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

[Scepticalscribe]

When posters write "lol" reflexively at the end of a post.

To me, this comes across as positively brainless.

And, in a post where one writes "lol", the content is rarely remotely witty.

 

[rm5]

When posters write "lol" reflexively at the end of a post.

To me, this comes across as positively brainless.

And, in a post where one writes "lol", the content is rarely remotely witty.

Usually, every time I use "lol," it's with intention. On this forum though, I'm very careful about using it excessively. On Discord though, everyone uses "lol" too much I think. Doesn't really serve as an excuse for me to use it more there, but I do use it more there than anywhere else.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Usually, every time I use "lol," it's with intention. On this forum though, I'm very careful about using it excessively. On Discord though, everyone uses "lol" too much I think. Doesn't really serve as an excuse for me to use it more there, but I do use it more there than anywhere else.

Irrespective of where (and when) it is used, to me, it comes across as reflexively mindless, trite, unoriginal and unfunny.

It means nothing because, not only is it overused, - robbing it of relevance or meaning - but worse, it is a fatuous (and lazy) contraction of a perfectly good sequence of words, and worst of all, it fails to distinguish why this "laugh out loud" is used to express laughter.

Is it laughing at something?

Or, laughing with something?

Is it derisive laughter, laughter as release, or laughter celebrating something clever, witty and intelligent?

Posts which use such an expression rarely offer any enlightenment as to why the content of the post merits laughter.

 

[rm5]

Posts which use such an expression rarely offer any enlightenment as to why the content of the post merits laughter.

I agree with you, but sometimes (in my experience), it doesn't need an explanation. It could just be a response to something else that someone's laughing about, or, just simply something that someone finds funny.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I agree with you, but sometimes (in my experience), it doesn't need an explanation. It could just be a response to something else that someone's laughing about, or, just simply something that someone finds funny.

Yes, but - firstly - humour is subjective.

And, secondly, humour very often doesn't translate well in an online setting, as it is specific to some setting or cultural context which is not necessarily understood - or shared - by your readers.

Anyway, mentally, I roll my bespectacled eyes whenever someone writes "lol", especially in that intellectually lazy, clichéd manner at the end of a post.

And - perhaps this is me - but I also hold the post in somewhat less respect, or take it less seriously, as a result.

 

[avz]

Although I personally don't use xmas, the X is representative of the Greek letter Chi, which is the first letter in Christ. It goes back to the year 1021, so is hardly a new thing, or even disrespectful.
I've never heard of Crimbo and have no idea what that means. I'll have to go look it up, but I assume from context clues here it's also some variation of Christmas.

Regardless of the "Xmas" thing it is fair to say that the symbolism(most of the time subversive) is definitely a thing that is actively being used far and wide.

Most would agree that words and thoughts do have a "material" nature("think and grow rich", "be careful what you wish for", "it is important what your daily manifestations are" etc.).

The title of this thread actually "addresses" in a way a "subversive" nature of the certain words and phrases: You are being "annoyed" by them because on a deeper level you "rebel" against their "subversive message" even without being able to explain why.

 

[smoking monkey]

I've never heard of Crimbo and have no idea what that means. I'll have to go look it up, but I assume from context clues here it's also some variation of Christmas.

I think Chrimbo was first used by the Beatles in a Christmas Special on British TV. I don't know how popular it is now, but I use it often and do know that Brits and Australians have an affection for it. I love the lore of secular Christmas and see Chrimbo as a fun usage.

 

[avz]

I think Chrimbo was first used by the Beatles in a Christmas Special on British TV. I don't know how popular it is now, but I use it often and do know that Brits and Australians have an affection for it. I love the lore of secular Christmas and see Chrimbo as a fun usage.

Interesting. It is possible that this is just a logical continuation of the "The Beatles is bigger than god" kind of thing.

 

[smoking monkey]

Interesting. It is possible that this is just a logical continuation of the "The Beatles is bigger than god" kind of thing.

Actually, digging into it a little, I found this...

The Beatles didn't actually use "Chrimbo", John Lennon used the word Chrimble. And it was on a single not the TV special. I was close! Haha!

It turns out that possibly the first usage of "Chrimbo" came in a magazine from 1928. But even its usage there may not be about Christmas. So it remains somewhat of a mystery as to its rise in popularity over the years followed by its somewhat decline. What isn't in question is that it's a fun usage in relation to the secular aspects of Christmas.

 

[Twiceon2sday]

“That’s all I was saying” right after you answered their question. It drives me nuts. First, ya I know you just said that because I just answered you! Second, it’s redundant.. and Third, if your just saying then do so but if your asking me a question then ask the question. Grrr, it is just irritating!

The other that drives me nuts is someone telling you a story or some piece of information and they add “That being said….” After everything they tell you. OMG My father had started doing this every story he tells after every sentence. Why!!! It’s just as redundant as “Thats all I was saying”

I think any redundancy in a sentence or story is irritating!

It’s like when you’re in an argument and you have to repeat what they said to repeat what you said because they weren’t listening. Then you find yourself stuck in a loop. I will come unglued!

There’s a great line in one of the Oceans movies with Brad Pitt and George Clooney. Brad Pitt says to Matt Damon “Don’t say in 10 words what you can say in 3 words” or something along those lines. It’s a brilliant line!

 

[Twiceon2sday]

I just thought of another as it was just said to me once again….. when someone ends a sentence with “know what I mean”. If I don’t know what you mean I will ask the question “what do you mean” but it’s always used after a statement is made that requires an opinionated response. So if I answer yes to “know what I mean” then they assume you agree with the statement they made. But if I say No, they will further explain what they mean. It’s a conversation trap!!

There’s no way out of it that doesn’t make you sound arrogant or like an idiot.

 

[Gregg2]

Along the same line, is "if we can". As in: "Let's all sit down now, if we can." Ugh!

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Along the same line, is "if we can". As in: "Let's all sit down now, if we can." Ugh!

No, I beg to differ.

"If we can" is usually used (especially by women, or people of colour who are in positions where to appear to be too assertive may lead to complications) as a polite way of giving an order.

By appearing to make a suggestion that can be interpreted by the person to whom this has been addressed as something with which they have a choice, the appearance is given that they have a choice in complying with what was in reality a polite order or instruction.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I just thought of another as it was just said to me once again….. when someone ends a sentence with “know what I mean”. If I don’t know what you mean I will ask the question “what do you mean” but it’s always used after a statement is made that requires an opinionated response. So if I answer yes to “know what I mean” then they assume you agree with the statement they made. But if I say No, they will further explain what they mean. It’s a conversation trap!!

There’s no way out of it that doesn’t make you sound arrogant or like an idiot.

The answer to "know what I mean" is usually (whether voiced or not) "I know what you mean but disagree with what you have said."

 

[richard13]

The two that annoy me the most are "step foot on", the phrase is actually "set foot on". And "I could care less", the phrase is actually "I couldn't care less".

 

[decafjava]

The two that annoy me the most are "step foot on", the phrase is actually "set foot on". And "I could care less", the phrase is actually "I couldn't care less".

Oh yes, the second really is annoying.

 

[rm5]

The two that annoy me the most are "step foot on", the phrase is actually "set foot on". And "I could care less", the phrase is actually "I couldn't care less".

According to the dictionary (I just looked it up), either is acceptable—"I could care less" or "I couldn't care less." Although I always say it the "wrong" way.

I've never heard someone say "step foot on." THAT to me sounds very wrong.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Oh yes, the second really is annoying.

Agreed.

Very, very annoying.

According to the dictionary (I just looked it up), either is acceptable—"I could care less" or "I couldn't care less." Although I always say it the "wrong" way.

I've never heard someone say "step foot on." THAT to me sounds very wrong.

An American dictionary?

This Side of the Pond, I doubt that you will find that dictionaries have arrived at that conclusion.

I wince, grit my teeth, narrow my eyes, and sit (hard) on my rising annoyance, whenever I hear (or read) someone saying it the "wrong" way; it really irks me, not least because it sounds wrong and makes little sense.

 

[dotnet]

I’m trying not to be annoyed by the Oxford comma, but it’s really hard.

 

[DaveFromCampbelltown]

I’m trying not to be annoyed by the Oxford comma, but it’s really hard.

You could replace your annoyance with something significant, such as the mis'use of apostrophes'
Along with the verbification of noun's, you could add the gerundification of verbs.

The big problem is that English is not a single, pure language, like Latin or Esperanto. It is a creole, with bits (in rough chronological order) from --

• Old Celtic
• Latin vocabulary
• various Germanic languages
• various Norse languages
• French
• Arabic
• Latin grammar
• Hispanic languages, along with other Mediterranean languages

and its ongoing.

Note that bit about Latin grammar. In the 17th and 18th centuries language 'experts' in England decided to impose some concepts of Latin onto the English language. We are still recovering.

 

[decafjava]

You could replace your annoyance with something significant, such as the mis'use of apostrophes'
Along with the verbification of noun's, you could add the gerundification of verbs.

The big problem is that English is not a single, pure language, like Latin or Esperanto. It is a creole, with bits (in rough chronological order) from --

• Old Celtic
• Latin vocabulary
• various Germanic languages
• various Norse languages
• French
• Arabic
• Latin grammar
• Hispanic languages, along with other Mediterranean languages

and its ongoing.

Note that bit about Latin grammar. In the 17th and 18th centuries language 'experts' in England decided to impose some concepts of Latin onto the English language. We are still recovering.

All very true, thank Zeus or whomever that the Slavic languages didn't have any influence and especially that contact with Asia was limited...

 

[Gregg2]

No, I beg to differ.

"If we can" is usually used (especially by women, or people of colour who are in positions where to appear to be too assertive may lead to complications) as a polite way of giving an order.

By appearing to make a suggestion that can be interpreted by the person to whom this has been addressed as something with which they have a choice, the appearance is given that they have a choice in complying with what was in reality a polite order or instruction.

I hear it all the time from a particular individual, a man, who is supposed to be in charge of the organization. That doesn't fit your scenario, but I imagine that you're correct.

 

[Aves]

well, in my humble opinion I have to admit that the phrase that annoys me the most is...

Spoiler

... in my humble opinion.

 

[smoking monkey]

No, I beg to differ.

"If we can" is usually used (especially by women, or people of colour who are in positions where to appear to be too assertive may lead to complications) as a polite way of giving an order.

If you can, I'd like to know how you came to this conclusion.
Edit: The statement in the parenthesis.

 

[KaiFiMacFan]

The big problem is that English is not a single, pure language, like Latin or Esperanto. It is a creole, with bits (in rough chronological order) from --

Hmm…that's actually not really true.

English is not a creole. A creole is a language formed by contact between two languages, evolving out of a pidgin, which is a rudimentary language that serves as communication between peoples with two mutually unintelligible languages. A creole is effectively a more advanced pidgin that has been learned as a first language.

There's no such thing as a "pure language"; all languages borrow. Latin borrowed many words from Greek and Greek has many words from pre-Indo European "Aegean" languages, as well as some from Semitic languages. English has borrowed to a great degree, especially from Romance (via Norman French), and continues to do so (its ability to borrow may be one of the reasons why it is so successful as a "global language") but it is still fundamentally and structurally a Germanic language at its core, most closely related to Frisian and Dutch.

I know what you're saying, but linguistics is something I'm really interested in and studied quite a bit, so I wanted to share this. Definitely true about grammarians in the 18th century trying to impose Latin rules on English, a truly absurd endeavor.