hot, it doesn't need to be heated. Just say, water heater.

Ouch... you got me on this one.

I wonder if some of these are regional.  I worked with a woman from Alabama and she always pronounced then/than the same - "thay-ann"  first "a" was long, second was short.  Same with their and they're - "thay-r", both pronounced with a long "a" with the accent on the first syllable.  I've heard people from Boston speak and they do weird things with vowels too  

Marsha

Don't confuse provincialisms for bad grammar.  There is nothing wrong with the oddities of regional variation. Much of it is to be avoided in formal writing. Some of it may be allowed. When to use it is more a matter of rhetoric than grammar.
 
Confusing then and than is bad grammar.

Here is an example of a provincialism from where I live. People here call the fire hydrant a "fire plug."   In the newspaper, we would refer to fire hydrants being painted. However, if there is a quote from someone in the story such as "I love the way they painted smiley faces on the fire plugs" there is nothing wrong with that.
 
I remember some jackass yuppy making fun of my aunt once for saying "fire plug." My aunt is an educated woman with a master's degree who taught here entire life and has a large vocabulary. This yuppy relative should have had his teeth knocked down his throat for his temerity.

Some provincialisms are bad grammar. The Pittsburghers say "youins" for the plural second person pronoun. Where I live, they say "yous." Also, the uneducated say "don't" instead of "doesn't" and "seen" instead of "saw."  

It seems to me that significant grammar deviations in English just don't work they was they do in the German dialects, so I can never get my ear to tolerate these things.  For some reason, if one is in the Rhineland (or listening to the German spoken around here where I live, it doens't sound so bad to hear people say things like "Mei Papp sei Buch, instead of "Das Buch meines Vatters.) However, if we said My Dad his book instead of my Dad's book all the time, we would mind it.
 
As far as pronunciation. On television and radio (and YouTube) broadcasts, we should strive for a standard pronunciation. Otherwise, let the Southerners say things the way they say things (I happen to like the southern accent.) Don't forget, the British think we sound retarded.

Speaking of the British. I love the way they spell things, and don't like our way.

Meanwhile, everyone should read Menken's "The American Language." Wonderful collection of stuff even if we don't agree with everything in it

Now back to our programme (Camera changes to a scene in the Ukraine. Brother Nathanael walks down the road waving his cross before a jet fighter piloted by Netanyahu fires a missile at him and P**** Riot breaks in un-song.)

Quote from: Brennus

Don't confuse provincialisms for bad grammar. …

(1) In standard U.S. English, the preposition in the sentence above needs to be with. In standard British English, too.

(2) Confusing then and than may be many things, but bad grammar is not one of them. (Using than as a preposition instead of a conjunction would be a grammatical error.) More often than not, it is a spelling error made by people with minimal education—that is, no more than two graduate degrees in the humanities, sciences, or business.

This and similar errors were once a bar to academic advancement, but they now may be found in what passes for scholarly articles in learned journals and raw manuscripts submitted as chapters of edited volumes. Since reprimanding children—or now, alas, adults, too—for spelling errors is a forthright attack on their self-esteem, it has become a notable hate crime to do so. Thus, confusing then and than or reign and rain and rein or tenant and tenet simply demonstrates that the offender has had a thoroughly modern American "education" and hence has become what people once unapologetically called an ignoramus.

(3) The term applicable to the specific situation you describe in the sentences that follow is regionalism, not provincialism. The latter term invariably has at least a whiff of reprobation about it, whereas the former does not. This is ultimately a matter of democracy in action, like it or not—that is, numbers matter. Twenty thousand Amish folks calling everything they don't like "English" might safely be called a provincial form of expression, but when at least a hundred million Americans call something a "fireplug" and when that word has been in accepted use for fully a century longer than "hydrant," you damn well better refer to it as a regionalism if you want to get out of the lexicographer's annual convention in one piece.

What is more, the plain fact is that fireplug is neither a provincialism nor a regionalism. It is standard English in North America, and in British and Australian dictionaries, the only usage label attached to it is "United States." Put otherwise, your relative may or may not be rude, but he is certainly an ignoramus.

Why hasn't he signed on here at CI, I wonder. He'd feel at home.

I like Quakenbos' old book on rhetoric. Of course, it is a century old and uses "provincialism" so you'll have to live with my archaisms. : )  (Wait until I start referring to "fixed air" "Tartary" "pismires" and "boskets" while failing to "brook" people who won't let me say "clombe" for the imperfect of climb.)   Have you ever heard dogs glasting by the way?

I like the word provincialism also because I believe in provinces. But that is a philosophical topic.

I disagree on then and than. I know people who do NOT know the difference between these words. There is a certain man who is highly placed who believes then is the right word for "greater than." I am not making this up. Since he has a lot of money, he can do as he wishes. I wasn't sure though if it was bad grammar or bad diction.  From your response, it seems grammar was the right choice.  

Thank you for the details on fire plug. I did not know any of that. I thought it was just us here. I'm pleased to see the situation isn't as bad as I thought. I should travel more.  Perhaps a better example would have been "pop" and "soda."

What do you think of the American use of "creek."

What do you think of insisting on the use of scientific terms ONLY in their scientific understanding.  An example would be: "It's not a mountain unless is is (some Gilligan Island professor number) feet high." Or how about terms of art. In my province -- er, I mean state, the legal term for a chartered municipality that is not a city is a "borough." HOWEVER for complicated reasons, there is one place that got itself chartered in the 1870s as a "town." So, people go around saying "There is only one town in Pennsylvania." I think that is silly. "Town" is so old, and generic in its meaning that Blackstone couldn't even make a serviceable definition of it.  A town is a place that is smaller than a city and larger than a village and all three terms are vague.

As a diversion, look at this website. http://www.coalregion.com/speak/speaka.php

Quote from: Charlemagne (Jul 22, 2014, 9:19 am)

Something that drives me crazy: "Should of," as in, "I should of known better."

That's meant to be "I should have known better".  A verb, not a preposition.

More precisely, that's meant to be the contraction " 've " for the auxiliary "have", producing the trio "should've", "would've", and "could've".

"__ould of" is most exasperating when it appears in print as the result of an interview, thus not necessarily recording an error by the speaker, but instead, an error of marginally literate reporting, such as one is accustomed to seeing nowadays from sportswriters.  Especially those claiming college degrees in "Journalism": It's not as if they hadn't time for courses in the technicalities of English; their college course-schedules certainly weren't burdened with required courses in calculus or thermodynamics.

I no longer let myself get noticeably upset by "__ould of".

But there's a relatively recent trend in colloquial United-Statesian English that newly irritates me: Use of transitive verbs as intransitive verbs.  And that produces the secondary irritation of increasing verbosity, by requiring addition of a preposition before what was once understood to be a simple direct object, e.g.:

· to "hate on" S, instead of simply to "hate" S.

Hmmm.  Could this example be related to the modern liberal inflation of any aversion, distaste, or disapproval (no matter how consistent with natural law) into "hate" deserving public censure, using it as an adjective to form politically correct" terms, thus suggesting that the word's use as a verb somehow requires a new additional distinction?

In many other cases, it seems to be the result of monolingual marginal literacy, in which the speaker or writer fails to recognize that the meaning of a needlessly redundant preposition or adverb is intrinsically supplied by its Latin--or Latinate--prefix, e.g.:

· to "advocate for" S.

There's analogous redundancy from some adverbs that follow an intransitive verb, especially in the form:

· to "re____  back",

where the verb is often "report" or "return", even in traditional printed sources.  Do daily newspapers and popular magazines still employ copy editors?

Copy editors?  I shall PM you.

Quote from: claudel

Quote from: Brennus

Don't confuse provincialisms for bad grammar. …

(1) In standard U.S. English, the preposition in the sentence above needs to be with. In standard British English, too.

(2) Confusing then and than may be many things, but bad grammar is not one of them. (Using than as a preposition instead of a conjunction would be a grammatical error.) More often than not, it is a spelling error made by people with minimal education—that is, no more than two graduate degrees in the humanities, sciences, or business.

This and similar errors were once a bar to academic advancement, but they now may be found in what passes for scholarly articles in learned journals and raw manuscripts submitted as chapters of edited volumes. Since reprimanding children—or now, alas, adults, too—for spelling errors is a forthright attack on their self-esteem, it has become a notable hate crime to do so. Thus, confusing then and than or reign and rain and rein or tenant and tenet simply demonstrates that the offender has had a thoroughly modern American "education" and hence has become what people once unapologetically called an ignoramus.

(3) The term applicable to the specific situation you describe in the sentences that follow is regionalism, not provincialism. The latter term invariably has at least a whiff of reprobation about it, whereas the former does not. This is ultimately a matter of democracy in action, like it or not—that is, numbers matter. Twenty thousand Amish folks calling everything they don't like "English" might safely be called a provincial form of expression, but when at least a hundred million Americans call something a "fireplug" and when that word has been in accepted use for fully a century longer than "hydrant," you damn well better refer to it as a regionalism if you want to get out of the lexicographer's annual convention in one piece.

What is more, the plain fact is that fireplug is neither a provincialism nor a regionalism. It is standard English in North America, and in British and Australian dictionaries, the only usage label attached to it is "United States." Put otherwise, your relative may or may not be rude, but he is certainly an ignoramus.

Why hasn't he signed on here at CI, I wonder. He'd feel at home.

I like Quakenbos' old book on rhetoric. Of course, it is a century old and uses "provincialism" so you'll have to live with my archaisms. : )  (Wait until I start referring to "fixed air" "Tartary" "pismires" and "boskets" while failing to "brook" people who won't let me say "clombe" for the imperfect of climb.)   Have you ever heard dogs glasting by the way?

You had better watch out.  You never know when glaston is watching.  

I like the word provincialism also because I believe in provinces. But that is a philosophical topic.

So, what do you have against philosophy?  

I disagree on then and than. I know people who do NOT know the difference between these words. There is a certain man who is highly placed who believes then is the right word for "greater than." I am not making this up. Since he has a lot of money, he can do as he wishes. I wasn't sure though if it was bad grammar or bad diction.  From your response, it seems grammar was the right choice.  

Oooh.  Good one.   :chef:

Thank you for the details on fire plug. I did not know any of that. I thought it was just us here. I'm pleased to see the situation isn't as bad as I thought. I should travel more.  Perhaps a better example would have been "pop" and "soda."

Travel Itinerary:
Boston — Be sure to ask people what a fire hydrant is called.
Chicago — Walking up to several strangers, inquire as to the name of that thing as you point at a fire hydrant.
New Orleans — Don't forget to enjoin passers-by regarding the proper name of any of the many fire hydrants.
Yosemite — Go around asking other tourists (nobody is really a "resident" in Yosemite), "How come they don't have any fire plugs around here?" — such as while you're standing on the bridge crossing the Merced River at the base of Lower Yosemite Falls.   That should get a few laughs.
Pismo Beach — Ask several locals, "In a place where you can drive your car on the beach, what do you call those things?" — as you point at a fire hydrant.
DFW — "What happens in these here parts when you park your car next to one of them... uh... whachamacallits?"  

What do you think of the American use of "creek."

It gives me a crick in the neck.

What do you think of insisting on the use of scientific terms ONLY in their scientific understanding.  An example would be: "It's not a mountain unless is is (some [Gilligan's] Island professor number) feet high." Or how about terms of art. In my province -- er, I mean state, the legal term for a chartered municipality that is not a city is a "borough."

WE have dropped "borough" because we don't like how much it sounds like wheel barrow or a rabbit's burrow or borrowing a wheel barrow.  The first is too much work and the second is too much like homelessness or living like a caveman  :ape: and the latter is distasteful especially when you never get your wheel barrow back.

I actually know a guy who developed a lifetime HATRED of the confusion between "barrow" and "borrow" because he lent his favorite wheel barrow to a neighbor who didn't return it on time, causing significant inconvenience to the owner, and when he asked the borrower about it, all he had to say was, "Why do you think they call it a wheel borrow?!"

HOWEVER for complicated reasons, there is one place that got itself chartered in the 1870s as a "town." So, people go around saying "There is only one town in Pennsylvania." I think that is silly. "Town" is so old, and generic in its meaning that Blackstone couldn't even make a serviceable definition of it.  A town is a place that is smaller than a city and larger than a village and all three terms are vague.

City — Town — Village — borough — borrow — barrow — burrow — vague — check.

As a diversion, look at this website. http://www.coalregion.com/speak/speaka.php

Wait.  I thought this whole topic was a 'DIVERSION'.   :confused1:

.

In standard U.S. English the auxiliary verb in the first sentence above ought to be ought, and in the second ostensible sentence, you have a fragment without any verb at all, which is likewise the case in standard British English, as well.

Had I meant ought, I would have used ought, you pretentious dolt. Since I didn't, I didn't.

As for the sentence fragment, I suppose you should be congratulated on having grasped something that is not a tangible part of your own anatomy. How someone (i.e., you, Dolt) who can't comprehend the difference between grammatically consistent elision in standard English sentence structure and mere clumsiness or illiteracy can yet imagine that he's in a privileged position to sneer at or mock others*—as you regularly and degenerately do—is on the intellectual level a puzzlement and on the moral level an abomination.

When a year or so ago SeanJohnson said, almost in so many words, that you had never left a single worthwhile comment on this site, he laid himself open to the just accusation of morally derelict understatement. He and I are by no means the only ones hereabouts who see that the only thing comparable with your arrogance is your ignorance. Together they make you a contender for Permanent Captain of the CI Vanity Squad.

Now run off and play with the geocentrists and the Latinless Douay-Rheims absolutists. You fit right in there. Leave thinking to folks with more than styrofoam peanuts between their ears.
_____________
* E.g., RomanCatholic1953, to name one of about a hundred. Why not just stick with sneering at your educational alter ego, andysloan?