Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts

Friday, January 29, 2010

"Here, Here" for another Grammar Rant

Strangely this blog is evolving into some kind of personal grammar rant. And I don't even like grammar!

When someone says something you agree with, have you ever said "Here, Here!"? What the heck does that mean? Why would you highlight your location to indicate agreement with another person? Well, you shouldn't.

Technically, what the phrase should say is "Hear, Hear!" Now it makes sense. Someone says something that you agree with and you indicate your support of that point of view by telling other people they should "hear" what has just been said.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about this phrase:
"Hear, hear is an expression used as a short repeated form of hear him, hear him. It represents a listener's agreement with the point being made by a speaker.

It was originally an imperative for directing attention to speakers, and has since been used, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, as "the regular form of cheering in the House of Commons", with many purposes depending on the intonation of its user. Its use in British Parliament is linked to the fact that applause is normally (though not always) verboten in the chambers of the House of Commons and House of Lords.

It is often incorrectly spelled "here here", especially on websites and IM.

The phrase hear him, hear him! was used in Parliament since the late 1600s, and had been reduced to hear! or hear, hear! by the late 1700s."

This was just another little annoyance to me (I would constantly read people saying "Here, here" and make some patronizing mental comment about their idiocy) until recently.

I was reading a novel by one of my favorite authors, Robin Cook (I've always enjoyed medical thrillers) and on page 288 of the hardcover 1st edition, I ran into this:
"Here, here!" Shawn said in agreement, motioning with his scotch as if making a toast.

Come on, really? Robin Cook? In all fairness, it may be the work of some ignorant editor on the staff of Putnam's books. But seriously, none of the editors on their staff caught this gaffe?

"There, there!"

Friday, June 26, 2009

You must not of learned much!

Okay, I decided to post a quick note to this dormant blog about a pet peeve I have that today boiled over into active frustration. For some reason, today I saw THREE separate instances of people using "of" instead of "have." It drives me NUTS even though I realize how irrational the reaction is.

I am guessing that it is because of the SOUND of the word, people have written things like "I must of learned something in class," or "You should of come over yesterday," or "You must of stayed out late last night."

What is the deal here? Surely when you write it you realize how stupid it looks and sounds? If you can't figure out when to use "have," just go ahead and use a contraction like "must've" or "should've" even though I'm not a huge fan of that usage.

Phew! That feels better ...

And while we're at it, people PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE ...

This post cannot peek your interest, but it certainly can pique your interest.