"Daylight Savings Time"

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Well, most people have heard it with the second 's' so they repeat it with the second 's' and now it sounds "wrong" to them without it.

The problem is that while it is indeed incorrect (this post made me look it up for myself), Daylight Savings Time is how I've heard it called by teachers, newspaper articles, Television and Radio News personalities, public officials, firefighting personnel (since they want you to change batteries in smoke detectors twice a year and the two time changes are good reminder points), certain pieces of computing technology (the hand-held computers that our nurses use to scan patients ID bracelets and their proper meds), and what have you...

...going back as far as I can remember. And that's some 38 years.

So is it *really* incorrect, or can this be chalked up to being something else.

Growing up, there used to be a commonly used word that people (teachers especially) loved to rub our noses in about the fact that it wasn't really a word. That word being "ain't". The popular joke being "Ain't ain't a word."

But now you can find it in the dictionary. And once it hits Websters...it's usually considered to have been added to the our language.

Irregardless is another such word. Many people look down on you for using it since regardless is the word one is supposed to be using. However while irregardless is still not widely accepted, it's been around and in common usage since the 1920's. And it too is in Websters...albeit followed by the line "Use regardless instead".

So that something else may be the naturally evolution of the English language over time reflecting the social reality that likewise evolves. If there has been at least 38 years of damn near everyone calling it Daylight Savings Time, is it wrong, or is it a change in the lingua franca that's come about as a result of how we have been raised in this current society?

[Andara Bledin]

The difference is that "ain't" is in the dictionary as slang, not as proper English. MW even lists it as non-standard.

Also, the term "daylight savings" doesn't really make sense, grammatically speaking. I mean, you wouldn't say "money savings time," would you? I mean, the closest you could get to correct with the second 's' is "daylight saving's time," and that's jut awkward.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

Would this be a good time to ask whether they changed from recommending new smoke alarm batteries *once* a year to twice because they wanted to sell more batteries, because newer detectors draw more power, because once a year never did work (though mine last longer), because the time change makes a convenient reminder and they think people are too stupid to remember if they only do it in spring OR fall, or some other reason entirely?

[Aethian]

Because batteries can fail, don't know how long they have been sitting.

Because certain alarms can be triggered by the shower steam. (Hated that alarm soooo much.) the batteries die faster then.

Because it is a easy reminder.

Because some alarms are multiple devices now and need more power to do the jobs. IE the alarms that test for smoke, CO2, Argon, ect....

Sure some of it could be for the people who make batteries. And some because people have said "You didn't say we had to change the batteries and its the companies fault our house burned down." But because its there in writing, the alarm company is safe.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

The difference is that "ain't" is in the dictionary as slang, not as proper English. MW even lists it as non-standard.

Also, the term "daylight savings" doesn't really make sense, grammatically speaking. I mean, you wouldn't say "money savings time," would you? I mean, the closest you could get to correct with the second 's' is "daylight saving's time," and that's jut awkward.

^-.-^

That as it may be, but "savings" is commonly used when one is thinking of anything being saved. A "Savings Account", one's "Life Savings". When "Saving" is more commonly used, it's usually for "I'm saving that for later" or "Oh thank God someone is saving that poor child".

It may be incorrect, but a lot of words are being changed in their meanings and in how they're used.

Let me give another example. Linux.

Many of my peers in the Linux Community go around and around with people who yell at us for mangling the English Language when we refer to something as a "Linux install" or a "Windows Install" or an anything install instead of using "installation"

Yes it's wrong, yes it's not really the proper way to say it or to use it in proper "The Queen's English"...

But this is now how a metric luck-ton of IT Professionals refer to an established and running software package. So it it *still* wrong, or do we just shrug and accept that the language once again evolved?

I just looked at my smoke alarm documentation. They refer to it as "Savings" the news media (both television and radio) called it "savings", the news papers call it "savings", looking at my child's history book they refer to it as savings...

So is it really our fault for getting it wrong when we hear it that way for years and decades?

[Andara Bledin]

As I said at the beginning, I don't blame people for repeating what they've heard.

I do blame the news, advertisers, and manufacturers who screw it up, however. They have the time, resources, and fact-checkers on the payroll to make sure they get things like this right, and they're not using them.

Re: Savings account. It's not an account for saving money; it's an account to hold the money that's already saved. The phrase "daylight saving" is a verbal phrase. Phrases with "savings" with the 's' on the end are nouns.

And, while I agree that the term "daylight saving" is a misnomer from the outset, the idea of having any "savings" of daylight to put aside for later is just ludicrous.

This goes along with the fact that I refuse to accept "irregardless" as a word. I don't care if people commonly use it or that it's in the dictionary. It's stupid and redundant and often makes the people who use it sound like they're trying to sound smarter than they are, regardless of their actual intent.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

"Install" vs "installation" at least makes sense because it's easier to say. The one that really galls me is using "gift" as a verb. Why did that happen? It's not easier to say than "give." (Harder, actually, especially in other tenses.) It doesn't have any change in meaning over "give." It's not even really using a noun in place of a verb that didn't quite exist: "gift" is simply the thing given.

[Andara Bledin]

I can see the use of "gift" as a verb separate from the use of "give." The former is a more concrete indicator that the thing given is a present or donation with no requirement for compensation or repayment, whereas the latter merely indicates that something was passed from one person to another without it's status as gift, loan, or transaction being defined.

^-.-^

[AmbrosiaWriter]

I've mentioned it over on CS but I guess I'll pop it in here too;

Biggest pet peeve is when I see someone using "whom" when they mean "who." I can tolerate someone using "who" when they should use "whom" but the other way around drives me BONKERS.

Also, impact is a noun, not a verb. Thank you.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

All in all with all the other things wrong with the world. Things like war, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades...

Thank you George Carlin

...I really don't find the English Language and how it's evolving to be that high on the list of things that cause me high blood pressure. It's just a "Meh" situation to me.

[Andara Bledin]

Also, impact is a noun, not a verb. Thank you.

I used to think this, too.

Alas, impact has been a verb for far longer than just since it was used in that manner in Episode IV.

In fact, it's been in use as a verb for longer (almost two centuries longer) than it has a noun.

^-.-^

[AmbrosiaWriter]

I used to think this, too.

Alas, impact has been a verb for far longer than just since it was used in that manner in Episode IV.

In fact, it's been in use as a verb for longer (almost two centuries longer) than it has a noun.

^-.-^

Ok so maybe I should clarify. The way that I hear most people using "impact" as a verb are better off using "affect."

I rarely hear people using the transitive verb formation of "impact" correctly, which is what the 1600's definition is - it's a transitive verb.

"The rocket impacted the moon" is not correct, yet I hear people using it that way all the freaking time. (If you wanted to use it that way correctly, which I don't know why you would because it just sounds... stupid, would be "The rocket impacted against the moon.")

It would be stronger to just say "The impact of the rocket on the moon's surface astounded everyone" or something.

But that's getting into strong writing vs grammatically correct writing.