My beef is the sudden preponderance of the word “myriad” in the media. Great, evocative word. Only problem is nobody seems to know how to use the damn thing, placing an article, mainly “a,” in front of it, and “of” after it. For example, correct useage would be something like, “Obama has myriad issues to deal with once in office.” NOT “a myriad of.”
“No worries,” is an Aussie expression that seems to have taken root around the world. I think it translates as, “It’s not a problem for me to give you a cuppa, mate,” as opposed to “There’s nothing to be worried about.”
Gorn, I just like the word. It gives me confidence. Gorn ... gorn. It’s got a sort of woody quality about it. Gorn. Gorn. Much better than `newspaper’ or `litterbin’. Ugh! Newspaper! ... litterbin ... dreadful tinny sort of words. Tin, tin, tin! Sausage ... there’s a good woody sort of word, `sausage’ ... gorn.
The thing about the way some people speak that bugs me the worst is the seeming fear of using the word “me.” It almost seems like “me” has become some kind of dirty word, and its use should be avoided at all costs. I think the new hyper-corrective rule for speakers is to substitute “myself” or “I” for “me” whenever possible, even if clearly grammatically incorrect and awkward sounding.
And one especially glaring example of this is something I constantly hear on television where someone says something like, “It was very exciting for John and I.” Or, “This is just between you and I.” Using “I” in these cases is clearly incorrect, as any pronoun that is an object of a preposition should be in the objective case, not the subjective (nominative) case - in other words, in those examples, “me,” not “I”. I don’t think the speaker would ever say, “It was very exciting for I.” That would really sound weird. So why can’t they hear the weirdness in saying “John and I” or “you and I” following “for,” “between,” or any of those type words?
Saying “I could care less” while really meaning “I couldn’t care less.”
I’ve heard “I couldn’t care less” all my life, but somehow, somewhere, at some point in time, somebody must have sort of slurred the expression so the “n’t” part wasn’t heard, and some impressionable listener picked that up as if that was the right way to say it, and it went from there.
Obviously somebody saying they could care less means they must indeed care about whatever is being talked about, since caring less about it is a possibilty.
But if they don’t care at all about it, then caring less is not possible, hence, they couldn’t care less.
Ah, I just looked at the opinion section and was reminded of another:
Sheeple.
The people using this word use it in such a way as to most childishly convey condescension and elitism.
To the people who even utter this word: Trust me, you’re not smarter than the rest of us. (Example: Yes, fire can melt steel.)
Ah, I just looked at the opinion section and was reminded of another:
Sheeple.
The people using this word use it in such a way as to most childishly convey condescension and elitism.
To the people who even utter this word: Trust me, you’re not smarter than the rest of us. (Example: Yes, fire can melt steel.)
The (PFKaP) - 07 December 2008 10:49 PM
Irregardless: overly repetitively redundant
Irregardless is a word!
Yes, i was dismayed to find several years ago that irregardless was in the dictionary and became a word through common usage. Something like flammable and inflammable meaning the same thing.
Perhaps ‘sheeple’ will meet the same kind of backward acceptance.
