People using the wrong words for things - does it drive anyone else up the wall?

[LanisHouseLot]

I was recently staying with relatives and one kept offering and making Welsh rarebit. Lovely! Except that it was just cheese on toast. I like cheese on toast too but it is definitely not Welsh rarebit. I had to bite my tongue from saying anything because despite feeling enraged i have no desire to make anyone feel stupid or corrected. But it was bubbling up inside nonetheless!

Today I saw a 'High Tea' event advertised. Little sandwiches and cakes, cups and saucers etc - clearly afternoon tea rather than high tea. Why does it bug me so much that I'm still thinking about it and wanting to tell the organiser, and all the women looking forward to their high tea, that they've made a terrible mistake and that high tea isn't what they think it is?! Does anyone else find it unbearable?

I am similar about apostrophe misuse and spelling mistakes (despite not seeing my own mistakes half the time ). These errors are even more infuriating because it is entirely the wrong thing being described.

Errm, acronym only applies if you can make a word from the initial letters, WHO is, as is NASA, NATO, etc.
USA is an initialism, as is DWP, MN, etc

Does anyone actually say WHO as the word “Who”?

I’ve always read it out as W pause H pause O .

I agree; suspect we don't use it to refer to the organisation because saying 'the president of the who made a statement...'
But it still falls within the definition!

@VestibuleVirgin , I don't use the Oxford comma. It's standard for an organisation to be consistent.

I despair at people saying they don't know how to use a semi-colon; it's so useful.

@VestibuleVirgin , WHO isn't an acronym. As a pp it's W H O not Who.

Nope, I reckon that if the word is never spoken and the letters are read out individually, it’s not an acronym. It is just coincidence that the initialism makes an existing word, or a letter combination that is not a pre-existing word, but is capable of being read like a word (eg NASA).

My work involves EASA, IATA and ICAO. I have had people not in the industry say them to me using the individual letters and it’s really thrown me because in the industry we read them as words. But nobody says Yoofo for UFO 😂. I guess you just have to learn individually how reach one is used.

Personally I hate semi colons. If I'm ever tempted to use one I feel like my writing has got too wordy and complicated. I go back and try to simplify the sentences.

I love them. My writing is never too wordy or complicated.

You're probably much better at it than me 👍🏻

I'm a pedant too and also just like people to make an effort before blurting out random rubbish!!!!
My DH becomes enraged when he hears people say 'the proof is in the pudding....' umm not it's not!

High tea is most definitely the evening meal. Afternoon tea is the sandwiches and cakes at 3ish.

Interesting how words evolve.

Now that the original meaning of High Tea has been pointed out to me I reckon, from anecdotal experience, that it will come to mean something different over time. And already does tbh.

An acronym is pronounced phonetically surely so if USA was thus we would say 'oooosah'. Or 'yew-sa'. So I think USA is an initialisation. An abbreviation surely would be just 'the states' or 'America'.

USA is an initialisation

ditto UK

mostly

High tea would be late afternoon or early evening.
The proof is in the pudding annoys me too. It's not in the pudding, it's in the eating.

The posts saying 'going against the grain' annoy me. They invariably mean 'going against the flow'.

Posts suggesting the OP speak to a councillor or get some councilling.

I love semi-colons, but I can be a bit wordy. My brother has said that if I ever get kidnapped, and the kidnappers are using my phone to make the family think I am okay, if there are no semi-colons or serial commas, he will know it is not I.

I suppose, at a stretch “the proof is in the pudding” could be OK- the original phrase is “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”

Eating involves consuming what is in the pudding. So the proof that you gain of the pudding’s merits is indeed to be found inside or “in” it…

I think, however, that what people are thinking of when they say this is Xmas pudding with sixpences hidden in them.

The real value of something can be judged only from practical experience or results and not from appearance or theory.

The proof isn't in the pudding at all. It is in the eating of the pudding.

Was that to me?

We were in a cafe yesterday and at the next table was a lady telling her friend that she'd got a dog. She explained his name was Kofie and she liked it because it was only one syllable. I could barely eat my food for biting my tongue.

@TimeandMotion , yes.

OK, can you explain a bit further then? Are you saying that one can’t equate consuming the contents of something with having the experience of eating it?

i use different words at times , generally to seem more politer as you never know whos listening

Are you saying that one can’t equate consuming the contents of something with having the experience of eating it?
Not at all. I'm saying you won't know if something is a success until you experience it.

Say I got a new car. I won't know if that purchase was a success until I've used it.
It might be perfect on paper but not suitable for my needs.
The proof won't be in the car, it will be in using the car.

Oh yes this is the latest thing to irrationally irritate me as well :)

Yayyy!!
I love an Oxford! They serve an important purpose ( tho' sadly, often mis-used)
Down with that MP (Coffey) who banned them from official documents