Annoying words, and Words You Hate

[PurplePenguin]

I sort of hate the words "photographer" and "pronunciation", simply because I have to make a huge effort every time I say them not to pronounce them as "photo-grapher" and "pronounciation". I know the right pronunciations, but for some reason they just won't stick in my head, and it irritates me.

(Also, like many many others, hate the words "moist" and "panties". They make me feel like I need a good wash.)

[Monika]

I have the feeling more people say /pɹəˌnaʊnsiˈeɪʃən/ than /pɹəˌnʌnsiˈeɪʃən/

[Derek]

I have the feeling more people say /pɹəˌnaʊnsiˈeɪʃən/ than /pɹəˌnʌnsiˈeɪʃən/

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say the first in real life, although it's an understandable mistake.

[PurplePenguin]

I have the feeling more people say /pɹəˌnaʊnsiˈeɪʃən/ than /pɹəˌnʌnsiˈeɪʃən/

It's possible, though not going to stop my mother from mocking me every time I say it.

[Eugo]

I have the feeling more people say /pɹəˌnaʊnsiˈeɪʃən/ than /pɹəˌnʌnsiˈeɪʃən/

It's possible, though not going to stop my mother from mocking me every time I say it.

You mean, every time you pronunce it?

[gmalivuk]

Pronunciate, even.

(Yeah, I suppose it's not technically a word, and would be completely unnecessary if it were, but the vowel change rule would still apply.)

[eSOANEM]

I have the feeling more people say /pɹəˌnaʊnsiˈeɪʃən/ than /pɹəˌnʌnsiˈeɪʃən/

I'm going to have to say this is very dialect-dependent. Where I live (in SE England), the usual pronunciation is /pɹəˌnɐnsiˈeɪ̯ʃən/.

[emceng]

Searched the thread, and surprised no one mentioned barista. It's pretentious made up word for a profession that takes little skill.

[Eugo]

Searched the thread, and surprised no one mentioned barista. It's pretentious made up word for a profession that takes little skill.

Speaking of such words, realtor is even more ridiculous. It was defined circularly, as those real estate agents who are members of the club of realtors. And then it was trademarked.

[The Scyphozoa]

I think "real estate agent" is more deserving of a single word than "coffee shop worker".

[ShootTheChicken]

I don't see the problem of having 1 word to describe an occupation rather than 3.

[Eugo]

I don't see the problem of having 1 word to describe an occupation rather than 3.

That is exactly the problem, that it is not a profession. "Realtor", by their own definition, is not a real estate dealer. It's a real estate dealer who is a member of realtors' association.

Imagine some other trade doing that - founding a club, then coining a new name for those who are members, making it sound special as if there was any other distinction to it, apart from membership.

Well maybe not a problem, but a reason why I hate the word. Plus their behavior when I was a customer (and I don't even know if my specimen was a member or not).

[gmalivuk]

Searched the thread, and surprised no one mentioned barista. It's pretentious made up word for a profession that takes little skill.

Does it really take less skill than dozens of other jobs that also have single words for them?

[ShootTheChicken]

Imagine some other trade doing that - founding a club, then coining a new name for those who are members, making it sound special as if there was any other distinction to it, apart from membership.

I am failing to find a problem with this.

[goofy]

Searched the thread, and surprised no one mentioned barista. It's pretentious made up word for a profession that takes little skill.

It's not a made up word, it's a borrowing from Italian.

[Eugo]

I am failing to find a problem with this.

It's just a word I hate.

On the annoying list, most of the medications' active substances names. I've even seen things like sulindak in there. Read the small print.

[lorb]

Searched the thread, and surprised no one mentioned barista. It's pretentious made up word for a profession that takes little skill.

It's not a made up word, it's a borrowing from Italian.

So the Italians made it up?

[gmalivuk]

It's just a word I hate.

Except, as has been the case with a lot of the posts in here, it really wasn't "just" a word that you hate. It was a word that you gave some not-purely-asthetic justifications for hating, as though in an effort to convince others that it is indeed a silly word. Only after those justifications were questioned did you back down to the "it's just my opinion" position.

[Eugo]

It's just a word I hate.

Except, as has been the case with a lot of the posts in here, it really wasn't "just" a word that you hate. It was a word that you gave some not-purely-asthetic justifications for hating, as though in an effort to convince others that it is indeed a silly word. Only after those justifications were questioned did you back down to the "it's just my opinion" position.

I tried to explain why I don't like it (and yes, my reasons aren't aesthetic, they are social). But then I wondered why are we discussing it here - this is a topic with personal preferences in the title, no need to convince anyone of anything.

Nice to see you guys jump right up, like each time you do, and try to prove me wrong. Except this wasn't any hypothesis to prove or disprove, just a preference.

[Arlick]

I hate the word "dishonest", mainly because the way it looks is like "dish-onest" which makes no sense. Come to think of it, I hate "dishonourable" (dish-on-our-able) and "dishonour"(dish-on-our), they all look silly. There are probably others I don't like too much, but I can't think of them right now.

[Derek]

I hate the word "dishonest", mainly because the way it looks is like "dish-onest" which makes no sense. Come to think of it, I hate "dishonourable" (dish-on-our-able) and "dishonour"(dish-on-our), they all look silly. There are probably others I don't like too much, but I can't think of them right now.

No wonder they look silly, you've put an extra 'u' in them! Take those out and they'll look like decent, respectable words.

[JohnGalt]

I don't like this being my first post, but... Adding -age to any unit of measure does not give you the general property that the unit of measure is used to describe. For example, "Wattage". Its POWER, not wattage. Also, the rate of flow of charge is electrical current (or just current), NOT "amperage". I'll let voltage pass, but only in certain cases. But I would like to highlight the stupid-soundedness of "amperage".

Another thing, many English colloquilisms don't sit right with me, such as "knickers". But the worst in this category has got to be "innit". When I first moved to England from South Africa (even though I speak English fluently) I could hardly understand anyone because of constructs such as "innit".

[gmalivuk]

Adding -age to any unit of measure does not give you the general property that the unit of measure is used to describe.

No, but it does give a handy noun for the specific number of those units under consideration. "Wattage" is the number of Watts, while "power" is the quantity of energy per time. If I say the Wattage is 1, it means 1 Watt. If I say the power is 1, you don't know what I mean.

[drego642]

One of the most annoying words in modern usage, to me is "tweeny-bopper". The word itself is only slightly more annoying than the general demographic it's meant to describe.

[RebeccaRGB]

Adding -age to any unit of measure does not give you the general property that the unit of measure is used to describe.

No, but it does give a handy noun for the specific number of those units under consideration. "Wattage" is the number of Watts, while "power" is the quantity of energy per time. If I say the Wattage is 1, it means 1 Watt. If I say the power is 1, you don't know what I mean.

Makes perfect sense to me. The wattage is 1. The power is 1 watt. "The wattage is 1 watt" is redundant. "The power is 1" is meaningless.

(That said, "amperage" specifically tends to sound pretty stupid IMO. And I don't think "inchage" or "celsiusage" will catch on anytime soon. )

(Although, we do have yardage and square footage. Hmmm.)

[JohnGalt]

Adding -age to any unit of measure does not give you the general property that the unit of measure is used to describe.

No, but it does give a handy noun for the specific number of those units under consideration. "Wattage" is the number of Watts, while "power" is the quantity of energy per time. If I say the Wattage is 1, it means 1 Watt. If I say the power is 1, you don't know what I mean.

In general saying, "the Wattage is 1" is not wrong in the strictest sense, but it is certainly not "handy" enough to not rather say the much better sounding "The power requirement/usage/dissipation is 1 Watt". Note that a circuit (I find that Wattage is most commonly used in regards to electronics) doesn't have a power property, it uses/dissipates power, or requires a certain amount of power to function properly. Those two things are not the same, so if you say "the wattage is 1", what does that mean!? I will admit that you will usually be able to glean what was meant from the context, but not always. Besides all of this, the -age suffix just sounds stupid, even in "usage". So what do you use in non-metric countries for Wattage, BTU-per-hourage

Another irritating one is mileage (milage?), usually meaning the efficiency of a car in terms of its fuel consumption per distance traveled. But I've heard people measure it in miles/gallon, km/l, and the more common unit in metric (modern ) countries, l/100km. So now mileage seems to have become a new word. New words where perfectly fine words already existed irritate me. When you are referring to mileage you are referring to the efficiency. It will always be clear from the context what type of efficiency you are talking about.

And "square footage"... damn...

[eSOANEM]

Another thing, many English colloquilisms don't sit right with me, such as "knickers". But the worst in this category has got to be "innit". When I first moved to England from South Africa (even though I speak English fluently) I could hardly understand anyone because of constructs such as "innit".

I'm with you on "innit" and I'm a native British-English-speaking teenager. I think the word tends to be most used amongst chavs, but as you point out, has become more widespread. Still, it's based on the construction "isn't it" which I do not have any objections to.

Another irritating one is mileage (milage?), usually meaning the efficiency of a car in terms of its fuel consumption per distance traveled. But I've heard people measure it in miles/gallon, km/l, and the more common unit in metric (modern ) countries, l/100km. So now mileage seems to have become a new word. New words where perfectly fine words already existed irritate me. When you are referring to mileage you are referring to the efficiency. It will always be clear from the context what type of efficiency you are talking about.

I obviously cannot speak for where you're from, but, in the UK, "mileage" always refers to the fuel efficiency in miles/gallon never fuel used/distance.

[Monika]

In Germany "mileage" (which we don't call mileage, but not kilometrage, either*) is given as "liters per 100 kilometers". So e.g. when they talk about making a "3 liter car" they mean they are targeting for a car that will only need 3 liters for 100 km. Wikipedia says that this is common all over Europe ... I guess once again the UK is not part of Europe.

* We say Kraftstoffverbrauch = fuel usage.

[PM 2Ring]

In Australia, we officially use litres per 100 kilometres, but a lot of people still prefer miles per (imperial) gallon (and I guess some people use a compromise measure: kilometres per litre), especially older people, even though we've been using metric measures for about 40 years. People who grew up using one measure find it difficult (or at least uncomfortable) to deal with the other measure since they are inversely proportional, so conversion between them requires division rather than simple scaling.

FWIW, (1 litre) / (100 km) = 10^-12 hectares, so I like to quote fuel consumption in picohectares.

[JohnGalt]

In Australia, we officially use litres per 100 kilometres, but a lot of people still prefer miles per (imperial) gallon (and I guess some people use a compromise measure: kilometres per litre), especially older people, even though we've been using metric measures for about 40 years. People who grew up using one measure find it difficult (or at least uncomfortable) to deal with the other measure since they are inversely proportional, so conversion between them requires division rather than simple scaling.

FWIW, (1 litre) / (100 km) = 10^-12 hectares, so I like to quote fuel consumption in picohectares.

Nice! Picohectares... I'll remember that one. Thank you kindly.

[Monika]

But a hectar is 100 m², not liter/km ... oh wait ...

[gmalivuk]

Yeah, that way it's the area of a stream of gasoline trailing behind your car, corresponding exactly to the amount of fuel you use.

[PM 2Ring]

But a hectar is 100 m², not liter/km ... oh wait ...

Google Calculator is handy for this sort of thing. Try this search string:
(1 litre) / (100 km) in hectares

Yeah, that way it's the area of a stream of gasoline trailing behind your car, corresponding exactly to the amount of fuel you use.

Indeed. In case you're not used to thinking in picohectares, note that (.1 mm)^2 = 1 picohectare.

[Eugo]

But a hectar is 100 m², not liter/km ... oh wait ...

A hectar is 100x100m, ergo 10000 m². The 100m² is an are

[Monika]

Ah, right.

[kristenjo]

I agree with those who added chillax, metrosexual, sammy (meaning sandwich), and irregardless/irrespective (or any word that people added extra prefixes to and the dictionary editors blindly accepted).

In the category of words the dictionary should never have touched: Nauseous. This word did not originally mean someone who is sickened. It describes something that can make someone feel sick. They added the definition simply because so many people used it to describe how they felt, but the root of the word doesn't mean that. Props to American Heritage Dictionary for recognizing this as a usage problem.

Others that I hate even typing:
Bra(h) as a term for a man. Come on, guys. Stop calling each other ladies' undergarments. The next guy who says that around me will be called Panties or Girdle from that point on.
Anything genuinely spoken in a valley girl-type dialect. It's aggravating and borderline unintelligible.
The phrase, "Wanna come with?"

There's more. I'll stop there.

[Derek]

They added the definition simply because so many people used it

Yes, that's generally how dictionaries work. The good ones, anyways.

[goofy]

In the category of words the dictionary should never have touched: Nauseous. This word did not originally mean someone who is sickened.

It sort of did. The earliest meaning of nauseous recorded in the OED is "inclined to sickness or nausea; squeamish" from 1613. The "sickened" meaning is attested from 1857.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says

“Behind the intense, though relatively recent, controversy over these words is a persistent belief, dear to the hearts of many American commentators, that nauseous has but a single sense: ‘causing nausea.’ There is, however, no basis for this belief.”

[skullturf]

I agree with those who added chillax, metrosexual, sammy (meaning sandwich), and irregardless/irrespective (or any word that people added extra prefixes to and the dictionary editors blindly accepted).

In the category of words the dictionary should never have touched: Nauseous. This word did not originally mean someone who is sickened. It describes something that can make someone feel sick. They added the definition simply because so many people used it to describe how they felt, but the root of the word doesn't mean that. Props to American Heritage Dictionary for recognizing this as a usage problem.

Others that I hate even typing:
Bra(h) as a term for a man. Come on, guys. Stop calling each other ladies' undergarments. The next guy who says that around me will be called Panties or Girdle from that point on.
Anything genuinely spoken in a valley girl-type dialect. It's aggravating and borderline unintelligible.
The phrase, "Wanna come with?"

There's more. I'll stop there.

Personally, I dislike the use of "aggravating" to mean "annoying" or "irritating", as opposed to "making more serious". But that's me.

[gmalivuk]

In the category of words the dictionary should never have touched: Nauseous. This word did not originally mean someone who is sickened.

And it still doesn't. It's an adjectives. Adjectives don't mean objects, they describe objects.

They added the definition simply because so many people used it to describe how they felt

Which is *exactly* what dictionaries have always done. Dictionaries don't dictate or determine usage, nor should they. They describe it. When people stopped using "girl" to refer to children regardless of gender, it's good that dictionaries reflected that change.

The only words that haven't changed meaning are the ones that were invented recently, like "chillax" and "Bra(h)" as a form of address.