# Just A little Peeve



## Steel Tiger (Oct 17, 2007)

When I got to work this morning I turned on the radio and heard someone utter a phrase that drives me crazy.  A woman discussing something or other said,* "The proof is in the pudding."*  This particular misquote drives me bonkers for some reason.  There very well may be proof (alcohol) in the pudding but that is not the saying or even the meaning of the saying.  The correct saying is "*The proof of the pudding is in the eating." * Meaning that if something is good it will show when you try/buy/do it.

In time the original saying will be gone and the meaning will be lost.  When I think about it rationally I can accept that that is actually the nature of English which is a surprisingly alive language, but it still drives me crazy.


I was wondering if anyone else just gets nuts when they hear things like this?


----------



## Obliquity (Oct 17, 2007)

"I could care less."

"So, then, you do care some?"

"No. I said I could care less."

"Oh. Okay. So, you do care some?"

"No. What is wrong with you? I said I don't care."

"Um, not exactly."


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 17, 2007)

Obliquity said:


> "I could care less."
> 
> "So, then, you do care some?"
> 
> ...


 
Definitely very annoying.


----------



## crushing (Oct 17, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> Definitely very annoying.


 
Well, it is what it is.


----------



## exile (Oct 17, 2007)

Part of the problem is that the word `proof' has undergone a curious kind of reversal of meaning within a relatively short time. Once upon a time, very recently, in a galaxy overlapping ours in every respect, `proof' denoted something like `test, challenge'. So `The proof of the pudding is in the eating' meant, the true test of any dessert is in how good it tastes (i.e., things ultimately justify themselves, or fail to, by their real-world effects). `Putting it to the proof', `weatherproof' and so on all reflect this meaning of `prove/proof': put to the test, jeopardize, challenge and whatnot. Over time, however, `proof' came to mean not challenge, but one of the possible outcomes of that challenge: confirmation. Thus we speak of the proof of a theorem as the confirmation of that theorem by demonstration that it follows by the laws of logic or mathematics from the initial assumptions; or proof of innocence in court as the vindication of the accused, rather than the subjection of the accused to tests of guilt or innocence.

I suspect that this shift affected the original form of the cliché: `the challenge is in the pudding' seems a very odd thing to say, in that it seems to be asserting something like this:  the very existence of the pudding poses a challenge to (the worth of) that pudding. So you wouldn't say it. But if `proof' means confirmation, then `the proof is in the pudding' makes sense in that the confirmation of the value of the pudding (or whatever) is (in) the pudding itself (presumably, when you eat it). I'm not sure that this is a very profound observation, but at least it has some kind of reasonably sensible interpretation. `The very test of the pudding is inherent in the pudding itself', on the other hand, has a kind of Zen koan-like weirdness: it sounds like someone is saying, the existence of the pudding is an inherent challenge to its value or quality or... etc. So while the semantic shift involved from `test' to `confirmation' doesn't really explain how `the proof is in the pudding' replaced the original, it does seem to be a necessary step...


----------



## tellner (Oct 18, 2007)

*Literally* - If someone says "I was literally hanging on by my teeth" I darned well expect to see the dental bill for the crowns.
*
Putting things in quotation marks for "emphasis"* - 'Nuff said.

*Let Bob the Angry Flower say it best*


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 18, 2007)

Let's see...

One of my pet peeves is the overuse of the word "specifically" or the phrase "it should be noted", especially in official forms.  If it shouldn't be noted... why is it there in the first place?  And I expect that, if you start a paragraph with a general statement (I train in martial arts...), I expect that somewhere soon, you're going to tell me the details (which art you study); you don't need to tell me that it's time!

And then there are news casters...  A house cannot be robbed; it can be burgled, but not robbed.  (Robbery is stealing FROM THE PERSON.)  Or "Killed dead" and similar redundant phrases ("illegal crime").

But most annoying of all?  People who mangle their sentences with homonyms, like there, their & they're.  Along with the folks who can't be bothered to actually write out words like "before", and write "b4" instead.  Unless it's telegram or text message... write the word!


----------



## 14 Kempo (Oct 18, 2007)

Well for me it's the double-negatives ... just don't like it and I have a hard time trying not to correct it. No, I'm not a teacher ... LOL

"I don't have none."
- Well, if you don't have none, you must have at least one.


----------



## tellner (Oct 18, 2007)

Loose when they mean lose.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 18, 2007)

exile said:


> I'm not sure that this is a very profound observation, but at least it has some kind of reasonably sensible interpretation. `The very test of the pudding is inherent in the pudding itself', on the other hand, has a kind of Zen koan-like weirdness: it sounds like someone is saying, the existence of the pudding is an inherent challenge to its value or quality or... etc.


 
I kind of like this new koan you have discovered.  Perhaps it will help me discover something about myself.





tellner said:


> *Let Bob the Angry Flower say it best*


 
Yeah, bad punctuation is another thing that gets my goat.  It just says so much about the state of education (spelling is another of my bugbears).





jks9199 said:


> And then there are news casters... A house cannot be robbed; it can be burgled, but not robbed. (Robbery is stealing FROM THE PERSON.) Or "Killed dead" and similar redundant phrases ("illegal crime").
> 
> But most annoying of all? People who mangle their sentences with homonyms, like there, their & they're. Along with the folks who can't be bothered to actually write out words like "before", and write "b4" instead. Unless it's telegram or text message... write the word!


 
Homonyms fall into the same bag as punctuation and spelling with me.  They annoy me but I don't react with bizarre von Daniken indignation like I do to some other things.

By the way there is an archaeological jargon term using the word robbed.  Occassionally you find a site in which the original building materials have been removed, this is referred to in such terms as "The wall has been robbed out."  Its just jargon, doesn't really mean that much.

For those who might be wondering about my reference to von Daniken.  Try sitting and watching Chariots of the Gods with an archaeologist and see what happens.  I usually end up yelling at the TV.  Strange thing is I can't help myself watching it when ever it is on.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 18, 2007)

*Chariots of the Gods* and lots of the folks who try to think like that...

Well, they never let facts or simple explanations or faith in human ability get in the way of complicated theories without support.

I used to listen to Coast to Coast AM (Art Bell, George Noory, et al) a lot on midnights.  But some of the ideas people on that show had just were so far out that they make the entire fantasy genre seem like hard science...  I admit, I still listen... but with healthy skepticism.


----------



## stone_dragone (Oct 18, 2007)

I can't allow my wife to read this particular thread...it's filled with stuff that I go nuts over daily.  

My top 5:

5.  *Literally* - see Tellner's  post
4.  *Its* vs. *It's* - Thank you Dr. Hybles (my late college counselor)
3.  Large amounts of text-english - OMG, it PMO. My wife doesn't do this, thank God.
2.  The ability to care less than one does currently being confused with the inability to do so.
And my number 1 grammatical sanity thief:  

My wife and her mother both do this one...they use the word "Until" in a sentence (actually the abbreviation 'till) when they mean "by the time" such as "...until we get there..." when they mean "...by the time we get there..."

Her: "I'm not hungry now, but 'till I get there I'll be starving."
Me:  "So although you're not hungry, you will be starving the entire time until we get to the reunion."
Her: "No, but 'till we get there I'll be ready to eat."
Me:  [irritated "hrmph" sound] "Got it."

Which brings up another irritation - the extreme overuse of the word starving to indicate mild hunger. I won't get started on that particular one since I must get to the shower and with this leg cast, it takes a few more minutes.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 18, 2007)

Run-on sentences!  Takes me forever to parse them.  Punctuation is your friend, people.  

People who use words and phrases they don't understand.  I used to know a girl who would say "It's a dog-eat-dog world."  I know she didn't understand what she was saying when she wrote it in a letter.  She had written "It's a doggy dog world."   WTF?!?


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 18, 2007)

One that really sets my teeth on edge:  Starbucks' cup size naming conventions.  Rather than Small/Medium/Large, they use Tall/Grande/Venti.  In other words, Tall = Small.


----------



## bookworm_cn317 (Oct 18, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> Let's see...
> 
> One of my pet peeves is the overuse of the word "specifically" or the phrase "it should be noted", especially in official forms. If it shouldn't be noted... why is it there in the first place? And I expect that, if you start a paragraph with a general statement (I train in martial arts...), I expect that somewhere soon, you're going to tell me the details (which art you study); you don't need to tell me that it's time!
> 
> ...


 
I do this when I take notes in class. Is it okay to do this if I'm the only person who will see them?


----------



## tellner (Oct 18, 2007)

bookworm_cn317 said:


> I do this when I take notes in class. Is it okay to do this if I'm the only person who will see them?



It's alright. Just do it in private and wash your hands afterwards 

Seriously, it's a shame that they stopped teaching shorthand. I was never very good at Gregg, but the little I did learn was very helpful.


----------



## crushing (Oct 18, 2007)

tellner said:


> Seriously, it's a shame that they stopped teaching shorthand. I was never very good at Gregg, but the little I did learn was very helpful.


 
That reminds me of someone years ago that used shorthand as an encryption method for use in her diary.  Although seeing something like this would raise some flags to the snoopers.



> August 10th, 1988 - I'm in love.  It's our six month anniversary and we went to dinner at Tony's then saw a play.  Afterwards we stopped at the beach where we &#9566;y &#9573;à ~&#945;&#8735; \-- &#9560;&#9573;&#9555;&#960;  &#9567;&#9562; &#9556;&#9577; &#9554;&#9555;&#9561; Æ&#9565;&#9564;&#9563;.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 18, 2007)

bookworm_cn317 said:


> I do this when I take notes in class. Is it okay to do this if I'm the only person who will see them?


Notes are notes.... If you tried to read some of my notes, you'd try to have me committed!  Write 'em the way that'll work for you.  But, when you write for others to read -- write!

I make it a habit to write carefully, whether it's just a throwaway post or email, or a formal report or letter.  That way, when I have to write well and effectively suddenly, when I'm tired, and adrenaline's been coursing through my system for hours... Habit can take over.


----------



## exile (Oct 18, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> Notes are notes.... If you tried to read some of my notes, you'd try to have me committed!  Write 'em the way that'll work for you.  But, when you write for others to read -- write!
> 
> I make it a habit to write carefully, whether it's just a throwaway post or email, or a formal report or letter.  That way, when I have to write well and effectively suddenly, when I'm tired, and adrenaline's been coursing through my system for hours... Habit can take over.



True&#8212;it saves all kinds of wear and tear on the seat of your pants, because you don't have to kick yourself over something you wrote sloppily that makes you look clueless. 

I'm always a bit surprised to hear that some people actually have two modes of writing, a careful mode that they use in professional contexts where a good impression is essential, and a totally unmonitored mode where they just write whatever comes into their head, with no editing or oversight. I have a hard time imagining how anyone could be so internally split... but it seems to work that way for many people.


----------



## MarkBarlow (Oct 19, 2007)

Irregardless.


----------



## Laurentkd (Oct 19, 2007)

people who use "whom" to feel smart, when using "who" would actually be correct!


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 19, 2007)

Laurentkd said:


> people who use "whom" to feel smart, when using "who" would actually be correct!


 
Along the same lines, people who use "myself" when they mean "me".  Or worse, "I".

ex., "If you have any questions, please contact Joe or myself."

I can't contact yourself.  That'd be like shooting myself in your foot.


----------



## DavidCC (Oct 19, 2007)

"very sortof this" or "very kindof that"

GAHHH!!  finish your thought before you open your mouth!  You know it is very.... something.  FIGURE OUT WHAT before you start talking...


----------



## MarkBarlow (Oct 19, 2007)

Excessive use of "kind of", "you know" and "uh".


----------

