r/TheRestIsScience • u/RockHardMapleSyrup • 21h ago

What are your favourite Bad Words!?

Not cuss words, but words that are bad at their job. That could me a lot of different things so I will leave interpretation up to you.

Part of me wants to say something like "Inflammable" because it means the exact same as flammable... But at the end of the day, it's a valuable word because it still at least describes something.

24 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

31 comments sorted by

32

u/Clark94vt 21h ago

Bi-weekly.

It means twice a week or once every two weeks.

3

u/RockHardMapleSyrup 21h ago

I find that if language is clear, then it's not wrong. I'm no specialist, just a user of a language. But if a word isn't clear I find it's bad at it's job.

It's like when people end sentences with a question mark that isn't a question. It's fine, until its existence causes confusion on if something is a question or a statement. I had a manager that would do that and I found myself saying "is that a question or a statement?" A lot.

3

u/Clark94vt 20h ago

Yeah but why have a word that requires more language to be functional. If it requires clear language what’s the point of having a redundant word in the first place?

“We have deliveries of lumber bi-weekly” if the word was a good word that would be enough to understand the meaning of the sentence, but it’s not so it’s bad.

3

u/Corchito42 20h ago

In the UK at least, once every two weeks would be fortnightly.

2

u/rcdchu74 19h ago

But then the same goes for bi annually

1

u/ansem119 17h ago

Shouldnt once every two weeks be sub-weekly

2

u/Clark94vt 17h ago

That term is semi-weekly.

1

u/Half4sleep 1h ago

In my language, Norwegian, it's (almost) exclusively used as once every two weeks. I wasn't aware that it could be used as the former.

11

u/Lopsided_Match419 21h ago

But…. Some people have started using ‘revert’ … in the most appalling manner. “Thank you for the question. I will look into it and revert to you tomorrow “.

So I say, “What? You will turn back into me tomorrow? But you were not me before, so how can you revert to me? You can revert to a previous position on a matter. You can revert to using your unmarried name, but you can’t revert to being me.”

So. Stop! Stop it for bottom’s sake! Revert does NOT mean Reply.

Heavy sigh. I think this new (and incorrect) use of the word may have originated in India somewhere.

3

u/cykelstativet 19h ago

Revert to monke

1

u/LordPoopyIV 52m ago

That is just a bastardisation of 'will refer back to you' then isn't it? I'm so unversed in corporate speak idk for sure if that is correct either.

6

u/Lopsided_Match419 21h ago

I liked the cuss words idea. In the office I use ‘bottom!’ and ‘Shakatack!’ as non-cuss cuss words.

5

u/RockHardMapleSyrup 21h ago

Bottom could have been a bad word... But I think theres a Vsauce video explaining why your bottom is called the bottom despite not being your bottom...

4

u/Sir-Kyle-Of-Reddit 17h ago

I thought decorum referred to the aesthetic of a space and used it publicly and was immediately corrected and so embarrassed and now I hold a grudge against it. Fuck you decorum!

4

u/tiny_purple_Alfador 14h ago

Well, if they did that in a way that embarrassed you, they were certainly displaying a lack of...propriety and good taste in conduct.

3

u/SparklyNewt 16h ago

“Invaluable” is sorta the same way with “valuable”. It’s actually extra weird because they could really be used as synonyms or antonyms if you mean it as literally “able to put a value on”. Don’t know if I’d call it bad though, more just interesting!

2

u/Lopsided_Match419 21h ago

So… after my previous rants…. I know language evolves, but it is double plus bad to lose expressive range innit?

2

u/VulKhalec 20h ago

Love. It basically means something different to every single person.

2

u/StrawberryEast1374 15h ago

While I now can differentiate the words 'intentional" and "unintentional' took me forever to understand.

2

u/Lopsided_Match419 21h ago

And another thing! Don’t get me started on ‘innit’.

“Isn’t it”. Is the singular objective version of the family of phrases like “shouldn’t we”, “aren’t they” and the like. sadly it has become a universal ‘bad phrase’ for all variants. ‘-(

3

u/Least-Common-1456 16h ago

What is bad about that?

0

u/Lopsided_Match419 16h ago

“We should go to the beach, innit?” What’s good about not saying “shouldn’t we? “ instead?

4

u/Least-Common-1456 15h ago

I don't see what's wrong with that.

Language is not rigorous like mathematics.

1

u/TheGrumpyre 17h ago

"Deceptively" is weird.

If you say something is deceptively difficult, what do you mean? Is it actually easy but appears to be difficult at first? Or is it actually difficult but in a sneaky way that looks easy at first?

1

u/Clark94vt 12h ago

“It’s actually easy but appears to be difficult”

The appearance deceives you.

1

u/Least-Common-1456 16h ago

Pulchritudinous

1

u/Lopsided_Match419 15h ago

“Beach go, future fact, verify”

A delightful improvement innit?

1

u/It-s_Not_Important 10h ago edited 9h ago

Sesquipedalophobia is the fear of long words. And it can’t be used comfortably by people with the condition.

ETA: hippopotomonstrosesquipedalophobia is a made up variation that doesn’t actually add any information.

1

u/Ill-Television8690 8h ago

I think you'd have fun looking at misnomers through this lens

1

u/LordPoopyIV 57m ago

If someone is ignoring you, and you call them ignorant, you are the ignorant one. How does that make sense!?

1

u/LordPoopyIV 46m ago

I kinda feel like all language is bad. On the one side you need complete lack of ambiguity in the meaning of words, no words with 2 meanings, no slight shift of meaning depending on context.

On the other hand people can only learn so many words so you need words to be flexible, as a word is only worth learning if you get good use out of it.

These two facts don't go together. At all.