"Trendy" expressions you're tired of hearing

[Hollanda]

My boo as referring to one's significant other. Especially when written!

It took me some time to figure out what that meant!!


I also hate "Meh" when someone else can't effectively communicate feelings by using actual words!!!!!

[Diane AKA Traska]

My boo as referring to one's significant other. Especially when written!

It took me some time to figure out what that meant!!


I also hate "Meh" when someone else can't effectively communicate feelings by using actual words!!!!!

In my case, "meh" is the actual word.  Its definition is "neutrally ambivalent to the point of malaise or complete disinterest."

[bansidhe]

I also hate "Meh" when someone else can't effectively communicate feelings by using actual words!!!!!

In my case, "meh" is the actual word.  Its definition is "neutrally ambivalent to the point of malaise or complete disinterest."

Same here. I love "meh."

One I don't like at all, though I'm not sure it can be described as trendy, is the use of the word "toilet" as a verb. "Toileting" is even worse - as in "He's been toileting once or twice during the night on average."

It's the norm in health care and I understand why, but it sets my teeth on edge.

[Hollanda]

Maybe I'm in the minority then lol! 

[Hazmat]

My boo as referring to one's significant other. Especially when written!

It took me some time to figure out what that meant!!


I also hate "Meh" when someone else can't effectively communicate feelings by using actual words!!!!!

In my case, "meh" is the actual word.  Its definition is "neutrally ambivalent to the point of malaise or complete disinterest."

I'm neutrally ambivalent about "meh"

[Hollanda]

My boo as referring to one's significant other. Especially when written!

It took me some time to figure out what that meant!!


I also hate "Meh" when someone else can't effectively communicate feelings by using actual words!!!!!

In my case, "meh" is the actual word.  Its definition is "neutrally ambivalent to the point of malaise or complete disinterest."

I'm neutrally ambivalent about "meh"

I see what you did there!!!!!  

[cabbageweevil]

Occurred to me recently, out of the blue: "for free".

Not an expression which bothers me much ("life's too short") -- although I don't think I'd ever use it, in speech or writing; but I have a friend who loathes it with a passion. He is a great pedant about language-use of all kinds; and "for free" is one of many things on that scene, which make him furiously angry.  Basis: in proper English, if something has a cost / price ("in cash and / or kind"), it's "for" whatever that price is -- if it has no cost, then it's just "free".

My friend tells me of how, some fifty years ago, he and his schoolfriends used "for free" as a satirical, gently authority-mocking, joke and catchphrase -- because everybody knew it was nonsensical (see above).  They would never use it "in real life".  It makes him apoplectic that nowadays, it has come to be the common usage re something which one does not have to pay for -- shows up regularly and frequently even in British "quality" newspapers.  In principle, I see his point -- in practice, I think it not a hill to die on or otherwise dramatically and spectacularly end one's life over. Language is a democracy, and changes and evolves... and I see the alliterativeness of "for free", as likely being irresistible.

Wonder whether "for free", is a tiresome trendy expression (or worse) for anyone else on the board?

[jaxsue]

Don't know if this has been mentioned: sprinkle, as in mini-shower. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it's a duck. Or, in other words, it's a shower.

[Piratelvr1121]

I hear "sprinkle" and I admit, I think of something that's done in the bathroom that, depending on gender, one can do sitting down or standing up.  Which makes the idea of a "sprinkle" as a modified baby shower rather unappealing.

[Sebastienne]

I hear "sprinkle" and I admit, I think of something that's done in the bathroom that, depending on gender, one can do sitting down or standing up.  Which makes the idea of a "sprinkle" as a modified baby shower rather unappealing.

To me, a "baby sprinkle" sounds less like a party and more like an unpleasant diaper changing incident.

[Venus193]

I agree.  I've never heard of that term until I read it here.

[Waterlight]

Words and phrases that annoy me:

"Going forward" for "from now on" or "in the future"

"Passed on," "passed away" or "passed over" for "died"

"Going potty" said by anyone past elementary-school age for "going to the bathroom/restroom/washroom"

And my personal-most-hated, because usually said by SS's and control freaks, neither of which I have much time or tolerance for:  "You need to..." for "I want you to..."

[baglady]

Occurred to me recently, out of the blue: "for free".

Not an expression which bothers me much ("life's too short") -- although I don't think I'd ever use it, in speech or writing; but I have a friend who loathes it with a passion. He is a great pedant about language-use of all kinds; and "for free" is one of many things on that scene, which make him furiously angry.  Basis: in proper English, if something has a cost / price ("in cash and / or kind"), it's "for" whatever that price is -- if it has no cost, then it's just "free".

My friend tells me of how, some fifty years ago, he and his schoolfriends used "for free" as a satirical, gently authority-mocking, joke and catchphrase -- because everybody knew it was nonsensical (see above).  They would never use it "in real life".  It makes him apoplectic that nowadays, it has come to be the common usage re something which one does not have to pay for -- shows up regularly and frequently even in British "quality" newspapers.  In principle, I see his point -- in practice, I think it not a hill to die on or otherwise dramatically and spectacularly end one's life over. Language is a democracy, and changes and evolves... and I see the alliterativeness of "for free", as likely being irresistible.

Wonder whether "for free", is a tiresome trendy expression (or worse) for anyone else on the board?

I wouldn't call it trendy, since it's been around for decades. It's a colloquialism. I don't think the Joni Mitchell song "For Free" would be quite the same if she said the street musician was "playing free" or "playing for nothing." (Of course, the lyrics also say he played "real good" for free, so the song isn't exactly a shining example of perfect grammar!) 

But your friend is entitled to dislike the usage, just as I'm entitled to dislike the misuse of "entitled" -- which even Garrison Who-Does-The-Writer's-Almanac-And-Should-Know-Better Keillor uses in place of "titled." ("Here's a poem for today entitled ....")

[cabbageweevil]

My friend, rather a professional miserable-curmudgeon-and-hater-of-"whimsy"-stuff, doesn't much "do" literature and poetry (in his mind, that's "their" fault, not his), so I don't see him cutting Joni any slack -- and "playing real good", would have him rolling around on the floor gnawing the carpet. As you say, though -- it's a free part-of world, anyone is entitled to dislike what they do. I always have to stop and think about "entitled" (what one may do, or might mistakenly think they may do), versus "titled" (a poem by R. Kipling titled "If...")

[Camarynne]

On Facebook. "Like a boss". That one grates on my brain for some reason.