The word whatever has been chosen as the most annoying word or term in common use.

However, I think "You know what I'm say'n?" is much more annoying. Anyone else have one they consider more annoying?

"You know what I'm sayin'" isn't annoying to me, since I almost always reply, "No."

I don't know if this poll tells us anything useful. It's too bad that it only had five phrases to pick from. If it had been more open-ended, the results would be very different.

Yes, I see your point, goofy. It hardly says much, does it?

On the other hand, in goofy's first link, I found this interesting, where they're looking at most liked words (note my most unfavorite word is there):

quote:

First, let's accentuate the positive: the word selected most often as favorite is... love. This is followed by the similarly feel-good terms serendipity, Grace, and peace. It's interesting that serendipity ranks so highly, but its appeal is self-evident: it has a distinctive and engaging meaning ("good luck in making unexpected and fortunate discoveries"), and it's also fun to say. That winning combination of enjoyable sound and sense is identifiable in some other highly liked words: pulchritude, eclectic, Schadenfreude, perspicacious, mellifluous, syzygy, discombobulate, and lagniappe.

I hadn't heard of syzygy.

They also had the least favorite words, and I was surprised with moist. Others included hate, impossible, nice, awesome (a personal hatred of mine), whatever, no, panty/panties, vomit, ointment, slacks, vigil.

Apparently the disliked words have "a basic level of ickiness," the article says. Other "icky" words they identify are nostril, crud, pus, and pimple. The article also theorized that the "oi" dipthong must get under people's skin, with words such as the moist, ointment and goiter.

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

quote:

I don't know if this poll tells us anything useful. It's too bad that it only had five phrases to pick from. If it had been more open-ended, the results would be very different.

I agree. There are many other words and phrases that irritate. I would include "wicked" meaning very good, "cool" meaning good and "pants" meaning not good, as significant irritants for me.

Phrases that come high on my irritation list include "you know" (if I did then you'd not need to tell me), "that's so not..." (if it is, then say it is - why use a double negative?)and "outside the box" (very few of those who use it really know what it means).

I like "cool." What do you use instead of "cool?"

quote:

I like "cool." What do you use instead of "cool?"

Give me an exemplar sentence.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
"that's so not..." (if it is, then say it is - why use a double negative?)

There's no double negative there.

quote:

Give me an exemplar sentence.

Okay. Let's say I've just produced a new, exciting online Toolkit for my project (which in fact is the case); it is interactive and attractive. My colleague says, "Cool!" (The tone of saying it helps; I've noticed that people use a particular tone, often, when they say "cool.")

quote:

Originally posted by goofy:

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
"that's so not..." (if it is, then say it is - why use a double negative?)

There's no double negative there.

Not in that sentence fragment, I agree. But in many such expressions there is: "That's so not what I don't like" - meaning "that's what I like".

Double negative or not, it's clumsy and pointless construction to my mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:

quote:

Give me an exemplar sentence.

Okay. Let's say I've just produced a new, exciting online Toolkit for my project (which in fact is the case); it is interactive and attractive. My colleague says, "Cool!" (The tone of saying it helps; I've noticed that people use a particular tone, often, when they say "cool.")

So why is your toolkit "cool"? Does it provide ice for drinks? Is it handy for cooling fevered brows? Can you put in a room to replace the air-conditioning?

No, it is exciting and interactive but not cool. It might also be ingenious, clever, useful, attractive and a host of other things - saying that it's cool is really rather pointless, since the adjective does little to describe your toolkit's features.

My colleague says, "Cool!"

Nothing wrong with cool. People have been using a long time, and everybody knows what it means by now. Banning cool from use now would be nigh unto bowdlerizing the lexicon. I wouldn't use it in a formal context, but in informal speech, 'tis not a thing wrong with it. Saying that it adds nothing to the meaning of the general conversation is not really the point. It does add some information. Saying something is cool is like saying "quite!" to agree with somebody's previous statement. It shows what the speaker relationship is to the thing or event under consideration. Its antonym would be lame.

I am confused by the whole annoyed brigade. Why is it that some folks who get all fired up that somebody suggested they not use the n-word to denote a color or bemoan not being able to call the disabled crips or gimps, often misusing the word politically correct to label those with a modicum of politeness or social awareness? They don't want their language controlled, thank you very much, but their controlling of other people's language is a perfectly valid expression of their non-coolness. Tepid or lukewarm maybe.

"That's so not what I don't like."

As double negatives go, this is not uninterpretable. But carry on.

[Fixed typo.]

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

quote:

As double negatives go, this is not uninterpretable. But carry on.

There are times when a double negative is a good idea:

"That's not unpleasant" conveys a different shade of meaning from "that's pleasant".

But the "That's so not..." preface seems to add nothing but verbosity and possible confusion.

I agree with zm. Cool is fine in an informal context. Its use to mean "urbane" or "sophisticated" dates back to about 1918, and to mean "hip" seems to have arisen just after World War II, according to The Word Detective

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
I agree with zm. Cool is fine in an informal context. Its use to mean "urbane" or "sophisticated" dates back to about 1918, and to mean "hip" seems to have arisen just after World War II, according to The Word Detective

I have no problem with its established meaning of "urbane" or "sophisticated". This is a long-established meaning and one which is clear. But the application of the adjective to just about anything with no more meaning than that of vague approval seems rather pointless.

Indeed!

Arriving late at the discussion, "At the end of the day" was my most annoying before I looked at the survey. "Pushing the envelope" is another.

The "I am SO not [whatever] " construction is a Buffy-ism, isn't it--as in Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Actually, I think that one's annoying too, but I caught myself using it just this afternoon. It may be on its way to becoming cool or something.

Wordmatic

I drew the bath water for my wife and as she got in she said, "That's cool."

quote:

No, it is exciting and interactive but not cool. It might also be ingenious, clever, useful, attractive and a host of other things - saying that it's cool is really rather pointless, since the adjective does little to describe your toolkit's features.

Actually, ingenious, clever, and attractive don't quite articulate what I mean. Certainly useful doesn't. "Cool" works the best, though I agree with those here who say that's an informal use.

I suspect it evolved from this OED definition: "Of a person or a personal attribute, quality, etc.: not affected by passion or emotion, dispassionate; controlled, deliberate, not hasty; calm, composed." That definition of "cool" was first cited by the OED from Beowulf: "OE Beowulf 282 Gyf him [sc. Hro{edh}gar] edwendan æfre scolde bealuwa bisigu bot eft cuman, ond {th}a cearwylmas colran wur{edh}a{th}. c1430 (c1386)." Also cited with this definition were Chaucer, Shakespeare, Penn, Butler, and Tennyson. Now it's not my posted use of "cool," but you certainly can see how it derived from that definition.

Then in 1948, according to the OED (and arnie's Quinion link) "cool" was used to describe jazz music that is "restrained or relaxed" in style. It seems to be this use that evolved in the meaning of "hip."

Then there's the OED definition of "Attractively shrewd or clever; sophisticated, stylish, classy; fashionable, up to date; sexually attractive." This was cited as orig. U.S.; here is an example of a quote from that citation: "1959 Observer 25 Oct. 29/8 They got long, sloppy haircuts and wide knot ties and no-press suits with fat lapels. Very cool.' Surely this is related to today's meaning of "cool," as well.

quote:

Actually, ingenious, clever, and attractive don't quite articulate what I mean. Certainly useful doesn't. "Cool" works the best, though I agree with those here who say that's an informal use.

As I have not had the benefit of studying your toolkit I had to guess at its attributes - and presumably guessed wrongly. But how does "cool" describe its characteristics any better? It is not cool in the sense of being less than warm and I would hazard a guess that it's not "Attractively shrewd or clever; sophisticated, stylish, classy; fashionable, up to date; sexually attractive."

So what is it? Using a vague descriptor simply to save the trouble of finding an accurate one is surely not the best use of our wonderfully descriptive language.

Incidentally, please don't think that I abhor all vague descriptors; there are times when vagueness is what is needed.

Here is my cool Transition to Practice Toolkit. (Click the Toolkit link on the bottom.)

Which bit of the lengthy document and its ancillaries do you call the toolkit - or is it the whole item?

"This moment in time" for me. Um, a "moment" is a moment in time, if you see what I mean. Sort of.

In physics, a moment is a turning effect produced by a force on an object, expressed as the product of the force and the distance from its line of action to a given point. Agreed, most people who use the word are not referring to the meaning used by physicists though.

BTW, welcome, Erik! Do stick around.

quote:

Which bit of the lengthy document and its ancillaries do you call the toolkit - or is it the whole item?

It's not that lengthy for a toolkit. A toolkit is supposed to contain the pieces you will need for understanding or implementing a project. That means that there will be multiple parts to it. And, remember, "toolkit" seems to be the word of the day now.

This is the actual Toolkit

I found that bit earlier; so the toolkit is the whole works - an extensive assemblage of documents and lengthy videos.

I'd certainly not describe it as "cool". Workmanlike, comprehensive, informative, useful, well-designed - all of those things, maybe.

But not cool, meaning suave or sophisticated in any way shape or form!

Well, first, so you don't think I am complimenting myself, I didn't design it. That was done by our very talented interactive group. I provided them with the parts, and I (and many others) thought they did a magnificent job putting it together. Indeed, the first word out of most people's mouths when they see it is "cool!" That's why I used it as an example. I am sorry you don't agree.

If you're using the word "cool" to mean "very nice" as so many do these days, then I agree with it as an accurate, if vague, descriptor.

But as I wrote earlier, I don't like that use of "cool" - there are plenty of other adjectives (nice being just one) that could be used to to express a positive characteristic, so why hijack "cool"?

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
But as I wrote earlier, I don't like that use of "cool" - there are plenty of other adjectives (nice being just one) that could be used to to express a positive characteristic, so why hijack "cool"?

Well you can complain about it if you want, but the word was "hijacked" to mean "admirable, excellent" in the 30s, and then "OK, satisfactory" in the 50s. Complaining about something 70 years after it happened seems a bit futile.

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

quote:

the word was "hijacked" to mean "admirable, excellent" in the 30s, and then "OK, satisfactory" in the 50s.

Not amongst my circles it wasn't (and remember I was there in the 1950s). Maybe a US phenomenon.

Not amongst my circles it wasn't (and remember I was there in the 1950s). Maybe a US phenomenon.

Immaterial, as Kalleh lives and works in the States, and her co-worker who used the word does, too.

As for the age of the usage of cool in the UK, Eric Patridge (in the 1961, two volume edition of his dictionary of slang) has the following entries:

quote:

cool. adj. — 4. (Of jazz) good and modern: jazz lovers': since ca.1945 (The Observer, Sept. 16, 1956) [...] — Very pleasing or attractive or satisfactory: Canadian (esp. teenagers')adopted ca 1955 from the US. All these senses came from the US: 4 and 5 were adopted at least five, perhaps ten, years earlier in Canada than in Britain. 'Cool became a word of praise when hot ceased to be one; that is when hot jazz went out of fashion, to be displaced by bop or bebop, a later—a "progressive" or "modern jazz".' (F E L Priestley, in a letter of Dec 20, 1959.)

Another etnry in the first volume

quote:

cool. Impertinent, impudent, audacious, esp. if in a calm way: from ca.1820; coll. till ca.1880, then SE. [...] —2. Stressing the amount in a large sum of money: from 1728 (SOD); coll. Fielding in Tom Jones, 'Mr Watson ... declared he had lost a cool hundred, and would play no longer.' —3. At Eton College, clear, effective, as in cool kick.

It looks like cool has been polysemous in interesting ways for quite some time.

The idea that words' meanings can be highjacked is a preposterous one. There are very few commonly used words that have one meaning only: my favorite is the verb mole and yours is the verb set. It would have to be a dense person who did not understand what cool means in different contexts, and only somebody suffering from Lynne Truss Syndrome would would insist on the opposite.

Minus a plethora of cites, here's a listing from the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang;

As a noun
1. Composure. (Fashionable nationally 1964-66)
2. A period of truce between gangs (1958)
3 Stylishness (1961)

As an adjective
1. Insolent. impudent, daring (1825)
2a, Shrewd, clever (1918)
2b. Fashionable, stylish (1946)
3a. Superlative, excitng (1933, musicians popularized in '40s)
3b. On friendly, terms cooperative (1973)
4. No longer being sought by police (1937)
5. Under control, cautious (1862)
6. Safe or well (1962)

If you remember this thread was all about annoying words. It annoys me that people use the word "cool" when there are other, better words they could use. I also cited "wicked" meaning wonderful and "pants" meaning poor as other irritating words. I have tried to give you my reasons why I don't like the adjective used in this way - but I am not going to get into an in-depth philological discussion about how and when the word started to be used in this sense. All the discussion seems to have proved is that this use originated in the USA in the 1950s (which was my point about my own knowledge of the era). The use has now crossed the Atlantic and that is to me a matter of regret.

I am not going to get into an in-depth philological discussion about how and when the word started to be used in this sense.

I'm cool with that, but you did assert that cool was unknown in the 'fifties in the UK, when responding to something goofy posted, and I was just trying to show you were your assertion was a sack of horse hockey.

And I posted about the evolution of "cool," as well, in my October 14th post from the OED. As for "hijacking" words, since 2002 we've talked here about how words have evolved. Heck, it was you who talked about "set" having 176 meanings .

You might not like the word "cool" (just as I don't like the word "Schadenfreude"), but I don't even think you really believe that it has been "hijacked."

quote:

You might not like the word "cool" (just as I don't like the word "Schadenfreude"), but I don't even think you really believe that it has been "hijacked."

I suppose it depends on what you mean by hijacked. I mean that the word has been taken by others and made to serve their own purposes. Whereas just about all words' meanings change over time, there are certain changes that I find regrettable - primarily those that mean that a word's original meaning has been lost; "hijacked" by the new meaning.

Whereas "cool" still retains its original meanings, and thus is not so bad as some slang, the meanings of "gay" and "intercourse" have been so perverted as to have almost lost their earlier meanings. I could never tell people that I had been having "gay intercourse" with a friend and expect them to infer that I had been having a light-hearted chat - although that would have been the meaning of the expression a century ago.

Of course, slang by its very nature tends to change rapidly and tends usually to be fairly local, and thus its effects on language are often only temporary. "Wicked" is now rather old-fashioned slang and I suspect will soon follow other slang terms into linguistic history.

I suppose what I am saying in a roundabout way, is that I tend to dislike and avoid slang; it is often parochial and thus easily misunderstood - the more so if it is dated.

quote:

I mean that the word has been taken by others and made to serve their own purposes.

What on earth does that mean, Richard? What 'others' have hijacked the word "cool"? What are their 'own purposes' that sound so nefarious?

quote:

If you're using the word "cool" to mean "very nice" as so many do these days, then I agree with it as an accurate, if vague, descriptor.

When you've got a while to spare, look up the evolution of the word "nice".

I suspect that your beef is not with a word's meaning changing, but with the people who use it in its new sense. This is what I have always suspected, and I have mentioned it in the past, although you strenuously deny it. The general drift of this thread confirms my suspicions. Not all discourse is serious, scholarly, and formal. A thread on an online forum is not a monograph on transuranic elements. One can use the adjectives cool and gay in one of their other meanings with little danger in one's intended meaning being eclipsed by their newer meanings. For example, there is little misunderstanding the second stanza from Lear's The Quangle Wangle's Hat:

quote:

The Quangle Wangle said
To himself on the Crumpetty Tree,—
'Jam; and jelly; and bread; 'Are the best food for me!
'But the longer I live on this Crumpetty Tree
'The plainer that ever it seems to me
'That very few people come this way
'And that life on the whole is far from gay!'
Said the Quangle Wangle Quee.

You're likely to get some adolescent snickers, the same way when highschool students are reading Shakespeare's Macbeth "Come, you spirits; That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here". Some, as arnie has pointed out above, have been entirrely eclipsed: that is how language works. We all have regrets, but in the end those regrets are our own, and have little to do with the natural evolution of the language.

quote:

When you've got a while to spare, look up the evolution of the word "nice".

Nice, when used in its usual vague sense (it has other senses of course) is a synonym for "cool" when used in its own vague modern sense. No matter how many times the etymology is paraded in these pages, the truth is that most of those who call a thing "cool" nowadays are simply expressing vague approval.

It simply means that the thing under discussion arouses positive emotions. In this way the word cool seems to have replaced, in some people's vocabulary, the word nice.

There are many times when a vague word is appropriate, as I have already said, but Kalleh's toolkit properly requires more than a simple expression of approval. It is neither nice nor cool; those are simply lazy words used to express approval - appropriate at a cocktail party, maybe, but not in proper discussion.

quote:

I suspect that your beef is not with a word's meaning changing, but with the people who use it in its new sense.

That may be so. Again, I refer you to the title of this thread - "whatever" - said by some to be the most annoying word extant.

But of course it is not the word per se; it is the way that some people use it that causes the irritation that many people, including me, feel. I also find the way that some people use "cool" irritating - and I have the same irritation with many other word usages. The reason that "cool" has caused such debate is that Kalleh claimed she liked the way in which the word is nowadays used, and I tried to explain why I didn't. That is what led to much debate over the history and usage of the word.

Had someone suggested that "whatever", when used as a vague comment about a statement was a fine phrase, and someone else had disagreed, suggesting that it was a vague and imprecise comment, then I suspect that the debate would have been about the origins and correct use of "whatever", not of "cool".

Again, I refer you to the title of this thread - "whatever" - said by some to be the most annoying word extant.

Simply stating that word X is the most annoying word ever is rather vague, too. Without a context, it means next to nothing. In the context of the results of the silly opinion poll mentioned in the opening post, what it really means is "which of the following five words, do you find annying?" Again, I refer to the discussion in the above thread. The word whatever is not in itself annoying. It's perfectly agreeable in sentences such as "I had no apprehension whatever of my real danger" (Dickens Tale of Two Cities). The use of whatever to mean "I don't care" is not really vague, no less so than responding to somebody's previous argument as rubbish. Sometimes just knowing a person's immediate emotive response to something is enough, and we drop it, but sometimes we are curious for the reasons why the person called something cool, lame, or bogus.

X: I just saw Tarrantino's new flick.
Y: What'd you think?
X: It was cool.
Y: So I've heard. Have you seen Mad Men yet?
etc.

Q: I just installed Vista on a laptop last week.
W: Oh? How is it?
Q: Lame.
W: So I've heard. Why?
Q: [Enumerates problems with the OS.]

quote:

I also find the way that some people use "cool" irritating - and I have the same irritation with many other word usages.

I think you've shown this irritation ad nauseam, Richard. Why not accept that the language (especially slang and informal English) has changed over the last fifty years? You and some others may not like it, but please stop inflicting your personal likes and dislikes on us.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I suppose it depends on what you mean by hijacked. I mean that the word has been taken by others and made to serve their own purposes. Whereas just about all words' meanings change over time, there are certain changes that I find regrettable - primarily those that mean that a word's original meaning has been lost; "hijacked" by the new meaning.

To say that the changes you don't like are "hijacked" is a bit silly. All word are taken by speakers to serve their own purposes, that's how language changes. And most words have changed so much that their original meaning has been lost, if you go back far enough.

Would you please re-read the start of the thread. I was not the one who started it and expressed the view that certain words are irritating. I agreed that the poll was not sufficiently open-ended and then wrote "...I agree. There are many other words and phrases that irritate. I would include "wicked" meaning very good, "cool" meaning good and "pants" meaning not good, as significant irritants for me..."

Nobody initially castigated me for expressing those thoughts but, as soon as Kalleh suggested that she liked the word "cool" and I tried to explain my objection to it, I have been assaulted by a barrage of facts to prove me "wrong" and that "cool" is a wonderful word that deserves to be used on just about every conceivable occasion. I dislike the imprecise use of "cool" to describe complex ideas and that was the point of my argument. I wrote then, and I write now - there are better words and we should use them.

Now. I also hate the use of "pants" as an adjective to indicate that something is unpleasant. Tell me why this, too, is actually an amazing word with a rich heritage that I should be aware of, having been used by Eric the Red and Chaucer themselves to describe the poor quality of the local wines they encountered.

Now. I also hate the use of "pants" as an adjective to indicate that something is unpleasant. Tell me why this, too, is actually an amazing word with a rich heritage that I should be aware of, having been used by Eric the Red and Chaucer themselves to describe the poor quality of the local wines they encountered.

Bit of a straw-man, surely. Well, it's not in Partridge, but in Jonathon Green's slang dictionary, the interjection pants "rubbish" is dated to the 1990s. It is a variant of knickers (or knickers to you!), which is dated to the 1970s. i quote the entry:

quote:

A general excl. meaning rubbish!, you must be joking!, etc.; general negation of the preceding speaker's opinion, demand, etc. [? euph. for knackers! or the use of knickers as a juv. obscenity]

Knackers was a mid-19th century word for testicles. Bringing us full circle to cobblers (< Cockney rhyming slang, cobblers' awls for balls, and by extension rubbish. I find pants a perfectly cromulent word and shall endeavor to use it at any opportunity when I need to negate somebody's opinion or demand. By the way, one of the more oft-cited annoying words in English is panties. I wonder why.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
Nobody initially castigated me for expressing those thoughts but, as soon as Kalleh suggested that she liked the word "cool" and I tried to explain my objection to it, I have been assaulted by a barrage of facts to prove me "wrong" and that "cool" is a wonderful word that deserves to be used on just about every conceivable occasion.

I'm not sure that anyone is trying to prove you wrong. If you don't like the word, that's your opinion, and fair enough. I've just been trying to tell you that it makes no sense to say a word has been "hijacked".

quote:

By the way, one of the more oft-cited annoying words in English is panties. I wonder why.

That surprises me. I'd not noticed that it was causing any annoyance in UK English; maybe it's US English where it's considered objectionable.

The equation of "pants" with "knickers" hasn't been my own experience of the word's use. It's common enough to hear "knickers!" used as an expostulation but the use of pants I have heard is as an adjective, as in, "That's really pants". Rather different.

The equation of "pants" with "knickers" hasn't been my own experience of the word's use.

It was not my etymology, but Mr Green's. He is a British lexicographer (link). I offer no opinion on it. This Language entry sums up various entries on panties. The cartoon is a bonus.

[Addendum]

I was going to fire off an email to Michael Quinion, but was saved by the search feature on his wonderful site, World Wide Words. From his entry on pants.

quote:

Pants in British usage are not trousers, of course, but underpants, principally male. These intimate nether garments have long been a source of innocent merriment among pubescent youth, and this was just another example, in the tradition of the earlier exclamation knickers!, indicating contempt or exasperation. It appears in phrases like “it’s a pile of pants!” (Simon Mayo’s catchphrase) and “it’s pants!” or “it’s absolute pants”, meaning that it’s a total load of rubbish. Later, we began to hear it from older people as in “My tomato crop was pants last year”. In phrases like “say pants to ...” it’s an injunction to wave goodbye to something considered outmoded, unwanted or unnecessary.

Cool!

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

quote:

in the tradition of the earlier exclamation knickers!, indicating contempt or exasperation

Sorry, but over here I just cannot imagine anyone being exasparated enough to shout "Underwear!" or "Fruit of the Loom!"

To get back to the original thread, one phrase that annoys me is, when someone does something they believe is excellent in some aspect, they exclaim, "Now THAT'S what I'm talking about!" Even though they may not have said anything beforehand.

I see that Michael Quinion also draws a distinction between the older exclamation "knickers" and the newer metaphorical phrase, "it's pants" - except insofar as they share a common tradition of innocent vulgarity.