PDA

View Full Version : Pet word hates



michael
13-04-2005, 07:07 AM
I just got off the phone from sorting out a bill. The woman on the phone said she cancelled the incorrect portion, "but you still need to physically pay" however many dollars.

A computer trainer I know says stuff like "to get this to work you have to physically select the icon you want".

Aargh. Hate it. I guess it'll become like "manual" over time, ie. just an acceptable antonym to "automatic" rather than implying physical activity / manual labour, but to me it just sounds so wrong.

Anyone else got pet word hates they need to rant about?

michael
13-04-2005, 07:10 AM
Oh yeah, just in case this takes too serious a turn, I'm very pro-language change generally, but I think it's human to be upset by certain shifts as they happen. I just needed to vent and would be keen to hear what bugs other people in this regard.

Helen
13-04-2005, 08:22 AM
The word dude. The Melbournian predilection for replacing the last syllable with a z. Tomoz. Whatevz. The spread of commercially motivated catch phrases - I 'heart', etc. Anything that is derived from sex in the city. I would be glad in my heart to see any or all of these tendencies quashed from lingual evolution.
Currently working on a project to re-introduce 'seed' words of Old English via art vending machines around Britain...kind of a parallel to the re-introduction of wild animals...

michael
14-04-2005, 12:23 AM
The Melbournian predilection for replacing the last syllable with a z. Tomoz. Whatevz.

I know Kiwis who do that. I don't think it's as localised as you might suspect...

Helen
14-04-2005, 12:45 AM
Oh no, the spread of tomoz...
A girl I know who is originally from NZ works for the Oxford Press, she is working on getting 'munted' added to the Oxford Dictionary, which would be good.

Omaar
14-04-2005, 01:11 AM
I just got off the phone from sorting out a bill. The woman on the phone said she cancelled the incorrect portion, "but you still need to physically pay" however many dollars.

A computer trainer I know says stuff like "to get this to work you have to physically select the icon you want".


Literally, as in '... you have to literally select the icon you want"

from dictionary.com .... from a natural tendency to use the word as a general intensive, as in They had literally no help from the government on the project, where no contrast with the figurative sense of the words is intended.

Helen- re: munted - wuld it be be munted or muntered?
i see people use both on the internet < / pedantry>

Also I can't really decide whether I love or hate that tag trend. Actually I just wanted to try it out. I don't think it's for me really. Maybe my timing was off.

Helen
14-04-2005, 01:26 AM
Not sure, maybe they would list both variations?

michael
14-04-2005, 01:33 AM
Omaaaaz!

I reckon "literally" will go the way of "actually" or "really", where we don't notice / cringe at it getting used the way you describe.

The thing I find funny about "literally" used as an intensifier is it then gets used directly before a figurative phrase. eg. I was so mad I literally bit his head off.

Teehee.


Oh well.

nomos
14-04-2005, 02:26 AM
I used to despise the expression "I'm feelin' such-and-such." Then I heard a hyper-hetero famous rapper say that he was "really feelin'" another hyper-hetero famous rapper and I then I decided I liked the idea of all these guys going around feelin' each other.

Agreed on "literally," as well. Especially when news reporters misuse it. Same goes for "terror(ism/ist)."
Peter, Fallujah is literally a beehive of terrorist activity.

I have a personal distaste for the use of "obligated" in place of "obliged."

Also, most things that end with "-izzle."

Helen
14-04-2005, 03:39 AM
I have a personal distaste for the use of "obligated" in place of "obliged."
I find the same with botanic and botanical.
<i>Literally</i> is like a funny sort of harness, when words and phrases start shifting semantically I see <i>literally</i> as an attempt to dry it out and keep a meaning close and simple.

Omaar
14-04-2005, 03:50 AM
oh, and using orientated where oriented would do just nicely.

was the -izzle thing originated by snoop?

this site is handy for words I'm not cool enough to understand:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/

re:-izzle, peepz say the following things:

"Language invented by Snoop Dog"

"Contrary to popular belief, Snoop Dogg was NOT the originator of the izzles, E-40 created it back in the mid-90's."

"Snoop says, the device first appeared publicly on the 1981 rap hit “Double Dutch Bus,” by Frankie Smith. "

has anyone heard this frankie smith tune? might have to investigate later. I just had a squiz at the lyrics and i don't see any izzles in there.

Anyone?

Melchior
14-04-2005, 08:40 AM
A girl I know who is originally from NZ works for the Oxford Press, she is working on getting 'munted' added to the Oxford Dictionary, which would be good.

The only thing I can think to say to that is 'Choice, bro'.

martin
14-04-2005, 02:33 PM
What sort of cunt uses the word 'proactive'?

Rambler
14-04-2005, 03:14 PM
"Burglarized"

Who the hell came up with that monster?

Another one is "out there", as in "any people out there who might be listening". No we're not, we've just switched off.

stelfox
14-04-2005, 03:26 PM
strawman - could happily headbutt the next person to say that either in front of me or on the internet

Melmoth
14-04-2005, 04:05 PM
Roll out. As in: this will be rolled out across all departments.

Fuck you, you robot.

also

Ordinary hard working families.

stelfox
14-04-2005, 04:13 PM
agreed. i just had a meeting at my increasingly intolerable day job where the phrase roll-out muct have been used about 50 times. i think all this corporate claptrap may well be why i'm in such a shitty mood of late.

Rambler
14-04-2005, 05:05 PM
Time for a spot of Buzzword Bingo (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BuzzwordBingo)?

Omaar
14-04-2005, 10:56 PM
What sort of cunt uses the word 'proactive'?

Yeah, I heard that word on the radio this morning on my way to work and was going to post on it here. Pretty irritating.

michael
15-04-2005, 01:38 AM
Man, corpspeak could have its own thread really... A work colleague here in the Victorian public service does play buzz word bingo when she goes to meetings.

"I hear what you're saying, but..." (where "but" is the important bit)

Still, that's just annoying because of how it's used, because of the connotations, not because it's irksome for being newspeak.

The ones that drive me nuts are the ones that are used in lieu of perfectly common phrases.

"proactive" = "active" ffs

"let's take a helicopter view on the issues" = "let's look at the big picture for a minute"

"moving forward" = "thinking about the future"

etc.

michael
15-04-2005, 01:42 AM
One that I certainly have no justification for hating as much as I do is "grow" when used in phrases like "grow the business" and "grow our assets".

It sounds like the business speak practice of verbing nouns. I think that's what bugs me. But of course "grow" already exists as a transitive verb, eg. you can grow a tree or crops. So I dunno...

michael
15-04-2005, 01:47 AM
A former speech writer in Australia, Don Watson, has done a couple of books about the death of public language here. I've got 'Death Sentence' at home, but haven't read it yet.

One thing I thought was interesting was that in an interview he was stressing how he wasn't anti language change, just anti a certain shift in what's expected in public speaking. His example of language change he liked was putting "as" after an adjective with nothing following it. The classic being "that's sweet as", but I think the example he used was someone commenting on a dog's coat being "soft as".

The main reason I thought it was interesting that he was lauding that is that I thought it was a Kiwi thing. I've heard Australians say "sweet as", but it's rare as to hear them use it with just any adjective.

Melchior
15-04-2005, 04:24 AM
A former speech writer in Australia, Don Watson, has done a couple of books about the death of public language here. I've got 'Death Sentence' at home, but haven't read it yet.

It's over rated and over stated.

Dan I.
15-04-2005, 05:35 AM
Yo I think maybe the people up in this thread who are annoyed by supposed errors involving obligated/obliged and botanic/botanical are themselves in error.
What annoys about the word “burglarized”? It’s useful.
I am with you all on the ugsome use of language in business though.
Personally, I find the favorite adjectives of language mavens irritating. They’re overly fond of words like “wretched”, “slovenly”, and (horrors!) “beastly”. They’re also prone to saying “horrors!” in parentheses.

Helen
15-04-2005, 07:28 AM
Yo I think maybe the people up in this thread who are annoyed by supposed errors involving obligated/obliged and botanic/botanical are themselves in error.

Depends on the context.

michael
15-04-2005, 08:00 AM
What annoys about the word “burglarized”? It’s useful.

Is it the same as "burgled"? If so, I guess that's what people are complaining about - a back-formation of a verb from a noun when another verb was already in common use.

I don't think I've heard or seen it used.

stelfox
15-04-2005, 11:24 AM
americans use burglarized instead of burgled. it's ridiculous. there's no reason for it at all.
we, out of the goodness of our imperialist heart, give them a perfectly good language and . . .

Melchior
15-04-2005, 12:22 PM
americans use burglarized instead of burgled. it's ridiculous. there's no reason for it at all.
we, out of the goodness of our imperialist heart, give them a perfectly good language and . . .

BASTARDS! They burglarized the colonies off you too.

Randy Watson
15-04-2005, 12:44 PM
"Last week as I walklarised down the street I sawarised a big pile of dogshit. Fortunately, I steplarised right over it"

For Fuck's sake.

Rambler
15-04-2005, 02:06 PM
What annoys about the word “burglarized”? It’s useful.

But there's a perfectly good verb already - "burgle". Why the extra syllable? It just sounds silly.* It's precisely the same as saying that painters "painterize". You're inventing a word for what those-people-we-call-burglars do, when, etymologically I'd have thought it was the other way around - burglars are those who burgle. It sounds artificial, awkward, and is completely unnecessary.

[And I know, "burglarize" is the accepted US form, but that still doesn't explain the invention of a longer, more awkward version of a word that is already in common usage.]

*This is not to say that "burgle" doesn't have its own comic sound...

Rambler
15-04-2005, 02:07 PM
Damn - about 5 posts behind on that one :o

Rambler
15-04-2005, 02:10 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-996761,00.html

mms
15-04-2005, 08:54 PM
'can i get '
where did that come from, and everyone uses it now, even right thinking people
"i don't know why are you asking me this question?"

may i have ?

this is the book to combat carrerist idiot language etc,http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140511997/qid=1113600255/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_10_1/202-6490766-5649447
over complication, legalese and middle management gob shiteness.

people asking you to action things etc
it's little micro additions to te bluff and the rat race.

HMGovt
16-04-2005, 01:46 AM
'can i get '

'Can I get a witness?'
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\
http://bbs.fuckedcompany.com/icons/hammertime.gif

michael
16-04-2005, 04:02 AM
'can i get '
where did that come from, and everyone uses it now, even right thinking people
"i don't know why are you asking me this question?"

may i have ?

I don't really get why this is so painful. "Can" has been synonymous with "may" for a dumb number of years in English. Can I go to the bathroom? Can I get some help with this? Can we talk about it later?

As for the "get" bit, asking to receive something makes more sense to me than asking for permission to possess something. I'm probably dissecting a phrase in a way more literal level than I should. :)

Actually you're not German are you? ;) I remember asking someone in Germany "Can I talk in English with you?" and him laughing and laughing. "I don't know, that all depends on your English", he said. dürfen vs. können if I remember rightly...

mms
16-04-2005, 10:32 AM
I don't really get why this is so painful. "Can" has been synonymous with "may" for a dumb number of years in English. Can I go to the bathroom? Can I get some help with this? Can we talk about it later?

As for the "get" bit, asking to receive something makes more sense to me than asking for permission to possess something. I'm probably dissecting a phrase in a way more literal level than I should. :)

Actually you're not German are you? ;) I remember asking someone in Germany "Can I talk in English with you?" and him laughing and laughing. "I don't know, that all depends on your English", he said. dürfen vs. können if I remember rightly...

can and get together, it's so ugly and so wrong, asking someone for something like that, it's the other person that is getting the thing afterall
can i have would be better, but may i have is gentle and best.

Gerard
21-04-2005, 02:34 PM
The phone rings, you answer. The voice at the other end says: " Is Mrs Gerard there at all?"

UH?

Is there a chance of her only being "slightly here" or "nearly completely here but her voice may be a tad faint"?


Also the incessant use of "in terms of". This is worst in the work place. For example:

" Now, in terms of lunch, would you like a sandwich? And what would you like in terms of something to drink?"

simon silverdollar
21-04-2005, 06:16 PM
'sexed up'.

at the time of the hutton inquiry, i wanted to punch the tv everytime some one said it.

Tweak Head
04-05-2005, 10:56 PM
Rambler - totally with you on "out there" when used by radio "personalities", because it completely destroys the one-to-one relationship between the radio and the listener and demonstrates a tragic lack of understanding of this relationship on the part of the presenter.

MMS - completetly agree with "can I get", in fact I was scrolling to the end of this thread to see if anyone had addeed it and if not was going to do so myself. It's not so much the grammar of the phrase itself (though I think it's ugly) but the use of it by non-Americans. As far as I can tell it is in common use in the US but has come to the UK via "Friends" and for this reason it makes me cringe when British people use it. I'm not against the use of Americanisms per se but this one really grates.

Corporate speak ... I work in an American company which, whilst it is a very good company IMHO, seems to be a haven for people that use this shameful way of speaking. Current bugbear is "reach out [to]". WTF is wrong with "ask"? Someone recently said "reach out and touch" to mean the same thing, which had me gagging and retching.

Can I also request the death penalty for people who say "what are you like?" when intending a mild or jocular scolding?

And finally, people who end a phone call by saying "bah" instead of "bye". Grow up. It's not big and it's not clever.

michael
05-05-2005, 03:31 PM
Ahhh... "can I get" has other implications!! Now I see. Grammatically the construction is consistent with a million other phrases that I'm sure wouldn't offend anyone, so I was a bit baffled as to why this particular combo rankled.

There was another figure of speech popularised by 'Friends' that was <i>so</i> not cool, but I can't think what it was. ;)

Canada J Soup
05-05-2005, 05:56 PM
Heh, I've had the burgle / burglarize discussion before. Apparently both terms came into use on opposite sides of the Atlantic at roughly the same time (late 1800s, about 500 years after the word Burgler itself). "Burgle" is a back formation, "burglarize" uses the -ize suffix. The more grammatically correct formation is the US one.

jenks
06-05-2005, 12:52 PM
The more grammatically correct formation is the US one.
what does this mean? grammatical correctness is a matter of opinion and fashion, no more, no less. any attempt to erect one version of english over another is always dangerous. there is not one grammar but many grammars. after all grammar is just the word to describe patterns and sysytems of language, the only 'bad' grammar is that which impedes meaning. all other grammar is correct, whether you like the usage is another matter. that ,as freeborn, would say is a social judgement, not a linguistic judgement.

Rambler
06-05-2005, 12:55 PM
I've just followed that up CJS, and I stand corrected. Still don't like the word though ;)

Melchior
06-05-2005, 01:34 PM
Ahhh... "can I get" has other implications!! Now I see. Grammatically the construction is consistent with a million other phrases that I'm sure wouldn't offend anyone, so I was a bit baffled as to why this particular combo rankled.

But "can I get" is also part of "can I get a witness", and is therefore cool!

Canada J Soup
06-05-2005, 06:36 PM
what does this mean? grammatical correctness is a matter of opinion and fashion, no more, no less. any attempt to erect one version of english over another is always dangerous.
I should probably have qualified the statement by saying that the more grammatically correct formation is apparently the US one, because I can't remember the specifics (and don't have an OED on hand to check). I believe it's something to do with 'Burglar' being derived from a loan word (maybe French or Greek?) and the verb formation following on from that language's rules. Not my area of expertise, just something I remember seeing thrashed out on the internet before.




Still don't like the word though
Yeah, me neither. Sounds archaic and unnecessarily fancy.

michael
07-05-2005, 03:26 AM
I did a degree in Linguistics. I wouldn't say it makes me an expert on "grammatical correctness" (nor an expert in much - insert condemnation of the lowly BA here) because as a social science it at least pretends to only describe what occurs, not say what should occur.

The argument put forward in Linguistics is that if grammar is to be useful, it must just be what the majority of native speakers within the same region consider acceptable use. Same with how dictionaries should be, really. Recording language as it is used.

There are many other ways to argue for grammatical correctness, eg. referring back to the source languages of words, the history of usage within the language in question, etc. but (as with music criticism) you're just arbitrarily setting up the criteria by which you assess what is valid and what is not. If someone else disagrees with the basic criteria then all your arguments fall down.

So here's some ways to dismantle the argument that "burglarize" is a more correct verb form than "burgle" because it follows the traditional rules for creating a verb from a noun in Greek. Not meaning to totally shit on whoever originally put forward the idea, of course. ;)

When is a loan word no longer a loan word? We could argue for days on this alone. If it is a loan word, what are the benefits of prescribing the use of the grammatical rules of the language it comes from over the use of the rules of the language in which it is being used?

Assuming we do want to adopt the grammatical rules of each language from which we borrow words, what does this mean for words that come into English via a whole bunch of different languages? A classic in Engish is where the verb form of a word came from Latin via French to English, while the noun form came directly from Latin. Would it not be more "correct" (if that's about consistency and clarity) to ditch one of these forms entirely and switch to both coming from either Latin or French?

And on and on it goes...

The other thing that becomes very clear in Linguistics is that people are naturally conservative about language change. Me starting this thread, knowing full well I have no way to justify (grammatically) anything I might rant about, is probably a good example of that. ;)

originaldrum
09-05-2005, 11:42 AM
"moving forward" - yeah hate that one!

AshRa
18-05-2005, 01:02 PM
'sexed up'.

at the time of the hutton inquiry, i wanted to punch the tv everytime some one said it.

I absolutely loved 'sexed up' at the time, purely because I can't think of anything less sexy than politicians talking about dossiers! :D

HMGovt
18-05-2005, 01:33 PM
'Hail-fellow-well-met' - an attribute Gordon Brown doesn't have a lot of, according to some political reporters. It's such an annoying little phrase, but it goes round and round in my head like one of those stupid spindly pond-skating insects.

It means 'heartily friendly and congenial' by the way.