Cliché Alert. English will always evolve, and clichés are a part of the process. When first used (invented) a phrase which is to become a cliché may sound colorful and clever; it may be a perfectly useful but obscure word that suddenly “catches on”. Angst is a fairly recent illustration; its obscurity made it an attractive adjective, but as it has gained in usage, its excessive use (and misuse) has caused it to lose its power. Other recent phrases which may have caught your ear when you first heard them, and now are too worn to be clever are circle-back and comfort level. Certain people, addicted to the use of clichés, seem to be unable to complete a paragraph without resorting to them.
A new phrase, descriptive and engaging on first hearing but now at risk of being pummeled to insignificance, is boots-on-the-ground. As is often the case, it seems to have originated with government bureaucrats (Pentagon, this time) to describe our Middle East activities. It refers, of course, to the actual deployment of troops (as opposed to using remote-controlled drones), and to television’s talking heads it’s been like a new toy.
The problem with clichés is that as they become worn, they can do just the opposite of what was intended by the speaker or writer, in that they can actually diminish the impact of the message.
Which is it? In the category of “what exactly did they mean” is a statement on a Trader Joe’s soup carton: “Use within 7 to 10 days after opening”. Why not just “7”, or just “10”? You have to wonder, what happens to the soup on Day 7; though I assume it is still edible, is it preparing itself to go bad by Day 10? And what about Days 8 and 9 (consigned to limbo)? (Knowing what I know about Trader Joe’s, it wouldn’t surprise me if they were intentionally playing with us.) A logical disconnect. A favorite waiter’s comment in several trendy new restaurants is to describe the owner’s concept as one where they serve “smaller dishes which are for sharing”. Hold on. Wouldn’t it be exactly the opposite? Shouldn’t “shared dishes’ be larger? Sounds suspiciously like a flimsy excuse to downsize portions?
— Ken Butera