Here’s another one:
“For goodness sakes”
waiting for the onslaught 
I always say “I could care less. . . .” or “I could give two shits if. . . .” But I’m very sarcastic.
People really use “every so often” to mean “very often”? I’ve never heard that usage! Is this a Yankee thing, maybe? Here in the South I’ve only heard “ever(y) so often” used to mean “occasionally.” Very interesting regionalism!
Daniel
I converted this to “at day’s end.” You’d be surprised how many people it throws.
I am a Yankee, and I’ve always heard the phrase “every so often” used to mean “occasionally,” or “once in a while.”
I hate this one too. If you could care less, you must care some.
Unless you’re a sarcastic mofo–which according to all linguists I’ve ever heard analyze this idiom, many people are.
Would you be upset if I said, “Listen, I could give two shits what Madonna thinks about world peace”? Would you think I was a big Madonna fan? or would you think I was a sarcastic mofo?
Daniel
I’d think you care for her twice as much (200% more?) as someone who says I couldn’t care less about what she thinks. And I’d also think you’re sarcastic, though I’m not sure of your definition of a mofo.
"Let’s see if we can’t…"
Why set out not to achieve your aim?
Ditto!
Anyways
It’s jibe, not jive. “That doesn’t jibe with what I heard…”
irregardless.
A very dear friend of mine used to use this word all the damn time. Even when I told him it was regardless, not irregardless, he still used it.
One of my most fondly remembered triumphs: I got into a raging argument with my brother (wo likes to argue just to piss me off) over the use of this word. We got back to his apt, pulled out the 1956 Websters dictionary I had bought for him at a rummage sale and there, on the first page of usage notes, was a note explicit outlining the hideousness of “irregardless”. Hah!
I’ve never heard “ever so often”. I have heard “ever so”, usually in mocking pretension (“I say, it was ever so dreadful!”), but never paired with “often” or used all that seriously. If I heard it, I would understand it to mean “very frequently”.
“Every so often” is a common phrase, meaning “occurring with some degree of regularity but with long intervals between”. At least it is here–maybe it is a northern thing.
What annoys me is people who insist that a double negative must mean that the person supports the positive, when their meaning is quite clear both now and historically. This is English, not math. Similarly, people who try to make logical sense out of idioms can be a chore.
“Irregardless” can be particularly annoying. I had a teacher at university who would find at least one occasion in every class to fit it in. No amount of correction would stop her.
Not sure if this fits but my bugaboo is “forté” being used to mean “strong point.”
The word is “fort.” As in Fort Knox, Fort Pitt or Fort Duquesne. Why do you think they call them “forts?”
“Forté” means “loud,” you knob. The "e’’ on the end is silent. It’s a French word. Deal with it.
Here’s what Dictionary.com has to say about it: ** Usage Note**: The word forte, coming from French fort, should properly be pronounced with one syllable, like the English word fort.
My biggest language pet peeve is the misuse of the word literally. “That movie was so scary, I literally jumped out of my skin!” Really, right out of your skin, you say?
Lazy speech?
Uh-uh. Ending a gerund with an /n/ sound is not lazy at all. Phonologically, “ng” (I’ll note it with /N/ per the SAMPA standard) is no more difficult a sound than /n/. /N/, despite the way it’s spelled in English, is only a single sound, and it’s analogous to /n/ in the way that /k/ is analogous to /t/ - it’s articulated further back in the mouth. Pronouncing it /n/ is just no easier.
The origin is in the fact that back in olden times the gerund and the present participle verb forms had two separate endings in English. There was the gerund, ending in -ing and the present participle, which ended in -in. Modern English merged the two endings, but “dropping the Gs” in present participle forms is actually the older form. Dialects that regularly end participles with -in still use the -ing form for nouns derived from gerunds, like “wedding” or “building”. So it might be a stubborn resistance to change, but it’s not laziness.
It’s an interesting sociolinguistic fact (more or less) that in British English both the upper classes and the lower classes “drop the ‘g’”. Thus, three of the pursuits of the toffs, as pronounced by them, are huntin’, shootin’ and fishin’ (yes - they’d make pretty good rednecks - or liberals, come to that - in the States). The working class in for example South London (with which I am most familiar) would pronounce the latter two words similarly, while they would probably drop the ‘h’ from the first to give ‘untin’.
Uh, except that only a very few ultra-pedants actually pronounce it that way. This isn’t a word like “February” or “nuclear” where the supposedly-correct pronunciation actually has a significant number of adherents. Pronuncing “forte” like “fort” is something that people only do because someone along the line told them it was correct, and thus they decided to show off their erudition when subsequent opportunities arose.
Of course, since the general usage is so drastically tilted the other way, it’s sort of akin to insisting that people stop pronouncing “Mexico” with an “x” sound. After all, we don’t insist on pronouncing any other foreign words as they actually are pronounced in the language they came from. Why do people get hung up on this one?
that’ll depend on whether the phrase 'I couldn’t give two shits … ’ exists as the more common phrase.