Words I Hate

  • Thread starter Liquid
  • 1,242 comments
  • 77,696 views
Misused words?

pants

When used to mean underpants. To me pants are the outer layer of your clothing; jeans, trousers, breeches, whatever. Underpants go under your pants. If pants means underpants then it's like there's an invisible apostrophe if 'pants is short for underpants.
 
Last edited:
Misused words?

pants

When used to mean underpants. To me pants are the outer layer of your clothing; jeans, trousers, breeches, whatever. Underpants go under your pants. If pants means underpants then it's like there's an invisible apostrophe if 'pants is short for underpants.
I never thought about it before but that's one the Americans got right and we didn't.

How do you feel about "panties"? (The word, not the garment.)
 
Last edited:
I never thought about it before but that's one the Americans got right and we didn't.

How do you feel about "panties"? (The word, not the garment.)
Panties for the ladies, pants for the lads.

Working in an American school, I have to rephrase a lot of things, but trousers/slacks/strides is still universally understood.maybe not some much the last one.
Underpants are underpants.

“Pants” to me is an expression of uselessness. “These chocolate tea pots are pants”.
 
Panties for the ladies, pants for the lads.
This was why I asked him. Panties seems to be exclusively used to describe underwear which goes against his point.
 
"Pants" is also a verb, as in to forcibly remove another's legged garment, frequently but not exclusively with humorous intent and effect.

What would the word for the reverse be?

...

"N-word," specifically the substitution, and specifically when used by crybitches bemoaning the inability to use the full word without social consequences. See they think they should be able to express themselves freely, even as others should be unable to freely associate (or rather dissociate in this instance), but they're also pussies and are unwilling to make an effort to normalize use in the face of criticism.
 
Last edited:
"Pants" is also a verb, as in to forcibly remove another's legged garment, frequently but not exclusively with humorous intent and effect.

What would the word for the reverse be?
I feel that's quite a North American term. People would recognise it this side of the water but I think it's one of those things in Britain that has a different name in different parts of the country. We always referred to detrousering someone as kegging.

The reverse doesn't have a specific verb. I'd guess dressing up or simply putting on? Even by force. Forcing on?
 
Last edited:
I feel that's quite a North American term. People would recognise it this side of the water but I think it's one of those things in Britain that has a different name in different parts of the country. We always referred to detrousering someone as kegging.

The reverse doesn't have a specific verb. I'd guess dressing up or simply putting on? Even by force. Forcing on?
“Scants’d”, derived from “pants’d” was used at my school for the action of whipping somebody’s trousers down to their ankles by surprise. The was another more nuanced term but I forget it.
 
Glizzy

It's such a terrible and lazy word that does a terrible job of describing what a Hot Dog Sausage looks like. It was called a Frankfurter for a reason.
 
"incentivize".

I don't know why I hate it. I simply feel like it should be shorter. As in, we don't usually say "motivatize".
 
"incentivize".

I don't know why I hate it. I simply feel like it should be shorter. As in, we don't usually say "motivatize".
Problem is, "Incentive" is as short as you'll get (That and "giving people incents" just sounds like either a cringe attempt to make it sound hip or like you're giving them scented fragrances that you burn). I assume this word is basically to eliminate the need to use "give" whenever Incentive is used. Instead of "This will give employees incentive to be more productive", its instead "This will incentivize employees to be more productive".

At least to me, I don't currently see a way to shorten it without making it sound worse.
 
Last edited:
Its short enough indeed. Its also morally & legally questionable :lol:
I think the notion of bribery exists colloquially, inspired by the legal term of art but not to the extent that it's unlawful. An individual may be bribed (or incentivized) to take a particular action with the promise of a reward, as a child bribed to eat their veggies with the promise of dessert.
 
Thinking about the thread title, HATE is a very difficult word to like.

Its meaning seems broad, but I can’t think of anything I actually truly hate. It’s so connected with an emotion that seems ultimately wasteful.

It’s at the farthest end of the spectrum of dislike. It probably does more damage to the person using the word, to have to feel that emotion and come to that word.

That said, there are plenty of worse words out there.
 
Mucus, sputum, pus, phlegm, cyst and canker are right up there, just behind “election denier”.
 
I can't really say I hate words but people using phrases like "towing the line" or "peaking my interest" when they mean "toeing the line" and "piqueing my interest" doesn't make sense to me.
 
Last edited:
I can't really say I hate words but people using phrases like "towing the line" or "peaking my interest" when they mean "toeing the line" and "piqueing my interest" doesn't make sense to me.
Doesn't make "alot" of sense to me, either 😂
 
I can't really say I hate words but people using phrases like "towing the line" or "peaking my interest" when they mean "toeing the line" and "piqueing my interest" doesn't make sense to me.
Maybe they’re caravaners or binocular fanatics.
 
Doesn't make "alot" of sense to me, either 😂
But it should of!...

Seriously, though, I can accept people changing the language to suit the way they speak as in these two examples. Towing and peaking seem to be more about misunderstanding the original idioms and changing their meaning to me.

It's only a minor thing but I think it's unfortunate when the original meaning kinda gets lost in the shuffle. I think people have forgotten that although Jack of all trades is master of none, I believe the original version went on to say that he's "oftentimes better than master of one" and that some knowledge in a variety of areas put someone at an advantage over a specialist in certain situations.

Another phrase which I understand to have been historically mangled is "feed a cold, starve a fever" which I heard originally didn't mean "you should starve people who are feverish" which sounds like terrible medical advice. The original sense was "If you feed someone who has a cold, they'll be better equipped to fight off that cold getting worse and becoming a serious illness". It's the fever which is "starved", not the person.

I could be wrong though and maybe some lexicologist will tell me how I've completely misunderstood the phrases.

Language is a tool for communication and no one individual can hold back the way it evolves over time. That said, apostrophes are important to me because on paper they differentiate between various meanings of similarly pronounced words which can't be easily read through context alone. Ditching them would be a mistake, in my eyes.

To me the most correct form of language is the one which allows your ideas to be understood by most people without the need for further clarification, hence my sig. I don't always succeed in achieving this but it's what I try to aim for when writing.
 
Last edited:
But it should of!...

Seriously, though, I can accept people changing the language to suit the way they speak as in these two examples. Towing and peaking seem to be more about misunderstanding the original idioms and changing their meaning to me.

It's only a minor thing but I think it's unfortunate when the original meaning kinda gets lost in the shuffle. I think people have forgotten that although Jack of all trades is master of none, I believe the original version went on to say that he's "oftentimes better than master of one" and that some knowledge in a variety of areas put someone at an advantage over a specialist in certain situations.

Another phrase which I understand to have been historically mangled is "feed a cold, starve a fever" which I heard originally didn't mean "you should starve people who are feverish" which sounds like terrible medical advice. The original sense was "If you feed someone who has a cold, they'll be better equipped to fight off that cold getting worse and becoming a serious illness". It's the fever which is "starved", not the person.

I could be wrong though and maybe some lexicologist will tell me how I've completely misunderstood the phrases.

Language is a tool for communication and no one individual can hold back the way it evolves over time. That said, apostrophes are important to me because on paper they differentiate between various meanings of similarly pronounced words which can't be easily read through context alone. Ditching them would be a mistake, in my eyes.

To me the most correct form of language is the one which allows your ideas to be understood by most people without the need for further clarification, hence my sig. I don't always succeed in achieving this but it's what I try to aim for when writing.
Do I perceive a fellow linguaphiliac? In a thread devoted to logomisia?
 
Do I perceive a fellow linguaphiliac? In a thread devoted to logomisia?
Sorry. I can't say I love language or any particular words for their own sake, despite being a great fan of puns. To me they're just tools as discussed in my previous post.

This thread interests me because - despite my earlier criticisms of a couple of what I consider to be misquoted idioms - people who rail against neologisms are trying to hold back the ocean waves like a Cnut or sticking their fingers in a dyke like the Dutch boy in the story.

I may have broken my rule about trying not to be misinterpreted by choosing to use the comparisons in the above sentence, though. ;)
 
Last edited:
Back