Jeet yet?
No. Jew?
[quote=“sandman”][quote=“The Magnificent Tigerman”][quote=“Juba the grammaticaster”]I am your local language policeman (self appointed) and I say “hopefully” and “hard” are OK.[/quote]Really? But, don’t you think “difficult” sounds and or looks much better than “hard”?[/quote]Really, is it so hard to accept? Tigerman, you’re just being difficult. 
[/quote]Isn’t it simpler to say “Tigerman, you’re so hard” ?
I’d rather they sounded like robots and spoke excessively formally than talked like a bunch of whiny posers (Friends), or whinging, desperate slappers (Sex in the City), or sounded suicidally boring (Six Feet Under).
Juliet - “Romeo Romeo why art thou?” Romeo - “Why art I what ?” Juliet - “I dunno. Those are the lines.”
I never could understand how people could mistake “wherefore” for “where” in that context. I mean, she carries on to go on about names meaning nothing, so surely /why/ has much more relevance.
Although I think only idiots would say ‘I could care less’, I have no problem with them using it. I’m with the descriptivists on this one.
But, there is still one little thing that bugs me. It’s the way some people - especially sports commentators - use the word ‘literally’ to mean quite the opposite of what it should (fguratively). Eg “he’s literally flying along the track” “they’re literally thrashing them” etc.
Brian
The explanation I’ve heard is that it is a figurative use of the word literal but I guess you figured that out already. I don’t mind so much people saying it, but by God I hate trying to explain the logic (?) of that one to ESL students.
Could you help me out of my rockin’ chair sonny? I seem to have misplaced me 'specks…
[quote=“Bu Lai En”]
But, there is still one little thing that bugs me. It’s the way some people - especially sports commentators - use the word ‘literally’ to mean quite the opposite of what it should (fguratively). Eg “he’s literally flying along the track” “they’re literally thrashing them” etc.
Brian[/quote]
Though I’m a descriptivist as well, that is annoying. You’re right. It’s right up there with other ridiculous commentary like, “That’s phenomenal!” referring to the fact that somebody caught a stupid ball.
[quote=“Dangermouse”]On thing that get’s on my tits is the use of “ALREADY” in the form of sentences like this:
"Start the car already." - when the car is just about to be started or you asking somebody to start it, or "Phone your friend already" when you are urging someone to call their friend.
I just can’t get my head around this kind of logic. To me, it just doesn’t make any sence whatsoever.
I’m not a stickler for correct grammar or sentence structure and half of my daily conversation in the UK consists of slang.
But “already” just baffles me to the point of insanity.[/quote]
Wasn’t that originally a Jewish expression? Any Yiddish speakers out there?
[quote=“rooftop”]A pet peeve of mine is the use of the word “hopefully” to express “I hope”.
As in: “Hopefully she will call me tonight.” Used this way it means that She will call me tonight and SHE will be full of hope.
Grrrr… :fume: raaarrrr :raspberry: rrrrrr 
Points to ac_dropout for mentioning “irregardless.” I don’t like that one either[/quote]
" With only two seconds left on the clock, he faked right, wound up and hopefully took the shot on goal."
I’m glad this thread got bumped. I somehow missed it first time round.
What’s the status of “me either” in North American English these days? Do people still say it or was that just a '90s thing?
Wasn’t that originally a Jewish expression? Any Yiddish speakers out there?[/quote]
Yes, we Yids do say “shoin” a lot. Enough already = genig shoin.
I know this is a bit off-topic, but are there any similar examples in Chinese? That is, common phrases that are logically incorrect but still commonly used except by anally-retentive grammarians (if such creatures exist in the Chinese-speaking world)? I can’t think of any off-hand.