Sometimes we are bugged by some commonplace behavior, belief, or attitude, but bringing it up will come off as obnoxious and elitist. We all have those. I will tell you two of mine, in hope I am not unknowingly a snide weirdo.
1 - And/Or is redundant: Just use OR
At some point it was funny in context (like "the OP is stupid and/or crazy). I can hardly find a context that is not similar to this (arguably) ableist template.
In formal logic there is no use case for saying ‘and’ OR ‘or’, because simply OR entails AND.
If there was a valid case it should represent the logical structure of ‘AND’ OR ‘XOR’, but it is obvious that this is OR.
So, whenever we are tempted to say “and/or” it is kinda definitive that just OR should suffice.
2 - A ‘steep’ learning curve means the skill is quickly mastered : Just use ‘learning curve’
Apparently stemming from an embodied metaphor between the steepness of a hill and the difficulty of climbing it, this misnomer is annoyingly common.
I have yet to find a single source that does not yield to this erroneous, ubiquitous misconception.
Same goes for the fancier alternative ‘sharp’ learning curve.
In fact, in a diagram where the vertical axis is the skill mastery and the horizontal is time, a steep curve would mean that the task is quick or easy to master, since it reaches the higher level quickly, hence the steepness.
Since the literal alternative (‘Rust has a smooth learning curve’) will be counter-intuitive and confusing, and I bet nobody will adopt it, I suggest the following solution.
Almost every time you feel the need to reach for this phrase, YSK that probably just using ‘learning curve’ should suffice. For example ‘This language has a learning curve’. It gets the message across, without making others question your position in the graph interpretation learning curve.
What are your mundane grievances?
Nice premise, but I don’t think there are valid examples of everyday use of ‘and/or’ where it could not be interchangeable with just or. Like, formal logic aside.
In everyday use, “or” is often understood as logical XOR. If you only use “or”, you’re less clear than if you use “and/or”. Every example where somebody uses “and/or” is a valid example where it’s not interchangable with just “or”, because it changes the meaning of the sentence.
As a public servant, government policy is full of situations where ‘and/or’ means something distinct from ‘or’.
“You can apply for benefits for yourself, your spouse, and/or your children.” VS “You can apply for benefits for yourself, your spouse, or your children.”
Which formulation clearly conveys you can apply for benefits for all 3 persons?
“You can apply for benefits for yourself, your spouse, and your children.”
100% chance that many people would interpret that as saying you can only get benefits for everybody together. The cannier folks would at least ask: “So can I apply for benefits for only my children, or only for all of us together?”
Better phrasing: “You can apply for benefits for any or all of the following people: You, your spouse, and your children.”
Source: Years of customer service experience.
Ok but just for the sake of being annoying, you had specifically excluded AND as an option. ;)
Fair enough.