"Train"

It's an electronic world we live in. Why type 14 keystrokes when 5 will do if you can get your meaning across. I agree with you that it's lazy, but so is all the text speak and icons we all use these days.

At last. Someone else who objects to the misuse of the word "train" as a travelling verb. Oh, yes, fewer key strokes. I have never been so short of time that I had to take that into account. It abuses our language for starters, plus it sounds ugly.

I don't have to aircraft from New York to London because I can fly and it's shorter (not the journey itself but to type it or say it). Unlike instead of train I would have to type go by train which is longer. Otherwise I agree that it is incorrect. Similar like instead of night many times I saw nite. And also color instead of colour but that already became correct in American English.

Could it merely be the way some part of the world speaks. Do you mind how Brits say "he's in hospital, " or " doctor will see you now." I'm more disheartened that words the words "dude" and " literally " are used frequently and improperly. Texting, and emailing have created a universe of abbreviated sentences. Just wait and see how that affects this generations ability to properly spell let alone write a complete sentence. Sigh.

Texting, and emailing have created a universe of abbreviated
sentences. Just wait and see how that affects this generations ability
to properly spell let alone write a complete sentence. Sigh.

Claudia, my nephew actually corrected me when I texted him with a complete sentence. He said I need to abbreviate words. I guess I need to use "u" for "you" and b4 for "before" etc. LOL

And also color instead of colour but that already became correct in
American English.

llja, I didn't realize "colour" was the correct spelling. I have always used "color."

Not to get too nit-picky (now there's a word for you) but if you look it up in the dictionary it lists, among other meanings, used as an intransitive verb it means 'to go by train'. I found that definition online and also in my old college dictionary from the '60's, so it's been around for a long time, just not in general usage.

And by the way, I agree with you guys. I don't use it that way, but then, I don't use a lot of other simplifications common today. I'm with those who grew up in another generation that taught and prized good grammar, spelling, writing, etc.. I love language and cringe when I hear some of the younger people today using their 'street talk'.

Words change their grammatical properties all the time.

"Biking" from Rome to Florence isn't lazy, nor is "riding a bike" any more energetic. You can either "ferry" across the Rhine or "take a ferry" across it. You can either "walk" across Rome or "take a walk" across Rome. If you're crazy you can "swim" or "take a swim" up the Arno, etc. So while using "train" as a verb might be something new, it seems perfectly in tune with the grammar patterns of our language. I don't think of it as "misuse" or "lazy" or "text-speak" but rather as normal linguistic evolution.

You can find many such examples of "short-cuts" becoming standard English usage, stuff we don't even blink at now.

" colour" is the British English spelling. I read somewhere that your Mr. Webster when assembling his dictionary decided the " our" and " ous" suffixes had to go on words such as labour and inglorious. So a lot of "u"s were dumped. So sad.

I do not use the word train as a verb.. however.. its so low down on my list of things that bother me about language usage .

Save your rancor for "me and my boyfriend" .. lol

I'm not that fogey, but "message" as a verb drives me batty. According to Merriam-Webster it's still a noun.

I am more afraid of political correctness police on this forum than a grammar one.

My 50-year old dictionary includes this as colloquial usage. Maybe it has existed for a long time on the fringes without becoming completely mainstream.

Any time I feel myself getting uptight about spelling or grammar, I go back and read history's all-time greatest travel blog: The Journals of Lewis & Clark.

If we are going to diverge into general spelling and grammar, two things that are WRONG on this site.

• Transportation - WRONG, should be transport, as in "London Transport". Transportation is when you ship convicted criminals to Australia. Or perhaps that is what some of the posters mean.
• accommodations - WRONG, should be accommodation, it is a collective noun, like water or sand, there is no plural.

And trains stop at railway stations, not railroad or train stations.
That was what I was taught at school (in England).

Oh, and websites that say "Gare du Nord station", aaargh! That is tautological (like saying PIN number), gare = station.

No plurals? How about the waters of baptism or the sands of Iwo Jima?
Not trying to be grammar or language police, just commenting from time to time.

Pat, let's not forget "my boyfriend and I" as in "where can i find a room for my boyfriend and I?"

It is getting more difficult to resist verbing everything possible.

Interesting thread but I have to go Hoover the carpets now. :O)

This is not a new phenomenon. Someone (Shaw, Wilde, or Churchill ?) said something a long time ago about great nations being divided by a common language.

I love this , a few links to articles of interest for those so inclined - Orwell - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language E.B. White - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style Orwell again , the diminution of language and its nuance as examined in his masterpiece ( timely for our current period in history ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four#The_Newspeak_appendix Particularly the cafeteria scene with Syme in the beginning , and The Newspeak Appendix

Every time I see the phrase "I am wanting" I want to scream.

It should be " I want."

I want to go to Europe and not I am wanting to go to Europe.

I want to take the train and not I am wanting to take the train.

"My preferred dictionary is Merriam-Webster. Indeed, train can be used as an intransitive verb meaning 'to take the train'. At least the word ISN'T being misused!"

All languages are living, breathing entities in constant flux. Some changes don't "take" and drop off quickly - others "stick." It is the job of dictionaries not to set a "standard" to decide good and bad usage but to DESCRIBE how we actually use the language, adding new forms of usage that become common. Kudos to M-W.

"Misuse" is up to the individual, not the dictionary... IMO it's only "wrong" when the usage doesn't fit the context or contributes to misunderstanding... which is certainly not the case with "train" as a verb.

It has just become a figure of speech. These things evolve with every generation -- for example, these days, you can express frustration with someone/something by saying "I cannot with that person/thing." For bonus points, you can say "I cannot EVEN. I literally cannot." Honestly, I started out saying things like that ironically, but then it crept into my lexicon a little bit...

I am sure all of your parents' generation and their parents' generation balked at something those pesky youths came up with, too :)

Not everyone who posts on RS has English as their first language so they may be doing the best that they can. It's a darn sight better than I could do if the situation was reversed!

"Not everyone who posts on RS has English as their first language"

I spent three day in Londen, after which I was no longer convinced that I spoke English. I think we should rename the language "American", of which English is a minor dialect.

Languages grow and change with time. If not we would still be speaking in æld englisc.

BTW, my pet peeves are "make mention" or "John and myself".

"Languages grow and change with time. If not we would still be speaking in æld englisc."

Lee, that's right, and we'd be able to read Chaucer without a modern translation.

Well... while we are at it...
I am going to loose my mind if I see this mistake one more time:)

My current personal language irritation is "that being said." Oh, yeah, who be saying it? It's the passiveness of it, as if that which was said just arrived on its own and plopped down in front of us. I don't mind someone making a point and then saying, "having said that" because yes, the speaker did say it. Someone should take responsibility for saying it.

(""All languages are living, breathing entities in constant flux.") "That may be a point of view of some English speakers but I haven't heard this embraced by native francophiles, for example."

A "Francophile" of course loves the French language. I imagine for many native Francophiles, that means they want to preserve it in its current state and that changes to the language are not welcome. But that is just their attitude, not their actual usage; what people think and say about their language is never 100% realized in their actual speech, even for language-preservation types. If you were to record the spoken language of strict grammarians and play it back to them, they would be shocked at their own usage - or deny it was them on the recording. Such people exist in all language groups, I imagine; they get upset when the language changes, so they are forever upset, because that's what language is always doing.

If we're going to discuss word usage that we find annoying, I'd like add the annoying and incorrect usage of "would of". Apparently, for some reason, many English speakers (writers?) have forgotten that "would've" is a contraction of the words "would" and "have" and not the two individual words "would" and "of". And don't get me started on "a lot" incorrectly used as "alot".

I wonder how many of the mistakes we see are simply due to typos or laziness. I imagine most people who post don't take the time to reread what they wrote. They just type and hit "add reply."

For that matter, most people don't bother to read the responses already given to a question. They just post their thoughts.

"Sadly, I suspect we'll see a group of advocates who will embrace "would of" as proof that English is a "dynamic" and "vibrant" language that shouldn't be handcuffed to proper word usage...."

Whoa... you're mixing up the apples and the oranges here, EB. "Would of" is an issue of the written word only. It is evidence of word confusion and weak literacy skills - an error that is not intentional and which has no purpose. It has nothing at all to do with real language variation or change.

Using "train" as a verb is not an "error" at all, but an INTENTIONAL change to the grammatical properties of the word. It's the result of the same type of linguistic reformulation that "bicycle" went through... "bicycle" was a clumsy noun that became "bike" - and of course we once "rode bikes" - then later it became completely acceptable to say we "biked." When the bicycle first became part of our lives 200 years ago, I'm sure certain folks were very disturbed to hear the renegade work "bike" in circulation - and even more disturbed when people suddenly "biked" around town without a "rode" in front of it!!

Now, I assume you aren't disturbed at all today by the word "bike" whether used as a noun or a verb - right? But the sentence "I road my bike this morning" isn't language change at all; in the same way that "would of" is an error, it's just evidence that someone hasn't learned to distinguish between differently-spelled homophones in the written form of the language.

People have been turning nouns into verbs for a very long time. I'm not a huge fan of it, but at some point I realized that I'm fine with the ones that happened before I was born. It's just the new ones I dislike. So now I look at these things differently. The purpose of language is to communicate. If someone uses train as a verb, everyone knows exactly what they mean. So while I may not do that, I think it's fine.

This Francophile would love to go to Paris "pour le weekend".

"You also just proved my point that such misusage IS intentional due to "word confusion" or "weak literary skills". In both situations, the writer does not know correct verbiage."

??? I don't get what you mean. When an error like "would of" occurs because one doesn't know it's really "would have," then how is this error an intentional change of the language?? One has to know the standard written form to purposely thwart it.

One mistake that I see frequently on the RS forum is "advise" used as a noun rather than as a verb. I'm not sure if AutoCorrect is the culprit there or if people simply get advice (noun) and advise (verb) mixed up. When I see "advises" plural as a noun, I assume the poster is a non-native English speaker, but I could be wrong! :)

After I met my then 16 yo German cousin she would write to me in English. She kept using the expression "I wanna". She was babysitting some Canadian kids from an Air Force nearby, and I think she picked up that expression by hearing them. Kind of like "would of".

Rachel, I agree, they are even pronounced differently.
"I advise you to get some professional advice"
There is also practice and practise. And licence and license. I have a Driving Licence, but most of the poster's here appear to have a "Driver's License" :-)
Proof: here and here.

For all of those who have been following the adventures of the Crawley family , as long as we are into language , watch this , but be sure you are seated as you are likely to double over with tears in your eyes - https://youtu.be/wElbSFWgseA

I just go by whatever spell check tells me.

Sam, is your spell checker set to "English (UK)" or "English (US)"? And since both advise and advice are valid words the spell checker will accept both, they just have different meanings, like "there" and "their", or "to", "too" and "two".

"And licence and license. I have a Driving Licence, but most of the poster's here appear to have a "Driver's License" "

That's because most posters here are in the US and driver's license is the correct usage and spelling in American English, there are lots of different spellings of the same words between British and American English, but that doesn't make them incorrect usage. The 'advise/advice' issue is incorrect usage, as is the 'lose/loose' issue and many others.

I just caught myself telling someone to "right there" names on the back of their Laender ticket.

Any way I can set my spell checker to "English (US Hillbilly)"?

Then again, perhaps there are a bunch of ultra-marathoners who actually will be training, as they run from one European spot to another. Of course, prior to the actual competition, they may have to plane from their home to wherever the big event will be taking place ;-)

If the customs and immigration officials conducted spelling and grammar tests in addition to checking passports and landing cards, European destinations would be much less crowded. Not sure whether the officials would fare much better than their customers, though.

"If the customs and immigration officials conducted spelling and grammar tests in addition to checking passports and landing cards, European destinations would be much less crowded."

And certain US politicians could be banned from the UK without wasting Parliament's time.

In American English, there is only practice, and it is a verb or noun. Practise is just wrong.

True and you learn the conditional mood also when you're studying French and German.

This thread gave me some much-needed laughs tonight. I'm 34 and my generation is at best a mixed bag when it comes to grammar, spelling, etc. I have a friend my age who's a PhD student and she texts using "u" for "you" and "n" for "and." I cringe every time I see those. Another friend has a Masters degree and says "foilage" instead of "foliage".

To go back to someone's point about water vs. water and sand vs. sands, what about people vs. peoples and person vs. persons?

I took a history of the English language class in college and it was fascinating. One thing we learned is that speakers of any language are lazy, and language change occurs in part because of laziness. If a word is awkward to pronounce, it will change over time to become easier and therefore pronounced with less effort. No one I know pronounces the first R in February. Will the standard spelling eventually drop that first R? Who knows?

The letters and journals of notable 18th/early 19th-century Americans are good examples of how our written language has evolved just in the last few hundred years!

Sarah's comment about her Master's Degree friend is intriguing -- folding thin sheets of aluminum into flower shapes could be a whole new art form - foilage foliage!

Pet spelling-error peeve for a travel forum: "itiniary" (which turns up 13 times on a RS forum search)

Russ, or "itenary".

Cyn, I love your idea!

Conditional MOOD??

I'd always learned that it's mode. Must be some variation I'm not aware of.

If'n I was a bettin' man, I wooden plan on it catchin' on neither (now there's some conditional mood for yuz.)

Conditional mode sentences are some of the most resistant of all to any teacher's efforts. They are complex structures and have all sorts of variation in spoken English... Is it "If I would've known that..." or "If I'd known that..."??? You can argue that the 2nd one is "correct" but there's so much use of the first form that it's probably considered standard by descriptive grammarians now. I'm not sure which is more common.

"If a word is awkward to pronounce, it will change over time to become easier and therefore pronounced with less effort."

This is a common explanation for language change. Certain consonant clusters are inherently more difficult than others. Modern English has a limited tolerance for consonant clusters at the beginning of syllables. S + T at the beginning of a word like "stand" is fine, but T+S isn't - there are no words at all that begin with that more complicated sound sequence.

But German (parent language of English) has lots of words that begin with T + S sounds - "zehn" (ten) and "Zunge" (tongue) for example. As English evolved from the German, it simplified the T + S sound to just a T sound at the beginning of words.

But if language is always getting simpler, what I don't get, is why the T + S sound sequence is still used by German speakers.

Yes , it is the Conditional mood. German has 4 cases (Nominative, Accusative, Dative, Genitive), 4 moods (Indicative, Subjunctive in Form 1 and Form 2 ), Conditional, and Imperative, 2 voices (Active and Passive). Goethe has a quotation on the "living language" that the power of a language is that it absorbs the foreign (words) and not rejects it. ("Die Gewalt der Sprache ist nicht, daß sie das Fremde abweist, sondern daß sie es verschlingt.")

Conditional mode - I'm certain "mode" was used in at least some of my language classes and texts. Maybe "mood" was as well? But that was a LONG time ago. A Google books search shows numerous grammar book references (really old books) to "conditional mode" and I came across these examples as well:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Konditional
German College Course outline
Spanish College Course syllabus

So I suspect the use of "mode" was more common in the past but today has been largely "outmoded" by "mood."

So when you use the conditional for the verb "to love", you can say, or sing, "I'm in the mode for love". Or not.

Following Norma's train of thought - There was the case of the cow who inadvertently drank a can of blue paint and then " Mood Indigo "

Love it, Steven.

"But German (parent language of English) has lots of words that begin with T + S sounds - "zehn" (ten) and "Zunge" (tongue) for example. As English evolved from the German, it simplified the T + S sound to just a T sound at the beginning of words."

I'm not so sure. Old English developed from the German spoken by the Anglos and Saxons, who settled in England in the 5th century. But the change from T to the TS or Z sound in German didn't occur until later, and only in the southern or high German dialects. It's probable that the language brought to England by the Anglo-Saxons would have had the original T sound, which later changed to TS in Germany.

The grammar book I used as a student uses the woods "conditional mood" to explain the concept and its grammatical application. All I care is to apply it correctly in grammatical usage in precise, appropriate situations and context, the same as it makes no difference to me if you call it "Imperfekt" or "Vergangenheit" as long as the forms, word order, subject-verb agreement, etc are correct.

I was taught that " I am waiting FOR John to come home". More often than (then?) not, I hear "I'm waiting ON John to come home". I hear it so often that I am no longer sure which is correct. I only know that the later is like finger nails on a chalkboard to me.

Speaking of fingernails on a chalkboard , my favorite -- " Someone makes money off it " , instead of " Someone makes money FROM it "

"Waiting on" is a regional expression, like "carry him/her home" means to bring him/her home in parts of the Deep South.

I am trying to make peace with "based off" instead of "based on" but it's a struggle. I assume it's also a regional preference, never heard it before I moved to Ohio.

I grew up in Cleveland, where we "waited for". I have lived in Columbus over 40 years where they "wait on". I have the same nails on the chalkboad reaction to this day. But I never heard "based off" in either city. Must be regional to that other town in NW Ohio someone once asked me about..."You know, Two-lee-dew, up there on the lake!'' It took me a while until I figured out what he was trying to say. And Lisa, of course, we're right :-)

My husband still teases me about "might could," as in I might could (be able to) do that. Another favorite of his is when I say I'm going to put something "up." He has to ask "how high?" Translation: put it back or put it away.

I have a cousin in CA who says "landed up" instead of ended up. That was a new one for me.

My husband says "alls." I never heard alls used instead of all until I moved to the NW. It's only used in a phrase like, "alls you have to do is..," and I heard it frequently when I lived there

I do love regional variety, wherever it is. It's refreshing after a steady diet of homogeneity, especially in the media, and always a learning experience.

But I find the incorrect use of words or contractions that sound alike but have different meanings to be very distracting when trying to read text. Some of my favorite examples are: to, too and two; there, their and they're; there's and theirs; your and you're; and its and it's. Unfortunately, I think many people may not know the differences among these words.

Denny, thanks for straightening out the Ohio thing.

I lived in Miami for nearly forty years. Did you know that the plural of "y'all" is "all y'all"?

My in-laws used "yet" in an odd way. Instead of indicating something that had not happened, it meant "still." "Is he crawling yet?" did not mean has he started crawling, they meant is he still crawling and not walking. Still confuses me.

How about "finna"? Anybody out there know that one?

Zoe, I thought the singular of y'll was you. If you are talking to one person in a group, it's "you", but if you are talking to the whole group, it's you all, or y'all.

It's a weakness in the English language that we don't have a distinct plural of the work "you", at least in the formal.

When you are talking to a group, does you mean only the person tp whom you are talking or the whole group. So everyone tries to make a plural. The New Yorkers say "youse", the southerners say "y'll". In Pittsburgh I heard "youens"; there were a lot of German settlers there once and in German you often make the plural by adding -en. One the west coast, where I originate, we said "you guys" when we meant more than just the one person.

Proper use of y'all, as this native Texan learned growing up. Presented as a service to any who might visit the state that's like a whole other country.

Y'all is always plural. When speaking to a group, and especially when asking a question, there can be more than one correct way to add more definitive words.

Examples where y'all equals plural you:
2 people -- Do y'all both want ... ?
3 or more -- Do all y'all want ... ? Do y'all all want ... ?

And don't forget the possesive y'all's, equivalent to the plural your:
Where is y'all's car parked?
Where are y'all's cars parked?
Are all y'all's cars parked in the same area?

I've never seen y'all spelled y'll before.

Modern English (that is English as spoken in England) has also solved the lack of a plural for "you" in English. "You two" or "you lot". Such as: "When are you two going to get married". Is this used in other parts of the English speaking world?

Zoe, we have been visiting friends in New Orleans for 30 years who have been schooling us on proper usage for some time, although I suffer occasional setbacks. While visiting them, I was cleaning up after breakfast and cursing at the pot I was furiously scrubbing in the sink. My friend asked, and I told him I was honked because I could not get a grit off the pot. When he finally caught his breath after a fit of convulsive hysterics, and I asked exactly what was so funny, he replied, " I dunno, I just never in my life heard anyone refer to a singular grit." So I'm assuming that y'alls, like grits, are plural whether you have one or a dozen. The first time I ever had grits was in a little place in Alabama, and when I started to pour milk and sugar over them, the waitress came flying from behind the counter, " Noooooooooo! Stop! Y'all can't do that! " It all comes full circle. :-)

But if language is always getting simpler, what I don't get, is why the T + S sound sequence is still used by German speakers.

The Germans may find the TS sound relatively easy to pronounce.

The TH sound, common in English, is relatively rare in the world's languages because it's hard to pronounce. But for some reason the English language kept it.

No, absolutely not. I respectively beg to differ. The conditional mood is different from the subjunctive mood. The use of the subjunctive mood in French is more restrictive. Certain situations always call for use of the subjunctive in French, not so in German.

Pre-plan versus plan.

I had a boss who insisted on "pre-set appointments."