Heard frequently in the entertainment news, “baby bump”. It sounds like a disease, “Oh my god, she’s covered in baby bumps! Don’t touch her!”.
I am so sick of hearing about stars potential baby bumps, hey! maybe she’s just getting fat! Get a new phrase or leave the damn knocked up stars alone.
I watched too much Apprentice* this season.
[ul]
[li]“I give 110 percent”[/li][li]“I’m the only one who stepped up on this task”[/li][li]"[Contestant name] doesn’t play well with others"[/li][/ul]
Colin Dexter has a minor character complain about the word actually – describing it as a “weasel word” and stating that it can be removed from any sentence without diminishing the intended meaning.
As for the OP, I could personally do without “violet eyes” from now on.
And similar to the OP, I am always bugged when an author learns a new word and decides to sprinkle it throughout their latest novel. Sure, motes is an interesting word, but after the fifth time it gets a bit awkward.
I recall when Paul Fussell, in his book Bad, decried the use of “momentarily” to mean “in a moment” when the word actually means "for a moment." So fucking what?! Words change their meanings over time – sometimes they even assume an opposite meaning from the original. Language is one of last bastions of pure democratic anarchy.
"How come. . . ? "
Why can’t you just say “Why. . . ?”
Earl, them’s fightin’ words. You fixin’ to mess with dialects in this thread? Home come? Used to, you’s real nice.
–slight hijack–
My boyfriend gets on me about something similar. Sometimes I’ll ask “Why for?” I think it came from when I learned sign language and you can say “why” or “for-for” and have essentially the same meaning (I always took the last one to be asking more of a purpose for something). Somehow since then (5 years ago) my brain has decided that it know “for-for” isn’t right, but “why for?” seems ok. :smack:
I know it’s probably a deliberately followed tradition by now, but I could go years without hearing Alton Brown say “flavor to the party” and/or “golden brown and delicious.” Once I realized they were his catchphrases, I couldn’t help but notice them EVERY DAMN TIME.
I was reading Irving’s Son of the Circus a few months back, and in one section of the book he refered to the characters by their age, again and again and again…
“…” the fourteen year old said.
“…” the thirty five year old replied.
I swear he used this construction at least 50 times in about 10 pages. I almost couldn’t get through the book. Which, of course, was otherwise excellent.
This doesn’t really address the OP, but I had to get it off my chest. 
News reports, especially on sporting events, that use the phrase “back-to-back”.
People - the word you want is: consecutive.
Anytime someone talks about “closure”
While I share your pain about unecessary phrases (like, you know…), I do think ‘luminol’ is better than ‘the chemical which detects blood’!
Generally I agree with him. However let’s try this sentence:
Colin Dexter has a minor character complaint about the word – describing it as a “weasel word” and stating that it can be removed from any sentence without diminishing the intended meaning.
This caused me to think of one that has passed cliche’ and is headed for the record books:
So and so, after weeks of not commenting on why he murdered his three toddlers, his wife, her mother, their dog and the neighbor’s cat, has decided to break his silence tonight at ten.
How often, instead of having some inane comment to make over some trivial occurrence, do celebrities break their silence?
Whether intended or not, it just makes me think they farted.
If we don’t already have one, now’s the time for a username of Broken Silence. We already have a Broken Wind, or else we did have a while back.
Jumped the shark.
I hate hate hate this phrase. Please stop using it. You know who you are.
genius-
If I have to hear one more actor blathering about their co-actors or their director in a film commentary or an interview about how they “are so genius” or that scene was “so genius” I’m going to slap them (yes, you Elijah Wood for LOTR).
When you label every little thing that amuses you or you like as “genius” it takes away from the power of the word.
I’ve developed a strong distate for another word used in these gushings about fellow actors or directors: generous. I don’t even know what it means, but it seems almost any actor who doesn’t piss on you when he or she is off-camera must be generous. Either that or they don’t walk away when you’re doing your “sides.”
Any clues here what generous is supposed to imply about a fellow entertainer?
I mentioned this in another thread recently, but it bears repeating:
Minus is not a verb.
You can make a sandwich without tomatoes, but you cannot “minus the tomatoes” from it.
That they’re fat.
I thought of another one - diva. It’s gotten so bad that I recently saw a job ad looking for an accounting diva. Seriously, I don’t think that word means what you think it means, and I don’t think you actually want a diva working in your accounting department. It’s not actually a phrase or word, but in a similar vein, I also hate everybody standing up in the audience every time a performer does anything - a spontaneous standing ovation used to be the ultimate compliment, for a job especially well done. It used to mean something.
I also don’t particularly like it when people preface something with, “To be honest with you…” So, what, every other thing you’ve said has been a bald-faced lie?
<drops #2 pencil in lap>
sputter But…hmph…cough…but…butbutbut…
harrumph sputter
<pulls nervously at bow tie>
Jeeziz, if you want to start in on sports announcers it will take over the thread. There are probably 40 things that make me cringe during an average baseball game. “He’s seeing the ball really well.” “Taking good cuts,” especially after a strikeout. “He’s pressing at the plate.” Because he is usually not trying all that hard.
My personal unfave is “issues.” “She has issues.” Magazines have issues, people have problems – and changing the name doesn’t minimze them.