Phrases/words that set your teeth on edge.

[Serial_Apologist]

... English dictionaries (online) use unlikeable and dislikeable, unlikable and dislikable preferred in the US.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/unlikeable

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dislikeable

There might be a distinction between 'dislikeable' (ie someone with regard to whom you feel distinct aversion) and 'unlikeable', where the feeling is more neutral (but you don't 'like' them)

Terrible - but I see now what is going on here.

Oxford Dictionary 3rd Edition - my bible for such things, has "like" and "likable"; one would deduce adjectival derivation "dislikable", not included. Note the additional "e" in the modern words. To me it just makes for confusion since it sounds the same when spoken. Stick to "dislikable", use "unlikable" for that which can be made not likable.

[vinteuil]

.

... the 1933 OED offers both likeable and likable, but puts likeable first

https://grammarist.com/spelling/likable-likeable/

.

[Serial_Apologist]

.

... the 1933 OED offers both likeable and likable, but puts likeable first

https://grammarist.com/spelling/likable-likeable/

.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English - Third Edition (1934) doesn't offer likeable, strangely enough.

[kernelbogey]

I wonder why journalists always write 'sneak preview' rather than simply 'preview'.

[smittims]

I suppose it's to suggest that it's a unique chance to discover some valuable information that would otherwise be hid from us; a variant of the old claim 'I'm the one with the true story'. In the same way TV documentaries use the word 'Secret' to describe information that was never secret, just not very well-known.

'Secrets of the Transport Museum': if they really were secrets, they wouldn't want anyone to go there.

[Serial_Apologist]

I suppose it's to suggest that it's a unique chance to discover some valuable information that would otherwise be hid from us; a variant of the old claim 'I'm the one with the true story'. In the same way TV documentaries use the word 'Secret' to describe information that was never secret, just not very well-known.

'Secrets of the Transport Museum': if they really were secrets, they wouldn't want anyone to go there.

Something that has been bugging me for some time is when people get described as "crying", or so describe themselves, eg "It made me cry". I always think of children when crying is mentioned: as an adult person I would never say "I cried", more likely "I wept", "I burst into tears" or "I was in tears". For understandable reasons of disproportionality borne of immaturity children react more readily with tears than grown-ups. Describing adult people as crying seems somehow to diminish the significance of the strength of emotion behind the state. What do others think?

[oddoneout]

Something that has been bugging me for some time is when people get described as "crying", or so describe themselves, eg "It made me cry". I always think of children when crying is mentioned: as an adult person I would never say "I cried", more likely "I wept", "I burst into tears" or "I was in tears". For understandable reasons of disproportionality borne of immaturity children react more readily with tears than grown-ups. Describing adult people as crying seems somehow to diminish the significance of the strength of emotion behind the state. What do others think?

I would say "I cried". I think there would be some odd looks if I said "wept" or "burst into tears" and I would feel I was being over-dramatic using those terms as well.. Expressing the associated emotion would come from describing what led up to the crying response.

[smittims]

I've always been an emotional person, prone to wail and moan when disappointed or distressed,, and I've always been aware that it is (or used to be) a taboo for men, that is, until I saw a tall, strong-looking man crying and moaning copiously in the street on hearing of the death of Princess Diana, a person he could have known about only from her media image. Then, on 'Woman's Hour' I heard someone say that when she realised that the place Sarah Everard was attacked was a place she herself had often walked 'I immediately burst into tears'. I thought that was a little theatrical, like the obligatory weeping on camera in Reality-TV programmes .

I suppose crying is a natural response, the body comforting the mind, on occasions of personal distress, and I have difficulty in understanding the concept of crying for someone else, after a wedding, or at the end of a Romcom. However, in a Radio3 context, there have always been pieces of music that brought tears, such as the 'Death of Falstaff' passacaglia in Walton's Henry V. And there's a short story by Chekhov which I cannot read for the same reason ('Little Jack').

[oddoneout]

I've always been an emotional person, prone to wail and moan when disappointed or distressed,, and I've always been aware that it is (or used to be) a taboo for men, that is, until I saw a tall, strong-looking man crying and moaning copiously in the street on hearing of the death of Princess Diana, a person he could have known about only from her media image. Then, on 'Woman's Hour' I heard someone say that when she realised that the place Sarah Everard was attacked was a place she herself had often walked 'I immediately burst into tears'. I thought that was a little theatrical, like the obligatory weeping on camera in Reality-TV programmes .

I suppose crying is a natural response, the body comforting the mind, on occasions of personal distress, and I have difficulty in understanding the concept of crying for someone else, after a wedding, or at the end of a Romcom. However, in a Radio3 context, there have always been pieces of music that brought tears, such as the 'Death of Falstaff' passacaglia in Walton's Henry V. And there's a short story by Chekhov which I cannot read for the same reason ('Little Jack').

It may have been a response to that horrid feeling one can get in such situations of "that could have been me" rather than primarily/simply sorrow - first hand or otherwise.
Then there is the response to music that may be more to do with the way the harmonies act on the brain rather than necessarily the subject matter - something I became aware of due to a family member suffering from problems following ear injury, when certain sounds caused involuntary physical responses, such as crying. There are some Purcell pieces which always "make me tear up" as the current phrase is; the subject may be sad (Dido's lament for instance) but my response is out of proportion to that and doesn't occur in other similar subject matter from other composers.

[Serial_Apologist]

I've always been an emotional person, prone to wail and moan when disappointed or distressed,, and I've always been aware that it is (or used to be) a taboo for men, that is, until I saw a tall, strong-looking man crying and moaning copiously in the street on hearing of the death of Princess Diana, a person he could have known about only from her media image. Then, on 'Woman's Hour' I heard someone say that when she realised that the place Sarah Everard was attacked was a place she herself had often walked 'I immediately burst into tears'. I thought that was a little theatrical, like the obligatory weeping on camera in Reality-TV programmes .

I suppose crying is a natural response, the body comforting the mind, on occasions of personal distress, and I have difficulty in understanding the concept of crying for someone else, after a wedding, or at the end of a Romcom. However, in a Radio3 context, there have always been pieces of music that brought tears, such as the 'Death of Falstaff' passacaglia in Walton's Henry V. And there's a short story by Chekhov which I cannot read for the same reason ('Little Jack').

I have wept on seeing scenes of starving babies and mothers in places of human-made conflict or today's droughts in such places as the Sahel - often it is tears of anger at the sheer unnecessariness of such suffering. I did last night in empathy with Rosie Jones in her programme on ablism on Channel 4, as she talked to parents of a baby that had died at five months of a terrible brain malformation, and who had themselves received online abuse after posting photographs of her: "She should have been put down" etc etc. I hops such a reaction says something about me, although I have to admit sometimes to thinking in such cases - or the one of a teenage girl murdered by a jealous boyfriend, "And that such a thing could have happened to such a beautiful person".

[Serial_Apologist]

One issue which has always been in the background but now coming more and more to the fore in these times is TV hosts blocking discussion on grounds that "He/she/they are not around to respond to that charge". This when there is almost always somebody on the panel prepared to defend said person/organisation - especially, moreover, when hosts persist in following the script of least resistance, often going to the length of feeding lines to the inadequately briefed spokesperson for the status quo. Some may argue that this is intended to avoid possible libel; to me it always spells censorship.

[edashtav]

One issue which has always been in the background but now coming more and more to the fore in these times is TV hosts blocking discussion on grounds that "He/she/they are not around to respond to that charge". This when there is almost always somebody on the panel prepared to defend said person/organisation - especially, moreover, when hosts persist in following the script of least resistance, often going to the length of feeding lines to the inadequately briefed spokesperson for the status quo. Some may argue that this is intended to avoid possible libel; to me it always spells censorship.

I concur.

[smittims]

Seeing this thread brought forward prompted me to note how tired I've become of the term 'loved ones' used instead of 'relatives'. It sounds false and mawkish to me. They may be relatives , but they aren't always 'loved', as we've seen from Aeschylus onwards .

[Maclintick]

The meaningless phrase "Lessons will be learned" should be banned from public apologies for institutional failings, unless amplified thus: "Lessons will be learned, and acted upon". Of course, this would be too much to hope for, as a pledge to action would render the apologists hostages to fortune.
(BTW, apologies if this has been mentioned in previous posts. Theres are rather too many for me to check ! )

[Serial_Apologist]

Seeing this thread brought forward prompted me to note how tired I've become of the term 'loved ones' used instead of 'relatives'. It sounds false and mawkish to me. They may be relatives , but they aren't always 'loved', as we've seen from Aeschylus onwards .

Quite agree. I, and I am sure lots of people, have many "loved ones", none of whom are relatives!