I think that was a list of phrases Gorfias likes, not hates.
Loathed phrases/terms
- Thread starter Baffle
- Start date
Ah so it is. I misread his post. Ok, he is resurrected to me then.
You do NOT disrespect Spoon in my house! *puffs up all macho like*
Ah so it is. I misread his post. Ok, he is resurrected to me then.
You do NOT disrespect Spoon in my house! *puffs up all macho like*
True, Spoon was a bad ass
And the winner for oldest necro'd thread goes to... *drumroll* ...ME! Tracked down a 5-year-old thread, I did.
But I had to find it; this one has been grinding my gears for about a year now: "resiliencey." The word is "RESILIENCE," but I'm hearing people use the former more and more frequently, and it's eating me alive. Educated people, to boot!
But I had to find it; this one has been grinding my gears for about a year now: "resiliencey." The word is "RESILIENCE," but I'm hearing people use the former more and more frequently, and it's eating me alive. Educated people, to boot!
For whatever reason, the phrase "at the end of the day" just gets under my skin. I don't know why, but I instinctively just find it annoying.
I've always heard that used in such a way that it implies the request is unreasonable.
"Fuck me, that's a bit of an ask isn't it mate?"
"Resiliency" is in fact a rare but long-accepted alternative form of "resilience". I think it's an American thing, I've never heard anyone use it in British English.
As a general rule I'd agree that there's no particular reason to use "resiliency". If there's increasing modern use, I suspect it's a combination of ignorance and pretentiousness. It's the kind of thing I imagine that some businesstwat thought up a theory and used that alternative form as a marketing gimmick to help sell it. After he's done a few talks / conventions it's been spread around like an infection.
That pissed me off too. Especially when the person saying they want an "objective" review or critique, what they actually mean is they want reviews to confirm to their own pathetic bias and nothing else. It's even worse when these fools get subjective and objective mixed up and use both in the wrong way.
It is very much an American thing, so it tracks that it's a combination of ignorance and pretentiousness. You nailed it.
I'm very much for language being fluid and changing as the world and the people in it evolve and affect the way we communicate, but sometimes, I just want to pump the proverbial brakes on the process when we start treading into "simply wrong" territory. The only "wrong" word I'm glad found it's way out of the red, squiggly underscore stigma is "ain't;" I love that word. But "resiliency?" No, they've added a syllable to be wrong and sound stupid.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,428
- 4,217
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
When I hear it, I can only think of some douchbag middle manager about to ask an employee something. "Hmm yes, let me send you an ask."
And that's the word that shouldn't have ever gotten a pass, because it's objectively wrong. What's it a contraction of? Ai not?
That's the beauty part of "ain't;" it's effectively a nonsensical contraction of "am not," "is not," or "are not" depending on context. It's so universal and ubiquitous within common, casual speech, it's basically a [relatively] new word. "Resiliency" is just the wrong word for a word that exists, and a word that furthermore doesn't just pop up in casual conversation that often; it's generally relegated to more formal/intellectual communication where misspeaking just grates a little more.
On a related note, people who say "people are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts" generally have their opinions confused with facts, at least in my experience.
I used to get annoyed about that. I still think it's a problem with words like "literally", which now has two almost opposite meanings. But when the intent is unambiguous, nowdays I could care less.
I always thought it was meant to be a phonetic spelling of a colloquial pronunciation of aren't.
Please tell me that was intentional, because I'm ready to dog pile on another of my linguistic peeves...
Nope, been around in informal English for hundreds of years as a general catch-all for "someone(s) will/has/did not" do/done something. It's a great word, one you can peel apart and understand contextually, but not so much literally (sorry, @Thaluikhain.)
Yeah. Not original to myself, but I always end discussions of language shifting with that nowdays.