Words/Phrases You're Sick Of Hearing?

[sjordan2]

I frequently hear "beautiful build" and words to that effect on TV car shows, such as auctions (That's when describing Cristy Lee at B-J on Velocity; they also apply it to rods, customs, etc.).

Edited February 13, 2016 by sjordan2

[Harry P.]

Acutally, you are one of the 'pedantic, grumpy old guys', this forum is full of them...   .and who is to say something is correct or not?  Certainly not you.

I didn't say that I was the one who decided it's not correct. The dictionary is what I was referencing. And as far as I know, the dictionary is the arbiter of correct word usage, not you and not me. You can use words any way you want; I'm not the "word police." All I was saying is that I agree with Drew... referring to a scale model as a "build" is incorrect, no matter how many people do it. You can do it if you want to, everybody can do it if they want to... but it's still wrong. And that has nothing to do with being grumpy or pedantic... it has to do with the dictionary definition of the word.

If you want to call a model car a "build" go right ahead.

"I could care less"...

[Rob Hall]

Dictionaries are always out of date, and thus can't be relied upon as an arbiter of 'correct language', since in the real world, what is 'proper' or 'slang' is constantly evolving...  that's reality...

[Ace-Garageguy]

The "pedantic, grumpy old guys" I referenced was the dictionary.

Just because some guys use the word incorrectly doesn't make it correct. Drew is correct when he says using the word "build" as a noun in reference to a model car is incorrect. It may be "accepted" by some, but it's not correct.

"Word usage changes over time. The language is constantly evolving".

I believe these are very close to your words somewhere on this forum, fairly recently.

When something becomes "common usage" for long enough, it becomes "accepted usage", and eventually "correct".

T'were it not so, thy dictionary wouldst be filled with grunts, yea and gesticulations, and anything more sophisticated wouldst be deemed "incorrect".

Dost thou not agree ?

[Harry P.]

"Word usage changes over time. The language is constantly evolving".

I believe these are very close to your words somewhere on this forum, fairly recently.

When something becomes "common usage" for long enough, it becomes "accepted usage", and eventually "correct".

T'were it not so, thy dictionary wouldst be filled with grunts, yea and gesticulations, and anything more sophisticated wouldst be deemed "incorrect".

Dost thou not agree ?

I agree that language evolves constantly; some words disappear, some new words appear. But there has to be some sort of "standard," to define what is and what isn't correct word usage, and that's the dictionary. Dictionaries evolve as language evolves... certain words disappear or as labeled "obsolete" in their definitions; new words are added all the time as language evolves. For example, you wouldn't have seen the term "video game" in the dictionary in 1965... new words are always coming into use.

When the word "build" is defined in the dictionary as a synonym for "scale model car," that's when it becomes "correct" usage. Until then, it's incorrect. Maybe "accepted." Maybe common. But technically not correct. That's all I'm saying.

[Snake45]

None of which applies to a scale model...

noun
10. the manner or form of construction: The house was of modern build.

 

There it is. We say that this kit was an "easy build" or a "fun build" or whatever. Same thing. Of course I don't expect the dictionary to cite model cars as an example.

Remembered where I've seen it as relates to guns. You can now build an AR-15 from parts into a completely unique rifle like no one else's, and many people do, and I've often seen these projects referred to as "builds."

[2002p51]

Is it funny that, throughout this entire thread, everybody was bringing up different things that bug them and it was fine.

But all of a sudden so many are coming to the defense of the incorrect use of the word build! Amazing. 

You know, using incorrect speech, no matter how accepted it may be, says something about the person who uses it. And it usually isn't something good.

But I've noticed through many many years on forums like this that any time you deviate from the accepted paradigm it starts trouble. 

 

[Ace-Garageguy]

Is it funny that, throughout this entire thread, everybody was bringing up different things that bug them and it was fine.

But all of a sudden so many are coming to the defense of the incorrect use of the word build! Amazing. 

You know, using incorrect speech, no matter how accepted it may be, says something about the person who uses it. And it usually isn't something good.

But I've noticed through many many years on forums like this that any time you deviate from the accepted paradigm it starts trouble. 

 

So by this logic, the language should be frozen at one particular point in time, and not allowed to evolve.

And by your own logic, YOUR language is incorrect and certainly "says something about the person who uses it" if your speech and writing were to be heard or read by someone from a hundred years ago.

So, at which specific point in time do you propose the language police should freeze English so that everyone, forever and ever, will use it "correctly"?

Fifty tears ago? Today? Last month?

Evolving word usage doesn't bother me near so much as lazy punctuation, spelling, grammar, and a general inability to communicate ideas clearly...which is increasingly pervasive in our society.

 

Edited February 13, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[Harry P.]

Evolving word usage doesn't bother me near so much as lazy punctuation, spelling, grammar, and a general inability to communicate ideas clearly...which is increasingly pervasive in our society.

Just to play devil's advocate here...

So you're ok with using words incorrectly, as it's just the "evolution" of the language? But incorrect punctuation, spelling, and grammar bothers you? Why? Wouldn't incorrect punctuation, spelling, and grammar just be another part of the "evolution" of the language, as using words incorrectly apparently is?

Hmmmmm....

[Snake45]

Is it funny that, throughout this entire thread, everybody was bringing up different things that bug them and it was fine.

But all of a sudden so many are coming to the defense of the incorrect use of the word build! Amazing.

You know, using incorrect speech, no matter how accepted it may be, says something about the person who uses it. And it usually isn't something good.

But I've noticed through many many years on forums like this that any time you deviate from the accepted paradigm it starts trouble.

 

We've demonstrated that it's not incorrect.

If it bugs you, that's fine, and I said so.

Every post in this thread is about some word or phrase that bugs somebody. That's what this thread is about. They're not incorrect, for the most part, they're just annoying, in the way that "build" annoys you. Relax.

[Pete J.]

Playing the same devil's advocate here, the "dictionary" is hardly a definitive source.  You and I are both old enough to remember the Oxford unabridged dictionary that lived in the library on it's own stand and was about a foot thick.  We also had pocket and desk dictionaries.  Because a word did not live in the smaller dictionaries didn't mean it didn't exist or that the definition in the pocket version was the only "approved" definition.  Language is a living, growing entity.  Over time, words become less used and drop from out daily use while others arise.  As they become more common, eventually they become a part of the language and are added to the dictionary.  I thought since you like words so much you might like to peruse this article from the Oxford English Dictionary.  http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/december-2015-update/new-words-notes-december-2015/  Grammar and punctuation are much more restrictive.  I still keep a Perrin's Writers guide on my desk because I do make mistakes or have questions from time to time.  Having said this, I to get distressed by those who make up words to sound more educated and thus wind up looking stupid.  A good example occurs frequently in home remodeling reality shows.  I don't know how often I have heard a carpenter say he is going to "adhead" two boards together instead of gluing.   I assume this is a bastardization of the word adhesive but such thing grate on the ear.  Correct? No, probably not in the "dictionary" but give it 30 years of use and yes it may make it.  That is the nature of language.

 

[MrObsessive]

Evolving word usage doesn't bother me near so much as lazy punctuation, spelling, grammar, and a general inability to communicate ideas clearly...which is increasingly pervasive in our society.

You got that right! 

[Ace-Garageguy]

Just to play devil's advocate here...

So you're ok with using words incorrectly, as it's just the "evolution" of the language? But incorrect punctuation, spelling, and grammar bothers you? Why? Wouldn't incorrect punctuation, spelling, and grammar just be another part of the "evolution" of the language, as using words incorrectly apparently is?

Hmmmmm....

Believe me, I see the logic disconnect and I figured you'd probably be the one to bring it up.

Maybe I can think of a good analogy for my attitude.

OK. Compare language to a well-developed machine. Let's say words are the "parts" of the language, and spelling, punctuation and grammar are the "fasteners" (screws, rivets, bolts, nuts, etc.) that hold it all together and allow it to work right.

Sometimes, you can find a new use for an old part (there's even a patent classification for doing just exactly that), but if you're going to expect it to work, you kinda need to attach it to whatever it needs to be attached to with the right fasteners for the job.

Fasteners evolve over time too, but usually not as fast as the parts they hold together.

And you need to have a solid understanding of the principles of whatever you're working with to have any hope of getting it to work well. If you use deck-screws and nails to try to hold an airplane together, you're going to have a problem...even if you have all the right parts, in all the right places.

Same goes for language.

(minus 5 points for using the non-word "kinda", even though it appears in several dictionaries and is widely accepted usage)

 

 

Edited February 13, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[Ace-Garageguy]

 I don't know how often I have heard a carpenter say he is going to "adhead" two boards together instead of gluing.   I assume this is a bastardization of the word adhesive but such thing grate on the ear. 

Yeah, that makes my skin crawl. There is already a word for that, ADHERE, which functions correctly for that usage.

[Harry P.]

Believe me, I see the logic disconnect and I figured you'd probably be the one to bring it up.

Maybe I can think of a good analogy for my attitude.

OK. Compare language to a well-developed machine. Let's say words are the "parts" of the language, and spelling, punctuation and grammar are the "fasteners" (screws, rivets, bolts, nuts, etc.) that hold it all together and allow it to work right.

Sometimes, you can find a new use for an old part (there's even a patent classification for doing just exactly that), but if you're going to expect it to work, you kinda need to attach it to whatever it needs to be attached to with the right fasteners for the job.

Fasteners evolve over time too, but usually not as fast as the parts they hold together.

And you need to have a solid understanding of the principles of whatever you're working with to have any hope of getting it to work well. If you use deck-screws and nails to try to hold an airplane together, you're going to have a problem...even if you have all the right parts, in all the right places.

Same goes for language.

(minus 5 points for using the non-word "kinda", even though it appears in several dictionaries and is widely accepted usage)

I just found your argument a little disingenuous, that's all. But your above "explanation" is fairly well done. But in reply, I'd say that your machine won't work very well if you install the parts incorrectly, even if you used the correct fasteners.

Your machine can evolve over time and incorporate new parts... but you probably shouldn't take existing parts and reuse them in ways other than they were intended to be used, because if you do that too often, your machine begins to run poorly... or break down altogether. The right parts, used correctly, along with the addition of new parts as necessary, along with the right fasteners, used correctly, equals a well-functioning machine.

 

[Ace-Garageguy]

I just found your argument a little disingenuous, that's all. But your above "explanation" is fairly well done. But in reply, I'd say that your machine won't work very well if you install the parts incorrectly, even if you used the correct fasteners.

Your machine can evolve over time and incorporate new parts... but you probably shouldn't take existing parts and reuse them in ways other than they were intended to be used, because if you do that too often, your machine begins to run poorly... or break down altogether. The right parts, used correctly, along with the addition of new parts as necessary, along with the right fasteners, used correctly, equals a well-functioning machine.

Comparing language to a mechanical device is a stretch, at best, but the analogy holds fairly well.

Let's take the '57 Corvette as an example. Fuel-injection replaced the previous carburettor (English spelling), performed essentially the same function as the old part, functioned better in some respects, and was bolted together and to the engine with similar hardware (fasteners). The transmission was also upgraded with the substitution of the Borg-Warner T-10 4-speed box, again something that performed essentially the same function as the earlier part, but did it slightly differently and better. It was also held on and held together with the same kinds of fasteners.

Is the '57 Corvette not "correct"? Well, only if you hold the '56 version as the perfect example of "Corvetteness".

Now let's look at today's C7 Corvette. All the same basic parts are still there, they perform essentially the same function as a whole, but not a single one of them will interchange from a 2016 to a '57...except MANY of the fasteners.

The evolution of any system, when things work right, increases the "fitness" of the system (whether car or language or animal) to perform its task efficiently and well, as long as the purpose and function of the system is understood and defined.

I insert the caveat "when things work right" because sometimes evolution creates dead-ends. Both the panda and the koala have evolved to rely on a very specific diet. Their evolution has been too narrowly focused, and has created species too specialized to survive for long in a changing environment.

Likewise, the evolution of the Corvette has taken it from being a vehicle that was easy to maintain and as reliable a brick for as much as 63 years...assuming it was maintained...to a vehicle that's insanely complicated and heavily dependent on technologies that change so fast as to make it obsolete almost overnight, and WILL make it very difficult to keep running in its present form in another 63 years.

Evolution of language should focus on its fitness as a vehicle enabling communication. If a slightly different use of the word "build" is an improvement to the ease with which an idea can be communicated accurately, I see no rational reason to try to block it.

On the other hand, office-speak and political-speak exist primarily as means to AVOID actual communication of ideas and thoughts accurately. Those are the things I'd send the language police after.

 

 

 

[Harry P.]

On the other hand, office-speak and political-speak exist primarily as means to AVOID actual communication of ideas and thoughts accurately. Those are the things I'd send the language police after.

Isn't calling a model a "build" a perfect example of model-car-guy-speak? Replacing the already existing, perfectly logical noun "model" with "build?" I don't see how saying "that's a really nice build" is any improvement over "that's a really nice model."

Oh well... I guess we've beaten this horse to death several times over!

Onward to the next topic...

[Pete J.]

Isn't calling a model a "build" a perfect example of model-car-guy-speak? Replacing the already existing, perfectly logical noun "model" with "build?" I don't see how saying "that's a really nice build" is any improvement over "that's a really nice model."

Oh well... I guess we've beaten this horse to death several times over!

Onward to the next topic...

Back to Gallagher on this one.  If a building is a completed structure, why do we not call them builts?

[Ace-Garageguy]

Isn't calling a model a "build" a perfect example of model-car-guy-speak? Replacing the already existing, perfectly logical noun "model" with "build?" I don't see how saying "that's a really nice build" is any improvement over "that's a really nice model."

Oh well... I guess we've beaten this horse to death several times over!

Well, speaking of horses, why do we need several different words to connote "horseness" and adjectives to further define specific kinds of horseness?

The term "build" can be looked at as simply differentiating between a "model" that one buys, like a die-cast, or even a 3D rendering (oh, how I hate the current version "render") and a model that one builds or has built. 

I rest my case. Gots to work on my taxes, and render unto Caesar...

[Danno]

I'm on the fence about "builds."  

 

HOWEVER, the one that really starts my chainsaw is the abuse of the term "kit."

 

My nails are dragged across the chalkboard when I see or hear someone say, 'Look at my kit,' and they're pointing out a finished model.

Unassembled packages of parts are kits.  'Kits' are only 'kits' until they're assembled; then they are models.  

Models are assembled replicas of real things.

{Or, 'kits' are baby foxes.}  

 

But either way, 'kits' ain't finished models, and finished models are NO LONGER 'kits.'  

 

KIT:

< UNbuilt. >

 

 

MODEL:

 

 

< Built. >

 

Done.  

 

 

[Ace-Garageguy]

I'm sick of LOL, hee-hee, tee-hee, bwa-ha-ha, and all other various and sundry forms of inane written laughter too. 

Edited February 13, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[Snake45]

Isn't calling a model a "build" a perfect example of model-car-guy-speak? Replacing the already existing, perfectly logical noun "model" with "build?" I don't see how saying "that's a really nice build" is any improvement over "that's a really nice model."

 

Ever call a book a "good read" or a car a "sweet ride"?  Same kinda thing.

[Harry P.]

Ever call a book a "good read"...

Not quite.

Saying a book was a "good read" is saying that you enjoyed the book– but you're not calling the book itself a "read." Because if you were, you could then say this:

"Hey, have you checked out the latest read from Stephen King?"

Obviously that's not correct. As incorrect as calling a model a "build."

You read a book, and you build a model... but a book isn't a "read" and a model isn't a "build."

[sjordan2]

Isn't calling a model a "build" a perfect example of model-car-guy-speak? Replacing the already existing, perfectly logical noun "model" with "build?" I don't see how saying "that's a really nice build" is any improvement over "that's a really nice model."

Oh well... I guess we've beaten this horse to death several times over!

Onward to the next topic...

Back to what I said before, no, it is not model-car-speak. I hear it all over the world of professional 1:1 car guys on the TV car shows. But what if it existed only for model cars, which it doesn't? Every special-interest field has its own lingo.

All that bothers me is when the proper use of "build" comes out as "here's my latest built."

Edited February 13, 2016 by sjordan2

[Snake45]

Not quite.

Saying a book was a "good read" is saying that you enjoyed the book– but you're not calling the book itself a "read." Because if you were, you could then say this:

"Hey, have you checked out the latest read from Stephen King?"

Obviously that's not correct. As incorrect as calling a model a "build."

You read a book, and you build a model... but a book isn't a "read" and a model isn't a "build."

I've heard people say exactly that and never heard anybody call them "incorrect."

Ever see a diner with a big "EATS" sign on it? I have.

We're just going to have to disagree on this one, Harry. I don't find "build" to be objectionable or incorrect to describe a project.