Annoying words, and Words You Hate

[Oflick]

Throngs.

I don't know why, it just never looks or sounds natural to me.

[Eebster the Great]

Throngs.

I don't know why, it just never looks or sounds natural to me.

"Throngs" were always bad news in Heroes III.

[Anonymously Famous]

I don't really hate them, but compound word prepositions look odd to me: thereunto, therein, heretofore, theretofore, etc.

[Pez Dispens3r]

Iknowright?

[gingermrkettle]

1364 posts and nobody has mentioned the word "webinar". This needs to be rectified.

[hifi]

Don't know if anyone's mentioned these, but I've a few that just don't feel right when I say them:

Moist
Panties (try saying it without sounding like a little girl or a pedophile)
Kiss
Blasé (it's impossible to say this without sounding pretentious)
Pretentious

And yes, I'm aware that 60% of those words have some dirty side to them. I'm just not much of a talker-about-those-things, more of a do-er.

[Monika]

Don't know if anyone's mentioned these

You know you can find out, right? The little text box directly above the thread is for searching inside the thread.
(I don't mean to say you cannot post them again.)

Moist: 43 posts (including insided quoted parts and including yours), some of them around how it is the most hated word by English-speaking people, some around a song with the title moist vagina.

Panties: 9 posts.

Kiss: 12 posts.

Blasé: 5.

Pretentious: 19.

So you're in good company .

[hifi]

Huh, learn something new every day

Kiss: 12 posts.

Now that I wasn't expecting. I seriously thought I was the only one. Mind you, I should have known better - this is xkcd, after all.

[Felstaff]

Blasé (it's impossible to say this without sounding pretentious)

Oh that is so passée.

[hifi]

Blasé (it's impossible to say this without sounding pretentious)

Oh that is so passée.

Ah, a soigné cliché. Touché.

[Amelie]

I really hate "Kiss."

[Ephemeron]

Digital download

I hate it. Companies say it to make something sound gimmicky. Have you ever heard of a non-digital download? No? Then stop saying it!

Blasé (it's impossible to say this without sounding pretentious)

Try making it into a trochee - emphasis on the first syllable.

[Eugo]

Digital download

I hate it. Companies say it to make something sound gimmicky. Have you ever heard of a non-digital download? No? Then stop saying it!

How about a pair of digital speakers? Or a digital headset?

It should flatly refuse to play analog sounds, if it was so digital. Maybe I should just buy one, prove that it isn't digital and then sue the manufacturer for false advertising?

[gmalivuk]

It takes digital input instead of analog input. Seems fine to call it digital.

[Eugo]

It takes digital input instead of analog input. Seems fine to call it digital.

That's the point, it does not, technically, take digital input. It's a dummy speaker, it actually takes analog input. It has to be converted to analog by the amplifier. It doesn't matter that the sound was stored digitally, the signal to the speakers is still analog.

Calling it "digital" is just shorthand for "yes it will work with your computer". I've plugged my 1979 speakers, cannibalized from an old tape recorder, straight into an audio card and they worked. Does that make them digital?

[The Scyphozoa]

This conversation reminds me of the teacher I had for the first half of third grade, teaching us about reading clocks. "This is a digital clock. It is also called an analog clock."

I don't remember what word she used when talking about analog clocks.

[Eebster the Great]

I guess speakers are "digital" if the DAC is contained in the speaker system and "analgog" if it is not. Truly digital speakers are very rare.

[Fire Brns]

narcicist and related words, just so...gah!

[Eebster the Great]

narcicist and related words, just so...gah!

I think the name Narcissus would be pretty nice if not for the mythology surrounding it.

[Fire Brns]

narcicist and related words, just so...gah!

I think the name Narcissus would be pretty nice if not for the mythology surrounding it.

I agree on that point but with the "ist" at the end all that pops into my minnd is a high and mighty pustule. Plus it is thrown around so much that it has lost validity.

[Eebster the Great]

narcicist and related words, just so...gah!

I think the name Narcissus would be pretty nice if not for the mythology surrounding it.

I agree on that point but with the "ist" at the end all that pops into my minnd is a high and mighty pustule. Plus it is thrown around so much that it has lost validity.

Like a Narci-cyst?

[dunstergirl]

amongst (used at least once in this thread, use among) and whilst (use while). Seriously.

I concur with a previous post about "transition" as a verb, it is NOT.

Please don't talk about growing anything besides plants. As in "grow the economy" etc. Only things that are alive can grow/be grown.

"Global warming" fails to describe the situation, please use "climate change" instead and I prefer impact as a noun tho correct to use as a verb, it pisses me off.

Finally, in the jargon department - an "observationalist" is the same as an "observer" and the latter saves space.

Good thing I am not actually editing while writing this.

Lelani

[gmalivuk]

amongst (used at least once in this thread, use among) and whilst (use while). Seriously.

These are dialect differences, so you merely have an aesthetic preference.

I concur with a previous post about "transition" as a verb, it is NOT.

It is if people use it as one. And people do. So it is.

Please don't talk about growing anything besides plants. As in "grow the economy" etc. Only things that are alive can grow/be grown.

Anything, alive or not, can grow. Grow only means increase in size. I agree that "be grown" is different, but that it can apply to anything intentionally grown, such as crystals.

Finally, in the jargon department - an "observationalist" is the same as an "observer" and the latter saves space.

No, "observationalist" means someone who favors observation, while "observer" means someone who observes.

[eSOANEM]

amongst (used at least once in this thread, use among) and whilst (use while). Seriously.

To clarify Gmalivuk's response:

Amongst my family (and, in my experience, most RP speakers), it is common to use "whilst" and "amongst" whilst still using "while" and "among" as well.

Trying to analyse my own speech (which is always fun), I found that the distinction (with "while" and "whilst" at least) seemed to depend primarily on the conjugation of the verb although, without following the entire thought process again, I cannot tell you what properties it seemed to be tied to.

All this aside, I, and my family tend to use the -st variant more often and, outside of my family, the exact proportion varies significantly from person to person although, there are very few people I know in this country, who would never use or would object to the use of the -st variant.

[skullturf]

I will add that for me as a North American (born and raised in Western Canada, and living in Delaware) the word "whilst" basically doesn't exist in my dialect. I never use it in speech or in writing.

However, it clearly does exist in some English dialects (in Britain, for example).

[dunstergirl]

amongst (used at least once in this thread, use among) and whilst (use while). Seriously.

These are dialect differences, so you merely have an aesthetic preference.

The thread was "annoying words and words you hate," not whether they should be allowed or not. I get that the "st" form is used more frequently in some places (chiefly Britain) than others, it just sounds pretentious to me.

I concur with a previous post about "transition" as a verb, it is NOT.

It is if people use it as one. And people do. So it is.

Unfortunate, but true. An old HS teacher of mine argues that the language is always changing so I should relax and get over it already. One could then argue (based on your argument and his) that "alot" should be a word. NOT.

Please don't talk about growing anything besides plants. As in "grow the economy" etc. Only things that are alive can grow/be grown.

Anything, alive or not, can grow. Grow only means increase in size. I agree that "be grown" is different, but that it can apply to anything intentionally grown, such as crystals.

Again, I agree that the usage isn't incorrect, just annoying. But the $64,000 question is, how do you, for example, "grow the economy"? Fertilizer? War?

Finally, in the jargon department - an "observationalist" is the same as an "observer" and the latter saves space.

No, "observationalist" means someone who favors observation, while "observer" means someone who observes.

OK, so the next time I see it used in the proper context (bahahah) I'll let it stand. Most scientists involved with climate observations (i.e., measurements) and related disciplines use it as a synonym for "observer," which pisses me off. Only because I feel that the proliferation of jargon in various scientific disciplines makes it that much harder for the average person to actually understand the science that might be important in their lives.

When I was in grad school a fellow student used the words "turbulent mechanical stress" in a grant application to describe "wind." I wanted to kill him for that. In the end, he became director of a lab at a prestigious institution while I raise chickens in the middle of nowhere, so who was right?

dunstergirl

[Kewangji]

"Global warming" fails to describe the situation, please use "climate change" instead and I prefer impact as a noun tho correct to use as a verb, it pisses me off.

I favour 'global weirding'.

[gmalivuk]

The thread was "annoying words and words you hate," not whether they should be allowed or not. I get that the "st" form is used more frequently in some places (chiefly Britain) than others, it just sounds pretentious to me.

And that's fine. I took issue with your post as a whole, though, because a bunch of the other stuff you said was declarations about what's correct or incorrect in English.

Unfortunate, but true. An old HS teacher of mine argues that the language is always changing so I should relax and get over it already. One could then argue (based on your argument and his) that "alot" should be a word. NOT.

It's not a matter of what should be, but what is. If "alot" eventually becomes one word outside of informal or typo situations, what would make it different from "another"? There are plenty of words you use every day that are the way they are because people in the past made mistakes that caught on.

And is leaving out that space really any lazier than leaving out the last three letters of "though"?

No, "observationalist" means someone who favors observation, while "observer" means someone who observes.

OK, so the next time I see it used in the proper context (bahahah) I'll let it stand. Most scientists involved with climate observations (i.e., measurements) and related disciplines use it as a synonym for "observer," which pisses me off.

Care to provide any examples of this? Every time I can remember seeing the word it has been decidedly not as a synonym for "observer". Are you sure you're understanding it correctly?

When I was in grad school a fellow student used the words "turbulent mechanical stress" in a grant application to describe "wind."

Was he only concerned with wind, or was he potentially interested in other forms of turbulent mechanical stress? Was he concerned with all types and speeds of wind in general, to have warranted using such a vague word? I agree that jargon sometimes gets out of hand, especially on occasions when scientists are ostensibly writing for a lay audience, but other times it's necessary for the far greater accuracy and precision it offers. You yourself prefer "climate change" to "global warming", because it's more accurate, while people who don't actually get it often think it must just be a weasely change for scientists to cover their asses when AGW finally gets exposed as a giant environmentalist hoax.

[dunstergirl]

Google "observationalist climate" and see what I am talking about.

Not willing to argue, this thread WAS about words that annoy you or you hate. Not whether they are generally acceptable or not, or whether one is better than another. So next document I edit I should let it all go because the language is changing all the time? I think not.

O and my friend's grant application was specific to the effects of "turbulent mechanical stress" (i.e., wind) on trees. Nothing more. Not sure he even got the grant, but it hardly matters now. Every time the wind blows through the trees around my house I think of him...

dunstergirl

[gmalivuk]

So next document I edit I should let it all go because the language is changing all the time?

Good job missing the point. Language change doesn't mean there aren't conventions and different registers and expectations of certain levels of formality. Any more now than it has over the previous millennium and a half of changing English.

Nice false dichotomy, though.

Edit: I googled "observationalist climate" (without quotes). As I suspected, "observationalist" gives information about the methods and focus of a climatologist's primary work and research methods far beyond anything "observer" suggests. It's not like observationalists just sit and watch the weather like a couple of old men on a porch. The word you prefer utterly lacks the precise (and often quite useful) connotations of the "newly" coined version.

(I say newly in quotes because "observationalism" was in use at least 124 years ago.)

[PM 2Ring]

O and my friend's grant application was specific to the effects of "turbulent mechanical stress" (i.e., wind) on trees.

I'm curious as to why you wrote "O" (the vocative particle) rather than "Oh" (an interjection).

[Derek]

I concur with a previous post about "transition" as a verb, it is NOT.

Please don't talk about growing anything besides plants. As in "grow the economy" etc. Only things that are alive can grow/be grown.

How would you express these ideas then? In particular, to me "transition" is a verb first, and then a noun (ie, if you asked me to define "transition", I would first give you the verb definition).

[The Scyphozoa]

I can't think of any situations in which the verb "transition" couldn't be replaced by "move".

[Iulus Cofield]

"I moved from being a man to being a woman."?

[The Scyphozoa]

I wouldn't have used "transitioned" there either.

[gmalivuk]

Not terribly relevant. People who actually do transition use that word themselves.

[zmic]

I hate the frequent use of the word "experience" in marketing blurb

Like downloading a file becomes "your download experience". Come on already...

[nbilyk]

I would agree that "moist" is one of the most uncomfortable non-vulgar words. If you count vulgar words, "queef" would be at the top of the list. You can't even say queef without feeling weird about it.

[Catmando]

I would agree that "moist" is one of the most uncomfortable non-vulgar words. If you count vulgar words, "queef" would be at the top of the list. You can't even say queef without feeling weird about it.

"Squick" and "squee" each make me feel weirder than "queef" and "moist" ever have.

[Monika]

Squee is such a nice word!

Damn, know I looked up what queef means. I would rather not have known.