Incorrectly used sayings and phrases (malapropisims and related)

TarfHead said:
Cheap at half the price

Surely this should be dear at half the price, or cheap at twice the price ?
Click to expand...

Surely if it would be cheap at twice the price, it would certainly be cheap at half the price, in fact it would be 75% cheaper than the price it was cheap at when twice the price, non?
 
Brendan said:
I had heard this used and had never thought it wrong. I assumed that it was one of those formal business letter words. I hope I haven't used it.

It seems to be a peculiarly Irish misuse.

http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic26117.html
Click to expand...

Hi Brendan

I use it.

Although, revert can mean to go back to the original state/condition, period or subject.

So in the sense of subject, in terms of business correspondence, I would argue that it is acceptable. E.g. "Please revert with your feedback"

What is definitely unacceptable in my view (and tautological) is to say 'revert back' - it's like saying 'well renowned'

Maybe we should give the grammar guru himself Dr Moriarty the last word on this.
 
Caveat said:
WHAAAAT? Mathepac watching the X Factor??
Click to expand...
em, eh, visitors wanted to watch it while I was readying the din-dins, sorry to disappoint. In order to make up for my gross misconduct, when they bought the [whispers] mail on sunday next morning I didn't allow them to read it with the rashers and saussies.
 
May and able

You might call me a pedant on this one, but Dublin City Council has illuminated signs in Dame St. saying that cars “can not” use the bus gate at College Green between certain times.

In fact, while they might be breaking the law, they can use it if they are able to, as ‘can’ is the present tense of the verb ‘to be able to’. ‘Can not’ implies there is some problem with the car, i.e. that the car is not able to be driven, which prevents it going through College Green.

What DCC are probably trying to say is that cars ‘may not’ use the bus gate at certain times (as they do not have permission to do so).
 
PMU said:
May and able

You might call me a pedant on this one...
Click to expand...

Not so much pedantic as 'not with it'

Can, for permission, has largely been accepted as legitimate usage these days. Most contemporary grammar texts have relented on this one.
 
A Bertie-ism I was told about- talking about some company (?) he said "they have their testicles everywhere"
 
Gordanus said:
A Bertie-ism I was told about- talking about some company (?) he said "they have their testicles everywhere"
Click to expand...

That was in an interview published in the Irish Times some weeks back. He was referring to Lehman Brothers.
 
nlgbbbblth said:
The use of 'revert' in business correspondence.

It does not mean respond or reply. Yet many people think it does.
Click to expand...
I got an e-mail yesterday from a colleague that ended: “…and hope to revert to you as soon as possible”.

A quick look at Dictionary.com or the Oxford dictionary gives four meanings for ‘revert’, which are broadly concerned with a change back to a previous state, and none are on the lines of ‘I’ll reply’ or ‘I’ll come back’.

So nlgbbbblth is correct’; “revert” as commonly used in business correspondence (at least in Ireland) is incorrect.
 
"
Please revert with your feedback"
Click to expand...

"Revert" does not sound right to me. Surely" reply" is better? Also, revert means going back to something rather than just seeking a reply?
 
levelpar said:
Is not "went" the past tense of "go" ?
Click to expand...

Yeah, watch carefully.

I go today.
I went yesterday.
I should have gone the day before.
I could have gone on Tuesday. (Definitely not "I could of gone", which is a hanging offence).



Got it? Now, repeat after me................
 
levelpar said:
"

"Revert" does not sound right to me. Surely" reply" is better? Also, revert means going back to something rather than just seeking a reply?
Click to expand...

Yes, but can mean going back to a subject - see post #129 above.
 
I go today.
I went yesterday.
I should have gone the day before.
I could have gone on Tuesday. (Definitely not "I could of gone", which is a hanging offence).
Click to expand...

Fair Jews, oops, dues, you caught me there
 
Slash said:
... I should have gone the day before.
I could have gone on Tuesday. ...
Click to expand...
I take it then the following colloquialisms are definitely non-U -

  • I shudda goin' the day before.
  • I should of went the day before tha' again.
  • I could of goin' on Tuesday.
  • I cudda went of a Tuesday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register