It bugs me when people say “the thing is is that” (if you listen for it, you’ll start hearing it… or maybe that’s something that people only do in my area.) (“What the thing is is that…” is fine. But “the thing is is that…” bugs me.)
Also, “just because <blank> doesn’t mean <blank>.” That sentence structure invites one to take “just because <blank>” as a noun phrase which my brain really doesn’t want to do. Just doesn’t seem right. But that sentence structure is very common.
And I’m not saying there’s anything objectively wrong with either of these. Language is weird and complex and beautiful. It’s just fascinating that some commonly-used linguistic constructions just hit some people wrong sometimes.
Edit: I thought of another one. “As best as I can.” “The best I can” is fine, “as well as I can” is good, and “as best I can” is even fine. But “as best as” hurts.
“Would of”, “could of”, and “should of” infuriate me for some reason.
Because they’re wrong. And not in a “these kids and their new-fangled language” way, but in a “this is literally improper English” way.
Right, I get that, it’s just that that particular incorrect usage annoys me more than most.
Yet “would’ve”, “could’ve”, and “should’ve” are fine, if a touch informal, and sound literally identical in most dialects and accents. View it as your own personal window into how your conversation partner engages with language.
It’s not about sound. Would’ve is a contraction of “would have” not “would of.”
Would of is not a different way to interact with English because the meaning of “have” and “of” are completely different.
LOL, all I really meant is you get to learn that they don’t really engage with the language beyond translating sounds into letters. No real thought is given to why they say or write the things they do. It’s useful information.
I am all for woulda, coulda, and shoulda.
“On accident”… That doesn’t even make sense. You do something “by accident”.
I mean, to me it doesn’t really make that much sense one way or the other. Genuine question, how is “by” being used here? What are other examples of it being used this way?
By chance or by design would be other examples. Your question prompted me to look into the origins of the phrase and it appears to come from Latin.
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/pardon-the-expression/by-accident-vs-on-accident/
I hate the confusion that “do you mind” questions cause.
“Do you mind if I turn off the light?”
What is meant in response: “No (I don’t mind)”
What’s said instead: “Yes”
I feel like two people never really know how the other will interpret it, so you almost always have to say something like “yes, go ahead” or “no, I don’t mind” (or “no, go ahead”). If they do respond just “yes” or “no”, I feel like I have to ask for clarification.
Also can we get the meaning of “semi-” and “bi-” figured out? I generally love the oddities of evolving language so long as we can all still be understood, but these two always require clarification.
Bi-annual: Every two years.
Semi-annual: Twice a yearMake it a law!
What are your thoughts on the word “biennial”?
I allow it only as it pertains to plants, anyone using it for an event deserves prison.
This is why we need to bring back yae and nay. We used to have two different yes and no words, one set was used in exactly this context. French still has it IIRC. I can’t remember which were which in English, I think yae and nay were for positive questions, and yes and no were for negative questions. Aha, quick Google shows that is right, neat.
Just say “go ahead” or “please don’t.”
I hate the recent trend of using “onboarding”. It sounds clunky to me and as if you’re trying to sound all cool and up to date.
Is there a replacement that you’re fond of? We use it all the time at work - onboarding free users, onboarding paid users, onboarding employees.
Using “basis” to mean “based on”.
“Basis our discussion, please go ahead and…” “We decided on a price point basis our market research.”
It makes me uncomfortable.
I’m not certain if this is what you were getting at, but these are mine:
An historical - It doesn’t follow the general way of using a or an with consonants and vowels. Nor does it change the meaning if I said a historical (event) instead an historical (event).
Fewer and less. I understand that there is a rule, but the rule is fucking dumb. If I say there are less people or if I say there are fewer people - the end result is the same that there isn’t as much as there was before.
Language is fluid. As long as we understand the meaning of what is being said then who cares?
“an historic” works if you’re not pronouncing the “h”, which is common in some dialects. A vs an isn’t about there being an actual vowel, it’s about the sound. The same happens with honor and herb (again, depending on pronunciation).
Yes and in American English the H sound in historic is always used with “a” unless I’m missing a bunch of examples somewhere. The H sound isn’t silent
Ya “an historic”, when the h is clearly pronounced, strikes the wonderful double blow of being both pretentious and wrong as far as I’m concerned. Looking at you, NPR. Go run up an hill, why donchya?
“Going forward” bothers me so much and I have no idea why. It wasn’t used when I was younger, but that’s true for lots of things.
Also “cringe” is pretty annoying.
Going forward is the worst of corporate-speak. I refuse to use this phrase.
I don’t care so much when I’m just listening to people talk, but there’s something about seeing people use needs washed constructs in otherwise normally composed and edited messages that drives me absolutely mad, for some reason. Stuff like “I need paid more to afford to live there.” I first started seeing it on reddit a few years ago, but it seems as though I’m seeing it more and more now, all over the place. It’s not something that is used anywhere I’ve lived, and it’s just jarring to see sentences constantly missing a couple of words. I suppose I expect more variance in spoken language, especially in less formal contexts, but seeing it written is something else.
I’ve only heard this said by Indian people, so I’ve been assuming that when I see it written online it’s Indians. Per that link it looks like all over the US it’s at least occasionally used. That’s crazy, and I can’t stand it; hopefully this doesn’t become standard.
Agreed, it’s pure laziness, leaving out the prepositional phrase
I don’t think it’s necessarily actually laziness, but rather a failure to change register as appropriate for the medium and context. The Yale link does show that the construct has its own grammatical structure that is followed, so to me, it’s more an error akin to writing, “Yeah, so check this: World War I was started because many countries said ‘You with me, bro?’ and others replied, ‘Yeah, you know it, boy’ but then shit got real when this guy ran up on Archduke Franz Ferdinand and blasted him.” when writing an essay.
That said, it’s painful to read.
I hate the word “cleanse” because it means the same thing a “clean” but uses two extra letters. Fuck the word “cleanse.”
I’ve recently started hearing people say “It needs cleaned.” Meaning it needs cleaning or it needs to be cleaned, and it just shifts to the wrong gear.
I also hate the word “leverage” in the bullshit business lingo sense of the word. Just makes me think “Your business leverages solutions, and uses people.” Tell me, when did your brain die?
I think cleanse and clean are not quite interchangeable. Cleanse has a gravitas that clean lacks. For example, growing up, I heard a lot of things like “be cleansed of your sins”. “Be cleaned of your sins” makes me vaguely uncomfortable.
Hard agree on business lingo, though.
The only time I see “cleanse” used is either on women’s cosmetics or religious drivel as your example. So “cleanse” is 100% marketing bullshit.
“Cleansing” connotes inside and out. “Cleaning” is surface. Same as “impurity” vs. “dirt.”
See? Nothing but emotional bongwater.
But how do I justify my pay grade by leveraging lowly words like “use?”
I really hate R’s in the middle of familiar.
It’s not feR-mill-yer.
What really gets me agitated is when people don’t use the helper verb “to be.” Examples include, “The tea needs strained,” or “The car needs washed.” No, you miserable cunts. The tea needs TO BE strained. The car needs TO BE washed. Nothing presently needs the past tense of an action. I know there’s parts of the US where this sentence construction is common but those entire regions can honestly fuck off. People say it’s a dialect or something. I don’t buy it. Not knowing basic rules of your native language isn’t a dialect. It’s just you being dumb. I hate it so much!
You know what else I hate? “It is what it is.” Of course it is, you dense motherfucker! If it wasn’t what it was, it would be something else, which would then be what it is! It’s the most nonsensical phrase I’ve ever heard and it pretty much exists so you have something to say when you have nothing even remotely worth hearing to say.
Wait till you get to parts of northern England where they say “The car wants washing” 😂
That’s just it. Neither of the phrases is “wrong;” they are just a dialectical feature some people don’t share. There’s a systematic conjugation there, the lack of the helper verb is completely irrelevant if the person uses the construction consistently, and meaning is communicated successfully without it. The only reason to avoid it is as a social choice to avoid being judged by people who would call you a miserable cunt, or maybe to prove you completed a needlessly strict course of instruction in English grammar that proves you’re not a miserable cunt.
Myself, where a reflexive pronoun wouldn’t normally be used, typically near a conjunction where it is less obvious whether an objective or subjective pronoun is appropriate. eg “Jane and myself ate Bob’s donuts.” or “Bob brought donuts for Jane and myself.”
Can I upvote this a million times?
“For Me…” gratingly said with vocal fry
I hate when people use the transitive “going to be” to describe “is.”
“Hey, what’s your phone number?” “It’s going to be 911-551-0911.”
Her phone number is 911-551-0911 and has been such for a while now. Why does she feel the need to use a transitive verb structure to describe that it will change to that in the future?
I see people using this “it’s going to be” structure for ordering food (they are ordering food now, saying “spaghetti, please” is much less weird than saying “it’s going to be spaghetti”), as part of my job when someone is reporting current or past statistics, and events that aren’t coming up or aren’t scheduled, and are in the past.
Don’t dial that phone number to see if it works; you’ll get the fuzz.
I hate it when people call the product of a company the name of the company; like “let’s go get some Taco Bell” instead of “let’s go get some tacos from Taco Bell” or “Let’s go eat at Taco Bell”.
That’s a curious one, can you explain why it bothers you? Or is it just one of those things?
Couldn’t explain it, really; I just want to grab the person and explain that Taco Bell (or whatever) is not an object you can get some of, and Taco Bell doesn’t sell Taco Bells in any amount, they sell tacos! (In the voice you would speak to a toddler in, of course)
“In terms of” when it relates to nothing in the discussion. It’s just a fluffy pile of nothing to either make you sound smarter, make your idea sound smarter, or fill in space like “um”.
“In terms of the design, we’re choosing blue.”
