Words/phrases I wish would go away

[Taran Wanderer]

Okay, I have another one:  rocket surgery...

;-)

[nereo]

It's funny because with all the fuss about treating your baby to the nicest pram, best daycare, nicest most bestest elite schooling, best diet, and all that tangential stuff, people seem to forget that the two best things you can do for your children are:

1. Not smoke or drink appreciable amounts during pregnancy

2. Read to them like their lives depend on it, as much as you can, until they're old enough to read by themselves. Then take them to the library and encourage them to read as much as they can.

It's not rocket surgery.

I’d add
3) lots of active play, preferably outside, with you, with other kids and with themselves.

...but yeah, point taken. Reading to kids early and often is so important, and so overshadowed by what parents often worry about (and often has a relatively minor role in their development).

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Okay, I have another one:  rocket surgery...

;-)

I confess to deliberately mixing metaphors as much as I can - my latest favourite is "not the brightest tool in the picnic basket"

[zolotiyeruki]

"usually always" as in "I usually always have pasta in the pantry so I can make a quick meal."

"very sort of" as in "It was a very sort of gray day."

Well, which is it? Usually or always? Very or sort of? It can't be both!

That is annoying.

I feel this way about the phrase “maybe could”. Can it be accomplished or is it just a possibility? It’s a phrase I’ve heard some friends from the southern part of the U.S. use.

Oh, that's interesting. I've heard "might could" and just chalked it up to a difference in... dialect or regional speech patterns, I guess you would call it? With "maybe could," it is a matter of changing the position of the subject and the verb? So instead of saying, "Maybe he could do it,"  a person would say, "He maybe could do it." The first one sounds correct to me, while the second one sounds wrong... but if I consider that it might just be a difference in the way the language developed in a different region, then maybe it's not wrong...? I really don't know!

English is such a weird language.  Until a couple years ago, I had no idea that there are actual rules guidelines that dictate the correct order of adjectives preceding a noun.

[iluvzbeach]

"usually always" as in "I usually always have pasta in the pantry so I can make a quick meal."

"very sort of" as in "It was a very sort of gray day."

Well, which is it? Usually or always? Very or sort of? It can't be both!

That is annoying.

I feel this way about the phrase “maybe could”. Can it be accomplished or is it just a possibility? It’s a phrase I’ve heard some friends from the southern part of the U.S. use.

Oh, that's interesting. I've heard "might could" and just chalked it up to a difference in... dialect or regional speech patterns, I guess you would call it? With "maybe could," it is a matter of changing the position of the subject and the verb? So instead of saying, "Maybe he could do it,"  a person would say, "He maybe could do it." The first one sounds correct to me, while the second one sounds wrong... but if I consider that it might just be a difference in the way the language developed in a different region, then maybe it's not wrong...? I really don't know!

English is such a weird language.  Until a couple years ago, I had no idea that there are actual rules guidelines that dictate the correct order of adjectives preceding a noun.

I apologize, I meant to write “might could” and screwed up. It’s just such an odd way of wording things that I can’t even keep the words straight in my brain.  It’s “might could” as in “We might could go to a movie this afternoon.”

[Travis]

"usually always" as in "I usually always have pasta in the pantry so I can make a quick meal."

"very sort of" as in "It was a very sort of gray day."

Well, which is it? Usually or always? Very or sort of? It can't be both!

That is annoying.

I feel this way about the phrase “maybe could”. Can it be accomplished or is it just a possibility? It’s a phrase I’ve heard some friends from the southern part of the U.S. use.

Oh, that's interesting. I've heard "might could" and just chalked it up to a difference in... dialect or regional speech patterns, I guess you would call it? With "maybe could," it is a matter of changing the position of the subject and the verb? So instead of saying, "Maybe he could do it,"  a person would say, "He maybe could do it." The first one sounds correct to me, while the second one sounds wrong... but if I consider that it might just be a difference in the way the language developed in a different region, then maybe it's not wrong...? I really don't know!

English is such a weird language.  Until a couple years ago, I had no idea that there are actual rules guidelines that dictate the correct order of adjectives preceding a noun.

I apologize, I meant to write “might could” and screwed up. It’s just such an odd way of wording things that I can’t even keep the words straight in my brain.  It’s “might could” as in “We might could go to a movie this afternoon.”

"I used to could do that. Get a couple beers in me and I might could again." Jeff Foxworthy.

[Chaplin]

I don't necessarily wish for it to go away, but "needs must" seems to fit with "might could" and related expressions. Some southerners definitely use a "slow talking, fast thinking" approach to disarm non-southerners.

[iluvzbeach]

@Chaplin, can you use “needs must” in a sentence? I’m having trouble understanding it. I’m originally from a southern state, so I usually get “southern speak”, but this one has thrown me for a loop.

[Chaplin]

I've heard it as "something needs must be done." I assumed it was a southern expression but just looked it up and apparently it's old-English and essentially means "necessity compels." An example I found was "I really don't want to cook tonight, but needs must, I suppose."

[GreenSheep]

"usually always" as in "I usually always have pasta in the pantry so I can make a quick meal."

"very sort of" as in "It was a very sort of gray day."

Well, which is it? Usually or always? Very or sort of? It can't be both!

That is annoying.

I feel this way about the phrase “maybe could”. Can it be accomplished or is it just a possibility? It’s a phrase I’ve heard some friends from the southern part of the U.S. use.

Oh, that's interesting. I've heard "might could" and just chalked it up to a difference in... dialect or regional speech patterns, I guess you would call it? With "maybe could," it is a matter of changing the position of the subject and the verb? So instead of saying, "Maybe he could do it,"  a person would say, "He maybe could do it." The first one sounds correct to me, while the second one sounds wrong... but if I consider that it might just be a difference in the way the language developed in a different region, then maybe it's not wrong...? I really don't know!

English is such a weird language.  Until a couple years ago, I had no idea that there are actual rules guidelines that dictate the correct order of adjectives preceding a noun.

I apologize, I meant to write “might could” and screwed up. It’s just such an odd way of wording things that I can’t even keep the words straight in my brain.  It’s “might could” as in “We might could go to a movie this afternoon.”

Oh, I see! I never say "might could" myself, but I kind of like it in certain situations where it serves as a shortcut. Since I no longer live in the South, though, I would worry about getting a raised eyebrow in response if I used it myself. And even if I were in the South, since I don't have a Southern accent, true Southerners might think I'm a fake!

[Morning Glory]

"usually always" as in "I usually always have pasta in the pantry so I can make a quick meal."

"very sort of" as in "It was a very sort of gray day."

Well, which is it? Usually or always? Very or sort of? It can't be both!

That is annoying.

I feel this way about the phrase “maybe could”. Can it be accomplished or is it just a possibility? It’s a phrase I’ve heard some friends from the southern part of the U.S. use.

Oh, that's interesting. I've heard "might could" and just chalked it up to a difference in... dialect or regional speech patterns, I guess you would call it? With "maybe could," it is a matter of changing the position of the subject and the verb? So instead of saying, "Maybe he could do it,"  a person would say, "He maybe could do it." The first one sounds correct to me, while the second one sounds wrong... but if I consider that it might just be a difference in the way the language developed in a different region, then maybe it's not wrong...? I really don't know!

English is such a weird language.  Until a couple years ago, I had no idea that there are actual rules guidelines that dictate the correct order of adjectives preceding a noun.

I apologize, I meant to write “might could” and screwed up. It’s just such an odd way of wording things that I can’t even keep the words straight in my brain.  It’s “might could” as in “We might could go to a movie this afternoon.”

Oh, I see! I never say "might could" myself, but I kind of like it in certain situations where it serves as a shortcut. Since I no longer live in the South, though, I would worry about getting a raised eyebrow in response if I used it myself. And even if I were in the South, since I don't have a Southern accent, true Southerners might think I'm a fake!

I've heard "might could" and "useta could" in the Midwest also. The subjunctive is confusing in any language.

How about "sposta" ? "I'm sposta be in court but I've had this toothache for two weeks that needs emergency attention right now"

[merula]

My understanding of UK English is that "Needs must" can also be a stand-alone phrase along the lines of "necessarily". "I didn't want to have to come out and ask for a favor, but needs must; the American wasn't understanding my hints."

[Dicey]

How about "sposta" ? "I'm sposta be in court but I've had this toothache for two a coupla weeks that needs emergency attention right now"

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

The American use of "anymore" to mean "nowadays" is confusing and strange to me

On the other hand, I love using the phrase "come with" which is probably the same type of thing.

[nereo]

The American use of "anymore" to mean "nowadays" is confusing and strange to me

On the other hand, I love using the phrase "come with" which is probably the same type of thing.

I find much of Australian-English to be strange and confusing. The accent is easy enough to understand, but the unique words frequently leave me baffled.

[merula]

The American use of "anymore" to mean "nowadays" is confusing and strange to me

On the other hand, I love using the phrase "come with" which is probably the same type of thing.

I live in Minnesota which is probably the world capital of "come with" and "go with", and my German teachers pointed out that that structure would be grammatically correct in German, Swedish and Norwegian, which were the major immigrant groups to Minnesota. (This is also the source of the long vowels of the typical Minnesota accent, dooonchaah knoow?)

[RetiredAt63]

The American use of "anymore" to mean "nowadays" is confusing and strange to me

On the other hand, I love using the phrase "come with" which is probably the same type of thing.

I live in Minnesota which is probably the world capital of "come with" and "go with", and my German teachers pointed out that that structure would be grammatically correct in German, Swedish and Norwegian, which were the major immigrant groups to Minnesota. (This is also the source of the long vowels of the typical Minnesota accent, dooonchaah knoow?)

Could you give examples of sentences with "go with" and "come with"?   I'm not seeing a problem with them, so I'm guessing it is how they are used in a sentence that bothers people.

[Metalcat]

The American use of "anymore" to mean "nowadays" is confusing and strange to me

On the other hand, I love using the phrase "come with" which is probably the same type of thing.

I live in Minnesota which is probably the world capital of "come with" and "go with", and my German teachers pointed out that that structure would be grammatically correct in German, Swedish and Norwegian, which were the major immigrant groups to Minnesota. (This is also the source of the long vowels of the typical Minnesota accent, dooonchaah knoow?)

Could you give examples of sentences with "go with" and "come with"?   I'm not seeing a problem with them, so I'm guessing it is how they are used in a sentence that bothers people.

"I'm going to the store, want to come with?"

[RetiredAt63]

The American use of "anymore" to mean "nowadays" is confusing and strange to me

On the other hand, I love using the phrase "come with" which is probably the same type of thing.

I live in Minnesota which is probably the world capital of "come with" and "go with", and my German teachers pointed out that that structure would be grammatically correct in German, Swedish and Norwegian, which were the major immigrant groups to Minnesota. (This is also the source of the long vowels of the typical Minnesota accent, dooonchaah knoow?)

Could you give examples of sentences with "go with" and "come with"?   I'm not seeing a problem with them, so I'm guessing it is how they are used in a sentence that bothers people.

"I'm going to the store, want to come with?"

Aah, they are being lazy and leaving out the last "me".  Or being energetic, I would be fine with "I'm going to the store, want to come?"  The "with me" being implied.

[John Galt incarnate!]

How about "sposta" ? "I'm sposta be in court but I've had this toothache for two weeks that needs emergency attention right now"

I've heard people say "sposed to" instead of "supposed to."

And I've heard them say "I hafta ..."

[Metalcat]

The American use of "anymore" to mean "nowadays" is confusing and strange to me

On the other hand, I love using the phrase "come with" which is probably the same type of thing.

I live in Minnesota which is probably the world capital of "come with" and "go with", and my German teachers pointed out that that structure would be grammatically correct in German, Swedish and Norwegian, which were the major immigrant groups to Minnesota. (This is also the source of the long vowels of the typical Minnesota accent, dooonchaah knoow?)

Could you give examples of sentences with "go with" and "come with"?   I'm not seeing a problem with them, so I'm guessing it is how they are used in a sentence that bothers people.

"I'm going to the store, want to come with?"

Aah, they are being lazy and leaving out the last "me".  Or being energetic, I would be fine with "I'm going to the store, want to come?"  The "with me" being implied.

Not lazy or energetic, just a dialectical variant common to certain regions, the same way that "let's go back to mine" isn't just a lazy version of "let's go back to my place", or "go to hospital" isn't a lazy version of "go to the hospital". They're just variants that aren't common in North America.

[John Galt incarnate!]

I confess to deliberately mixing metaphors as much as I can - my latest favourite is "not the brightest tool in the picnic basket"

"Not the sharpest knife in the drawer" has a similar meaning.

[Metalcat]

I confess to deliberately mixing metaphors as much as I can - my latest favourite is "not the brightest tool in the picnic basket"

"Not the sharpest knife in the drawer" has a similar meaning.

Is that a mixed metaphor? I don't get it.

[nereo]

I confess to deliberately mixing metaphors as much as I can - my latest favourite is "not the brightest tool in the picnic basket"

"Not the sharpest knife in the drawer" has a similar meaning.

Is that a mixed metaphor? I don't get it.

Color me confused as well...

[RetiredAt63]

How about "sposta" ? "I'm sposta be in court but I've had this toothache for two weeks that needs emergency attention right now"

I've heard people say "sposed to" instead of "supposed to."

And I've heard them say "I hafta ..."

I can live with people saying those.  It's when they spell them like that.  . . Aargg.

[Kris]

How about "sposta" ? "I'm sposta be in court but I've had this toothache for two weeks that needs emergency attention right now"

I've heard people say "sposed to" instead of "supposed to."

And I've heard them say "I hafta ..."

I can live with people saying those.  It's when they spell them like that.  . . Aargg.

My cousin writes “prolly” instead of probably when he’s texting. I find it sort of endearing because it’s him and I like him.

[Metalcat]

How about "sposta" ? "I'm sposta be in court but I've had this toothache for two weeks that needs emergency attention right now"

I've heard people say "sposed to" instead of "supposed to."

And I've heard them say "I hafta ..."

I can live with people saying those.  It's when they spell them like that.  . . Aargg.

My cousin writes “prolly” instead of probably when he’s texting. I find it sort of endearing because it’s him and I like him.

I had a very well written professor ex write "prolly" as well because he used a lot of cutesy text abbreviations. He's a very silly person, so it fit.

[Dicey]

How about "sposta" ? "I'm sposta be in court but I've had this toothache for two weeks that needs emergency attention right now"

I've heard people say "sposed to" instead of "supposed to."

And I've heard them say "I hafta ..."

I can live with people saying those.  It's when they spell them like that.  . . Aargg.

My cousin writes “prolly” instead of probably when he’s texting. I find it sort of endearing because it’s him and I like him.

Ugh. I hate prolly and ima. Ima= I am going to...

[Metalcat]

How about "sposta" ? "I'm sposta be in court but I've had this toothache for two weeks that needs emergency attention right now"

I've heard people say "sposed to" instead of "supposed to."

And I've heard them say "I hafta ..."

I can live with people saying those.  It's when they spell them like that.  . . Aargg.

My cousin writes “prolly” instead of probably when he’s texting. I find it sort of endearing because it’s him and I like him.

Ugh. I hate prolly and ima. Ima= I am going to...

I don't mind the abbreviations in text form because they can really help convey casual tone.

"What are you doing?" has a very different tone that "whatcha doin?"

[Paul der Krake]

I don't mind the abbreviations in text form because they can really help convey casual tone.

"What are you doing?" has a very different tone that "whatcha doin?"

[GreenSheep]

I don't mind the abbreviations in text form because they can really help convey casual tone.

"What are you doing?" has a very different tone that "whatcha doin?"

Haha, thanks for posting that and giving me a laugh! My brother's girlfriend moved to the US as an adult, and she learned her "real" (not textbook) English from "Friends," while I watched it as a native English-speaking American fan, many years before we met. So we bond over "Friends" jokes (among other things). I knew she was a keeper when she got the "pivot" comment I made when they were moving into their new house.

[rmorris50]

I had an elementary school teacher who would get furious when we’d say “I don’t get it”. She’d say it’s “I don’t understand!”

To this day I try not to cringe when I hear people say I don’t get it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chaplin]

To this day I try not to cringe when I hear people say I don’t get it.

I get it, but it seems to be a bit of an overreaction.

[nereo]

I had an elementary school teacher who would get furious when we’d say “I don’t get it”. She’d say it’s “I don’t understand!”

To this day I try not to cringe when I hear people say I don’t get it.

To me, “I don’t get it” and “I don’t understand” convey distinctly different sentiments.

English teachers have long been prejudiced against the word “get”. 

[Dicey]

I had an elementary school teacher who would get furious when we’d say “I don’t get it”. She’d say it’s “I don’t understand!”

To this day I try not to cringe when I hear people say I don’t get it.

To me, “I don’t get it” and “I don’t understand” convey distinctly different sentiments.

English teachers have long been prejudiced against the word “get”.

Lol, I'm old, so I remember when cigarette advertising was far less restricted. The slogan,  "Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should" incited much wailing and gnashing of English teacher teeth. Though the ad was effective, it was always used as an example of poor grammar. Funny, nowadays, It certainly would not have the same impact.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_tastes_good_like_a_cigarette_should#Grammar_controversy

[rmorris50]

I had an elementary school teacher who would get furious when we’d say “I don’t get it”. She’d say it’s “I don’t understand!”

To this day I try not to cringe when I hear people say I don’t get it.

To me, “I don’t get it” and “I don’t understand” convey distinctly different sentiments.

English teachers have long been prejudiced against the word “get”.

Lol, I'm old, so I remember when cigarette advertising was far less restricted. The slogan,  "Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should" incited much wailing and gnashing of English teacher teeth. Though the ad was effective, it was always used as an example of poor grammar. Funny, nowadays, It certainly would not have the same impact.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_tastes_good_like_a_cigarette_should#Grammar_controversy

That’s like, the craziest thing that I’ve, like, ever heard!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

It does annoy me when people use "like" to mean "as", or when they use a comma where a semi-colon is more suited.

I know descriptivists will say that this is just how language evolves...etc

While I can easily accept that as true, I don't know why people are so sanguine about it. It's intellectually lazy. E.g. - if we were to replace semi-colons with commas, there would be no difference between the short (phonetic and conceptual) pause indicated by a comma and the longer one signified by a semi-colon. And that would be a loss of nuance. Yet no one seems to care. Where are people's standards?

That has been your weekly grammatical rant from moi.

Also, while I'm at it, I get slightly, almost (but not quite) imperceptibly annoyed by tense mismatches.

I saw something in the paper today (it's meant to be a decent paper but I think they fired all their editors in a cost-cutting thing) that said, "Since Bush's election in 2004, I thought about this issue..." - of course it should have been "I've been thinking about this issue" not "I thought". Or you could have kept the "I thought" and changed "Since" to "After".

I'm not trying to be unnecessarily nitpicky - the tense dislocation genuinely makes my brain skip a beat when I read it.

[rmorris50]

I also cringe at “you know what I mean?”. It’s a terrible elicitor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Metalcat]

I also cringe at “you know what I mean?”. It’s a terrible elicitor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's because it's meant as a passive aggressive signal for consensus. It's a fantastic linguistic tool for pushing people to essentially agree when they are hesitant to. I used it all the time with patients, because to disagree means to clarify that you do understand, but don't agree, and that creates a lot of conversational friction.

It's a pain in the ass to the listener, but an effective tool for the speaker if they are looking to subtly control the conversation.

[GreenSheep]

I also cringe at “you know what I mean?”. It’s a terrible elicitor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's because it's meant as a passive aggressive signal for consensus. It's a fantastic linguistic tool for pushing people to essentially agree when they are hesitant to. I used it all the time with patients, because to disagree means to clarify that you do understand, but don't agree, and that creates a lot of conversational friction.

It's a pain in the ass to the listener, but an effective tool for the speaker if they are looking to subtly control the conversation.

So that's why it often sounds bossy to me and I could never quite put my finger on why. On the other hand, depending on the speaker, and especially when overused, sometimes it sounds to me like a nervous person looking for reassurance.

[Metalcat]

I also cringe at “you know what I mean?”. It’s a terrible elicitor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's because it's meant as a passive aggressive signal for consensus. It's a fantastic linguistic tool for pushing people to essentially agree when they are hesitant to. I used it all the time with patients, because to disagree means to clarify that you do understand, but don't agree, and that creates a lot of conversational friction.

It's a pain in the ass to the listener, but an effective tool for the speaker if they are looking to subtly control the conversation.

So that's why it often sounds bossy to me and I could never quite put my finger on why. On the other hand, depending on the speaker, and especially when overused, sometimes it sounds to me like a nervous person looking for reassurance.

It's both, because both are doing the same thing. The nervous person is trying to trigger the exact same reaction as the assertive person. They're trying to make it uncomfortable for you to not express understanding of their position.

It's right there in the language: "you know what I mean"

It's specifically structured to make dissent less likely without being direct that that's what they're doing.

[rmorris50]

I also cringe at “you know what I mean?”. It’s a terrible elicitor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's because it's meant as a passive aggressive signal for consensus. It's a fantastic linguistic tool for pushing people to essentially agree when they are hesitant to. I used it all the time with patients, because to disagree means to clarify that you do understand, but don't agree, and that creates a lot of conversational friction.

It's a pain in the ass to the listener, but an effective tool for the speaker if they are looking to subtly control the conversation.

Yeah, but this can lead to just more breakdown in communication. If I don’t care what you’re saying, I respond with “sure”, or “whatever you say”. If I do care, I respond with “so if I understand you correctly, you’re saying x, y, z” and then make the person clarify.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Morning Glory]

I also cringe at “you know what I mean?”. It’s a terrible elicitor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's because it's meant as a passive aggressive signal for consensus. It's a fantastic linguistic tool for pushing people to essentially agree when they are hesitant to. I used it all the time with patients, because to disagree means to clarify that you do understand, but don't agree, and that creates a lot of conversational friction.

It's a pain in the ass to the listener, but an effective tool for the speaker if they are looking to subtly control the conversation.

So that's why it often sounds bossy to me and I could never quite put my finger on why. On the other hand, depending on the speaker, and especially when overused, sometimes it sounds to me like a nervous person looking for reassurance.

It's both, because both are doing the same thing. The nervous person is trying to trigger the exact same reaction as the assertive person. They're trying to make it uncomfortable for you to not express understanding of their position.

It's right there in the language: "you know what I mean"

It's specifically structured to make dissent less likely without being direct that that's what they're doing.

I'm starting to think you are a sociopath, Malcat.
I always took "you know what I mean" to be a slightly annoying verbal tic meant to fill silence, nothing diabolical. A regional variant is "dontcha know"

[sui generis]

I also cringe at “you know what I mean?”. It’s a terrible elicitor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's because it's meant as a passive aggressive signal for consensus. It's a fantastic linguistic tool for pushing people to essentially agree when they are hesitant to. I used it all the time with patients, because to disagree means to clarify that you do understand, but don't agree, and that creates a lot of conversational friction.

It's a pain in the ass to the listener, but an effective tool for the speaker if they are looking to subtly control the conversation.

So that's why it often sounds bossy to me and I could never quite put my finger on why. On the other hand, depending on the speaker, and especially when overused, sometimes it sounds to me like a nervous person looking for reassurance.

It's both, because both are doing the same thing. The nervous person is trying to trigger the exact same reaction as the assertive person. They're trying to make it uncomfortable for you to not express understanding of their position.

It's right there in the language: "you know what I mean"

It's specifically structured to make dissent less likely without being direct that that's what they're doing.

I'm starting to think you are a sociopath, Malcat.
I always took "you know what I mean" to be a slightly annoying verbal tic meant to fill silence, nothing diabolical. A regional variant is "dontcha know"

Oh, it's definitely that for some people.

Something I can't stand that I feel like started with Barack Obama (someone I otherwise admire) is starting off sentences, typically responses to questions, with "Listen".  Yeah, don't tell me what to do!  I asked you a question, I am not gonna NOT listen to your answer!

I found it sensible on those occasions when someone is being disingenuous with their question or is being sarcastic or something and the "Listen" is meant to imply something to the effect of "Let's not play these games; here's the bottom line . . . "  But when you start off nearly every response with "Listen"(Nate Silver does this a lot as well, on his podcast) it starts to grate on me, like they think the questioner is always being disingenuous and they are constantly in a defensive posture.

[Metalcat]

I also cringe at “you know what I mean?”. It’s a terrible elicitor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's because it's meant as a passive aggressive signal for consensus. It's a fantastic linguistic tool for pushing people to essentially agree when they are hesitant to. I used it all the time with patients, because to disagree means to clarify that you do understand, but don't agree, and that creates a lot of conversational friction.

It's a pain in the ass to the listener, but an effective tool for the speaker if they are looking to subtly control the conversation.

So that's why it often sounds bossy to me and I could never quite put my finger on why. On the other hand, depending on the speaker, and especially when overused, sometimes it sounds to me like a nervous person looking for reassurance.

It's both, because both are doing the same thing. The nervous person is trying to trigger the exact same reaction as the assertive person. They're trying to make it uncomfortable for you to not express understanding of their position.

It's right there in the language: "you know what I mean"

It's specifically structured to make dissent less likely without being direct that that's what they're doing.

I'm starting to think you are a sociopath, Malcat.
I always took "you know what I mean" to be a slightly annoying verbal tic meant to fill silence, nothing diabolical. A regional variant is "dontcha know"

Lol, not a sociopath. I would be a lot richer if I was.
It's not diabolical to have intention behind what we say. We all do it, most people just aren't conscious of it.

All speaking is meant to convey information and/or persuade the thinking or behaviour of the listener. It's not diabolical, it's the entire point of talking to someone.

Nothing anyone says is devoid of intention.

Am I freakishly good at maneuvering people towards behaviour I want from them? Absolutely. Is that diabolical? Not unless my intentions are, and as a medical professional, I was usually just trying to get people to take basic care of their own bodies and those of their children.

We want doctors to be persuasive. Most aren't, which is actually a bad thing for society.

[John Galt incarnate!]

I had an elementary school teacher who would get furious when we’d say “I don’t get it”. She’d say it’s “I don’t understand!”

To this day I try not to cringe when I hear people say I don’t get it.



To me, “I don’t get it” and “I don’t understand” convey distinctly different sentiments.



I agree.

I think "I don't get it" usually means that the person uttering  it does understand the issue, matter, or situation, (the "it") but their understanding is such that  there's something about the "it" that doesn't "make sense" to them.

For example, A and B are wealthy neighbors.

 B is caught shoplifting a $1 item and when A finds out he says to his wife "I don't get it."

A understands exactly what  B has done but his wrongdoing doesn't "make sense" to A because A knows B is wealthy which obviates any need for him to shoplift.

[Dicey]

I had an elementary school teacher who would get furious when we’d say “I don’t get it”. She’d say it’s “I don’t understand!”

To this day I try not to cringe when I hear people say I don’t get it.

To me, “I don’t get it” and “I don’t understand” convey distinctly different sentiments.

English teachers have long been prejudiced against the word “get”.

Lol, I'm old, so I remember when cigarette advertising was far less restricted. The slogan,  "Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should" incited much wailing and gnashing of English teacher teeth. Though the ad was effective, it was always used as an example of poor grammar. Funny, nowadays, It certainly would not have the same impact.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_tastes_good_like_a_cigarette_should#Grammar_controversy

That’s like, the craziest thing that I’ve, like, ever heard!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Um, no. Using "like" as a verbal tic is a whole different conversation.  In this case, it was the use of the word "like" instead of "as", which supports my last sentence above.

And if @Malcat is a sociopath, God help us all, lol.

[merula]

The American use of "anymore" to mean "nowadays" is confusing and strange to me

On the other hand, I love using the phrase "come with" which is probably the same type of thing.

I live in Minnesota which is probably the world capital of "come with" and "go with", and my German teachers pointed out that that structure would be grammatically correct in German, Swedish and Norwegian, which were the major immigrant groups to Minnesota. (This is also the source of the long vowels of the typical Minnesota accent, dooonchaah knoow?)

Could you give examples of sentences with "go with" and "come with"?   I'm not seeing a problem with them, so I'm guessing it is how they are used in a sentence that bothers people.

"I'm going to the store, want to come with?"

Aah, they are being lazy and leaving out the last "me".  Or being energetic, I would be fine with "I'm going to the store, want to come?"  The "with me" being implied.

Not lazy or energetic, just a dialectical variant common to certain regions, the same way that "let's go back to mine" isn't just a lazy version of "let's go back to my place", or "go to hospital" isn't a lazy version of "go to the hospital". They're just variants that aren't common in North America.

Yes, this. It has a different connotation. You *can* say "come with me", but that means you're emphasizing the "me" in a way that "come with" doesn't have, and that isn't understood as the same emphasis in areas where "come with me"  is standard.

I don't know Swedish or Norwegian, but the German verbs are "mitkommen" and "mitgehen", literally come with and go with, and they can be correctly used either transitively or intransitively. The immigrants just applied the same rule to English.

[Dicey]

Today, on this very forum: "buku bucks". Argh!!!

[Metalcat]

I had an elementary school teacher who would get furious when we’d say “I don’t get it”. She’d say it’s “I don’t understand!”

To this day I try not to cringe when I hear people say I don’t get it.

To me, “I don’t get it” and “I don’t understand” convey distinctly different sentiments.

English teachers have long been prejudiced against the word “get”.

Lol, I'm old, so I remember when cigarette advertising was far less restricted. The slogan,  "Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should" incited much wailing and gnashing of English teacher teeth. Though the ad was effective, it was always used as an example of poor grammar. Funny, nowadays, It certainly would not have the same impact.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_tastes_good_like_a_cigarette_should#Grammar_controversy

That’s like, the craziest thing that I’ve, like, ever heard!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Um, no. Using "like" as a verbal tic is a whole different conversation.  In this case, it was the use of the word "like" instead of "as", which supports my last sentence above.

And if @Malcat is a sociopath, God help us all, lol.

Ugh, it really would make my life so much easier though.