Words or phrases that annoy you (even if you can't explain why) . . .

[usagora]

Usage, and how language changes over time means that many of those terms - nouns as verbs - have been assimilated into the way the language is used.

"Impact" is a recent change, or seems to me to be recent; in any case, it annoys me and - worse - it calls my inner curmudgeon to the linguistic fray.

Very interesting. I just looked up the word "impact" in my Mac's dictionary, and found this short article about the exact usage you described.

I must admit I don't get it at all (I don't see how it's any different in principle than older usages following the same pattern), but then again you probably don't get many of my linguistic annoyances either 😉

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Very interesting. I just looked up the word "impact" in my Mac's dictionary, and found this short article about the exact usage you described.

View attachment 2163516

I must admit I don't get it at all (I don't see how it's any different in principle than older usages following the same pattern), but then again you probably don't get many of my linguistic annoyances either 😉

Well, while such annoyances may well tend to be subjective, nevertheless, that is - and remains one of my personal peeves, and is, moreover, entirely compatible with what the thread title invites us to share.

 

[usagora]

Well, while such annoyances may well tend to be subjective, nevertheless, that is - and remains one of my personal peeves, and is, moreover, entirely compatible with what the thread title invites us to share.

Of course, but there's also no problem with commenting on each others peeves, which has been happening since the start of the thread. I hope I didn't give the impression that I disapproved of you sharing yours; I'm glad you did! It just took me by surprise, as I don't think I've ever heard about someone being annoyed by that specific usage, nor can I perceive how it could be annoying like I can for many of the others (even if they don't annoy me personally). But then again, I understand, as indicated in the thread title, that we can't always put into words why some of these things grate on our linguistic nerves 😉

 

[Clix Pix]

Two fairly recent conversion of nouns into verbs annoy me: "gift" and "adult." I give someone a gift, and I am an adult who respects other adults who are also grownups and who are living their lives and behave that way.

Something else I've noticed fairly recently now is the term "unhoused...." Why has that suddenly become popular, do people really think it sounds any better or represents a different or better situation than "homeless"?

 

[usagora]

Two fairly recent conversion of nouns into verbs annoy me: "gift" and "adult."

"gifting" doesn't bother me in the least, but boy does "adulting" ever annoy the heck out of me!

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Two fairly recent conversion of nouns into verbs annoy me: "gift" and "adult." I give someone a gift, and I am an adult who respects other adults who are also grownups and who are living their lives and behave that way.

Something else I've noticed fairly recently now is the term "unhoused...." Why has that suddenly become popular, do people really think it sounds any better or represents a different or better situation than "homeless"?

Yes, both of those irk me, also.

It is not just the conversion into verbs of what are perfectly acceptable and functional nouns, - and verbs already exist to describe what you need to say (or write) - rather, it is also the fact that this particular form of conversion serves to strip the language of the glory and precison of their accompanying prepositions.

 

[DaveFromCampbelltown]

"Impacting it with a brick"?

What is wrong with "hitting it with brick?"

Or, "the impact (of the brick) to my head caused an injury"..

Using "impact" in such a sentence really irks me (and it is appropriate in the context of the thread title); to me, it sounds not just both contrived, and clumsy, but also strikes me as a feeble (and futile, because it annoys me) attempt to sound as though what is described is exciting and dramatic.

Fair enough, normally I wouldn't use the same word twice in the one sentence. How about --

The brick fell off the balcony, impacting his head.
The impact of the brick on his head caused it to bleed.

However, the point was, there are many words in English, which traditionally* are used as both verbs and nouns (and sometimes as adjectives, such as "green"). What is annoying is the current verbification (and there's one) of nouns, such as "to medal", "to verse" or "versing", etc, etc


*i.e. before 1960

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Fair enough, normally I wouldn't use the same word twice in the one sentence. How about --

The brick fell off the balcony, impacting his head.
The impact of the brick on his head caused it to bleed.

However, the point was, there are many words in English, which traditionally* are used as both verbs and nouns (and sometimes as adjectives, such as "green"). What is annoying is the current verbification (and there's one) of nouns, such as "to medal", "to verse" or "versing", etc, etc


*i.e. before 1960

The first sentence sets my teeth on edge; to my eye and ear, it sounds sloppy and speedy (and unsophisticated) - actually, to my ear and eye it comes across as a clumsy construction.

What is wrong with: "The brick fell off the balcony, and hit his head" - and obviously, from the context, the brick must have hit his head hard, or, "The brick fell off the balcony and had an (unfortunate) impact on (and here, we have our key preposition) his head"?

 

[usagora]

Very interesting. I just looked up the word "impact" in my Mac's dictionary, and found this short article about the exact usage you described.

View attachment 2163516

I must admit I don't get it at all (I don't see how it's any different in principle than older usages following the same pattern), but then again you probably don't get many of my linguistic annoyances either 😉

Reading this again today, I realize I somehow totally misread that excerpt from my Mac's dictionary. I actually agree that "impacts on" sounds very wrong, and that "have/make an impact on" would be far preferable there. However, I'm totally fine with verbal uses of "impact" such as, "Our high school teacher Mrs. Brown has been positively impacting the lives of students for over twenty years."

 

[ejb190]

What is wrong with: "The brick fell off the balcony, and hit his head"

An unnecessary comma?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

We have agreed - I think - that our reactions to language can be quite subjective.

Accept that we all of us - who have contributed to this thread, for the very title invites such posts - feel strongly about some linguistic horrors.

Nothing any of you write will persuade me to change my mind about what I consdier to be the murder of language implicit in the blunt and clumsy use of the word "impact" as a verb without an accompanying and modifying preposition; actually, I deeply dislike when this word is used as a verb.

So, yes, it annoys me.

 

[usagora]

We have agreed - I think - that our reactions to language can be quite subjective.

Accept that we all of us - who have contributed to this thread, for the very title invites such posts - feel strongly about some linguistic horrors.

Nothing any of you write will persuade me to change my mind about what I consdier to be the murder of language implicit in the blunt and clumsy use of the word "impact" as a verb without an accompanying and modifying preposition; actually, I deeply dislike when this word is used as a verb.

So, yes, it annoys me.

Well, speaking for myself, I'm not trying to persuade you to change your mind about anything, nor am I suggesting that you shouldn't have shared your linguistic annoyances (obviously, since I'm the one who created the thread). But we can also comment on each other's annoyances as well. I see no issue with that, as long as no one's name-calling or anything like that. In fact, your comments have deeply impacted had a deep impact on me.

 

[mollyc]

I think "impact" is a regular verb?? Maybe this is a generational difference, however.

• The decision impacts a great number of people.
• Strong storms are impacting the region.
• The death of his wife impacted the man deeply.

When my children were small, they would say things like "who are we versing" when getting ready for a sporting event; they just assumed that was a verb, but now that they are (nearly) grown, they would say "who are we playing/opposing/etc."

Another one that we talked about in our house was "on accident" vs "by accident." Context clues for small children were doing something "on purpose," so to them, the opposite was "on accident." My husband and I actually looked this up at one point because it was so prevalent with the kids. At some point their language became more sophisticated and now they use the proper "by accident." But many small children will use the phrase "on accident" because it just seems natural to them, according to our research.

 

[usagora]

When my children were small, they would say things like "who are we versing" when getting ready for a sporting event;

I've taught kids for many years, but had never heard that terminology when any of them were talking to me about sports they were playing. That sounds so weird!

 

[mollyc]

I've taught kids for many years, but had never heard that terminology when any of them were talking to me about sports they were playing. That sounds so weird!

That's because as adults, we know the proper term is "versus." The Steelers vs. the Giants. Or whoever. But little kids hear the word as "verses" so they assume the verb is "to verse" in which case "versing" is quite logical.

In the same vein, when my daughter was a toddler we once told her "to behave" when out in public. To which she stamped her foot and declared, "I AM BEING HAVING." We had a laugh at that one, because to a two year old, her verb conjugation was quite ahead of its time. 😂

 

[usagora]

That's because as adults, we know the proper term is "versus." The Steelers vs. the Giants. Or whoever. But little kids hear the word as "verses" so they assume the verb is "to verse" in which case "versing" is quite logical.

Of course, but I'm just saying that I've never heard even a kid say that before. If it were something I had heard kids say a lot, I wouldn't bat an eye at it. But most of the kids I work with are 7 and older, so maybe it's kids younger than that who tend to make that "error." The mistakes I normally hear are with irregular verb tenses and irregular plural forms of nouns.

 

[Mousse]

Something else I've noticed fairly recently now is the term "unhoused...." Why has that suddenly become popular, do people really think it sounds any better or represents a different or better situation than "homeless"?

rather, it is also the fact that this particular form of conversion serves to strip the language of the glory and precison of their accompanying prepositions.

Big Brother is slowly changing English into Newspeak.😬😱

 

[JustAnExpat]

"OK" [and just "OK"]

I hate when people say "Ok". What exactly does "OK" mean anyway? Is it a "yes"? Or is it "I hear you, but I'm filling up dead space"? Or is it a "Whatever"?

It's a great way to kill a conversation

 

[dotnet]

"OK" [and just "OK"]

I hate when people say "Ok". What exactly does "OK" mean anyway? Is it a "yes"? Or is it "I hear you, but I'm filling up dead space"? Or is it a "Whatever"?

It's a great way to kill a conversation

OK.

 

[meady100]

'In and of itself'.

 

[usagora]

"screen real estate" or "real estate" being used to describe anything other than actual real estate 😉

 

[Nermal]

I might have already mentioned this, but it seems that everything needs to be "shared" these days, rather than "published". "9To5Mac shared new images of [blah]..."

Edit: Aha, yes, it has been mentioned, although not by me.

 

[usagora]

"my guy/man" (used in the same way as "dude," "buddy," etc.), often used when countering someone else's claim or otherwise objecting to their words or behavior, with the connotation that the other person is totally clueless. E.g.

Person 1: "My car just got demolished in a wreck."
Person 2: "Your car barely has a dent in it, my guy."

Person 1: [smoking a cigarette]
Person 2: "It's a no-smoking zone, my man. Put it out."

 

[Scepticalscribe]

"my guy/man" (used in the same way as "dude," "buddy," etc.), often used when countering someone else's claim or otherwise objecting to their words or behavior, with the connotation that the other person is totally clueless. E.g.

Person 1: "My car just got demolished in a wreck."
Person 2: "Your car barely has a dent in it, my guy."

Person 1: [smoking a cigarette]
Person 2: "It's a no-smoking zone, my man. Put it out."

Why does that bother you?

Is it not a way of claiming a sort of casual kinship in order to be able to deliver a reprimand - or signal disagreement - without provoking a fight?

 

[usagora]

Why does that bother you?

Is it not a way of claiming a sort of casual kinship in order to be able to deliver a reprimand - or signal disagreement - without provoking a fight?

Because 1. it sounds stupid and 2. it is normally used in a condescending, disrespectful way, not a friendly one. If someone uses that phrase with me, I'm immediately on the defensive. I don't feel any kinship.

If someone can't figure out a way to approach those two example situations and others without using this phrase without provoking a fight, then they have severely poor communication skills!