What over-used, or wrongly used words and phrases annoy you the most

[rightwinger]

I hate it when people always talk in the form of a question? I went to the store today? And I bought some candy? Now THAT is annoying. Or when someone sounds like they need to clear their throat. Clear your throat for goodness sake!

Valley Girl speak

 

[rightwinger]

I hate when people say Dotard

 

[Eloy]

When I was about sixteen, a bunch of friends went to the mountains for a day-long picnic. There was a cute girl who used the word ‘wonderful’ to describe every damned thing.

I liked the girl, but couldn’t stand listening to her — so I spent much of the day trying avoid her. Lol...

Maybe that’s how we begin to learn a bit about the power of words.

I think I saw that movie. There was an inbred family there, right? Or maybe a book that brought the dead back to life???
... I can't remember.

 

[numan]

Oh, I just LOATHE

people saying things like "between you and I" or "She came with Karen and I." · ·

Prepositions always, Always, ALWAYS take as their objects nouns and pronouns in the objective case!!!!
You wouldn't say, "He hit I," or "He went with she." Then why the hell would you say, "He went with her and I"? · ·

It must be "between you and me" -- "He went with her" -- "He went with her and me, me, ME" !!!!

And what is one to say of such monstrosities as "Karen invited Sheila and I."
"Karen invited I" ?? NO, NO, NO -- a thousand times NO !!!!!

That is equally barbarous and inarticulate as saying, "Me Tarzan, him hunter" !!!!!
.

 

[ChrisL]

Let me be clear, uh . . . .

That's as bad as ......'um'.

I used to tell my friends, "Watch it, you have a two 'um' limit".

Good thing you don't know any stutterers.

 

[rightwinger]

Oh, I just LOATHE

people saying things like "between you and I" or "She came with Karen and I." · ·

Prepositions always, Always, ALWAYS take as their objects nouns and pronouns in the objective case!!!!
You wouldn't say, "He hit I," or "He went with she." Then why the hell would you say, "He went with her and I"? · ·

It must be "between you and me" -- "He went with her" -- "He went with her and me, me, ME" !!!!

And what is one to say of such monstrosities as "Karen invited Sheila and I."
"Karen invited I" ?? NO, NO, NO -- a thousand times NO !!!!!

That is equally barbarous and inarticulate as saying, "Me Tarzan, him hunter" !!!!!
.

I hate Grammar police

 

[OldLady]

• "Leverage" used as a verb
• "Impact" used as a verb
• Anything in the passive voice when the activity performed isn't the focus of the discussion.
• "Between" used with regard to more than two items, people, actions, etc.
• "Whether or not" -- "whether" already include the "or not"
• "[noun] of a _______ nature" -- "______ [noun]" will do, TYVM
• Only -- The word is fine. The writer's placement of it is what's often problematic.
• "Like" used for anything other than adjectival comparison
• "Like I/s/he said" -- "As I said," like used for anything but comparison.
• "Fulsome" used without enough supplemental context so I can know what meaning of it one intends.
• "You" when one isn't addressing or speaking of me.
• "Used to" -- Can't stand "used to" in place of conjugating in the past or pluperfect tenses.
• In writing, any slang that's not in a standard dictionary.

• "Whether or not" -- "whether" already include the "or not"

Opposite of what I learned. I was told you HAVE TO use "or not" if you use whether.
But then there's the NYT, the writing style mavens:
When the clause is the subject of the sentence: Whether the car will be ready depends on the mechanic. (The clause is the subject of depends.) But when awhether clause modifies a verb, or not is needed: They will play tomorrow whether or not it rains. (The clause modifies play.)Mar 1, 2010
Whether (or Not)

I absolutely suck at identifying all but the simplest parts of speech, so I use what sounds right.
But it is not ALWAYS right to leave out "or not."

 

[Billo_Really]

Good thing you don't know any stutterers.

Roger Daltry singing "My Generation", is about all the stuttering I can handle.

 

[monkrules]

I absolutely suck at identifying all but the simplest parts of speech, so I use what sounds right.
But it is not ALWAYS right to leave out "or not."

Most Americans seem to have problems with correct word usage, or understanding (or remembering) grammatical rules. Just think how bewildering it must be for immigrants for whom English is a second language.

Making it worse are the many myths that are passed along by well-meaning teachers and other ‘experts.’ For instance, there is no 'rule' against beginning a sentence with a conjunction, or splitting an infinitive, or ending a sentence with a preposition. Yet many people go through life creating painful to read sentences just so they can comply with nonexistent rules they were taught as children.

There’s a small book by Patricia T. O’Connor that’s fun to read and make it easier to remember and understand some of the many rules (and myths) of English Grammar.

mentalfloss.com/article/18565/debunking-grammar-myths

 

[ChrisL]

Oh, I just LOATHE

people saying things like "between you and I" or "She came with Karen and I." · ·

Prepositions always, Always, ALWAYS take as their objects nouns and pronouns in the objective case!!!!
You wouldn't say, "He hit I," or "He went with she." Then why the hell would you say, "He went with her and I"? · ·

It must be "between you and me" -- "He went with her" -- "He went with her and me, me, ME" !!!!

And what is one to say of such monstrosities as "Karen invited Sheila and I."
"Karen invited I" ?? NO, NO, NO -- a thousand times NO !!!!!

That is equally barbarous and inarticulate as saying, "Me Tarzan, him hunter" !!!!!
.

I hate Grammar police

And people who say LOATHE.

 

[Peach]

"issues", over used in this decade.

 

[usmbguest5318]

• "Leverage" used as a verb
• "Impact" used as a verb
• Anything in the passive voice when the activity performed isn't the focus of the discussion.
• "Between" used with regard to more than two items, people, actions, etc.
• "Whether or not" -- "whether" already include the "or not"
• "[noun] of a _______ nature" -- "______ [noun]" will do, TYVM
• Only -- The word is fine. The writer's placement of it is what's often problematic.
• "Like" used for anything other than adjectival comparison
• "Like I/s/he said" -- "As I said," like used for anything but comparison.
• "Fulsome" used without enough supplemental context so I can know what meaning of it one intends.
• "You" when one isn't addressing or speaking of me.
• "Used to" -- Can't stand "used to" in place of conjugating in the past or pluperfect tenses.
• In writing, any slang that's not in a standard dictionary.

• "Whether or not" -- "whether" already include the "or not"

Opposite of what I learned. I was told you HAVE TO use "or not" if you use whether.
But then there's the NYT, the writing style mavens:
When the clause is the subject of the sentence: Whether the car will be ready depends on the mechanic. (The clause is the subject of depends.) But when awhether clause modifies a verb, or not is needed: They will play tomorrow whether or not it rains. (The clause modifies play.)Mar 1, 2010
Whether (or Not)

I absolutely suck at identifying all but the simplest parts of speech, so I use what sounds right.
But it is not ALWAYS right to leave out "or not."

it is not ALWAYS right to leave out "or not."

I agree. I tend to use "regardless of whether..." instead of "whether or not."

 

[usmbguest5318]

Objective case pronouns incorrectly used in place of nominative case ones, and vice versa. Perhaps the most common examples of this that I hear involve "I" and "me."

• The driver took Mark and I to the hospital. -- Were I to hear that, I'd know what the speaker means, and I'd cringe just a little hearing them say it.

Using subjunctive mood verb conjugations when the speaker/writer is not indicating the existence of uncertainty or doubt.

• Grating to hear --> "We be late to the party."
• Not grating to hear --> "Hurry, lest we be late to the party."

I use what sounds right.

I think everyone does that. As goes any given construction or usage, some of us have ears that are tuned to what is right and some of us do not. I have no idea how or why that comes to be; however, I know that it is.

 

[monkrules]

I use what sounds right.

I think everyone does that. As goes any given construction or usage, some of us have ears that are tuned to what is right and some of us do not. I have no idea how or why that comes to be; however, I know that it is.

Xelor, what do you think of the word: irregardless?

From what I've read, there is no rule that says it can't be used, but it is usually thought of as being non-standard and stated as such in dictionaries.

I look at it a bit differently. It just sounds horrible to me; twisted and mangled. And the sound of words it extremely important if one wants to write well. I might feel so strongly about it because I'm a musician. When I hear the word used it just grinds on my last nerve.

I read, recently, that it's a double-negative (I think that's what was written, since it already has 'less' at the end of the word, the 'ir' at the beginning is redundant. Hope I've written this question clearly. Lol...

 

[usmbguest5318]

Xelor, what do you think of the word: irregardless?

From what I've read, there is no rule that says it can't be used, but it is usually thought of as being non-standard and stated as such in dictionaries.

I look at it a bit differently. It just sounds horrible to me; twisted and mangled. And the sound of words it extremely important if one wants to write well. I probably feel strongly about that because I'm a musician. When I hear the word used it just grinds on my last nerve.

But I did read, recently, that it is a double-negative (I think that's what they called it. Since it already has 'less' at the end of the word, the 'ir' at the beginning is redundant. Hope I've written this question clearly. Lol...

Xelor, what do you think of the word: irregardless?

"Irregardless" is a one-word double-negative.

 

[OldLady]

I absolutely suck at identifying all but the simplest parts of speech, so I use what sounds right.
But it is not ALWAYS right to leave out "or not."

Most Americans seem to have problems with correct word usage, or understanding (or remembering) grammatical rules. Just think how bewildering it must be for immigrants for whom English is a second language.

Making it worse are the many myths that are passed along by well-meaning teachers and other ‘experts.’ For instance, there is no 'rule' against beginning a sentence with a conjunction, or splitting an infinitive, or ending a sentence with a preposition. Yet many people go through life creating painful to read sentences just so they can comply with nonexistent rules they were taught as children.

There’s a small book by Patricia T. O’Connor that’s fun to read and make it easier to remember and understand some of the many rules (and myths) of English Grammar.

mentalfloss.com/article/18565/debunking-grammar-myths

English teachers have known for decades that teaching parts of speech and diagramming sentences does nothing to improve a student's writing. It does help them understand the explanations from grammar books on where to use a comma, etc. However, reading a lot of good writing and doing a lot of writing about a lot of different things with some targeted guidance is how writing becomes better. It takes a lot of practice. The only thing parts of speech help with is when I have to try to help clean up mechanics. Try explaining why a fragment is a fragment if the student can't pick out a subject and a verb. (That's why a lot of grade school teachers made up the rule that you cannot start a sentence with a conjunction--it's easier than explaining when it can be okay).

I refer students to Grammar Girl on the web for "quick and dirty" explanations on certain writing issues. She doesn't cover everything, but it's funny and clear.

P.S. When I did my student teaching, I had to teach a unit on diagramming sentences, and I WAS able to understand it well enough then, in my late 30's, to teach it and pretty much understand it. I've now forgotten it all again because I never used it afterward. But when I was in high school, when Warriners Grammar came out of the cupboard, I knew I was in for six or eight weeks of total puzzlement. Teachers didn't really care because I was a very good writer. I hadn't learned it through a grammar book; I learned it from reading good writing. So anyway, my brain apparently matured enough to grasp those concepts as I got older. Or something.

 

[Peach]

"Presser". Also, endless LMAO acronyms. KWIM?

 

[monkrules]

I absolutely suck at identifying all but the simplest parts of speech, so I use what sounds right.
But it is not ALWAYS right to leave out "or not."

Most Americans seem to have problems with correct word usage, or understanding (or remembering) grammatical rules. Just think how bewildering it must be for immigrants for whom English is a second language.

Making it worse are the many myths that are passed along by well-meaning teachers and other ‘experts.’ For instance, there is no 'rule' against beginning a sentence with a conjunction, or splitting an infinitive, or ending a sentence with a preposition. Yet many people go through life creating painful to read sentences just so they can comply with nonexistent rules they were taught as children.

There’s a small book by Patricia T. O’Connor that’s fun to read and make it easier to remember and understand some of the many rules (and myths) of English Grammar.

mentalfloss.com/article/18565/debunking-grammar-myths

English teachers have known for decades that teaching parts of speech and diagramming sentences does nothing to improve a student's writing. It does help them understand the explanations from grammar books on where to use a comma, etc. However, reading a lot of good writing and doing a lot of writing about a lot of different things with some targeted guidance is how writing becomes better. It takes a lot of practice. The only thing parts of speech help with is when I have to try to help clean up mechanics. Try explaining why a fragment is a fragment if the student can't pick out a subject and a verb. (That's why a lot of grade school teachers made up the rule that you cannot start a sentence with a conjunction--it's easier than explaining when it can be okay).

I refer students to Grammar Girl on the web for "quick and dirty" explanations on certain writing issues. She doesn't cover everything, but it's funny and clear.

P.S. When I did my student teaching, I had to teach a unit on diagramming sentences, and I WAS able to understand it well enough then, in my late 30's, to teach it and pretty much understand it. I've now forgotten it all again because I never used it afterward. But when I was in high school, when Warriners Grammar came out of the cupboard, I knew I was in for six or eight weeks of total puzzlement. Teachers didn't really care because I was a very good writer. I hadn't learned it through a grammar book; I learned it from reading good writing. So anyway, my brain apparently matured enough to grasp those concepts as I got older. Or something.

OldLady, I’m getting worried, I always find myself agreeing with you.

I’ve had a life-long struggle with grammar. Throughout my school years I hated everything about it. Much later, I began to enjoy studying grammar but I still find it impossible to remember a lot of the technicalities — but, at least, I’m finally comfortable with the basics.

When I was in fifth grade my ‘Home-room’ was the school library. How cool is that? We had a great librarian/teacher and, of course she focused our attention on great books. The tall shelves surrounded us, and lots of books were within arm’s reach. That was the best of all my school years.

And, you’re absolutely right when you say that reading the work of great writers, along with regular writing sessions of our own, will do the most to improve one’s writing.

There is rhythm and music in great writing. The enjoyment comes as much from the hearing as from the reading. I’ve come across passages so beautiful that I’ve read them many times over just to ‘hear’ the beauty — the magic in the way the thoughts were conveyed. Once you’ve heard the music you are always hoping to find it again, in another piece of fine writing.

I guess that love of words and phrases, and a curiosity about how we react to them, is why I’ve enjoyed reading the responses to this thread.

 

[numan]

'
Consider LAY and LIE:

Lay (lay, laid, laid) is transitive (takes a direct object) : "He lays the book on the table" : "Yesterday, he laid the book on the table" : "He has laid the book on the table."

Lie (lie, lay, lain) is intransitive (does not take a direct object) : "He lies there all day" : "Yesterday, he lay there all day" : "He has lain there all day."



It is easy to distinguish between "who" and "whom" if you can re-arrange the sentence with a personal pronoun and see if it take subject or object form.

"That is the man whom I saw." --- "I saw him."
"That is the man who gave me the book." --- "He gave me the book."

The only real problem is if there is a parenthetical expression which is unnecessary to the sense of the sentence :

"Whoever they think came to the meeting, never bought a ticket."
Take out the parenthetical phrase "they think" and you have "Whoever came..." --- "He came..."

Quite different from : "Whomever they saw, they greeted." --- "They saw him." No parenthetical phrase.

Even Shakespeare erred on this one :
"Young Ferdinand, whom they suppose is drown'd..."

"who is drown'd..." --- "He is drown'd..."

We may spare the Bard our severest censure by noting that this is preceded by "while I visit young Ferdinand..."
Ferdinand, being a direct object might be expected to be followed by the objective "whom" --- "...whom you know."
But, of course, in the Shakespeare example, who must be the subject of the clause "who is drown'd."

So, even Slick Willy sometimes nods !! · ·
.

 

[numan]

'
Some days ago, a poster on another site (about whom a merciful veil of obscurity shall be thrown) wrote "apparati" as the plural of "apparatus."

After I had recovered from my faint, and restored myself with a dose of smelling salts, I thought that I was obliged to correct such a frightful floater, but it slipped my mind, no doubt still affected by shock.

"Apparatus" is NOT a 2nd declension Latin noun like "amicus", whose nominative plural is, of course, "amici".

"Apparatus" is a 4th declension noun, whose plural differs from the singular only by a lengthening of the final vowel : this apparatus, these apparatûs.

Until Utopia is achieved, or the Garden of Eden is restored, I suppose it is too much for which to hope, that Americans might write a macron over the final "-u-", or at least leave the word unchanged, when they intend the plural, but at least they might practice the barbarism of putting "-es" at the end when they intend the plural. It is ugly, and treason to the Latin language, to write "apparatuses", but it is better than the ultimate horror of using a 2nd declension ending on a 4th declension noun!!

For those who weep and wail in the outer darkness beyond the sunny climate of Latinity, I will mention that the following nouns, commonly used in English, are also 4th declension, and form their plurals after the fashion of "apparatûs" :

hiatûs, sinûs, impetûs, statûs, censûs, nexûs, plexûs, coitûs, Jesûs, fetûs, prospectûs, conspectûs, afflatûs, meatûs, lusûs naturae, lapsûs linguae, saltûs, and senatûs.


A little learning is a dang'rous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There, shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
---Alexander Pope
.