Phrases/words that set your teeth on edge.

[french frank]

What's up with it?

And thinking about it again (as I have been - all morning :-) ) perhaps it's the fact that it's phrased as a question which, on the one hand, suggests a complacent acceptance that there is nothing to dislike; on the other, like "What is there to dislike about it?", it prompts a critical résumé of what, reasonably, anyone could dislike. Or, alternatively, a resigned, "Oh, never mind." Or, "If you need to ask the question &c". Or, "Sorry, I don't want to have a long debate about it."

In other words, phrased as a question, it assumes a particular answer ( i.e. 'Nothing') which may not correspond with the hearer's point of view. What's not to agree with in that?

[Richard Barrett]

What's up with it?

What, indeed, like, gives?

"What's not to like?" assumes a particular answer, but by the same token so would "Doesn't it?" or "Isn't it?" or "Don't you think?" etc. etc. which actually carry the implication of "this is what I think", but not posed in such a categorical manner - the rhetorical questioning here is a friendly touch, rather than a challenge. Although there are always those who insist on answering rhetorical questions, aren't there?

[Bryn]

Although there are always those who insist on answering rhetorical questions, aren't there?

Not in my experience.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

And thinking about it again (as I have been - all morning :-) ) perhaps it's the fact that it's phrased as a question which, on the one hand, suggests a complacent acceptance that there is nothing to dislike; on the other, like "What is there to dislike about it?", it prompts a critical résumé of what, reasonably, anyone could dislike. Or, alternatively, a resigned, "Oh, never mind." Or, "If you need to ask the question &c". Or, "Sorry, I don't want to have a long debate about it."

In other words, phrased as a question, it assumes a particular answer ( i.e. 'Nothing') which may not correspond with the hearer's point of view. What's not to agree with in that?

Yes - I've always taken (and frequently used) the expression as a light-hearted rhetorical question. It's perfectly sound English, unlike the direction ("What's down?" "What's North?") involved in the much older idiom I used.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

What, indeed, like, gives?

"What's not to like?" assumes a particular answer, but by the same token so would "Doesn't it?" or "Isn't it?" or "Don't you think?" etc. etc. which actually carry the implication of "this is what I think", but not posed in such a categorical manner - the rhetorical questioning here is a friendly touch, rather than a challenge. Although there are always those who insist on answering rhetorical questions, aren't there?

I should read all contributions before posting!

I used to tell students that the most deflating retort to a pompously-expressed rhetorical question would be a literal answer, don'tcherno.

[gurnemanz]

This is an interesting perception - but remember that in English the passive infinitive is, like the passive continuous, a fairly recent development.

From the discussion I linked to:

The expression may be simply an example (perhaps even a humorous borderline example) of a general pattern “What’s to [verb]?” (meaning “What can/should one [verb]?” or “What is to be [verb]ed?” or “What is there to [verb]?"). Such an “… ist zu ...” pattern is quite ordinary in German (and apparently in Yiddish, which for the purposes of this discussion is essentially German, I think). Rosten gives examples “What’s to lose?”, “What’s to forgive?”, “What’s to regret?” in _Hooray for Yiddish_: he writes the Yiddish as “Vos is tzu ...”.

But then the pattern has long existed in English too, although maybe it’s less prevalent than it once was. “Was ist zu thun?” as used by Goethe seems similar to Shakespeare’s “What’s to do?”, I think.

Re difference of passive infinitive usage in German (and presumably also Yiddish), I found the following pairs: (on this site)

He is to be pitied. Er ist zu bemitleiden.
The book was not to be found. Das Buch war nicht zu finden.
Surrender is not to be thought of. An Kapitulieren ist nicht zu denken!
Much remains to be settled. Es bleibt noch viel zu erledigen.
His behaviour leaves much to be desired. Sein Benehmen lässt viel zu wünschen übrig.

Strangely enough, I can't arrive at a good idiomatic rendition in German of "What's not to like?". Was könnte einem daran nicht gefallen? doesn't trip off the tongue.

[Stanfordian]

Ms Polizzi herself, perhaps...

Oh, no! I likes Alex Polizzi. She is extremly popular in our ome and she cooks a bit too! What's not to like!

[french frank]

It's perfectly sound English, unlike the direction ("What's down?" "What's North?") involved in the much older idiom I used.

This is what I'm doubtful about. In a parallel universe I might (only might) have said:

What is there not to like (about it)? Or

What's not to be liked (about it)?

'What's not to like?' sounds more sort of … North Country to me

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

'What's not to like?' sounds more sort of … North Country to me

'ey up!

[Richard Barrett]

Was könnte einem daran nicht gefallen? doesn't trip off the tongue.

Yiddish is however not just a dialect of German, of course. What I still don't get is how using this phrase can be antisemitic...

[P. G. Tipps]

Yiddish is however not just a dialect of German, of course. What I still don't get is how using this phrase can be antisemitic...

I, too ... I trust someone will finally relieve us of our apparent ignorance.

[jean]

I think the suggestion was that if we were using the phrase sarcastically it might be antisemitic.

[Richard Barrett]

I think the suggestion was that if we were using the phrase sarcastically it might be antisemitic.

Yes I know, but that seems to me a nonsensical suggestion. "It's political correctness gone mad!"

[ahinton]

Yes I know, but that seems to me a nonsensical suggestion. "It's political correctness gone mad!"

Quite. I don't get this anti-semitic bit at all...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Quite. I don't get this anti-semitic bit at all...

It seems to have been anti-semantic.