I present two phrases that annoy me when used in either speech or prose, and I encourage readers to add their own.
“At first blush. . .” I heard this on NPR this morning, and, as always, it irritated me (though not as much as Krista Tippett irritates me). It means “without previous knowledge,” or, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (which gives some early usages), this:
I think this usage is both superfluous and pompous. Why can’t you just say, “If you didn’t know better, it would seem that the Pope would be nonviolent,” or something along those lines. When I hear the “blush” part, I always think of a peach.
“Sea change”: All this really means is a “big change”, as in “There’s was a sea change in the attitude towards terrorism after 9/11.” I doubt that people who use it even know its origin. It was in fact coined by Shakespeare in The Tempest to indicate a change actually caused by the sea. Here’s the OED definition:
And the full reference from The Tempest:
“Full fathom five thy father lies,
Of his bones are coral made,
Those are pearls that were his eyes,
Nothing of him that doth fade,
But doth suffer a sea-change,
into something rich and strange,
Sea-nymphs hourly ring his knell,
Ding-dong.
Hark! now I hear them, ding-dong, bell.”
But when people use the phrase now, they’re virtually never referring to a change caused by the sea. Rather, they just mean “a change.” If that’s what you mean, just say that, or say, “A big change.” Why bother to add the word “sea,” which adds nothing to what you say except to make you sound smart?
I suspect that even Steve Pinker would approve of this trimming of phraseology, though I haven’t asked him. At any rate, what phrases annoy you?
The phrase I hate the most is, “…the fact that…” It can always be removed from the written and spoken word. It is the literary version of “um’.
“in order to”, instead of simply “to”. “In order” never adds meaning to a sentence, ever.
It actually does, by “nipping in the bud” one possible parse at the very beginning of the phrase.
For example, both
1) To kill a tiger would be a crime against the environment.
and
2) To kill a tiger, a gun is needed.
are grammatically valid and idiomatic. However, if you replaced “to” by “in order to”, only the second remains idiomatic.
This disposal of one possible parse right at the beginning of the sentence can make it a lot easier for the reader, especially if the “in order to” appears at the head of the kind of long clause that is often indispensable in the description of scientific or mathematical procedures.
PS … Will you proofread my resume?
Well, only if you read min 😀
But seriously, I am not even a certified “Native speaker(TM)”.
Well that refusal of mine will probably work better that I intended: “read min” should be “proofread mine”.
I thought it was a perfect Freudian slip.
The variation I hate is “The fact of the matter is…”
The hidden presumption is that there is only one pertinent fact, and that the speaker is in possession of it. In my experience, the phrase is followed more often by an opinion than a fact.
Corp speak where i work now includes ‘suc path’ for success path. If I win the lotto I might actually say what I think next time someone asks me to describe my suc path.
Where I work the new catch phrase is “let’s circle back…”.
I meant to add that this phrase is to mean “let’s deal with this later” or “let’s come back to this at another time”.
I’ll ping you later so we can touch base on your suc path before I’m out-of-pocket again.
“Let’s revisit…and decide next steps…”:-(
it sounds more like what you have to do to achieve success.
I hate “at the end of the day”…argh, ubiquitous nowadays. Single words that annoy me are “absolutely”…way over used. I also don’t like “briquettes” as in charcoal briquettes. Small bricks? Just strange. Lastly I don’t like the words “slacks” and “trousers” in place of pants. Don’t know why they annoy me…perhaps just old fashioned.
My bad, but I forgot “my bad”. 🙂
I was going to say “at the end of the day” but you beat me to it.
Here in England we say trousers because pants means knickers which I think are referred to as panties in the US.
I also get annoyed by double negatives, “I can’t get no satisfaction”, that kind of thing.
I completely agree with the idea of eliminating the use of “double negatives” with one important exception:
When the Stones sing “I Can’t Get No Satisfaction,” it’s the perfect use of poetic license.
I tried to imagine Mick Jagger belting it out on stage –
“I can’t get any….satisfaction!”.
It just didn’t work.
Bad example! You’re treading on sacred ground with “Can’t Get No”.
[Rolling Stones]
Good point! A thousand apologies (there is another one, does anyone really mean “a thousand?”). I should have begun with, “Except when Mick (may the praises of the muse of song be upon him)…”
“I can’t get no . . . .”
In the Appalachian South, this is expressed as, “It ain’t dunnit!”
How about, “You gotta go get you some?”
““slacks” and “trousers””
Those remind me of the Hardy Boys mysteries I grew up on; they always wore slacks and trousers, never pants. And they “purchased” them, never “bought” them. Perhaps pants is somewhat vulgar compared to trousers?
And do people still say “My bad”? I’ve always hated that.
I suppose it is vulgar if you are a Brit, as pants are underwear (in American English). Whereas in America women threw their underwear at Tom Jones, English women threw their pants.
A phrase I do enjoy from British English is “take the piss” which is to tease, make fun of, joke, yet as a Yank, I can’t help but create the mental image of someone running off with a jar of urine.
Yeah, ‘take the piss’ is a good phrase. People on this site are constantly taking the piss out of religion. Similar to ‘take the Mickey’.
Also seen in the expression ‘a piss-take’.
I have no idea what the etymology is.
Check out World Wide Words. Warning: this site is seriously addictive.
I can’t help but wonder if “trouser” is somehow related to “trout.”
Made me laugh.
Actually, as a Brit, I hate it when you say pants when you mean trousers. Pants are what you put on underneath trousers. Not only that but it is a slang term for “really bad” as in “Dumb and Dumber 2 is pants”.
Even worse from my PoV is “pantsuit” meaning a matching combination of trousers and jacket (coat in the USA?) wen worn by a woman. It sounds almost vulgar to my British ear.
Hmm, pants are underwear or, in the modern vernacular, something that’s not very good. Only Superman wears his pants over his tights and Clark Kent wears his trousers over the lot.
“Only Superman wears his pants over his tights”
Not anymore.
In my day, “slacks” referred to a specific kind of pants–dressier than jeans, but not as dressy as a suit. What were considered “school clothes.”
“At the end of the day” drives me crazy too and sadly, I’ve heard those words come out of my own mouth.
At the end of the day, in the fullness of time….Sir Humphrey in Yes, Minister…
A master of circumlocution!
“The identity of the Official whose alleged responsibility for this hypothetical oversight has been the subject of recent discussion, is NOT shrouded in quite such impenetrable obscurity as certain previous disclosures may have led you to assume, but not to put too fine a point on it, the individual in question is, it may surprise you to learn, one whom your present interlocutor is in the habit of defining by means of the perpendicular pronoun.”
/@
“Reach out”. Whatever happened to straightforward descriptors like “contact”, “correspond”, etc.?
Some people I work with just that a lot. I didn’t know it was a “thing” and, yes, it annoys me. To be fair, one advantage of the usage compared to your alternatives is that it doesn’t require an object. “Will you reach out?”
Greg – like you, I did not know it was a “thing” until the last year or so. I have been getting it, generally from 20-somethings, mainly in email correspondence – “thanks for reaching out to me” and “feel free to reach out” – barf 🙂
“Reach out” particularly annoys me. It used to be reserved for instances in which there was a misunderstanding or hurt feelings. Now it just means “contact.” I first heard it when I contacted a newly hired person, suggesting we meet to discuss matters of mutual interest. At the beginning of the meeting he thanked me for “reaching out.” It was weird.
Agreed. Except for the Four Tops – Reach out for me.
Aaaaaargh! Yes, ‘reach out’ really, really pisses me off. It sounds like it ought to mean welcoming someone into your company, (and it has overtones of happy-clappy syrupy fellowship), but I’ve seen it misused for everything from lodging a complaint to – well, just passing on some information. Ghastly phrase.
Going on a stay-cay. Get your neologisms off my lawn you damn kids!
“Chillax” is super gross too.
Agreed… “chillax” is horrible. As well as “cray, cray” as in crazy.
“Cray cray” makes me want to cry, cry, cry.
b&
Ah, I love a little Cash in the morning. Thanks!
And pull up your damn baggy dungaree trousers! No one wants to look at your drawers!
And the noise they listen to! Bah! In my day, music was about values: sex and drugs and rock n’ roll! Things that mattered … !
Do certain young men wear their trousers in such a way because they wish to impress the ladies?
Such sartorial splendor no doubt is indicative of a tendency toward intellectual curiosity and free inquiry.
They do it because other young men do it.
Fads, or, more precisely, the behavior of people who participate in the fad, fascinate me. But not in a good way.
We are sheeple. Some more than others.
So it’s not that all those guys suddenly lost a lot of weight…
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/bb/b9/5c/bbb95cc16687476afbf287f15a57c736.jpg
😉
How do you post a link without it opening in the thread?
You paste in the link, then remove the http// from the front of it. WordPress will add that part back on, but it will appear in link form in the post.
But it’s OK to post pertinent images now and then, and I loved yours! 🙂
Thanks!
That’s about how I feel. I suspect that for the most part we’re comfortable with the phrases we grew up with and annoyed by neologisms. The bright side is that each generation will eventually experience such annoyance.
(Except for Jerry’s two examples, of course; those have been around for a while!)
Well, sure – the separation from, and alienation of, the older generation is part of the reason for youth slang. I saw Billy Bragg interviewed a while back and he was with his mum. They asked what she thought of his music and she said she didn’t like it. Billy laughed and said “Of course you don’t! What would be the point of being a rock star if your mother liked your music?!”
Ha, ha, so true.
Except for “cool Moms” like me, of course…
😉
One phrase that I hate is “At the end of the day”.
Another thing that annoys me is when people being interviewed on the radio or TV, start practically every sentence with “Absolutely” when they’re agreeing with what the interviewer says.
We must be kindred spirits…those were the first 2 I posted on #3.
And before I saw either, overuse of “absolutely” was the first one that came to my mind too.
Well, you can’t keep saying “totally” forever…
Unless you have a like preceding it…
My father in law, a TV sports junkie, uses ‘absolutely’ all the time in daily conversation. Drives me nuts! It’s better than the incessant use of ‘blah, blah, blah’ by some I know, though. Sometimes blah x 3 is replaced by the even cooler blahblah. That brings steam when used.
I work with a woman who says “Da-da da-da da-da” in that way. “So I was shopping, da-da da-da da-da,” and I can’t find what I’m looking for, so I ask the clerk ‘Do you have da-da da-da da-da,’ and she says “Look over by da-da da-da da-da,’ and I’m looking da-da . . .”
“Reach across the aisle”
Well, you are in luck, considering our political situation, I’m sure this phrase will soon be just a faint memory or lost to the mists of time.
😀
Ah! I hate the word phraseology. It was meant to be a Greek coinage, but the guy got it wrong. It *should* be spelled “phrasiology.” Not only that, but it’s so pretentious — it’s like saying “methodologies” instead of “methods” or “functionalities” instead of “functions.” There’s no reason to use this word, or even have it in the dictionary. Banish it from the next edition of the OED! Go prescriptivism!
But then we couldn’t watch “The Music Man!”
It bothers me when people use the phrase ‘quantum leap’ to mean a really big change. It should be used to represent an abrupt change for example.
Ironically, a quantum leap is the SMALLEST possible change. An electron cannot take a
90% leap.
Apologies, Les. You got in there while I was composing my comment.
It is worse than that: a quantum change is actually the smallest possible change in the state of a system. Outside of the context of serious physics, its use identifies a pretentious and ignorant poser.
“… its use identifies a pretentious and ignorant poser”.
Exactly the reason I *like* the ‘quantum leap’ expression: signal I do not have to read further, since the probability of it being piffle is close to 1.0 :).
Excellent point!
“Dynamic” is similarly misunderstood. I hate seeing it in resumes.
I, too, was going to mention ‘quantum leap’, which invariably does not mean what the person using it thinks it means.
(Obligatory link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
and
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means )
And I really do agree about ‘dynamic’. Horribly pretentious and over-used.
At the end of the day 😉 the only thing worse than “organic” is “holistic”!
wanted to add this, ctrl+f’ed to see if someone had beat me to it.
A humorous take on it: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2628
Utilize. Use is shorter, better.
“Back in the day”. I think I first heard this in The Wire. Now it’s everywhere. Which day do they mean? In the past we had many phrases with slightly subtle differences in meaning. “A while ago”, “Ages ago”, “In the olden days”, “When I was a lad” etc. etc.
“I could care less”. Somebody missed a word out and it’s caught on. It still jars when I hear it.
At this particular moment in time = now.
Also the relegation of “unique” to mean just unusual or noteworthy – “Wow! Those new sneakers are really unique.” We need a new word for one of a kind.
… and ‘very unique’… what’s that?
‘I could/couldn’t care less’ is a regular on these comment threads. Sometimes cited as a characteristic difference between American and British English.
For starters, I find greatly irritating how newspaper reporters all too often start a news article (in an attempt to “engage” and “entertain” the reader) with a phrase to the effect, “It might seem odd that . . . .”
Implicit in that statement is the fatuous notion that the reporter presumes to be somehow positioned to know without any doubt what is or is not “odd,” or presumes to know what “most” human primates consider “odd.” Then, “odd” is no further mentioned as “oddness” was never the subject of the article anyway. It’s just reportorial bloviating and opinionating.
I may be too rough on reporters, since editors have a say in the matter. They must want it.
I find “it might seem odd” patronizing – like the writer thinks they’re cleverer than all the readers.
Also, if the reader does not think it “odd,” then the reader must be “odd.”
Too many talking heads on TV begin sentences with “So…”
It seems to have replaced “Well…”.
You’re probably right:-(
It gives you a moment to order your thoughts.
I use it a lot on the phone with clients.
/@
Agree.
sophisticated theology – that’s the phrase I find most annoying
+1
+ 2!!!!
I always thought that “sophisticated theology” worked really well as a term of derision. What would you call it, same lame old arguments but with more long words?
Do I agree with you? Absolutely. At first blush and at the end of the day, I’d have to say that the reason why I find this phrase so annoying, is the smug delivery used by its proponents. Oops, my bad.
That’s because you still need to wrap your arms around it…
Once that’s accomplished you still have the complication of wrapping your head around it.
“various different” always bugs me. Perhaps it wouldn’t if people also routinely said “various similar”. It’s not that I don’t see the reasons for saying it, but it irks me just the same.
I also don’t like the term “nowadays”, it just sounds a bit uneducated, but upon realizing how much I dislike it, I find myself saying it!
Now, I have no issue with “sea-change”, but I do have a problem with “game-changer” for no good reason at all, except, perhaps because I like the sea much more than I like sports.
Finally, I really hate the phrase “playing politics”. Politicians always accuse the other party of “playing politics”, as opposed to what, “working politics”? You are a politician, politics is what you do, and you clearly don’t take it seriously, as you spend more time raising money and playing golf, you are ALL “playing politics”. Add to that, “playing g*d”, until people make that a synonym with children playing pretend or make-believe.
ok, and one more “final” thing, the word “revolution”, when discussing something that did not happen quickly, or in a relatively brief moment of time. If the Industrial Revolution took 20, 30+ years, and in some areas of the world, has yet to fully be realized, it’s not much of a revolution.
The word, “issue,” when used as an euphemism for, “problem.” Or, worse, using “opportunity” instead. “Houston, we have an opportunity….”
I also know a company where not only are employees no longer hired and fired, no longer have start and termination dates…they’re selected and separated. Ngahk!
b&
Selected and separated? FFS!
Yes, in the military, a problem is an opportunity to excel.
Ha ha, selected and separated like fruits and vegetables. They see the employees as produce.
Fruit flies like a banana.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Time flies when you’re having fun. Fruit flies when your’re having bananas.
Or possibly, fruit flies when you’re going bananas.
Fruit flies enjoy a banana.
Susan already did that one.
Let me put in a good word for “sea-change”. Seems to this son of an English teacher that it carries more that just the “big change” connotation, but includes, as old Will implies by the words “rich and strange”, the notions of magical and wondrous alterations which are probably for the better.
So don’t throw out the baby with the sea-water.
When I think of a “sea-change”, I think of tides, which implies that there will be a reversal at some point, however, as well all know, tides come in, tides go out, we can’t explain it.
“Don’t throw out the baby with the sea water”, especially when you’re changing him/her…
Yes, I dare admit, I rather like “sea change.” (Nor do I encounter it often enough to annoy me, if it did. But maybe I just haven’t been reading or watching anything modern enough lately. I miss a lot of trends, these days.)
Many of the problems I see with language are the result of marketing. It’s hard to find a superlative that hasn’t been defanged by Ad agency overuse.
Many of today’s most over-used and detested phrases originated in the Watergate era.
“At that point in time” meant “then”. John Dean in his monotone testimony treated us to a host of phrases that seemed like they were engineered to make everyone involved seem less guilty.
George Carlin brilliantly reflects on this in depth in a 1999 talk to the National Press Club easily found online.
Thanks for the reference. George was brilliant.
On the subject of Watergate why are we still dubbing every little scandal that occurs “[name of controversy]-gate”?
In the UK there was recently a little bust-up when an MP wanted to exit from the Houses of Parliament by some side gate and the policeman on duty refused to open it. Bad words were allegedly spoken and – guess what? – some commentators couldn’t resist referring to the affair as ‘gate-gate’
Which I find funny.
I rather like metaphors so “sea change” doesn’t bother me. “At first blush” does, though, because blushing is an emotional reaction, and it’s not usually used as an emotional reaction. I prefer “at first glance.”
I think the “sea change” point was that it isn’t used correctly. What is it a metaphor for? (or phor?)
I always assumed that the “first blush” was meant to refer to the first light of dawn in the east. Although in my experience “the cold, grey light of dawn” is much more apt.
Agree on both counts. 🙂
One I actually liked was Elon Musk’s description of the Falcon 9’s first stage’s failed attempt to vertically land on a floating platform as “rapid unscheduled disassembly”.
It was suggested that this was “a possible tongue-in-cheek reference to NASA and other rocket providers’ penchant for using obtuse terminology to describe rocket disasters.”
Brilliant!
“There are rocket launches that succeed and others that are “rich in learning opportunities”- Neil deGrasse Tyson on Startalk Radio
Ha, ha, thanks!
When two of the space shuttles exploded or disintegrated it was referred to initially as a “malfunction” or an “anomaly.”
I suppose I should have noted that it is only the unmanned (unpersoned?) launches that are rich in learning opportunities.
I have forgotten what air traffic controllers call it when two aircraft are in danger of occupying the same point in time and space, but it’s in a similar vein.
Near miss.
Often thought to be quite oxymoronic.
George Carlin spoke of the (working?) poor as being “broke,” as opposed to the rich elite who may occasionally have “a negative cash flow position.”
Another I don’t like is “the investor class.” Why not “the (lazy) idle (non-working” rich,” as compared to “the working poor” or “the working class”?
Another: “Sweat Equity.” I suppose it is technically correct, according to capitalist “theory.” Apparently, “labor” is beneath the station of the capitalist.
Why am I thinking of the word, “decapitate,” in relation to private servants – Ah mean – “employees”?
There are so many, I could go on and on…I’ll try to keep it short.
“…at the end of the day…” – overused
“…24/7…” – same.
“…ditto…” – ditto
One of my pet peeves is the word “why” used after “reason” when the latter word is a noun, as in “…the reason why I did that…” The main reason people use the phrase “reason why” in that context is probably due to Tennyson, but in his poem the word is a verb, meaning “consider”.
Ours not to reason, ours but to do?
Either you did not understand my context or I was not clear enough for you. Tennyson used “reason” as a verb, not a noun. My annoyance is confined to the use of “reason” as a noun.
I’ve heard “the reason why is because . . .”
Doubly an abomination.
24/7 does not bother me coming from an industrial workplace where it accurately described the operation. Some operations were 24/5, some were 12/7, some were 8/5 depending on who did what.
In any usage than industrial processes, not so much.
Oftentimes, at the end of the day, awesome!
“At the end of the day”
Beginning a paragraph with “OK”
“on the table”, as in “The offer is on the table.”
“Having said that”
At first blush.. Entre nous, I haven’t heard that one before, that’s going straight into my file of PR speak. Or maybe I should run it up the flagpole first to get a steer on whether it might be a tad pretentious.
Check out W1A on BBC iPlayer for an intensive course in up to date management speak. A satire on middle middle management, which is the predominant class in that institution these days. The next step on the career ladder of the former Olympic head of deliverance as Head of Values, a post created to takle the “new learning opportunities” dredged up in the wake of the Jimmy Savil scandal.
As the man himself put it “I am very happy to have the cameras back. Being Head of Values is all about re-setting the dial for the BBC and perhaps about shining a new light on that dial, or at least shining the old light but with a new bulb, so none of us can be in any doubt where the dial is or can have any excuse for not being able to read what it says.
At first blush, not much chance of a sea change there.
I might be missing the point, but for some “baby mama” annoys me.
For some reason. that is :p
I actually meant “baby daddy” I just woke up. :p
“baby mama drama”
I really meant both now that I’ve had my “java” to add to the list.
I think they’re both disgusting.
“Amazing” and “awesome” to describe everything from the existence of the cosmos to the BLT you just had for lunch.
Also, a vice of movie critics, the constant overuse of “great” and “masterpiece.”
Yes, tastemakers are far too generous.
I think part of the problem is that postmodern relativism is still rampant in the arts.
Another part is that art 1) is open to subjective interpretation, and 2) requires analysis in order to evaluate it. In light of different possible interpretations and, frankly, not possessing enough knowledge to properly analyze the art, most people default to pronouncing it great. They don’t want to be seen as closed-minded or to have others think they didn’t “get it”.
And soccer commentator Ray Hudson calling many of Barça’s plays “magisterial”, when they’re not “woonderfool” or “loovely” .
I’m just easily awed.
/@
Not a phrase, but when did it become acceptable to begin every response to a question asked in an interview on air with the word “So”, as in “So, I think the solution to a particular problem is…”. Drives me to distraction trying to listen to somebody who does this.
Richard Dawkins wrote a little article about that (the word so) on his site a couple of years ago.
He found it objectionable as well.
Mike
You beat me to this! I hadn’t read through all the posts when I mentioned this below. Drives me nutz, too! Beginning a response with so is even worse than beginning with OK.
To be honest
Or, “To be truthful and honest…”
I think the intention is to reassure the listener, but for me it has the opposite effect.
Yup, I really hate that one. What are you bullshitting me the rest of the time? Errr!
Also “frankly” makes me thing they’re not being frank.
“Deja vous all over again.” Just stop at “deja vous”.
“It’s always in the last place you look.” Of course it’s in the last place you look – when you’ve found it, you stop looking!
“it is what it is”…grrrr! but I may hate this primarily due to it being one of my ex’s favorite phrases trotted out when she had nothing better to say.
As someone who uses that phrase a lot, I feel the need to defend it. When certain situations come up, I suppose I could say, “We live in a big world with forces beyond our control, and sometimes bad things will happen. But it does no good to dwell on them, or play what if, because there’s nothing we could have done to change it. Just accept it and move on and focus on what you can do now.” But that’s a mouthful, so instead I use the shorter saying that means the same thing, “It is what it is.”
Que sera sera.
/@
I agree with both assessments, but “It’s always in the last place you look” is actually not true if you fail to find it and give up looking.
Except people only say it when they’ve found it. 🙂
I hate “it is what it is” too, to the point I want to scream when I hear it. I find it irritating and inane.
I hate that too – thanks for stating the obvious, why did you make me waste a few seconds listening to that?
But “deja vu all over again” is surely a joke, or anyway started as a joke.
Yes.
It’s a malapropism that is attributed to Yogi Berra. Berra explained that this quote originated when he witnessed Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris repeatedly hit back-to-back home runs in the Yankees’ seasons in the early 1960s.
You can find more Yogiisms at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogi_Berra#Quotations
Pleonasm not malapropism.
/@
Good word.
Also yes.
Oh yes. In fact this awful cliche has removed the term deja vu from the vocabulary because it is never used by itself. I can’t remember the last time I heard it without that stupid addition.
Wasn’t “deja vu all over again” said by Yogi Berra? In which case it may have been said in all seriousness.
There’s actually some debate over whether he actually said that or not. But he says that he did use it.
I’m not sure, but I think what is meant is “it’s always in the last place you’d expect.” or perhaps “it’s always in the last place you think you should need to look.” meaning you only look here because it’s the only place left to explore, it’s the only place left because I never thought I would find it here. That’s my dime store diagnosis anyway.
It’s actually ‘deja vu’. ‘Already seen’.
(Not ‘vous’).
I agree, ‘deja vu all over again’ was funny – just once.
Maybe the second time as well …
/@
Yes, but, remember that some people somewhere will always be hearing things for the first time.
Also, LOL, Ant.
“At first blush” and “sea change” are time-honored phrases that bother me not at all (although I agree that saying “sea change” is inflated rhetoric when the change in question is not dramatic). I dislike new and semi-literate things like “my bad” and “hone in” and old and semi-literate things like “supposably” (spoken in my presence by an English professor yesterday!) and “between you and I.” Of course, I’m so old-fashioned that I prefer a long-i in “short-lived” because it’s the adjectival form of “short life.”
My wife and me are also among those who pronounce the I long in ‘short-lived’. So, by my count, that makes three of us.
And I have nothing at all against “at first blush”. In fact, I’ve been known to use it, but only rarely.
Editing error: “My wife and I”. (I was just telling my daughter that most of the errors I make arise during the editing process. In this case the sentence started out as “Count my wife and me …”, and then I “fixed” it.)
Oh, I do that so often and it’s so frustrating!
Think outside the box.
I’m grateful if one just thinks!
While pushing the envelope.
Thinking outside a box of envelopes?
/@
I can’t stand “no worries” and “no problem” as substitutes for “you’re welcome”.
“No sweat” is even worse.
“You didn’t have to do that” as a substitute for “Thank you.”
Ditto on this one. Sometimes I respond “I didn’t ask if there was a problem”.
‘Very unique’ – since this was pointed out on west wing.
Also ‘let me ne honest with you…’ followed by lies!
Ubiquitous link:
I suspect this is one of those forever discussions/gripes. English has always had “sum up” words that come into usage, rise to annoying levels, get griped about, and then die a natural death. “Dude” seems to be a big one now, used as a mild derogatory label, but having nothing to do with learning how to be a cowboy! Remember “far out!” and “groovey'”?
Lemme tell ya, Jack, these cats today are real gone. And I mean bad – and not in a good way, ya dig?
NB, I still say “far out” and “groovy,” and I was in grade school when those were in style. I also call my male friends “man” and “brother.”
I was told by a colleague the other day that my reference points for outdated technologies are themselves outdated. I analogized two rival platforms as “VHS vs Beta” – young people may have an idea about what that means, but no one under 35 or so personally witnessed that rivalry. Also, comparing a trendy technology to the “8-track” is likely to meet with a blank stare these days.
Ask anyone under 40 if they know what the phrase “Goes on like a cracked record” means….!
Right? I say “broken record.” Even if you knew what a vinyl record was or is, if you never played one, you would think “broken,” “cracked” and “scratched” records would not play at all, not that they played on and on and on.
Only an old fogy would think that kids these days don’t understand how vinyl records work. Where do ya think we got all the samples for our not-music?
Fair enough! I should know better than to generalize. And for the record I am actually a fan of the not-music.
Groovy is a beloved word for me. Anyone who likes the Evil Dead movies (originals) and chainsaw hands will agree.
On the other hand I think ‘rad’ is returning.
I hate ‘rad’. It is not at all groovy that it’s being used again.
A few from the business world that suffer mostly from over use:
Low hanging fruit
pro active
empowerment
reinventing
take a swag (scientific wild ass guess)
leverage
“Low hanging fruit . . . . ”
They need to listen to Billie Holliday’s “Strange Fruit.”
Have you been conversing with my boss?
If you work anywhere it the corporate world of America I might as well have.
Low hanging fruit always makes me think of Tantalus, which makes me laugh because in the analogy the worker is the punished titan.
Technologists are often given the impression if they try hard they will be empowered to play golf with the second line manager and enjoy all the perks. Of course by reinventing themselves and leveraging their skills. For competent technologists the outlook is Sysyphean. The goal is the keep them proactive and in the trenches. I actually like the phrase “in the trenches”.
Ramp up…
… behind the scenes.
“Would you mind … ?” and “If you don’t mind … ?” in place of a direct request. I have the same problem with these that I had with “Is your mother there?” back in the one-phone-number-per-household days: the answer to these questions is “yes” or “no”
I am peeved by mind-reading in the form of “The President believes,” “Churchill thought,” etc. We don’t know what is going on inside anyone else’s head, we only know what they say and do: if a person makes claims about his/her thoughts, the making of the claim is the fact, not the content of the claim.
“You guys.” I part company with the Millenials on this one – “guys” is clearly becoming equivalent to “folks,” which, oh well, but I’m not there yet. I’ve been to fancy, expensive restaurants with my wife or in mixed company and had the server call us “you guys.” Which is at once gender-ly incorrect and overly familiar. I don’t want to be called “you guys” when my group is all-male!
On a related note, though my kids use Mr. and Ms when they address non-family adults, all the other kids these days are on a first-name-basis with the grownups. I don’t understand how this came to be.
One cannot overstate the role parents play in the development of these peeves. The ones that rankle me are largely the ones that got a smack-down from my parents – not a literal smack-down, worse: a “look,” with widened eyes and tightly pursed lips.
I cannot stand “you guys”. it always sounds alien and gender exclusive to me.
We have a perfectly good gender neutral word with a long heritage, “Y’all”. I believe it should be adopted as the official second person plural pronoun in all dialects of English worldwide.
Worst of all are the occasional times I hear “you guys” spoken with a southern US accent. Completely jarring.
‘You guys’ hasn’t been gender specific for decades if it ever was. ‘Guy’ seems to be specifically masculine, but ‘you guys’ just means ‘you people’.
Maybe where you live. “You guys” grates my ears and often sounds gendered in the south.
Just say “y’all”. It’s simpler and avoides avy gender issues.
Having grown up in the Northeast, I used ‘guys’ and ‘you guys’ frequently for any group regardless of gender. Now that I’ve been in Texas a while, I’ve begun using ‘you all’ or ‘ya all’, but I still can’t bring myself to shorten it to one syllable.
Right. An all-women group is addressed as “guys.” One never hears a mixed-gender group or all-male group addressed as “gals.”
It’s always bugged me that calling women “gals” has been deemed as sexist as calling them “girls.” It seems to be the perfect analogue to “guys,” in my opinion–and we need something less formal than “women!”
As I’ve gotten older, I don’t mind girls nearly as much as I did when I was younger, as long as a man doesn’t use it patronizingly. Never felt like a gal…
Interesting.
If I were out with some women my age (rarely happens) and some young male waiter started calling us “girls,” I’d feel very condescended to. (And I’d bet the same waiter would never call a bunch of older men “boys.)
Whereas “gals” just sounds nice and informal to me. (I also dislike “ladies” under most circumstances.)
No, probably would not want to hear it from any males. Don’t much like ladies either. How about just “What would you like?” (Remember you can be plural:-). And NOT youse:-(
An older generation of gay men may still address an all-male group as “girls”, but perhaps that proves your point.
You must help me bring “yous” main stream. It’s the only way!
Just as with toilet paper, you’re on the wrong side here, Diana. Y’all is far superior.
Speaking of tp, I thought of Diana yesterday when I got my hair cut and the salon had the tp (in the bathroom/washroom/toilet/loo) installed the WRONG, i.e. Dianah’s, way.
Few of us will ever achieve fame like Diana’s.
Whoops, not sure why I sometimes put an h at the end of D’s name…
At least you can keep us straight!
By the way you install the tp…
NO! “Y’all” is more widely used. Standard 2nd person plural in the southern US and AAVE in the northern US. “Y’all” must prevail as the proper gender neutral second person plural English needs.
The “y’all” speakers of Texas outnumber Australia on their own. And the yall speakers are probably greater than the population of Australia and the UK combined.
‘Y’all’ only works if you want to sound like someone from the southern states of the USA. In the rest of the English-speaking world, ‘you’ is a perfectly good plural pronoun.
“You” is frequently unclear. Actually, spelling out y’all sounds fine to me. “Would you all like to come over for dinner?”
I am very annoyed with the overused “It’s such a blessing…” or “I am so blessed!” All these blessings make me want to scream! People use it to refer to the mundane, such as finding a parking place, or to survival of a catastrophic event, and everything in between.
Ditto on the blessing bit. I try to point out to such folks that there are differences among a blessing, privilege, and dumb luck.
Since a blessing comes from God, the difference is that privilege and dumb luck are real.
Shuggy – I would only quibble a little bit. If I give of my time and energy to help out a person in need [e.g. assisting in Jamestown flood recovery], the person may well feel that such work is a blessing. Personally, I would generally not use blessing, but rather ‘a gift’.
This is part of the relatively recent (say, the last 15 years) infiltration of religiosity into American speech. When I left the US and moved to Canada in 2005, I became more and more aware of how much I heard ‘blessed with’ instead of ‘lucky to have’ on American TV stations, but not in Canada or on their media.
American speech is now littered with piety. People who have escaped death in accidents nearly always talk about their ‘Guardian Angel’ (a concept ridiculed in a recent Canadian ad, where he appears as a dumb 20-something, arriving too late, in the back seat of a car between two young girls that had just avoided a crash with technology, shrugging his shoulders).
American’s frequently use phrases like ‘God willing’, ‘God forbid’ and the adages ‘God works in mysterious ways, and ‘God helps those that help themselves’ (both of those not from the Bible, as some insist).
Every speech by the US President _must_ end with ‘God Bless America’. To leave that phrase out would incur the wrath of a huge swath of the electorate.
I’ve mentioned these before in this comments, as it is a pet peeve of mine. It may be, that by being desensitized to religion in everyday language, it is easier to attribute supernatural powers to everything that happens. Doctors don’t save patients, God does. Increasingly violent weather are not a result of Climate Change, but the survivors of such disasters are ‘Saved by God’. It’s a kind of insidious, creeping stupidity, as people get in the habit of attributing everything to a deity, while not concentrating on the details of the event, clear thinking authorities, or how to avoid such a situation in the future. What’s the point, if God has it planned and there is no escape from his wrath?
At any rate”. How about, “Anyway” “At the very least” “In any case” “Whatever the case may be”. These phrases would be more accurate in the post’s intention.
Your choice of wording is a good example of how language is a purposeful activity that develops and evolves over time, and is subject to(regional) usage and interpretation.
The phrase “At any rate” was developed from Latin to French to British English. In the 1610s, it originally meant “at any cost”. The weakened sense “at least” is attested by 1760, approx.
The phrase “Sea change” did first appear in The Tempest – the beauty attributed to Shakespeare is in its subtle nuances and in the blending of literal and figurative meaning of words.
Sea Change means “a radical change or transformation.” Shakespeare’s usage incorporates the current meaning and the expression is made richer by the allusion to the literal meaning “a change that is brought about by the sea”.
“At first blush” is a Middle English phrase that originated in the 14th century, “a look, glance” This original sense is preserved in the phrase “At first blush”
” . . . the beauty attributed to Shakespeare is in its subtle nuances and in the blending of literal and figurative meaning of words.”
And Shakespeare (like Lincoln, a great autodidact and Shakespeare admirer) wasn’t even a high school graduate. To me this testifies to the (intellectual) laziness and lack of individual initiative and “grit” (perseverance) obtaining in the U.S. today.
I just watched the George Carlin at the Press Club speech where he reported that the quit school in the 9th grade. Maybe formal education is overrated. At least for some.
In Australia we now have Sea-changers – people who cash in their expensive houses in Sydney or Melbourne to retire to one of the smaller towns along the East coast, especially in the warmer areas.
Worse, there are people who move to one of the inland areas, who are (wait for it…) Tree-changers!
“Okay, give us the lousy one first!”
http://youtu.be/vqFblQz-weU
Pet peeve:
“I am not racist but …”
“Dry January”
It’s day seventeen and not for the first time I’m thinking “why?”
See, I can’t think straight. Posted this in response to “I’m not racist, but”.
Just sayin’
Yes, I hate that one too. I put it in the same category as “it is what it is”. Thanks for stating the obvious, I can see that you are “just sayin'” something.
Except that it usually means they aren’t “just” sayin’, they are wink-wink-nudge-nudge-implying something obnoxious. I have found a strong correlation between people who frequently use the phrase, and people whom I fantasize about punching in the face.
So true.
Absolutely agree about ‘just sayin’. In fact I’ve never heard it used in any other context, than when someone has just said something quite offensive.
I actually think that it is great phrase. It always alerts me to that what ever comes after the “but…,” has very high probability of being blatantly racist.
‘In order to, when ‘to’ will always suffice.
Oops. ya beat me to it.
Can’t understand why someone has not listed “LIKE”. I mean like why not? Or, “get real”. Not sure what you are if not real.
Another one you hear from some is “Having said that”. What does that mean – well, I said it so I must remind you know that I just said it.
People from Missouri love to say – Don’t you know. I hate it almost as much as “You know”
For me, the use of “to be like” in place of “to say” is a constant source of annoyance. As in:
And she is like ‘Do you wanna go?’
And I am like: ‘Maybe’.
And she is like: ‘Whatever’.
Another one is simply a grammatical error, but ever so common: “There was a misunderstanding between he and I“. A misunderstanding indeed.
The last one seems to be a classic case of hypercorrection. This present one probably stems from the prevailing (but unsubstantiated) dogma in certain circles that “He is taller than me” is not grammatically correct and must be replaced by “He is taller than I”.
That is why I think prospective grammar pedants should be a bit careful with their pedantry. Unsubstantiated pedantry can have the unintended effect of people getting more confused about other simpler constructions.
I agree, except that I think there may be a difference in meaning between “to be like” and “to say”. It seems to me that “to be like” often describes an attitude or thought that may or may not be spoken. “I was like, what is going on here?” It’s an odd locution, all the same.
Also “like” has a companion: “all” as in “and she was all, ‘no it wasn’t’ and he was all ‘yes it was'”
I find myself talking like this sometimes when I am relaying a conversation. It must really confuse people who are new to English.
“look” It’s the way that Michael Steele(fmr. RNC chairman) and his deceitful ilk start everything that they say.
“at the end of the day” Ditto above only ending their bullshit tirades.
“when it’s all said and done” Ditto above
but during the course of their bullshitting tirades.
These cliches make me cringe the instant I hear them.
I hate when people say “look”. Politicians use it a lot. It seems rude to me – don’t tell me to look! You look!
Yeah, hate look, too. And anyways with an s.
There are lots of phrases I find annoying, but only three words make me cringe whenever I read them: “I think not!”
I always want to respond, “After such a frank confession, why would you expect me to continue to read?”
Descartes was sitting in a tavern drinking wine. Noting that his glass was nearly empty, the waiter asked if he would like another. The philosopher said, “I think not” – and vanished.
A car salesman once said to me “Let’s see how aggressive we can get with the numbers”.
Did he “sharpen” his “pencil”?
wreak havoc, it goes without saying, price point, huge, technically, literally, in harm’s way
worse are those who say “wreck havoc” not even having listened in the first place.
Next time I hear someone mention “Sea-change” I’m going to say,”I was reading on Jerry Coyne’s blog ‘Why evolution is true’ that the phrase “Sea-change” probably originates from Shakespeare’s play,”The Tempest” and if WEIT was read by everyone then there would be big changes in how many people accept that evolution by natural selection is a fact. There might also be a dramatic increase in the number of people who view scripture as primitive mumbo jumbo.
So many I cannot name them. But how about “all things considered,” which can never be the case?
Unless said by Terri Gross
It is not perhaps in the same class, but I am infuriated when people who pontificate about things like climate change do not know the difference between energy and power. The recent EU limit on the power of vacuum cleaners seems to indicate that senior bureaucrats do understand that a less powerful cleaner might take longer to do the same job than a more powerful one.
Whhops! Missing “not” before “understand”. Note to self: do not post when annoyed.
Although a well designed vacuum cleaner can be as effective and quick at picking up the dust as a poorly designed one with a higher power rating.
I think NPR may have had a thing about this one, but “boots on the ground” drives me crazy.
I actually enjoy some neologisms, and portmanteaus, but usually just among friends. When management starts to use/abuse them, they become in fact, literally, uncool.
Neologisms can be fresh and invigorating ways of expressing something. The problem is that they are not new for very long and too many people just latch on to them and repeat them over and over until they are totally threadbare (to use a tried and trusty metaphor that may itself lie in the over-used category!).
In the comments yesterday I noticed a link to an Xtian article about modern-day “prodigals” and it was a rare example of that word being used correctly – the author even cited the definition.
The son in the parable was of course “prodigal” because he squandered his inheritance, not because he left home and returned – and almost always I hear the word used in the latter, incorrect sense. Very annoying.
I don’t think it’s incorrect if used in the phrase “prodigal son” (or “daughter” or … ), used of a son (or daughter or …), as an allusion to the parable in Luke, as long as there’s been a sea change in their behavior.
/@
Maybe if one were described as being “like the prodigal son.” I see your point and even technically incorrect words come to take on the meaning of the incorrect use. I still think at least the person described would need to have squandered one thing of value AND come back home; if someone has merely gone away and come back then I think it’s an unfortunate misuse of the term.
Agree.
Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse all creative spellings.
>
I agree with getting rid of “at first blush,” it always seemed to me that the phrase implied I was initially embarrassed at my interpretation, but then I came to accept it. I could understand the authors intent much more if it was, “while counter intuitive to me..” or “contrary to popular belief…”
As for “Sea change,” I’m good with that one. However, you must realize that my opinion is biased as I spent 2/3 of my adult life involved with ships and the sea. I can see how that phrase would be totally meaningless to people without a similar background. For that reason, I think it should only be used in discussions between those familiar with ocean dynamics.
“Passed away” instead of died is one of my bugaboos. It smacks of half death, a little bit dead, it’s euphemisms at their worst, as if the person didn’t really die, just turned into a miasma, a blob of fog, somewhere around the corner. Are people so timid that they cannot face the fact of death?
Let’s be brave and call it what it is. This tepid phrase has waltzed in to common usage and needs to be outed before it’s too late.
Now hearing “passed” and “pass” for died and die. I really shouldn’t let it get to me …
It drives me crazy too – “if you should pass….” I feel like saying, “pass what, a car, a deal, gas?”
… a kidney stone?
…especially when they died suddenly, and most especially when they died violently.
My mother used to say, “I shall not pass out, on, over, or away; I shall die.” As if to prove the point, she fell down dead at a bus stop, aged 80. Since she’d always feared decrepitude, we were glad she went that way (if I may say “went”).
When someone says, “My husband passed,” my first instinct would be to say, “Congratulations!”
Fortunately, I’ve never actually blurted that out when “passed” was being used euphemistically.
/@
From the Broadway musical, “1776,” when the Continental Congress secretary is calling the roll:
“Rhode Island.”
A delegate responds, “Rhode Island has gone to the privy.”
“Very well, then; Rhode Island passes.”
In most Indian universities, you don’e graduate from college, you “pass out” of it. Recent alumni are not “graduates”, but “pass-outs”.
In most American universities, the only time students pass out is while they’re still there.
I am a teetotaler, so that when I was in final year of college (in India), a friend expressed surprise that I would pass out without passing out.
🙂
At least you didn’t pass away.
Or on.
Or over to the other side.
“I’m not judging you god is” Yeah you are judging me if you agree with your god.
“Have a blessed day.”
Oh, I freakin’ despise that one. I just want to reach out and dismember the dimwits that offer that one. They’re total dingbats.
I like all the variety of ways we english speakers have of saying the same thing. i think it adds so much more texture to what we say and how we think. and i like nuance. i think the twists and turns of nuance can be as meaningful as the cadence, inflection, or the words themselves.
i might meet jerry halfway in regards to the mass news if we well defined what that is – or what we agree it to be. the News is the one place where nuances and vagaries can be artless and counter productive – especially where overwrought and over stated banalities like “boots on the ground” replace and obscure the meanings of important information. the egalitarian in me demands that the news be digestible by the masses, and i distrust verbose or vapid news sources.
Anecdote:
i once worked on a film with a Swedish director. he wrote the script with some Swede friends of his, and flew to the states to use american actors. i asked why they just didn’t write the film in swedish as it was a thoroughly swedish film, optioned by a swedish distributor, and intended for a swedish market. they told me they started in Swedish, but switched to english because they felt they could tell a more colorful story. swedish, as it turns out, is short on adjectives, adverbs and punchy phrases. too bad for them.
I agree. And I’m also realizing that I’m going to be anxious about posting here for a while, lest I forget and use someone’s pet-peeve phrase.
Also–interesting anecdote!
He was all like now wot I mean? was it 4? wazzup?
U TRIPPIN
I’m annoyed by incessant war, can’t stand environmental degradation, don’t like deference to corporate interests above all, have had it with human trafficking, am adamantly against apathy, miffed and perplexed by the tyranny of faith, but when words hang on a bit past their sell-by date, why that’s me final straw!! aaarrggh!
“Root cause” drives me up a tree.
If a phenomenon has multiple causes, and one cause contributes more of the variance to the phenomenon than each of the other causes, couldn’t it just be called the “primary cause”?
That originated with NASA in the 60s. They had a process to investigate failures called a “Fault tree”. A tree has a root. This FTA (fault tree analysis) was widely adopted by industry in the 70s… leading to the acceptance of the term root cause.
…and knowing that makes “root cause” all the more cool to say over glasses of pinot, and the odour of soldering breadboards. #nerdwords
I’ll add two more. First, many have an annoying habit of beginning a response to a question with “Yeah, no…” or “No, yeah…”. Which is it?
Second, and one that always gets my goat (I’ve seen no objection to this latter in the previous posts) is “The proof is in the pudding.” That’s just silly– the actual and much more evocative phrase is “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.”
” . . . always gets my goat . . . .”
Does it ever get your squid, or manatee, or snow leopard, or brine shrimp or . . . .? 😉
Because …
/@
Add to that killing the golden goose and gilding the lily.
Then there’s the phrase “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”. The original is from William Congreve’s 1697 play The Mourning Bride, and is, “Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.” That’s the same play that has the phrase, “Music has charms to soothe the savage breast,…” (not beast). But maybe misquotations are a good topic for another post.
“… that’s just gilding the lily.”
“Paint.”
“What?”
“‘To gild refined gold, to paint the lily; to throw perfume on the violet.’”
“Oh, dear boy, I was alluding to Dryden, not Shakespeare!”
/@
“…going forward…” Grrrrrrrr!
Trying to make something straightforward sound fancier. There are dozens more!
“mum in any context than “thanks mum, a cup of tea would be great.” Not my ‘my mum said’ or ‘mum murders her family’
I always hated that. “I was talking to Fred’s mom. . .” “Why are you calling her “Mom?” She’s not your mother. I think people use this generic “mom’ and “dad” more than they do “mother” and “father.”
The religious speak of outreach programs which, to my way of thinking, is a misuse of the term as I assume they mean a program that reaches out to people – not one that reaches farther than every other one.
People speak of having a different skill set. Why can’t the say they have different skills?
I think, “what say you” bothers me because, it always seems to be uttered by those sharing certain personality traits with O’Reilly, Bill.
I don’t like the phrase “In the final analysis…”
or its many derivatives like, “at the end of the day.”
Right. The good thing about it is it’s a signal there is no more analysis to be done. It’s finished. You might as well go home. Can’t argue with that.
“That’s an excellent question.”
Makes me crazy and is now so prevalent it’s practically a knee jerk reaction. I’m listening to NPR or in a seminar… “That’s an excellent question.” And all I’m thinking is “That’s the dumbest question I’ve ever heard.” Or “Where have you been for that last 20 minutes?” “Were you not listening? Get off your damn phone.”
If it’s a non-“excellent” question simply thank them (maybe) for asking it but don’t tell them they are “excellent.
There’s no such thing as a dumb question. Is there?
Fine if Richard Feynman is saying it!
/@
Anything Feynman said was excellent;-)
The Freakonomics guys (Dubner and Levitt) recently did one of their podcasts devoted to this.
http://freakonomics.com/2015/01/15/thats-a-great-question-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/
I wince when hearing/reading:
Just sayin’
I digress
With all due respect
All these comments have convinced me to draw a line in the sand against cliches.
Well, except that cliches are the life blood of pop songs.
I am a firm believer in the six rules for language that George Orwell set forth in his essay Politics and the English Language. They are:
1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
When I was a writing teacher, this was the first reading assignment I gave my classes. I suggested very strongly that they pay attention to those rules.
I read that essay in high school and I actually think it imparts pretty good advice too.
And as is very well attested, the rule for which that article provides the most evidence and support is the sixth one.
In the linked article, David Beaver, a professional linguist, starts his dissection of the rules with the following encomium:
Steven Pinker (A Sense of Style) refers to Orwell’s book and deviates a bit from 4. He points out that the passive is quite often very useful. The word ‘never’, here, is a bit strong.
I have not yet read A Sense of Style, but what you said makes me wonder if Pinker missed Orwell’s rule #6.
Pinker doesn’t miss much.
No, Pinker’s exception is to do with clarity, linking sentences by keeping the focus on a particular entity before introducing a new one.
An example in short sentences doesn’t really illustrate the benefit so clearly, but: “I have a new ball. My aunt, who I live with, gave it to me.” vs. “I have a new ball. It was given to me by my aunt, who I live with.”
/@
“Enjoy”, said mostly by hosts and servers to patrons in restaurants. Enjoy what? my chair, the heft of the knife, Hell I don’t even have water to sip yet. A full sentence is not even required. … “Enjoy your meal” would be fine
While I’m at it, “Are you done working on that?” a phrase used after dining or if the server is unsure if you are finished. If my meal had been even close to some kind of work to get through, I would have spoken to management long ago about the unpalatability of my food.
I hate language Nazis. But on the other hand…
“Same difference.”
Personally, I’m not terrifically keen on the use of ‘Nazi’ or ‘Fascist’ to describe someone grumbling about linguistic usage, or similar. Nazism and fascism were extremely ugly political creeds and, even in jest, I find it a bit strong to compare someone who insists on the correct use of the apostrophe with genocidal thugs.
Godwin.
Nonetheless … (Funnier if you’ve seen Inglorious Basterds.)
/@
“Dude” … unless of course if your parents named you Dude, or you are “The Dude”
…but, of course, only if he abides.
b&
Who can forget. The Dude abides.
One word that gives me the pip is “nuanced”. It seems to be quite popular at the moment. Lots of stuff requires a “more nuanced response”. It seems to mean that someone is being patronised with the charge of not knowing what the hell he/she/they are talking about.
“Me, myself, personally …”
This may be rare, but I’ve heard it. A simple “I” will do.
“close personal friend”
UGH
Any misuse of reflexive pronouns, but especially: “Please contact myself”! This is my bugbear.
/@
She and myself are going.. Only place I can stand myself is in something like “I’m going to do it myself.”
A bit off topic but the increasing use of’it’s’ for the possessive pronoun irritates me. I even saw it in a headline in Canada’s National Post today.
What is also annoying is not just confusing “it’s” with “its”, but the injudiciou’s use’s of superfluou’s apostrophe’s (known as the greengrocer’s apostrophe).
Right on.
It drives me crazy when people want to say, “all I’m saying…” but they say instead, “alls I’m saying…” What is this “alls”?
My other detested phrase is “boil the ocean” as in “we don’t want to ‘boil the ocean'”. I think I hate it so much because it was a catch phrase at my previous employment used to caution every friggin’ change you suggested. Before I got to the point of explaining my implemenatation strategy, some goof would say “we don’t want to boil the ocean”. Thanks for the stupid remark, the overused metaphor and the derailment of my presentation as I now need to explain why we’re not going to “boil the ocean”; did your first use of a metaphor make you feel particularly smart today?
first one reminds me of “anyways”
yup, me, too.
I think “All’s I’m saying” parses as “All as I’m saying”, i.e. all that I’m saying. It’s dialectal, not just ignorant (unlike “would of”).
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Radio National has no adverts, but does broadcast promotions of its own programs. My least favorite is the one that urges one to listen to their breakfast and afternoon programs by telling us to ‘bookend your day with …’
Last time I looked bookend was a noun, not a verb. But perhaps I’m nit-picking?
Verging nouns has a long history.
“Contact” for example; objectionable a century ago but commonplace today.
/@
I’d as lief write “at first blush” as I would drink a blush wine.
I’ve used “sea change” on occasion in legal writing (“Miranda/Row/Lawrence worked a sea-change” — or more likely, “my opponent seeks a sea-change in the law”). It’s also found occasionally in Scotus opinions. But I don’t recall ever employing the phrase in lay writing.
“General consensus” or “consensus of opinion.” A “consensus” is a general opinion, so both of these are redundant. I’ve even heard “the general consensus of opinion.”
That’s one for the Department of Redundancy Department (which, I hear, is meeting this month at the House of Casa de la Maison).
Is that anywhere near Torpenhow Hill?
/@
Someone needs to invent a word to describe that special bond you feel with someone when you find out the same that thing annoys them annoys you as well
Anoidlings
I don’t mind “at first blush”, possibly because I think I first heard it from my great South African physics prof, who also used to always say “You gain on the swings what you lose on the roundabout,” which I found charming.
Exp’ns that do bug me: “Every way, shape, or form”, “The thing is is…”, and I’m sure I’ll think of others…
As to what annoys me, I dislike limp introductory phrases that hang over the front of a sentence like a discarded moist towelette: e.g., “In the last analysis,…”
I’m also not crazy about “however”* used as the first or last word of a sentence. It works well after a short introductory phrase to establish rhythm (“My in-laws, however, are another kettle of fish…”) If used as the first word, however, “however” sounds weak; “but” is usually better. By the end of a sentence, “however” has lost the sense of its “however-ness.”
*This does not include usage of “however” to mean “no matter how,” in which case it’s fine at the start of a sentence, but needn’t be followed by a comma: (“However drunk Doug may have been at the party…” or “However many votes the Senator stole in the last election…”)
Must not be followed by a comma!
/@
I am likely in the minority on this one, but it grinds me to hear people refer to “my son” or “my daughter” etc. Sometimes I ask if their child does not have a father [mother].
The distinction is especially useful when the child misbehaves or shines. Then it’s “Your son was naughty today” this”, “My daughter scored an A in Chem!”. 🙂
So, if your with your kid in public and a stranger comes up and asks “Is that your son?” do you:
a) Dissemble and say “yes”;
b) Answer honestly, albeit curtly (and, frankly, misleadingly), and say “no”;
c) Enjoin your son’s mother into the conversation and jointly expound upon the semiosis underlying your “our”-son theory;
d) Make like a denizen of lower Manhattan who’s has been asked by a tourist for directions to the “Avenue of the Americas,” and stare right through your interlocutor like so much clear air?
Another annoyance is failure to distinguish between “your” and “you’re” or among “there”, “they’re” and “their”.
“Hartman’s Law of Prescriptivist Retaliation” strikes again.
Theirye’re. Problem solved.
One solution I saw to the search for a gender-neutral pronoun for English is a contraction of the phrase “he or she or it”; it’s spelled “h’orsh’it”.
What about single parents?
Yeah, I was thinking that, too. Or other awkward situations. I see nothing wrong with “my child” in most contexts.
Like I said “Not everyone….” 🙂 In the strictest definition, there really is no such thing as a single parent [father or mother], but rather parents who are single. Of course, parent generally has a broader definition. I can accept ‘my child’ if the mother has had an anonymous sperm donor; if the spouse is dead; or if the parent has sole custody of the child. I would likely bend to an acrimonious split where using ‘my’ would make that implication. I was really thinking more about folks who are obviously a couple.
Having been a single parent for many years(though mostly with long-term partners who are/were not my kids’ fathers), I am very used to saying my daughter and my son.
I have two that wear the enamel off my teeth whenever I hear them.
One is begs the question when misused to mean “raises the question” or “prompts the question” or “suggests the question”; the correct meaning of “begging the question” is something like, “arguing in a circular fashion, by appealing to the very conclusion you are meant to be demonstrating”.
Yes, I’m aware that this “correct” use is a bit quaint and archaic – but it’s also a lovely phrase, which it would be a pity to lose. You’ll note from my above translations that it’s rather hard to come up with another phrase that means quite the same thing. Why lose this meaning in order to replace it with one that can be expressed half a dozen equally pithy ways?
And I also loathe tongue-in-cheek (which I noticed someone else in this thread used in cold blood, when complaing about some other phrase). I don’t get this at all. I don’t put my tongue in my cheek when I am attempting to be waggish or ironic; I would sound like I had a severe speech impediment.
This is a shared beef. I also find that some people will use the phrase to deflect/avoid answering a question.
Actually I distinctly remember that pushing one’s cheek outwards with the tongue was frequently used by adults to indicate “just joking” all those years ago when I was a child. I think a number of these phrases or actions which are now annoyances have really just become outdated and have lost their context.
The problem with “begging the question” is that it is the formal name of the logical fallacy (also known as petitio principii) in which one asks a question or makes a statement which assumes own premise. The professor who taught my advanced syntax class used the phrase – properly – a lot, so I became very familiar with its proper use.
I can’t get my head around (yeah, another peeve to some, I am sure) the distinction between proper and improper usage of “begs the question”. I might use the phrase as in the following:
“The driver’s side wheel came off and I went into the ditch.”
“But that begs the question: why did the wheel come off?”
The first remark, to my mind, does fairly beg the question posed in the second, but assumes no obvious or even questionable premise. Might someone more erudite than me provide some examples of improper/proper usages?
“Have you stopped beating your wife?” is the archetypical example of begging the question. The question begged (whose answer is prematurely assumed) is “Have you beaten your wife?”
(I don’t know why what we now call domestic violence is such a persistent trope in this example.)
We should have a contest to see what alternatives people could come up with. I’ll bet the WEIT crowd would produce some doozies.
(And many along the lines of, “have you stopped worshiping the Great Sky Fairy?”)
Traditionally, “to beg the question” was to produce a circular argument. Now it has almost shifted to also mean “raises the question”.
As long as a phrase is grammatical, I won’t necessarily have a problem with it. It’s just a matter of using it in an appropriate context. Even the example I gave a week or so ago of a phrase that bothers me (“properly understood”) could be used well. It’s just that most often, people use it to dismiss criticisms of something, without actually addressing those criticisms, by asserting that the issue has simply been misunderstood by the critics.
I’m more bothered by general problems like redundant constructions, double negatives, etc. Things that actually hinder communication.
I second this.
And while we’re at it:
Everyone should stop modifying “unique,” with the possible exception of “truly unique” which forestalls questions such as “Are you sure it’s unique?”
Unique means “one-of-a-kind”. No one (yet) says “more one-of-a-kind,” or “very one-of-a-kind,” or “really one-of-a-kind,” or “most one-of-a-kind,” so you shouldn’t apply such modifiers to “unique.” Demoting “unique” to being synonymous with “unusual” has left us with no single-word synonym for “one-of-a-kind.” Unless you pepper your speech with such words & phrases as “most best” or “worstest” you have no excuse, despite the fact that journalists and reporters everywhere now do it.
“Possibly” seems to be a legitimate modifier…
/@
I really dislike “It is what it is” and most attempts at pretentious business-speak. Also on the hate list is the use of “associate” to refer to an employee, which I believe was started by Wal-mart, probably to give low wage jobs a positive image.
The announcers on our Toronto-area commuter trains are now called ambassadors.
I HATE it when transport announcers, spokesmen etc refer to passengers as ‘customers’. We’re passengers, we want to go somewhere, we’re not buying products!
In secret, they refer to you as “nuisances”… (Joke.)
To airline staff, we’re “self-loading cargo”. (True.)
/@
I’ll second “associate.” Not only is it just an HR rebranding of an employee, it’s even more impersonal than the word it replaces. I always feel like I’m being distanced.
Check out bullshitbingo.net
As someone who works (mostly) at sea, I think I’ll continue using “sea-change.” It means a pretty major change to me, as from the motion of the boat caused by the direction of the swell and of the waves changing their relation to each other.
But since Shakespeare was a Midlands boy, I doubt that he knew what the phrase meant any better than I did before I followed granddad’s tracks out to sea.
My Dad was in the Merchant Marines and I grew up loving nautical idioms. (And still do, of course.)
He titled his autobiography, “Steady As You Go.”
My favourite autobiography title is by Dame Ethel Smyth – ‘A Final Burning of Boats, etc.’
You sent me to Wikipedia, and now I’m ashamed to admit that I’d never heard of such a fascinating woman. Thanks!
Yes, that’s what I took ‘sea change’ to mean. A change in the state of the sea (literally), or a widespread readjustment in conditions. But even with that interpretation, it’s widely misused.
Agreed, Aidan. Good definition.
I’m bugged by rampant misuse of the phrase “begs the question”.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/opinion/columnists/begs-the-question-is-a-phrase-best-avoided/article_621f653a-c584-11e3-b091-10604b9f6eda.html
Oh, didn’t read Henry’s great comment at #82.
I am surprised I didn’t see two of my pet peeves listed above because. Both phrases have been amply discussed for years now, but I’ll go ahead and throw them in here anyway.
1)“Decimated” used to describe devastating losses, and especially “completely decimated” used to describe something closer to annihilation. As is well known, the word “decimated” comes from the ancient Roman military practice of ordering one out of ten soldiers beaten to death by the remaining nine out of ten soldiers in a legion deemed to have displayed cowardice in battle. The decimated unit, obviously, would suffer ten percent losses, as is implied right in the word. Now the word is used primarily to describe much greater losses, and even total losses. “The workforce was decimated by 80 percent layoffs.” *uhg*
2)“That begs the question…” when used to mean, “Hey! I just thought of a question!” Question Begging is a specific logical fallacy akin to circular reasoning—assuming the answer. It does not, or did not until recently mean “This is a question that I think should be asked.” Or, “I just thought of a new question.”
It always bugs me to hear these two.
Re “decimate”, I think it’s a stretch to appeal to 2000-year-old etymology. Just accept that there’s been a sea change in usage.
/@
“I’m good”, meaning “No thanks”, or “Nothing for me, thanks”.
The only time I’ve ever seen “sea-change” used outside of Shakespeare, I thought it was simply a pun: it was used in the title of a business meeting that was being held at a beachfront convention center. I’ve never seen it used in any other context.
“I’m good.”
Yeah, I hate that because that’s what she said. Ba Dum Tsss. Ok, I’m leaving now….
Why should it matter who says it?
Sorry! This goes below #93.
“That’s what she said.” Finally a term that annoys me no end.
“Spot On”. The annoyance is compounded when used by non-British English speakers.
“Tipping point”. The next time I hear this over used attempt at profundity will be my tipping point to the acquisition of a pointed tip to seriously mess up the perp.
I’m sure that will be a watershed moment.
/@
At this point in time, any way, shape or form, passed away, irregardless, moving forward, utilize. . . others too numerous to mention.
I don’t “hate” but I do find it supremely annoying is the standard, ” It is only a theory…” which shows their ignorance and the way theory has been mangled by th masses so much I have heard even scientists using it as if it meant “hypothesis” which of course is wrong.
while I agree with almost all of the above peeves – especially ‘begs the question’ used instead of ‘poses the question’ – I have to mention the criminal misuse of ‘organic’ as in ‘organic fruits and vegetables’. The other day I asked in the supermarket for ‘inorganic apples” as I didn’t like ‘organic’ ones. The blank stare I received was fine reward.
You’ve inspired me to ask for “organic pencil lead” at Wal-Mart, now that they’re in the organic business too.
Same with “natural” as in “natural [insert product]”. It doesn’t make any sense to say a chemical is “natural” because it came from a tomato instead of being processed by chemists (come on, a chemical is a chemical and can be produced by a chemical reaction whether it occurs in the tomato or the by the chemists hands!) Organic is a molecule predominately made up of C’s, O’s, and H’s so it technically applies to all food.
Yep, dioxins are organic molecules, so are most of the other insecticides with which some farmers like to spray their crops. Agent Orange? – organic! DDT? – organic! TBT (tributyl tin) and PCB’s – organic!
And as for ‘natural’ – when margarine was being introduced into New Zealand, the dairy industry ran a series of nasty ads implying that margarine was a nasty chemical(!) product while butter was ‘pure and natural’. Anyone remotely aware of a cow’s anatomy (or a dairy factory) will be able to judge how true that is…
Yep, both words are essentially used as meaningless propaganda.
I have seen – I kid you not – “organic” bottled water.
I really hope it wasn’t.
Maybe they mean organically bottled water.
I’ve seen “gluten free” table salt somewhere, too.
Was it carb-free?
How about this one – Don’t take me wrong but
Not sure we wanted to take them at all. Or maybe – don’t take this personally but.
A new one I now hear all the time when someone is being questioned or interviewed — “So”
They start every answer with So. How did you climb the mountain? So, I started at the bottom …….What time was it? So, it was just before ten. Please ditch the so.
“Have a good one.”
“Back atcha.”
“Irreducible complexity”
That would come with “evolution is just a theory” and “we need to be more humble”, with the “we” aimed at people who don’t believe in Gawd or the creationists.