Completely unimportant language misuses that bug you

[kyoryu]

When people unnecessarily use i++ instead of ++i. Yes, I know the compiler will optimize it away.

[Jormengand]

When people unnecessarily use i++ instead of ++i. Yes, I know the compiler will optimize it away.

Huh? We're always taught to use i++. I don't even know that you CAN use ++i in most of the languages I use.

[lunaticfringe]

I think that is actually a correct definition of "climax" in English too, although like many words its distinctiveness is being eroded.

I think evolved is a better term. From a narrow definition to multiple definitions that require Context. The original meaning still exists and can still be utilized, but now other possible correct definitions exist. That, imho, denotes complexity not destruction.

[JeenLeen]

It bugs me when the literal meaning of a sentence is not the intended meaning, although the intended meaning is generally clear from context and common usage. For example, "A deadline was missed, and that we all missed work yesterday didn't help."
This literally is an almost meaningless statement about something being non-positive. What is actually meant is that it was a negative influence.

Also, it bugs me if I ask someone if they want x, and they respond "Sure". To me, "Sure" isn't really an answer; it rather means that they would be fine with receiving x, but doesn't tell me if they'd actually like it or are only willing to accept it. But that might be my hang-up on the word "Sure".

To try to literally interpret:

So this literally means "things owned by a sandwich that are owned by a pastry that are owned by a pie, and cakes"... the store sells an unknown object that is owned by a pie's pastry's sandwich as well as cakes.

[Trekkin]

Huh? We're always taught to use i++. I don't even know that you CAN use ++i in most of the languages I use.

I've always been taught to use both depending on whether you want the value of i before or after it's incremented. ++i is faster, although it's only ever going to matter in normal implementation if you're trying to increment some large user-defined type.

It bugs me too, though.

[Aedilred]

I think evolved is a better term. From a narrow definition to multiple definitions that require Context. The original meaning still exists and can still be utilized, but now other possible correct definitions exist. That, imho, denotes complexity not destruction.

It's a form of evolution, and not in itself bad. The problem comes when common use of a word in a certain way not only changes the default definition, but leaves us effectively absent a definition for what the word originally meant. With some adjectives, you can get a kind of "dynamic range compression" for the language, where there are no words left to express extreme phenomena because they're so routinely used for the everyday. Or you can get a situation where a word shifts to mean something so different from what it originally did that it effectively becomes its own antonym, and thus completely redundant.

The obvious, and most topical example, is "literally". Except where obviously used figuratively, which is harder to determine than one might think given that part of the point in the word is to clarify that something often unrealistic did actually happen, use of "literally" not only doesn't help clear up whether something is factually true or not, if anything it makes things even less clear. And we no longer have a word for the originaly meaning of "literally".

"Moot" is another, older, one, and can mean, effectively "valid" or "invalid", and it's hard to know which is which without further interrogation.

I don't mind the shift in word use itself, but the resulting ambiguity is a near-daily annoyance. This is my problem with absolute descriptivists/ism: some changes are pretty much objectively for the worse in terms of furthering ease of communication (which is what descriptivists would say is the point in language) but they still refuse to condemn them because all change is apparently good.

[factotum]

When people unnecessarily use i++ instead of ++i. Yes, I know the compiler will optimize it away.

That's one of those things the compiler really shouldn't be messing with, because the programmer may have intended to use a post-increment rather than a pre-increment, and I wouldn't trust a compiler to know why they did that.

[rooster707]

I'm not sure that this is actually incorrect, but it always bugs me when people capitalize "he," "him," "his," etc., when referring to God or Jesus or whatever. Maybe it's okay to do that, I don't know, it just looks wrong to me. Ugh.

[Aedilred]

I'm not sure that this is actually incorrect, but it always bugs me when people capitalize "he," "him," "his," etc., when referring to God or Jesus or whatever. Maybe it's okay to do that, I don't know, it just looks wrong to me. Ugh.

I'm pretty sure that's not only ok, but recommended by most style guides. Opinions vary, though, and it seems it is largely a matter of opinion.

[Blue Ghost]

The one that always gets me is when people use "tenant" instead of "tenet."

[kyoryu]

I've always been taught to use both depending on whether you want the value of i before or after it's incremented. ++i is faster, although it's only ever going to matter in normal implementation if you're trying to increment some large user-defined type.

Well, the key word here is "unnecessarily". And it could matter if you're doing something in a tight loop in a performance critical situation - like, say game coding.

That's one of those things the compiler really shouldn't be messing with, because the programmer may have intended to use a post-increment rather than a pre-increment, and I wouldn't trust a compiler to know why they did that.

Compilers are pretty good at figuring out when the returned value is unused, and where the copy doesn't have any side effects that need preservation.

This is one of the least intrusive things that modern compilers do when optimizing code....

[Fin]

People that use the word 'irregardless' instead of regardless. Irregardless isn't a word and those that use it should be locked away in a small room together while the rest of us get on with our lives REGARDLESS of what they think about it!

[Jay R]

Apart from the apostrophe thing, what bugs me more than anything else is awkward phrasing that is clearly designed to fit the "rule" against split infinitives or ending a sentence with a preposition. In some cases I've seen professionally-written work that was utterly incomprehensible about this.


All because a few 17th and 18th century writers tried to insist that English was Latin, and managed to convince publishers of cheap dictionaries of it.

Absolutely. Because Latin infinitives are single words, they decided, against all prior usage, that English infinitives couldn't be split.

If they instead the German language had studied, then like this perhaps they the English language to be structured might have insisted.

[Aliquid]

People that use the word 'irregardless' instead of regardless. Irregardless isn't a word and those that use it should be locked away in a small room together while the rest of us get on with our lives REGARDLESS of what they think about it!

Yes, irregardless is a double negative, so it would mean "not without regard", which of course isn't what the people saying it think it means. Fix it by making it a triple negative - "unirregardless", then it reverts back to the proper meaning.

[BWR]

'Irregardless' isn't so much a double negative (which are multiple instances of negations in one phrase, e.g. "ain't got no', to emphasize a point) as simply used incorrectly because it doesn't mean what some people think it means.

[Avianmosquito]

Anybody brought up "I could care less" yet? Yeah, that one grinds my gears.

[Blue Ghost]

Anybody brought up "I could care less" yet? Yeah, that one grinds my gears.

Eh, I could care less about that one.

[Jay R]

I am annoyed by using “jealous” to mean “envious”. I’m envious if I want to share your cake; I’m jealous if I don’t want to share mine.

Also, it annoys me when people confuse “infer” and “imply”. The speaker implies, and the listener infers.

These mistakes are actual problems. They can interfere with the message.

But repetitious acronyms like “PIN number”, or non-words like “irregardless”? Improper, but no problem. Communication was did.

[Aliquid]

Yes, irregardless is a double negative, so it would mean "not without regard", which of course isn't what the people saying it think it means. Fix it by making it a triple negative - "unirregardless", then it reverts back to the proper meaning.

The root word is "regard", the prefix "ir" and the suffix "less" both make a word negative. So that's a double negative.

[Jay R]

Price Point. The word is price people!

"Price point" is economic jargon, and it doesn't mean price. It means one of potentially several hypothetical prices that will keep sales relatively high. For instance, $19.95 is often a price point because fewer people will buy if the price goes up to $20. Similarly, if a similar product sells for $7, then $7 is a price point for you, because if you go above it, people will buy from the competitor instead of you.

Sales Engineer. What in blistering blue blazes is that?

It's the standard job title for a sales consultant position that requires engineering knowledge, such as somebody who helps configure a computer network to a customer's specific needs.

-------------------------------

Things like ATM machine or PIN number. You wouldn't say automated teller machine machine, now, would you?

It's sometimes called RAS syndrome ("redundant acronym syndrome"). But there is no grammatical rule that a sentence not contain any repetition, and we sometimes need the repetition to be clear.

If I refer to my PI number, people will either not understand me or think I said "PIN number". If I just refer to my PIN, some people will likely think I mean a small sharp metal fastener. [In my Texas accent, they may think I mean my pen.] I need to say, "PIN number".

Similarly, "DC" has many meanings, and "D Comics" won't communicate. The only correct way to refer to the comic company named for Detective Comics is "DC Comics".

[Peelee]

The root word is "regard", the prefix "ir" and the suffix "less" both make a word negative. So that's a double negative.

in-
1.
a prefix of Latin origin, corresponding to English un-, having a negative or privative force, freely used as an English formative, especially of adjectives and their derivatives and of nouns.

Organic, inorganic. Defensible, indefensible. Expensive, inexpensive. Combustible, incombustible.

Flammable, inflammable. Yes, I know it's from the Latin inflammo, where the in-prefix meant "in," not "not." Still amusing.

[veti]

American journalistic usage: "ouster". The verb is "oust", you can form a noun from it quite regularly by adding "-ing". "Ouster" is just - stupid.

From the same camp: use of commas to replace "and" in headlines irritating, pointless.

"Free reign", "reign in" - argh.

Use of "sex" to mean "exciting" - "sex up these figures", "that's sexy" etc. No it isn't, it's still an insurance ad.

"Co-workers". Not that it's a particularly bad word in itself, but it tends to be used to demean and distance the speaker from the people they work with. The respectful word is "colleagues". I'm also fine with "teammate" or "workmate".

"Refute". To refute an argument or accusation, it's not enough just to deny it, you need to provide solid evidence that it's wrong. If all you've done is present a counter-argument, that's "rebutting". If you haven't even done that, it's just "denying".

[Aliquid]

in-
1.
a prefix of Latin origin, corresponding to English un-, having a negative or privative force, freely used as an English formative, especially of adjectives and their derivatives and of nouns.

Organic, inorganic. Defensible, indefensible. Expensive, inexpensive. Combustible, incombustible.

Flammable, inflammable. Yes, I know it's from the Latin inflamar, where the in-prefix meant "in," not "not." Still amusing.

but here we are talking about 'ir' not 'in'
as in irrespective, irregular, irrelevant, irrational... etc

[Peelee]

but here we are talking about 'ir' not 'in'
as in irrespective, irregular, irrelevant, irrational... etc

Irregardless.

[Fiery Diamond]

This thread has become quite fun.

Let's see, what are some others?

Hm... oh! Grammatical mistakes centered around tenses! I hear these all the time where I live (in southwest Virginia).

Such as...

He done went/he done gone
He had went
Anything involving using simple past instead of past perfect (or simple past + had instead of past perfect)
Saying "knowed" instead of "known"

... It can get very irritating listening to people talk around here.

[Fin]

Irregardless.

You, I see what you did there...

Anybody brought up "I could care less" yet? Yeah, that one grinds my gears.

I want to second this. It's another example of people saying the exact opposite of what they mean. The majority of the time this is said when the individual means to say that they 'couldn't care less' as in I care so little about this irrelevent thing that I couldn't possible demonstrate any more apathy than I am currently.

Instead they say 'I could care less' which is saying that they essentially do care as they have capcity to care less than they do currently.

Lastly, is everybody else as concerned as I am about using the errors that have been raised in this thread in their posts? I am proof-reading to death

[Jon_Dahl]

The only thing that bothers is that my friends misuse or usually avoid using porque, porquê, por que and por quê. It's hard to pick up the right habit of using these words when I virtually never attest the natives doing that.

[Vinyadan]

in-
1.
a prefix of Latin origin, corresponding to English un-, having a negative or privative force, freely used as an English formative, especially of adjectives and their derivatives and of nouns.

Organic, inorganic. Defensible, indefensible. Expensive, inexpensive. Combustible, incombustible.

Flammable, inflammable. Yes, I know it's from the Latin inflamar, where the in-prefix meant "in," not "not." Still amusing.

but here we are talking about 'ir' not 'in'
as in irrespective, irregular, irrelevant, irrational... etc

Latin has regressive assimilation. In + r- = irr-, in + p- = imp-, in + b = imb, in + l = ill-, in + m- = imm-. (Irritus, impossibilis, imberbis, illaesus, immortalis).

Also, inflamar doesn't sound like Latin to me.

I have one: the way in which the subjunctive is disappearing in English (if I were vs if I was with the same meaning). Something similar is going on in other languages, but in mine it's far less accepted (perceived like a very low-level speaking), so for me it's natural to correct all the "if I was" with "if I were" or "if I had been" (this one seems to be far less frequent).

[Peelee]

Also, inflamar doesn't sound like Latin to me.

Blarg. Fixed. Ya know, i was having fun in this thread until you made me conjugate.

[2D8HP]

...is everybody else as concerned as I am about using the errors that have been raised in this thread in their posts? I am proof-reading to death

I'm way too lazy/lack the time, to go back and correct the many mistakes in my old posts.

...Use of "sex" to mean "exciting" - "sex up these figures", "that's sexy" etc. No it isn't, it's still an insurance ad.

I very much agree, as I hate almost all ad/marketing/sales "speak".

..."Co-workers". Not that it's a particularly bad word in itself, but it tends to be used to demean and distance the speaker from the people they work with. The respectful word is "colleagues". I'm also fine with "teammate" or "workmate"...

I'm very guilty of this one, and yes I use the term for exactly the reasons you cite.

Since I'm neither British or Tarzan, I won't be referring to anyone as any kind of "mate"

I am annoyed by...

Those are all very helpful! Thanks for the....

Communication was did.

Oh, you...