Most of my early evening texts are “Left late, but I’ll still make dinner. Pedaling fast!”
Yeah, it’s the laziness of it that annoys me, especially in print. It was brought to my mind by Al Franken’s “Giant of the Senate”, where he uses the phrase more than once. You wouldn’t catch Daniel Webster doing that.
all manner of
what have you
if you will
Building blocks of life
Fingers crossed!
It’s a nothing burger, meaningless sentiment expressed in place of genuine emotion. Do better!
Fingers crossed-
You’ll be cured of cancer
Get the promotion
Your depression lifts.
People say this shit and it’s aggravating.
That …
Yes, nothing burger? Add virtue signaling, and welp.
I get mildly rankled by “womp womp”, which is to represent two trombone notes of sadness. I always heard those ntoes as wahs (often 3 notes), not womps. This modern form just looks clumbsy.
Congratulations! You are one of the few to use “nauseating” correctly. Many people use “nauseous” to mean “feeling ill”. This is as irritating to me as
-
“infer” instead of “imply”;
-
“alternate” instead of “alternative”;
-
“hopefully” instead of “I hope that …”;
-
“oral” instead of “verbal” (as in: “The suspect made a verbal confession”).
I don’t miss “Let me just run this up the flag-pole” (instead of “What do you think about this?”) or “Let’s get our ducks in a row about this” (untranslatable). Fortunately, “singing from the same hymn sheet”, as a synonym for the latter, seems to have died a natural death.
I probably rather over-use “Well done, you!” and “Just saying”, both dishonourably mentioned. At least I’m calling myself out on these! (My bad – a phrase of which I remain also rather fond.)
What’s wrong with ‘verbal’ there? Merriam-Webster tells me one meaning of verbal is:
spoken rather than written
And Do better!
I consulted the Shorter OED (3rd ed.), and there is a bit of a spread of definitions. The early ones say things like “Dealing in or with words, esp. with mere words”. This was how I interpreted “verbal”. However (and this was news to me), definition #4 did say “Expressed or conveyed by speech instead of writing […]; oral”. So, fair point. Whether one uses “verbal” to denote “oral” or “using words” can obviously be a matter of preference. It isn’t a full-blown contronym or Janus word like “sanction”, but it can at least have varied meanings.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here:
An “oral confession” would be one made through speaking with one’s mouth.
A “written confession” would be one made through writing.
A “verbal confession” could be either, or both.
This distinction is commonly made in the law, which requires a certain degree of precision.
I suspect @Feurmann’s point is that “verbal” is commonly used as an exact synonym for “oral”, when, as you rightly say, it is not really that. And people who use “verbal” as if it was an exact synonym for “oral” rankle @Feurmann.
Exactly! Although it would have been clearer if I’d said " ‘verbal’ instead of ‘oral’ ". (My other points listed the term used first, followed by the “correct” one.) However, in my previous post I conceded Monty’s point that “oral” is one of the meanings listed for “verbal” in the OED and Merriam-Webster. A very palpable hit!
I get that spoken language has a lower threshold for exactness than written language, allowing a leave pass for redundancies like “work colleagues”, “exactly right” and so on. I get also that language does evolve and it is not worth fighting over usages such as
- “fortuitous”, used to mean “fortunately and by chance”;
- “reticent” for “reluctant”;
- “less” instead of “fewer”, used for things that can be counted.
Surprisingly, people don’t like being corrected, even (or especially) when they are in the wrong! So I never do this, except when asked to review someone’s written work. Strangely, no-one asks me again!
I’ll play. “Conservative” when used as a descriptor for reactionaries bugs the crap out of me. Especially when the reactionaries are radical.
your whole post effected me deeply
This.
The mainstream desperately needs to ditch the word “conservative” and substitute “radical reactionaries” where it fits. Which is probably 90% of the places “conservative” is now used.
Irritating as it may be to you, there is nothing wrong with using nauseous to mean “feeling ill.”
There is also nothing wrong with
or
If we’re doing misused words, I’ll add these. It’s fairly long, so I’ll hide them for those who aren’t interested (click the arrow to see more). While they don’t aggravate me, I’m sure that they grate on some people.
Misused Words
Irregardless:
Does anybody still use this? It’s right up there with for all intensive purposes as the poster child of poor word usage.
Still, there is the idea that it has one proper use as a conversation ender. In that function, it means I’ve made my decision. Stop talking.
Literally:
Not much can melt down a language debate like the misuse of literally. Can it mean and be understood to mean figuratively? Lots of people would say no.
But I say yes, literally can mean figuratively, and it often does. I literally died laughing!
Ironic:
Does ironic mean weird, funny, or coincidental? It’s often used as such, and I think that’s okay as long as you’re not analyzing an artistic work. Irony, on the other hand, has a more limited meaning.
Don’t you think?
Vagina:
Lots of people like to throw a fit when they see vagina used to refer to all of the lady bits. Technically, this is true. To see the actual vagina, you’ve gotta be up close and personal. But I think that people generally just use the word as a replacement for the more vulgar-sounding pussy, so such use is perfectly acceptable.
Convince/Persuade:
Convention tells us that you cannot convince someone else to do something. You can only persuade them. Similarly, convention has it that convince may only be followed by that or of, never by to. Persuade, however, may freely take a to.
Chicago wiffle-waffles a bit, saying that convince relates to beliefs or understandings, while persuade relates to courses of action and that persuaded to is traditionally considered better than convinced to. I see no linguistic grounds for the distinction, so I think they can be synonyms (as far as there are synonyms in the English language, anyway).
Comprised of:
Some say–and it’s a pet peeve for many of them–that the whole comprises the components. The album comprises twelve songs.
Others scoff–The album is comprised of twelve new songs is perfectly correct.
I think that either is fine and that Chicago is once again wrong in its claim that “The phrase comprised of, though increasingly common, is poor usage.”
Infer/Imply:
I think that they’re separate words with separate meanings, even though many people use them synonymously. They’ve been tangled up for centuries, but I believe that they’ve settled (at least for now) into their individual niches in current English.
Orientated:
I’ve encountered this word quite a bit lately, and my initial impression was that it was a corporate buzzword like going forward.
But no, turns out it’s just British.
Bring/Take:
Bring typically refers to something moving toward you, and take refers to something moving away from you. How strict is that, though? A child can bring home a book. They can take a book to school. But can they bring a book to school? Can you give a child a cold drink and tell them to Bring that to your mother?
I don’t think that there’s much distinction there, and what there is depends heavily on dialect.
On accident/By accident:
Covered above, but presented here for completeness. Prepositions are weird in English. On, in particular, has a lot of uses. I can be on top of things and put next year’s Christmas gifts on layaway or I can just buy them on credit (even while living on a fixed income).
In this case, there seems to be an age component, at least in the US. Those born before about 1980 primarily use by accident, those born after 2000-ish use on accident, and those born in between use both. There are also regional variations.
Celibacy/Chastity:
Any difference to you all? Some say that celibacy means that you aren’t married and chastity means that you don’t have sex. I think that’s splitting hairs.
Hung:
Convention holds that things are hung and people are hanged. I don’t see any good reason for the distinction, so I ignore it. Same for:
Less/Fewer:
The convention here is that fewer is used for things that are counted and less is used for things that are measured. So Bob has fewer apples than Pete but Pete has less time than Bob. The real distinction, I think, is idiomatic–whatever we’re used to hearing is what’s correct.
Unique:
Can a thing be the most unique or fairly unique? To me, if something is unique, it is one-of-a-kind (though that can refer to characteristics of the object, not necessarily to the object itself). Qualifiers aren’t especially useful. YMMV.
Whom:
Personally, I don’t use whom much. I think it’s archaic and overly hypercorrected, and as such, it has little utility in current English. Who works for most of my needs. Others disagree…
Pled/Pleaded:
Pled seems to be fading away in most contexts, replaced by pleaded. I’m good with it either way. Bob pled for his life or Bob pleaded for his life. Bob pled guilty or Bob pleaded guilty. Whatever.
Impact:
Impact is not a verb according to many. So It will impact our bottom line! is not proper usage. Those people are simply wrong–it’s been used as a verb since forever–but even Chicago sorta-kinda agrees with them: “Resist using this as a verb… impact used as a verb is widely considered a solecism (though it is gaining ground).”
Hopefully:
Does it mean I hope as in Hopefully, they’ll find us before we starve? Or is it limited to meaning full of hope as in The boy opened his Christmas presents hopefully?
Either is fine as far as I’m concerned, and I’ve found zero linguistic evidence for limiting its use.
May/Can:
Traditionally, can indicates the ability to do something, and may indicates permission to do something. But can has overtaken both senses in the past several decades, though may is still used on occasion.
Lay/Lie:
My advice is to do what I did–find a conjugation chart and print it out. Hang it on the wall for quick access.
Ensure/Insure/Assure:
Honestly, I’m still working out where I stand on these.
I like to think that we’re watching the end stages of a language change that differentiates the insure and ensure, but that’s a long game and the outcome is… well… unsure.
Assure, to me, still always means to give confidence.
In actual fact:
Generally regarded as redundant, and I agree. In fact or actually work better there.
Most of the time. But I also think that the phrase is the perfect counter when someone is presenting “alternative facts” as evidence.
Champ/Chomp:
Is it champ at the bit or chomp at the bit? I think that champ was the original, but its variation, chomp, is equally acceptable. Some disagree and believe that it’s always champ at the bit. And some disagree with them because they’ve always heard it as chomp.
Home/Hone:
Does a missile home in or does it hone in? The original was home in, much like a carrier pigeon would do. But I can see the attraction of hone in, in the sense that the target area becomes more and more precise (sharper, you might say).
Frankenstein:
As I’ve heard it put:
Familiarity with the story dictates that Frankenstein was not the monster.
Understanding of the story dictates that Frankenstein was, indeed, the monster.
Cast/Casted:
As in They cast(ed) their votes or A million votes were cast(ed). While nowhere near overtaking cast, casted has seen a surge of popularity in recent years. Personally, I’m again’ it.