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

[Scepticalscribe]

To use the word "challenge" rather than "problem"

Guilty, m'lud.

Actually, I have found that this can be a very useful term.

Sometimes, it is not possible to use the word "problem" in a discussion, not least because one party to the discussion might not be able to accept that there is a "problem," or may become defensive if the "problem" is defined as a "problem".

Therefore, - and I have found this a very useful, diplomatic euphemism - one uses "challenge" instead.

This also has the advantage of implying that it may be possible to overcome this particular "challenge", whereas the "problem" under discussion (which was identical) may well have been deemed insurmountable had it been expressed in such forthright terms.

 

[ssledoux]

That's not incorrect:

View attachment 2196536

It is incorrect in some instances, and most people always use it with a and of, regardless of whether it’s appropriate for the sentence.

 

[usagora]

It is incorrect in some instances, and most people always use it with a and of, regardless of whether it’s appropriate for the sentence.

Could you give an example or two of what you believe are instances of incorrect usage? I'm not following you.

 

[AZhappyjack]

To use the word "challenge" rather than "problem"

We say "opportunity" instead of "problem" most of the time.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

We say "opportunity" instead of "problem" most of the time.

This answers the "challenge" of attempting to present what is a "problem" in positive terms.

I applaud your approach.

 

[Dockland]

We say "opportunity" instead of "problem" most of the time.

I have an opportunity with my car?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I have an opportunity with my car?

Touché, nicely taken, and well said.

Should one wish to employ this sort of euphemism in that context, might one suggest: "I have an issue with my car".

 

[usagora]

I have an opportunity with my car?

Yes, an opportunity to spend lots of money!

 

[Dockland]

Touché, nicely taken, and well said.

Should one wish to employ this sort of euphemism in that context, might one suggest: "I have an issue with my car".

Issue is good I believe

 

[DaveFromCampbelltown]

We say "opportunity" instead of "problem" most of the time.

There is a possibly apocryphal story about General Patton? in WWII.
He was in an office in Europe (France seems likely), when a young officer bursts in saying "Sir, sir, we have an insurmountable problem!".
Patton replies "Son, around here, we don't have problems, only opportunities. Go outside, come back in and start again."
The young officer goes out of the office, comes back in and says --

"Sir, sir, we have an insurmountable opportunity!".

 

[avz]

To use the word "challenge" rather than "problem"

There is a stigma attached to the word "problem" perhaps due to the artificial social constructs. If you have a problem, you are a loser.

Also there is a degree of seriousness: Everything is a challenge but not everything is a "problem".

 

[ssledoux]

Could you give an example or two of what you believe are instances of incorrect usage? I'm not following you.

When used as a noun, you say a myriad of. When used as an adjective, you just use the word myriad. It does appear, upon doing more research into this, that the noun version wasn’t always accepted, so maybe my frustration with improper usage is a little outdated, but stuck in my head like the Oxford comma.

 

[KaliYoni]

"I gotta" strikes me as an example of American English

I'd say "I gotta" is fine when speaking informally or when writing dialogue but is unacceptable in expository writing.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I'd say "I gotta" is fine when speaking informally or when writing dialogue but is unacceptable in expository writing.

Fair enough.

However, this is not an expression that is widely used This Side of The Pond (and my eyes wince when it is used - in writing - in posts here).

When writing dialogue, especially of characters who speak in such a manner, obviously, it is perfectly fine, but signals to me that the speaker is American.

Here, we would say something along the lines of: "I have to", or, "I'm supposed to", or, yes, the original which is "I've got to", and there are also more formal versions (which, yes, I also use, both in speech and in writing).

 

[Solomani]

"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 🙄

There are a couple of small companies whose products I've bought from time to time, for several years. Which means I subscribe to their (email) newsletters, in case they have sales and special deals once in a while.

Lately.... these small companies are trying too hard to be "cool" and hip. So their newsletters use phrases like:

"Get the deets on our latest product!"

Deets? The what?! Oh! They mean "details". As in.... expanded information. Was it really that hard for them to spell out the full word "details". I mean.... it's only 2 or 3 letters more?


It made me rethink if I should continue subscribing to their newsletters..... I mean, the products are not bad. But their advertising efforts are juvenile. And it shows how they will dumb down their vocabulary toward their long-time customers.

 

[KaliYoni]

When writing dialogue, especially of characters who speak in such a manner, obviously, it is perfectly fine, but signals to me that the speaker is American.

Yes. An example of that use that always sticks in my mind is how stilted and unconvincing Ian Fleming's attempts at writing "American" dialogue are in the Bond novels. Even Felix Leiter, a major recurring character, sounds like somebody who speaks North American English as a second language.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

There are a couple of small companies whose products I've bought from time to time, for several years. Which means I subscribe to their (email) newsletters, in case they have sales and special deals once in a while.

Lately.... these small companies are trying too hard to be "cool" and hip. So their newsletters use phrases like:

"Get the deets on our latest product!"

Deets? The what?! Oh! They mean "details". As in.... expanded information. Was it really that hard for them to spell out the full word "details". I mean.... it's only 2 or 3 letters more?


It made me rethink if I should continue subscribing to their newsletters..... I mean, the products are not bad. But their advertising efforts are juvenile. And it shows how they will dumb down their vocabulary toward their long-time customers.

Not only is this condescending (and an insult to language and long-time customers, both), but, it is also incredibly short-sighted.

Nothing dates a document like the use of slang, because slang is invariably specific to a time and place and people and context, and pathetic attempts to co-opt it in the interests of commerce will almost always look forced.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Yes. An example of that use that always sticks in my mind is how stilted and unconvincing Ian Fleming's attempts at writing "American" dialogue are in the Bond novels. Even Felix Leiter, a major recurring character, sounds like somebody who speaks North American English as a second language.

Well, he is/was a spy; it is very possible that he speaks North American English as a second language.

I suppose that I should have clarified that I meant that when a character uses this language naturally, in speech, of course one should write their dialogue to include it.

Nevertheless, apart from pop songs (and yes, many of the timeless pop songs of the 60s used "I gotta" liberally) - clearly influenced by the speech patterns of American English, this not something that you would see - or, more to the point - hear, in everyday speech.

For example, the Beatles might have sung "Igotta/You gotta" endlessly - as they did - but, in actual interviews that wasn't what they said when expressing themselves in their ordinary speech patterns.

 

[KaliYoni]

There are a couple of small companies whose products I've bought from time to time, for several years. Which means I subscribe to their (email) newsletters, in case they have sales and special deals once in a while.

Lately.... these small companies are trying too hard to be "cool" and hip. So their newsletters use phrases like:

"Get the deets on our latest product!"

Deets? The what?! Oh! They mean "details". As in.... expanded information. Was it really that hard for them to spell out the full word "details". I mean.... it's only 2 or 3 letters more?


It made me rethink if I should continue subscribing to their newsletters..... I mean, the products are not bad. But their advertising efforts are juvenile. And it shows how they will dumb down their vocabulary toward their long-time customers.

Yes. But I feel a mitigating factor is that a lot of businesses, particularly small businesses, either consciously use informal or social-media-compliant wording as a marketing tactic or have recruited a youngish employee/family member to handle their list-servs and social media. Plus email subject lines don't give senders a lot of space to get recipients' attention among the flood of email we all receive. So we get "words" like deets.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

There are a couple of small companies whose products I've bought from time to time, for several years. Which means I subscribe to their (email) newsletters, in case they have sales and special deals once in a while.

Lately.... these small companies are trying too hard to be "cool" and hip. So their newsletters use phrases like:

"Get the deets on our latest product!"

Deets? The what?! Oh! They mean "details". As in.... expanded information. Was it really that hard for them to spell out the full word "details". I mean.... it's only 2 or 3 letters more?


It made me rethink if I should continue subscribing to their newsletters..... I mean, the products are not bad. But their advertising efforts are juvenile. And it shows how they will dumb down their vocabulary toward their long-time customers.

Yes. But I feel a mitigating factor is that a lot of businesses, particularly small businesses, either consciously use informal or social-media-compliant wording as a marketing tactic or have recruited a youngish employee/family member to handle their list-servs and social media. Plus email subject lines don't give senders a lot of space to get recipients' attention among the flood of email we all receive. So we get "words" like deets.

The trouble with "deets" - good grief, I hadn't known that this was supposed to be a stupid, supposedly "cool" abbreviation for details - is not only is it not used this side of The POnd, but, if my eyes were to fall on an email header that read "deets", I would assume that this is a reference to the name of a compnay that manufactures mosquito repellant.

And, such a header (once it had been explained to me) would not in any way leave me well-disposed towards such an assassin of what is a beautiful language in the interests of commerce and a cringe inducng attempt to appear "cool".

 

[rm5]

Fair enough.

However, this is not an expression that is widely used This Side of The Pond (and my eyes wince when it is used - in writing - in posts here).

When writing dialogue, especially of characters who speak in such a manner, obviously, it is perfectly fine, but signals to me that the speaker is American.

Here, we would say something along the lines of: "I have to", or, "I'm supposed to", or, yes, the original which is "I've got to", and there are also more formal versions (which, yes, I also use, both in speech and in writing).

I have some family members who say "I've got to," but in my experience, that seems to be confined to a very specific number of people. I never say "I've got to"—it's either "I have to," "I gotta," or "I've gotta." "I've got to" is almost hard for me to say (because I never say it).

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I have some family members who say "I've got to," but in my experience, that seems to be confined to a very specific number of people. I never say "I've got to"—it's either "I have to," "I gotta," or "I've gotta." "I've got to" is almost hard for me to say (because I never say it).

Fair enough.

However, given the thread title, I will simply reiterate that I deeply dislike seeing "I gotta" or "I've gotta" written; spoken, (or written as spoken dialogue), I can accept, or tolerate, as I fully understand that this is how some people from North America speak, and express themselves.

 

[KaliYoni]

For example, the Beatles might have sung "Igotta/You gotta" endlessly - as they did - but, in actual interviews that wasn't what they said when expressing themselves in their ordinary speech patterns.

Yes, you gotta love how the Beatles and the Stones resold American music back to Americans!
"I Wanna Be Your Man"
"Gotta Get Away"
...

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Yes, you gotta love how the Beatles and the Stones resold American music back to Americans!
"I Wanna Be Your Man"
"Gotta Get Away"
...

A few years ago, I watched a terrific documentary about Paul McCartney paying a (rare but wonderful) visit to Liverpool, it was superb.

At one stage, he returned to the actual house where he had still lived - the house where he had grown up - when the Beatles had first become successful, and, in the living room, he explained how (and when and where) the song "She Loves You Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah" had been composed, singing it there in that living room.

He described - hilariously - how, on hearing the song, (in that very room), his father had remonstrated about the use of the word "yeah" instead of "yes", arguing that this was not correct English and wondering why anybody would want to sing such a thing - and - by way of explanation - Paul himself proceeded to sing "She Loves You, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes" to demonstrate how ridiculous the latter sounded in this context.

So, yes, sometimes this is what works in that context.

And yes, agreed: I love how the Beatles re-sold American music back to the Americans; it was brilliant.

 

[DaveFromCampbelltown]

A few years ago, I watched a terrific documentary about Paul McCartney paying a (rare but wonderful) visit to Liverpool, it was superb.

At one stage, he returned to the actual house where he had still lived - the house where he had grown up - when the Beatles had first become successful, and, in the living room, he explained how (and when and where) the song "She Loves You Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah" had been composed, singing it there in that living room.

He described - hilariously - how, on hearing the song, (in that very room), his father had remonstrated about the use of the word "yeah" instead of "yes", arguing that this was not correct English and wondering why anybody would want to sing such a thing - and - by way of explanation - Paul himself proceeded to sing "She Loves You, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes" to demonstrate how ridiculous the latter sounded in this context.

So, yes, sometimes this is what works in that context.

And yes, agreed: I love how the Beatles re-sold American music back to the Americans; it was brilliant.

Two points --

First. Cream, an English band, made their reputation re-packaging American soul music from the first half of the 20th C. Think Robert Johnson and Crossroads.

Second. I was in the train, listening to a couple of young, female American tourists talk. Yes, they spoke with an American accent, but with all the vocabulary and cadence of Sydney's Northern Beaches. It seems they had grown up watching and listening to 'Home and Away' and 'Neighbours' and had picked up the Aussie way of speaking.