The other day, I read an article outlining a few things that “likable” people don’t do. One of those things is complaining. Another is correcting people. Generally, any kind of negativity — real or perceived — was on the list.

Oh well. I just can’t help but fire off a rant every now and then. And since I’m not an avid social media user, sometimes those rants will end up here.

For the most part, my rants have to do with words. I’m a staunch defender of the English language (though self-aware enough to know that I’m not a perfect user). Corruption of English bugs me, and while it’s usually hand-waved as “evolution” of the language over time, I feel like a lot of it is just laziness.

I’ll admit that some of my language pet peeves are extreme. For instance, I don’t like when concepts that already have names are given new names simply because people couldn’t be bothered to learn the first one. I suppose an example of that would be “grimdark,” a term that just never sat right with me. Not only does it seem impossible to define the term (making it kind of useless, to be honest) but it’s often used in place of perfectly fine words that already existed. Why not use “macabre,” because in most cases where I see it being used, that well-established word would suit just fine. And if “macabre” doesn’t work, there’s probably a word that does. I just think it’s lazy to eschew improving one’s vocabulary because it’s easier to make up a word.

And you’ve probably heard me blasting the trend of adding the “-punk” suffix to every concept imaginable without actually incorporating punk-inspired themes like marginalization and rebellion. (So if you have “steampunk,” it really can’t be centered around aristocrats who own golden blimps. That’s not punk — it’s the gentry!)

I could go on, but I will spare you in favor of addressing the true subject of this rant: misuse of cliche phrases or idioms.

This happens when someone decides to focus on one word in an idiom rather than the actual meaning of the phrase. In doing so, they’re completely missing the point. They might even be muddling the message in such a way that it works against them.

Such is the case with my first example. This is a simple one, chosen to gradually ease you into my madness.

I frequently drive by a Greek restaurant that has the following emblazoned in huge letters on its roadside sign:

It’s All Greek to Me!

That’s not the name of the restaurant (which would be even worse) but some kind of catch phrase that warranted having a lighted sign specially made. I’m guessing the owners didn’t realize that this idiom is meant to convey confusion. It’s basically like plastering on your sign that you have no idea what you’re doing.

Because it’s a Greek restaurant, it also implies that they’re confused about Greek cuisine. Do we serve gyro or pizza? Who knows — it’s all Greek to me!

The mind boggles.

Okay, that was the warm up.

Now for the one that I saw on a streaming network the other day. They had a category of musical sing-along videos labeled:

Music to Our Ears

Do you see why that irked me? They’re using it to describe actual music! Those videos would be music to everyone’s ears because that’s what they are!

The idiom “that’s music to my ears” is meant to describe literally anything that’s not music. That’s the point of the phrase. You hear something like the dinner bell, and because you’re hungry, it’s music to your ears.

Alright. Still with me?

Those two are minor problems compared to the one that gets me again and again. I see it all the time in news headlines, business presentations, and industry reports. This one positively drives me nuts — and it will probably never, ever go away.

Imagine a report or an infographic that has percentages and graphs on it. At the very top, it will have a headline that reads something like this:

Consumer Trends by the Numbers or By The Numbers: Market Sentiment Report

The issue here is that “by the numbers” absolutely does not mean “here are some numbers.” When you present information “by the numbers”, you’re supposed to be serving it up in linear, sequential steps.

Like a dance instructor.

By the numbers.

“Let’s do this by the numbers” is a more complete form of that idiom. It means you’re doing step one, then step two, and so on.

I guess people just think it’s cute or clever to refer to statistics as being “by the numbers,” but it’s not only incorrect — it makes zero sense in that context. Grammatically, what’s being shown is not “by the numbers.” It might be “of the numbers,” but it’s not by them.

Fun side note. I’ve just typed the word “numbers” so many times that it now looks weird and incorrect. Does reading it a hundred times have the same effect? Let me know.

Anyway, that’s it for today’s fun jaunt down the things that weigh on my mind but absolutely shouldn’t. I guess if you have to obsess about something, it might as well be an innocuous thing like idioms.

Slainte!