• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

The Figure of Speech That You Dislike The Most

I actually think the first one is worse Flinty. I mean, it's like saying the word "irregardless" - saying "AM" and "morning" in the same phrase is just as redundant as adding "irr" to "regardless". It's either 9 AM or 9 in the morning.

The second one is pretty bad, but I have to admit that I'm an offender of the "12 PM/12 AM" thing in e-mails, texts, papers, and hand-written documents, but I always say either "noon" or "midnight" in oral conversations. Go figure!
 
The redundant words that bug me the most are in comparative adjective phrases like "more quieter" and "more easier," but I also think ones like "PIN number" (personal identification number number) and, as someone learning French, "please RSVP" (please Repondez S'il Vous Plait/ please please reply)although I like to imagine that people who write this emphatically saying "please, oh please, reply!"

Interestingly, I've always understood and never had a problem with 12am/pm. When I was little it confused me, but now I just get that any time before midday is anti-meridian and that any time after midnight (but before midday of course) is postmeridian.
 
Jacki Cucinotta said:
I actually think the first one is worse Flinty. I mean, it's like saying the word "irregardless" - saying "AM" and "morning" in the same phrase is just as redundant as adding "irr" to "regardless". It's either 9 AM or 9 in the morning.

The second one is pretty bad, but I have to admit that I'm an offender of the "12 PM/12 AM" thing in e-mails, texts, papers, and hand-written documents, but I always say either "noon" or "midnight" in oral conversations. Go figure!
Click to expand...

Irregardless isn't even a word!
 
arthurfakaya said:
I hate the phrase "moving forward". It was used to excess in Australian politics fairly recently, and I'm pretty sure it was borrowed from US politics. It is such a completely useless filler phrase, essentially meaning "in the future" but it is always superfluous to the sentence, which would sound better without it; as in "We will be returning the budget to surplus, moving forward". Whenever I hear it used by a politician, I'm on the lookout for spin. It's like fingernails on a chalkboard. I expect that as opinion polls reflect the public's hatred of politician's meaningless drivel, we will be hearing less of this phrase "moving forward" moving forward. :D
Click to expand...

Yes, this is the perfect expression to loathe. It actually conveys no meaning whatsoever. 'We're moving forward...' implies motion of some kind, but it tells us nothing else, and is therefore superfluous at best. An example of advertising double-speak hijacked for nefarious purposes by a clueless politician.
 
Being out of the woods. If being at a critical medical state I think most people really hope to be at a hospital, not at the woods. Unless they're hoping for ritual ceremonies or something.
 
While it is not a figure of speech, I hate when people say: "The fact of the matter is..."
It is so annoying because they could simply say what the fact is rather than add this useless phrase.
 
"Take the whole kit and caboodle."

It took me a very long time to realize that "caboodle" is in fact a noun - I thought it was a verb for many, many years, meaning something like "be satisfied".
 
@ Meistersinger: Uh OH! I tend to use that one sometimes BUT never as a preface (or a footnote to) an insult.

"________ let the cat out of the bag!"

Think about it for a sec: there must've been a sufficient quantity of people who could relate to having a bagful of cats in order for this expression to catch on. Enough of those people had to harbour the bizarre & cruel belief that a cat's rightful place is in a bag in the first place in order for releasing one to be viewed as a bad thing. Soup' conclusion: Go back into your Aspie cave: you're fine. The world, however, is one cracked up place!
 
Soup said:
@ Meistersinger: Uh OH! I tend to use that one sometimes BUT never as a preface (or a footnote to) an insult.

"________ let the cat out of the bag!"

Think about it for a sec: there must've been a sufficient quantity of people who could relate to having a bagful of cats in order for this expression to catch on. Enough of those people had to harbour the bizarre & cruel belief that a cat's rightful place is in a bag in the first place in order for releasing one to be viewed as a bad thing. Soup' conclusion: Go back into your Aspie cave: you're fine. The world, however, is one cracked up place!
Click to expand...

Actually, the phrase, "Who let the cat out of the bag?" was a literal truth at one time, since many eons ago, an unscrupulous merchant would actually put a cat in a sack to deceive a customer.
 
Really? I thought it was just a reference to drowning cats, and if you let one out you had screwed up, because cats are way too smart to trust someone twice.
 
Meistersinger said:
Actually, the phrase, "Who let the cat out of the bag?" was a literal truth at one time, since many eons ago, an unscrupulous merchant would actually put a cat in a sack to deceive a customer.
Click to expand...
About what would he have been trying to deceive the customer?
 
@ Meistersinger: I know! Not too long ago societies suborned doing some truly horrific things to cats. I'm glad we're moving towards increasing animal rights & raising public awareness as to the needs animals have. Anyone who has shared life with a cat or a dog (or parrot for that matter!) knows that there's a unique sentient individual in there: not just a cute accessory or bag of instincts.

 
"The only thing to fear is fear itself."

The more logical thing to say is, be not afraid of fear. Fear itself is not dangerous. If we were to fear fear, why, we'd be going in emotional circles until we passed out or something.
 
"There is always two sides on things"

Well, no. There are topologically interesting pieces, and I also strongly suspect that many situations do have more than just two ways to reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom