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

[Mousse]

While "We will rock you" sounds great and confident, "We shall rock you" sounds "weak" like we want to rock you but we might not be able to.

We shall is never grammatical acceptable. It was not correct back when people heated their water in a kettle;🧐 it is not correct now in the age uncouth Colonials heat water in the microwave oven.🙃

The late Queen, Freddie, would roll in his grave if anyone sings, "We shall rock you."😮‍💨

 

[adrianlondon]

We shall is never grammatical acceptable. It was not correct back when people heated their water in a kettle;🧐 it is not correct now in the age uncouth Colonials heat water in the microwave oven.🙃

Germans *cook* their water in a kettle. I do sometimes wonder if that's approaching their culinary limits.
I kid. Just.

 

[KaiFiMacFan]

Will is definitely coming across as more "confident" than shall. "I will" gives an individual more "power" and therefore feels "more empowering".
While "We will rock you" sounds great and confident, "We shall rock you" sounds "weak" like we want to rock you but we might not be able to.

It’s like an old-timey British guy in a fistfight: “Sir, prepare for one devil of a thrashing! I shall cleave thee in twain!”

 

[avz]

The late Queen, Freddie, would roll in his grave if anyone sings, "We shall rock you."😮‍💨

Freddie would have probably said: "If you are going to sing our songs wrong at least take all your clothes off, the nasty ones!"

 

[usagora]

We shall is never grammatical acceptable.

Nor is that sentence 😉 Sorry, couldn't resist.

Anyway, I found this:

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

 

[KaiFiMacFan]

Yep. “We shall” is correct for simple future.

Here’s a question though: how do you feel about “may” vs. “might” in present tense statements of possibility? “I may go to the concert” or “I might go to the concert”? For me they are interchangeable.

 

[DaveFromCampbelltown]

I shall
Thou shalt
We will

 

[Nermal]

Here’s a question though: how do you feel about “may” vs. “might” in present tense statements of possibility? “I may go to the concert” or “I might go to the concert”? For me they are interchangeable.

I would always use "might" in that sentence.

Edit: The OED seems to indicate that traditionally it would have been "may", not "might". I didn't know that there used to be a rule, and only learned the two words contextually. I may () end up using "may" in the future!

Traditionalists insist that one should distinguish between may (present tense) and might (past tense) in expressing possibility: I may have some dessert if I'm still hungry; she might have known her killer. However, this distinction is rarely observed today, and may and might are generally acceptable in either case: she may have visited yesterday; I might go and have a cup of tea.

 

[rm5]

"Daily Driver" makes me cringe. "I've been daily driving an iPhone 14 Plus and got to say it's a really underrated device."

I'm sure you don't have a special phone you bring out only on weekends if it's sunny.

Don’t even get me started on that one lol…

Another one I can’t stand is “push the envelope.”

 

[SalisburySam]

Another one I can’t stand is “push the envelope.”

Why, that is totally legitimate. This started with aircraft in which the envelope is defined as a power, speed, attitude set of curves defining the designed safe flight limits. Pushing that envelope refers to getting near the any of the curve borders. Completely legitimate phrase. Today it may refer to other things though and more of a metaphor.

 

[usagora]

Why, that is totally legitimate. This started with aircraft in which the envelope is defined as a power, speed, attitude set of curves defining the designed safe flight limits. Pushing that envelope refers to getting near the any of the curve borders. Completely legitimate phrase. Today it may refer to other things though and more of a metaphor.

The vast majority of the words and phrases that we've shared that annoy us are totally legitimate. That's not the point. For reasons often hard to express, we find certain of these words or phrases to sound stupid, cringey, pretentious, etc. Or sometimes they are just overused.

 

[VulchR]

Yep. “We shall” is correct for simple future.

Here’s a question though: how do you feel about “may” vs. “might” in present tense statements of possibility? “I may go to the concert” or “I might go to the concert”? For me they are interchangeable.

Not the same for me - 'might' implies a non-zero probability and 'may' implies having some sort of permission to go, but I am no grammatician.

 

[rm5]

Why, that is totally legitimate. This started with aircraft in which the envelope is defined as a power, speed, attitude set of curves defining the designed safe flight limits. Pushing that envelope refers to getting near the any of the curve borders. Completely legitimate phrase. Today it may refer to other things though and more of a metaphor.

I should've specified—I'm talking about in a corporate setting.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I should've specified—I'm talking about in a corporate setting.

Very often, much corporate language is not only an insult to language, but is also an insult to logic, as well.

 

[usagora]

'may' implies having some sort of permission to go

That would normally be obvious by the context:

Permission
e.g. My parents said I may go to the concert.

Possibility
e.g. I may go to the concert if I can get tickets.

In the first sentence, permission is clearly implied. In that second sentence, permission is not implied just because of the use of the word "may." The context makes it clear it's conditional on the availability of tickets, not the permission of someone with authority over you.

 

[Nermal]

Very often, much corporate language is not only an insult to language, but is also an insult to logic, as well.

"Let's take this offline" is one that particularly annoys me. The "offline" in question is via something like Teams, just a smaller meeting with only the people who are directly involved.

My boss' boss often goes leaping for corporate language when she doesn't want to answer a question.

 

[Nermal]

Another one: A few years ago parts of the media changed from saying "hackers" to saying "actors". When I see a phrase like "bad actors intercepted the data" it makes me think of B-movie stars branching into hacking in an attempt to make a quick buck!

 

[KaiFiMacFan]

^There are so many annoying phrases from media headlines. "But at what cost?" is a good one. I don't want to get political, but this one is very much linked to certain agendas. "Good thing happens--BUT AT WHAT COST?!!" I find it very irritating and disingenuous.

 

[KaiFiMacFan]

Do you think it’s goated to say GOAT?

When it used to mean “greatest of all time”, that was one thing, but now it’s so watered down, it just means “good”.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Do you think it’s goated to say GOAT?

When it used to mean “greatest of all time”, that was one thing, but now it’s so watered down, it just means “good”.

Even as "greatest of all time", I (privately, always, but always) took issue with it.

To describe something in such terms is pure hyperbole.

Apart from the fact that any such judgment is, by definition, extremely subjective, (and not always, if ever, credible) there is another issue.

And that is this:

If you are arrogant enough, confident enough, ignorant enough, uninformed enough, to describe something as the "greatest of all time", how, then, do you (rise to the challenge) and describe the sort of tweak, adjustment, improvement that renders "the greatest of all time" even better?

 

[avz]

"Good thing happens--BUT AT WHAT COST?!!"

A certain event in September 2001 "helped" to offset the beginning of economic crises. But at what cost?!!

 

[rm5]

Even as "greatest of all time", I (privately, always, but always) took issue with it.

To describe something in such terms is pure hyperbole.

Apart from the fact that any such judgment is, by definition, extremely subjective, (and not always, if ever, credible) there is another issue.

And that is this:

If you are arrogant enough, confident enough, ignorant enough, uninformed enough, to describe something as the "greatest of all time", how, then, do you (rise to the challenge) and describe the sort of tweak, adjustment, improvement that renders "the greatest of all time" even better?

Depending on the context, in most cases, there are two issues with that (whatever thing is the "greatest of all time"):

1. There's something better
2. There's something wrong with it

And yes, it is subjective—something that can be great for one person could be terrible for another.

 

[Macky-Mac]

Don’t even get me started on that one lol…

Another one I can’t stand is “push the envelope.”

"outside the box" is in the same territory

 

[Scepticalscribe]

"outside the box" is in the same territory

Oh, yes.

Amen to that.

This is another of my private pet linguistic horrors.

 

[dotnet]

If you are arrogant enough, confident enough, ignorant enough, uninformed enough, to describe something as the "greatest of all time", how, then, do you (rise to the challenge) and describe the sort of tweak, adjustment, improvement that renders "the greatest of all time" even better?

Not sure, but laundry detergent ads have managed to that for almost a century 🙂