As I write this, I'm awaiting the release of the Lake Superior State University's Banished Words list for 2015, due to be issued today.
I observed to a friend recently that the list is like crack for word nerds. You knows the ones--they twitch when you say "my bad" instead "I'm sorry," or when you insist on shortening everything to tweetspeak. I know, whatevs.
First issued on New Year's Eve 1975, the Lake Superior State list banishes overused, misused and useless words and phrases. Pity those words and phrases don't actually go away ... if only it were that easy! Sadly, "twerking," "hashtag," "free gift" and others of their ilk still loiter around, just waiting to insert themselves into an already inane conversation.
Since I can't talk just yet about that list and I don't make resolutions, how about delving into some misused and overused words of our own?
Bob McCleskey, in a letter printed last week, asked that I educate readers on the difference between "anxious" and "eager," and thus the proper use. Bob, your wish is my command.
Webster's notes that someone who is anxious exhibits anxiety or unease, and may be apprehensive. Someone who is eager is feeling or showing keen desire and is impatient for what is to come. Though some dictionaries have loosened their definitions to make the two words somewhat more similar than the traditional sense, it is more correct to use eager when someone, for example, is looking forward to something, and anxious when they're dreading it. Me? I'm both anxious and eager to see the responses to that.
Another set of words often misused is "convince" and "persuade." The rule of thumb, per The Associated Press Stylebook, is that someone "may be convinced that something or of something. You must be persuaded to do something." I'm frankly convinced that most people don't know the difference or don't care and won't be persuaded to use the words correctly.
Eldon Janzen isn't crazy about overuse of words like "like"--which puts me in the mood to watch Valley Girl, which puts me in the mood to find something better to do with my time. "Athleticism," "horrific" and other similar overused words also annoy him, and he's got a point ... like, a really good point.
Along the same lines, Don Short is irked by phrases such as "for sure," "as if" and "Really? Really!" I suggest throwing out the Clueless DVD to start and watching one of the wonderful true-to-the-story adaptations of Jane Austen's Emma, which Clueless was, like, loosely based on. Even Valley talk sounds good when said with a posh British accent.
"Never again," used as part of a promise after a devastating event that it will never happen again, bothers Joe Tucker, and me too. I think Joe said it best: "I know it must make the speaker feel good, but it is so very disingenuous. Despite all the steps and measures already in place, bad things happen. The best we can do is learn from them and hope that any new measures will lessen the possibility of a repeat, but to say or even infer that 'it will never happen again' is just plain ludicrous!" Agreed.
Susan Richards, a blogger and former copy editor, is not a fan of "cop talk," especially when used by reporters, such as an event "going down" rather than occurring, or a suspect being "taken down" rather than arrested. I agree, but "perp walk" is still fun to say (at least for me, but I'm often easily amused). While I'm not a huge fan, cop talk is probably the only jargon I can halfway stomach, if just because it doesn't include such gems as "synergy" and "monetize." Nothing can make those words interesting.
In the course of a day, I run across a lot of words and phrases that grate on my nerves ... in letters, columns, news stories, blogs, ads, etc. If you hear thuds coming from downtown Little Rock, that just might be my head on the desk.
A problem I see a lot of is conflation of innocuous words or concepts into something meriting a DUN-DUN-DUN after them, such as violation of rights as persecution. While violation of rights can be persecution when it involves death, torture, exile, etc., refusing service to someone based on race, creed, color, sex or orientation is not persecution. It can be, however, discrimination, which would be a violation of civil rights. A legal minefield, yes; persecution, no, so please save the drama for something that truly deserves it. I hear the cable networks are always on the lookout for exploitable drama.
"In his/her own words": When I see this phrase or something like it, it usually means that what follows are the words/misinterpretations of the writer, not who he's supposedly quoting. Rarely are they actually the words uttered by that person, and putting them in quotes does not mean it's true. We would do well to remember the maxim that a writer is only responsible for what he writes, not what you read. Feel free to misinterpret that .... starting ... NOW!
------------v------------
Assistant Editor Brenda Looper is editor of the Voices page. Read her blog at blooper0223.wordpress.com.
Editorial on 12/31/2014