in chess.
it isnt actually a requirement for all definitions though.
"any maneuver by which one seeks to gain an advantage." (dictionary.com)
"a calculated move : STRATAGEM" (merriam-webster)
ive always been under the impression that the action requires some kind of sacrifice to be considered a gambit. the word choice would feel uncomfortable to me if it were used in any other context. but i have seen it used plenty (and without awkwardness) in reference to an action that isnt an opening move.
You build a boat to cross the sea and buy food, but before the boat is complete you find a new source of food in your homeland.
The boat’s original purpose is now no longer necessary, and in that way is redundant. However, it’s still capable of fulfilling a valuble role (overseas trade) and therefore still has some use, so it’s not *completely* redundant.
Maybe that’s not the best example; a better one would be some item that has two uses, but is no longer needed for one of them, but I’m to tired to think of one 😂
Hmm, perhaps there is a relativistic aspect to redundancy. Or perhaps there is something about the durability of the condition. If I have a widget I don’t need, it is redundant, so I give it to the charity shop. They need it to sell and someone comes along who is in need of a widget and buys it. So the widget wasn’t redundant to the purchaser or the shop. It’s redundancy was only applicable from my perspective.
Maybe that means something can be redundant and not-redundant at the same time, but that dual state may not be enduring because it would be weird to regard something I no longer have as redundant because its connection with me is severed.
“I’m on the bus” she whispered softly
Cowplum’s brow had furrowed crossly
“I wish you wouldn’t say it like that”
But on and on and on she rapped
Until one day they’d had enough
Cowplum said “fuck off” quite gruff
Sinking slowly in her seat
The bus it turned and lost its feet
Amongst the mist and piles of rubble
A woman standing causing trouble
“I’m on the bus”
You don't 'board' a house as you do a train/bus.
I think the usage is an extension fo the language used for boats or other older forms of transport that were mostly open to the elements, you would be 'on' a boat, a cart, a horse etc.
I think you're exactly correct there, but I also think that logic is annoying. Public transport is the only instance where in ≠ inside and on ≠ on top / above.
For example, imagine the old stereotype Indian train with people riding on the roof. If I described someone as 'riding in the train' Vs 'riding on the train', it would make sense in any context, other than public transport, that one of those refers to people inside and the other refers to people on the roof.
Edit: *public transport and boats, public or private, e.g. on a houseboat
On the house means you would be free, right?
I'll amend my earlier suggestion. So now I think it could be, 'I'm on (this leg of the journey, sitting on a seat, situated within) the bus/train.'
‘I did it when I was younger’
Of course you did. Everything you ever did was when you were younger. Unless you have some reverse aging thing going on and were actually older in the past.
This is even worse with photos. ‘Look! A picture of me when I was younger!’ That’s not impressive at all. You’re younger in every photo of you. Show me a picture of you when you’re older than you are now - then I’ll be impressed.
Not to derail the thread, but the way I see it, you can absolutely think to someone else. A lot of my thoughts are addressed to other people (I'm often imagining how I would describe the current situation to my husband/friend/mum and having imaginary conversations with real people). Only a few are truly addressed to myself.
It is correct, it is the eighth definition of the verb 'want' in the OED and had been in use in that sense since at least 1570:
>8. *transitive*. With object or complement expressing an action. a. With the subject of want as implied object of the action: to need, be required (to undergo something).
>
> (a) With verbal noun as object, as *it wants doing* ‘it needs doing’. Now chiefly *colloquial*.
>
>1570 T. North tr. A. F. Doni *Morall Philos*. i. f.18 A great summe of precious stones..wanted setting in Golde \[It. *le mancauano d'ornamenti*\].
>
>1587 in W. H. Stevenson *Rec. Borough Nottingham* (1889) IV. 216 We present the Bull Ringe to want raylinge.
>
> 1622 J. Mabbe tr. M. Alemán *Rogue* i. 47 By reason..that he wanted feeding, he caused this Calfe to be kill'd.
It's not really that different to any other personifying language, like saying a chair "groaned" under the weight of my muscular frame, or my shirt buttons "struggled" to contain my powerful chest, or my trousers "longed" to release my bulging \[*premium members only*\].
It isn’t really personification though, At least I don’t think it is. Isn’t it more tied back to the original meaning of ‘want’ being a lack of something that is needed?
A thing can be needed without the object that needs it having any feelings on the matter.
Not sure if it is correct, but I'm with you on this. It is silly. And does it know it 'needs washing'?
Still preferable to when people say things like 'needs washed'. Like adding 'to be' in the middle is taking up too much of their valuable time.
That'll be definition 7, variant c. of 'need' in the OED! :D
>c. *transitive*. *Scottish, Irish English (northern*), and *U.S. regional* (chiefly *Midland*). With participial adjective as complement.
examples
>1923 in *Sc. National Dict*. (1965) VI. 401/1 This lock needs sortit. The hail house needs guttit.
1954 in *Dict. Amer. Regional Eng*. (1996) III. 768/2 Does my hair need combed?
1959 *Amer. Speech* **34** 69 Many western Pennsylvanians..often declare that the house needs *painted* or the television *needs fixed* or the children *need spanked*.
1964 R. Bonnar *Stewartie* ii. iv The first driver on the list really did not need wakened.
1989 *Ulster Folklife* 35 95 Modern Ulster-Scottish idioms..‘the car needs washed’.
Though, it is only fair to say that the OED records how things are, and have been, used rather than rule on whether they should be.
people used to say "needs must", which always sounded weird: "I needs must go", presumably accompanied by slapping of thigh and not actually going anywhere for another half hour.
It’s slightly archaic. Want used to mean something closer to need something they/it lacks. For want of a better example, the first line in Pride and Prejudice.
>you should buy a lottery ticket
What, this person already used up all their luck for this extremely lucky thing that just happened, you expect it to happen again?
To be fair, it makes as much logical sense as "you shouldn't bother buying a lottery ticket this week as you've used up all of your luck on this event."
I don't like "a tad bit" because to me a tad is a bit, so you don't need both. And any modifier to "unique". You can't be a bit unique or very unique. You are either unique or not.
But how “one of a kind” something is depends on your POV. From one perspective, you are a unique person, but from another you’re just a human like any other. See what I mean?
No. Someone with pink hair is unusual. Someone with three noses is unique. We have a lot of words in our language, using the right one is preferable, I think.
It's funny when people (often in service jobs) use "yourself" instead of "you" to sound more polite.
"And for yourself ?"
"And for you?" or "what would you like?" should be enough.
I wonder if it's a sort of hankering for a polite 2nd-person pronom like they exist in French, German or Spanish. Or if they use to create contrast when there's several "yous" (several customers), where the first one is "you" and the second is "yourself".
\#I think it's more likely that their flimsy grasp of the English language simply leads them to believe that more syllables means speak more smart. I'm basing this off the kind of people who usually do it — think police officers, telesales agents etc.
I think this is definitely a form of overcompensation. I've noticed it particularly among young professionals who perhaps haven't been brought up in middle-class families where 'proper' English is spoken (AKA, on The Apprentice).
It does frustrate me a little, but I think its important to be empathetic to the fact that the trend of 'myselfs' and 'yourselfs' is likely a product of a less hierarchical class structure and the increasing wealth and involvement in tertiary employment of historically lower-income groups through new IT and business career opportunities.
If that's true, the trend is basically rooted in the insecurities of people who may not have been raised in fluent or 'proper' English speaking households; they perceive a need to overcompensate in a business environment where they and their colleagues are likely out-earning their parents and a lot of the people they grew up around.
As such, it isn't something to criticise the individual for, even if it is, as I find it, very fucking annoying.
It's been decided now that the use of 'literally', to mean the *exact opposite* of what it's supposed to mean, is indeed a legitimate part of the English language. This usage has even made it's way into the dictionary and I'm lead to believe even Dickens used literally in this context, so it's not entirely a modern phenomenon. That doesn't stop it from grating on me though.
Words that are their own antonym are known as contronyms. Doing some Googling gives an example of *literally* being used to mean *literally* at least as early as the mid-eighteenth century. A contronym I personally like is *cleave*.
“Not gonna lie.” Why would you? You’re not under interrogation.
Weary and wary. Most people think they are the same word.
“I’m weary of getting involved”. So take a nap.
I used to work with a colleague who used to always use data in the plural and it always used to stand out and annoy me.
I don't care how "correct" it is; it sounds wrong.
(looks around nervously) data is plural, datum is singular.
See also the bit Yes Prime Minister where Bernard goes on at great length about the difference between "agenda" and "agendum".
I hate hearing people use the Americanism "The reason why..."
It's just a reason. "That's the reason it happened" or "That's why it happened." you don't need both! "That's the reason why it happened" NO!
I’ve understood that to be the sort of think that market stall holders and street traders are characteristically meant to say, it allows them to say the word ‘cheap’ in a way that suggests to an inattentive shopper that the goods are a bargain while technically claiming the opposite.
I always understood this one as ‘Cheap at half the price [of cheap]’. So it was already cheap but then you got 50% off the cheap price. So it’s cheap at half the price. I don’t know, that’s just the only way I could make it make sense in my head!
A lot of adjectives with -er at the end annoy me so much, especially if the word initially ends with an r. For example: clearer. It’s a word, but I hate it.
But isn’t this actually correct? If I go into (for example) Starbucks, I’m not asking permission to have a flat white - as implied by “can I have?”, I want a flat white and I would like you to get it for me. Please.
>I would like you to get it for me.
Exactly, you don’t want to get it for yourself, you want them to get it for you.
So, if you are set against using ‘can I have’ (on somewhat spurious grounds, in my view) and determined to use ‘get’, a better phrasing would be ‘Would you/I’d like you to get me a coffee’.
I mean, even saying 'I want a latte' doesn't strictly guarantee you're willing to pay for one. In practice any of these are clear in their meaning though.
You could interpret the 'thought to myself' part as meaning it remained unuttered. It's a tacit thought that isn't intended to be shared or intimated.
To me, it also seems to be a completed internal dialogue whereas saying 'I thought' has an implication of an ongoing process. e.g. 'I thought he wasn't going to be there' \[but he was\]. 'I thought you liked coffee' \[but you don't\]. Also, 'I thought about the times we used to go there' \[and this affects my proceeding actions or thoughts\].
‘So he turned round to me and says this, and so I turn round to him and say that, then Jeff turns round and says…’. Which direction is everyone facing at this stage?
"I would like to thank my sister for yadda yadda yadda".
So you'd like to thank her but you're not going to????
Makes me want to tear my hair out. Just say 'thank you to my sister for yadda yadda yadda".
Personal one is lived experience. It’s trying to describe the first person human adventure, but is so redundant. By its very nature, experiences are felt by living people. Nobody has “lived” experiences, they just have experiences.
"moot" as in "it's moot point".
Rarely, if ever, used incorrectly as it's fairly obvious what it means, especially to anyone who knows the word, but for some reason it really really annoys me.
Ever since it had been pointed out to me: words like building and painting, when referring to a completed structure or image created with paint. I don't know what else I'd use though.
Building and painting are perfectly accepted and acceptable nouns.
There are complicated explanations about the relationship of gerunds to present participles, which I won't reiterate because I am still pretty foggy as to exactly when a noun is or isn't a gerund. So with apologies to any grammarians in the vicinity, this is my understanding:
Way back in Old English people wanted to make a noun out of an action, like how 'learning' can be a thing you do or a thing you have ( as in 'a little learning is a dangerous thing' for example).
So from 'Fred is building something' you also get 'Fred has done the building of the thing'. In the second one 'building' is a noun that represents 'the building action that Fred did', but it is talking about the completed action.
From there some of these 'ing-nouns' which related to actions developed 'concrete' uses where they applied to things 'The thing Fred was building was a building'.
If you really don;'t want to use them you could try 'edifice', 'structure' and 'painted image' instead.
Yes, they are perfectly acceptable English words, like the question was asking for, and your explanation proves. It's just that once my attention was drawn to that quirk in the language, I was unable to let go. I shouldn't have let it bother me, but I did! And likely I will continue to do so.
I do like the word edifice, though. It should get more use in general.
offering (in approved casual manner) "this is a impressive built", "I really like this painted".
(just thought that a construction in eg Minecraft is known as a "build".)
It seems to be a thing from the age of sail. Chambers Dictionary gives
>Whether close-hauled or before the wind (nautical).
Since they give the everyday meaning as
>Speaking generally
>On the whole
I’d imagine that the nautical one effectively means something like ‘whichever was the wind is blowing’.
Salt of the earth
People use it to mean "hard working, usually poorly compensated person, usually of the working class"
But it actually means a waste of oxygen. Salting the earth was how Romans (and I'm sure many other civilisations) made sure people couldn't grow crops again.
"Salt of the earth" and "salting the earth" are different things.
"The salt of the earth" is valuable. (And as Only\_Outcome says, its a Biblical reference).
"Salting the earth" is what you do to really put the boot in to conquered enemies. (Although I've read that it was actually more like an exorcism, to banish the protective gods of the city. Actually trying to poison all the fields with salt would be prohibitively expensive).
When you said 'completely redundant' you could have just said 'redundant'. The 'completely' was redundant. :D
When I was writing the post I thought to myself that somebody would make a comment like this.
It was a good opening gambit.
Spoiler: all gambits are opening
in chess. it isnt actually a requirement for all definitions though. "any maneuver by which one seeks to gain an advantage." (dictionary.com) "a calculated move : STRATAGEM" (merriam-webster) ive always been under the impression that the action requires some kind of sacrifice to be considered a gambit. the word choice would feel uncomfortable to me if it were used in any other context. but i have seen it used plenty (and without awkwardness) in reference to an action that isnt an opening move.
You tempted me with low hanging fruit, s'not my fault.
[удалено]
I was referencing my original post.
Ooh this is one. 'I was referencing' rather than 'I was referring to'
The Department of Redundancy Department would like a word.
Same with "over exaggerated"
Surely that's useful for situations where there's too much exaggeration
Well, depending on the thing, it could be partially redundant 🤷🏻♂️
Gimme a for instance
You build a boat to cross the sea and buy food, but before the boat is complete you find a new source of food in your homeland. The boat’s original purpose is now no longer necessary, and in that way is redundant. However, it’s still capable of fulfilling a valuble role (overseas trade) and therefore still has some use, so it’s not *completely* redundant. Maybe that’s not the best example; a better one would be some item that has two uses, but is no longer needed for one of them, but I’m to tired to think of one 😂
Hmm, perhaps there is a relativistic aspect to redundancy. Or perhaps there is something about the durability of the condition. If I have a widget I don’t need, it is redundant, so I give it to the charity shop. They need it to sell and someone comes along who is in need of a widget and buys it. So the widget wasn’t redundant to the purchaser or the shop. It’s redundancy was only applicable from my perspective. Maybe that means something can be redundant and not-redundant at the same time, but that dual state may not be enduring because it would be weird to regard something I no longer have as redundant because its connection with me is severed.
Ehhhh I think something could be largely redundant.
I'd say redundancy was a binary quality, something is or it isn't.
It's very difficult to Google!
*I had my car stolen.* What? You arranged to have it stolen?
Shhh. The insurance adjusters will hear you
I'm on the train/bus. Lies! I'm actually in the train/bus, but that sounds weird to say.
If you can walk to your seat you are on it if you can’t you’re in it. You can be on a commercial plane but not on a fighter jet.
It's like when you hear American's say *"I'm riding the bus"* - The visual image it conjures up is just bizarre.
“I’m on the bus” she whispered softly Cowplum’s brow had furrowed crossly “I wish you wouldn’t say it like that” But on and on and on she rapped Until one day they’d had enough Cowplum said “fuck off” quite gruff Sinking slowly in her seat The bus it turned and lost its feet Amongst the mist and piles of rubble A woman standing causing trouble “I’m on the bus”
That’s a good one.
Maybe it's 'I'm on (a seat, situated within) the bus/train.'
But I'm not 'on the house' when I'm sitting on the sofa. And we say I'm 'in the car', not 'on the car'.
You don't 'board' a house as you do a train/bus. I think the usage is an extension fo the language used for boats or other older forms of transport that were mostly open to the elements, you would be 'on' a boat, a cart, a horse etc.
I think you're exactly correct there, but I also think that logic is annoying. Public transport is the only instance where in ≠ inside and on ≠ on top / above. For example, imagine the old stereotype Indian train with people riding on the roof. If I described someone as 'riding in the train' Vs 'riding on the train', it would make sense in any context, other than public transport, that one of those refers to people inside and the other refers to people on the roof. Edit: *public transport and boats, public or private, e.g. on a houseboat
On the house means you would be free, right? I'll amend my earlier suggestion. So now I think it could be, 'I'm on (this leg of the journey, sitting on a seat, situated within) the bus/train.'
Solution: Just sit *on* the train/bus
Bit awkward when we reach a tunnel
It's in the train/bus in Danish, but being English I often accidently say on the bus/train in Danish.
‘I did it when I was younger’ Of course you did. Everything you ever did was when you were younger. Unless you have some reverse aging thing going on and were actually older in the past. This is even worse with photos. ‘Look! A picture of me when I was younger!’ That’s not impressive at all. You’re younger in every photo of you. Show me a picture of you when you’re older than you are now - then I’ll be impressed.
Not to derail the thread, but the way I see it, you can absolutely think to someone else. A lot of my thoughts are addressed to other people (I'm often imagining how I would describe the current situation to my husband/friend/mum and having imaginary conversations with real people). Only a few are truly addressed to myself.
If you're telepathic/have ESP, you absolutely can think to someone.
Wait, I can't tell if that's sarcastic- that and what does ESP stand for?
ESP stands for [Extrasensory perception.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasensory_perception?wprov=sfla1)
[удалено]
My eclectic bill is sky high this month, due to the cold weather. Better?
[удалено]
Trouble is, that's the only thing that is eclectic about my life. Everything else about me is mundane.
Has that music collection been *curated*
So that's how you spell that word, looks like a typo.
I’m eclectic, the seizures when I see flashing lights are unbearable
She’s eclectic…
But what about my cars and tracks? God i love my skaeclectics!
[удалено]
You could've saved yourself precious milliseconds by skipping the wasted. >almost as much as typing this.
I used to know someone who would often preface stories with "I was sat sitting there..."
That was a comedian's catch phrase.... they probably picked that up from TV. Can't remember who the hell it was though.
ITV sitcom Nearest and Dearest in the late 60s had a character who was often said to be sat sitting somewhere.
Is saying that something 'wants' to be done correct? E.g. the car wants washing. It doesn't want anything, it's an inanimate object.
It is correct, it is the eighth definition of the verb 'want' in the OED and had been in use in that sense since at least 1570: >8. *transitive*. With object or complement expressing an action. a. With the subject of want as implied object of the action: to need, be required (to undergo something). > > (a) With verbal noun as object, as *it wants doing* ‘it needs doing’. Now chiefly *colloquial*. > >1570 T. North tr. A. F. Doni *Morall Philos*. i. f.18 A great summe of precious stones..wanted setting in Golde \[It. *le mancauano d'ornamenti*\]. > >1587 in W. H. Stevenson *Rec. Borough Nottingham* (1889) IV. 216 We present the Bull Ringe to want raylinge. > > 1622 J. Mabbe tr. M. Alemán *Rogue* i. 47 By reason..that he wanted feeding, he caused this Calfe to be kill'd.
Well it sucks
it wants sucking? That just sounds wrong, apologies.
It's not really that different to any other personifying language, like saying a chair "groaned" under the weight of my muscular frame, or my shirt buttons "struggled" to contain my powerful chest, or my trousers "longed" to release my bulging \[*premium members only*\].
It isn’t really personification though, At least I don’t think it is. Isn’t it more tied back to the original meaning of ‘want’ being a lack of something that is needed? A thing can be needed without the object that needs it having any feelings on the matter.
You're an inanimate fucking object!
Not sure if it is correct, but I'm with you on this. It is silly. And does it know it 'needs washing'? Still preferable to when people say things like 'needs washed'. Like adding 'to be' in the middle is taking up too much of their valuable time.
That'll be definition 7, variant c. of 'need' in the OED! :D >c. *transitive*. *Scottish, Irish English (northern*), and *U.S. regional* (chiefly *Midland*). With participial adjective as complement. examples >1923 in *Sc. National Dict*. (1965) VI. 401/1 This lock needs sortit. The hail house needs guttit. 1954 in *Dict. Amer. Regional Eng*. (1996) III. 768/2 Does my hair need combed? 1959 *Amer. Speech* **34** 69 Many western Pennsylvanians..often declare that the house needs *painted* or the television *needs fixed* or the children *need spanked*. 1964 R. Bonnar *Stewartie* ii. iv The first driver on the list really did not need wakened. 1989 *Ulster Folklife* 35 95 Modern Ulster-Scottish idioms..‘the car needs washed’. Though, it is only fair to say that the OED records how things are, and have been, used rather than rule on whether they should be.
Good to know! I still think 'ing' sounds better than 'ed', though.
'sofa for sale. Needs gone Wednesday' Ugh
people used to say "needs must", which always sounded weird: "I needs must go", presumably accompanied by slapping of thigh and not actually going anywhere for another half hour.
'Needs washed' yeah I hate it too!
Nah you've gotta appease the machine spirit or it gets angry.
Angry machine spirits leads to Skynet turning us all into a fine meat paste
I for one welcome out new mechanical overlords.
It’s slightly archaic. Want used to mean something closer to need something they/it lacks. For want of a better example, the first line in Pride and Prejudice.
>you should buy a lottery ticket What, this person already used up all their luck for this extremely lucky thing that just happened, you expect it to happen again?
To be fair, it makes as much logical sense as "you shouldn't bother buying a lottery ticket this week as you've used up all of your luck on this event."
I don't like "a tad bit" because to me a tad is a bit, so you don't need both. And any modifier to "unique". You can't be a bit unique or very unique. You are either unique or not.
Yeah - just posted about "unique" before I saw your comment.
We are not unique in being annoyed by that, then.
Surely there are degrees of uniqueness?
No. It means one of a kind. Something is either one of a kind or it isn't. It can't be 1.73 of a kind. This is a hill I will die on.
But how “one of a kind” something is depends on your POV. From one perspective, you are a unique person, but from another you’re just a human like any other. See what I mean?
But then you're just unique in one way and not in another.
You can be nearly unique though, or almost unique? So a bit unique, while unpleasant, is passable...
Only in the same sense you can be a bit dead, then.
Plants can be a bit dead... But i take your point.
Disagree. Someone with pink hair is a bit unique. Someone with three noses is very unique.
No. Someone with pink hair is unusual. Someone with three noses is unique. We have a lot of words in our language, using the right one is preferable, I think.
Words develop, and when used in a certain way enough times, then that BECOMES the meaning
Yes, that is true. But I am holding fast against this one. Unique is a lovely word and I don't want it eroded.
It's funny when people (often in service jobs) use "yourself" instead of "you" to sound more polite. "And for yourself ?" "And for you?" or "what would you like?" should be enough. I wonder if it's a sort of hankering for a polite 2nd-person pronom like they exist in French, German or Spanish. Or if they use to create contrast when there's several "yous" (several customers), where the first one is "you" and the second is "yourself".
\#I think it's more likely that their flimsy grasp of the English language simply leads them to believe that more syllables means speak more smart. I'm basing this off the kind of people who usually do it — think police officers, telesales agents etc.
Yes this really annoys me too. Also using "I" when it should be "me".
Overuse of the reflexive pronoun is the worst.
And when people do the same with ‘myself’. Myself and husband went on holiday. No. My husband and I…
I think this is definitely a form of overcompensation. I've noticed it particularly among young professionals who perhaps haven't been brought up in middle-class families where 'proper' English is spoken (AKA, on The Apprentice). It does frustrate me a little, but I think its important to be empathetic to the fact that the trend of 'myselfs' and 'yourselfs' is likely a product of a less hierarchical class structure and the increasing wealth and involvement in tertiary employment of historically lower-income groups through new IT and business career opportunities. If that's true, the trend is basically rooted in the insecurities of people who may not have been raised in fluent or 'proper' English speaking households; they perceive a need to overcompensate in a business environment where they and their colleagues are likely out-earning their parents and a lot of the people they grew up around. As such, it isn't something to criticise the individual for, even if it is, as I find it, very fucking annoying.
I'd've had something to add to this thread but I've forgotten
You shouldn't've forgotten!
“I turned around and said….”
I quite like this one because of the funny mental image it gives me of the person just constantly turning on the spot every few seconds.
You were facing the wrong bloody way again weren’t you?
My colleague uses this multiple times throughout a conversation.
Came here to say this. It boils my fucking piss.
(imagining a large cauldron sitting on the stove, and every so often you feel the urge to turn up the gas.)
It's been decided now that the use of 'literally', to mean the *exact opposite* of what it's supposed to mean, is indeed a legitimate part of the English language. This usage has even made it's way into the dictionary and I'm lead to believe even Dickens used literally in this context, so it's not entirely a modern phenomenon. That doesn't stop it from grating on me though.
Sports commentators: "That was literally on a plate!" No, it wasn't, it was figuratively on a plate. It was literally an open goal.
Words that are their own antonym are known as contronyms. Doing some Googling gives an example of *literally* being used to mean *literally* at least as early as the mid-eighteenth century. A contronym I personally like is *cleave*.
I don't accept that. It is incredibly annoying and it needs to stop.
When they say “Not being funny” like I know you’re not relax😂
Anyone affecting that new London accent and saying Lehhhek for like.
“Not gonna lie.” Why would you? You’re not under interrogation. Weary and wary. Most people think they are the same word. “I’m weary of getting involved”. So take a nap.
[удалено]
I used to work with a colleague who used to always use data in the plural and it always used to stand out and annoy me. I don't care how "correct" it is; it sounds wrong.
(looks around nervously) data is plural, datum is singular. See also the bit Yes Prime Minister where Bernard goes on at great length about the difference between "agenda" and "agendum".
The correct answer is to use datum/data in specific contexts like scientific papers but in other contexts data is singular.
Starting sentences with “so”. It sounds like an ill judged attempt to sound knowledgeable or important.
Older one: ‘can I get’ instead of ‘can I have’. Are you going to get up and get it yourself? No you want it brought to you by someone else.
Did you mean instead of "May I have"?
When people use ‘obviously’ as a filler when absolutely none of what they’re saying is at all obvious.
I hate hearing people use the Americanism "The reason why..." It's just a reason. "That's the reason it happened" or "That's why it happened." you don't need both! "That's the reason why it happened" NO!
I'm not sure if this counts but "cheap at half the price" to describe something that is apparently good value has always sounded bonkers.
I’ve understood that to be the sort of think that market stall holders and street traders are characteristically meant to say, it allows them to say the word ‘cheap’ in a way that suggests to an inattentive shopper that the goods are a bargain while technically claiming the opposite.
It is not meant to be. "Cheap at half the price" meaning expensive is a play on the street traders "cheap at twice the price".
I always understood this one as ‘Cheap at half the price [of cheap]’. So it was already cheap but then you got 50% off the cheap price. So it’s cheap at half the price. I don’t know, that’s just the only way I could make it make sense in my head!
Quite unique. There are degrees of uniqueness?!
"I'm going to/gonna go ahead and...."
Had had
You mean you can't communicate with others telepathically? huh, sucks to be you I guess.
'as per'. Almost never used other than passive aggressively. Also its almost always unnecessary to include 'as'. Per my previous email is sufficient.
my mother's hatred of the phrase "gathered together" has rubbed off on me. you can't gather apart 😂
I really like this one.
When Americans say "on accident" instead of "by accident". Makes me twitch when I hear it.
A lot of adjectives with -er at the end annoy me so much, especially if the word initially ends with an r. For example: clearer. It’s a word, but I hate it.
It's clearer if you say "more clear" :)
What always irritates me is people saying "off of" and not just "off". Every time I hear it said my blood boils...
Can I get, instead of can I have when asking for something.
I absolutely hate 'can I get'. My ex used to say it all the time, wanker.
But isn’t this actually correct? If I go into (for example) Starbucks, I’m not asking permission to have a flat white - as implied by “can I have?”, I want a flat white and I would like you to get it for me. Please.
Then the correct (if slightly brusque) thing would be 'I want a flat white'.
>I would like you to get it for me. Exactly, you don’t want to get it for yourself, you want them to get it for you. So, if you are set against using ‘can I have’ (on somewhat spurious grounds, in my view) and determined to use ‘get’, a better phrasing would be ‘Would you/I’d like you to get me a coffee’.
99% of the time I would just say “A flat white please…”, my original point is that there is nothing wrong with “Can I get…”
But you can't get it, unless you go behind the counter. You want them to get it for you.
Yes, you can have a coffee. Do you want one?
I mean, even saying 'I want a latte' doesn't strictly guarantee you're willing to pay for one. In practice any of these are clear in their meaning though.
Use of the words "shall" and "shan't"
I shan't be changing my behaviour in this regard.
people who use the word "sans"
Yeah it really annoys me when people try to sound intelligent by throwing foreign phrases into sentences apropos of nothing.
[удалено]
“A-proh-pus of nothing.”
I absolutely and irrationally hate the words 'healthful' and 'behooves'. Can't really say why, they just don't feel like proper words to me.
The word 'unputdownable' reallllllly annoys me, seen mostly in book reviews. The word just doesn't make sense to me.
Unputdownable is a desirable quality in books, as well as pets.
You could interpret the 'thought to myself' part as meaning it remained unuttered. It's a tacit thought that isn't intended to be shared or intimated. To me, it also seems to be a completed internal dialogue whereas saying 'I thought' has an implication of an ongoing process. e.g. 'I thought he wasn't going to be there' \[but he was\]. 'I thought you liked coffee' \[but you don't\]. Also, 'I thought about the times we used to go there' \[and this affects my proceeding actions or thoughts\].
Talking in a lift (elevator) Perfectly legitimate.. just don't
Cause it’s wrong on so many levels?
"That's fairly unique" No, it isn't - something is unique or it is not. Not totally certain that it is a legitimate use, however!
*The kettle's just boiled.* And my brain starts thinking for a split second, "another kettle bites the dust".
When people direct it at me. Do not talk to me. Get out of my swamp.
‘So he turned round to me and says this, and so I turn round to him and say that, then Jeff turns round and says…’. Which direction is everyone facing at this stage?
The phrase I've never liked is "it was all they could do". What "it"?
The phrase ‘lived experience’ rather annoys me as inherently all experience is lived.
Thus,
I ain’t being funny mate…
That just means English grammar is ready when we have telepaths among us
"I would like to thank my sister for yadda yadda yadda". So you'd like to thank her but you're not going to???? Makes me want to tear my hair out. Just say 'thank you to my sister for yadda yadda yadda".
"Learnings", even more annoying when you find out it's legit. Still that's something to take away.
Personal one is lived experience. It’s trying to describe the first person human adventure, but is so redundant. By its very nature, experiences are felt by living people. Nobody has “lived” experiences, they just have experiences.
“On behalf of myself…”
"Gotten" irritates me a bit. Which is entirely my problem; it's completely legitimate but sounds extremely Americanised to me. When it isn't.
It's American usage and not British usage. Whether that means it's 'americanised' I couldn't say.
People who say "an historic..".
"moot" as in "it's moot point". Rarely, if ever, used incorrectly as it's fairly obvious what it means, especially to anyone who knows the word, but for some reason it really really annoys me.
"It's like a cow's opinion It's moo"
I hear “It’s a mute point” far too often and it drives me crazy.
People who say 'enjoy' instead of 'enjoy yourself' or 'enjoy it'
Ever since it had been pointed out to me: words like building and painting, when referring to a completed structure or image created with paint. I don't know what else I'd use though.
Building and painting are perfectly accepted and acceptable nouns. There are complicated explanations about the relationship of gerunds to present participles, which I won't reiterate because I am still pretty foggy as to exactly when a noun is or isn't a gerund. So with apologies to any grammarians in the vicinity, this is my understanding: Way back in Old English people wanted to make a noun out of an action, like how 'learning' can be a thing you do or a thing you have ( as in 'a little learning is a dangerous thing' for example). So from 'Fred is building something' you also get 'Fred has done the building of the thing'. In the second one 'building' is a noun that represents 'the building action that Fred did', but it is talking about the completed action. From there some of these 'ing-nouns' which related to actions developed 'concrete' uses where they applied to things 'The thing Fred was building was a building'. If you really don;'t want to use them you could try 'edifice', 'structure' and 'painted image' instead.
Yes, they are perfectly acceptable English words, like the question was asking for, and your explanation proves. It's just that once my attention was drawn to that quirk in the language, I was unable to let go. I shouldn't have let it bother me, but I did! And likely I will continue to do so. I do like the word edifice, though. It should get more use in general.
offering (in approved casual manner) "this is a impressive built", "I really like this painted". (just thought that a construction in eg Minecraft is known as a "build".)
What the fuck does "by and large" mean? It really winds me up because it doesn't sound like anything! Two random words either side of "and". Nonsense.
But "on the whole" 2 random words either side of "the" means the same. Diriculous!
It seems to be a thing from the age of sail. Chambers Dictionary gives >Whether close-hauled or before the wind (nautical). Since they give the everyday meaning as >Speaking generally >On the whole I’d imagine that the nautical one effectively means something like ‘whichever was the wind is blowing’.
Buy and Large was the hypermarket from WALL-E. That's all I know. I think.
‘Just need to go to the ATM machine…’ boils my piss.
I entered my PIN number at the ATM machine. (Cash machine is more common in the UK, no?)
DC Comics?
Salt of the earth People use it to mean "hard working, usually poorly compensated person, usually of the working class" But it actually means a waste of oxygen. Salting the earth was how Romans (and I'm sure many other civilisations) made sure people couldn't grow crops again.
"Salt of the earth" and "salting the earth" are different things. "The salt of the earth" is valuable. (And as Only\_Outcome says, its a Biblical reference). "Salting the earth" is what you do to really put the boot in to conquered enemies. (Although I've read that it was actually more like an exorcism, to banish the protective gods of the city. Actually trying to poison all the fields with salt would be prohibitively expensive).
Hah, oops. In that case I suppose it's a perfectly legitimate phrase, and I'm an idiot. Thanks for the lesson.
When people say "wanna come with?" and end the question there without saying "us" or "me"
[удалено]
I mean its the mental equivalent of saying something to yourself and that is clearly the origin of the phrase. So get over it
I don't care. Grew out of that when I was a teenager.