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
An expression that has very recently crept into use, one that described an explosion (an unintentional explosion, an accidental explosion) as a "rapid unscheduled disassembly" is, - to my mind - an insult to both fact and language, for it served to mask fact, and to distort language.
I would be specific, say which customer, what issue. There are many customers and many issues.
Don't you think you're overreacting a little? In my humble opinion anyone who has replied with "I'm busy now, so I'll have to check it out later", is being courteous in temporarily acknowledging your message and reassuring you that they intend to assist as soon as it's convenient to them.
As for your "wow".........
I’ll probably be chastised for this, but here goes! One which many of us have used occasionally, often or constantly. It’s that word ’wow’.
The word I generally use when surprised or to show amazement is 'incredible' or simply 'amazing'.
My wife is French and we generally converse in French and occasionally in Franglais.
A few years ago I uttered the word 'wow' for the first time. If she heard it, she didn’t react. A day or two later I used the same exclamation, which was met with the stern rebuke, “don’t say that, c’est pas chic. It’s not nice!
I thought about that, and came to the conclusion she was probably right, it’s not particularly refined and I’ve never used it since.
Traditionally 'oh la la' has been a common French expression to show surprise or pleasure. Unfortunately this is being widely dropped here for the expression 'waouh' which - you guessed it, is wow!
The word I generally use when surprised or to show amazement is 'incredible' or simply 'amazing'.
My wife is French and we generally converse in French and occasionally in Franglais.
A few years ago I uttered the word 'wow' for the first time. If she heard it, she didn’t react. A day or two later I used the same exclamation, which was met with the stern rebuke, “don’t say that, c’est pas chic. It’s not nice!
I thought about that, and came to the conclusion she was probably right, it’s not particularly refined and I’ve never used it since.
Traditionally 'oh la la' has been a common French expression to show surprise or pleasure. Unfortunately this is being widely dropped here for the expression 'waouh' which - you guessed it, is wow!
"Wow" - used sparingly - generally indicates more then surprise; to my mind, it is a lot stronger, and expresses an entirely unexpected amazement, or complete astonishment.
"Gosh" is what I would use for mild surprise.
Sorry, Herdfan beat you to it in post 18 😉 And I then clarified that Yoda is the only exception. All others sound pretentious.
I'd want to wait a generation before I used the phrase, so I'd know better if the event was persistent in changing the world and have a better understanding of what changed and its true scope.
I love it as it makes me laugh. "Blew up", "exploded" are boring.
Actually there are two of these this week:
"an emergency release of an air ordinance occurred"
Russias' explanation of why they bombed their own city.
And you don't mention people saying "wallah" which I'm sure must annoy you. It even gets used in writing sometimes, really exposing that person's lack of understanding.
One that annoys me is the incorrect use of "the fact that" in reference to something the person is disputing. If you think it's wrong, don't call it a fact!
"Period" and "[that's] facts." Can't stand either of those. Even just this morning, I've encountered both of them several times, it's so tiring. It's one of those moments where in my mind I'm thinking (to the other person), "WILL YOU JUST PLEASE STOP!!!"
I heard a new one today. Spoken by a guy to an angry woman who wouldn't accept that a bloke shopping isn't an employee. "Look lady, you can pucker up on my pucker part for all I care." It didn't register at the time. Later in the day, while I was eating lunch and thinking back at the exchange.
...pucker up on my pucker part.😲🤭🤣🤣
I'm filing this phrase away for use in a future angry exchange.🤫 It's so much more refined than saying "kiss my (_!_)."😉
Could you give an example? I'm not tracking with you on this. I don't believe I've ever heard that phrase used to describe something that's not a fact.
I can't think of an old one off the top of my head, so I'll share the one I encountered very recently on a toxic topic to illustrate the usage, not to start a debate:
"He was referring to the fact<sic>* that God, the Father, turned His back on Jesus because the sin of the world was laid upon Him."
*The author calls this a “fact” then sets out reasoning to disprove this idea. (the <sic>* is mine)
That's not enough context for me to tell what is going on. Who's "He" in that quote, for example? What's the source of this quote so maybe I can look it up to get the full context? I'm honestly trying to understand, but that example isn't clearing anything up for me.
“He” can be any theologian, clergyman, parishioner, etc.
The “fact” is everything in the rest of the quotation.
The rest of the article it’s taken from is the author’s discourse on why he disagrees with what he calls a “fact” in the sentence quoted.
I don’t think one should call something one deems to be false a fact. It’s that simple.
I’m surprised that you haven’t heard of this incorrect usage of “the fact that” before.
The “fact” is everything in the rest of the quotation.
The rest of the article it’s taken from is the author’s discourse on why he disagrees with what he calls a “fact” in the sentence quoted.
I don’t think one should call something one deems to be false a fact. It’s that simple.
I’m surprised that you haven’t heard of this incorrect usage of “the fact that” before.
Last edited:
I think maybe I now understand. And it appears the implication is not that the author believes it's a fact, but rather the person they're disputing believes so. The implication is "He was referring to [what he believes to be] the fact that . . ." I can see your point, but at the same time I think the context would leave no confusion as to the author's viewpoint. I would probably phrase it (if I were taking the negative position on that topic), "He was referring to the belief that . . ." or "He was referring to the assertion that . . ." etc.
No, people saying that doesn't annoy me, I guess because here in France I hear it so often. One faux pas though is the way it's so often misspelt. It should be 'voila'.
At my work lately my director has been saying "cohort" instead of some simple word like "group" and for some reason it is starting to catch on.
Sounds like one of those terms a group of a certain animal type would be called 🤣
Cohort is used a lot in educational circles.