Overused terms/words

[Animeniax]

I think the term "epic" has been overused on the internet to the point it no longer holds the meaning it once held. "Epic" is now used to describe even the mundane and commonplace.

What other words are overused and no longer have the meaning they once had?

[enkoujin]

"Yeah", "totally", "shit", "fuck", "hot" and all the other 4chan memes for starters.

[Buffalobiian]

"Owned"

Seriously, some of my brother's friends think killing someone, now matter how, in an online game means they "owned" them, no matter how many more times the opponent "owned" them back.

"pwned" is heading in the same direction I think.

[XanBcoo]

Worst one for me is "Procrastinate". Everyone learned that word back in 6th or 7th grade and then started using it every time they wanted to talk about putting something off or being lazy. Not a misuse of the word at all, I'm just tired of hearing it just because people feel the need to use a word more than 3 syllables long to impress someone.

"Hey, whatcha doing?"
"Oh, I'm supposed to be writing a paper but I decided to PROCRASTINATE instead"

Also I hate hearing words like "emo" or "random" or basically anything else you'd hear a 15 year-old goth using.


Seriously, some of my brother's friends think killing someone, now matter how, in an online game means they "owned" them, no matter how many more times the opponent "owned" them back.
Just to clarify, have they completely reinterpreted "to own" as "to kill" or are they simply over exaggerating their accomplishments?

One of my favorite recent reinterpretations of a word is the use of "real" to mean "sincere". Real talk.

[Archangel]

Flame pit material right here

[rockmanj]

Genius is, and for that matter "retard". Those terms actually are supposed to be very limited in scope; and not every other person is one or the other.

[Animeniax]

I have to agree with "retard". It's pretty sad how much that word is overused to describe even the mildest of brain farts. I personally do not use it, as I do not wish to incur the wrath of karma resulting in my first born having a mental handicap because of my insensitivity.

I think the term "hero" is overused. I don't have a problem with people calling firefighters and police officers "hero", but I think it's a stretch. Really they're just doing their jobs or what is normally (un)common decency.

[Board of Command]

gay - That's totally gay.

like - That's like...totally gay.

[Marik]

Noob, newb, n00b, nub, or any other variation.

[poopdeville]

One of my favorite recent reinterpretations of a word is the use of "real" to mean "sincere". Real talk.

That's not so recent. "Real" is a word with many interconnected meanings, the most central of which are synonymous with "true", "actual", "genuine", and "authentic". Also, a tertiary meaning is synonymous with "Free of pretense, falsehood, or affectation"

[Animeniax]

Noob, newb, n00b, nub, or any other variation.
One of the worst TV moments ever for me was when Jane Pauly from the Today Show called herself a "newbie" when interviewing some computer geek. She giggled like it was the most amusing thing she'd ever heard.

I don't like the overuse of the term "guru" and "literacy" as it pertains to computing. I especially hate hearing "you're going to have to fix it for me, I'm not computer literate." Biggest cop-out I've ever heard. You don't tell your mechanic to fix your car because he's the "mechanical guru" and you're not "mechanically literate". Why is it ok to tell your IT tech that bs?

[Buffalobiian]

Just to clarify, have they completely reinterpreted "to own" as "to kill" or are they simply over exaggerating their accomplishments?


To kill.

[Sapphire]

kawaii

^^even worse when heard in person and interjected into everyday speech

weeaboo

^^if you like anything the japanese like you must be a weeaboo guyz

[dragonrage]

"suck my ...." johnson. Seems played out to me.

[Board of Command]

"suck my ...." johnson. Seems played out to me.
http://www.socal.com/absolutenm/articlefiles/1324-tripleh48.jpg

[shinta|hikari]

The word "fail" has gotten really old. While it was amusing for a while, now it just seems to represent every single mistake possible out there, when previously it indicated a humorous mistake.

[Sapphire]

"fml" is somehow already overused wayyy too much. I hope the internet gets tired of it soon.

[Psyke]

I don't like 'LOL'. It's been overdone to death.

[XanBcoo]

That's not so recent. "Real" is a word with many interconnected meanings, the most central of which are synonymous with "true", "actual", "genuine", and "authentic". Also, a tertiary meaning is synonymous with "Free of pretense, falsehood, or affectation"
I guess that is true, but I think that would refer to something like "a real friend" or "a real hero" rather than saying, for example, that the lyrics of a song were "real" or that someone was "being real". Maybe my own interpretation of the word isn't quite accurate, but I've never heard that construction before about 3 or 4 years ago.


To kill.
See, I actually find this a really cool phenomenon. It feels weird to us since we're used to using "own" as a humorous way to refer to one-upping someone in a video game, but who knows what kind of definitions it will adopt in the future.

[Kraco]

The inane abbreviations "u", "y", "r", etc. They spare the typer unbelievable two keystrokes yet completely manage to make the text look childish, unclean, sloppy, ugly, and unconvincing, no matter what the message was supposed to be. And unfortunately they show few signs of becoming less popular.

[shinta|hikari]

U took the words right out of my mouth. ;)

I am also tired of reading the term FTW, or full of win, or any variation of it. This win and fail dichotomy isn't even a real one.

[Buffalobiian]

The inane abbreviations "u", "y", "r", etc. They spare the typer unbelievable two keystrokes yet completely manage to make the text look childish, unclean, sloppy, ugly, and unconvincing, no matter what the message was supposed to be. And unfortunately they show few signs of becoming less popular.

In the right context, I really don't mind this. In instant and text messaging I find it quite acceptable.

No matter how you look at the amount of letters saved, it is faster, and the effect only compounds when you use it in succession, for example:

"y r u here?" - 11 keystrokes
"Why are you here?" - 16 keystrokes, almost 50% longer

It's even more appropriate for text messaging where you're not only trying to type messages quickly and succinctly, but also accurately, since it's a real bitch to retype misspelt words. Getting one letter right, and fixing it up if it's wrong, is a lot easier than getting a whole word on a phone.


I don't like 'LOL'. It's been overdone to death.

"lol" is used too often, and its meaning is now more or less toned down to simply a chuckle or even a smile, compared to the original "laughing out loud".

I often use it as a space filler while I think of something else to type, or think of what I should be typing instead. It's like in a normal conversation where one person says something, and you simply smile or give a brief laugh while you think of how you should respond. There's simply no substitute in messaging language for that.

"Yeah" is used in a similar fashion too.

What I find inappropriate is how far that's taken. In real life now, rather than actually laughing out loud, people say "LOL". Seriously, the word LOL. What's with that?

Unfortunately, I think I've found myself say it a few times with increasing frequency lately :(.

[samsonlonghair]

I think the term "hero" is overused. I don't have a problem with people calling firefighters and police officers "hero", but I think it's a stretch. Really they're just doing their jobs or what is normally (un)common decency.
When I was in high school some famous NASCAR driver died, and the next day every redneck was calling him a "hero". He was just a damn race car driver; he didn't cure cancer.

"you're going to have to fix it for me, I'm not computer literate." Biggest cop-out I've ever heard. You don't tell your mechanic to fix your car because he's the "mechanical guru" and you're not "mechanically literate". Why is it ok to tell your IT tech that bs?
Fucking A. I'm an IT guy and I hear that nonsense all the time. "I'm not computer literate" really means "I'm a grown adult who thinks it's alright to live in the twenty-first century and not know how to use a computer, so I expect you to do it for me".
This reminds me; I'd like to add "fucking A" to the list of overused expressions.

In instant and text messaging I find it quite acceptable.
I have to pay five cents for every text I send whether its five characters or eighty-eight characters. I never abbreviate in text messages unless I'm running out of room.

[Buffalobiian]

I have to pay five cents for every text I send whether its five characters or eighty-eight characters. I never abbreviate in text messages unless I'm running out of room.

Well I pay 25c.

[Animeniax]

When I was in high school some famous NASCAR driver died, and the next day every redneck was calling him a "hero". He was just a damn race car driver; he didn't cure cancer.

Fucking A. I'm an IT guy and I hear that nonsense all the time. "I'm not computer literate" really means "I'm a grown adult who thinks it's alright to live in the twenty-first century and not know how to use a computer, so I expect you to do it for me".
This reminds me; I'd like to add "fucking A" to the list of overused expressions.

I have to pay five cents for every text I send whether its five characters or eighty-eight characters. I never abbreviate in text messages unless I'm running out of room.
I think we'd be best friends if we ever hung out. Or we'd get sick of each other.

I also get charged 5 cents per text message and I do not abbreviate, ever. I also use correct punctuation in my texts, which is actually a pain since I only have the numerical keypad and not a qwerty keypad so I have to hunt for every letter and symbol.

Another term I dislike: "emails". Email is the same as mail, there is no plural form. Why is it ok to say "emails", but not "mails"? I've started saying "deers" and "foods" just to piss people off who say "emails". Not that big a deal, but I get annoyed with these little exceptions people make because it's computer related.

[masamuneehs]

so - "so then, i was, like, so angry at her because she was being so bitchy!"
like - GAH
man - "what, man? nah, man. i'm cool, man. thanks, man."
just - "well it's just... it's just that much cheaper to buy just the blue ones..."
right - especially used as "you know?"

'you know what i'm talking about'

other words i think are just overused:
'shocking' or any variation of 'shock'
'legitimate'
'opportunity'
'close'

[rockmanj]

Another thing that annoys me is the generous use of the word 'ethnic' for anything that is mostly non-white. It makes no sense, as EVERYONE has an ethnicity. Its just a dumb code word, and I am not sure why that is so popular with people.

[Assertn]

This is mostly just me...but I have a habit of using "leverage", "investment", and "context" a lot in sentences that don't even necessarily use those words literally.

[Penner]

'Get a life' gets used too often, it should'nt even be used at all in my oppinion.

Everytime someone if even the slightest bit better than someone else at something (mostly this is computer/videogame related) they need to "get a life".

Seriously, people should just cut that shit out, its fucking annoying.

Edit: Should'nt instead of should :P

[Munsu]

Another term I dislike: "emails". Email is the same as mail, there is no plural form. Why is it ok to say "emails", but not "mails"? I've started saying "deers" and "foods" just to piss people off who say "emails". Not that big a deal, but I get annoyed with these little exceptions people make because it's computer related.

Because email and mail are not the same?

For example, you don't say "I'm going to send you a mail", though you say "I'm going to send you an email"... in the former you would've simply said, "I'm going to send you a letter by mail" or something along those lines. In the case above, email's usage is closer to that of a letter than of mail.

If email doesn't have a plural form officially, then the rule should be changed because it's completely dumb.

As far as I know, "mail" is considered a mass noun, while "email" is not (while it can be used as one in certain occasions).

No one is taking exceptions because it's computer related in this case. They're two different words, and should be treated as such.

[samsonlonghair]

If I here the phrase "get 'er done" one more time, I'm going on a killing spree.

[Animeniax]

Because email and mail are not the same?

For example, you don't say "I'm going to send you a mail", though you say "I'm going to send you an email"... in the former you would've simply said, "I'm going to send you a letter by mail" or something along those lines. In the case above, email's usage is closer to that of a letter than of mail.

If email doesn't have a plural form officially, then the rule should be changed because it's completely dumb.

As far as I know, "mail" is considered a mass noun, while "email" is not (while it can be used as one in certain occasions).

No one is taking exceptions because it's computer related in this case. They're two different words, and should be treated as such.The correct form for "e-mail" is with the hyphen, which denotes it's roots as an abbreviation of "electronic-mail", so any usage rules that apply to "mail" apply to "e-mail" as well.

E-mail has evolved, so it's ok these days to say "I'm going to send you an email." Whether that usage is appropriate or not doesn't seem to matter to your average user at this point.

In counter-point to your example, I've rarely ever heard "check your emails." People say "check your email", so it seems they apply the usage rules willy-nilly, at times treating it the same as "mail", and at times treating it like a special computer jargon word with its own rules.

[XanBcoo]

It's not a matter of it being a computer word, as he already said. It's just that "email" is treated both as a mass and a count noun. So saying both:

"Check your email" and
"He just sent me 4 emails"

is acceptable. This occurs with some other words as well, though usually it has to do with containers. Like "I love beer" and "I had 4 beers last night". Email is just treated as a countable noun, so unless you want to start saying "e-letter", then you'll have to accept that "email" can be pluralized. There is no "correct" way to say it other than what is popularly understood or accepted.

[Animeniax]

Another thing that annoys me is the generous use of the word 'ethnic' for anything that is mostly non-white. It makes no sense, as EVERYONE has an ethnicity. Its just a dumb code word, and I am not sure why that is so popular with people.
This idiot I knew once said something similar and surprisingly insightful. He said "multi-cultural" means "non-white".

[Munsu]

The correct form for "e-mail" is with the hyphen, which denotes it's roots as an abbreviation of "electronic-mail", so any usage rules that apply to "mail" apply to "e-mail" as well.

E-mail has evolved, so it's ok these days to say "I'm going to send you an email." Whether that usage is appropriate or not doesn't seem to matter to your average user at this point.

In counter-point to your example, I've rarely ever heard "check your emails." People say "check your email", so it seems they apply the usage rules willy-nilly, at times treating it the same as "mail", and at times treating it like a special computer jargon word with its own rules.

It doesn't matter wether it's e-mail, electronic-mail, or email... these words are not exclusively mass nouns as the word mail is. The reason being that you can actually count units of e-mail as you would count letters (you can't count mail as units).

Let me put you similar examples. Beer and water are both mass nouns, you would say "I'm going to drink water" or "I'm going to drink beer". But just the same you can say "I want four waters and four beers" because in this case you're reffering to bottles of water/beer, units you can count.

Just the same you can count the number of e-mails and just the same you can use e-mail to mean the collective at the discretion of the speaker.

[Animeniax]

It doesn't matter wether it's e-mail, electronic-mail, or email... these words are not exclusively mass nouns as the word mail is. The reason being that you can actually count units of e-mail as you would count letters (you can't count mail as units).

Let me put you similar examples. Beer and water are both mass nouns, you would say "I'm going to drink water" or "I'm going to drink beer". But just the same you can say "I want four waters and four beers" because in this case you're reffering to bottles of water/beer, units you can count.

Just the same you can count the number of e-mails and just the same you can use e-mail to mean the collective at the discretion of the speaker.
That's now the accepted use of "e-mail" but at it's root it is an extension of the word "mail" and therefore any rules that apply to mail should apply to its electronic version. Simply because people have misused the word so long, it is now acceptable usage, similar to "aluminum" being a bastardization of "aluminium", or the misuse of the word "moot" to mean "not open to debate", when it's actual meaning is "debatable."

If it's ok to (mis)use e-mail in this fashion, then words like mail, deer, and food can be misused until they become the norm. At the root, it's still incorrect however. I think we should enforce the rules.

[Munsu]

It's not being missused. Just as e-mail takes on the properties of mail... e-mails takes properties of electronic-mail messages, which it's being used as. The usage of e-mails is absolutely correct, and your problems with the word completely in your head.

Do you remember the time when the messages themselves weren't reffered to as e-mail also? Yeah, me neither. E-mails has always been used correctly.

[Animeniax]

It is not being misused only because the current accepted use allows it to be used that way, same with words like "moot", 'irregardless", and "aluminum". But at it's root it is misuse.

Funny you make the statement "e-mails takes properties of electronic-mail messages" but you don't say "electronic-mails" in that same sentence. Why? Probably because it sounds weird. Yet somehow "emails" is ok.

I'd like to talk about this more, but I'm going to do some e-shoppings for furnitures on the onlines. It's a moot point irregardless.

[XanBcoo]

Funny you make the statement "e-mails takes properties of electronic-mail messages" but you don't say "electronic-mails" in that same sentence. Why? Probably because it sounds weird. Yet somehow "emails" is ok.
You just provided your own counter argument. "electronic-mails" is wrong and "emails" is ok because "email" is no longer (and actually never really was) considered a corruption of "electronic-mail". It's its own word with its own definition and pluralizing rules.

If you can't substitute "electronic mails" for "emails" then it isn't the same type of word. Munsu made a good point in that "emails" has always been the correct way to refer to "electronic mail messages". If it makes you feel any better, just imagine the "s" at the end of emails to stand for the "messages".

[Munsu]

It is not being misused only because the current accepted use allows it to be used that way, same with words like "moot", 'irregardless", and "aluminum". But at it's root it is misuse.

Funny you make the statement "e-mails takes properties of electronic-mail messages" but you don't say "electronic-mails" in that same sentence. Why? Probably because it sounds weird. Yet somehow "emails" is ok.

I'd like to talk about this more, but I'm going to do some e-shoppings for furnitures on the onlines. It's a moot point irregardless.
It's not suddenly accepted. An e-mail message has always been accepted as an e-mail and by extension, e-mail messages have always been accepted as e-mails. Always.

Of course you don't use "electronic-mails messages" same way you don't say "these are practices balls". That's simple grammar.

[Ryllharu]

In short, English is a messed up language, where rules don't apply at all (think of all the words with silent or non-silent letters spelled in similar manners), and American English is even more messed up, because most people care about proper language use even less. It's no wonder that English is one of the hardest languages to learn, we make things up as we go along.

"Synergy" - just a buzz word used in business and technology to make the speaker sound more intelligent.
"Go forward basis" - Of course the majority of actions where this is used will be done from now on, why else would you identify a problem and its solution!
"green " - A good portion of the time, the project or process isn't even [I]remotely environmentally friendly. It is just slapped onto everything because of the whole Global Warming/Climate Change fanaticism the media and politicians are on lately. Call whatever you are doing, "green," and everyone is all onboard for it.

Those are the only three I can think up off the top of my head, I know there are a lot more that are slipping my mind.

[darkshadow]

I always say e-mails, because that is the correct plural form of the word in Dutch, I'm so used to it now that I don't really think about if its correct in English or not.

[samsonlonghair]

I'm tired of hearing the word "retro" applied to something that's less than ten years old.


"Synergy" - just a buzz word used in business and technology to make the speaker sound more intelligent.
"Go forward basis" - Of course the majority of actions where this is used will be done from now on, why else would you identify a problem and its solution!
"green " - A good portion of the time, the project or process isn't even [I]remotely environmentally friendly. It is just slapped onto everything because of the whole Global Warming/Climate Change fanaticism the media and politicians are on lately. Call whatever you are doing, "green," and everyone is all onboard for it.
Corporate language like this really screams BS. Another one I hate is the phrase "thinking outside the box". How can you think originally if you're using this hackneyed expression?

[Animeniax]

"organic" is getting bandied about too much these days. Sadly, my parents are on the bandwagon and will choose any product that has the organic label on it versus something that doesn't.

[samsonlonghair]

You and I agree here too. Some brilliant advertiser found out that if he claimed that his products are "organic" and "all natural" consumers would believe they're healthy without any proof. Cobra venom is organic and all natural. That doesn't make it good for you. If I sold a big box of feces labeled "organic" and "all natural" some dope would buy it.

I'm sick of hearing that someone's doing something "24/7". I'm also tired of the redundant phrase "foreign imports".

[Munsu]

"organic" is getting bandied about too much these days. Sadly, my parents are on the bandwagon and will choose any product that has the organic label on it versus something that doesn't.
Along the same lines, "diet" and "sugar-free" simply because they taste like shit.

[samsonlonghair]

"gluten-free" and "no transfat" seem to be the diet words of the moment.

[rockmanj]

Also true with 'all natural'. Because A. (if you want to be reductionist) everything comes from our natural word (things are just altered chemically; I mean, you can make unnatural compounds, but they still come from somewhere) and B. If you know anything about the seedy belly of food production, its probably a li..

[The Heretic Azazel]

Bro.

I am NOT your fucking bro, your brother and damn sure not your bro-ham. It's bad enough when you get called that once, but two times in every sentence? It's like they can tell it gets on my nerves. Then they ask "what's wrong bro?"

The fact that you're still living, that's what.

[Kraco]

"gluten-free" and "no transfat" seem to be the diet words of the moment.

Gluten is an allergen to celiac disease carriers. The unlucky bastards just don't want their gut to bleed. I don't think you can blame them for that, even if you personally don't want to eat their more expensive and likely less tasty food. Complaining about gluten-free is like complaining about the "may contain traces of nuts or milk solids" (or something like that) you see very often. I have never heard of a healthy person pursuing gluten-free diet.

[poopdeville]

My roommate has some sort of celiac disease or gluten allergy. It really sucks. She used to really like beer, but now she can't have any. She drinks cider now. IKKI

[samsonlonghair]

I have never heard of a healthy person pursuing gluten-free diet.
Follow this link.

Marketers estimate that 15% to 25% of consumers want gluten-free foods — though doctors estimate just 1% have celiac disease (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/painter/2008-08-17-gluten_N.htm)

Now you have. It's the latest health craze. People who have never been diagnosed with any gluten problem are willing to pay extra for gluten-free food thinking it's healthier. Ironically, Gluten-free food is often higher in fat.

[Kraco]

Oh, well, you learn something new everyday. Even bad things. I guess I was being too biased; being lactose intolerant I will never understand people without any defects willingly restricting their diet for utterly artificial and stupid reasons.

[samsonlonghair]

I hear a lot of people where I live say "used ta could" for something they were previously able to do.

"I used ta could run ten miles, but I caint no more."

[Buffalobiian]

That's just grammatically wrong.

Which reminds me of how annoyed I get when people say:

"I didn't do nothing"

but they really mean:

"I didn't do anything"

[XanBcoo]

I hear a lot of people where I live say "used ta could" for something they were previously ale to do.

"I used ta could run ten miles, but I caint no more."
Why would you complain about a totally awesome sentence construction? See also:

"Might could"
"Fixin' to"
"Sit and done"

They're just so overly complicated and beyond comprehension to anyone not from the South, I can't help but love them.


Which reminds me of how annoyed I get when people say:

"I didn't do nothing"

but they really mean:

"I didn't do anything"
Every other romance language aside from English employs double negatives when negating a statement. The logic applied to it in English making it "incorrect" was something that was invented and enforced by bullshit language academies who decided it was logically incorrect. These same arbitrary rules also mean perfectly natural and comprehensible sentences are incorrect. I'm talking absolutely normal stuff like:

"Can you guess what I'm thinking of?"
"To boldy go where no man has gone before."

Clearly speaking "correctly" is a skill that everyone should learn, at the very least to appear more educated, but there is nothing inherently incorrect about these kinds of "mistakes". The fact that people use and understand them is proof of that. Even when I was about 6, the argument that double negatives actually meant a positive seemed completely convoluted.

[Animeniax]

I'm getting tired of hearing people say "google it" or "I wiki'd it".

People think doing a google search will answer all of their questions? No, it gives too many possible answers. It still requires knowledge and deduction about what you're looking for to filter out the 95% of bad results of your search to find the 5% of meaningful results.

Also, relying on wikipedia for information is asking for trouble, unless you verify that information with other sources. My sister had a problem with her paralegals citing wikipedia for trial research.

[shinta|hikari]

But the good thing about some wiki pages is that they have cited sources. You can simply verify the information there, or continue with those sources instead.

[Buffalobiian]

Every other romance language aside from English employs double negatives when negating a statement. The logic applied to it in English making it "incorrect" was something that was invented and enforced by bullshit language academies who decided it was logically incorrect. T

Really, I don't see anything with applying a bit of logic to language. To me, "Didn't do Nothing" very logically translates to "Did do Something".

Otherwise, how the heck are you meant to differenciate what someone's trying to say? Guess?

A: "Why did you stand there and do nothing?"
B: "I didn't do nothing!"

In the above example, if double negatives are the correct way to make a sentence negative, when what is B meant to say if B really wants to say he "didn't" do "nothing"? You mean his only correct option is to say "I DID do something", or "I did something"?

I think applying logic to language makes perfect sense, for language to make sense at all.




These same arbitrary rules also mean perfectly natural and comprehensible sentences are incorrect. I'm talking absolutely normal stuff like:

"Can you guess what I'm thinking of?"
"To boldy go where no man has gone before."

Clearly speaking "correctly" is a skill that everyone should learn, at the very least to appear more educated, but there is nothing inherently incorrect about these kinds of "mistakes". The fact that people use and understand them is proof of that. Even when I was about 6, the argument that double negatives actually meant a positive seemed completely convoluted.

Well, firstly, if they're a mistake, then they're inherently incorrect by definition. For sake of argument, I'll just call them a "variation".

Language has form, and if you deviate from that form, then it's inherently incorrect to that language since it doesn't follow the rules. (discounting poetry)

As far as I know, "to go" comes as a set, and the correct way to write it is "to go boldly". "To boldly go" is a split infinitive, and from what I was taught, is wrong.

Some guy probably made it up when he wanted to put more emphasis on boldly.

"Can you guess what I'm thinking of?" is similar, since "of" is tacked on by people who thought "Can you guess what I'm thinking?" didn't sound "right" to them.

"Try and achieve" is another slip commonly found around the place. People are really saying they'll "try to achieve". They'll try to achieve something, but they're not guaranteeing they'll achieve anything. "Try AND achieve" means otherwise.

"And" was just shoved in there because it was either convenient, or people forgot what to put.

"Making sense" don't make it right. My brother's got some language problems, and he says "Do you know what is it?" rather than "Do you know what it is?"

I understand him, but it doesn't make him right.


But the good thing about some wiki pages is that they have cited sources. You can simply verify the information there, or continue with those sources instead.

That's what I do for some of my assignments. I wiki a topic, and out comes a load of info. I read it, get an idea of what the whole field is about, go to the cited sources, and read them for a deeper (and sometimes corrected) understanding.

[XanBcoo]

People think doing a google search will answer all of their questions? No, it gives too many possible answers. It still requires knowledge and deduction about what you're looking for to filter out the 95% of bad results of your search to find the 5% of meaningful results.
Sounds like "SEARCH OVERLOAD" to me!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jMt6saTqq4&feature=channel

[shinta|hikari]

"Can you guess what I'm thinking of?" is similar, since "of" is tacked on by people who thought "Can you guess what I'm thinking?" didn't sound "right" to them.

It is incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition. However, in this case, they didn't simply tack it on. For example:

"Can you guess what I'm talking about?"

About is a preposition, and cannot be omitted in this case. Still, the format is technically incorrect. It has only become accepted because it is used so often.

"Can you guess what I'm talking?" is simply wrong.

[XanBcoo]

Otherwise, how the heck are you meant to differenciate what someone's trying to say? Guess?

A: "Why did you stand there and do nothing?"
B: "I didn't do nothing!"
Intonation. In a situation like you presented, when written it's obviously ambiguous. Read it out loud with both intended meanings and tell me you don't see the difference. In any case, just because something can be left to ambiguous interpretation (http://www.gray-area.org/Research/Ambig/) doesn't mean that one interpretation is wrong. It just means it's...ambiguous.

So yes, you're meant to guess. But like I said, when spoken aloud it's not the shot in the dark you're making it out to be.


I think applying logic to language makes perfect sense, for language to make sense at all.

Language has form, and if you deviate from that form, then it's inherently incorrect to that language since it doesn't follow the rules. (discounting poetry)
Applying logic to language outside of the sphere of its every day use, is as I said, convoluted and completely arbitrary. As for deviating from form and following rules, I'm talking about the difference between saying "

'To boldly go where no man has gone before." and
"Go to where boldly no has man before gone."

Yes, you were taught that splitting an infinitive is wrong, but I know you can't tell me why. You can tell me why saying 'Go where to boldly man has no gone before" doesn't make sense. Obviously it doesn't. You'd sound like someone with Broca's Aphasia and no one could even understand what you wanted to say. The entire word order is screwed up and there's no meaning in the sentence.

Even Oxford agrees it's a stupid rule: http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/splitinfinitives


"Can you guess what I'm thinking of?" is similar, since "of" is tacked on by people who thought "Can you guess what I'm thinking?" didn't sound "right" to them.
Shinta was getting to the point with this one. The "correct" way to say it would be "Can you guess of what I am thinking?" or "Can you guess about what I am talking?" But no one says that, do they? Well, some do, but most people find it an odd construction. Anyway, with either variation the meaning is left intact.

I suppose the reason it's evolved as it has is because people tend to just leave the entire constituent intact. That being "Thinking of [x]" where [x] is the direct object. People don't like to break up that entire chunk.

In either variation the interrogative word "what" is meant to take the place of the [x]. In the "correct" variation, "of" is moved to create a complete prepositional phrase "of what". In the "incorrect" variation, "Thinking of [x]" is left intact. However, neither is more logical, and neither is any more inherently correct than the other. I'd like to see the argument that says otherwise.

Usually it boils down to "because that's what I was taught in school."


"Try and achieve" is another slip commonly found around the place. People are really saying they'll "try to achieve". They'll try to achieve something, but they're not guaranteeing they'll achieve anything. "Try AND achieve" means otherwise.
Now this kind of bugs me too. Same with "could/would/should of" instead of "could/would/should have". You're right in that the mistake occurs because of phonological convenience. I have more trouble accepting stuff like this because it sounds really odd to me, and obviously hasn't occurred in all circles, but it is an entirely natural linguistic phenomenon.

What I assume is happening there is called Degrammaticalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammaticalization#Counterexamples). Basically that means that function words like "have/of" and "to/and" are now understood as part of an entire lexical item "Could of" and "Try and" where the meaning is found within that chunk instead of being interpreted individually.


"Making sense" don't make it right. My brother's got some language problems, and he says "Do you know what is it?" rather than "Do you know what it is?"

I understand him, but it doesn't make him right.
Yeah, I misspoke a bit. No, it doesn't make it right if you understand him, it makes it right if entire linguistic communities adopt the variation and comprehend it as being "right". That argument sounds weak as hell, but it's the reality of the situation. The main point is language is weird in that it is always changing based on trends and outside influence and such, and what is understood by those communities speaking it.

Is it obvious I was trained to be a Descriptive Linguist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_linguistics) rather than a prescriptive Grammarian? :p

[Buffalobiian]

Otherwise, how the heck are you meant to differenciate what someone's trying to say? Guess?

A: "Why did you stand there and do nothing?"
B: "I didn't do nothing!" Intonation. In a situation like you presented, when written it's obviously ambiguous. Read it out loud with both intended meanings and tell me you don't see the difference. In any case, just because something can be left to ambiguous interpretation (http://www.gray-area.org/Research/Ambig/) doesn't mean that one interpretation is wrong. It just means it's...ambiguous.

So yes, you're meant to guess. But like I said, when spoken aloud it's not the shot in the dark you're making it out to be.

That's quite true. My main point here is if it CAN be easily misinterpreted, or argued convincingly to mean otherwise (eg, B arguing later that he meant otherwise to cover his ass), then I would rather it make definitive sense by applying those logical rules.

Maybe I just don't like "it's up to how you interpret it".


Yes, you were taught that splitting an infinitive is wrong, but I know you can't tell me why.

You're right, I can't. All I know is "to" and a verb is meant to go together. I still stand by my argument that understandable doesn't make it right. It's just that being understandable tends to make the phrase seemingly more acceptable to use (as in it gets the message across). Then, when more people use it, it unfortunately becomes "correct".


Even Oxford agrees it's a stupid rule: http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexper...litinfinitives

Oxford agrees that it's a poor style that's best avoided in formal writing, but people are so bad at correcting their usage of split infinitives that they end up with something worse.



"Can you guess what I'm thinking of?" is similar, since "of" is tacked on by people who thought "Can you guess what I'm thinking?" didn't sound "right" to them.
Shinta was getting to the point with this one. The "correct" way to say it would be "Can you guess of what I am thinking?" or "Can you guess about what I am talking?" But no one says that, do they? Well, some do, but most people find it an odd construction. Anyway, with either variation the meaning is left intact.

I suppose the reason it's evolved as it has is because people tend to just leave the entire constituent intact. That being "Thinking of [x]" where [x] is the direct object. People don't like to break up that entire chunk.

In either variation the interrogative word "what" is meant to take the place of the [x]. In the "correct" variation, "of" is moved to create a complete prepositional phrase "of what". In the "incorrect" variation, "Thinking of [x]" is left intact. However, neither is more logical, and neither is any more inherently correct than the other. I'd like to see the argument that says otherwise.

Usually it boils down to "because that's what I was taught in school."

I'm having trouble understanding this one. Which sentences were the "two variations" you mentioned? The ones you gave in that quote were by your definition the correct ones. I'll read it again after some sleep.


Is it obvious I was trained to be a Descriptive Linguist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_linguistics) rather than a prescriptive Grammarian? :p

Yes, very. ;)

[Animeniax]

You all are making a mockery of this thread. For shame!!!

[samsonlonghair]

One that always ticked me off was "meteorologist" when applied to local TV personalities. A meteorologist is a scientist who studies the atmosphere and weather patters. The man in front of the green screen wearing makeup is just a weather man, not a meteorologist.

[Kraco]

One that always ticked me off was "meteorologist" when applied to local TV personalities. A meteorologist is a scientist who studies the atmosphere and weather patters. The man in front of the green screen wearing makeup is just a weather man, not a meteorologist.

I might be wrong, but I'm under the impression they are usually fully educated in the field, that is, meteorologists. At least over here. There isn't a huge job market for meteorologists, I imagine, and on the other hand if the TV station can get away paying the same people to both understand and analyse the data they buy from somewhere and present it in front of the camera, they surely will. Unless they can buy fully prepared presentations so that it can be presented by somebody who hasn't got a clue what he/she's talking about.

[darkshadow]

Here they are fully educated meteorologists as well.

[Animeniax]

I don't like the overuse of the word "technician" in job titles. These days a janitor is called a "janitorial technician". There are other examples I've heard but that one bugs me the most.

[XanBcoo]

Sorry. Hopefully this'll be my last derail on this topic.

You're right, I can't. All I know is "to" and a verb is meant to go together. I still stand by my argument that understandable doesn't make it right. It's just that being understandable tends to make the phrase seemingly more acceptable to use (as in it gets the message across). Then, when more people use it, it unfortunately becomes "correct".

You're right, I can't. All I know is [a woman] is meant to [stay in the kitchen]. I still stand by my argument that [accepting womens' rights] doesn't make it right. It's just that [accepting womens' rights] tends to make the [woman] seemingly more acceptable to [society] (as in it [respects the rights of the opposite gender]. Then, when more people [accept womens' rights], it unfortunately becomes "correct"

I apologize for using such a snarky parallel, but it's the same line of thinking. I already asked you what made "correct" use of language "correct" and you couldn't answer. I even explained what made an example "incorrect" speech rather logical. Honestly, it's a weird mental hurdle to jump over, but your opinion of language is 100% based on arbitrary preconceptions about what you were taught was "right and wrong".

English and German are both descendants of an older West Germanic language. They evolved through natural changes like the ones we've been talking about. By your argument, either the entire English language is "incorrect" because of the changes it's gone through over hundreds of years (through Old English, Middle English, or even the English of 100 years ago), or German is "just plain wrong."


Oxford agrees that it's a poor style that's best avoided in formal writing,
Which is more or less what I said earlier. Using a formal standardization of language is advantageous in some circles and it's a useful skill everyone should learn, but otherwise it's a completely social construct. I would never use "y'all" in a professional email or job interview because it's seen as "incorrect", but elsewhere I use it all the time because that's what everyone says where I'm from, and to us it is perfectly ok. It's also logical in that most other romance languages have a 2nd person plural pronoun.

I don't like the overuse of the word "technician" in job titles. These days a janitor is called a "janitorial technician". There are other examples I've heard but that one bugs me the most.
Totally agreed. Most politically correct terms bug the hell out of me.

[Animeniax]

I don't like how the word "idol" is being used these days. I refer to "American Idol" as "American Idolater". And you know what the Ten Commandments says about idolatry.

Add to that the term "talent" in Japanese pop culture as a way to reference actors/singers/pretty people. Most of these "talents" are not talented; they are prefab, mix 'n match, easily replaceable caricatures who will no longer have any appeal when they turn 25 and are no longer cute. They dominate the Japanese music, TV, and movie scenes and block the actually talented folks from getting their air time. For shame, Japan!!!!!

[Sapphire]

I totally agree with you, Ani

[Buffalobiian]

"girlfriends"

"I'm going out with my girlfriends today"

That word used to denote a sexual partner, however casual one might see it. Now it's just gender+friend half the time. It also makes it harder to determine another's sexuality since you don't know if they're serious about it or not.

[darkshadow]

Actually in Dutch, friend is always male and girlfriend always female. The only way to denote a sexual partner is to add possession to it, like my girlfriend or my friend.

If a heterosexual male would introduce himself and a friend as: "Hi I am "" and this is my friend", people could think you are implying a homosexual relationship.
That's why we use "a (friend of mine)" for just friendship and possession for intimacy.

[shinta|hikari]

Isn't the word "mine" also indicative of possession in that statement?

[Animeniax]

Not if you're a rapper. According to 50 cent, "what's mine is mine... what's your's is mine." Which makes absolutely no sense at all.

[darkshadow]

Isn't the word "mine" also indicative of possession in that statement?

Yes but it is more of an indirect indication of possession, since it just tells the other person who the friend is aquintant with, a friend of mine, friend of hers, friend of danny's etc..

[Kraco]

Hmm... Over here boyfriend or girlfriend means someone you are dating. Friend means just a friend, even if you say "my friend", unless it's a situation where a homosexual is on the surface hiding the relationship but still suggesting something between the lines, but that's quite a non-textbook case. Usually it suggests nothing special.

Mugger leader: "Did you bring anybody? We need lots of men for this job."
Mugger: "I brought my friend. He has the strength of two men and the wits of half a man."