I have been hearing this phrase more and more lately: "It is what it is." Have you? For some reason, it irritates me a little when I hear it.

Probably the recency illusion. You probably aren't hearing it more - just noticing it more because you have started to notice it.
It is what it is.

Several mentions as one of the worst or most irritating words (or phrases) of the year.

And here is one of the lists, whatever, like, you know, I mean.....

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Proofreader>,

Our lurker, Geoff, said this: "I agree with Bob - it's been around a long time. The French
expression, "C-est comme ça"
means about the same thing, and it's ancient."

Geoff, we want you back!

"It is what it is."

We have Popeye's "I yam what I yam." And the God of the Hebrews: "I am that I am." The phrase has meaning and is used to communicate. What's wrong with that? Sort of the opposite of "It's not what it seems to be."

quote:

What's wrong with that? Sort of the opposite of "It's not what it seems to be."

Whatever.

Kalleh, I think some of these expressions are annoying for good reason, not just overuse.

When you're on the receiving end of "it is what is is," it can sound like the speaker is telling you to take your head out of the sand.

"Whatever," similarly, is dismissive, suggesting the other person is mired in unimportant detail.

"No problem" (instead of 'you're welcome') is ungracious, might as well say "no skin off my nose.

Some of the others listed on Proof's link were curious. Why is "how ya doin'?" annoying? And why isn't "what's up"? Seems pretty random. (oops is that an annnoying phrase?)

As for, "I don't have a dog in this fight", EW! dogfighting is creepy. I also find references to "having skin in the game" creepy, but this was not listed despite being used ad nauseum in economic commentary.

Can anyone help me with "singing Kumbaya"? It sounds both funny and insulting-- I mean, I did this often enough, as a Girl Scout camper & even occasionally as a '60's demonstrator. How is this usually used (or perhaps overused?)

“New land is harsh, and vigorous, and sturdy. It scorns evidence of weakness. There is nothing of sham or hypocrisy in it. It is what it is, without apology.” - J.E. Lawrence, Nebraska State Journal, 1949

quote:

Can anyone help me with "singing Kumbaya"? It sounds both funny and insulting-- I mean, I did this often enough, as a Girl Scout camper & even occasionally as a '60's demonstrator. How is this usually used (or perhaps overused?)

The first paragraph here says it best.

One expression (among a myriad) that annoys me is when a favorable event occurs (a touchdown, for example) and someone says,"Now that's what I'm talking about", even though no words had previously been spoken.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Proofreader>,

quote:

What's wrong with that?

z, I didn't think there is anything wrong with it; I just don't like hearing it over and over again. And...maybe Bethree's interpretation has a little to do with it:

quote:

When you're on the receiving end of "it is what is is," it can sound like the speaker is telling you to take your head out of the sand.

I guess, more than anything, my point was that I hadn't heard the phrase that much before, but recently I hear it all the time.

Here's Lake Superior State U's "38th annual List of Words to be Banished from the Queen’s English for Misuse, Overuse and General Uselessness."

I agree passionately w/the proposed ban on 'passion'/ 'passionate'; it seems one can hardly watch 5mins of TV w/o hearing it a few times. "Andrew Foyle, of Bristol, England, said it’s reached the point where 'passion' is the only ingredient that keeps a chef from preparing 'seared tuna' that tastes 'like dust swept from a station platform.'

quote:

that tastes 'like dust swept from a station platform.'

My wife wishes she could cook that good.

quote:

Here's Lake Superior State U's "38th annual List of Words to be Banished from the Queen’s English for Misuse, Overuse and General Uselessness."

Ah well, Bethree. I started a thread with it. I should have read this first! Sorry about that.

"No problem"

Whatever

No worries.

It is what it is.

Yes, those phrases all irritate me. No worries? It isn't even a noun, is it? Not according to the dictionary I checked. In fact, I found that worry has an interesting etymology, coming from the word meaning "to strangle."

quote:

Middle English worien, from Old English wyrgan; akin to Old High German wurgen to strangle, Lithuanian veržti to constrict
First Known Use: before 12th century

No worries? It isn't even a noun, is it?

Sure looks and acts like a noun. Even the one dictionary I looked at says it can be a noun (link).

[Fixed annoying typo.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

The French equivalent, sans-souci used to be common in the USA, but I've not heard it lately.

Yes, z, in that use I agree. Except, in the some dictionaries (not Yahoo's, the one you cited) it's not cited as a noun. I only checked a few last night. Perhaps it's because this whole "no worries" is fairly new.

A dictionary that does not say that "worry" is a noun is not a good dictionary.

sans-souci

  C
------
sans

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
sans-souci

  C
------
sans

c'est bon, ca

Mercy buttercups. I may have it wrong though, the C ought to be a "si". I think Frederick the Great came up with this in reference to his palace.

quote:

Originally posted by goofy:
A dictionary that does not say that "worry" is a noun is not a good dictionary.

I'm with goofy.

Doesn't American English have phrases like.

He doesn't have a worry in the world.
It's a worry.
The main worry is...
Worry-free...
he has money worries... ?

Completely commonplace in the UK

I checked several dics on OneLook and the Macmillan Dictionary seems to be the only one that doesn't list it as a noun. There are seven or eight I didn't look at, so there may be others, although they are lower on the list.

Okay. Once again, I am wrong. No worries.

When this man got divorced, was his former wife Sans Souci? https://www.google.com/webhp?s...503&biw=1440&bih=781

Not to stress some of you even more, but there is another phrase that I often hear just don't like (z, I have stopped using "annoy!"): "You need to move on." If someone wants to say that they are moving on (though it's a bit ambiguous), okay. But to have someone tell them to "move on" is just plain insulting, I think. "Moving on" is an individual thing.

On thinking about it, it's not a word problem (though perhaps with usage) as much as it's a people problem.

I find that those who want us to "move on" are often those who have just made serious errors that they would rather not have brought to the attention of others.They insist we "don't look back" but "move on", ignoring that we can only learn by discussing what we've done wrong in the past.

That is a great analysis, proof. That's my thought exactly.

Today I noticed again that people seem to be misusing the word "to" in this phrase:
The (X) is difference to (Y). I would have said "difference twetween" or "difference from." I imagine someone will now point out that this usage goes back to Beowulf or beyond and that I'm a little late in noticing what is already common.

You called it. "To" isn't ungrammatical and never has been*. On the other hand...
Are you sure you mean
"(X) is difference to (Y)"
and not
"X) is different to (Y)"?


The use of the noun instead of the adjective is something I don't think I have ever come across.


(*Though I understand that it is much less common in US English than in British English.)

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:
I imagine someone will now point out that this usage goes back to Beowulf or beyond .

Not that far, since different is a French borrowing, but how about this:

quote:

His lyght is moche different and vnlyke to the lyght of the holygoost. - W. Bone, Pylgrimage of Perfection 1526

quote:

Oh my deare Grissil, how much different Art thou to this curst spirit heere. - T. Dekker et al. Patient Grissill, 1603

Along these lines, I have always thought the shade of difference between "among" and "between" was a bit like that with "fewer" and "less"...inconsequential.

Today's sports page had the headline

SOX WIN IN 11 THANKS TO DREW"S HEROICS

Stephen Drew hit a double in the eleventh to win the game for the Red Sox. But can that feat be truly deemed "heroic"? The guy isn't doing it for altruistic reason -- he's being paid a boatload of cash to hit the ball, so his doing so is venal, rather than for the good of mankind.

I know. "Heroic" is one of those words with many meanings depending on the situation but I think applying to a sporting event demeans the truly heroic, such as soldiers in battle or firemen entering burning buildings, etc.

You are correct, Proof. It's his job...hardly heroics!

And just today..."Forget the ridiculous heroics Nate Robinson provided in the triple-overtime victory over the Nets." Sports must be using "heroics" more these days.