- People that don’t yield when turning left at an intersection with no lights or other traffic control devices.
- Metaphysics (Particularly those that like to abuse Quantum Mechanics to promote metaphysical agenda, including JZ Knight, Lynne McTaggert, the author of “The Secret”, etc.)
- When companies and organizations have form letters or automated responses that indicate emotional investment / sincerity, when it is quite apparent that there was none of either present. (i.e. “Your call is very important to us…” or “Thank you for contacting us …. Sincerely, so-and-so”) Feigned sincerity is almost worse than insincerity, IMHO.
- The CEO’s from Wall Street Investment banks that are complaining that $400,000 (or even the proposed $750,000, which is only 25x the average subordinate salary) is such a paltry salary and that they couldn’t possibly live in downtown Manhattan apartment.
- People who don’t think third-party candidates should be included in the Presidential debates, even if said candidates have enough state electorates to be elected in the general election — instead the decision relies on polls of questionable scientific merit. (I’m looking at you, USA Today Editors)
- Links that read “Click here to _____”. I suppose it’s because I entertain the reality that the Internet is so ubiquitous that people inherently understand the mechanics behind a hyperlink. It would be like a book that said “Open this and start reading the pages to ____”. Why not just say “______”?
- When people use the unnecessary prefix “quick” to describe links or a searchbar. (“Quicklinks” or “Quicksearch”). How is using a “quicksearch” any different or faster than using a regular search bar?
- That sound that thick liquids (like smoothies) make when you pour them into a glass. It’s kind of a hollow “hcwooooosh” sound that rises in pitch as it nears the top of the glass.
- The phrase “new look and feel” or just “look and feel”, particularly in reference to websites.
- Mispronunciation of certain words such as “nuclear [NOOK-yoo-lur]” or “arctic [AR-tic]” (and many others)
- Movies that grossly mis-interpret science (i.e. “The Core”)
- Movies that use time travel as a plot element, and create impossible paradoxes (“Lake House” does it wrong, “12 Monkeys” does it slightly better, but only because Gilliam is intentionally vague about the details of why it works)
- When cars drive by my house at 2:30am with sub-woofers loud enough to rattle all the windows in my house. So help me, if they wake the baby…! (note: the issue here is one of timeliness)
- Logical fallacies. Especially those used by influential speakers. Especially-especially when they are used intentionally to artificially enhance their argument.
- Disney’s “The Black Cauldron”, a horrible bastardization of books 1 & 2 of The Prydain Chronicles.
- The RIAA & MPAA and their apparent inability to let go of archaic revenue models.
- SPAM and the human scum that intentionally propagate it.
- Chain letters (or more recently: chain bulletins); particularly the urban legend and “re-post this or you will die” varieties.
- Greedy American corporations.
- The Bush administration and its apparent desire to become an oligarchy. The nightmare is over! Yay!
- People who say the word “forte” as “for-tay” rather than just “fort”. Popular usage is slowly changing this to being a more acceptable pronunciation, unfortunately. (“for-tay” is used when speaking of the italian word used in musical notation. “fort” is used when you’re referring to a strength you may have.) — ADDENDUM: Since apparently the official word on English usage (see comments) declares the irksome version to be canon, I will accept, begrudgingly (and still irked) people that say it. I, however, will say the French version: “Le Fort” [lay four]
Popularity: 6% [?]



#1 by Chris on August 8, 2007 - 12:57 pm
Quote
Phew!
Chris
#2 by Aaron on August 8, 2007 - 2:02 pm
Quote
ROFL
Nice, Chris.
I’m constantly hearing “Look and Feel” from IU higher-ups. I think it’s some ridiculous contagious buzzword; like “thinking outside the box” was last decade.
#3 by Sadie on September 27, 2008 - 1:05 am
Quote
Yo!
I’m just curious–on whose or what authority are you basing your “forte” irritation? The Italian word “forte” (for-tay) does not exist solely for use in musical notation–it itself actually means “strength” and is used in Italian the same way. I’m not sure of the English etymology of its use in this language, but I believe it to be perfectly acceptable to use it the way you loathe so much. The Italian word doesn’t literally mean “loudly,” which is how it is essentially used in music–a loud effect is achieved by striking your instrument with more force or strength, hence the instruction “forte.”
Are you taking the (fort) pronunciation from the French word “fort”? It has the precise same meaning. If you want to use the French and be correct, you should be pronouncing it the French way, which is an even more succinct “for.”
I’ve noticed you mention this several times over the years and I just wondered why it gets your goat so bad.
Using an Italian word to describe your strong points or expertise ought to be pronounced according to Italian phonetics, which is–sorry to say for your sake–”for-tay.” Before spouting off I just checked it out on Dictionary.com (okay not super thorough research, but I was just checking) and it says the two-syllable pronunciation is because of “confusion with the musical term.” If Dictionary.com were here right now, I’d tell it that the word was not invented as a musical term. It means strength.
And something that irritates me is when people try to correct other people on the other person’s blog. So sorry about that.
#4 by Aaron on September 27, 2008 - 1:34 pm
Quote
Sadie:
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forte
This falls under the category of “ignorant popular usage bastardizing the language”.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go yell at some kids to get off my lawn.
#5 by Sadie on September 27, 2008 - 1:47 pm
Quote
No way dude! I do not know where they’re getting that from. It is neither ignorant nor bastardized–it’s a word that means strength! If you’re using the Italian spelling there’s nothing inherently WRONG with pronouncing it the Italian way. It’s like we say “bal-lay” instead of “bal-let” — even though the phonetics don’t line up according to English rules, we still say it as if it were French.
Now I am getting really irked. Screw you and your tempting lawn, asshole!
You’re not really an asshole, I was just saying that.
#6 by Aaron on September 28, 2008 - 9:49 am
Quote
Tee-hee!
Just to be fair, let me look at some other online sources and see what it says:
Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forte
Wikipedia: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/forte
Again — while I concede that it is technically acceptable, due to popular usage (the same phenomena that makes “thru” and “lite” acceptable spellings — or that allows “eats, shoots, and leaves” to happen), I stand by my opinion that it is a misconception that has gone off the deep end (and is currently treading all over my lawn).
I did find the Merriam-Webster explanation especially enlightening though, and from now on, I will be saying “le fort” (“lay FOR”) instead.
If you would like to dig up some sources supporting your perspective, paste them here! That would be great!
#7 by Jean on September 29, 2008 - 2:50 pm
Quote
Ah. Consult a book, not the internet. And for all things related to the English language, I always always turn to Fowler’s Modern English Usage. Herewith, on page 310: “Forte. There are two separate (though etymologically related) words…” he writes. One the noun, a “person’s strong point” the other an adjective, or adverb, or noun, “(a passage to be performed) loudly.”
Fowler lays (not lies) the controversy to rest here: “In practice, the pronunciation of forte (1) has been unstable for most of the 20th century: some still pronounce it as one syllable.”
The key word there is “still” — as in, um, catch up with the evolution of the language, my friends. It’s TWO syllables. For-tay.
#8 by unreliable narrator on November 11, 2008 - 9:49 pm
Quote
Well, there’s evolution; and then there’s just bewilderment. And of course the brilliant thing about usage manuals is that they are nothing more (nor less) than “the record of one smart person’s attempts to work out answers to certain very difficult questions” (Vide DFW on American English usage.) Closed! -Ed.
I don’t see, then, how Fowler’s puts it “to rest” by noting that the pronunciation has been unstable for over a hundred years.
—Signed, a lifetime pronouncer of forte-as-one-syllable-because it is a FRENCH word goddammit (though “le” isn’t pronounced “LAY” but “leh,” roughly speaking ;o) (and though I usually sigh inwardly and cheerfully mispronounce most other contested words because it’s just not worth the weird looks I’ll get if I articulate every syllable in, let’s say, “connoisseur,” and because, above all, I don’t enjoy shaming students or others for their so-called ignorance)
#9 by unreliable narrator on November 11, 2008 - 9:50 pm
Quote
PS—OMG I HATE LOGICAL FALLACIES.
And Aaron, would you be so kind as to close my parens? Thankee. You might get a kick out of the first paragraph of that DFW essay—I had it on my office door at my previous teaching gig.
#10 by unreliable narrator on November 11, 2008 - 9:51 pm
Quote
PPS—actually “luh” is closer than “leh.” I’m just sayin’.