I hate "corporate-speak" most of all, even if I am myself the perpetrator quite often.. I'm working on a project which, apparently, entails "(..) the implementation of applicable resource allocators as allowed for within the existing framework of controls established by the previously presented guidelines for the transitioning of scenario estimated needs to meet market expectations."
Misunderstanding what irony and sarcasm are is also annoying, as well as not differentiating between 'literally' and 'figuratively'/'metaphorically'.
My language peeves-
The "F"bomb in public - Not only is it rude, but with 85,000+ words in the English language, surely you can express yourself in another way.
As a Navy lifer, two BIG ones;
a) Using the article "the" when refering to a Canadian (or any Commonwealth) warship. As in "the HMCS Ottawa", which reads as "the Her Canadian Majesty's Ship Ottawa". Stilted and fractured-sounding, I find it used in newspapers, magazines, and (gasp!) by members of my own Navy.
b) for my fellow servicemen - the phrase "ships' staff" when refering to person posted on board a ship. DAMMIT, PEOPLE!! The persons on board a ship are a CREW, not a STAFF! Walmart has a STAFF! MacDonald's has a STAFF! WE have a CREW!!!
Sorry for the rant. I'm OK now. I'm going for a coffee.
How about with reference to a question, things get serious and they axe someone.
Also, people mistranslate the term. In a newspaper article the reporter reported that "espresso" means "quick" in Italian. Actually, "espresso" refers to the fact that the hot water is pressed through a filter.
NOTE: Image below is NOT SAFE FOR WORK (NSFW). You have been warned.
Dunno if anyone else posted this, but it makes me laugh a lot. I went to UGA originally as a Secondary English Ed. degree; and then I found out that there's no demand for HS English teachers, so I swiched to Sec. Math. Ed. Anyway, after writing for a good part of my career (2 books, contributed to a third, countless articles, blog posts, etc.) English f*ckups drive me insane.
This poster/image, however, sums it up for me - and I bet it speaks for many of you here as well.
It speaks the truth, then again, it succeeded in getting on my nerves too. Why? Probably due to the combination of an excessive use of profanity, the tacky, inconsistent fonts, usage of ALL CAPS for whole sections, and the inconsistent, bright, uninspired, primary colors on a white background. I will concede on one point; however, I think these factors could actually appeal to the target audience.
I love this poster so much :D
Affect vs effect
It should be no big deal I guess, but it's a pet peeve of mine. It's not that hard to figure out
That one works twofold. There are people who don't understand the difference between 'affect' and 'effect' as a verb and a noun (respectively), and there are those that don't understand 'effect' is also a verb, though still different from 'affect'.
I saw someone use the expression "reigning in expenses." One "reins" expenses in (as in a horse's reins). I'm not even sure how to parse "reigning in."
It works colloquially as 'leading in expenses'. It almost entirely reverses the meaning.
Here's one I haven't seen yet, and it really gets on my nerves. I'm referring to the (non) word "irregardless". IT IS NOT A "REAL" WORD - and since "ir" and "less" are both negatives - which means that it really means the exact OPPOSITE of what you want to convey.
As clearly stated by Paul Brians, an author and professor at Washington State University, on his site "Common Errors in English Language":
Regardless of what you have heard, “irregardless” is a redundancy. The suffix “-less” on the end of the word already makes the word negative. It doesn’t need the negative prefix “ir-” added to make it even more negative.
I truly despise the use of irregardless, and it is one of the few grammatical errors that I will correct whenever I hear it.
Does this bother anyone else?