Words and Phrases That Need to Die

[*Anya*]

Origin

When researching the development of a phrase it is usually the origin that is difficult to determine; the spelling and the meaning are generally pretty well established. With 'for (or to) all intents and purposes' it is the other way about. The origin is unambiguous, as the first recorded use was in an Act of Parliament under Henry VIII, in 1546:

"to all intents, constructions, and purposes"

Henry didn't shilly-shally when it came to the law of England. In 1539, he had Parliament pass the Statute of Proclamations, which gave him power to legislate by proclamation. In effect, from that date, the law was 'to all intents and purposes' whatever Henry VIII said it was. He made good use of this freedom; as well as executing a brace of wives, many others with whom Henry didn't see eye to eye were hanged, beheaded, burned or boiled, often for quite minor offences.

The meaning of 'to all intents and purposes' is less clear. 'Intents' and 'purposes' are words that we aren't likely to come across very often in the 21st century, outside of legal documents. The phrase, like many a legal phrase before and since, is rather obtuse and difficult to decipher. What is meant when a thing is said to be true 'for all intents and purposes' is 'it isn't actually true but it it so close to being so that we may proceed as though it is'. An example may help:

Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion aren't 100% precise in describing the motion of objects that approach the speed of light. However, for a man on a horse who measures time by a pocket watch, they are, for all intents and purposes, accurate.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a...-purposes.html

[candy_coated_bitch]

Thanks, Anya.

I also say "for all intents an purposes" a lot, and think I have said it with the correct meaning although I did not know the history of the phrase. As a saying I find it to be useful.

People saying "for all intensive purposes" and having no idear how wrong they are is, indeed, highly annoying. But when I thought about it more I enjoyed the thought of using "for all intensive purposes" LITERALLY. I think that could be funny.

[Glenn]

I do not like the word suck or sucks. It needs to die.

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by *Anya*

Origin

When researching the development of a phrase it is usually the origin that is difficult to determine; the spelling and the meaning are generally pretty well established. With 'for (or to) all intents and purposes' it is the other way about. The origin is unambiguous, as the first recorded use was in an Act of Parliament under Henry VIII, in 1546:

"to all intents, constructions, and purposes"

Henry didn't shilly-shally when it came to the law of England. In 1539, he had Parliament pass the Statute of Proclamations, which gave him power to legislate by proclamation. In effect, from that date, the law was 'to all intents and purposes' whatever Henry VIII said it was. He made good use of this freedom; as well as executing a brace of wives, many others with whom Henry didn't see eye to eye were hanged, beheaded, burned or boiled, often for quite minor offences.

The meaning of 'to all intents and purposes' is less clear. 'Intents' and 'purposes' are words that we aren't likely to come across very often in the 21st century, outside of legal documents. The phrase, like many a legal phrase before and since, is rather obtuse and difficult to decipher. What is meant when a thing is said to be true 'for all intents and purposes' is 'it isn't actually true but it it so close to being so that we may proceed as though it is'. An example may help:

Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion aren't 100% precise in describing the motion of objects that approach the speed of light. However, for a man on a horse who measures time by a pocket watch, they are, for all intents and purposes, accurate.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a...-purposes.html

Okay, I've heard of dilly dallying but not shilly-shally. Noting the similarities between the phrases, I assumed it had a similar if not the same definition.

I was right! Yay. I like that feeling when it's not something bad.

Thanks for exposing something new to me today, Anya.

shilly-shally

"vacillate," 1703, earlier shill I, shall I (1700), fanciful reduplication of shall I? (cf. wishy-washy, dilly-dally, etc.). Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

[Girl_On_Fire]

"Heighth" - It's not a word. Okay, maybe it is a dialect variant of a word but to me, it's not a word. Stop it!

"6 Foot" to describe someone who is X feet tall. "Oh yeah, he's 6 foot". No, he's 6 feet! Again, probably grammatically correct but annoying.

"Move Forward" For me, it depends on the context this is used. I don't like it when I hear it from sales people because it sounds fake to me. "Can we move forward with this project? Should I move forward with the design?" It's one of those polite-nice ways of saying, "I want to start on the project/sell you this widget so I can make money from you." Just say proceed or get started. It's more honest.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Girl_On_Fire

"Heighth" - It's not a word. Okay, maybe it is a dialect variant of a word but to me, it's not a word. Stop it!

It's not a word. But the good news is if enough people use it and get all of their friends to use it over time it could become a word. Supposedly language evolves. Although evolve is generally thought to mean to change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state.

I guess better is a relative term. Or perhaps often is the operative word in that sentence.

[BestButchBoy]

But, for some reason…I just loathe the use of:

'puter.
birfday.


Just say no. As in, no more.