The Song Fight Bulletin Board

So I was listening to the radio on the way to taking Spudnut to her bus this morning and this guy attempted to emphasize the influence of someone by saying "it's hard to underestimate the influence of...". Didn't he meant that it's hard to overestimate it? I have been hearing this erroneous usage a lot lately.

QOTD: What's your favorite phrase (or least favorite, as the case may be) that a lot of people seem to be getting backwards?

"for all intensive purposes" makes me want to smack people, then call them dumb, then pee on them, then tell their mothers to go back to the drawing board. I guess I'd have to say it's my favourite.

The Zoo still hasn't gotten back to me. I guess I didn't get the job.

QotD: Most of the ones I've seen lately are in headlines surrounding Obama. For instance, on and right after election day, I heard several news sources (and the president-elect himself, in his own victory speech) misuse the word enormity These misuses are becoming so frequent, as that Wiktionary article points out, that they're becoming accepted usage.

Every Obama puff piece also features the phrase "meteoric rise," which is not, nor will it ever become, accepted usage. What do meteors do, people?

It's a tie:

"I could care less"

and

"I could give a shit"

Generic wrote:Every Obama puff piece also features the phrase "meteoric rise," which is not, nor will it ever become, accepted usage. What do meteors do, people?

Ha! You're right! Never noticed that before, but it's been true 72,600 times: http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+"meteoric+rise"

jb wrote:It's a tie:

"I could care less"

and

"I could give a shit"

meh, it's irregardless.

QotD: Head over heels. Aren't are heads already somewhere OVER our heels? Heels over head, now that would be something.

Generic wrote:What do meteors do, people?

Ha, they crash and burn spectacularly!

lol

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/meteoric

Hoblit wrote:Heels over head, now that would be something.

You mean like this?

signboy wrote:"for all intensive purposes" makes me want to smack people, then call them dumb, then pee on them, then tell their mothers to go back to the drawing board. I guess I'd have to say it's my favourite.

Agreed. That's horrible. "Intents and Purposes".

Meteoric rise, I have no problem with. It's not that they are saying "he is rising like a meteor", it's "his rise is quick and brilliant like a meteor".

"Head over heels" is what happens when language gets screwed up over the years. I say we start a petition to get Tears for Fears to edit their song. "Something happens and I'm heels over head..."

My choice is "Catch 22". Please do not use it unless you actually know what a catch 22 is.

I don't know if this counts, but people always say 'proverbial' in the wrong context. Not exactly a phrase, but it pisses me off nonetheless.

Reïst wrote:I don't know if this counts, but people always say 'proverbial' in the wrong context. Not exactly a phrase, but it pisses me off nonetheless.

Example?

jb wrote: "I could care less"

Yes - that has always puzzled me.

It seems to be peculiarly American - as I only ever hear it on American telly shows etc. Everywhere else, "I couldn't care less" is used.

Apart from that, I can't think of any other word uses that pacifically annoy me.

"The proof is in the pudding".

No it's not. There is no proof in the pudding. Except for bread putting, which is sometimes made with rum.

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating" is the phrase.

That is all.

Spud wrote:There is no proof in the pudding. Except for bread putting, which is sometimes made with rum.

(ba-dum-crash)

Spelling "lose" with two O's makes me want to hit things. And people.

Oh, and so does "rediculous."

And "should/could/would of."

Probably "the exception that proves the rule". People use it whenever a rule has an exception. Gah.

Caravan Ray wrote:

jb wrote: "I could care less"

Yes - that has always puzzled me.

It seems to be peculiarly American - as I only ever hear it on American telly shows etc. Everywhere else, "I couldn't care less" is used.

Apart from that, I can't think of any other word uses that pacifically annoy me.

I always took it as badly done sarcasm.

Another one that annoys me is "Let's burn him an effigy". No, an effigy is just an image of a person, so unless you are some kind of fire artist, you aren't burning anyone an effigy. It's "Let's burn him in effigy".

Albatross wrote:Spelling "lose" with two O's makes me want to hit things. And people.

Tell this guy: http://songfight.org/artistpage.php?key=sore_looser
The thread where he finally realized what he had done is probably lost to history. Which is too bad.

It doesn't really bug me (anymore) as I've realized that language is THAT WAY, but: When someone is nauseous, it means that they make other people nauseated, not that they themselves are nauseated.

It's not a phrase, but when people misuse "ironic" to mean "unfortunate" or "coincidental" it makes me want to beat them to death with Allanis Morrisette's limp corpse.

Things I hate:

- "It begs the question" - "begs" in this context does not mean what people think it means

- I could care less - already discussed here

- "Literally" meaning not actually literally - like "my head was literally exploding with thoughts"

Things I would like to comment about:

- "All intensive purposes" started out as a play on "all intents and purposes." Sadly, people seem to have forgotten about the original phrase that it's a play on.

- "Irregardless" I have mixed feelings about. First off, "ir-" does not mean "not" in all contexts; etymologically-speaking it is the same as "in-" which sometimes serves as an intensifier (e.g. "inflammable," "irradiated"). On the other hand, it's a clumsy neologism which is usually better served with "irrespective."

Tangents this leads me to:

- People who think that irradiated food is radioactive. People who think that microwave radiation is the same thing as nuclear radiation. The problem of course is that the two terms came about separately and were both semi-colloquial shortenings of completely separate phenomena, but it leads to a lot of confusion. Which is why "nuking" food in the microwave is such a ridiculous turn of phrase.

- "term of phrase" ARGHHHALHALHWRLA

- Also "without further adieu" NO NO NO

Finally:

- People who nitpick spelling and call it "grammer" [sic] which is a sort of trifecta of retardation.

fluffy wrote:... "in-" which sometimes serves as an intensifier (e.g. "inflammable," "irradiated")...

If I lived close enough to you, I'd come over and "bludgeon yer eye" for that one.

erik wrote:Probably "the exception that proves the rule". People use it whenever a rule has an exception. Gah.

Well, that isn't exactly misused, just poorly-thought-out in the first place. The thinking goes, because anyone for whom English is a first language knows that grammar can be extraordinarily steadfast - except when it's not - that every rule must have an exception. Thus, if you make a broad, sweeping generality, and then someone provides a counterexample, then that counterexample is "the exception that proves the rule." Which is to say that if there weren't that one exception, then the broad generality you just erroneously cited wouldn't hold.

Basically, unlike most of the other turns of phrase in this thread, "the exception that proves the rule" isn't bad grammar; it's bad logic.