Annoying words, and Words You Hate

[mric]

Every time I travel in a plane from a US airline, I hear the terrifying warning that "the plane will take off momentarily".

When you are flying from New York to London, the last thing you want to hear is that the aeroplane will take off for just a few moments before returning abruptly to the ground. When, on approach, I hear that we will be landing momentarily, I grab my bag and prepare to run for the door. Will I get out in the brief seconds before the pilot takes off again?

[goofy]

Might I suggest a good dictionary

[The Scyphozoa]

Might I suggest a good dictionary

The first definition on that page is what mric was talking about.

[mric]

You might. I already knew that the dictionary recognises the "in a moment" usage. However, outside the US (and possibly among some Americans), the "for a moment" usage is dominant. The "in a moment", or "shortly" (as opposed to "briefly") usage annoys me, it sounds like a typical corporate "use a long word when shorter words would do, because we want to sound impressive". It reflects a lack of international linguistic awareness on the part of a US airline flying an international passenger list.

When a cabin crew member announces that due to a technical fault the lights will dim momentarily, do you expect them to go off soon, or for a short period of time?

[goofy]

However, outside the US (and possibly among some Americans), the "for a moment" usage is dominant.

This is true, according to MDWEU.

It reflects a lack of international linguistic awareness on the part of a US airline flying an international passenger list.

However, I am very skeptical that an English speaker from outside the US can hear "the plane will take off momentarily" and really, sincerely think that means that the plane will take off and then immediately land again.

[elasto]

I'm sure it urks all of us when we see 'up to' in an advert - ie 'Buy our internet service and receive up to 20Mb/s!' But that could be any amount including zero... Indeed it's probably already been mentioned as an irritant in this thread.

I've seen one one better, though. My poker site is offering me - and I quote - 'Make up to over $100 for every friend who joins you here!' which now contains literally no information at all :p

I could imagine the conversation with the sales rep going as follows.
'$100?'
'Yup. Up to over $100!'
'So, say, $5000?'
'Yup. Up to over $5000!!'
'How much will I actually get?'
'38c'

[Chuff]

When a cabin crew member announces that due to a technical fault the lights will dim momentarily, do you expect them to go off soon, or for a short period of time?

I have no idea.

Huh, that is a crappy word.

[mric]

However, I am very skeptical that an English speaker from outside the US can hear "the plane will take off momentarily" and really, sincerely think that means that the plane will take off and then immediately land again.

I agree - all that will be created is a brief moment of discomfort. There is no law against the airline's usage, nor should there be, apart from the law of marketing "don't unnecessarily irritate your customers, however unreasonable their irritation".

[SlyReaper]

I'm sure it urks all of us when we see 'up to' in an advert - ie 'Buy our internet service and receive up to 20Mb/s!' But that could be any amount including zero... Indeed it's probably already been mentioned as an irritant in this thread.

I think ISPs are legally obligated to include "up to" in their adverts these days. People complained when they were being sold "X Mb/s Broadband" and not getting X Mb/s on their line, so advertising standards stepped in and told the ISPs to stop telling porkies.

[elasto]

I'm sure it urks all of us when we see 'up to' in an advert - ie 'Buy our internet service and receive up to 20Mb/s!' But that could be any amount including zero... Indeed it's probably already been mentioned as an irritant in this thread.

I think ISPs are legally obligated to include "up to" in their adverts these days. People complained when they were being sold "X Mb/s Broadband" and not getting X Mb/s on their line, so advertising standards stepped in and told the ISPs to stop telling porkies.

Well, you're half-right. They aren't legally obligated to include 'up to', they are just legally obligated not to lie. A sensible legal obligation would be to give average line speed and the proportion of people that get within, say, 10% of the maximum speed. But, sadly, there isn't such a legal obligation.

According to this UK report, a whopping 97% of people don't get the speed advertised in the 'up to X' advert. Moreover, it's getting worse: In 2009, on average, people got 58% of the advertised speed. In 2010 they are getting, on average, 46%. Imagine if any other product were sold like that. Imagine if the RAM you bought for your computer was advertised as 'up to 2GB!' but actually gave only 920MB. Imagine if instead of only stiffing you 2% or so on your HDD capacity your HDD came 54% smaller than advertised.

It's nothing more than shameful...

[gmalivuk]

Imagine if the RAM you bought for your computer was advertised as 'up to 2GB!' but actually gave only 920MB. Imagine if instead of only stiffing you 2% or so on your HDD capacity your HDD came 54% smaller than advertised.

Except, there'd be no reason to sell RAM or HDD space that way, because you can actually guarantee how many GB are there, and it doesn't vary. It is impossible to guarantee bandwidth, on the other hand, and so "up to X" could (and probably often does) mean you'll sometimes get speeds right up to X, though usually they'll be lower.

Yes, saying the average might be more honest and make more sense, but comparing it to constants like how much capacity your hard drive has is stupid.

[elasto]

Imagine if the RAM you bought for your computer was advertised as 'up to 2GB!' but actually gave only 920MB. Imagine if instead of only stiffing you 2% or so on your HDD capacity your HDD came 54% smaller than advertised.

Except, there'd be no reason to sell RAM or HDD space that way, because you can actually guarantee how many GB are there, and it doesn't vary. It is impossible to guarantee bandwidth, on the other hand, and so "up to X" could (and probably often does) mean you'll sometimes get speeds right up to X, though usually they'll be lower.

Yes, saying the average might be more honest and make more sense, but comparing it to constants like how much capacity your hard drive has is stupid.

Why is it stupid? Ok, if you don't like the RAM example, compare it to tv then. Would you accept it if you bought a cable package and you only got 46% of the channels? Or you got all the channels but only 46% of the time? 'Pay $49.99 a month and receive up to 99 channels!!'

Why is it that ISPs get a free pass to the extent that they do? Why isn't advertising at a speed so much higher than the average person achieves actually regarded as fraudulent?

I say make it simple: If someone doesn't receive 80% of the speed advertised 80% of the time they get that month's money refunded. You'd soon see the adverts becoming more realistic... There's nothing wrong with the company providing more bandwidth than demanded, after all. If these adverts, instead of offering 10Mb/s (and failing to provide half of that) offered 5Mb instead, any complaints would be much less grounded. Alternately, make it a pro-rata type cost: You sign up for the 10MB service but get 5MB, you pay half your bill. You get the full 10MB you pay the full amount. That model would also have the ISPs pulling their socks up...

[SlyReaper]

Imagine if the RAM you bought for your computer was advertised as 'up to 2GB!' but actually gave only 920MB. Imagine if instead of only stiffing you 2% or so on your HDD capacity your HDD came 54% smaller than advertised.

Except, there'd be no reason to sell RAM or HDD space that way, because you can actually guarantee how many GB are there, and it doesn't vary. It is impossible to guarantee bandwidth, on the other hand, and so "up to X" could (and probably often does) mean you'll sometimes get speeds right up to X, though usually they'll be lower.

Yes, saying the average might be more honest and make more sense, but comparing it to constants like how much capacity your hard drive has is stupid.

Why is it stupid? Ok, if you don't like the RAM example, compare it to tv then. Would you accept it if you bought a cable package and you only got 46% of the channels? Or you got all the channels but only 46% of the time? 'Pay $49.99 a month and receive up to 99 channels!!'

Also a silly example. As with hard drives, you can guarantee how many channels you receive.

Why is it that ISPs get a free pass to the extent that they do? Why isn't advertising at a speed so much higher than the average person achieves actually regarded as fraudulent?

Many people do regard it as fraudulent, but the law disagrees. Because they've included "up to" in the advert, they're not lying.

[Velifer]

Also a silly example. As with hard drives, you can guarantee how many channels you receive.

Not so. Program delivery by the network is beyond the control of the cable distributor.

[SlyReaper]

Also a silly example. As with hard drives, you can guarantee how many channels you receive.

Not so. Program delivery by the network is beyond the control of the cable distributor.

Okay yes. You can't control if the network goes out of business, but you can guarantee how many you'll get at the time of installation, unless one of them shuts down in the time between you ringing up the cable company and them setting you up.

[gmalivuk]

Which is why in all those cases "up to" truly would be fraudulent if it was greater than the installed number, because it's *impossible* for you to get up to 2GB out of 1GB of RAM, or 320GB out of a 100GB HDD, or 500 channels out of basic cable. But if it's advertised as up to 10Mbps and your own hardware is good enough, then there is at least some chance you'll occasionally get speeds up to that.

[The Scyphozoa]

or 500 channels out of basic cable.

Oh, you will. In the Future, when 500 channels is basic.

[Velifer]

While we're on marketing speak, some from the commercials:

"home-made" food at a restaurant. Fuck that health code violation! I want RESTAURANT MADE FOOD when I'm in a restaurant!

"Farm-raised" meat or poultry. Where the hell else would it come from? We don't have feral angus herds or flocks of cornish hens running through the jungles of the Midwest.

[Grop]

Is is obvious that home-made means "made by the restaurant's cook", as opposed to nuking something that came out of a factory.

[XKCDeviant]

I hate niche when it is said like nitch *shakes head*

[Felstaff]

People who pronounce it that way are in a highly nish demograph.

[Velifer]

I hate niche when it is said like nitch *shakes head*

Like the standard pronunciation for Americans? Next you're gonna tell me that au gratin doesn't mean "covered with cheese."

[SlyReaper]

I hate niche when it is said like nitch *shakes head*

Like the standard pronunciation for Americans?

Are you serious? I've heard Americans pronounce it like "nitch" before, but I just assumed they were under-educated morons.

[onebeeandrevery]

Whenever someone misuses "random," I die a little bit inside.

I also hate "definately." For all of my "liberal use of language" idealism (I majored in Linguistics in college), I can't get over that people can spell "finite" and "infinite," yet "definitely" eludes about 70% of people I've seen attempt using it in written form.

[Oregonaut]

He's yanking your chain. I pronounce it KNEE-sh, as does anyone else with a firm grasp of the English language.

[gmalivuk]

I can't get over that people can spell "finite" and "infinite," yet "definitely" eludes about 70% of people I've seen attempt using it in written form.

Well "finite" is actually pronounced like it's spelled, and "infinite" is clearly related. I think people have trouble with "definite" and especially "definitely" because the relation to "finite" is unclear and that vowel is so underpronounced.

[Velifer]

I hate niche when it is said like nitch *shakes head*

Like the standard pronunciation for Americans?

Are you serious? I've heard Americans pronounce it like "nitch" before, but I just assumed they were under-educated morons.

Yeah, /nɪʧ/ really is standard, and at least as common as /nɪʃ/ and /niʃ/. It's more likely to hear /nɪʧ/ from uneducated morons, but even university-types say /nɪʧ/ fairly often.

[onebeeandrevery]

Well "finite" is actually pronounced like it's spelled, and "infinite" is clearly related. I think people have trouble with "definite" and especially "definitely" because the relation to "finite" is unclear and that vowel is so underpronounced.

Well yes, of course, but I just like to imagine a perfect world where people take the time to understand the words they use most and therefore familiarize themselves with WHY they are spelled certain ways. I don't have many pet peeves, because life is too short to care much about grammar/spelling, but this is DEFINATELY my weakness.

[Zarq]

Whenever someone misuses "random," I die a little bit inside.

How do they misuse ''random''?

[fənɑlədʒɪst]

He's yanking your chain. I pronounce it KNEE-sh, as does anyone else with a firm grasp of the English language.

Not true. All three pronunciations... /nɪʧ/, /nɪʃ/, and even /niʃ/, are represented in the US. It has nothing to do with someone's grasp of the English language. It's variation, just like caramel being pronounced /kɛɹəmɛl/ or /kɑɹməl/, depending on the speaker. Don't dismiss people because of their idiolects.

[fənɑlədʒɪst]

and that vowel is so underpronounced.

What do you mean, underpronounced? As far as I'm aware, "that vowel" in Standard American English is pronounced as /ə/ both in "definite" and "definitely." Perhaps some speakers use /ɪ/ and that's where the spelling "definately" comes in?

[Lazar]

As you can see here, /nɪtʃ/ is the primary pronunciation listed by most dictionaries for American English. It's absurd to get worked up over it when there are so many other French loanwords that have assimilated pronunciations.

But I do agree with onebeerandrevery about "random". A lot of my fellow millennials have been using to describe anything (or anyone) that could be considered unexpected or surreal - someone once told me that she was "random" as if it were a character trait. It's the new "ironic".

[chridd]

and that vowel is so underpronounced.

What do you mean, underpronounced?

I believe he means that the vowel is pronounced /ə/, which could be spelled using any vowel, whereas the second vowel in "finite" is pronounced /aɪ/, which is nearly always spelled with an i.

[fənɑlədʒɪst]

and that vowel is so underpronounced.

What do you mean, underpronounced?

I believe he means that the vowel is pronounced /ə/, which could be spelled using any vowel, whereas the second vowel in "finite" is pronounced /aɪ/, which is nearly always spelled with an i.

I just realized that [dɛf.ɪnɑɪt.li] sounds insane to me XD But yes, the schwa being spelled with any vowel may contribute to the misspelling, but the idea of "underpronouncing" is odd, no? They're just different vowel sounds.

[gmalivuk]

and that vowel is so underpronounced.

What do you mean, underpronounced? As far as I'm aware, "that vowel" in Standard American English is pronounced as /ə/ both in "definite" and "definitely."

Yes, that's my point. It's written as an <i>, and actually pronounced as a "long-I" in "finite". A word with a long-I pronunciation is likely to be spelled with <i>, but a word with a schwa pronunciation could be spelled with any old vowel, since all of them are sometimes reduced to that. Hence, lots of misspellings.

[SlyReaper]

Here's one I get annoyed with: valet.

Do you pronounce it "val-it" or "val-eh"? If you pronounce it "val-eh", you sound like a pretentious prick who likes to unnecessarily frenchify words. If you pronounce it "val-it", you sound like a dim-witted simpleton. There's no way to win. It's the same with debris. Do you put the emphasis on the first or the second syllable? Both seem to be valid, but each will cause people to judge you. At least, they do in my possibly paranoid mind.

Another one I hate is "schedule". In this case, there's no ambiguity. "Sked-yule" is the American version, "Shed-yule" is the British. But if I don't catch myself, I end up using the American version because I've heard it so many times on TV.

[Lazar]

Do you pronounce it "val-it" or "val-eh"? If you pronounce it "val-eh", you sound like a pretentious prick who likes to unnecessarily frenchify words. If you pronounce it "val-it", you sound like a dim-witted simpleton. There's no way to win. It's the same with debris. Do you put the emphasis on the first or the second syllable? Both seem to be valid, but each will cause people to judge you. At least, they do in my possibly paranoid mind.

I think this may be less of a problem here in the US than in Britain - in my experience, [væˈleɪ] (val-AY) and [dəˈbri:] (duh-BREE) are near-universal here and have no particular connotation. As a general rule, Americans prefer final stress for French loanwords, whereas the British prefer initial stress (cf. "buffet", "brochure") and seem a bit more open to anglicized pronunciations like "val-it".

[fənɑlədʒɪst]

Do you pronounce it "val-it" or "val-eh"? If you pronounce it "val-eh", you sound like a pretentious prick who likes to unnecessarily frenchify words. If you pronounce it "val-it", you sound like a dim-witted simpleton. There's no way to win. It's the same with debris. Do you put the emphasis on the first or the second syllable? Both seem to be valid, but each will cause people to judge you. At least, they do in my possibly paranoid mind.

I think this may be less of a problem here in the US than in Britain - in my experience, [væˈleɪ] (val-AY) and [dəˈbri:] (duh-BREE) are near-universal here and have no particular connotation. As a general rule, Americans prefer final stress for French loanwords, whereas the British prefer initial stress (cf. "buffet", "brochure") and seem a bit more open to anglicized pronunciations like "val-it".

I completely agree. Here in the US, if someone were to say anything other than [væˈleɪ] and [dəˈbri:], they would be using nonstandard pronunciation.

As for accidentally saying schedule in the American way due to media influences, don't fight it Language change cannot be stopped. I never worry about whether I accidentally use colour/honour/armour in writing or stay up at night because I can NEVER remember which grey/gray I'm "supposed" to use. I think, at least for grey/gray, no one really cares though, since it's mixed here in the US anyway.

[gmalivuk]

Do you pronounce it "val-it" or "val-eh"? If you pronounce it "val-eh", you sound like a pretentious prick who likes to unnecessarily frenchify words. If you pronounce it "val-it", you sound like a dim-witted simpleton. There's no way to win. It's the same with debris. Do you put the emphasis on the first or the second syllable? Both seem to be valid, but each will cause people to judge you. At least, they do in my possibly paranoid mind.

I think this may be less of a problem here in the US than in Britain - in my experience, [væˈleɪ] (val-AY) and [dəˈbri:] (duh-BREE) are near-universal here and have no particular connotation. As a general rule, Americans prefer final stress for French loanwords, whereas the British prefer initial stress (cf. "buffet", "brochure") and seem a bit more open to anglicized pronunciations like "val-it".

The British still heavily resent the Norman conquest, so will intentionally mispronounce every French word they come across. Americans, on the other hand, realize that this is stupid, especially in light of the French help we got when fighting for independence from Britain, and also the Statue of Liberty, so we decided not to mangle their words *quite* so much.

[Iulus Cofield]

Do you pronounce it "val-it" or "val-eh"? If you pronounce it "val-eh", you sound like a pretentious prick who likes to unnecessarily frenchify words. If you pronounce it "val-it", you sound like a dim-witted simpleton. There's no way to win. It's the same with debris. Do you put the emphasis on the first or the second syllable? Both seem to be valid, but each will cause people to judge you. At least, they do in my possibly paranoid mind.

I think this may be less of a problem here in the US than in Britain - in my experience, [væˈleɪ] (val-AY) and [dəˈbri:] (duh-BREE) are near-universal here and have no particular connotation. As a general rule, Americans prefer final stress for French loanwords, whereas the British prefer initial stress (cf. "buffet", "brochure") and seem a bit more open to anglicized pronunciations like "val-it".

The British still heavily resent the Norman conquest, so will intentionally mispronounce every French word they come across. Americans, on the other hand, realize that this is stupid, especially in light of the French help we got when fighting for independence from Britain, and also the Statue of Liberty, so we decided not to mangle their words *quite* so much.

The [skɛʤʊl]/[ʃɛʤʊl] split seems weird to me, since it's ultimately derived from Latin/Greek, so the /ch/ would normally be Anglicized as [k], but apparently the Britsh have attempted to pronounce the /ch/ as (a German origin?) [ʧ], which practically can't be combined with [s].