There are certain things that get right up my snout when reading a script. They just really wind me up and I normally cannot carry on reading. I realise that I'm probably being a pedantic wanker but nevertheless here they are.
A stage direction or a piece of action that refers to characters thus...
He she or it was Sat somewhere / He she or it was Stood somewhere.
I'm rather afraid that it gets me reaching for my inhaler.
Now does anyone else have any others?
To clarify, would this sort of description annoy you:
SAM IS SITTING IN A CHAIR READING.
??
Or is it more specifically:
SAM IS SAT IN A CHAIR READING.
??
or SAM SHAT ON HIS CHAIR IN READING
The second one.
The fist is fine by me. The second should either be the first or:
SAM IS SEATED IN A CHAIR.
Quote: Blenkinsop @ March 23 2011, 11:38 PM GMTThe fist is fine by me.
Or perhaps;
SAM SHAT ON READING.
This could be because either, he had an almighty large curry the night before and then went above the city in a helicopter. Or perhaps he played for the football team but decided out of spite to score an own goal hat trick.
Have I taken too much diazepam ?
Def.
Quote: zooo @ March 23 2011, 11:40 PM GMT
I mean Def's first one.
Edit:
Bollocks!! Just noticed my typo.... 
Quote: Deferenz @ March 23 2011, 11:43 PM GMTHave I taken too much diazepam ?
Def.
Quite possibly.
I don't have any other examples, but 'was sat' and 'was stood' wind me up as well and make me shout at my telly/radio/computer screen/friend every time I hear them. I've heard them used in news reports and seen them written in formal articles.
Glad it's not just me who notices that they're wrong.
Quote: Indigo @ March 23 2011, 11:52 PM GMTI don't have any other examples, but 'was sat' and 'was stood' wind me up as well and make me shout at my telly/radio/computer screen/friend every time I hear them. I've heard them used in news reports and seen them written in formal articles.
Glad it's not just me who notices that they're wrong.
Ah, great minds 
I heard a report on BBC News yesterday morning where the reporter told us that they "were stood" at a certain place when something happened.
Lord Reith would be spinning...etc. etc.
Should of.
There is no such thing. it is a poorly pronounced contraction of should have which has translated to poor writing.
Anything qualifying unique. A thing is unique or it is not.
Quote: KLRiley @ March 24 2011, 7:12 AM GMTShould of.
There is no such thing. it is a poorly pronounced contraction of should have which has translated to poor writing.
Great shout KL!
I knew there was another one that I hate but I just couldn't remember it. It is indeed odious in all of its many variations.
Should of
Would of
Could of
All abominations!
*Fans face in a poncey manner*
Quote: Griff @ March 24 2011, 8:43 AM GMTActually the OED have relented on unique.
From http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0906050#m_en_gb0906050
Usage
There is a set of adjectives - including unique, complete, equal, infinite, and perfect - whose core meaning embraces a mathematically absolute concept and which therefore, according to a traditional argument, cannot be modified by adverbs such as really, quite, or very. For example, since the core meaning of unique (from Latin 'one ') is' being only one of its kind', it is logically impossible, the argument goes , to submodify it: it either is' unique' or it is not , and there are no in-between stages.In practice the situation in the language is more complex than this. Words like unique have a core sense but they often also have a secondary, less precise sense: in this case , the meaning 'very remarkable or unusual', as in a really unique opportunity. In its secondary sense, unique does not relate to an absolute concept, and so the use of submodifying adverbs is grammatically acceptable.
Meh. What does the OED know?
Blenkinsop, I have a very long list of pet hates. Here are a selected few.
Confusion of homophones is another which drives me to distraction. It should be perfectly clear from the context as to 'whether' or 'weather' should be used.
Inability to distinguish between 'their', 'there' and 'they're' in formal written work should be punishable by disembowelling.
And finally for now, as I have a deadline to hit, similiar sounding words that mean something different but are not homophones. They are usually words that are just badly pronounced and then rendered incorrectly when transcribed. 'Except' used for 'accept' and that awful one, to which I even was subjected by a lecturer, the transposition of 'specific' and 'Pacific'.
Meandering slightly off-topic, I tried watching the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes film last night and was appalled when Ed Fox's character Sir Thomas said "gonna" instead of "going to". More pleasant to read Conan Doyle than watch such dross.
Quote: Kenneth @ March 24 2011, 9:32 AM GMTMeandering slightly off-topic, I tried watching the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes film last night and was appalled when Ed Fox's character Sir Thomas said "gonna" instead of "going to". More pleasant to read Conan Doyle than watch such dross.
If you think that's bad, wait until you get the new 'edgy' version of Wurthering Heights that Radio 3 has done.
Quote: Kenneth @ March 24 2011, 9:32 AM GMTMeandering slightly off-topic, I tried watching the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes film last night and was appalled when Ed Fox's character Sir Thomas said "gonna" instead of "going to". More pleasant to read Conan Doyle than watch such dross.
Why not check out the charming script for Doyle and Pratt that I posted in the critique section
[/shameless plug]