Words & Cliches you HATE the Most. . .

[kasie]

You're right, Nikolai, there's nothing wrong with 'shouldn't have', but Scher's shudder, with which I heartily agree, is over 'shouldn't of'. It's mostly heard from young people who don't seem to appreciate the nature of their error or are just lazily indulging in slovenly speech. They use 'might of' in the same way.

Using 'like' every few words sets my teeth on edge, as does a rising inflection that turns every sentence into a question: 'Like, I went out last night(?) (You understand what I've just said?)'.

A few years ago, the phrase 'By and large' was overused to mean 'generally speaking'. It always made me laugh as it was a nautical term from the days of sailing ships and referred to a rather tricky manoeuvre to make the maximum use of the wind.

[MarkBastable]

What is wrong with "shouldn't have"? As I understand it, "shouldn't have" is what people mean to be saying. I've never seen someone write it as "shouldn't of" but I would say "shouldn't have" is perfectly legitimate. It happens quite a lot though, that people will hear one thing and it gradually changes into another for some.

Or is "shouldn't" one contraction that you're not allowed to make?

I think the point is that a lot of mistaken native English speakers both say and write 'shouldn't of' rather than 'shouldn't have' because they haven't the first idea of what grammatical and syntactical rules underpin the formation of the verb - not that they need to have any formal analytical grasp of that, because they use, as we all use, quite complex structures that we could never explain but that we'd never get wrong. For some reason 'shouldn't of' and 'could of' seem to wriggle past the internal parser of a large number of English-speakers.

I agree with Scher that it's annoying. And I'd say that most careful and conscientious speakers of English feel that people who perpetrate this error should have their eyes put out and their tongues lacerated before being evicted from their homes and forced to live on landfill sites at the edge of the city, rummaging sightlessly amongst the garbage for scraps of food and wearable rags. Harsh, perhaps, but fair.

[Scheherazade]

What is wrong with "shouldn't have"?

You're right, Nikolai, there's nothing wrong with 'shouldn't have', but Scher's shudder, with which I heartily agree, is over 'shouldn't of'. It's mostly heard from young people who don't seem to appreciate the nature of their error or are just lazily indulging in slovenly speech.

There is nothing wrong with "shouldn't have" but it is the "shouldn't of" (or "could/might of", similarly) that I find annoying - as Kasie and Mark explained above.

Every year, I go through this with my students and quite often I get sympathetic looks from the students (who are all native speakers) that their ESOL speaker tutor surely does not know what she is talking about at least when it comes to "should of" and so on. They will often defend themselves by saying that they have always used it that way so it must be correct.

Even though rarely, some will not be persuaded with the grammatical explanation they receive and go home to inquire on the subject further. They usually come back the following week, saying, "You know my sister's son, yeah? He is like really brainy. Doing A levels now, yeah? He said it is "should have" too, like you said... But I have talked like that all my life!"

Funny thing is that when I first moved to the UK and came across this usage, I was sure that it was something they had not taught us at school and spent a long time trying to figure it out by searching through grammar books!

And I'd say that most careful and conscientious speakers of English feel that people who perpetrate this error should have their eyes put out and their tongues lacerated before being evicted from their homes and forced to live on landfill sites at the edge of the city, rummaging sightlessly amongst the garbage for scraps of food and wearable rags. Harsh, perhaps, but fair.

Even though Mark and I agree that this usage is annoying, not being a "careful and conscientious speaker of English" myself, I do not advocate this harsh punishment, of course.

I am all for ridiculing by immitating their mistakes whenever they annoy you with their manners or views, instead.

[MarkBastable]

Even though Mark and I agree that this usage is annoying, not being a "careful and conscientious speaker of English" myself...

Oh, yes, you are.

Only one 'm' in imitate, by the way.

[Scheherazade]

Only one 'm' in imitate, by the way.

Fine, fine... Pick on the ESOL girl's spelling mistake!

[Virgil]

I've gotten into this terrible habit of saying "right, right, right" as I'm agreeing with someone. How do I strip this from my lingo?

[William of Waco]

I've gotten into this terrible habit of saying "right, right, right" as I'm agreeing with someone. How do I strip this from my lingo?

That is what I usually say to someone whose conversation I find rather boring. It gives them the impression that I am intensely interested.
This also helps to prevent my mind from wandering onto other things while they talk.
Whenever I am speaking to someone who has interesting things to say I never say "right, right, right". I listen to them in silence.

[L.M. The Third]

I have a tendency to overuse lol in IMs, I think its my tendency for nervous laughter manifesting itself in type.

No offense intended, Pip, but... (Didn't someone say they hated that phrase? And for just reason, so I'll begin again.)

What I really hate is that people use 'lol' to express almost every sentiment, from mild amusement to sarcasm to embarrassment. It's a very cramped way to communicate, because these things could be much more clearly expressed through a more creative use of English.

On a side note: Emma Thompson, who studied English literature at Cambridge, has joined the ranks of those of us deploring the degeneration of the English language amongst youth.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/f...ml#dsq-content

[dafydd manton]

Last year, I was an Instructor. Now, I am a Coach. What the hell are they going to do, take my teeth out and fit seats?

[Scheherazade]

On a side note: Emma Thompson, who studied English literature at Cambridge, has joined the ranks of those of us deploring the degeneration of the English language amongst youth.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/f...ml#dsq-content

There has been an article on BBC in response to Thompson's comments:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11426737

[altheskeptic]

Let's agree to disagree.

I hate that one.


By the way I am not a writer. I'm an avid reader though.

[Emil Miller]

There has been an article on BBC in response to Thompson's comments:

Hardly surprising, given the BBC's determination to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator in the, oh so self-righteous, cause of a spurious egalitarianism.

[L.M. The Third]

Sorry, but that BBC article is ridiculous. The fact that that is the way a 'club' or 'group' speaks in no way adds anything to its worth. Again, it simply shows that a generation is becoming sloppy with its use of language - a generation which will have much to unlearn, for it must necessarily provide the teachers, writers, editors and public-speakers of the future. I might be a part of this generation through birth, but I want nothing to do with their slang 'club'.

And, yes, we all use 'fillers' at times. And everyone has listened to people who make constant use of them and it can be incredibly annoying. They can't be entirely done away with, but why can teens not learn to put a little more thought in their use of language? If they can't put thought into something so small, they may not be able to do so in the bigger matters.

Emerson once said, "Creative economy is the fuel of magnificence." I first judge writers and speakers by their 'creative economy'. Are they able to use a minimum of words, with those words being direct and descriptive? If not, it's very easy to tune them out.

[MarkBastable]

I wouldn't worry. Over centuries, the English language has proved resilient enough and adaptable enough to survive the destructive attentions not only of those who use it carelessly but also of those who purport to care for it.

[Taliesin]

bonding . . . like in, 'Mother and daughter bonded as they went shopping together.'
. . . mushy!

If it's sane, safe and consensual, then I don't judge.

For intopic, I think that confusing the words "inflation" and "fellatio" can be somewhat disturbing. Especially in bedroom.


Oh, and "It's not rocket science.". It feels just so weak and overused - using rocket science as an etalon for complicatedness? Please.


EDIT: And now I remember the phrase among Estonian youth that I despise - using "alcohol" instead of "drink" or "alcoholic beverage". Firstly, it's wildly inaccurate - usually, the alcohol content in alcoholic drinks s rather low - usually about 40% or lower.
Secondly, the phrase reduces an excellent Scotch whiskey, a fine Belgian beer or a pleasant Georgian wine just to their alcohol content. It demonstrates a lack of respect towards the drinks. It's like drinking vodka straight from the bottle - just disgusting. How can you have respect towards yourself if you don't have respect towards something that alters your mind?