The phrase "it is what it is" does not, as you put it, "descend from 'what it is'." I'd need evidence to believe otherwise.

You say you dislike the "vagueness of it," but isn't that the point? It's similar to "c'est la vie" – such is life. At times we need vagueness. It's nice to have the words to express it, trendy though they might be.

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary lists two definitions for "verbiage," which it dates to 1721:

1: a profusion of words usually of little or obscure content?2: manner of expressing oneself in words

The second meaning does not appear in Merriam-Webster's Fifth Edition; it is a recent usage, but an accepted one. Arguably, your former colleagues did not seriously misuse the word (though they may have used it too much). However, their choice of "verbiage" to mean "text" is symptomatic of business-speak, where a profusion of words usually of little or obscure content is common.

Instead of being bothered, why not just enjoy the irony?

It's true that some words are over-used, and massive is – massively so. Naturally, people get sick of hearing it.

Merriam-Webster's "Dictionary of English Usage" has a good entry on the over-use of "massive" and the criticism that has brought on. According to the authors, among the culprits responsible for the popularity of the word is John Foster Dulles, who used the phrase "massive retaliation" in a speech given in 1954. They also cite similar military-related usage in the 1940s from the pages of "Fortune," "Time," and "Newsweek," among others. They point out that the popularity of "massive" has only increased since then, again giving copious citations, including one from Aldous Huxley.

But this usage is not inconsistent with M-W's own definitions of the word: forming or consisting of a large mass; impressively large or ponderous; large, solid, or heavy in structure; large in scope or degree; large in comparison to what is typical; being extensive and severe; imposing in excellence or grandeur. (The word can also mean "having no regular form but not necessarily lacking crystalline structure," as in massive sandstone, but that's a fairly specialized usage, not generally heard.) My 1947 edition of Merriam-Webster has all these senses of the word.

The only definition my old dictionary lacks is "having mass," which is included in the current Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary's definition. Either it was too obscure a sense in 1947 – perhaps limited to physics – or the meaning had not yet evolved. The meaning of "tiny" cited by the Questioner I have not found at all. Yes a sub-atomic particle may be said to be "massive" if it has mass, but this in no way says anything about its size.

Un-capitalize a word (with hyphen).

De-capitalize a bank (à la John Dillinger).

Doug,

Your post doesn’t really deserve a response. However, on the off-chance that you have, in fact, opened a book, let me point out that most use justified text – you know, all smooth at both margins. To achieve this, spaces are inserted between certain words, particularly after periods. If you examine the text closely you will see that the space after sentences varies. Sometimes it may appear to be two characters, or even more. But the standard practice is to use a single space after a period, as you did in your own post. One exception is mono-spaced fonts, such as are used in old-fashioned typewriters. Another exception might be comic books, but I’m guessing you already know that.

I like your anti-prescriptivism, Porsche. Most refreshing.

But rib raises an interesting issue, if not quite a burning one. What shall we call these modern times? Two precedents present themselves. The first is S. Kubrick's "2001, a Space Odyssey." Spoken aloud, it's generally "two-thousand-one." No "and" there.

The second is "In the Year 2525" by Zager and Evans. You remember them, of course: "In the year twenty-five-twenty-five. if man is still alive, if woman can survive, they may find..." It's dismal, but consistent: "In the year forty-five-forty-five, you ain't gonna need your teeth, won't need your eyes...." Or, I hope, my ears.

We refer to time in various ways. The nineteenth century we also call the eighteen hundreds, but do we call the twentieth century the nineteen-hundreds? We do not. It's the Twentieth Century, period. Fox got that one right, so did the Doors.

So how will we pronounce 2010? We will know in a few weeks. My guess is "twenty-ten." It's short and snappy. Who has time to say "thousand" in these fast-paced times? Me? No. A thousand times no.

And by the way, rib, you won't need your teeth, if you can hold out that long. Grind away.

I don't think "a (adjective) construction" is an idiom just yet. The noun "construction" means the process, act, or manner of constructing – making – something. It can also be the thing constructed. To say that a house has "a great construction" is not incorrect: the reference is to the manner of construction. However, the phrasal form is trendy, and therefore apt to annoy.

In the case of "a durable cotton construction," we are nearing the realm of jargon. The garment industry uses the word "construction" to mean both the manner in which an article of clothing is made and the material it is made of. The latter is an irregular use of the word, but perfectly understood within the industry (and to anyone who watches Bravo). Unfortunately, it has also become part of ad-speak shorthand, suitable for the J C Penny catalog and not much more. You don't need to be Ambrose Bierce to be biased against it.

To answer Ann's question, the plural of Marschuetz is Marschuetzes. The ornament should read: "Love, the Marschuetzes." (Don't capitalize the article "the," it isn't an honorific.)

As for the original question, those who have argued that a name of non-English origin should be made possessive in the manner of the language of origin are incorrect. It is, in fact, impossible in some cases. For example, Mandarin does not alter the name to make it possessive, instead it uses the particle "de" to indicate possession:

Zhe shi Mao xian sheng de ge ge.

This is Mr. Mao's elder brother.

To apply the Mandarin practice to English would be awkward, and limiting: "This is the elder brother of Mr. Mao."

The same holds true for plurals of proper names, which are treated by English rules regardless of origin. And the rule is simple, at least as English rules go. Most names simply add '-s', while those ending in 's', 'x', or 'z', or in a sibilant 'ch' or 'sh' add '-es'.

More heat than light has been generated in this discussion of the phrase "exact same."

Let's look at the sense of it. If I say "the exact amount" or "the same amount" there is no confusion, but there is a difference of meaning. The former is non-referential. Were it, say, a medical dosage, it might refer to the amount of medication needed for a particular case. The latter is comparative: take an amount of medication equal to what you took last time you had the clap (or whatever). The phrase "exact same" creates a third meaning: precisely the equal (amount). There is no ambiguity. Nor is any rule of grammar broken.

The construction "same exact" is a rhetorical flourish which has been used by such lights as Woody Allen to great effect. To deny it's legitimacy is to diminish the language. And that's no joke.

John was correct in his first posting. He cited Fowler. Merriam-Webster's "Dictionary of English Usage" also finds support for the idiom from Evans ("A dictionary of American Usage") and Follett ("Modern American Usage"). Garner ("A Dictionary of Modern American Usage") calls 'try and' an American-English casualism for 'try to', though Merriam-Webster gives examples from Lewis Carroll and Charles Dickens, among others.

Whether casual or not, 'try and' is not incorrect. Merriam-Webster says this:

"The basis for objecting to 'try and' is usually the notion that 'try' is to be followed by the infinitive combined with the assumption that an infinitive requires 'to'. This is the same mistaken assumption that has caused so much trouble over the so-called split infinitive. In spite of what these critics believe, however, infinitives are used in many constructions without 'to', and some of these constructions use 'and'."

The complete entry is lengthy, but worth reading. (The book is $20 well spent.)

Merriam-Webster closes with a quote from Fowler:

"It is an idiom that should not be discountenanced, but used when it comes natural."

I'll end with Jane Austin:

"Now I will try and write of something else."