Why do some people say something like this: "I have a quick question for you"? Why not just ask the question?
“May I ask you a question?”Why do some people say something like this: "I have a quick question for you"? Why not just ask the question?
reminds me of one of the worst movies I've ever seenWhy would do you ASK a QUESTION, shouldn't you tell someone a question? (don't ask and question have the same meaning?)
True enough, but I meant it mostly as applies to normal people.Maybe, but it could be said by a person who has been browbeaten and/or fears their comment will be taken as a "microaggression" by the other person. Where in the past a recipient was expected to have a thicker skin and deeper thoughts, where the recipient shrugged their shoulders and thought that was an off-color or inappropriate remark to some degree, but also understood that the speaker was trying to make some broader point beyond the initial emotional "triggering" response it might also induce.
Seems to me that some of the introductory-type phrases folks are complaining about, some of which are not to be taken literally, are conventions for signaling certainb things in conversation.
"I'm not racist but...."
I hear you, Phil. And there is the situation where someone says "can I ask you a quick question," and the question is anything but quick. I suppose sometimes folks start a series of sentences with "frankly" or "honestly" when there is nothing that was not being candidly discussed in the first intance.I'd wager that the situation which makes these words and phrases annoying to the folks that have written them is that often they are NOT used in the context of the explanation or rationalization
I agree. Context is often King.I hear you, Phil. And there is the situation where someone says "can I ask you a quick question," and the question is anything but quick. I suppose sometimes folks start a series of sentences with "frankly" or "honestly" when there is nothing that was not being candidly discussed in the first intance.
I suppose that depending on the actual tone "with all due respect" really means in this case "due respect" is zero respect.
I think sometimes these phrases are just filler while the speaker tries to think of exactly what they want to say!
Words of nuance, words of skill
Words of romance are a thrill
Words are stupid, words are fun
Words can put you on the run
What are words worth?
What are words worth? Words!
I probably would have went with my gut. YMMV.I had call to use "this is going to sound horribly racist, but..." a few weeks ago. I was extremely uncomfortable saying it (and what followed), even though I meant no ill will whatsoever. I'm still unsettled now as to whether or not my thinking was rooted in generosity or prejudice...
If she was here: You mean Mary Poppins? I love that movie…I love malapropisms.
Norm Crosby was a favorite of mine.
On the other hand, if I hear myself saying "this is going to sound horribly racist, but..." or "I am not a racist, but . . . ," maybe that is a signal to myself, not to go further with what I was going to say! I am not being critical of AW! Maybe it is just me.
I probably would have went with my gut. YMMV.
Lol. I kind of noticed over the years here in the US and probably the same worldwide we get into saying certain things. I think a lot of it starts through the Press, movies and media.I guess I would say that "at the end of the day" may have come to be used so much that it arguably sounds distractingly trite these days. I am not sure I have a phrase to substitute that is much better. "When all relevant considerations are taken into account" sounds wordy to me. "In the fullness of time" seems imprecise at best. "In the end" may be as good as anything. Maybe "in the end" is better for being simpler. "When all is said and done" always makes me want to say "there is more always said than done," and itself sounds rather hackneyed.
I do not think I have ever come across "boots on the ground" outside a military context, and there meaning to be effective actual troops would need to be sent in, rather than, say, air attacks. How is it used? Is it referencing whether or not an organization has the appropriate personnel/expertise in place to accomplish some task? If so, it seems a little imprecise. Is it referring to an organization needing to send employees in person to a particular location in order to accomplish some task? If so, it does seem quite precise, but how often does that happen. If referring to figuratively sending employees to a particular place, but assigning sufficient of them to the task, it seems like a confusing metaphor, and it would be better to literally say that without the potential confusion of "boots" and "ground."
Just my 2 cents, though.