Mrs. A Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Has it always been a verb and I'm just late to the party? Why can't we just use the word "give" in its various forms? No offense intended to anyone who uses gift as a verb but it really makes me feel like doing this :willy_nilly: :banghead: That's all. :) 17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I also hate the use of invite as a noun. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 When re-gifting an unwanted gift. :p 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I enjoy words like this, they highlight language in transition. Language grows and stretches and changes and adapts, and the processes and results are fascinating and delightful. Who here wants to go back to speaking Latin or Old English? 17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Language-related pet peeves are also fascinating and delightful. ;) We all have preferences, including the most ardent descriptivists. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Florida. Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I enjoy words like this, they highlight language in transition. Language grows and stretches and changes and adapts, and the processes and results are fascinating and delightful. Who here wants to go back to speaking Latin or Old English? I agree. I think it's fascinating to watch language change. And I'm not sorry we aren't still speaking in thees and thous. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I agree. I think it's fascinating to watch language change. And I'm not sorry we aren't still speaking in thees and thous. Dost thou disparage my speech? A pox on thee and thy newfangled ways! ;) 31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plansrme Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Never. That's when. Language should change (like operating systems) only when the new version is an improvement on the original. "I was gifted" is in no way better than "I was given." The Grammar Curmudgeon 19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Never. That's when. Language should change (like operating systems) only when the new version is an improvement on the original. "I was gifted" is in no way better than "I was given." The Grammar Curmudgeon How would one decide what is an improvement? And who would be the DECIDER? [see] We cast our votes, so to speak, by saying things the way we like to say them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs. A Posted September 13, 2015 Author Share Posted September 13, 2015 We cast our votes, so to speak, by saying things the way we like to say them. Ah. But if that's the case why bother spending time with things like vocabulary and grammar? Why not just use words the way we feel like using them and be rid of the rules altogether? (Ok. Starting to feel a panic attack coming on. Deep breath. Deep breath.) 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Ah. But if that's the case why bother spending time with things like vocabulary and grammar? Why not just use words the way we feel like using them and be rid of the rules altogether? (Ok. Starting to feel a panic attack coming on. Deep breath. Deep breath.) Go for it, shoog. I could not care less if you personally are a language anarchist. You will probably run into some problems communicating with folks, but perhaps you'll find your tribe, so to speak, eventually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmasc Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I also don't like 'pant' for pants. As in, 'That is a nice pant for transitioning into fall.' Noooo...they're nice *pants*. :) 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I hate verbing nouns in general. It seems so pretentious. I think the roots are in business speech. "Resource them for service." "Challenges to be solutioned..." 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lolly Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Gift has been found used as a verb as far back as the 17th century. I am thinking that it probably goes in and out of favor in cycles.So, it is nothing new. It being a pet peeve of people is new! :lol: 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bensonduck Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Right about when "hack" became a noun meaning "a simple, convenient tip". (I personally don't care for this particular language evolution). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I also don't like 'pant' for pants. As in, 'That is a nice pant for transitioning into fall.' Noooo...they're nice *pants*. :) But, but, but.. Why is a single item expressed in plural form? Pants and shorts seem to defy common English language rules. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 :glare: for verbal sloppiness of all kinds 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 The use of "gift" as a verb tells you a lot about the person saying it. Not necessarily good or bad, but it is a revealing turn of phrase. I enjoy words like this, they highlight language in transition. Language grows and stretches and changes and adapts, and the processes and results are fascinating and delightful.Who here wants to go back to speaking Latin or Old English? The litmus test, I think, is are you ok with 'conversate' in conversation? "I like to conversate with my friend Janis while we have lunch" . Another one is, are you ok with 'regardless' and 'irregardless' being used synonyms? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 But, but, but.. Why is a single item expressed in plural form? Pants and shorts seem to defy common English language rules. Pants is like Arkansas or hippopotamus. A single item with an -s at the end. The problem is that we say "My parts ARE..." instead of "My pants IS...." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I enjoy words like this, they highlight language in transition. Language grows and stretches and changes and adapts, and the processes and results are fascinating and delightful. Who here wants to go back to speaking Latin or Old English? Modern English has more in common with middle English than middle English has with old english. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Pants is like Arkansas or hippopotamus. A single item with an -s at the end. The problem is that we say "My parts ARE..." instead of "My pants IS...." No. We call them a pair. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 The use of "gift" as a verb tells you a lot about the person saying it. Not necessarily good or bad, but it is a revealing turn of phrase. (1) The litmus test, I think, is are you ok with 'conversate' in conversation? "I like to conversate with my friend Janis while we have lunch" . (2) Another one is, are you ok with 'regardless' and 'irregardless' being used synonyms? I am not familiar with the error demonstrated in (1). "Regardless" is quite clear without making the mistake in (2). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RKWAcademy Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Perhaps it happened around the same time that "ginormous" became a word. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink and Green Mom Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I cannot stand the use of "gifted" as a verb. Can.not.stand. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Here's an explanation for the plurality of "pants": http://www.word-detective.com/2008/02/pair-of-pants-etc/comment-page-1/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I am not familiar with the error demonstrated in (1). "Regardless" is quite clear without making the mistake in (2). Conversate is a sometimes controversial bit of vernacular. I'd never use it, it grates my ears. But it's a word used by a whole lot of people, including folks who are comfortable code-switching between converse and conversate. Who am I to say it's not a word, right? I reserve my grammar grouchiness for outright errors. Like "for all intensive purposes". 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimm Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I prefer gave over gifted. If you must use the word gift, why not say, "It was a gift from my mother" rather than "My mother gifted it to us." I can't stand irregardless. But overall I'm fine with evolving language. I find it kind of arrogant to think that language, which is a living and changing thing, somehow became perfect at some particular point and should no longer be changed. :) 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 So do the folks who object to gift as a verb also object to gifted, as in "a gifted child" or "a gifted artist"? While we may view gifted as an adjective, it certainly derives from gifted as a verb; the child has been gifted with intelligence, the artist with artistic talent. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plansrme Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 How would one decide what is an improvement? And who would be the DECIDER? [see] We cast our votes, so to speak, by saying things the way we like to say them. I do. If, however, you want to make a case for gifted's superiority over given, have at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Lol I have exactly one pet peeve irt language and it is this: You HAVE or OBTAIN "peace of mind." You GIVE someone a "piece of your mind." If everyone who writes "Do XYZ thing then at least you will have piece of mind **realizes** what they are doing, and prefers to spell it that way, then by all means. But I think most of the time people simply don't realize they're using the incorrect homophone. To degree to which this grates on my nerves undoubtedly makes up for my free-wheeling usage and acceptance in every other facet of language :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy in NH Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 When present became a noun? :huh: I think it went from "I will present her with a gift" to "I will gift her with a present". :laugh: 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 How would one decide what is an improvement? And who would be the DECIDER? [see] We cast our votes, so to speak, by saying things the way we like to say them. Very true. Originally, I could not say "texted." It sounded so seventh grade. When I first began using the text feature, I religiously and fanatically said "sent a text," or "we sent texts to one another." But it is admitedly cumbersome. So I adapted. This is how language morphs. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 When did gift become a verb? Circa 1550. The OED concurs, citing, among others, Elizabeth Barrett Browning. Ah. But if that's the case why bother spending time with things like vocabulary and grammar? Why not just use words the way we feel like using them and be rid of the rules altogether? (Ok. Starting to feel a panic attack coming on. Deep breath. Deep breath.) That's not how language works. We all follow rules all the time. We all know a sentence like "cat cat the tree up climbed down fell" is not valid. However, most of the "rules" promoted by the peevists are not real rules. They're made-up zombie rules. (I'm referring to rules regarding speech, not rules regarding orthography.) Edit: And the frustrating part is that the REAL rules that we all follow are never discussed in this sort of book, even when we're utterly unaware of them. For example, let's say you have a book. It is a red book. It is a big book. You would never, ever describe it as a "red big book". You'd always say "big red book", and you know automatically that you can't put the adjectives in the other order. Why is this? I bet you a dollar you never thought of it before I just said it. But is this discussed in grammar books? Noooo, it's another round of "Why Shakespeare and Jane Austen and Mark Twain and Dickens were all wrong on singular they!" (And then you have the people telling you to avoid passives, and they can't even correctly identify a passive sentence to save their life, nor define it.) Other "rules" amount to "this dialect is always correct in all circumstances and every other one is inferior in every respect", which is nonsensical. Every human being with the capacity of speech is capable of speaking in one dialect at some times and another at other times - and of being able to determine which dialect is appropriate at which time! We're also all capable of switching between registers, speaking more formally to our boss or God or in an essay and less formally to our friends or children or in a postcard. This idea that we have to always speak in a formal register all the time is akin to saying that we have to always wear a three-piece suit all the time. It is absolutely without merit, and it keeps us from really embracing the richness of language all around us. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Lol I have exactly one pet peeve irt language and it is this: You HAVE or OBTAIN "peace of mind." You GIVE someone a "piece of your mind." If everyone who writes "Do XYZ thing then at least you will have piece of mind **realizes** what they are doing, and prefers to spell it that way, then by all means. But I think most of the time people simply don't realize they're using the incorrect homophone. To degree to which this grates on my nerves undoubtedly makes up for my free-wheeling usage and acceptance in every other facet of language :lol: Yeah, but I've come to think it is better to not mention it, because I am not mistake-proof, especially when on the iPad, and find myself surprised to realize I use incorrect homophones from time to time. I know which one is correct, but while typing along, I do ere. I just noticed recently that I used "roll" in one of my posts, when I meant "role." The one that does bother me sometimes is the homograph "sewer," used to mean, "one who sews." I will make an effort to restructure a sentence to avoid writing "sewer," although it is actually a completely appropriate and correct usage. If I could not avoid the phrasing, I would probably say "seamstress." So, I don't prefer the use of "sewer," but it is correct anyway. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I like this: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/12/gifting-is-not-a-verb/383676/ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 The one that does bother me sometimes is the homograph "sewer," used to mean, "one who sews." I will make an effort to restructure a sentence to avoid writing "sewer," although it is actually a completely appropriate and correct usage. If I could not avoid the phrasing, I would probably say "seamstress." So, I don't prefer the use of "sewer," but it is correct anyway. Every time I see that, I admit, I do a double-take :) But as we're not likely to reform English orthography any time soon, we're probably stuck with it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Every time I see that, I admit, I do a double-take :) But as we're not likely to reform English orthography any time soon, we're probably stuck with it. I think part of the problem lies in the completely different mental picture one gets from reading the word as SOO-er. So if the lead-in does not provide enough context to make one think of needles and thread, BAM! Suddenly, you have images of manhole covers, Jean Valjean, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles coursing through your head. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shukriyya Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 One pair, two...pairs? pair? And the one I see a lot of is 'journaling', i.e. journal as verb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 One pair, two...pairs? pair? And the one I see a lot of is 'journaling', i.e. journal as verb. Which is recorded in the OED from 1803. In English, it has historically been extremely common for verbs to be used as nouns and vice versa. Many of these words have been used in this way for so very long that you don't even notice it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy in NH Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Yeah, but I've come to think it is better to not mention it, because I am not mistake-proof, especially when on the iPad, and find myself surprised to realize I use incorrect homophones from time to time. I know which one is correct, but while typing along, I do ere. I just noticed recently that I used "roll" in one of my posts, when I meant "role." The one that does bother me sometimes is the homograph "sewer," used to mean, "one who sews." I will make an effort to restructure a sentence to avoid writing "sewer," although it is actually a completely appropriate and correct usage. If I could not avoid the phrasing, I would probably say "seamstress." So, I don't prefer the use of "sewer," but it is correct anyway. Ds tried to make a case for "seamster" in a cute and funny 4-H speech. Too bad the public speaking judges weren't sewers and didn't get it. Ha! sewers; I said sewers. <in a Beavis and Butthead voice> 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Never. That's when. Language should change (like operating systems) only when the new version is an improvement on the original. "I was gifted" is in no way better than "I was given." The Grammar Curmudgeon :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Never. That's when. Language should change (like operating systems) only when the new version is an improvement on the original. "I was gifted" is in no way better than "I was given." The Grammar Curmudgeon *shrugs* There are some people who would say that over-Latinized "language" is no better than good, Anglo-Saxon "tongue". That's actually the point of the Anglish Moot, and if you read no other link of mine, you should still read Uncleftish Beholding. LOL, years ago, when I was in middle school, I was in chorus. We were preparing for the Winter Concert, and so we were practicing Christmas carols (and also Hanukkah songs, but that's not relevant for this story). Anyway, one of the girls in chorus got very upset when she was told to sing "The Lord is come". None of us habitually speak that way, of course, as it's rather archaic, but Christmas carols are all about the archaisms, aren't they? Well, maybe not, because apparently she had always sung it "The Lord has come", and she insisted that was the only correct way. For sure, it's the only correct way today. If I went to my mother and said "I am come to visit" instead of "I have come to visit", she would think I was being very strange! And we really cannot say that "He has come" is any better than "He is come", can we? But surely you aren't going to say that because the newer form is not clearly superior, we should all switch back to the older one posthaste. That's not even up for debate. I'll give you another one. Let's say you walk down the street, and you notice new construction. A new house is going up! Would you say "the house is building" or "the house is being built"? Some of us may never even heard of the passival until today, but a few hundred years ago I'm sure it would have grated on your ears to hear the progressive passive instead of where the passival should OBVIOUSLY be used. Is the progressive passive actually better than the passival? Not really. They both perform the same function. But even real fans of Jane Austen don't use the passival now. Language is a wonderful toy. To restrict oneself to one form of speech at all times is like restricting oneself to one food forever. "If you were going to be stranded on a desert island, what one food would you bring?" I don't know about you, but even though I do love mint chocolate chip ice cream, I don't want to have to subsist off of it for the rest of my days! Neither do I want to only hear one type of speech. How tedious! 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Ds tried to make a case for "seamster" in a cute and funny 4-H speech. Too bad the public speaking judges weren't sewers and didn't get it. Ha! sewers; I said sewers. <in a Beavis and Butthead voice> I like stitcher, which is gender-neutral in the same way seamster presumably is. Tailor also works, but I don't know, it seems to imply something different from sew-er or seamstress. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy in NH Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I like stitcher, which is gender-neutral in the same way seamster presumably is. Tailor also works, but I don't know, it seems to imply something different from sew-er or seamstress. The different terms are kind of classist, aren't they? Like a stitcher is responsible for stitches, which isn't very much - a stitch is pretty low level sewing. But a seamstress or seamster would be responsible for seams - much more responsibility and a higher "class" of sewing. Then you have a tailor which is a person responsible for tails? Coat tails - much more formal - that has to be the highest sewing class. Is it a difference in design and construction skills? One might think tailors and seamstresses are really doing the same thing - designing and or custom making garments - but a stitcher is only putting stitches where they are told and not dealing with designs, patterns, or cutting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 That may well be the case. I don't quite know enough about the sewing world to have a well-formulated opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Wouldn't it just be seamer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Then wouldn't it be teamer instead of teamster? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanne in ABQ Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Pants is like Arkansas or hippopotamus. A single item with an -s at the end. The problem is that we say "My parts ARE..." instead of "My pants IS...." But, that's not the case because it is correct and proper to say "a pair of pants". Of course, there is no singular pant. English is just dumb. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 -ster is a long-standing affix: http://www.affixes.org/s/-ster.html 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 https://jobs.ca.gov/JOBSGEN/5MH67.PDF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.