I've noticed that lately too.
Cohort was always an abandoned military term to me. Then it became a mildly derogatory way to refer to a particular generation or group of people.
Nice to see it being rehabilitated!
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
Cohort was always an abandoned military term to me. Then it became a mildly derogatory way to refer to a particular generation or group of people.
Nice to see it being rehabilitated!
Yeah I've heard it used in educational settings, the context here is in different groups of healthcare coverage.
Yeah, it's current use is normally in statistical/demographic areas, i.e. a group people of a particular age group/economic/religious background who might tend to do the same things (buy the same sort of groceries, vote a specific way, own/not own weapons, etc) or die of the same sort of disease.
But yes, it's earlier use in terms of a cohort of Assyrians who would come down like a wolf on the fold is more dramatic...
"can be had" when referring to what price you can buy a product at
Example (from an internet comment I just read about a TV):
"The 65 inch version can be had for less than 1300 and the 55 can be had for 999."
I prefer to stick with the active voice, which sounds far less awkward:
"You can buy the 65-inch model for less than $1300 and the 55-inch model for $999."
Example (from an internet comment I just read about a TV):
"The 65 inch version can be had for less than 1300 and the 55 can be had for 999."
I prefer to stick with the active voice, which sounds far less awkward:
"You can buy the 65-inch model for less than $1300 and the 55-inch model for $999."
Ignorant people who cannot use "me" and "I" correctly... somebody told them one time to not use "me", so they continue to use "I" in the objective case...
Ignorant people who cannot use "effect" and "affect" correctly...
Ignorant people who cannot use "imply" and "infer" correctly...
Ignorant people who cannot use "whose" and "who's" correctly...
Ignorant people who insist on using "apostrophe S" as a plural form... the "apostrophe S" is to denote ownership NOT more than one of something...
Sentences phrased in the passive voice...
also, "it is what it is"... what else could it be?
Ignorant people who cannot use "effect" and "affect" correctly...
Ignorant people who cannot use "imply" and "infer" correctly...
Ignorant people who cannot use "whose" and "who's" correctly...
Ignorant people who insist on using "apostrophe S" as a plural form... the "apostrophe S" is to denote ownership NOT more than one of something...
Sentences phrased in the passive voice...
also, "it is what it is"... what else could it be?
When someone says, "Having said that...". There's no reason to say it.
Or "That being said...".
Or "That being said...".
Although "It's me" (especially to announce one's presence) is an example of an established, technically incorrect phrase that I would certainly not call people ignorant for using (vs. "It's I").
There are a few exceptions:
I'll bet many of these annoying phrases and words actually come from the early half of the 20th century.... like the Roaring Twenties and into the 1930s-1940s when glorified mobster culture (e.g. Al Capone etc) contributed a LOT to American urban (street) slang.
Words like "kiddo" and "toots" (to address a female) came from that era. Having said that...
"agree to disagree"
It's an overused cop-out to get out of an argument without stating that you have no rational rebuttal. I'm talking about arguments about significant things, not ones about highly subjective opinions, etc. Sometimes it's also used to simply indicate you don't have time to continue to go back and forth with someone who is not listening or being rational, but then I'd rather just say that than use the "agree to disagree" phrase.
It's an overused cop-out to get out of an argument without stating that you have no rational rebuttal. I'm talking about arguments about significant things, not ones about highly subjective opinions, etc. Sometimes it's also used to simply indicate you don't have time to continue to go back and forth with someone who is not listening or being rational, but then I'd rather just say that than use the "agree to disagree" phrase.
I've read "kiddo" addressed to a male.
Perhaps slang, or argot, that dates from an earlier time is less odious to our ears because it has been around for longer, thus, giving us longer to have become used to it.
Anyway, another word that irks me is the American usage of "gotta" in a sentence, especially when it reads "I've gotta...", where the "have" serves to render the "gotta" redundant.
What is wrong with "I must"? Or, "I have to?"
Perhaps slang, or argot, that dates from an earlier time is less odious to our ears because it has been around for longer, thus, giving us longer to have become used to it.
Anyway, another word that irks me is the American usage of "gotta" in a sentence, especially when it reads "I've gotta...", where the "have" serves to render the "gotta" redundant.
What is wrong with "I must"? Or, "I have to?"
Actually I've interpreted that phrase differently....
Both sides know they will disagree endlessly, and that no consensus can be made.
So it's a more polite way of saying.... "We wil just argue forever, so any further discussion/debate is a waste of time. This conversation is done. Bye."
In this context, the phrase can be a useful (and tactful) way to end a heated discussion.
That's what I was getting at with my last sentence. However, I very often also see it used as an obvious cop-out instead of the person admitting they've lost the argument.
Bravo, and very well said; and yes, I agree entirely with your interpretation, for this is how - or, this is the context where - I will use that expression.
It can be a useful and tactful way with which to end a disagreement, yes, but it also signals - publicly - that you will not alter, or change, your stance, - that you stand over your argument - but neither do you expect that the position of the person with whom you are in disagreement will change.
As a woman, I find this one very useful, because, sometimes in arguments, or disagreements, men (among others) will expect you to give way almost automatically, and this allows you to make the point - clearly, but politely - that while you are withdrawing from the debate, your position remains unchanged.
Last edited:
Actually, I find it a very useful bridging expression: You are signalling that an argument - or position - may have (or may have had) some merit, but will now proceed to present an position that is in opposition to what has already been stated.
"clutch" meaning "perfect!" "just what I needed!"
That one really drives me up the wall because it sounds so stupid. I was watching an unboxing video the other day, and the guy unboxed some accessory he didn't realize came with the product, and he goes, "Oh wow, that's clutch." I immediately turned off the video. The cringe level was dangerous to my health 🙄
That one really drives me up the wall because it sounds so stupid. I was watching an unboxing video the other day, and the guy unboxed some accessory he didn't realize came with the product, and he goes, "Oh wow, that's clutch." I immediately turned off the video. The cringe level was dangerous to my health 🙄
More often than not you will find that most arguments are deeply rooted in a basic and fundamental disagreement such as: Who is the boss? and Who makes the rules?
Agree! I get so frustrated when high school friends on FB post words pluralized with apostrophes. We all went to the same high school, and learned the same grammar/punctuation. I know it’s been a while, but some things should just stick.
I dislike when people use myriad incorrectly, saying “a myriad of.” Just don’t use it at all if you can’t use it correctly.
Also, the phrase, “all the things,” as in ”we did all the things.” It drives me insane.
I was skipping my English lessons and going straight into a weights room but if I remember correctly "I must" and "I have to" are very "strong" while "I've gotta" is more playful and is giving you more room for a maneuver.
