The insidious replacement of 'probably' by the americanism 'likely'.

[sidebirds]

Intolerable!

@PlasticAcrobat , It should only be used to refer to people, and only if there are three or more.

Because you're objecting to 'likely' instead of 'probably'. And what does 'probably' mean if it doesn't mean 'likely'? Anyway, I realize that Pedants' Corner is not really the place for me to point out that many of you are being pedantic so I'll leave you to it now.

It’s not an Americanism — I don’t think I ever heard my nanna (born 1923) say “probably”. She always said “likely”, as in “he’ll likely come round later” or “is it going to rain, do you think?” “Aye, likely.”

That's just absolutely untrue. Where in the world does the fact that a term is conventionally used in citations to refer to people mean that it can't be used in different contexts? You might just as well say that prima facie can only be used in legal contexts.

And the 'three or more' thing is just plain wrong, even in the citations context. Each publisher - or sometimes each individual volume - has its own rule about that. Three or more is most normal. Sometimes it is five or more (or even higher than that) in disciplines where multi-authorship often involves large numbers.

This is the trouble with pedantry. It often involves seizing on a simple context-dependent rule and over-generalising it very rigidly.

The part of that sentence that annoys me more is ‘will go to the palace Friday’, rather than ‘on Friday’.

Me too, but that battle's long over (I guess!)

Other such phrases lost to time are 'I suppose' and 'I expect'. You hardly hear them at all now.

Not saying it's a terrible thing, but I feel it's right to mark their passing. If nothing else, it's good to know if you're a writer doing dialogue.

Was your nanna Scottish or northern English? That sounds like a regional thing.

American English often uses older English coinages that are still in use in regional variations. Eg sidewalk for pavement - my mum's family from Liverpool always said sidewalk.

@PlasticAcrobat , you are incorrect.

😆😂

Yeah, it does. I also use it as in it's 'most likely' but shortened to 'mostly'...I know it's pretty ridiculous but I can't stop doing it!

👍🏾 Game, set & match.

Yes, that's true, I'm from the north east. But this doesn't sound like an Americanism to my ear, therefore. I use it myself and always have done. What you say is true and it's why being overly prescriptive about language use is a bit daft. We're "insidiously" starting to see very long-established regional usage creeping into the mainstream, possibly via the US, but it's not like that sort of thing hasn't happened throughout time. It goes back to the idea of regional usages being "wrong" when often they were just older.

For example, one that hasn't been mentioned on this thread: decimate. A specific term meaning to reduce by a tenth that is now almost exclusively employed as a synonym for annihilate, obliterate, etc. I suppose this offence against the English language is simply "evolution of language"

There are many words in English whose etymology is no longer congruent with their current meaning. There are few opportunities to use "decimate" in its original meaning.

@RitaIncognita ,you could use it to say that something has been reduced by a tenth. I get offers for 10 % off my order daily.

@sidebirds , checkit. And the 'three or more' thing is just plain wrong...Sometimes it is five or more (or even higher than that) ... doesn't hold because the three comes from there needing to be the named and others.
One probably wouldn't use it for three people, but it wouldn't be wrong.

And the 'three or more' thing is just plain wrong...Sometimes it is five or more (or even higher than that) ... doesn't hold because the three comes from there needing to be the named and others.
One probably wouldn't use it for three people, but it wouldn't be wrong.

What does that mean, @Pedant5corner ?

Do you mean that three have to be named before you state 'et al.'? Again, that depends on the publisher, and also on where the citation is occurring (for example, within the text or in a reference list). It also sometimes depends on how many authors there are).

The point being that these are just highly variable style decisions made for specific publications. They don't translate into any kind of universal requirement for correct language. A style guide may well forbid any informal use of et al. (partly for reasons of tone and partly because it would be potentially confusing alongside its use in citations), but there is no general rule forbidding this.

This isn’t an american term?

This is such a weird complaint. Decimate, of course, refers to the Roman punishment of killing every tenth man in a legion. So it has always had a heavy connotation of utter destruction . A devinated legion is nearly destroyed. Its quite violent and tragic.

We don’t use it to mean “reduce by ten percent” as in “my shop is decimating the strawberries this week so please puck up a punnet as they will be ten percent cheaper.” The hyperbolic usage is, in fact, the correct usage.

@pikkumyy77 , the hyperbolic use is only correct because it has become accepted.

“my shop is decimating the strawberries this week so please puck up a punnet as they will be ten percent cheaper.” doesn't make sense, because it the price of the strawberries that is being decimated, not the strawberries themselves.

Why are we pucking up punnets?

I've noticed this with 'prior' too. In the UK we would tend to say 'the previous Tuesday' whereas Americans tend to say 'Tuesday prior'.

Also 'based off' seems to be an Americanism that's crept its way into common usage here and it makes no sense. You base on something, not off it. It's used freguently on Love Island and Traitors and similar reality programmes. People say 'I'm going based off what you said last night...' when they mean 'I am basing my opinion ON what you said last night.'

The other one that has become so ubiquitous that I've given up even noticing it now, is 'I can't speak to xyz.' It always used to be 'I can't speak for xyz.'

So 'I can't speak for how my DH feels about this government' makes perfect sense, but 'I can't speak to how my DH feels about this government' doesn't.

@PlasticAcrobat , the 3 comes from 'named person and others'.

If there were only a few people you'd probably name them individually (e.g. 'G. Harrison, J. Lennon, P. McCartney and R. Starkey' not 'J. Lennon et al.', if they'd written a book or paper together).

I can’t tell whether you’re questioning my post or agreeing with it, but it’s definitely something that’s crept in from US English.

And I agree that worrying about “decimating” is a bit daft. There are so few reasons to use it in the sense of “destroying one in every 10”.

I am an American and we don’t use “likely” in common speech. We use “probably” for things that are uncertain but anticipated. I really don’t hear “likely” that often but in the example given I would consider that “likely” has more the implication of certainty or that the statement us based on specific knowledge.

the hyperbolic use is only correct because it has become accepted

Of course. That is how language evolves.