Words & Phrases You Never Want To Hear Again

PeteByrdie

Privateer in the service of Princess Frideswide
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
2,026
Likes
1,528
Points
159
I don't know whether this one's been mentioned elsewhere on this thread. Recently i seem increasingly frequently to be in a battle against petty annoyance at the substitution of 'based off of' for 'based on'. Is this a recent thing or have I only recently noticed it?
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
10,256
Likes
10,201
Points
294
Location
Out of Bounds
I don't know whether this one's been mentioned elsewhere on this thread. Recently i seem increasingly frequently to be in a battle against petty annoyance at the substitution of 'based off of' for 'based on'. Is this a recent thing or have I only recently noticed it?
This annoying variant of 'based on' has been proliferating since circa 2000. I've never read it in text, so I was surprised to learn it is polluting print publications.

I'd only heard it a few times in conversation, and then only to connote something established, elaborated, or 'built' tangentially / laterally (as opposed to directly) 'upon' some precedent.

I'll try to illustrate the implication ... A ghost story clearly replicating a Stephen King ghost tale would be 'based on', whereas a sci-fi story merely reflecting elements of the King tale would be 'based off of'.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
23,180
Likes
19,915
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
This annoying variant of 'based on' has been proliferating since circa 2000. I've never read it in text, so I was surprised to learn it is polluting print publications.

I'd only heard it a few times in conversation, and then only to connote something established, elaborated, or 'built' tangentially / laterally (as opposed to directly) 'upon' some precedent.

I'll try to illustrate the implication ... A ghost story clearly replicating a Stephen King ghost tale would be 'based on', whereas a sci-fi story merely reflecting elements of the King tale would be 'based off of'.
Makes me think of coming from Vs coming out of.

NWA: Coming straight outta Compton.

(Ice-Cube, Ren and Eazy-E come from Compton).
 

Ladyloafer

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Feb 21, 2019
Messages
152
Likes
239
Points
43
In a similar vein to above, the use of bring/take in american english compared to british english. They're probably both right as its regional variation but I (british) would say
'what are you going to take to the party?' or 'what are you taking to the party' or 'i took it to the party'.

americans, (at least on tv!) say 'what are you going to bring to the party' etc

to my ear that sounds wrong, and now when i hear it on tv is bugs me! bring is towards you. you are at the party, 'oh, hi, what did you bring' (here to where we are) take etc is away from you. you are not at the party, the party is elsewhere.
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
3,290
Likes
5,395
Points
234
The Americanism (l’m really pro-USA, honestly!) “would have”, when used instead of “had”, e.g. “I wish you would have told me that yesterday”.

maximus otter
 

Ogdred Weary

Cosmically Triggered
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
861
Likes
1,209
Points
139
This has probably been brought up before but I'm intensely annoyed by "speaks to" instead of "speaks of", I presume it's an Americanism and possibly a fairly recent one. I'm pretty certain I've only heard it in the last 5-6 years, first on US media but increasingly on British and have heard people saying it in conversation as well.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
10,256
Likes
10,201
Points
294
Location
Out of Bounds
In a similar vein to above, the use of bring/take in american english compared to british english. They're probably both right as its regional variation but I (british) would say
'what are you going to take to the party?' or 'what are you taking to the party' or 'i took it to the party'.

americans, (at least on tv!) say 'what are you going to bring to the party' etc

to my ear that sounds wrong, and now when i hear it on tv is bugs me! bring is towards you. you are at the party, 'oh, hi, what did you bring' (here to where we are) take etc is away from you. you are not at the party, the party is elsewhere.
Maybe you're not aware of the metaphorical usage of 'bring to the party' in American English, which is very common in workplace / professional jargon and has nothing to do with a social event 'party'.

To 'bring something to the party' means 'to make a constructive / substantive contribution to the group / team'. For example:

- "That new consultant they've added - what does she bring to the party?"
- "If we hire you for the project, what will you bring to the party?"

Otherwise ... To the extent they're differentiated, 'bring' and 'take' may be variably selected with respect to the conversation's referential context a la your 'at' / 'away' allusion. If the context is external to or preceding the event, one is more likely to ask what / who you'll 'take'. If the context is the event itself, one is more likely to ask what / who you'll 'bring'.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
23,180
Likes
19,915
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
Maybe you're not aware of the metaphorical usage of 'bring to the party' in American English, which is very common in workplace / professional jargon and has nothing to do with a social event 'party'.

To 'bring something to the party' means 'to make a constructive / substantive contribution to the group / team'. For example:

- "That new consultant they've added - what does she bring to the party?"
- "If we hire you for the project, what will you bring to the party?"

Otherwise ... To the extent they're differentiated, 'bring' and 'take' may be variably selected with respect to the conversation's referential context a la your 'at' / 'away' allusion. If the context is external to or preceding the event, one is more likely to ask what / who you'll 'take'. If the context is the event itself, one is more likely to ask what / who you'll 'bring'.
It can be confusing in other languages.

In Korean, for instance, if you phone somebody who is supposed to be meeting you and ask them where on earth they are, they will apologise and say they are 'going now' (as opposed to 'coming now' or 'on the way').

In English the speaker puts himself in the perspective of the waiting listener, but this is not universal.
 

Mungoman

Mostly harmless...
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,175
Likes
3,201
Points
159
Location
In the Bush (Peak Hill, NSW)
Maybe you're not aware of the metaphorical usage of 'bring to the party' in American English, which is very common in workplace / professional jargon and has nothing to do with a social event 'party'.

To 'bring something to the party' means 'to make a constructive / substantive contribution to the group / team'. For example:

- "That new consultant they've added - what does she bring to the party?"
- "If we hire you for the project, what will you bring to the party?"

Otherwise ... To the extent they're differentiated, 'bring' and 'take' may be variably selected with respect to the conversation's referential context a la your 'at' / 'away' allusion. If the context is external to or preceding the event, one is more likely to ask what / who you'll 'take'. If the context is the event itself, one is more likely to ask what / who you'll 'bring'.
So the choice of expressions is based on a state of presence EG?

Sort of a migrant/emigrant thing...
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
10,256
Likes
10,201
Points
294
Location
Out of Bounds
So the choice of expressions is based on a state of presence EG?
Sort of a migrant/emigrant thing...
That's how it's always seemed to me.

If the (e.g.) party is 'out there' / 'over there' in space or time, whereas we're talking about 'here', we are likely to phrase things as 'take' (i.e., from 'here' to 'there').

If, on the other hand, our current conversation is framed with regard to the party ('there'), we are likely to phrase things as 'bring' (given that we're already oriented to 'there' rather than 'here').

I'm not saying it's any sort of official rule of grammar or usage. It's a tendency I've noticed - even in formal conversational analyses - such that phrasing tends to follow current orientational framing.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
10,256
Likes
10,201
Points
294
Location
Out of Bounds

Victory

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
166
Likes
214
Points
44
Location
London
I stand corrected.

:D
Oh, I was not correcting you.
I was pointing out the falsehood of the song itself...."Coming straight out of Compton .... crazy mofo named Ice Cube" is the first sentence, and it was simply not true.
Poetic Licence.
 

Krepostnoi

Crabbier than usual
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
2,380
Likes
3,843
Points
159
I'm not saying it's any sort of official rule of grammar or usage. It's a tendency I've noticed - even in formal conversational analyses - such that phrasing tends to follow current orientational framing.
Apparently theoretical linguists are indeed beginning to argue that English is very much oriented around a "here/now" vs "not here/not now" framework. So, yes, there is the whole "come/go", "bring/take", "here/there" series of dichotomies, with which we are all familiar.

What I found particularly interesting was that this dichotomy is carried through into verb tenses, as well. Sensu stricto, English only has two tenses: present and past, insofar as these are the only two we can form through morphological inflection of the infinitive, rather than reaching for one or more auxiliary verbs. Linguists argue that in fact it might be more useful to view what we usually call the past tense as "remote" while considering the present tense as the unmarked form to be used when no distancing is required. This conception allows us, for example, to discuss hypothetical cases (i.e. "not now") - "If I was a rich man..." It also allows us to make requests less direct (more remote), by trying to remove them from the immediate situation (again, "not now"): "I was wondering whether you might have a copy of this month's Fortean Times."

Now: requests. That's a whole other kettle of fish. There is a condescending Anglophone attitude that matters of saving face are only important in the imagined East, but in fact I've read the claim that there is a considerable fear of face loss among native speakers of English around having a request rejected, and that in fact the ideal English-language request is the one which does not have to be voiced. Hence e.g. the utterance "Are you warm enough?" to mean "Will you shut the damn window!" I can imagine speakers of British English nodding their heads at that. I wonder how it lands with Anglophone speakers from other cultures.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
23,180
Likes
19,915
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
There is a condescending Anglophone attitude that matters of saving face are only important in the imagined East, but in fact I've read the claim that there is a considerable fear of face loss among native speakers of English around having a request rejected, and that in fact the ideal English-language request is the one which does not have to be voiced. Hence e.g. the utterance "Are you warm enough?" to mean "Will you shut the damn window!" I can imagine speakers of British English nodding their heads at that. I wonder how it lands with Anglophone speakers from other cultures.
Would you mind terribly if I PAST VERBED?

I'd be most awfully grateful if you would VERB.

= Surely you could not be so heartless as to refuse me such a tiny favour. Please don't. I'd be mortified!
 
Last edited:
Top