Yet another "improper word usages that drive me nuts" thread

In My Humble Opinion
1

Last week was the 30th anniversary of Jonestown and there were several documentaries and “where are they now?*” specials on news networks. Several of these recreated the moments of the mass suicide and Port Kaituna runway attacks, and misused a word in such a way as to nutwardly drive me. (In fairness I’ve heard it misused in similar ways many times, but this was the most recent.)

Sentence one (paraphrase):
“In Jim Jones’s increasing paranoia he was only hastening the inevitable, for he believed that people plotting against him inside Jonestown would work with the United States to send soldiers to kill him and his followers…”

Sentence two (paraphrase):
[after the shootings at the Port Kaituna airstrip]
"He crawled into the bushes and hid there, trying to not to make a sound, paranoid and alone and thirsty and in need of medical attention.

Okay: From one of many online definitions, “Paranoia is a distrust of others that is not based on fact”. There are longer definitions, more technical definitions, but the jist is usually the same: paranoia is either a completely irrational fear of others, or perhaps it’s a rational fear but taken to irrational extremes [e.g. I have reason to be suspicious of the guy talking to himself across from me on the subway, but if I started screaming and calling for help when he hasn’t made a move in my direction, that would be paranoia]).

Sentence 1 above is correct usage: Jones was paranoid. People were plotting against him, but probably not to anywhere near the degree he supposed, and there was next to no likelihood soldiers were going to assail Jonestown.

Sentence 2 is incorrect: the guy hiding in the bushes at the airstrip is NOT being irrational to be terrified; the worst case scenario- that the guy with the gun will come into the bushes and shoot him in the head- that’s really really likely. Irrational would be to NOT be afraid of him, or to trust him if he says “come on out and I’ll take you for some hot cocoa and marshmallows”. Paranoid != terror that others are out to get you, but unjustified terror that others are out to get you.

If it were just those shows that used the term it wouldn’t (irrationally) irk me, but it’s irritating how often it’s applied incorrectly. Hitler in the bunker wasn’t necessarily paranoid: he was surrounded on all sides and people in his own party were plotting to kill him (Speer anyway); Herod the Great may have been paranoid about his wife and sons plotting against him, but it’s wrong to say he was paranoid about Jewish zealots wanting him dead or conspiring against him- they did and were. Mafia dons under surveillance who know there’s a mole- not paranoid; old woman who thinks the black couple who just moved in across the street are Idi Amin and Angela Davis and they’re going to kill her in her sleep- paranoid.

Sorry for the excessive length. This one will be shorter:
Heard constantly on TV and in movies:

“You and I are meant to be together.”

“Him and me are like brothers.”

“Why don’t you and she come with us to dinner? You can double date with Joan and I.”

WRRRRONNNGGGG!!! So simple, why can’t they get these right?
What are some of your turn-offs along these lines?

Composte, most of them.

2

What’s wrong with this one? :confused:

3

Not exactly what you mean, but several times over the last few months I have heard a professional news correspondent use the word “analization” in place of “analysis.”

4

Blatant vs. flagrant.

I’ve all but given up on that one. Still drives me nuts though.

5

Less vs Fewer.
Begs the question (does not mean ‘triggers the question’)
Sour grapes (does not mean ‘bad loser’)
Quantum leap (quantum means smallest possible, not large)
No love was lost between them (this means they love each other a lot, not not at all)

6

I saw this one in the Washington Post today; it feels wrong to me, but it may be technically allowable – what do you think?

“…given the recent economic conditions, the number of animals needing homes has exacerbated.”

Exacerbate (to make something worse) takes an object, doesn’t it? It’s a transitive verb.

Also, and in a somewhat separate sense, it’s a comparative term (in the sense that to exacerbate something implies comparison to its pre-exacerbated state) but I don’t think it’s a term of number.

7

I have a coworker who confuses the expressions “cut the mustard” and “pass muster,” resulting in “pass mustard.” It probably doesn’t help that there are many instances where one could use either expression. I am on the brink of insanity over this.

8

I’ll second this question.

And I may as well be the first in this thread to bring up “literally” once again. We were just watching a commercial tonight where they were selling a product to keep drafts from coming through your door, and the narrator’s comment was something to the effect that if you don’t have their product, that draft is literally blowing money out the door. :smack:

9

[deleted]

10

Yeah, “I literally died laughing.”

11

I’m pretty sure the meaning “they don’t like each other at all” has been standard since this phrase was invented - little though it really makes sense.

My pick: “enormity” (does not mean “enormousness”)

12

I agree that it’s kind of ridiculous, but I always sort of gave them the benefit of the doubt that this was meant to be some kind of hyperhyperbole, along the lines of “I seriously died laughing” or “I really died laughing.” You are taking a hyperbole “died laughing” or similar turn of phrase, like, “money blowing out the window” and you add “literally” to it for emphasis. Of course, we know the money isn’t actually blowing out the window and you didn’t in all truth die from laughter. We also happen know that you don’t *really *want to eat an entire horse, drink the ocean, or play Duke Nukem until the day you die. Merriam-Webster seems to be on my side on this one.

Language is not perfect and it is certainly not static. If the unwashed masses all decide that bananas should now be called cucumbers and cucumbers should now be called monkey penises, then, well, them’s the shakes.

Also, I don’t see what is wrong with “You and I are meant to be together.”

To respond more directly to the OP, I’ve never been terribly fond of “anyways” used instead of “anyway.”

I could complain about “irony,” but that’s a long-lost battle. “The modern concept of irony is multifaceted and inclusive”

13

But Quantum Leap means

which isn’t a million light years away from the everyday use

14

Oh boy! You are all wrong. Quantum Leap is a now canceled TV drama from the late 80s/early 90s starring Scott Bakula.

15

It does really; the fox in Aesop’s fable from which the expression is derived, justifies his inability in getting the grapes (why a fox would be hankering for grapes I don’t know) by saying that they are sour anyway. He pretends he didn’t want them all along - sore loser.

As for the Quantum Leap thing - that’s always annoyed me a bit - but I suppose that the leap is ‘fundamental’, even if it is very very tiny in distance.

16

Penultimate does not mean “super ultimate”. Irritates me every time. Especially since it’s a very good, useful word in its own right that you can’t use because people will misunderstand.

Using adjectives when you should use adverbs. I really train my students on this.

I was once at an English teacher meeting when a young teacher in the back raised her hand to ask a question and used the word “irregardless”. You’ve never seen so many disapproving head-whips in your life as we all reflexively looked back to see who it was. She understood what she had done and had a look on her face like she’d farted in church, and she apologized profusely. It ended up being a moment of union for us all.

17

What’s wrong with using “figuratively”? “Literally” means something else.

18

I had a supervisor (at a newspaper!) who always ended announcements with something like “and if you have any questions, you can come see John or myself.” So we would come into her office and say, “Yourself said we could ask yourself if we had any questions, and I have a question.”

She never. got. it.

19

I’m sure someone is going to come in here and tell me that this is actually OK, and that people have been saying it this way since the time of Chaucer, but it still annoys me: “Bob is suppose to fax the TPS memo.” Supposed, people. It’s one of those past participle thingies. If you suppose that I am doing something, then I am the one who is supposed to be doing it.

By the way, the word “suppose” stops looking like a real word after you type it about three times.

Oh, and my new boss likes to preface a new topic of conversation with “In with regards to…” So, “In with regards to the TPS memos, we need to make sure we’re faxing the cover sheets.” I like my boss, but that just really distracts me.

20

The problem with literal is that to give the benefit of the doubt, you have to assume they mean exactly the opposite of what they said. Nobody would think someone actually died laughing, wanted to eat an entire horse, or drank the ocean, because they’re well established figures of speech. That is, we know people are speaking figuratively. When you say “I was so hungry I literally ate a horse” the use of literally should be there to communicate that you are not speaking figuratively. It means you actually ate a horse. To interpret it otherwise goes way beyond giving the benefit of the doubt, it requires you to assume that when people mean literally they mean not-at-all-literally.

Of course, using literally as an intensifier is literally well established usage and only rarely results in genuine confusion. But can’t we agree it’s beyond ridiculous, and is literally the exact opposite of the real meaning of the word?