Words you dislike? Or really like?

[rsvman]

Skip Bayless says hi.

Dang! How could he have slipped my mind?

[fidel]

Reminds me of another somewhat related amazing word: calypigian.

Gonna be the name of my boat. Calypigous.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Gonna be the name of my boat. Calypigous.

Is that a boat? Or a badonkadonk?

[Tripping William]

Dang! How could he have slipped my mind?

And Bomani Jones feels slighted.

[budwom]

Bicep. I know, ignorant usage is now acceptable, so much for the King's English!

[Phredd3]

"Defense" when used as a verb. As in, "It will be hard to defense him." Or, "Defensing that team will be difficult."

When someone uses "defense" as a verb, I wonder why we are removing da fencing. And then I think about defenestrating the speaker. It just seems to me that "defend" is not that hard to remember.

[wilson]

Wow. I wonder how they could have made it worse. Might be a fun game to play. Let me give it a try:

Stephen A. Smith and Piers Morgan?

Joy Behar and Mitch McConnell?

Kim Jong Un and Kathy Griffin?


I guess if we are forced to keep it to people who actually announce sports and/or basketball, it would be hard to get worse than what they already offered. Maybe Stephen A. Smith and Jim Rome would be worse?

Gilbert Gottfried and Fran Drescher.

[Skydog]

Gilbert Gottfried and Fran Drescher.

My head hurts.

[bundabergdevil]

Gilbert Gottfried and Fran Drescher.

There was a time when uniquely irritating was considered comedy gold. Pauly Shore also comes to mind.

Future generations will have a field day dissecting that time and place in Americana.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

There was a time when uniquely irritating was considered comedy gold. Pauly Shore also comes to mind.

Future generations will have a field day dissecting that time and place in Americana.

Don't you dare mention Yahoo Serious.

[OldPhiKap]

Don't you dare mention Yahoo Serious.

Funny, that post made me think of him too! Scary.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Funny, that post made me think of him too! Scary.

Mrs and my favorite original pub quiz team name: Benjamin Netan-Yahoo Serious

[rsvman]

Mrs and my favorite original pub quiz team name: Benjamin Netan-Yahoo Serious

Ha! Great Jeopardy "before-and-after" answer.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Ha! Great Jeopardy "before-and-after" answer.

We actually keep a running list. We have more team names than we will ever use, but many are at least PG-13.

[rsvman]

I heard a story about Donovan Mitchell last week, when he scored something like 45 points despite being under the weather. In the story, the writer announced that Mitchell was “nauseous” before and during the game.

This happens to be another word whose usage has changed over the years. The words “nauseous” and “nauseated” used to have separate but related meanings. Now it seems that they have been misused so many times and by so many people that lexicographers have just given up. Again. The great unwashed will always win.

Anyway, back in the day, you had to say “nauseated” rather than “nauseous” when you felt sick. So, the article should have said that Donovan Mitchell scored 45 points even though he was nauseated. The distinction was that “nauseous” was something that made you feel sick, whereas nauseated was what you actually felt. In other words, to say that Donovan Mitchell was nauseous used to mean that he induced a feeling of nausea in observers, which, in this case, when it comes to fans of the opposing team, at least, is probably true.

My intention was to come onto this thread and make fun of the writer who chose the wrong word; instead, it turned into an “old man shakes fist at sky” rant about how much better the language was back in the day when we knew what words meant and used them properly.

[Indoor66]

A thought I try to keep in my mind: Words take you places. Choose then carefully.

[bundabergdevil]

I heard a story about Donovan Mitchell last week, when he scored something like 45 points despite being under the weather. In the story, the writer announced that Mitchell was “nauseous” before and during the game.

This happens to be another word whose usage has changed over the years. The words “nauseous” and “nauseated” used to have separate but related meanings. Now it seems that they have been misused so many times and by so many people that lexicographers have just given up. Again. The great unwashed will always win.

Anyway, back in the day, you had to say “nauseated” rather than “nauseous” when you felt sick. So, the article should have said that Donovan Mitchell scored 45 points even though he was nauseated. The distinction was that “nauseous” was something that made you feel sick, whereas nauseated was what you actually felt. In other words, to say that Donovan Mitchell was nauseous used to mean that he induced a feeling of nausea in observers, which, in this case, when it comes to fans of the opposing team, at least, is probably true.

My intention was to come onto this thread and make fun of the writer who chose the wrong word; instead, it turned into an “old man shakes fist at sky” rant about how much better the language was back in the day when we knew what words meant and used them properly.

I did not know that.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I heard a story about Donovan Mitchell last week, when he scored something like 45 points despite being under the weather. In the story, the writer announced that Mitchell was “nauseous” before and during the game.

This happens to be another word whose usage has changed over the years. The words “nauseous” and “nauseated” used to have separate but related meanings. Now it seems that they have been misused so many times and by so many people that lexicographers have just given up. Again. The great unwashed will always win.

Anyway, back in the day, you had to say “nauseated” rather than “nauseous” when you felt sick. So, the article should have said that Donovan Mitchell scored 45 points even though he was nauseated. The distinction was that “nauseous” was something that made you feel sick, whereas nauseated was what you actually felt. In other words, to say that Donovan Mitchell was nauseous used to mean that he induced a feeling of nausea in observers, which, in this case, when it comes to fans of the opposing team, at least, is probably true.

My intention was to come onto this thread and make fun of the writer who chose the wrong word; instead, it turned into an “old man shakes fist at sky” rant about how much better the language was back in the day when we knew what words meant and used them properly.

Don't get me started on "literally" and the misuse becoming so common that it apparently warrants its own listing in the dictionary. How can a word mean its opposite?

*Looks for his onion belt

[OldPhiKap]

Don't get me started on "literally" and the misuse becoming so common that it apparently warrants its own listing in the dictionary. How can a word mean its opposite?

*Looks for his onion belt

You and Jimsumner should start a support group on this. Literally.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Hate: “Could of” or “should of”

No no no no no! Why don’t people understand it’s could have? Or should have?

I read emails from people on my team at work all the time that use the word “of” in this ridiculous manner. They even write it in client communications. Frustrates me to no end.