I'm so old school that I still have a soft spot for adverbs.
Irrespective of specific context, (which clearly is relevant in the post itself), that phrase alone sets my teeth on edge.
Last edited:
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
Irrespective of specific context, (which clearly is relevant in the post itself), that phrase alone sets my teeth on edge.
Evolution is a fact.
The Mechanism of Evolution by Natural Selection is a Theory.
However, I think my current favourite hate is the verbing of words, especially in sporting matters, i.e, medalling, versing and the like.
Although I do have a soft spot for embiggen.
The Mechanism of Evolution by Natural Selection is a Theory.
However, I think my current favourite hate is the verbing of words, especially in sporting matters, i.e, medalling, versing and the like.
Although I do have a soft spot for embiggen.
Oh, yes, the verbing of nouns; yes, agreed, this is (yet) another of my pet peeves.
Clickbait and/or demanding.
You can always tell a Swede (me) but you can't tell him much (also me). I RESENT being told that I MUST see or watch 'X'. Or that it is an absolutely 'must see' or 'must watch'.
You (whoever that is) do NOT tell ME what to do. I will determine that.
In the US, this is a personal question, asked only by friends or family or asked of those in obvious distress. As customer service is not family, friends or anyone you have a personal tie to, it would thus be interpreted by Americans as too forward.
Customer service could ask "Are you good, or is everything good, or all good?" But not "Are you okay?"
Borderline: "How are you doing, are you doing okay?"
I have no doubt whatsoever believing that.
In truth, it is rarely something you heard from older staff, this vice was (is) only found among the young, and the apathetic indifferent young, at that.
I believe it's actually correct. This is the definition I have in mind:
In non-scientific contexts, normally "theory" is used when it's a possible explanation for a recurring or ongoing situation (though "guess" can also be used).
And normally only "guess" is used when it's a one-time situation:
"Theory" used in that situation would sound comically serious and therefore sarcastic. And "hypothesis" in either of the above examples would, again, sound pretentious imo, or at best awkward. I really don't think it has to do with people being too lazy to use 3-syllable words (in that case, they'd always use "guess" instead of theory, since it has fewer syllables 😉)
EDIT: Not sure I understand your "laughing" reaction to my post here. What's funny?
Disagreed. See above. I'm not saying you have to like it, of course, but it's not "wrong".
Last edited:
Oh that really gets me. I was at a friends house years ago and their new dog insisted on being in the bathroom with me. They said “he’s not bothering you”
No, no, the dog was very much bothering me.
You (person who shall remain anonymous) do NOT tell ME how I should feel. I will determine that.
No, it's wrong. Just because it's in the dictionary, doesn't make it right... just makes it "Common usage." Look up the word "Literally" in the dictionary, it shows "used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true: I was literally blown away by the response I got." So if you rely on dictionary definitions - there is literally no word for "Literally" any more. We're better than that.
"Right or wrong" simply doesn't enter into it here. Language is very flexible when it comes to word usage in non-technical contexts, and it also evolves. If a word is used in a certain way so commonly that it's actually in the dictionary, it is perfectly acceptable usage, whether you personally prefer it or not.
Now, it may be advisable to avoid certain words or usages in specific contexts. For example, you wouldn't want to be using slang terms in most job interviews, but that doesn't make slang terms "wrong" (blanket statement), just not deemed appropriate by society in certain contexts.
Using your example of the word "literally," (which I "literally" discussed in my OP 😉), the way it's being used will be very obvious based on the context, so there is no danger of the word losing its primary meaning. If you are confused whether someone was actually physically "blown away" in your example sentence, then I don't know what to tell you. The context makes it patently obvious it's being used as hyperbole.
Last edited:
Something else which I find rather obnoxious, although not one particular word or phrase, is when adults (who should certainly know better) apparently think they're being trendy and current, likely trying to emulate teenagers (?) and don't bother with using proper spelling and grammar in their posts..... Is it really so hard to use capital letters to start out the first word of a sentence or to spell out a word properly? MR is a discussion forum, not a texting mechanism!
So if we put "legit" and "kiddos" in the dictionary, they become perfectly acceptable to you? Is that right?
"Perfectly acceptable" and "Wrong" are not antonyms... something can be both.
I was figuratively blown away by your comment.
"Literally" has ironically become ambiguous. It's literally, literally mind blowing (whatever that means now?)
Yes, of course. I said as much in my OP. And they are in the dictionary. "Acceptable" doesn't mean I like it. There are words that have been in the dictionary for hundreds of years that you might not particularly like (either the word itself or a particular usage of the word that's been around for ages), but that doesn't make them "wrong".
In the realm of language usage, they are indeed antonyms. I don't know how you could possibly substantiate any other viewpoint. All you're left with is "Well, it's wrong because I don't like it!" That doesn't cut it.
Now, if I try to tell you that "dawhges" is the correct spelling of "dogs" then you have a factual basis to call my spelling wrong. Or if I say "I likes that" is grammatically correct, you can factually call me wrong based on grammatical rules. But if I say, "I legit have 40 kiddos in my class and teach said kiddos math", you can't say my use of language there is wrong. It may be cringey as all get-out to you and me, but not wrong. Those are perfectly legitimate uses of those words.
That is simply untrue. As I said to the other poster, the context makes is very obvious how the term is being used, at least to anyone competent in the English language.
Last edited:
Yes, and as the arbiter of all things I will accept no other pronunciation.
Just remembered another: "haul", meaning what gifts people got for a birthday/holiday or bought from a certain place/store. It just sounds overly selfish/materialistic to me, like "Ohh, gimme gimme gimme!!!". E.g. YouTube videos entitled "My Christmas Haul" etc.
'Read that again.'
NO
'I don't know who needs to hear this.'
No one. No one needs to hear this.
NO
'I don't know who needs to hear this.'
No one. No one needs to hear this.
And another I remembered: "I love/like me some ____" (e.g. "I love me some waffles"). Just sounds stupid imo.
It's improper English (and to me borders on infantillism).
Which reminds me that I dislike the phrase "Can someone please link me…"
It should be something along the lines of "Does anyone have a link to…, or Can I get a link to…", etc.
I'm not linking you up, I'm providing a link to you/for you. I suppose people conflate it with "hook me up", which for whatever reason I've not had a real problem with but is still improper English.
It's not a phrase, but a gesture. College and NFL players signaling a first down when they make a play that gets a first down. Or defensieve players doing the incomplete gesture when a pass isn't caught. (even when they had nothing to do with it, like a dropped pass).
And they do it ALL the time, it's not just here and there. It just irritates me.
And they do it ALL the time, it's not just here and there. It just irritates me.
That reminds me: I was in a retail shop the other day.
Me: I'm looking for an X.
Her: Sorry, but I don't have any of them in stock.
That would be fine in an independent business if I was speaking to the shopkeeper. However, I was in an international chain, so referring to the shop as "I" just sounded weird to me.
Me: I'm looking for an X.
Her: Sorry, but I don't have any of them in stock.
That would be fine in an independent business if I was speaking to the shopkeeper. However, I was in an international chain, so referring to the shop as "I" just sounded weird to me.
I'm late to the party, but my pet peeves are likely to be unique to me.
I'm amused when the Mayor/Governor/President makes a pronouncement that "this (insert behavior) is unacceptable!" So, we're supposed to pretend it hasn't happened because it can't be accepted? Now, if they'd say that a continuation of this behavior is unacceptable, I'd be fine with that.
From basketball and (American) football broadcasters: I'm annoyed by the term "defensive possession". What is the defense in possession of? The offense has the ball!
Football again: Can the offense be penalized "half the distance to the goal"? The penalty moves them backwards. Their goal is the end zone they are facing. So I think the line behind them should be called the Safety Line, since if it is crossed, the other team gets 2 points. (over-simplified)
Basketball: Some shots are "short" and that's a fine way to describe them. But every shot that goes a little too far and bounces off the rim is not "too strong". What's wrong with "off-target"!
[Yes, I know that the sentence-ending punctuation is always supposed to go inside the quote mark. I always violate that when using quotes to emphasize a word (which I'm not supposed to do) because it just seems appropriate to me.]
I'm amused when the Mayor/Governor/President makes a pronouncement that "this (insert behavior) is unacceptable!" So, we're supposed to pretend it hasn't happened because it can't be accepted? Now, if they'd say that a continuation of this behavior is unacceptable, I'd be fine with that.
From basketball and (American) football broadcasters: I'm annoyed by the term "defensive possession". What is the defense in possession of? The offense has the ball!
Football again: Can the offense be penalized "half the distance to the goal"? The penalty moves them backwards. Their goal is the end zone they are facing. So I think the line behind them should be called the Safety Line, since if it is crossed, the other team gets 2 points. (over-simplified)
Basketball: Some shots are "short" and that's a fine way to describe them. But every shot that goes a little too far and bounces off the rim is not "too strong". What's wrong with "off-target"!
[Yes, I know that the sentence-ending punctuation is always supposed to go inside the quote mark. I always violate that when using quotes to emphasize a word (which I'm not supposed to do) because it just seems appropriate to me.]
Not sure I follow, and of course it's not just government officials that say this. Pretty much every authority figure says this (parents, employers, teachers, coaches, team leaders, etc.). It means they're condemning the behavior and saying, in effect, "this better stop, now!" which is precisely what you say you'd be fine with ("if they'd say that a continuation of this behavior is unacceptable"). It sounds like you're taking it to mean "We can't accept that this happened" as if they're in denial, but that's not the meaning of "acceptable" in this context.
I'll defer to you on the sports-related items, as I'm not big into sports, but there's actually an exception to the "always put ending punctuation before the ending quotation mark." When it's a question mark or exclamation mark, you place it outside the ending quotation mark unless it applies to the quotation. For example:
The quotation is not a question, therefore the question mark should not be included within the quotation marks.