“Daily driver” feels like a symptom of aspirational overconsumption. If you only have one car, one phone, one watch, there’s no need to make a distinction.
Why imply you have others you don’t really use?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Words or phrases that annoy you (even if you can't explain why) . . .
- Thread starter usagora
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why imply you have others you don’t really use?
Yes, it sounds like they’re thinking out loud.
“I’m the director, directing the actors”, when really they should be thinking “I’m the actor, telling the story”.
Exactly. Same applies to "everyday carry" but it's even worse. Is the speaker expecting to impress us by implying a) they possess one-, or likely more, firearms, and b) they probably have a license to carry any- or all of them out in public every day?
That's pretty weird if you ask me.
Or as some would say, "a weird flex".
"A weird flex": Seriously? I have no idea where that came from, but it's off to the reject pile pronto.
“Ck” for “check.” For example, “I will ck it out.” Just more texting shorthand.
Also: “smth” for “something”. It’s not like the writer is optimising for efficiency, either; it’s invariably in the middle of a rambling paragraph that could easily be half the length.
Have we mentioned the current trend of using “I feel like this is X” instead of “I think X”?
TIL for today I learned 🙄
These three letter acronyms became popular in our office.
I often reminded people if you send a confusing email to a dozen people, that’s a dozen people who have to figure out what you meant. Just focus on clarity.
And thank you high school English teachers for teaching us always to consider the audience. Meaning some folks might not know your acronyms.
I feel like this is confusing because when I see it, I assume it's an acronym. People use "smh" for "shaking my head" and "smdh" for "shaking my damn head", so I see "smth" and I think "shaking my tired? head", before realizing it's supposed to be "something".
Aye. My English teacher drilled this sentiment into me. She also taught me, "say what you mean and mean what you say." I live by Twain's and Hemingway's quote about using the correct words and simpler words for clear communications.
In J.R.R. Tolkien's autobiography he writes about how his English teacher took them to task for using the word 'manure' when 'muck' was a perfectly good English (Anglo-Saxon??) word to use.
In school we were also told to write as simply as possible, a dictum I
But where's the fun, when you have to eschew words like 'prolix', 'phlegmatic', 'micturate', and even 'eschew'.
The trick is to use both, as and when needed.
To my mind, one of the glories of the English language is the existence of that rich, vast, and incredibly nuanced, vocabulary, which allows for an exquisite precision in both speech and writing.
Your mention of youtube reminded me of a habit I've recently noticed in interviews. These are usually on youtube mainstream news channels. The host will ask the guest a question, and the guest will say "Look, here's what I think about xyz." Or, "Look, we need to talk about....." Or "Look, whatever whatever." What is with the "Look" beginning all of a sudden? Or did I just start noticing it but it's been happening all along.
I’ve always admired those people with a robust vocabulary.
Over several decades I’d often have technical conversations with a brilliant co-worker now friend.
When either of us struggled to explain something we’d resort to quoting Homer Simpson:
“Stupid bug you go squish now” to basically say we aren’t explaining ourselves well.
“Look” is a snide way of evading the question whilst trying to look sincere and authoritative.
I’m surprised it’s as effective as it is.
A famous politician used "look" all the time to delay and deflect. Another famous politician just repeats a line over again, redundantly, to change the subject.
You know when a UK politico is about to lie to you when they begin their question with “Let me be clear…”
Similarly, starting a sentence with "So. Blah blah blah...".
Both are patronizing and mildly insulting to the listener's intelligence, viz
"So..." = "Let me explain this to you"
"Look..." = "You really haven't looked at this correctly before, let me explain this to you"
JD Vance's speech is full of it. I avoid such people when possible. If not possible, I parrot it right back at them in my reply, that usually stops it in its tracks, unless they are very, um, "thick skinned".
Saw an oldie but a "goodie" today. Made me think of this thread.
"We're having a sale on select items."
No. You aren't. You are having a sale on selectED items. Arghhhhh.
"We're having a sale on select items."
No. You aren't. You are having a sale on selectED items. Arghhhhh.
I guess we can add, "You need to understand.... blah blah."
I've heard the above example for years though, whereas the "Look" for some reason only caught my attention recently (and now I can't stop noticing it, of course). As you point out, none of these seem pleasant or conversational, but more like someone is trying to one-up you somehow.
You're being too generous. They're having a sale on stuff nobody wants to buy!
You are making an assumption about what they're trying to say. Both are grammatically correct but mean different things.
Perhaps.
Well, not at the original price.
My (late, great, still lamented, and utterly adored) mother used to advise that one should never buy a product at a sale unless you would have wished, or wanted, to buy it at full price (but - for a variety of reasons - would not, or could not, or, were unable do so).
Correct. I'm assuming that they are not having a sale on cream-of-the-crop, top end items; but rather on items they have chosen to put on sale. I see this often and I have never once seen the items to actually be "Select." They have always been of varying quality levels but were simply chosen (selected) to be given sale prices by the store.
I keep remembering an email that was sent to me in February, with the opening line: "We have begun to implement a new project into your workflow." The project was fine, but here's what I have to say to the wording of it: JUST. STOP. WITH. THE. CORPORATE. LANGUAGE. PLEASE!!!
Instead, what about just saying, "We have introduced a new project," or "We have added a new project for you"? "Workflow" is not only cringy, but borderline dehumanizing—what about my work is a "workflow?" Maybe it is a "workflow" to you, but definitely not to me. I use that word in a software context. For instance, "my video production workflow involves adding clips, transitions, and audio effects." Alas, I am not a piece of software. Also, while "implement" is an okay verb, I just still prefer introduce. It sounds a lot less corporate to me, and not like I (the employee) am a machine.
Even worse, the person who sent this is about my age.
Instead, what about just saying, "We have introduced a new project," or "We have added a new project for you"? "Workflow" is not only cringy, but borderline dehumanizing—what about my work is a "workflow?" Maybe it is a "workflow" to you, but definitely not to me. I use that word in a software context. For instance, "my video production workflow involves adding clips, transitions, and audio effects." Alas, I am not a piece of software. Also, while "implement" is an okay verb, I just still prefer introduce. It sounds a lot less corporate to me, and not like I (the employee) am a machine.
Even worse, the person who sent this is about my age.
One word which sets my teeth on edge each and every time, whether in speech or in writing, is "ain't." To me that signifies or suggests little or no education, as well as and/or often coming from a background of poverty. I know it is also used as a slang term or as part of some regional dialects, but that doesn't make it correct or appropriate, especially in business or formal and even casual social situations (including social media and participation in online web-based discussion forums).
Last edited: