People have told us that professional linguists would not approve of our Word Police (especially their name). Robert Lane Greene, a professional linguist, recently published a book on the matter titled You Are What You Speak, and some of his conclusions (p 264f) inspired this defense. He would support what I am about to say, I am sure; but professional linguists are almost by definition empiricists and descriptivists and do not take it upon themselves to prescribe matters of grammar and usage. The experts in that area are writers themselves, as in the Usage Panels of the American Heritage Dictionary (the only dictionary that is really helpful in this respect).
People can talk any way they want, but if they are going to write and want it published—if they write for a living, especially—they need to understand the rules of the language. (The same applies to people who speak publicly.)
I am not an authoritarian personality, and I don't see much value in forcing conformity, though as an editor I must assure the reader a certain amount of consistency (there is a difference) or the magazine would become a chore to read. I am not a conservative personality. I do not want to live in the past. I think there was sloppy writing in every period, but never was it exposed as much as it is now. Never has there been less editing, never more egalitarian assumptions. Our technologies invite everyone to write, and most cannot. Our companies (including orchestras and opera companies) hire people who cannot write and don't know the language to produce publicity and program books. "Official" writing—writing that is presented to the public—is worse than ever, because of the egalitarian assumption that anyone can write.
The rules are valuable: they are there to facilitate communication and reduce ambiguity. In informal conversation people who know each other well or share a common culture (say, American Blacks) need not pay much attention to the rules (they probably have their own rules and conventions). But there are two factors to take account of. One is that ignoring grammatical rules all day doesn't help prepare people to express themselves well in the wider world. The other is that some people consider everything they say a reflection on their dignity and a matter of self-respect. That is, it boosts their self-respect to be able to express themselves grammatically in informal conversation.
Still, we can afford to be relaxed about informal conversation. To be that relaxed about printed matter (even as seen on a computer screen) or formal speeches is not wise—not only because of possible failure to communicate clearly, but also because people learn language from what they read (see), from what seems "official" and seems to come from professionals. To be sloppy in such a situation is to let people down.
So one need not be obsessive-compulsive to fuss a bit over language. One needn't fuss over useless shibboleths. There's no reason to object to a split infinitive or to ending a sentence with a preposition. But preserving the meaning and connotations of words is very important to our ability to communicate, both now and in the future. That is what our Word Police blurbs have mainly dealt with.
There is always some idiot who suggests that language changes because people don't know the right meanings of words and correct usage. But that is sheer nonsense. Language does not change because some people are too sloppy or lazy to learn the rules or find out what words mean. Not to discourage such sloppiness or laziness is to indulge people who are unwilling to learn, to do it right. Our culture does this all the time. People want us to excuse and accept their laziness and sloppiness—not only in language but also in the way they do their jobs. If we accept that, standards are ignored and everything degenerates. Yes, what we are discussing is not how language changes, but how it degenerates. As it degenerates it is becoming harder to communicate well in American English. People no longer know what words mean! How often intelligent people ask themselves about others, "don't they understand plain English?" No: they don't.
I resist the trendy, the current, the transient in anything, but especially in language.
After noticing the proliferation of really crazy words turning up in the Oxford Dictionary (not the OED) a reporter was told by the editors of that dictionary that they simply report usage, and they want to include just about anything people are saying. In other words, egalitarian flair has led them to dump prescription and proscription in favor of description. What could be more democratic? And what could be more fatal to the usefulness and validity of a dictionary? Language is not democratic. In the hands of the masses language degenerates. Dictionaries are there to help prevent that.
In an age of mass communications—when millions of people can be simultaneously exposed to a barbarous error in speech—the effect can be almost immediate. One speaker's carelessness with the language spreads as never before. And because writing follows speech—as it must—these confusions, over time, get embedded in the language.
—Bryan Garner: Modern American Usage
Americans seem to be joining the English and all the ESL people in talking in abbreviations. Many of these abbreviations mean nothing to older people. The police and the military have long lists of them. The medical profession is almost as bad. They become sort of an "in-group" thing. In many cases it takes longer to say the abbreviation than the actual name. "Social media" and "texting" have also added greatly to the list of abbreviations.
Some examples recently seen in books and magazines:
AC (first heard by me from a student from India)
AI (computerese—there are many of them)
A&E (ER in USA)
AKA (and FKA)
A&R
ASAP
CAT
CBD
CBT
CEO
CPU
CRT
DEI
DQ
FA
ECG
EMT
ESG
ESL
GDP
HCP
HVAC
ICU
LA
LOL
LPR
MLB
MMT
NGO
NYC
R&D
RTO
SPAC
UDO
POTUS
SCOTUS
perp
rep
reverb
Red & Blue states
24/7
Most waiters and waitresses use this all the time instead of "OK" or simply "yes". It is one of many examples of exaggerated speech that we come across every day. Of course it devalues the word, rendering it less useful when it is needed.
Many Americans think they have no accent, but most do. Accents are fading among younger people, it's true. But the Great Lakes accent is often viewed (by people from there) as the purest American English. It is not. When "cot" and "caught" are pronounced the same, that's not good English. Nor is it acceptable when Mary, marry, and merry are pronounced the same. In the Milwaukee airport you will hear about planes that are "leet" (late). My name in Michigan is Dan, and in some parts of Pennsylvania it's Dawn. In Chicago they don't pronounce the T in winter or international, and they have no idea what a short A is (pat, hat, etc).
Some of this is just plain sloppiness and popular culture. Linguists call it "vowel shifts". They are being kind. In the American south vowels also shift up ("pen" becomes "pin", etc.). But the Southern accent is also disappearing in the younger generation. Regional accents make the country more interesting.
I always thought the educated New York accent was the best in the country, but I wonder if that is now also lost to TV and popular culture.
The noun is OK, but it is being turned into a verb in computerland, and people who are sensitive to language don't use it.
For many years this word has been used in speeches and articles. Politicians love to "address issues:. What people usually mean by it is talk about, discuss, deal with, investigate, or face up to—to come to grips with or pay attention to (it's often just another word for "focus"—see that listing). We used to address only letters and envelopes.
To aggravate is to make worse. It does not mean the same as "annoy", though that's apparently what people think it means.
My Scottish mother always said "amn't I" where we Americans would say "aren't I". But the latter can't be right, because "are" is second person plural. Probably "ain't" should be accepted for "am I not", but it really isn't. Yet "am I not?" sounds a bit pompous.
It used to mean "another one" (of two—you can only alternate between two things). In my lifetime it has lost that specificity, and you can read about "alternative concepts" or "alternative routes". In other words, it is often a substitute for "other"—a much better word—or "different". And it is vastly overused. One wonders what the difference is between "alternate" and "alternative", since the latter is now used as an adjective all the time. In fact, it would seem that people prefer bigger words these days, so "alternate" is dying out in favor of "alternative". The first means one after the other; the second means one OR the other. Very often "other" or "choice" is better—clearer. "Alternate" and "alternative" are not the same thing—as is true for "alternately" and "alternatively".
They are not entirely interchangeable. You should not begin a sentence with "though"; use "although". And the easiest rule is to use it only there. "Most listeners like that sound, though not everyone." "Fond though I am of Beethoven, I don't much like his 9th Symphony." "Although I am fond of Beethoven..."
In the age of verbal exaggerations this has become a popular word of general approval, thus destroying it—as was done with a previous fad word of approval, "awesome". The real meaning of "amazing" is: extremely surprising or astonishing—unexpected, even bewildering. So to call a musician you like "amazing" is almost an insult, as if to say "I never expected you to play so well."
From novels by NY Times best-selling authors:
a man "experiencing homelessness"
"loan him money"
"share" instead of tell—to the point of real ambiguity
"the invite"
"the ask"
"helped Flora and I"
and the use of "presently" as a fancy word for "now"
A writer often excuses this "because that's the way people talk", but (a) not everyone does, thank goodness; and (b) an author need not fall into jargon and in the past often "cleaned up" how his characters expressed themselves.
Despite common usage, this word does not mean the same thing as "expected". To anticipate is to plan on what you expect.
You hear this often: "it's not going to happen anytime soon". The last two words should be dropped. They are actually in conflict.
"The Dallas Symphony kick's off Arts in Education Week." Apostrophes are turning up in odd places, including the possessive, as in its or hers. We've even seen "pork chop's".
This is a cliche, and like most cliches, it takes over where many far better terms used to serve. It has replaced perhaps, possibly, probably, likely, may be, could be, "one could say", "one might reason", "one could claim", and even "one could argue". It has also become a villain in the nonsense of starting a sentence with a word ending in -ly, followed by a comma (just plain bad writing, but common in a time when people can no longer write).
is not a verb.
At ARG we have this on none of our computers, but people who aren't certain of their spelling use it (or fail to remove it). A recent example of how foolish that can be is a biographical sketch of a pianist that says "he has been a soloist with several orchestras under the button of many renowned international conductors". One of our writers tells of an instance where "Bach" was changed to "f**k". Knowledgeable people are always superior to machines—wherever you go, whatever you want done. As machines do more and more, knowledgeable people become fewer and fewer—and yet more needed and more valuable. So life becomes more frustrating.
Publicity for a recording:
A cornerstone of the Bible, this program features [sic] three masterpieces based on the Dicit Dominus.
Why do so many people do this?—write sentences upside down with dangling phrases. "This program" is certainly NOT "a cornerstone of the Bible"!
"Said to be Brazil's worst environmental disaster, lawyers say the claims..." This (from The Economist) is a typical example of the awkward and illogical way current writers try to combine sentences. The first clause can only connect to "lawyers", but it's not lawyers that are meant—not at all. So why are they connected?
From one of our own writers: "As a pianist, several of these songs..." Makes no sense at all.
From 1970: "Being a young writer, the novel was filled with fresh ideas." More than one generation of writers does this; we see it all the time.
The way to connect those clauses is sometimes with a comma and "and" or a semicolon and a clear subject. But most simply have to be rewritten: "As a young writer he filled the novel with fresh ideas."
Economist magazine, about a place: "It smells badly in hot weather." They write badly. Places cannot smell "badly" (only your nose can) but can smell bad—or even stink.
Often "being" is used instead of "will be". Often the word is not needed.
People don't seem to know these words. Apparently, comparitive and superlative are too complex for simple minds. A major magazine said, "It was the most good thing..." (meaning "best"). People say "more well-known" and "most well-known" when decent English requires better and best (and no hyphen).
We are told that a certain man was president of his country "between 2002 to 2010". First of all, "between" must be followed with "and", not "to". And what they should have written is "from 2002 to 2010". "Between" could mean at any point in that period and for any amount of time. To cover the whole period you must use "from" and "to". Most writers today don't seem to know that.
You would think that biographical information (about, say, a pianist) would tell us where he was born, where he went to school and whom he studied with, if he is married and has children, and where he lives now. But the "bios" you read in concert programs and record booklets don't tell you anything like that. There's nothing personal in them. They are not even resumes. They are simply publicity—brag sheets, written to impress us.
If we need new words because of new technology or new phenomena in any field, it enriches the language to coin or use those new words. But it does not enrich a language when people simply don't know the right word for something and vaguely apply an approximate one or a trendy one. In other words, it's obvious to anybody who thinks that language change is not neutral (any more than technology is) but must be judged on the basis of need, utility, and aptness.
This was always a rare verb. It has a new meaning in recent dictionaries, unknown in the past: "to imitate; to take as a model". It is certainly unnecessary, since we can say "resembles", "sounds like", "reminds us of", or "takes after"—and there are a dozen other ways to say it. At ARG we would never say that a piece of music "channels Tchaikovsky", partly because we just naturally avoid trendy words.
A recent article said that something "didn't have a major impact". In real English it would read "didn't make much of a difference". It also referred to someone who was "experiencing depression". In plain English, he was depressed. Why do people write so badly? Why does it all sound the same?
This word means the end or conclusion of an argument or disagreement. There is no such thing as "school closures" or "road closures". Those are closings.
This word was not in the dictionary in 1970. We said "things in common" or that we shared certain attributes. It is now very common, and one wonders if it is necessary or if it is just a cliche. New ways of saying things do become "trendy" and overused, so perhaps only time will tell.
We read all the time "more well" and "most well" followed by an adjective. These are always wrong (probably even if you are cooking a steak). In normal English "more well" is "better", and "most well" is "best". A whole generation (or two or three) doesn't seem to be able to use "better" and "best" (never learned comparative and superlative). "Trump is better known than Pence" is correct; "more well" is simply wrong. "Obama is the most well-known black politician in America" is wrong for the same reason. Yet that is the way journalists write nowadays. Do they have any idea how ignorant they sound?
Nothing can be comprised of; the whole always comprises the parts. The United Nations comprises many member nations but is not "comprised of" them.
The word means "belonging to the same period of time" (or about the same age). Tchaikovsky and Brahms were contemporaries. Contemporary instruments are instruments of the composer's time. "Contemporary music" refers to music of our time, but word may cause confusion if it is not explained.
This is simple, but no one gets it right. Convince takes "of" or "that"; persuade takes "to". Convince is about ideas; persuade is about actions. You cannot convince someone to do something.
"Credential" is, of course, a noun, usually used in the plural. But the New York Times recently used it as a verb: the government will "credential" people. It's the usual problem: younger writers never learned the difference between a noun and a verb; they "nounize" verbs all the time, and they use nouns as verbs ("verbize" nouns). In 2012 we complained that "gift" was being used as a verb. Among younger writers that is normal now: they don't know the verb "to give".
Critique is not a verb; one dictionary calls it "pretentious jargon". The noun is acceptable, but since it means the same thing as "criticism", why use it? The American Heritage Dictionary speculates that one reason it is used is that "criticize" and "criticism" have taken on negative connotations in popular usage. That's too bad, but popular usage misunderstands many fine words (think of "argument"). We are a magazine of criticism, so we will continue to criticize recordings. But if some people don't like the word they can use "evaluate" or "consider" or "analyze".
Suddenly we are seeing in publicity "curator" and the verb "curate" applied to classical concerts. Season folders even say things like "a program curated by". It makes no sense. A curator manages or oversees a collection in a museum. The word is being used for anyone who designs an exhibit or product line—and that is not legitimate. You will even see "curated" menus in restaurants. Can you believe it? Who decides what will be performed at a concert is either the Music Director or the musicians themselves. There is no "curator"! (Tour guides are also called "curators" these days.)
"As a reminder, your seatbelt should be fastened at all times". Typical illiterate airline talk. How is a fastened seatbelt a reminder? "As parents, children always seem to come up with a new wrinkle." This tells us that children are parents. In this case the writer was afraid to use the correct "like".
Dozens of these turn up every week. If we could start a sentence with a subject, followed by a verb, we would avoid most of these. If you start a sentence with a phrase, the subject must follow immediately, so the phrase modifies it. People can't seem to remember that. Popular signs and announcements are almost all ungrammatical in this way. Examples are therefore legion.
This word came from the Roman custom of killing every tenth person when a band of soldiers had proved traitorous to Rome. It has come to mean the killing of a large number of people. It cannot mean most, and it cannot be used of anything but the killing of people—crops cannot be decimated, for example. It is used very carelessly nowadays to refer to destruction—and that is not its meaning.
Every American dictionary agrees that a diary is a daily record of one's thoughts and actions, written after they happen or occur. But the British now use "diary" to mean appointment book or calendar. They will "put you on my diary", for example—meaning they will set aside a time for you. This is very strange, and I think it is rather recent—which reminds me that English English is no better than American English (and sometimes worse). Even their best writers use slang and expressions that no one but another Englishman could possibly understand. They are parochial and provincial—but one expects that of an island nation. The Japanese are even more provincial. But English is a world language, unlike Japanese; and a good writer in the language should not load his book or article with obscure provincialisms and utterly "native" abbreviations. I read lots of English writers, but there are many moments when I have no idea what they are talking about.
Democrats and Republicans have differing opinions, but a bus is different from a train, and Maine is different from Florida. What we see too often these days is "differing" where we should be reading "different". "People of differing backgrounds" should be "people of different backgrounds". "Different" means something like "distinct", and "differing" means something like "disagreeing".
Great languages were formed and shaped by great writers and literature, not by popular usage. Think of Dante (Italian), Luther (German), and Shakespeare and the King James Bible (English). It is therefore WRONG for dictionaries simply to report on current popular usage and validate the sloppy and the illiterate—which we face now everywhere we turn, from media and even from books.
This word is pure slang from the late 1980s. It was apparently a short form of "disrespect". In a recent Science News the editor of that journal says that some scientists "dis" a hypothesis. There the word must mean to "dismiss" or "dispute" or "discount". Even "question" might work. Whatever it stands for, no editor should allow "dis", let alone use it.
Everybody seems to use "disinterested" to mean "not interested", but that is not what it means. A disinterested person is someone who can be objective and see things clearly, because he is not involved. He is impartial (M/A 2006, p 284).
"Discomforted" is also starting to turn up in this age of the death of dictionaries. There is no such word. "Discomfort" is a noun. There is a verb, "discomfitted", that means made uneasy or puzzled.
This is not a transitive verb: you cannot disappear someone or something. It can disappear. We are losing the distinction between transitive and intransitive.
People regularly confuse this with "uninterested". "Disinterested" means objective, unbiased, and impartial. It is almost always a desirable thing. "Uninterested" means not interested, apathetic, bored, unconcerned.
Headline in a commercial email: "An American Airlines ticket offer just dropped." From a classical publicist: "(So-and-so's) new recording drops today." A year or two ago no one used "dropped" to mean released, occurred, came along; now publicity people have adopted it to refer to new CD or video releases. We used to assume that unless it were prices or taxes, it was too bad when something dropped. The word hasn't changed, but the trend-setters seem to think they can change language by using words in new ways—or, more likely, they just don't know how to say things correctly: what's wrong with "American Airlines has a new ticket offer" or So-and-so has just released a recording"?
"Georg Smelter has had to cancel his upcoming concert due to health reasons." One sees this all the time. Besides the dreadful (and useless) "upcoming", "due to" is also wrong. "For health reasons" might work. Probably "because of illness" is better. Worse yet is any sentence that begins with "Due to". You must first tell us what something is due to; it must follow a linking verb. Even then. "owing to" or "because of" are better. "Due to increased security regulations do not leave your baggage unattended" is stupid but common at airports. Why not "Security regulations require that you not leave your baggage unattended"? That's a little better.
This is the intellectual equivalent of "cool". "What a dynamic performance!" That is supposed to suggest something like exciting or energized, but it has become a vague general term of approval. That is no help to a reader, and editors should not let writers away with it.
In classical music criticism "edgy" is not a compliment. It usually means jagged (clashing) as opposed to smooth and well-integrated. In colloquial usage it seems derived from "cutting-edge", and popular culture loves anything new and radically different. So you will not read either in ARG.
It is common to see this: "Germans who emigrated to this country in the 19th Century". The word should be "immigrated". They emigrated out of Germany, but they immigrated to the USA. They were immigrants to us, emigrants to the Germans at home. The word "immigrant" has been disappearing as people no longer learn the distinction and no longer use dictionaries.
This word has become popular only since the 1960s—it was rare before then. One would have used "sympathy". But they are not the same. Sympathy refers to an affinity between people or an understanding of someone's feelings. It can mean seeing things the same way, being in agreement, or even plain compassion. Empathy is much narrower and more intimate—intimate understanding of another person, even pschological identification. It involves a real effort, whereas sympathy is fairly spontaneous.
One of the best of the current crop of English authors made the following grammatical errors in one of his books.
"...left behind by whomever had the room before me"
"...telling (name) and I"
"...between my sister-in-law and I"
He uses "majority" when he means "most". He uses "one of the only". He uses the word "insightful", which was not even in the dictionaries until recently—and the action in that book takes place in 1890. (There are other anachronisms, too, such as "hopefully" and "on the planet".)
Another very good English writer has "neither...or" and "I'm a shoe-in." He confuses "lie" and "lay" (somebody was "laying on the floor"). Yet another: "She is better than him." And one writer doesn't know the plural of "foot", as in "100 foot below them".
Another important writer called a centenarian a "centurion".
All current English authors seem to use slang and obscure idioms, abbreviations, and regionalisms that are hard to understand.
There are no editors any more, and even good writers don't seem to know grammar and usage. The written language is in serious decline. Actually, so is reading! I would still rather read English writers than American ones, but to avoid sloppy usage you have to go back 40 or 50 years.
The classic English mystery is dead. What we have now is not as well written and too people-oriented. Chapter after chapter is wasted on "relationships"—the personal lives and sex lives of the detectives. It's as if the writers are aimimg at an audience of sentimental women. (Maybe they are!)
Exaggeration abounds. To call something "enormous" is to describe it as a monstrosity—so big as to be frightening. You cannot be enormously pleased that your husband remembered your birthday or that your concerto won a prize. This is a TV word, and TV is notoriously bad about language.
The writer almost always means "enthusiastic".
The French word refers strictly to the appetizer, never the main course. The same is true in formal English, according to the dictionary: "the course before the main course". For some reason the word has come to mean "main course" in many American restaurants. It sounds rather pretentious. Why not just say "main course"?
Increasingly we see the superfluous "event". One magazine described and pictured "an airbag replacement event". Did you have a tire-changing event? A vaccination event? A weather event?
Why is this stupid circumlocution (language event) spreading? It's probably because people talk about an "experience" in the same context. My "dining experience" can easily become a "dining event". Does that make my life seem more "eventful"?
This has become another "sales" word that has no meaning but is supposed to make you want something. We got a notice about a quartet at Carnegie Hall the other day that began, "Exclusive!"
What can that mean? (Shouldn't words mean something? Once upon a time they did.) Is it the only quartet Carnegie Hall is presenting this year? Is it the only place the quartet is playing this year? I doubt it. It's just a poor abused word that they think will get attention and sell tickets.
This has lately been used way beyond its normal meaning. Starvation, poverty, disease, and war are not existential threats. Nor is "global warming" (a fancy term for the warming of the earth). Something existential is not a threat to your existence but an unavoidable part of existence itself. For example, as any existentialist will tell you, angst (anxiety) is existential. It just goes with being alive as a human being and is expected.
People who try to impress us by using big words usually impress us with how little they know.
Aren't you sick and tired of "experiences"? I just saw an article that began by referring to "a cutting-edge shopping experience". Churches talk about a "worship experience". I guess restaurants brag about the eating experience they offer you (or "culinary", but that's rare, because they haven't the vocabulary), just as orchestras brag about the concert experience. There is something narcissistic about all that. Then there are weather reports that "locations nearby are experiencing thunderstorms" and the "farmland is experiencing flooding". How can land experience anything? Young weather people fall back on the word "experience" a great deal.
You don't experience music; you hear it or listen to it. It's not a "listening experience"—as I often have to remind some of our writers. If you can hear it or see it, why use the vague "experience"?
All of this is pitiful, if trendy.
Later: Bravo Niagara brags in a press release at the end of 2019 about "a year of extraordinary concert experiences". What on earth can that mean? Did the roof fall in? Did 10 people die? I suspect they just had to use the trendy word "experiences".
Publicity for the library refers to the "reading experience". A hotel asked us about our "reservation experience" after we booked a room (in Scotland). A tobacconist brags on his website that it (the website, apparently) is an exciting "smokeshop experience". That only proves what I've said all along—that there is nothing real on the Internet; it's all make-believe, artificial, "virtual". A message from our Toyota dealer asked about our "service experience". Something we bought came with "If you experienced any issues with this order". That's illiterate. The Spanish translation was good: si tiene problemas. And the Ohio River this winter "experienced" flooding. Egad! What is wrong with these people?
The word that means "explicit" is "express", not "expressed". Better to stay with "explicit".
This word has come to mean "factory" (especially to the British). How did this happen? We are told that Toyota plans to open two new fabs in Ohio. Fabs?
In place of the noun, try "aspects" or "elements".
The best usage books say that "feature" cannot be a verb. The Atlanta Symphony tells us about a series that "features" 3 concerts—but the series only has 3 concerts! Some dictionaries allow the verb but only in the meaning, "to call special attention to". So it is usually wrong. You cannot "feature" everything! A concert cannot feature every soloist. Publicity people love the word, but it is used wrong almost every time. This is part of the current inflation of language. They can't seem to use simple words like "of" or "with" or "by"—or even "including".
This is a technical word that was used about sound (as in public address systems) and scientific experiments. Now it is used by many writers in place of better words such as "response" or "evaluation". In this meaning it is new and only entered dictionaries recently. But it has become a trendy cliche, so of course it is getting vaguer and vaguer and replacing perfectly good words. Often "response" is the correct word, though some dictionaries accept "feedback" as "evaluative response" (never just a response).
We avoid it, as we avoid all cliches.
I got an e-mail saying "The schedule has been finalized". There was no previous, less-than-final schedule, so what they meant (and should have said) was "The schedule is ready" (or prepared, or completed, or drawn up). No one would have accepted that usage 50 years ago, but it is now common—and because it sounds trendy (or maybe bureaucratic?) it is replacing traditional, better, more economical ways to say it. It has even begun to show up in recent dictionaries (mostly the ones that simply report on usage).
We try to stick to classical English.
This word turns up everywhere, and was rare in the last century. It has replaced to stress, to deal with, to look at, to discuss, to emphasize, to concentrate on, to promote, or just to be about—a slant, an angle, a theme; attention. It is a typical sad case of one word replacing many others for no good reason. This is how language becomes impoverished. Use "focus" only when you are discussing lenses or cameras.
The word is usually followed by "with" because its meaning is essentially "accompanied by" or "full of", as in "fraught with danger". The "with" was considered essential. Recently it has been used without the "with"; we have seen references to "a final fraught phase" or "a fraught cabinet meeting" (Economist—one wants to ask "fraught with what?") and even to fraught emotions and "fraught issues". Its new meaning seems to be "distressing". But we had a word for that! Newer dictionaries report the new meaning, but it seems pompous to some of us. And something can be fraught with comfort or joy as well as risk or fear or drama.
Garner says it is primarily a British usage that first turned up in the mid 1960s. The original American Heritage Dictionary (1970) doesn't have it. Stick with classical usage. Often (as in this case) the new usage is unnecessary. There's nothing wrong with "distressing" or "risky" or "questionable".
A New York Times reporter referred to a painted glass ceiling as "frescos" in late December. He seems to think that any ceiling art is a fresco! Frescoes are paintings on (in) fresh plaster (plaster that has not dried).
This does not mean abundant but offensively excessive. "Fulsome praise" is assumed to be insincere.
Instead of saying something functions or has a function or is functional, people nowadays refer to its "functionality". This word was not in the dictionary in 1970. It should be labeled "bureaucratic jargon" and abandoned. It was never needed. "Use" or even "usefulness" covers the territory, if you cannot settle for "function".
Gaslight
Another bit of unadulterated slang that is turning up as a verb in "respectable" magazines and newspapers. Apparently these sloppy writers are determined to avoid plain English and to create vivid verbs at all costs. Its meaning as they use it is "confuse"; but clear, plain English is not in vogue these days. If they want to impress us they could use "obfuscate"!
This word refers to language, not to people. In French and many other languages, nouns have gender. In English some pronouns do: he, she, it. But the use of gender to refer to the sex of a human being is rather recent and questionable. You do not have a gender; your sex is either male or female.
Public relations people—and sometimes music critics, too—tend to pull words of general approval out of the current bag of cliches. We end up with a great many words that have become meaningless from overuse and lack of precision. Here are some examples that we specifically forbid in ARG:
dynamic
exclusive
insightful
intriguing
impactful
inventive
innovative
involving
distinctive
prestigious
committed
diverse
focused
passionate
masterful
successful
hot
winner
rock star
viral
signature
iconic
epic
enormous
"Somebody gifted me with a full set of Groves." The correct verb is "gave". "Gift" is a noun. The verb is "give". "Tasked with" is a similar instance. You give a gift; you don't "gift" it. So far all dictionaries and usage books reject that. It's also "trendy"—another reason to avoid it.
Here is a miserable cliche that has taken over entirely among people who write. The word that died was "worldwide": when was the last time you saw it? It must have been in an old book. Other words it replaces all the time are "earth" (as in warming of the earth) and planet and even "everywhere". How about "all over"? It is sad when one word replaces all the others and other expressions. It represents an impoverishment of language, but it also represents extreme and pitiful conformity. If you express yourself the way everyone else does, it is obvious that you have nothing to offer.
This trendy slang has replaced at least the following words:
favorite, preferred, regular, normal, accustomed, customary, usual, habitual, first choice, fallback
I have an art magazine open. It describes each work of art. On two pages facing each other I can read:
(Name's) project focuses on the social, political, and psychological implications of landscape and architecture on conceptions of individual, collective, and national identity, in relationship to African diasporic communities. Landscape is used here to identify physical and historical impositions on our sense of belonging. (The painting is essentially abstract—and weird.)
Next to the other work of art we read that it is based on a psychiatric hospital in Italy that was "an unprecedented example of empathic design for people with physical and cognitive differences". This installation "examines the structure in relation to architectural sites of Italian disability history, as well as a forerunner of contemporary projects that engage innovate-multisensory and empathic design."
This is just 2 pages out of 60. People who write like this should stick to painting.
We get writing that has been run through a "grammar checker" but is obviously ungrammatical. The most common mistake is mismatched singular and plural. "The musicians of the Blah Ensemble gives fine performances." Or "All forms of representative art done by traditional or digital media is welcome here." The stupid grammar checker only checks the nearest words and has no idea what he subject of the sentence is. I encourage our writers NOT to use "grammar checkers".
"Grift" turns up quite often now but didn't in the past. Grift is simply money made dishonestly. Graft occurs in politics and refers to using one's position for personal profit. Usually when a writer uses "grift" nowadays he should have used "graft"—which is now extremely common.
You can grow vegetables, and you can even grow a beard; but you can only increase or add to your majority or your profits or your library (or reduce it).
A section of the Staples website is called "Tape Hacks". The word "hack" is suddenly popular; and as with all trendy words, it is taking on more meanings and substituting for many other words. Its newest legitimate meaning is "to gain unauthorized access to someone's computer". What can that have to do with packing tape?
From other advertising it is clear that "hack" is now being used in place of hint, tip, suggestion, or even idea. (I recently read about "beauty hacks".) A few months ago we had never heard of this meaning. It's almost as perverse as "viral"—the word "hack" is now "viral". Can anyone remember how to express this in real English?
The first is also spelled "hearken". It feels faintly archaic, partly because it was used so often in the King James Bible. To harken is simply to pay attention, to listen closely. It has nothing to do with the past, but everyone seems to think it does; and so if it is used at all these days, it is usually paired with "back", which tells you that the author doesn't know its meaning. He probably means "recalls" or "reminds us of"—not harken.
"Behold" feels a bit archaic for the same reason, and it is just as good a word. In the imperative it means "pay attention" (as harken does) but with the eyes rather than the ears.
It is too bad that some modern English translations of the Bible replace these two words with the rather limp "hear" and "see", neither of which conveys the urgency of the need for attention.
"Have your back"
To "have your back" apparently means to support you. It seems to be slang—or at least an idiom—based on sports or the military. It's turning up in journalism (which is now full of slang and "trendy" talk).
Another trendy word is "owns"—which apparently means "has control of" or at least "has a strong effect on". Plain English suffers when trendy words are used. It's easy to add to the list. I just caught one of our writers "experiencing" music! We used to "listen" to it.
In the same article, on the same page, Economist magazine called one person a "China hawk" and another an "anti-China hawk". What does that mean? The dictionary tells us that a hawk is a person who preys on others or who advocates the use of force to reach his goals. Is a "China hawk" pro-China? Or is a "China hawk" the same thing as an "anti-China hawk"? That is not logical, but it is the kind of sloppy writing we are seeing everywhere. 2 months after this there was an article in another magazine I respect that referred to "deficit hawks" in a discussion of a budget bill in congress. What does that mean?
A recent piece of publicity told of a concert where "the program will be highlighted by the world premiere...". "Highlight" as a noun refers to something specially illuminated or significant. It is used way too much. To highlight something (verb) is to underline or emphasize it. Often it is wrongly used in place of indicate, identify, or point out. In this case I think they may have meant "enhanced", but they don't know that word.
These are cliches of publicity. But many such usages make no sense at all—and that is what happens when words are overused. Cliches become vague in meaning (as in the example above). Wilson Follett already warned us against this one in Modern American Usage in 1966. I have usually edited it out of anything we publish.
Historic(al)
"Historical" may refer to anything that took place in history. Outstanding events or people are "historic". Symphonies are historical; but Bernstein conducting Beethoven's 9th at the Berlin wall is historic. Caruso is historic. The distinction is not absolute, but this is another case where a good language allows fine distinctions to be made.
Bad writing calls a house a "home". To build a home you must get married, have children, or whatever. But builders and carpenters can only build a house, not a home.
Since no one knows how to spell anymore, and everyone depends on computer spell-checkers, the tendency is to eliminate homonyms, such as bare and bear; red and read; 2, two, too; peak, peek, and pique; pair and pear; site, cite, and sight; tier and tear, here and hear, they're and their, your and you're, its and it's. Already these are substituting for each other in online publications. Young writers often don't know how to spell and depend on the spell-checker, which of course can't know the difference. Soon all words that sound alike will be spelled alike, because that's easier and works on the computer, and writers are lazy and ill-educated.
This has never been accepted by usage books or decent editors. It is impersonal, timid, and passive, which "I hope" is not. People don't want to commit themselves to much of anything. A more recent distortion is "hopefulness"—apparently a back-formation from "hopefully". Back formations are spreading like a disease. In a major magazine we recently read of a person's "luckiness" (luck). Who hires such "writers"? Where are the editors? We are witnessing the triumph of a misguided egalitarianism.
Almost everyone gets this wrong. Think of "well known". It does not get hyphenated as a predicate adjective: "His name is well known." But if it modifies the subject it does: "The well-known cellist."
We complained in 2010 that this word was becoming trendy. By now it is completely out of hand. Publicity people can't use it enough. One publicist used it 3 times on one page. The Eiffel Tower is called iconic because it has come to symbolize Paris. It's a very "trendy" word.
Here are words that have been displaced by "iconic": type, typical, formulaic, symbolic, representative, exemplary, standard, usual, popular, classic, traditional, celebrated, renowned, familiar, characteristic, famed, well-known, respected.
It is always bad when one word replaces many others. It is a cheapening and an impoverishment of language. In 2010 "iconic" was only beginning to take hold, but it was clear to us that all the trendy publicists were going to jump on the bandwagon. They have.
The Seattle Symphony keeps bragging about its "new immersive venue", where the music will be "daring and imaginative, new and innovative" (and they say so themselves!). It sounds like they have a new swimming pool for the orchestra members so they can find new things to do with their arms and legs.
Another publicist rants on about "...exclusive content independently curated by a team of experts to give a fully immersive listening experience."
"Immersive" is suddenly turning up everywhere in publicity, usually coupled with "experience". It has become yet another general word of approval—a signal to millennials that they will feel comfortable. In other words, it's hype.
To immerse is (obviously) to submerge in liquid. But now the word has begun to turn up in dictionaries with the meaning of engaging, absorbing, involving (that last is another publicity cliche). Sometimes it just means "interesting". (That word is almost never used anymore, and the miserable "intriguing" may also be losing out to new words like "immersive".)
But all of those words are judgements one can only make after the event. Publicists try to tell us what our reaction should be before we even have the "experience". (They appeal to the increasingly common FOMO—fear of missing out.) "Immersive" is not needed; but it represents "cool", and "engaging" sounds old-fashioned. "Immersive" works for the pitiful people who always have to be trendy.
LATEST NEWS: "Immersive" is now a noun as well as an adjective—just like "creative". In October, Lincoln Center publicity invited us to an immersive. Of course, "experience"—both noun and verb—is wildly overused and should usually be dropped, but that sentence makes no sense.
As James Joyce predicted in Ulysses, English is starting to degenerate into a mere pidgin. Anything goes, so no one can be sure what anything means. They "get the general idea", and that's the best the language can do in its current state. The great days of our language and its writings are well in the past.
In 2004 we promised to eliminate this miserable cliche from ARG, and I think we have. But we read it more and more elsewhere. An impact is a collision, a compression—a pressing together. There's an impact in an auto crash. And teeth can become impacted.
But think of the words it is used instead of: impression, influence, difference, change, improvement, power, force, consequences, outcome, result, compress, alter, and affect and effect. In fact, one suspects that "impact" is often used to avoid affect and effect, because people are confused by those two and don't know which to use. And there are more than the 15 or 16 just listed—and don't forget that the miserable "impact" is used both as a verb and as a noun by everybody on television. And so is "impactful". This is how language degenerates; this is how one word replaces dozens of better ones.
One would hope the dictionary to have more effect on speech than television—and it might if people would read more. But television can be blamed for sloppy written speech as well as spoken. (That's the impact of television—er, we mean, influence.)
This is vastly overused and misused. The word comes from "initial" and refers to the first step, making a start. It cannot be used—as it is everywhere these days—as the equivalent of "plan" or "action". I read recently about an orchestra's "initiatives". There is no legitimate plural; a first step is singular. One publicist tells us that an initiative will debut. We are often told that an orchestra or group will "implement an initiative" (how's that for bureaucratese?). As usual, people use words without knowing what they mean. "The following steps (plans, actions, but NOT initiatives) are being taken to deal with the problem."
This is a favorite word of publicists, vastly overused. It is supposed to mean that the composer or artist is doing something NEW! Wow! But we have found that (1) very little that is created is even slightly "new"; it's all old hat—the same old tricks, and (2) there is no virtue in newness for its own sake. Who cares if an "innovative" composer has an instrument make a sound seldom heard before? (Almost never is it a sound never heard before.)
The word "inventive" is used in a similar way by publicists: we are supposed to be impressed by something supposedly created out of nothing. But it is never so; it is just an unfamiliar sound that has been around a long time.
People who think they are inventive and innovative probably use too many drugs.
"Insight" is the ability to discern the true nature of a situation, especially by intuition. The word has limited applications and cannot be used as freely as it is these days. Bureaucrats use it to describe findings or conclusions in a report. A report cannot have insight, though people can. And the plural is highly doubtful. "Insightful" was not in the dictionary in 1970. It has become a trendy word for intelligent or perceptive, even wise. "Insights" is used instead of thoughts or ideas or just plain knowledge. That is stretching the word way too far.
People say "for all intensive purposes" and write it, but the correct expression is "for all intents and purposes". Some say that's how language changes, but accepting such idiocy is how language degenerates.
This noun and adjective are commonly used to describe something odd, curious, sad, coincidental, improbable, even unlucky—but they do not mean any of those things.
Irony is the use of words to describe something quite different from and often opposite to their literal meaning (American Heritage Dictionary). Synonyms to "ironic" are sarcastic, caustic, sardonic, and satirical. An "ironic" observation or statement involves ridicule. It is obvious from the context that most of the time that is not what current users of the word mean. People routinely use words without knowing what they mean. No one seems to use the dictionary any more—and thus they end up sounding ignorant.
To begin a sentence "Ironically," is as bad as beginning a sentence with most words ending in -ly and followed by a comma. Yet that is so common that grammatically sensitive people can hardly read anything any more without becoming irritated. (The most common are "thankfully", "hopefully", "sadly", "regretfully", "similarly", and "admittedly".)
I am often amused by the illiteracy of signs (or the people who write them). On as magazine rack in a store was a sign that read "We are currently experiencing distribution issues with regard to this magazine." "Currently"is certainly better than "presently", but the rest of it is garbage. How can one "experience issues"? What used to be problems or difficulties are now called "issues". But an issue is something you can have an opinion on and debate or dispute. Someone who has cancer does not have "health issues". When a young father told me his child had "potty issues" I almost burst out laughing. Just as people are afraid to complain (we should complain more!), so they don't want to appear "negative" and admit (sometimes serious) problems. "Issues" is stupid.
In 1970 the dictionary treated any non-literal meaning of this as "Informal". Ideas and plans did not "jell"; only fluids did. Since then the word has become quite common in its figurative meaning. After all, if we can say our thoughts on a subject took shape or solidified, why not jelled? It still seems unnatural if you are past a certain age. And only recent dictionaries allow the spelling "gel" to mean the same thing.
This is usually used wrong. It does not mean that someone loves his work. It means that he was NOT PAID for it. If he was paid it is not a "labor of love".
"The late" means until recently. It can also mean recently died. "The late governor of Illinois" does not mean that he has died, but that he is no longer governor. To avoid ambiguity one could say "the former governor". But "the late" implies nothing at all about whether he is still alive. Music writers refer to "the late George Szell"—that is really stupid. If someone died more than a year or two ago he is no longer "the late". Yet you read that kind of thing everywhere—bad writing and no editing.
In its meaning as a noun, a legacy is something handed down from an ancestor or predecessor. Its use as an adjective is recent (not in the 1970 dictionary); the meaning given in a new dictionary is "retained under an obsolescent or discarded system". It definitely carries the connotation of "obsolete", even "worn out". But publicity people are using it routinely to refer to almost anything from the past, including revered singers and music. Its overuse is stretching its meaning as you read this, so it will soon be as meaningless as other trendy words.
Almost no one seems to understand which word to use. "Jim has less records in his library than Bill does" is simply stupid. This was something my generation learned in "grammar school" (yes, we learned grammar!). Now no one seems to know it in college.
"Liaise" is a back-formation from "liaison". It was unknown 40 years ago. Then we said "consult" or "work together". We don't need "liaise".
For more than 50 years people have been getting this wrong. The doctor tells me to "lay back". In a really good novel we read that "a cello was laying on the sofa". Were there cello eggs everywhere? Hens lay; cellos don't. "Lay" is transitive and takes an object. You can lay a carpet or an egg, but you cannot just lay. The table was laid. The laying of the tiles was Don's job.
"Lie" is intransitive—takes no object. Its past tense is "lay". She lay down after I told her "Go lie down". She lay in the same place she had lain before and was lying in bed when the phone rang.
If it's recorded, it cannot be "live". They are mutually exclusive. The Metropolitan Opera recently bragged that a performance was "being broadcast live", but it was a 1958 performance and most of the cast was dead. A recent release arrived here that says on it "Live from the Elbphilharmonie". They mean that it was recorded in concert, but even then I'd bet that they recorded more than one performance and edited the results. It is not "live" in any respect.
People say dumb things like, "Where are you located at?" when what they mean is simply "Where are you?" Airlines in the USA (nowhere else) tell us that flotation devices are "located under the seat"—again the word is superfluous. We are told a store is located on Main Street—leave out the word!
To locate something is the same as to find it. That meaning should not be allowed to die.
We are reading long words everywhere where short ones would do. The list could be endless, but one thing that is happening is backformation from adjectives to nouns: Hopeful becomes hopefulness, tasteful becomes tastefulness, graceful gracefulness, peaceful peacefulness, vigorous vigorousness, and so on. The correct words are hope, taste, grace, peace, and vigor—but they are not used much these days. When you read the longer word you know that someone doesn't even have an adequate basic vocabulary.
People no longer seem to remember the rule that no letter in the alphabet except A may appear alone in lower case (a). No musical key may ever be lower-case in English: A minor, D minor, F minor (NEVER d minor, etc). Almost everyone gets this wrong nowadays. I read in a program that I was supposed to be listening to a "Prelude and Fugue in a minor". What minor?
Heard on a plane: "If you need help deplaning [sic], please wait until the majority of passengers have deplaned." Majority? If there are 150 passengers one should expect help when 76 have got off the plane? People are using "the majority of" when they mean "most". It sounds ignorant. "Most" is more general and to the point. "Most dogs are friendly" makes sense, but "the majority of dogs are friendly" is not even grammatical, let alone applicable. The airplane people really want you to wait until all the other passengers have got off. Why can't people say what they mean? Airline and airport language has always been terrible.
A press release tells us that something will be "majorly affected" by something else. I was glad to see "affected" instead of the dreadful "impacted", but "majorly" was new to me—but not, of course, to the dictionary, which calls it "slang". A great deal of current writing contains slang. It used to be the case, in any language, that standards for written language were higher than for spoken. That protected the language (think of Greek or Arabic). But in our strange egalitarian world any idiot is allowed to write, and they often write as badly as they talk—and no one questions it or edits it.
Most times when this word is used, the writer should have used "masterly". A masterly performance is one that shows great knowledge and skill. A masterful performance is ego-dominated, imperious, a domineering self-assertion. "Masterful" is NOT a compliment!
Me, Myself, & I
You seldom read or hear "me" anymore. Everyone seems afraid to say it, as if it is crude. All of the following are often seen but wrong: between you and I, call my wife or I, call Jim or myself, she gave my husband and I ice cream. In every case, "me" would have been correct, and I is NOT "elegant".
We used to merge things, blend them, combine them, conflate them, mix them, integrate, unite, collate. Now, in a time of shrinking vocabulary, all we do is "meld" them. It's the current pattern of one word replacing many others and all fine distinctions being lost. (Think of the asinine "multiple".)
We learned this word in anthropology. Its traditional meaning was "an element of culture or system of behavior passed along non-genetically"—that is, by imitation: beliefs, habits, fashions, phrases, stories. It was too technical to appear in the dictionary in 1970.
A new slang meaning of the word seems to have taken over: pictures or captions or just squiggles on social media. "A friend of mine posted a meme" it said in Science News. That is not in the dictionary and is most likely just social media jargon.
The New York Times said "Social media is minimizing the war in Ukraine by turning it into a meme." (horrible sentence all around). It seems to mean a cartoon-like image in that sentence.
A great book I recently read, Woke Racism by John McWhorter, uses "meme" to mean "slogan". So does the NY Times. Apparently that's pretty common—but also quite new. And what on earth does Economist mean by this leading sentence: "A stake in Twitter may be a meme too far (for Elon Musk)"? What is a "meme stock" (another magazine)? So the word is obviously overused (hackneyed) and has, as a result, become vague and uncertain in meaning.
Medical bulletin: "Use our website to message your team". No one ever considered "message" a verb until very recently. It's jargon; it's a briefer way of saying "send a message to" or "get in touch with". "Cool" people like these new verbs—and like the way nouns can become verbs and vice-versa. The idea of "parts of speech" is becoming obsolete. In the process, language is getting sloppier. No one wants to take the trouble to say things correctly. The triumph of democracy and equality means anyone can say anything any way he chooses—no one can be more "correct" than anyone else.
Methodology for method: you read this all the time. It is simply another case of "never use a small word when a bigger one seems possible". People who can't write think it's more impressive.
We often read of a "meteoric rise" in, say, crime or prices. But meteors do not rise; they fall.
To anticipate is not to expect; it is to plan for.
Anxious does not mean eager.
Continuous means it never stops; "continual" can be intermittent.
A dilemma involves two choices, neither very good.
Fortuitous does not mean fortunate, but by chance.
Oblivious means someone told you but you forgot or dismissed it.
The protagonist is the leading character in a drama.
To refute is to disprove—not merely to deny.
Transpire does not mean "happen".
People use viable (or even "doable") when they mean feasible.
This is slang. You can call your mother this to her face, but to anyone else and in writing, it's "mother". Of course, today's writing is full of slang.
A moot point is one of no significance or relevance. That's the adjective. The verb is rare in American English. Something is mooted when it is rendered of no practical significance.
But the British use the verb to mean "suggest" or "put forth". which is almost the opposite of dismissing something. It's odd that British and American English take opposite meanings here—as in the case with "table" as a verb.
Nothing changes anymore; it "morphs". The usage was unknown before 1991, but was popular by 1998, and has become even more popular since. To "morph into" is to become.
All bureaucrats seem to love "moving forward", and it is a common slogan for politicians. Like most such hackneyed expressions. it could mean anything and carries no specific meaning but sounds good. Words are increasingly used for their "sounds good" qualities.
"Myriad" essentially means 10,000 but can be used to mean an extremely large, uncountable number. Now, in this age of wild exaggeration and word fads (people don't just like something; they are passionate about it), people are using it where they used to just say "many". And "many" (or "plenty") is much better. See also "plethora", which is also often used to mean "a great many" but actually means "too many".
Another such word is "multiple"—also substituted for "many", apparently because "many" is too direct and simple. Science News recently had an article titled, "Dinosaur Eggs Came in Multiple Colors". Why not "several"? "That was the first of multiple orders to remove the wolf from protection" said another magazine in 2012. Again, "several" is correct; we also used to say "many", "a few", "a number of", or even "numerous" or "more than one". But now it's always "multiple", because it's a trendy word. It's a shame to lose good words like "several". People are such conformists! When a word catches on, everyone falls into line. People think and talk in cliches.
A recent opera program book told us that Scene 8 was "where the multiple issues of the opera come together". Egad! What could that possibly mean? It sounds current, but does it mean anything? Do operas have "issues"? Can they have "multiple" ones?
This is still spreading like a disease. People use it in conversation, write it in articles—even in scholarly books. It's a raging fad, probably kept alive by news people. No one says "several" or "many" or "a few" or "a number of", "2 or 3", or even "more than one". The one vague word—multiple—replaces all of them—and more. You even read "multiple times" instead of "often". This is a pitiful degeneracy of language. Banish "multiple"!
People are starting to write about "purposefulness", "hopefulness", and "thankfulness" or "gratefulness" instead of purpose, hope, and gratitude. I've even seen "rigorousness" for "rigor". They are back-formations (by adding -ness) from adjectives—and the adjectives themselves came from nouns, so it gets ridiculous. True, we get "happiness" from "happy", but the others are invalid and awkward if you know the correct nouns.
We have begun to see "incentivize", "incentivizing", "incentivization". I read recently about "incentivizing ethical business practices". (What's wrong with "encouraging"?) The word is new to dictionaries (not in the original AHD).
Also new to dictionaries is "surveil". "Surveilance" has always been with us, but now we have this back-formation to a new verb. ("Liaise" is another miserable back-formation.)
These words are turning up not just in publicity (always a language cesspool) but also in newspapers and magazines. Well, the people who write for most newspapers and magazines these days are pretty close to illiterate—but why should their ignorance deserve a place in a dictionary? In fact, they will never see it, because they obviously don't use a dictionary.
New York is the name of the city (and of the state). "New York City" seems to turn up often these days, but it is unnecessary. "New York" refers to the city unless the context makes clear that it does not. That has always been the case.
The correct word is "normality". "Normalcy" is a "needless variant", not supported by language experts.
People confuse this word with fame. In a magazine article we read, "They write because they enjoy it and because it gives them notoriety within [sic] the industry, which certainly helps with career advancement." Notoriety is a bad reputation, unfavorable fame. How will that help?
These are nouns, not verbs: access, leverage, reference, task, gift, target, source. They are all used a lot as verbs. Latest example: farewell. Are we going to end with a language where there are no separate verbs and nouns? Can that happen just because some people do not know the difference?
The New York Times recently reported that "19 students and seven staff members" tested positive. This follows the general rule that numbers under 10 get written out. But in a sentence like that, "7" is preferable to "seven" because of the comparison and the relation between the two. The same applies to a series and to age. Our practice at ARG has lately been to favor numerals over words, even to begin a sentence. That is not universally approved, but we are a publication that deals a lot in numbers, and writing them out comes to seem awkward.
We were eating at an expensive and sophisticated restaurant. Within one minute we heard the waitress at the next table say "we are one of the only restaurants that offers that" and a waiter nearby ask people, "Is everything tasting well?"
This is in one minute on one day. Illiteracy is everywhere and constant now. Will people understand each other at all in 20 years?
The Atlantic (magazine) uses it. You have to think "one of the few", because "the only" can only be one.
This fad word is utterly unnecessary, so it can usually be dropped without causing a problem. How many times have you read about "the ongoing war in Ukraine?" Something that goes on may be "continuing". Sometimes it's even progressing or evolving. Once in a while one might need "going on"—but one never needs "ongoing". The author of many fine books writes in one, "The ongoing discussion continues"—total redundancy!
We are seeing this often now, and it is a mistake. What is meant is is "en route", but people don't read anymore, and they have only heard it spoken—and spoken it sounds the same as "on route". As usual, we have seen examples in Economist—a magazine only read by "upscale" people. Their writers are very sloppy about usage. Journalists of all kinds are—and are infatuated by "cool" and current usage.
The word is pejorative and cannot be a compliment. To be opinionated means "Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up." That is never praiseworthy. If someone has read a lot and thought a lot about something and has arrived at some strong convictions, we should certainly not call him "opinionated".
This is a new usage, not in any printed dictionary. The word is being used to mean "the way things look"—appearances. People love to use these trendy words (meanings). It makes them feel that they are leaders ("influencers"?).
In a dictionary, "optics" is a scientific term—a division of physics.
A usage book that was first published in 1980 and has been reissued many times since says that "with countables, `more than' is better usage than `over'". He weighs more than 250 pounds. He earns more than $50,000 a year. More than 100 people attended his birthday party. Next time you are about to say "over" think "more than".
There is no such word, though people say it and write it. That's because people think adverbs have to end in -ly. They say "drive slowly" when "drive slow" is grammatically correct. (They don't seem to say "Drive fastly" though.) "Overly" in plain English is "too".
A magazine tells us the Republicans are doing something to "own" the liberals. What does that mean? No dictionary meaning of "own" fits. It is certainly slang, probably from "sports". But new meanings are coming forth all the time for old familiar words. Apparently words mean what the writer decides he wants them to mean. Never mind that intelligent English speakers have no idea what the writer is saying.
Palate, palette, and pallet sound alike (like immanent and imminent) but are quite distinct. A pallet is a bed—usually narrow and hard. The palate is the roof of the mouth, but often refers to the sense of taste. A palette is a board where a painter mixes colors. This last can be extended to musical colors.
This word is turning up everywhere, used as if it means the same thing as "partly". It does not, because it carries different connotations. The original American Heritage Dictionary had a good write-up on the subject. Garner's book on usage says to use "partly" if in doubt.
Passion is deep and overwhelming, ardent and powerful. It implies a potential lack of control, a getting carried away, a boundless enthusiasm. Between people it implies a strong sexual attraction. (Why did a Baptist church in Edinburgh have a sign that "Jesus loves you passionately"?) It was also in Britain that there was a "help wanted" sign in a store window that said you "must be passsionate about retailing". I would lock up such a person! Brits generally use the word "passionate" in place of "emotional"—all emotions become "passions", just as all large things become "enormous" (very British). I have seen advertisements for a string quartet that mentioned the musicians' "passion for different styles". Really! The word has become a general word of approval for musicians. Their physical deportment on stage is often calculated to make people think they are "passionate". They groan, throw themselves around, gaze into the sky. Dark hair and a scowl help. Of course, to do really well as a musician you have to be almost fanatically dedicated, and some people call that kind of obsession "passion". Actually a musician has to keep his cool (so to speak) rather than burn with passion. We should stop using the word about musicians.
In my 1970 dictionary this is strictly an intransitive verb, but in the New York Times it is transitive these days: a country paused the vaccine. It is used where "stopped", "halted", "discontinued", or—better yet—"suspended" or "interrupted" would be correct. Maybe this new usage is natural to a generation that had a "pause" button on a CD player. So "pause" has come to stand for "put it on pause" or "press the pause button". Or maybe it is yet another case of a noun becoming a (transitive) verb. It sounds completely unnatural; it is not idiomatic to good writers. You can't pause anything, but you can pause.
A number of sources referred to "a temporary pause" in administering one of the vaccines. That's redundant. A pause is by definition temporary.
Since we wrote this up in 2021 it has spread like crazy. Here are some of the words it has replaced: postponed, delayed, suspended, interrupted, stopped, deferred. To pause is often to hesitate. A pause can be a freeze. It is unfortunate when one word replaces many others, each with a slightly different shade of meaning. (Our public library tells us the OhioLink website "has been paused"!) The cause is simply a miserable vocabulary and rampant conformity. Also, people don't read and simply use words they hear a lot, so words like this are worn to death. Our language is losing its richness as everyone's vocabulary shrinks into a handful of cliches.
This word does not mean "plenty" or "a lot"; it means too much or too many. A plethora is not a good thing.
The plural of person is people.
The plural of this is these.
The plural of that is those.
People often mistakenly use "this" when they mean "that". And they often use "those" when they mean "people".
It is idiotic to say "Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro" or "Homer's the Iliad". It is a rule in English that the possessive deletes the article. And you follow the English rule in any English-language document: Verdi's Trovatore. You also must follow English-language capitalization rules: Forza del Destino, Cosi Fan Tutte.
We also follow the rule for possessives recommended in all the handbooks. It is Chandos's, Francis's, James's. Both the Ss should be pronounced, too.
The NY Times recently used the word "precarity". It didn't exist when I went to school. An online dictionary dates it to around 1960, but it is not in the American Heritage Dictionary of 2011. It's obviously a back-formation from "precarious", but there are many better ways—traditional ways—to say the same thing. "Insecurity" is one example. And we can use the adjective—or "risky". We don't need most popular back-formations. They represent a kind of laziness about language.
It was inevitable. The use of "reference" as a verb (which it is not!) has started to spread to similar words and words that sound like it. We have begun to see "preference" as a verb in place of "prefer", just as we have recently had to put up with "reference" in place of "refer". This is how language degenerates. First of all it is used by people who can't write and don't know language; then people who read what they have written assume it's OK and start to use it themselves. A very large percentage of publicity and "communications" people are illiterate, and we are all reading what they write.
By the way, "prefer" is a good substitute for the wretched "prioritize".
Not a verb.
Usage books call this "a bad newspaper word", but it has spread to publicity of all kinds.
The word is suddenly everywhere. Before 1960 or so it meant deceitful, cheating, or illusory. "Prestige" is an illusion created by tricks—historically, magic—thus "prestidigitate"—but in the last century or so by advertising and publicity. Prestige is a kind of glamor (itself a word that comes from magic) that can blind you or dazzle you. It is certainly an American innovation to use "prestigious" as a compliment, as a favorable thing.
If prestige is really just a surface thing (like glamor), then people are using it wrong everywhere you turn. That's natural in a world infatuated with celebrity—where pianists are called superstars by their publicists and are compared to "rock stars".
Sometimes the publicists mean "reputable" or "outstanding in its field": I have seen the Juilliard School and the Metropolitan Opera called "prestigious". If they have a good reputation, no one needs to tell us about it. Of course, prestige and reputation are no guarantee of quality. It's like buying things by brand name.
is never correct—just a useless lengthening of the word "preventive".
"Pre" has gotten out of hand. You can buy a "pre-washed" salad. You can be "pre-selected" to get a credit card. We are even told we can "pre-board" a plane—obviously that's impossible. You can be "pre-authorized", a car can be "pre-owned", your loan can be "pre-approved". Your funeral can be "pre-planned"! (This is a miserable redundance, because all planning is done in advance.) You can "pre-order a book or recording"—meaning, I think, order it before it is published. We are even seeing "prequel", an ersatz word formed from "sequel".
Most of these are not in the dictionary and are dreadful and unnecessary, but they are trendy, and commercial interests promote them.
This pompous phrase is often substituted for "before". Every usage book condemns it. It is lawyers' language and carries the idea of necessary precedence. Therefore it should be rare, but it's everywhere.
Until this century dictionaries disapproved of this word. Like many words that end in -ize it is of questionable origin. You can -ize almost anything, and it's common in advertising. Also, "prior to" has come to replace "before" (unfortunately), so "prioritize" was almost inevitable. "Prioritize" is just a fancy word for "prefer" or "rank", and people tend to prefer fancier words, apparently thinking they sound more impressive—and perhaps they do to average dopes, but not to people who know language. Garner's usage book calls "prioritize" "bureaucratic bafflegab".
Whether noun or verb, usage books call it "ugly headlinese", but it has long spread beyond headlines. A better noun would be investigation, inquiry, even hearing. And the verb is very common, too, in place of investigate, look into, study, even sift. But "probe" has replaced these and many other words—a typical sign of linguistic degeneracy. A major magazine told us recently that "Russian forces are now probing west"! What could that mean? Journalism loves to stretch words, to overuse favorite words and expressions. There is massive conformity in journalism, and trendy words and expressions just get trendier. The best argument against this word is that everyone falls back on it, so it has replaced words with more subtle shades of meaning—a common problem in today's usage.
It has become common to read anything from university culture and find it signed "James Jones, he, him, his". People assume that you can choose your pronouns. But pronouns are not your choice; they follow the rules of language.
People want to control everything, but that is self-deception. Your sex was given, and the pronouns are given—you have NO CHOICE. We have to make the best of the cards dealt to us. "Freedom" is not autonomy.
A publicist recently described "the world's largest record company in the world". Bragging is pretty normal in the field of music; I have even read glowing descriptions of compositions by their composers. But the problem there is proofreading.
In an issue of ARG I complained about "pigeon" English. No one proofed that, though I like someone to proofread what I write, because a writer seldom sees mistakes that are obvious to someone else. I meant "pidgin", of course—a homonym. The first reader to catch it was someone who used to write for us and understands editing.
1. Simplification: reducing everything to black & white, friend & foe.
2. Misrepresentation & name-calling: reducing the opposition to caricature.
3. Manipulating the values of the audience to one's own ends.
4. Contagion: claiming or implying that one's views are shared by all right-thinking people. Social pressure.
5. Repetition: if you repeat something often enough people are more inclined to accept it as given.
On an album cover: "Leading choruses, soloists and conductors, have collaborated with the orchestra. The lack of a comma after "soloists" implies that soloists and conductors are forms of choruses; and the comma after "conductors" is simply wrong—and no one did it 5 years ago.
The "comma splice error" is much older than that and common in England. It joins 2 sentences by a comma. You can join 2 sentences by a semi-colon or by a comma plus "and" or "but", but never by a mere comma.
This word seems to have replaced "deliberately", "intentionally", and "purposely" in current writing. It is the most specific term, referring to a specific, defined purpose or goal. Therefore its use should be limited—but it is now promiscuous.
"Quality" is a noun—not an adjective. You can't say, "he's a quality person" (anymore than you can say "he's a fun person"). Good quality, high quality, poor quality—but not "quality" by itself. It needs a modifier.
This word is not a fancy way of saying "quiet", though that's the way it is often misused. It is related to "dormant" and "latent". A volcano can be quiescent: it is capable of great noise and disruption. Quiescent people are presumably hot-tempered, not quiet by nature.
In 1970 the American Heritage Dictionary was strongly against use of this word in writing to mean "quotation". In the years since, a more liberal usage panel has come to accept it. ("The first lines of his aria include a quote from Shakespeare.") It is always hard to decide whether looser rules weaken a language; maybe sometimes they are quite neutral or even beneficial. In this case we sometimes let it go thru and sometimes replace it, depending on the rest of the sentence.
"Reach out to" is wrongly used to mean "get in touch" (call or write) or even "inquire" or "respond" (get back to). A publicity letter began, "I am reaching out to share information about upcoming opportunities..." Illiterate. Another letter replied to us, "Thank you for reaching out to us and sharing your concerns." (They were complaints, but no one uses that "negative" word these days.) I think this is televangelist language, but it has infected "millennials", who apparently never learned real English. None of them would say or write, "Thank you for your complaint"!
"Reach out" implies that the other person is in need and you are helping him. You cannot "reach out" to your congressman to tell him how to vote. Publicists cannot "reach out" to editors, though they think they can, because they don't understand the connotations.
This vastly overused word has replaced dozens of others, as trendy words are wont to do. I read that someone has received weapons from the local armory. (The right word is procured.) Often "obtained" is correct. People are afraid of simple and direct words like "got", but that is better than always using "received". Our readers sometimes call and tell us they haven't received the latest issue. Why not? We sent it, and when it arrives, they can receive it or refuse it. Again, the wrong use of "receive". To receive is an act of the will: you accept what is offered. Only volitional beings can do it. A piece of music cannot receive a performance or a recording. Dead people cannot. either. (Publicist: "Mendelssohn receives special birthday tribute." That's impossible.) In order of volition: We grab, take, win, procure. We receive or accept. We are given or rewarded. A piece of music can be performed, but it cannot "receive a performance". It can draw or attract praise or criticism; it cannot receive it. A musician can receive an award, but the point is not that he received it but that he was given it. To say a musician "received criticism" implies that he welcomed it. Maybe his performance drew criticism—people criticized it—but to say he received it is to say he took it seriously, and we don't usually know that.
A piece of music cannot receive a prize, but its composer can—but it must first be offered—and that is the point, not whether he received it. He won it, and most people will receive a price they have won. The point is that they won it, not that they "received" it.
Something redacted has been edited or revised. To redact is not necessarily to delete or remove, but that is the way we see it used lately. In a major newspaper we read about a writer objecting to deletions in his book, but they were called "redactions".
Redundancy Dept
reserve in advance
preplan
preorder
"This could be a potentially great thing for your business."
"There could be a possible chance of showers."
"I'm still not sure of my schedule yet."
advance warning
close proximity
upcoming appointment
last of all
end result
ultimate goal
ultimate outcome
is located at
ongoing maintenence
still remains
redo it again
On a plane, from a crew member, in February: "You may now use your mobile phones at this time."
This is a noun, not a verb. The verb is "refer to", but "reference" is also replacing "allude to" and "quote". Making nouns out of verbs is now a major industry.
Sign in a shop: "Regretfully, we do not accept credit cards". That is simply wrong. "He regretfully moaned, `I shouldn't have beaten my wife'." That's OK. It's not just that starting a sentence with an adverb (ending in -ly) is a bad idea. Adverbs must modify verbs ("moaned" in the second sentence). Also, is the shop owner really regretting the fact that he doesn't accept credit cards? (The grammatical meaning of the first sentence—if it had any—might be that.) It was his decision. If he regrets it, he can change it—and he doesn't. It may be regrettable to the customer. But the word used is not "regrettably"—and even that would be a bad sentence. "We regret that we do not accept credit cards" again raises the point that if you regret it, you can change it. I think "We do not accept credit cards" is probably the only way to say it, but the owner evidently feels he has to apologize for his policy. That means he should change it.
At any rate, "regretfully" is a good word to avoid—especially to start a sentence.
I heard this many times on a recent trip—airports and planes. I called a doctor's office and heard it again on the long recorded message and menu that greets you and prevents you from talking with anyone unless you have almost infinite patience.
What they are all trying to say is "We remind you". "As a reminder" is utterly stupid and wrong—and yet another way people don't take responsibility for what they say. If they are trying to sound gentler and more "courteous" (which is very silly), what is wrong with "We would like to remind you that..."?
There is a new meaning to this verb: to share an opinion, to agree. Older dictionaries don't have it. Do we need it, or is it just another sloppy usage that has become popular? Dictionaries should tell us that, but they evade their responsibility and claim to "just report on usage". In the name of conserving the language and not letting words lose their specificity, one could suggest that this new meaning is unnecessary and should be avoided.
"The rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which feeds sectarianism between Sunnis and Shias respectively." (The Economist) The word is not only unnecessary but inappropriate and simply wrong in that sentence. Since almost no one knows how to use it, and since we who know what it means realize it is almost always unnecessary, we recommend that you avoid the word.
I subscribe to only the best magazines (some much more liberal than I am and some much more conservative), but even they are increasingly sloppy and trendy about usage. A July issue of The Week has on the cover in big letters, "The Big Reveal". "Reveal" is strictly a verb; it is not a noun. True, it has turned up in the latest dictionaries (which have no standards and accept anything in common usage). By the way, the latest AHD still rejects "invite" as a noun—but I hear it all the time (it has been common for almost a century in slang), so we will soon be reading it everywhere. "Invitation" and "revelation" are apparently dying.
I guess I have to get used to the fact that nobody currently "editing" anything (if anyone is) cares one hoot about classic usage. Apparently words can mean anything, and as that attitude spreads they come to mean so many things that they no longer mean much of anything (at least not anything specific) and thus end up communicating nothing much.
My argument has never been that language cannot change. It's just that if we accept any and all changes it loses its power and precision. Also, people have such pitiful vocabularies these days that they don't know the words that would serve better. Should language change be posited (or accepted) based on plain old ignorance?
Among the many words that robotic voices cannot pronounce reliably are object, present, invalid, moderate, estimate, and elaborate: the verb and the noun or adjective look alike but are not pronounced alike. Even the favorite slang, "impact", is pronounced differently when a verb than when a noun. Pretty soon humans will do no better, because they have been listening to robots too long.
Why would any classical music lover be impressed when a favorite cellist or pianist is described as "rock-star famous" or having "rock star charisma"? What charisma? We hate rock stars and consider them louts and idiots. They don't have anything that we would admire or call "charisma". They are not gifted. Nor do great things "rock".
But publicists seem to be gullible women (mostly) who think there's nothing greater in our culture than rock stars. They earn obscene amounts of money, they can have any woman they want, and they don't need to deny themselves anything. That seems to appeal to spoiled Americans: total self-indulgence. But of course it's utterly savage and destructive of civilization.
This is a thoroughly confusing word, because it has two opposite meanings: to approve and to disapprove. The noun can mean approval or penalty. One clue which is meant might be that to give sanction is to approve, but to issue sanction is to penalize. But even that clue is usually missing, and we often have to guess which of the opposite meanings the writer had in mind.
Past generations were taught that the simple future must be "shall" in the first person and "will" in second or third: I (we) shall, you will, he (they) will, etc. We were also taught to reverse that in assuring someone or committing oneself or giving a command. Follett's usage book (1966) illustrates the principle: "I shall be in my office from 3 to 5" (simple future: the speaker's regular procedure, requiring no special decision or thought), or "I will stay in the office until 5:30" (willingness: his concession to someone else's convenience). "I shall become a millionaire" is just a prediction. "I will become a millionaire" is determination.
But already by 1949 HL Mencken could write in The American Language that "the distinction may almost be said to have ceased to exist". Garner's usage book from 2003 says that with minor exceptions, "will" has taken over completely. One such exception is interrogatives like "Shall we dance?"
The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (1989) uses "shall" too much. God, speaking thru a prophet (Jeremiah 31, for example), says "you shall rejoice" after "I will restore you"—a reversal of what we expect. Is he commanding them to rejoice (as is often said of the last movement of the Shostakovich 5th)? Not according to the context.
In that same chapter of the NRSV is an example of its substitution of "see" for "behold"—terribly weak and neutral. "Behold" means, "pay attention" and "consider this"; it's even stronger than "look", but much stronger than "see". Fine distinctions are what make a language useful. Our language continues to weaken and degenerate, even in the Bible!
Another flaw in that Bible translation is the refusal to use "men" for human beings. "Man" and "men" and "mankind" are often inclusive in English (and in Greek—anthropos). Now children will grow up wondering what it means when someone sings in Handel's Messiah "he was despised and rejected of men" (from Isaiah).
Answering machine in a local business: "We are presently servicing other people." (Of course, the "presently" is wrong, too.) Maybe it sounds fancier to say "servicing" instead of "serving", but simplicity is preferable to ersatz elegance. You don't service people; you can service an automobile. "Servicing" people has been used to refer to sex.
"More than 30 percent of workers ages 18 to 36 have shared their salary with a colleague." So says a website—and a magazine—based on a new survey. It's amazing! I didn't realize Americans were such sharing people.
But of course the problem is the word "shared", which is simply wrong. The survey reveals that these people discuss their salaries with each other—they do NOT "share" them.
The newest dictionaries do allow the meaning of "to relate, as in a secret". In 1970 that meaning was unknown. It remains an intimate word, not just a synonym for "tell". It is certainly inappropriate most of the time. Reading a novel set in the 1950s, I knew that it was written in the next century because the characters were always "sharing" things instead of telling or talking about them.
Publicity people like to "share" publicity with us; they also love to "reach out" to us. I guess they just have something they want me to hear or read. Why sharing and reaching out? Those are group therapy words.
In all the following words the L is silent—not pronounced:
psalm palm balm calm qualm alms calf half salve talk walk balk chalk stalk folk yolk almond salmon could should would. People also tend to forget the silent T in often and listen and the TH in clothes (pronounced "close"). These words are often mispronounced (over-pronounced).
The Singular "they"
People are using "they" to refer to one person, which it cannot. Apparently it is used to avoid having to choose between "he" and "she". (Why should that be a problem? You can always alternate.) In English, "he" is the default and need not be taken to mean the person is male—just as "man" in most languages just means "human" nad includes women. The conventions of language are not spiteful sexism. Pronouns are gendered, but that does not necessarily identify the sex of the person referred to. "If someone wants to run for president he will have to be popular" is a perfectly good sentence and does not rule out a female candidate. "If somone wants to be president they will have to be popular" is simply barbaric.
Sloppy, shallow English
If it were only a matter of "street talk" it would not be important that the language used was careless and limited. But the problem is our "egalitarian" society and the notion that the way anyone at all expresses himself is acceptable. So we publish writing that is as stupid as street talk. Why? If people don't know basic grammar and vocabulary and usage, their writings should not be published. But there are no standards anymore, and to try to defend the language is to make yourself an "elitist".
Everybody avoids the simple word "soon". "We will answer your call as quickly as possible"—common on phone answering devices—doesn't mean as soon as possible and implies "we will get rid of you as fast as we can; we haven't time for you". "Someone will be with you momentarily" implies the same thing: we haven't got much time for you. "Soon" would be ideal in both cases, but no one seems to know the word.
The St Louis Opera always says at the end of intermission "Act 2 will begin momentarily". Nonsense. They mean "Act 2 is about to begin" or "will soon begin".
The airlines still sometimes say, "we will be on the ground momentarily"—and again, that is not a fancy word for soon; it carries entirely different connotations—you'd better dash off the plane ("deplane"!) before it takes off again!
In an airport recently I repeatedly heard one announcement that made no sense at all—and couldn't possibly to anyone (I think). The end of it had nothing to do with its beginning. So much of our public speech is written by people who can't write and don't know what words mean. (Americans seem to assume that anyone can write—how touchingly egalitarian!) And even educated people just use words the way they hear them used and never bother to find out if it's correct or whether there's a better way to say what they are trying to say. Public English makes us seem a very ignorant society.
This is yet another case of nouns being used as verbs. Even respectable magazines are saying things like "he sourced the money from..." In the 1970 dictionary I own, "source" was strictly a noun. Recent dictionaries yielded to the use of "source" as a verb, but only in a limited sense. For example, it may be used (we are told) in the sense of "acknowledging the source of" (as in research papers). But as language degenerates it has begun to mean almost anything related to "find" or "get".
Other new instances of nouns used as verbs: guilt, adult. It gets worse every day.
A dentist had a sign on his door: "specializing in children and adults". That is not specializing at all, though perhaps he means to exclude dogs. Another dentist "specializes in all aspects of cosmetic and general dentistry". Obviously he didn't take many courses in English. You can't specialize in everything.
The spoken language is not doing well, partly because of sloppy usage, because no one uses a dictionary, and partly because people don't know how to speak meaningfully. Perhaps we are getting used to robots, who are incapable of emphasis or nuance. People who speak or read in public are almost robotic themselves—and that has been true for a long time. Their vocal rise and fall often have nothing to do with the meaning of what they are saying. Speech should convey meaning, not just words.
Just because someone can talk, that doesn't mean he or she can speak (in public) or write. We live in a time when speakers can hardly speak and writers can hardly write, but we have to put up with it—probably because Americans are such religious egalitarians and wouldn't want anyone to think his opinion doesn't matter.
It has become quite common that writers cannot makes subjects and verbs agree in a sentence. "A group of singers are". "A collection of arias are". Lazy, sloppy writers match the verb to the nearest noun rather than to the subject (or is it done by software?).
Writers no longer seem to understand this. One major British magazine said "The simple architecture of Mormon churches mean they resemble each other." The subject of the sentence is "architecture", not "churches". We also see quite often the "one of the trees are green" kind of sentence. We are not teaching grammar, so the young writers just assume the verb should agree with the nearest noun! (Obviously, these sentences are illogical as well as ungrammatical—but no one is being taught logic either.)
From a recent issue of The Economist:
A father who passionately wants a son is more likely to insist that the child is a boy.
Even if it isn't?
From Peter Lovesy: "She insisted that Diamond was present." Correct English would be "that Diamond be present". The English should never have given up the subjunctive. Read any English writer or magazine and you will run into meaningless sentences like that. The subjunctive is always missing nowadays—especially "be". The result is ambiguity.
They are often confused, but they are pronounced differently (substantive has the accent on the first syllable), and "substantial" is usually the right word and has much broader application. "Substantive" is becoming a bureaucratic word.
This asinine word turns up all the time in computerland. "You have successfully been removed from our list"—that type of thing. You either have or you haven't, and the word is almost always unnecessary. The word is also used as a term of approval—but it's a rather vague one. What does it mean to call a performance "successful"?
These are transitive verbs: you must surprise someone or someone must be surprised (or disappointed). Nowadays both are used intransitively: a musician, say, "surprises" or "disappoints". No good.
This word was not in the 1970 American Heritage Dictionary. It didn't exist before the 1960s. It is a back-formation from "surveillance". Back-formations are often a sign of laziness and a limited vocabulary. Sometimes they are useful and catch on, but often they are entirely unnecessary. In 150 years of mystery writing no one used the word—yet, of course, people were watched or followed.
One dictionary labels it "colloquial" (slang). A usage book comments that the verb is better than the noun, and "sync" is better than "synch". These have been used for a long time, but they have never really been accepted.
To table something means to postpone it; something tabled is something not dealt with. That's the verb. But to put something "on the table" is to consider it. In Britain the verb and noun both mean "to consider", but American English has always preserved the distinction. At the moment we are losing it, because Americans are making verbs out of nouns everywhere, and everyone assumes (since no one uses a dictionary) that the verb means the same as the noun.
It is very common now to see writers use "this" when they mean "that". For example, if you are writing a review for ARG, "this" refers to what you are reviewing, and "that" refers to older recordings or reviews. "This" should not be used to refer to something not at hand.
The superfluous "those" is everywhere. "This trip is planned for those people who like river cruises." "In those countries where El Nino exerts its effects..." "Those children who were exposed to mercury". Simply remove "those": that usually works.
"Those" is the plural of "that". It can be an adjective or a demonstrative pronoun. It is often used to mean "people", but that seems curiously impersonal. And, by the way, the plural of "person" is "people", not "persons".
"I like the loud ones, except those that are brassy." Why not "unless they are brassy" or "the ones that are brassy"? "Those who like lieder will like this recording": again, "people" is intended. Or even "anyone who" or "readers" or "listeners" or "if you". "Those" in such a context is a demonstrative pronoun, and it should refer back to something. It would be OK if the previous sentence said something like, "There are people who like lieder and people who don't."
We spend a lot of time replacing "those".
This is usually a gross exaggeration. Often a simple word like "in" is more accurate.
The weather people have been saying things like, "the rain will transition to snow before morning". Of course, weather people are not exactly known for their good English. ("Travel will be impacted.") And they try to sound fancy, like most other TV and radio people. The only weather I hear is from robots, but I presume it was written by humans.
"Transition" was never a verb, but it is often used now as a verb and is beginning to turn up in dictionaries. It's certainly better than "morph", but that's not saying much. Our language got by without either verb for many centuries. "The rain will change to snow by morning." That's perfectly clear, isn't it? Or "will change over to" or "will become" or "turn into".
Verbs that used to be transitive are increasingly used in an intransitive way and vice-versa. You can follow this in dictionaries. "Pause", "disappoint", and "satisfy" used to be strictly one or the other. Over time "satisfy" has come to be accepted as intransitive—that is, where once it had to have an object, now it doesn't. Things can now just "satisfy". (The implication is that since it satisfied the writer it will satisfy anyone—or it's another way of refusing to take responsibility, like "hopefully" instead of "I hope".) "Pause" used to be strictly intransitive, but nowadays you can "pause" a recording. The Economist recently told us about "pausing the ongoing process"—horrible (and "ongoing" is redundant). Careful writers still think you must disappoint someone; you can't just "disappoint". But I am beginning to see that intransitive even in our own writers.
Sometimes I think that one should use older dictionaries to avoid confusing changes in language. Most of the changes are not improvements—do not make communication clearer or easier.
This word has only recently entered dictionaries. It means a system to allocate benefits or scarce commodities. So it is a bureaucratic and political word. Also, recently it has been used as a verb. To triage is to decide who gets the benefit or commodity. The implication seems to be that such a decision is difficult and is bound to seem unfair to someone.
I like to reject new and unnecessary words, but this one has colors and implications that no other word has, so it is serving a purpose. Still, it seems that people who use it are almost always bureaucrats. It would be sad if the word simply came to mean "difficult decision".
The latest usages of it mean "treatment". Why? Stupidity.
We are told that in Houston Domino's "has teamed up with Nuro to trial autonomous pizza delivery". "Trial" is not a verb, and what does "autonomous" mean in such a context? This was reported in a major magazine. The NY Times uses "trial" as a verb, too; they told us Heathrow Airport in London will "trial" fast lanes for vaccinated passengers. Why not "try out"? Or even "experiment with"?
Publicity has always involved exaggeration, but it has become mindless and predictable. Any time an orchestra or group does something or hires someone, the publicity falls into "We are thrilled" or "We are so excited". All these thrills and excitement won't save classical music. Probably the publicity people were cheerleaders in high school.
This word means to become known, to leak out or come to light. It is not a fancy word for "happen".
This fad word is replacing many better words: finally, in the final analysis, in the end, eventually, actually, in effect, amounting to, for all practical purposes. Americans are using "ultimate" to mean "the best"—a sort of general approval on the level of "cool" (ot "hot"). It is really hilarious to hear people use "penultimate" to mean "even more ultimate" (something like "more unique"). "Penultimate" means the thing before the final thing, the next to last.
This was not in dictionaries until recently. It may seem like a logical companion to "overwhelm". But "overwhelm" has the primary meaning of to surge over, like a wave in the ocean. That makes "underwhelm" seem illogical. Surge under? The "whelm" part implies a strong effect, but underwhelm is used to mean that we are not affected—or that it affects us much less than we expected. So if I were a dictionary editor I would point out how illogical the word is.
I just finished reading a major book that sold extremely well. At one point the author says something should be stated "in no unequivocal terms". "Unequivocal" means "utterly clear". So what on earth can this writer mean? (Of course, he also uses "convince" when he means "persuade", so he has other imperfections.)
In an article by a medical scientist we read that a condition is "very unique". "Unique" is an absolute; there are no degrees. Nothing can be very unique or less unique. It is either unique or it is not.
What is the difference between "upcoming" and "coming"? "Upcoming" is slang, and good writers never use it. It substitutes for many other words: next, future, approaching, anticipated, forthcoming, and, of course, just plain "coming". An "upcoming appointment" is redundant. "Upcoming schedule" is, too. Don't use this stupid word!
The dictionaries call "uptight" slang. But it does combine the idea of "rigid" and the idea of "nervous", so it is a useful word. I will try not to use "uptight" again, but I want to.
9 times out of 10, when people say "usage" they mean simply "use". "Usage" refers to language. Recently, even your gas and electric bills are inclined to mention "usage". Years ago they never did.
An unnecessary word, made to order for people who like longer words. "Use" essentially covers all its meanings. "Employ" works sometimes. A fellow worker once wrote to our supervisor, "I will be spending the majority of my vacation at home. If you want to utilize me you can locate me there." This guy was practically illiterate, as you can see.
Science Daily said in December, "The Zika virus could be passed between sexual partners in venues far from mosquito habitats." "Venues" is stupid. Leave out "in venues" and you have a decent sentence. A venue is a public place where transactions take place. The word applies above all to courtrooms and trials, but also to special events. Madison Square Garden is a venue for the latter. It does not mean simply "place" or "location", and it should not be used for concert halls or opera houses. The NY Times Manual calls it "pretentious".
I recently read in a reputable journal about "the world's total spend on health care". Another verb has become a noun! This is happening all the time, to the point where one expects the language will lose the distinction entirely.
Nouns are being used as verbs, too. Only the latest dictionaries mention "foreground" as a verb, so we don't allow it. I don't like "detail" as a verb either. Both "message" and "text" are strictly nouns; their use as verbs is new and no good in writing. "Finesse", on the other hand, has long been both noun and verb, though some of us still avoid the verb.
I just read a news item about "President Obama's last ask", and on a website I read "If you plan to hotel in Manhattan..." Sometimes writers in our field talk about "a great listen"—not in ARG. Nor would we call a book a "great read".
From reading magazines I note that "transitioned" has now replaced "morphed" as the trendy word for "changed" or "became" or "turned into" (see Jan/Feb 2016: 177). Well, I was getting sick of "morphed", but "transition" is not a verb.
Our internet server tells us that they now "calendar" for their customers. Economist recently used "baseline" as a verb. ("Headline" is also used as a verb.) Science Daily referred (redundantly and bureaucratically) to "a study that probes" instead of simply "a study of". "Probe" is a favorite journalism cliche that started out as a noun with a rather specific meaning. Thanks to the computer industry, a lot of these technical words are taking over from better traditional words.
We have made a list of other nouns that are often used as verbs (beyond the above): floor (as in "floored the orchestra's fundraising campaign"), zero, access, leverage, source, reference, bookend, background, showcase, gift, favorite, privilege, parent.
Ray Hassard reports that "platform" is a verb now on the Long Island Railroad. English is degenerating into Chinese.
The computer world has used this word a lot. A computer can have a "virus"—that's not good. But when something catches on fast in "social media" it is also called "viral", even if it's good. That's odd, because in any other context when you catch a virus or when something spreads like a virus, it is not a happy thing.
Publicity now turns up daily in our office bragging about a "viral musician"—meaning, I guess, that he or she is catching on fast with the public (is "the latest thing"). I have grave doubts about this usage; if we keep using words to mean the opposite of what they used to mean ("edgy" is another example), how are we going to communicate meaning?
In 1970 the dictionary had one simple definition for this word: "caused by a virus". A virus was of course an evil thing that produced purely negative symptoms of illness and disability. Viruses also spread very quickly, as in colds and flu. No one wanted a virus.
Then came the computer virus. It was also evil and disruptive, and no one wanted it either.
Today's publicity people use "viral" to mean "the latest thing that is catching on all over the place". Maybe it's an appropriate word, because it warns some of us off—why would we be the slightest bit interested in anything "viral"? But they mean it as a compliment—as an incentive to conform. Of course, it doesn't mean that, and why would anyone choose the word "viral" to lure people? One might as well choose "gangrenous".
The virgule is the slash: /. It is miserably overused today. We often see it in place of "and" or "or" ("Jennie Jones, accordion/piano", "a work for wohu/orchestra") and often in place of a comma ("Ragnar Sumquist/arr Nelson"). These are simply wrong and irritate some of us a great deal. In music writing you sometimes see it in "Op. 12/6", where a colon is correct (Op. 12:6). It is used in place of many traditional punctuations, including the simple hyphen and dash. Garner's book on usage says "There's almost always a better choice...use it as a last resort." Its main use in ARG is to mean "conducted by"—simply our convention—or in naming our issues: May/June.
The word means in effect though not in fact. In other words, it means artificial and not real. "Virtual" concerts are not real concerts because the audience is not there for the musicians to respond to and stimulate. "Virtual" church services are not the communal worship that Jewish and Christian people require. If the people aren't there there is no worship; if the people aren't there there is no concert.
We recently read an offer for a "virtual artist in residence". Of course, that is logically impossible: if you are not there you are simply not "in residence".
This is a noun, not an adjective; but recent usage has been adjectival: a virtuoso cellist, a virtuoso piece, etc. The correct adjective is "virtuosic". We are witnessing the loss of parts of speech everywhere; verbs even become nouns, because people don't know the difference.
"She vogued around the streets of Soho." So said an English magazine. Since when is "vogue" a verb? We are witnessing the loss of the distinction between verbs and nouns, between adjectives and nouns. In fact, a whole generation of people knows nothing about "parts of speech". It is thus no surprise that the language is dying.
In French, "voguer" means to row or float, as in a boat. Maybe that writer was raised by French parents? But it was printed in an English magazine.
I am told that to "vogue" is to strike poses, like a fashion model. I'll bet dictionary editors are lining up to be the first to accept it.
"The way in which" is not wrong; it is simply stuffy and unnecessary. Healthy substitutes are "how", "that", and "the way".
There is an ever-growing list of things you cannot say. Ignore it. Say what you think (but say it grammatically!). Freedom of speech is more important than "political correctness" and requires more openness and frankness. We must not lose that.
It is easiest to dispose of "whoever" and "whomever" first. "We offer free transportation to whomever would like to go" is wrong. Most writers get it wrong. "Whoever would like to go" is the clause, so "whoever" must be nominative. "Who shall I say is calling" is correct: you wouldn't say "whom is calling".
A magazine tells us that "to advertise within the classified section, contact..." A building at the university has a sign: "No smoking within this building". Why "within"? What's wrong with "in"? Perhaps some people just think longer words are more impressive than shorter ones. The opposite is true: simplicity is true elegance. "In" should replace within, during, throughout, and many other words. "At" should also be used more.
The two longer words carry different connotations. "Within" connotes confinement (means "confined to"—boundaries). Russian children were taught to sing that Lenin lives within their hearts. Outside their hearts he is dead, and they have probably seen his preserved body in the mausoleum. "During" also implies confinement, but in time, not place. "In" is the general word and usually preferable to the other two.
One reason English is such a rich language is the existence of many words with close but distinct meanings and connotations. Unfortunately, most speakers and writers today don't know those distinctions. Their choice of words depends on what's "in the air" (commonly used) or most impressive (because longer).
This word means shriveled and dried up. Prunes are wizened plums. Applied to very old men and women it is hardly a compliment! Yet some people seem to mean "wise" when they use "wizened". Just say "wise".
There's a lot of talk about "women composers"—all ungrammatical. "Woman" cannot be an adjective. It has to be either "female composers" or "composers who are women".
This has always been a verb: the past tense of "wake". He told me to wake him at 6; I woke him at 6. It has very recently become an adjective in "trendy" usage (slang). People are described as "woke", probably because "awakened" seems like an awfully long word and "enlightened" too "elitist".
I had a 4th Grade teacher who wanted us to use "nought" instead of "zero". But since she was born in the 19th Century (as were all my teachers up to that point) she had no idea how "zero" would take over from other words: no, none, nothing, nil, lowest point, gone, vanished, and so forth. You read it all the time, and it's a typical case of a trendy word that is replacing several others. One recent dictionary calls it "informal"—just one notch above slang.
Two recent examples: a British politician said "The likelihood of compromise is zero" instead of "no compromise is possible". A magazine mentioned "zero connection" instead of no connection. It is therefore best to avoid it. Even as a number you can avoid it: you can say O. But in temperature (weather) you need "zero".
(These "festivals" give examples of common language errors.)
From a major magazine:
"John Boehner was successfully elected to a third term as speaker..." (Can one be unsuccessfully elected?)
"Travel conditions could be impacted by these conditions."
—US Weather Service
"Minor flooding issues will be possible tonight".
—same
"Saudi Arabia won't scrap its alliance with the US anytime soon." (What this means, apparently, is that Saudi Arabia is not about to discontinue its alliance with the US. The original is from The Week, an American magazine.)
"The bodies were eventually...transported to Kharkiv, where a multinational forensics team examined them before being flown back to the Netherlands." (Who was flown to the Netherlands?)
—The Economist
From the local dentist: "You have an upcoming appointment..." From an airline: "your upcoming trip is 10 days away."
From a state farmers' agency:
"The project is ongoing."
"We have pre-qualified this business to receive a loan of up to two billion dollars."
—phone robot
"As a reminder we would like to ask you to please turn off your cell phones."
—weekly at symphony concerts. (How is turning off your cell phone a reminder? A reminder of what? And, if you "would like to ask", why not just ask?)
"We have been experiencing issues with our locks." Can "issues" be experienced? What could locks possibly have to do with "issues"? Signs like this (in a locker room at the Y) make one wonder if there's a whole new language out there, replacing the English we thought we knew. Everywhere we turn there are signs and sentences that have no meaning at all in traditional English. We can understand Shakespeare from centuries back, but it is hard to understand many signs from right now.
An opera reviewer describes an "empathetic character" but obviously means "sympathetic" (but that doesn't sound trendy). Another refers to "filmic" scenes in an opera (cinematic). Yet another routinely refers to the "onstage action" ("stage action" or just plain "action" would do fine). A symphony reviewer says "he brought vigorousness to the opening theme"!
From a local newspaper:
"Win tickets to an upcoming show!" (Well, they would hardly offer tickets to a past show, would they?.) "District 30 is located within Hamilton County."
From one May issue of The Economist:
"whose family included both collaborators, resisters and bystanders." (both?)
"This ill-tempered, promiscuously focused election..."
"Few are enthused about this prospect."
The same magazine never gets "whoever" and "whomever" right. Probably some of their writers are Americans, but the truth is that the English don't do much better with the language than we do. A recent book by a major English author (Peter Lovesey) says, "The farmer insisted that they filled in the holes" and "We insisted that it was authenticated by an expert"—more examples of the English inability to use the subjunctive. As it stands neither sentence means what he obviously intended it to mean.
Any issue of The Economist will reveal their ignorance of the subjunctive. This one is from early 2016: "It is important that the government backs it". One assumes from that that the government does so. But from the context it appears that it's doubtful whether the government will back it. The subjunctive would have made that clear.
The American website Science Daily failed in the same matter: "Current guidelines recommend that saturated fats are limited to less than 10%." "Recommend" requires the subjunctive, which would be "be".
A further example of redundancy and pomposity from Economist: "These people were looking for somewhere in which to practice their faith."
"Carnegie Hall today announced that tenor Jonas Kaufmann must regrettably cancel his upcoming recital scheduled for Sunday, January 31...due to illness." (Carnegie Hall publicity has for years been among the worst written.)
Under a painting at the Cincinnati Art Museum:
"The artist, throughout the majority of his career, lived in Kyoto." What kind of illiteracy affects the people at the museum that they cannot say "for most of his career"? Our children read this in an art museum and assume it is good English! It is not only horrible; it makes no sense if you understand words.
"Implement" is bureaucratese. Bureaucrats implement initiatives.
Speaking of bureaucratese, here's what Blue Cross says on their phone system: "Please remain on the line while our customer satisfaction advocate researches your inquiry."
"Prior to" is also bureaucratic. I recently read "prior to its closure"; I am bright enough to realize that they meant "before it closed", but why don't people say what they mean—say it directly and simply?
"Major", like "very", is used way too often.
Recently Lang Lang was signed by Deutsche Grammophone. The press release said that he is "the world's most impactful pianist" and called him a "superstar". We are well aware that the big labels are only interested in "superstars", but what does "the world's most impactful pianist" mean?—that he bangs the poor instrument harder than anybody else? What else could it mean? It's not acceptable English!
One of our major orchestras advertised in their season booklet that "First-time subscribers recieve a free parking pass." Yes! What most of us learned in second grade has not been learned by adults who work in important jobs for our orchestras: "I before E, except after C..." (You would think that the computer spell check would refuse to let it pass!)
The San Francisco Symphony press release of next season brags about "immersive concert experiences". Do they realize what a turn-off language like that is? How stupid it sounds to well-educated people? In trying to be trendy, classical music publicity people are alienating their actual, loyal audience.
Apollo's Fire advertised that they will perform "undiscovered works of Vivaldi". One of our readers sent the comment, "If they are undiscovered, how can they play them?"
"Repurpose" has become a popular verb. The words we used to use were "adapt" or "convert"—perfectly adequate. "Repurpose" was not in the dictionary until recently.
A local storage company advertises "free truck usage".
The weather service is now saying "partial cloudiness" instead of the correct "partly cloudy". They also issue "hazardous weather bulletins" (and alarms) that say (after listing two dozen counties) "no hazardous weather is expected at this time". The weather service has also been invaded by the "issues" nonsense, as in "heavy rainfall will cause flooding issues". They even talk about places that will "experience flooding issues". All of that is so asinine I laugh uproariously every time they say it.
"We are experiencing intermittent technical issues" says the Cincinnati Public Library. You would think librarians, of all people, would know the language. But perhaps such notices are not written by them but by "techies".
Still very common on the Internet is the superfluous "successfully", as in "you have been successfully removed from our list". Either I have been removed or I have not; the "successfully" is stupid. (July/Aug 2013, p 191)
We are told that a certain artist "is set to release an upcoming classical music album". People use that horrible word because it is trendy, even when it is utterly unnecessary. A news magazine referred to "countries that have upcoming elections". Why not "countries about to have elections"? Or even "soon to have elections"? "Soon" is one of the great words replaced everywhere these days by "upcoming".
"Comprised of" is always wrong, yet it is very common these days because no one seems to know (July/Aug 2005, p 113).
We recently got publicity announcing "our innovative new programming series". Another one bragged about "our exciting, innovative initiative".
When we wrote about "pre disease" (March/April 2013) we didn't mention what has become the latest stupidity in that line: "pre-recorded". Anything recorded played at a concert is now called "pre-recorded". Almost anything with "pre" in front of it gains by leaving that out. For example, you cannot "pre-board" an airplane, even if every airline announces early boarding that way. And you can't "pre-order" anything; you just order it.
We are seeing "plus" used instead of "and" in much writing submitted to us. They are not interchangeable. For one thing, "plus" does not have the conjunctive force of "and", so it does not make the verb plural.
Language changes, they say. What mostly happens is that people are stupid and lazy and don't bother to learn English, and their mistakes catch on with millions of other people who also lazy and ignorant. Should that be how language changes? The people who should be policing and protecting the language have given up (teachers, for example). It's hard to blame them; things are such a mess! But it means the language is degenerating daily and before our eyes. Someone in his 70s today has trouble understanding someone in his 20s—yet has almost no trouble understanding Shakespeare and the King James Bible. This is not normal language change! We are losing it; the pace of change is out of control, and the language is becoming a mess.
The sheer quantity of material is overwhelming. The people who write obviously can't. It just gets worse every day.
We were invited to a lecture by a visual artist on the subject (our word; his was probably "issue") "The Diversity of Pastels". The Concertgebouw Orchestra advertised a piece by a composer whose music is "diverse". Science News tells us our brain is "teeming with diversity". I have no idea what that could mean, though I like to think my brain is versatile. The words people use regularly tell you how little they think for themselves. They think thoughts that are handed to them, fully phrased and guaranteed to sound "with it", because it's the approved way of thinking and talking.
"Walt Disney Concert Hall is one of four venues that comprise the music center." That one sentence, from a travel magazine, has at least two wrong usages.
"The platform was packed with people waiting to welcome Veronica and I." (from an online newsletter).
A musician was described in her publicity as "a woman of immersive passion". Does swimming thrill her?
Another publicist wrote about someone "who's latest CD is..."
Nouns used as verbs: party, soundtrack (publicity: "The music is used to soundtrack her life's story.") "Threatening to find a candidate to primary the latter" (The Week).
Verbs used as nouns: build (Habitat for Humanity: "join us in a home build"—and, by the way, you can't "build" (verb) a "home"—only a house). From a software company: "Here is the next step for your install." About a Hollywood star: "Her reveal was shocking." On the web, "This invite will expire in 24 hours". A request is now an "ask"; an expense is a "spend".
Manipulating the pulses of electrical activity in the thalamus during non-REM sleep make mice remember or forget. (Science Daily in July). Apparently people can no longer figure out what is the subject of a sentence. Here it's "manipulating", so the verb must be "makes", not "make". It is shocking that we have to explain this to supposedly educated adults.
"Six troops were injured, three of them seriously" said The Week in August. "Troop" is a collective noun, like "band". It is clear from the context that six soldiers were injured, not six troops.
"We express our sincere condolences to the two people who lost their lives and their families." That's what NARP said in their newsletter (National Association of Railroad Passengers). The sentence is ungrammatical and ambiguous. Did two people lose their families? It seems to me that if they lost their lives, their families lost them. And how can you give condolences to dead people? And it is wrong to describe your own feelings as "sincere"; that's for others to decide. But NARP is normally pretty ungrammatical in their weekly newsletter.
Another transit article said "we are focused on the importance of improving the functionality first". (bureaucratic gobbledygook)
Amtrak has appointed someone to be "responsible for the advancement of information security awareness, governance and processes".
Again about railroads, we are told that the building of a new line "will relieve traffic issues". Even "problems" would be too general, when we have the word "congestion".
A report on construction says, "The work has run smoothly with little to no issue." What can that mean? No results?
A politician talked about "a stark comparative contrast".
The Boston Symphony in September announced "a new innovative community engagement program". Both new and innovative! Wow! (It's the same old stuff, of course.) Some publicists add the word "ground-breaking".
Opera News sent an e-mail inviting us to "experience Opera News". Isn't it enough just to read it?
A writer in the Washington Post in October told us people are afraid of what someone will "share" in court.
A hotel restaurant tells us they commissioned someone to "create signature recipes". Next they will be creating new traditions.
From Science News: "Dark matter still remains elusive."
National Geographic tells of "a curated tour of daily North Korean life". Is that what used to be called a "guided tour"? Or maybe it is a carefully planned tour. But "curated"? Trendy.
Economist continues to fail Punctuation 101: "If the tax laws change Tim Cook, Apple's boss should wind down the structure..." The same magazine recently asked if something was "politically doable". Yuck!
I can only conclude that by failing to teach English to a whole generation of people (here and in England!) we have failed to pass on a great thing—and as a result, people who are writing for public consumption are destroying the language.
UCLA announced a concert "featuring Legacy artists" like Joan Baez. In a major article TV and movies were called "legacy media". "Legacy" (as an adjective, no less!) is starting to turn up in publicity, where it apparently means "old".
I am reading a good new mystery series from an American writer; it takes place in Greece. The Greeks all use American slang. They even "share" instead of talk, "convince" each other to do things instead of persuade, and say "damnit" instead of dammit. They use "in synch" and "diverse" (the latter where it's superfluous). They are always "aggravated" instead of annoyed, they are "disinterested" instead of not interested, they have "money issues", they mention "one of the only", and they almost never use the subjunctive where they should. The writer has no idea when to use "whoever" versus "whomever", though he taught writing at a US college. In the first book in the series he complains that the sunset came "a might too quickly"! His books are very entertaining, but even good writers don't seem to understand the language these days. The editing and proofing is apparently done by computer. And people ask me why I read almost no mysteries or novels from after 1960.
American Express: "your top month of spend". Publicity title: "New Announce". "Add" instead of "addition". People don't know a noun from a verb anymore.
Cincinnati newspaper headline in March: "Aquarium Let's People In". On the website that was "corrected" to "Newport's Aquarium's". Well, at least they moved the apostrophe around—but obviously the writer has no idea where it belongs. And, as usual, there is no editor or proofreader.
"Fading La Nina May Queue Up Enhanced Severe Weather Risk for Southern Plains." (online weather report) Grammatically, what could this mean? The idea seems to be that the fading thing may lead to severe weather, but why couldn't they say that? How do you "queue up" a "weather risk"?
"Her upcoming recordings include" (common in publicity we get here) should be simply "her recordings will include". People are increasingly unable to conjugate verbs. And "will" indicates future, so "upcoming" is redundant. "He will perform at the upcoming royal wedding" is just plain stupid. Would you say he "will perform" at a past wedding? The word "upcoming" makes me sick.
Publicity: "a thoughtfully innovative conductor...who is focused on making the audience experience at his performances entertaining, enlightening, and enriching".
"Growing up in Northern Kentucky, my grandfather used to take me for walks around town." (Internet) WHO grew up in Northern Kentucky?
"German violin soloist David Garrett has cancelled four more upcoming performances due to an ongoing herniated disc issue in his back."
Later the same website told us it was "an ongoing back injury". Later still they reported it as "due to his ongoing lower back issue". I understand "his" and "lower back", but the rest is nonsense (due to, upcoming, ongoing, and issue). Certainly an "injury" is not an "ongoing" thing. The person who wrote this can't write—can't write at all and should be fired.
We have published lists of meaningless generalities used all the time in publicity—things like "innovative". We left out "provocative", also a vastly overused attention-getter. Another one is "exclusive". We get an "exclusive" offer every week from the same company, which sends that same offer to millions of people. It is NOT exclusive if no one is excluded.
"Intensive" is often used when "intense" is meant—another example of "always use the bigger word", just like "distinctive" instead of "distinct".
We got publicity from England about a piece of music that is "passionately performed by [a] children's choir". Intensely? Powerfully? With enthusiasm? NOT passionately!
Other publicity tells us about a musician's "mega birthday bash".
"Large waves churned by Hurricane Florence pounds North Carolina coast." —AccuWeather
Opera News tells us repeatedly that a conductor "paces" a concert. A new cliche is born!
The New York Baroque recently advertised a concert called #Bach.
"You don't have to make a big investment to impact a big change." (interview in a local paper)
Students at local colleges were told recently to eat something so they can "power through" their exams.
We have complained before about "venue" (July/Aug 2017). It is pompous for "place", just as "prior to" is pompous for "before". In both cases pompous has triumphed—it's everywhere.
We have also complained about "segue". "Sugued to" is routinely used instead of "moved on to".
I keep getting ads encouraging me to "pre-order" stuff. But no one can "pre-order" anything; an order is an order. (Neither can you "pre-board" a plane.)
"Major", like "very", is used way too often.
"Comprised of" is always wrong, yet it is very common these days because no one seems to know.
Often "insights" should be "clues" or "indications". Other words that "insights" has taken over for are thoughts, ideas, conclusions, perceptions—well, there are dozens.
The word "hearken" (also spelled "harken") has nothing to do with the past. It just means "listen".
"Fulsome" praise is insincere, not abundant.
"Proven" should normally be "proved". The only clear exception is in legal usage, as in "not proven".
"Impact" has completely replaced "effect" in popular speech and writing—and it's terrible.
"The way in which" is stuffy.
"Upcoming" is never right and usually redundant.
People routinely write that so-and-so is not about to do such-and-such "anytime soon". It is redundant (twice redundant in that sentence) and a miserable cliche.
"Prior approval", heard all the time in pharmacies, is also redundant.
Everyone seems to prefer "prior to" to "before", but it's stuffy and legal-sounding—and "before you go" is so much better than "prior to going".
"Exclusive" is used a lot to impress consumers, but you can be sure that it is a lie.
Pompous executives love to call themselves "President and CEO". Why? It's redundant; the president of any company simply is the chief executive officer—by definition.
"Zero" is often used now to mean "no" or "none" (as in the now-popular "zero tolerance"). That is called "informal" in dictionaries, not to be used in writing. "Its impact is zero" should be something like, "It has no effect." The word is also used as a verb these days.
"Upcoming Events in 2019" (DG publicity in January)
"This weekend's upcoming concerts" (orchestra)
"Your upcoming trip is in two weeks" (airline)
"Upcoming opportunities" (a graduate school)
"Announcing our upcoming workshop" (publicity)
Every day we read that ridiculous and unnecessary word. Why do people use it? They obviously don't think about it.
Another meaningless word is "exclusive". It is used too much, and quite often it cannot possibly mean anything at all in the context. It has become just a "sales word" to stir interest. Words that are used too much lose meaning, especially if the writer doesn't know what they mean in the first place.
"Their discussion focused on..." (They discussed)
"The government had our back"—a Chinese person. It's a slang American expression (from sports?), but many of us don't know what it means.
Speaking of government, a report published nationally in March told us of a 2020 budget request that was "dropped this week" (meaning submitted) and "includes big asks" (requests).
"About your issue", read recently, should be "about your point" (it was referring to a discussion). Thus "issue" replaces yet another word. A best-selling author of Victorian-period mysteries has "issue" on almost every page in one of her latest. No one a few years ago (not even she) would have used that word that often and that way (to mean affair, matter, even "case")—certainly not Victorians!
A mail piece from one of my graduate schools offers me a chance to "operationalize" my knowledge. There is no such word.
An artist in Youngstown, Ohio has been praised for "rebranding" the city. Apart from cowboys, is "brand" a verb? The Cincinnati Symphony also has a new "brand": CSO Proof. Very silly.
A local church told us to "calendar" February 10.
A travel website promises us "the secret of sourcing the cheapest flights". "Source", which is not a verb, has come to mean "find". What was wrong with "find"? Who needs "source"?
We continue to see more use of the newly invented and utterly unnecessary noun, "hack", to mean hint or tip. Trendy usages catch on very fast and turn up everywhere. Six months ago it was very rare.
Economist magazine continues to confuse who and whom. In February they write about "giving a federal job to whomever wants one". "Whomever" is incorrect. Would you say "whom wants one"?
The Economist also uses the English "woke" where other English speakers would say "enlightened" ("his attitude is not exactly woke"). And they don't know the subjunctive. But the English—even otherwise good writers—mostly haven't used the subjunctive in 40 or 50 years. That's too bad, because without it there is ambiguity.
From an orchestra marketing department: "one of the ultimate" and "Mozart's innovative Symphony 39". These people pull adjectives out of a hat and simply throw them at music. They don't know the music, and they don't know what the words mean. This is the current standard. None of these people deserve their jobs; they are ignorant and stupid. None of them can write. Why were they hired to do that?
We have begun to see "hate on" in place of "hate". "Don't be hating on me!"
Don O'Connor passes along the words of a TV commentator discussing "a secretive air base". An air base cannot be "secretive". Only people can—and some animals.
A local paper discusses "bus stop usage". There is no such thing.
The same paper calls a local pub "as chill as they come".
Boston Lyric Opera says that its first Pagliacci "will be presented as an immersive community experience". Gobbledygook.
We see more and more publicity that uses it's for its. No one in my third grade class would have done that.
(This reminds us of things we have covered in Word Police blurbs—and also reminds us that Word Police are more needed than ever.)
"One in five deaths are attributable..." (Science Daily)
Science Daily also told us about how the Venus Fly Trap "successfully captures its prey".
The same source tells us about "carefully curated tissue samples"; a few years ago they would have used "chosen" or "selected".
We often read "reign in" for "rein in".
"Feedback" is a pretentious word for comment or response. One gets requests for "feedback" every day, and they are terrible time-wasters.
We have recently seen (in a book, too!) the miserable "problematic" (Nov/Dec 2014) used as a noun. (The adjective is everywhere.) Perhaps "problem" is too simple?
Samples from an Oregon Shakespeare Festival announcement:
As Rauch began the reveal, Garrett, who was seated alongside, asked Rauch to sit down. Rauch's familiar toothy grin gave way to a guffaw as he noted Garrett's superb, demonstrated qualifications as a director, and the two continued the reveal from seated positions.
Also: caused them both to be more intentional
Later: theater initiative to surface new and marginalized voices.
From the local cathedral, both in April:
"for she and her family"
"challenge you and I"
Apparently even well-educated people don't know simple grammar.
It has finally happened. The Weather Service has committed many language crimes, including areas or land "experiencing flooding issues". But now they have (partly) abandoned the traditional "partly cloudy" for the vastly inferior "partial cloudiness". Everyone these days thinks in nouns. And "partial" is ambivalent. (How can clouds be partial?)
"Persons should be alert for thunderstorms" apparently means there may be thunderstorms. But why "persons"? The plural of persons is people. And I always thought you could hear a thunderstorm. It doesn't require much alertness. "The impacted area includes" means covering the area of (or affecting). No one at the weather service speaks English.
Appearing now at Cincinnati crosswalks: "STOP for pedestrians within the crosswalk". Why "within"? What's wrong with "in"? One hears the same thing in speech quite often: "during" or "within" in place of the simple "in". But it's especially silly on signs made to be grasped instantly by drivers.
In Economist magazine: "This time...it looks as if this time is different." The same article talks about a politician "pumping the breaks". In another issue, "In the years to come...in the coming years". Certainly that magazine can afford editors and proofreaders. The writing gets worse every issue.
Nouns used as verbs recently:
A woman used her daughter's "distress to guilt a school into admitting her" though she had failed the entrance exams.
We were told that President Nixon "tasked the EPA with protecting Americans' health and the environment". He never heard of the word.
A major publicity firm announced a "weekend intensive for showcase producing". What could that possibly mean? "Intensive" is not a noun in any dictionary, for one thing. And how does one "produce" showcases? And what is a showcase?
A major book publisher just sent us publicity for "books that may peak your interest".
Recent publicity for a musician called her "awe-inspiring". Well, "awe" involves respect and reverence mixed with dread and wonder; it applies to things majestic, such as God. No musician is awe-inspiring; they are just human beings of great talent and ability. Even the latest dictionaries call "awesome" slang, so I guess publicity people are settling for "awe-inspiring".
In a recent magazine article "confirmation bias" is defined as "curating evidence to fit preconceptions". That's a new usage of a "trendy" word (curating). We used to say picking or choosing, selecting or gathering. Slang is replacing many plainer, more exact English words and expressions.
Another instance was "your exclusive invite" (so it was headed) from a major art museum in New England. "Invite" is not a noun, except in slang. The invitation was sent to hundreds or thousands of people all over the country, so it was NOT exclusive. In fact, it was publicity, which is by definition the opposite of exclusive. I might add that the museum itself cannot be very "exclusive" if the people there don't know the language.
A major website acknowledged my "accept" (acceptance)—another verb used as a noun—the distinction is fading, because people cannot learn it—or simply will not. Other popular ones are "reveal", "send", and "ask". 20 years ago no one used them as nouns.
Economist tells us something was "trialled". "Trial" is a noun, not a verb. "Try" is the verb.
The Cincinnati airport tells us that the approach road is "experiencing changes"! "Experience" is horribly cliched—a common verb of choice, vague enough to cover almost anything—but, really, can a road experience anything? It also sounds fashionably passive. The truth is, "We are changing the road." I guess that's too direct.
The state of Ohio sent us an announcement of their new unemployment insurance system. It "will provide a user-friendly, self-service experience, tailored to meet the needs of claimants and employers alike". It includes "multiple payment options". I guess it's too much to expect anything but propaganda and cliches from a state government. (It is also normal for such changes—from any bureaucracy—to make everything worse and more complicated rather than better and simpler.) Sometimes I wonder if Americans in general would even understand real English. Maybe not.
Even the YMCA where I do some of my swimming has propaganda signs on every wall, pushing politically correct thoughts and terminology. Wherever we look we are being told what to think. Television remains extremely destructive of free thought and of language. For a long time it has been unbearable to people who think for themselves.
One rule of politics is "if you can't convince people, confuse them." That works very well these days. Make a lot of noise about anything and everything—it doesn't matter if it's completely irrational. It doesn't matter if it contradicts what you said last week—in fact, that adds to the confusion.
The weather service increasingly falls back on "partly sunny" on perfectly clear days, in case they missed a wisp of cloud somewhere. They claim to have an "unmanned" (may we still say that?) station at the airport. Unfortunately, just west of the airport is a power plant that projects some white steam most of the time. Their cameras must think that is a cloud. As a result, Cincinnati's official weather records have been wrong for years. There are far more cloudless days than they think there are. This is a sunny place.
"Stephane Deneve and the St Louis Symphony share details for the 2019-20 season." Share? Are they going to tell us the details, or is it just between the conductor and the musicians?
Orchestra publicity people routinely say that a conductor has cancelled or withdrawn "due to health issues". If he is ill, why not say so? Both "due to" and "issues" are bad usage.
In one recent issue of Economist "primary" was used as a verb, which it's not. Also: "incautious" and "unserious". But the major problem with that magazine is the use of British slang in every issue—their writers love slang. Sometimes one has no idea what they mean.
Another typical Economist error is the dangling participle. See if you can make sense of this sentence: "Rundown by the 1980s, developers began snatching up properties." Grammar declares that developers were run down, but if you go back to the beginning of the article you will figure out that "rundown" refers to a place.
Recent CBC publicity described a classical singer as an "opera rock star". It would seem that "rock star" means the brightest star in the firmament, and there can be no greater compliment to a singer! The publicist seems unaware that anyone who cares about opera despises "rock stars".
A local newspaper, part of a big national chain, described an event as full of "joyness and excitement". Joyness? That's as bad as "hopefulness".
The Met Opera advertizes: "Madama Butterfly encores in a theatre near you." "Encore" as a verb means "to request an encore". How does Madame Butterfly do that? An audience can do that at the end of a concert. A work of music cannot do it; nor can a performer. If they mean "returns to", why not say that?
"In Denmark 40% of all journeys to school and work transpire by bicycle." (New York Times in November) Journeys cannot "transpire". What on earth could that mean? "Transpire" means come to light, become known. They could have said "are" or "were" or even "happened". One dictionary calls "transpired" "pompous" in such a context.
An ad: "One single hack can improve your memory." What on earth are they talking about?
Chicago's Ravinia Festival has announced a "Curator"—Marin Alsop.
The Portland, Oregon piano series announced that Vladimir Feltsman would be their "Guest Curator" for the next season. The New York Philharmonic in the new season folder calls series subscriptions "Curated Series". (Shark meat?) In case you don't keep up with arts slang, it means Artistic Director. Orchestras and music festivals cannot have a curator—only museums can. A curator oversees a permanent collection of art works, not a series of concerts. Carnegie Hall publicity expands the meaning of the word further: they tell us that a concert is "curated by". A concert cannot be curated any more than a festival can. They are planned.
An opera company that has been called "a hotbed of innovation" and seems to like that has announced for next season "a wide variety of operatic happenings at multiple venues" [eek!].
Opera companies in their ads increasingly refer to things like "Mozart's The Magic Flute". (The Met does this routinely.) Publicity people do not know the simple grammatical rule that the possessive deletes the article. There seem to be no editors anymore to correct the increasingly stupid speaking and (therefore) writing that our newspapers and other media subject us to.
Festival 8: Trendy Words, or The State of Journalism
The US Weather Service recently told everyone after predicting rain that "there may be flooding issues". That is illiterate. They simply meant "there may be flooding". What has "issues" to do with it? I guess they simply have to use trendy words. Or maybe they want to sound like TV weather people. Everyone, it seems, imitates TV. Pitiful! (But predictable: people don't think. TV does their thinking for them—even sets their vocabulary.)
The Week tells us that an aircraft "had experienced engine issues". Can an airplane "experience" anything? And what are "issues"? An online article talked about loans that experienced default. Again, can a loan experience anything? How stupid and illogical this kind of talk is—but it's everywhere. Often the use of "There is (or were)" would get rid of it—or a simple "had" or "got". The airplane had engine problems.
We were told in one respectable news source that politicians were about to "crater" a program—I guess they mean, drastically reduce it. "Crater" is not a verb, and dictionaries still call its use as a verb "slang". Its transitive use is not even recognized; a program can "crater" (slang for decline), but one cannot crater a program.
Speaking of politics, the newspeople have a specialized jargon. One has read about an effort to "flip a blue state". What does that mean? It is jargon, not plain English. And one article told how a party was trying to "grow their majority". That makes no sense. You can grow vegetables, and you can even grow a beard; but you can only increase or add to your majority (or reduce it).
Everyone under a certain age uses "majority" instead of "most". A science website tells us that "the majority of the canyon..." The weather service says "high pressure will keep the majority of the area sunny". One more example: The New York Times says two British "royals" want to "spend the majority of their time in North America". 51% or more? (The correct word is again "most".) This is as pitiful as the "multiple" disease (instead of several, a few, many, etc). The latest instances of that were "multiple times" instead of "often", "multiple locations" instead of "many places", and "multiple people" (egad!).
Language is impoverished by this sort of thing—and it's obvious that the people who write it have an impoverished vocabulary.
Times again: "The bodies of two troops..." They mean two soldiers. A troop is a group.
Again: bodies "laying on the ground". Eggs? Were they hens?
Again: "Single use blood testing devices were used on multiple people." What a miserable sentence!
The same website tells us that some people are "experiencing bloodclot issues". Dreadful trendy slang.
A sentence (Times) tells about donating a donation. Such redundancies are written by dunderheads—yet very common. They figure if people can give a gift (nowadays, "gift a gift") they can reasonably donate a donation. One can even read about the reception someone received—in those words.
A magazine had a book review and a wine review on the same page. We were told the book was "a great read" and the wine "a great pour". Music reviews routinely call a CD "a great listen". That one is turning up in recent dictionaries. "Listen" was not a noun in the past. We are apparently losing the distinction between verbs and nouns. "Write" and "reveal" and "invite" are used as nouns, too, these days. The news media recently referred to "the president's asks". Illiterate.
Economist magazine routinely uses "rubbish" and "bin" as verbs. "Bin" is used that way all over Britain. Every trash barrel says "bin your trash" or "bin your rubbish", but to rubbish an idea seems new, if perhaps a natural next stage of degeneration. Another article talks about Moscow "experiencing a terrorist attack". They meant to say "Moscow under a terrorist attack".
Back to the NY Times: "ironicity" meaning "irony" and "tell" as a noun. The first is part of the current pattern of making adjectives into nouns by adding suffixes—like "gracefulness" (out of "graceful") instead of "grace". The only legitimate use of "tell" as a noun is in the field of archeology. But people no longer understand the distinction between verbs and nouns. The simplest grammatical rules elude them. That is partly because we are not teaching grammar—and that is partly because it might damage some tender students' "self-esteem" to be told that the way they talk and write is wrong. (So, obviously, political correctness contributes to the degeneration of our language.)
NY Times redundancy (website): "an annual Covid-19 shot once a year".
Also NY Times (badly edited these days): In March President Biden was to "deliver an address commemorating the anniversary of the pandemic". But to commemorate something is to honor it.
A magazine that I get referred recently on its web site to "a government statistical release dropped today". We used to say, "statistics the government announced (or released) today". A release was dropped? Where does such a bizarre construction come from? Are they trying to avoid saying that a release was released?
"I want to reach out to you personally"—those are the first words of an email sent to millions of people by the CEO of an airline (about the virus). Pure nonsense.
On another website, "I want to talk to whomever is in charge." Of course that should "whoever" (Sept/Oct 2013), but people go to great lengths to show that they know grammar—and thus reveal that they don't. "Whoever" is the subject of the clause. Would you say "him is in charge"?
Computer World: "Tips for the curation of your posts" (curation??)
"the frequency in which you receive them" (Once we would have said "how often you get them"—and that is correct.)
"There will be no demand for replacement planes on the horizon." This is not credible. On some horizon, some day, there may be such a demand. They mean that there isn't now. The Weather Service often says "Tomorrow there will be the possibility of showers." Same error, really—redundant future. "Showers are possible tomorrow" is correct.
This started many years ago, when English teachers decided not to teach grammar. (see Dumbing Down, 1996, edited by Katharine Washburn)
One very good magazine talks constantly about "providing insights". They mean just plain "ideas" or "help us understand".
I like to read historical novels, partly because every one of them eventually commits a prolepsis or a linguistic anachronism. The people who write them seem unaware that many of their expressions did not exist in the period they are writing about. The most recent example I saw is the use of "venue" to mean simply "place" in a novel that supposedly takes place in the mid-19th Century. (In fact, people never said that in the mid-20th Century either, and in the 1970 dictionary "venue" is essentially a legal term.)
A magazine that I like very much (The American Prospect) has a writer who doesn't know English. He thinks "disinterested" means "not interested". He talks about "one of the only things we should be thinking about" and getting the new vaccines "to every corner of the globe". Can a globe have corners? Another sentence from their website: "Nobody would no." He referred to "a potentially impactful contagion". He commented that "the power of the New Deal lied in industrial development". This is a good magazine, but apparently no one edits the website writer, who doesn't know the language. There are bloopers like this almost every day.
The Wall Street Journal actually published this miserable sentence: "The curators have succeeded masterfully."
NBC News called a criminal "America's most prolific serial killer". Odd usage: "prolific" is generally a positive word and pro-life.
We increasingly see mistakes that spell-checkers cannot catch. An example is "lead" instead of "led". In a major newspaper we saw "in" where they meant "is".
USA Today tells us that in Australia cockatoos are "a protective species".
In a New York Times briefing "we're covering the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, President Biden's climate goals and spring gardening tips." I'm so glad we finally have a president who passes along gardening tips. (At least they didn't call them "hacks".) Sentences like that simply demand a serial comma.
Also NY Times: "the investigation remains ongoing". They mean "continues" or "they are investigating". Bad writers resort all the time to the "noun is adjective" kind of sentence, when all they really need is a decent verb.
The same web site tells us that "these 12 recipes are great for outdoor hangs". What is an outdoor hang? Is this short for "hanging around outdoors"? If so, it's not in the dictionary.
In recent written weather report we were told that a "hurricane was attributed to one fatality".
Stupidities 9: publicity
Summer publicity promotes "an immersive walk-through experience", and a few minutes later "an in-home hi/lo-tech experience".
The 1970 dictionary defined "campus" as "the grounds of a school or college". In 2020 we got publicity that said "the Lincoln Center Campus" had suspended public performances for the rest of March "to prioritize the health of our communities". No one my age could think of Lincoln Center as a "campus", and none of us would use that miserable word "prioritize", either. As any good usage book will tell you, "prioritize" smells of bureaucracy.
A publicity notice told us about a famous actor who "commentates a film documentary". (Obviously an illegitimate back-formation from "commentator". But note that the latest dictionaries accept it.)
"The process of compromise achieved from our diversity as individual artists can create deeply impactful experiences for our audiences." —an all-white musical group, promoting their concert (Ah, but some of them are women!)
From liner notes: "Originally written for string quartet, the composer always believed that (it) could be reorchestrated and expanded". So the composer was written. This kind of stupid sentence is everywhere now. All it needs is "it was" at the beginning and "but" after the comma to be rational. Apparently no one edits liner notes.
From an obituary: "He died sadly..." How do they know how he felt about dying? Maybe he was glad to be free of this miserable world. What they were trying to say was that it is sad for us that he has died—and that's not at all the way to say it.
Statement from a medical school about the new virus: "The evidence for these measures are not as strong as we would like it to be."
When did "share" come to mean "tell" or "pass along"? Why do people write "focus" all the time?—as in "focus their energy on" instead of "direct their energy to" and "our focus is" for "We are trying to". Why do people "experience growth"? Why don't they just "grow"? "Experience" has come to replace see, hear, have, etc. Why? Inanimate things are even said to "experience" stuff.
As one of our writers said to me, "An entire nation is starting to talk like 11-year-old girls." (And write!)
Economist routinely and repeatedly refers to innoculations as "jabs". Many of the writers in that magazine take pride in their use of slang. Why?
Good grammar and usage are apparently considered "elitist" in the USA as well. Editors (if they exist) are allowing bad English all the time, especially if it reflects the way people talk. Once upon a time they corrected mistakes, even in quoting someone.
Why do the media consider "primary" a verb? Musical America recently used "farewell" as a transitive verb. Apparently any noun can become a verb these days. Language is becoming a free-for-all.
Transitive and intransitive verbs are confused now. An English novel talks about "progressing" the cause. You can't progress anything; it's intransitive.
Verbs also freely become nouns. The Economist referred to a budget request as "a much bigger ask". Since when is "ask" a noun? "Tell" is used the same way.
Why do people say "need to access" when "need access to" is as simple and actually correct?
Why "school closures" when they mean "school closings"?
I read a lot—4 or 5 books a week. It is obvious when a book was written from its usages. Even authors whose books I like routinely use "usage" for use, "convince" for persuade, "multiple" and "focus" in place of a dozen better words. "Multiple" is vague and doesn't tell you whether it's 2 or 100. Why do people use it? Why did we read recently in a weather report that water was "multiple feet deep"? How stupid that sounds! Even "a few" or "several" is better, but "4 or 5 feet deep" would tell the reader much more. And we too often read "multiple times" for "often".
Another common error is "to whomever..." "I want to speak to whoever is in charge" is correct. The last 4 words are a clause, and the subject must be nominative.
"Within" is very popular now; people always seem to prefer bigger words to smaller ones, and we've seen "within" replace not only "in" but also "at". People also use "during" instead of "in" and "at", for presumably the same reason. Word choice these days is not based on meaning but on making an impression.
All of these idiocies are fairly recent. For example, I really like Margaret Truman's Washington mysteries, but the early ones had none of these, and the most recent ones (say, after 1990) are loaded with them. Often there will be 4 or 5 such errors on one page. Why? Why did she fall in with the prevailing degeneracy of the language?
I just came across another anachronism in a novel. A 19th Century sheriff says that one of his deputies has "zero investigative ability". No one used "zero" to mean "no" until quite recently. (It's everywhere now—to my disgust. The New York Times used it twice in the same article—about congress—to mean "no one".) The same generally excellent writer, who wrote about 160 works of fiction, always uses "convince" instead of "persuade". (The rule is that you convince of but persuade to.) And he has characters "share" instead of "tell". Why do even good writers absorb the latest cliches and sloppiness?
In September USA Today referred to "the late Robert F Kennedy".
"Austria's Grafenegg Festival Maintain's 2020 Dates"
A new executive at a New York arts center is charged with "diversifying represented genres, showcasing diverse excellence". The trendy buzz-word is used twice in one sentence, apparently to prove how "woke" they are.
From one issue of The Economist:
The world-wide chip shortage is thankfully easing. "Premia" instead of "premiums". (Occasionally an American will write "stadia" instead of "stadiums", but I always assumed that was meant to be humorous.) Both are called "pedantic" in usage manuals. "Proactive" turns up, as usual, though I always thought that was an American coinage (and bureaucratic). It's miserably overused.
We still often read "sadly he died". And we often read "more loudly" instead of "louder".
From USA Today about a woman who jumped off a 30-story building: "Her impact will live on". Did she make a hole in the street?
From the NY Times online: "The world has administered 10 billion vaccine doses administered." Obviously there are no editors anymore.
Also in the NY Times: "Dollar pizza is facing an existential crisis." That's a silly way to tell us that a New York "tradition" is coming to an end because of inflation. "Existential" turns up everywhere—and is usually wrong.
Times again: "Ukraine features many Russian speakers." Features? That's not just a fancy word for "has". It is stupid.
"Apologism" is turning up here and there. It is a totally unnecessary word for "apology", probably used because people think "apology" means to say "I'm sorry".
A New Zealand newspaper headline: LESS HOMES, HIGHER RENTS. "Less homes" should be "fewer houses". Apparently they don't know the difference in New Zealand any more than they do in the USA.
A classy English newspaper discusses a "crisis that could hole the Tories". "Hole" is not a verb!
Also in the nouns as verbs department, "primary" is now used as a verb in this country. So is "message".
We are told that Tesla has thousands of "pre-orders" for cars. There is no such thing as a "pre-order". To order something is to ask to be sold it later. Two orchestras so far have sent us publicity about a "pre sale". They used to say "advance sale". "Pre" can usually be dispensed with.
When Lincoln Center announced the current season they called attention to everything trendy, cross-genre, and multicultural, pretty much ignoring the classical elements.
San Francisco Opera announces (actual words) Instigators...a Bold, New, Multidisciplinary Initiative...designed to pioneer future directions for San Francisco Opera and the art form.... [These 6 people] will take part in conversations, rehearsals, performances, and immersive activities at SF Opera.
Miami Opera brags about their new "immersive opera experiences".
Publicity, like news, is always exaggerated. The idea, apparently, is to make an impression. So every musician, every concert, is "bold", "ground-breaking", "immersive", "stunning". And every publicity write-up begins with how "excited" and "thrilled" the orchestra (or whatever) is to tell us the news. I wonder if they really think an editor is impressed by such adjectives. Do they think they get more coverage by using such words? What actually happens is that an editor makes a mental list of the handful of publicity people that seem to have some integrity (and sense of language) and ends up ignoring the rest.
"Her mom" is everywhere and now practically normal, though it is wrong, is slang.
On Quora we have the question, "At what mileage do most cars start having issues?" Asinine.
I called a local utility and was put on "hold" (of course) and had to listen to repeated messages until I screamed and gave up: "Your bill is comprised of", "based on your usage", "if there are issues with your meter", it "is located at", and finally, "If you feel you may be in danger". All the "hold" messages were ungrammatical—usually it's not ALL, but that's the way it's going. No one seems to know right from wrong—no one at any company seems to be able to correct the grammar of the publicity people—or even sometimes of their chief executives. And it has been at least 40 years since you could expect decent grammar from TV news. That doesn't matter to me, because I never watch it.
A major magazine said that a political group was "among the most fulsome supporters for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan". They meant "strongest supporters". "Fulsome" means "insincere". No one uses a dictionary and there are no editors, so writers don't use words correctly—and that is everywhere!
Magazines are now asking for money to support them. At the end of the year one gets piles of emails saying things like, "this is our final ask of the year". "Ask" is, of course, not a noun. They seem to mean "appeal".
The reverse is also wrong but common: making nouns into verbs. You cannot "author" a book or "critique" a performance.
The NY Times doesn't know how to conjugate "sink". They told us that a US warship "sunk" an enemy one in the Middle East. The same newspaper refers (at least online) to a bomb in Gaza "killing multiple people". What are multiple people?
A "news" briefing online referred to "Biden's messaging". The idiot who wrote that is of the cell phone generation. He or she probably meant statement, speech, or comment.
"Parking lot impacted"—this from a local YMCA. Idiotic way to say parking will be difficult today.
These "festivals" are recent examples of bloopers, stupidities, and cliches that we have covered in our "Word Police".
I apologize for using the NY Times for examples. I'm sure other news sources are just as bad—probably worse. I'm old enough to expect the Times to have higher standards than most, so they disappoint me more than the others. The Times has become sloppy, trendy, and "cool"—and their coverage is geared to popular culture and has mostly abandoned high culture and thought. The writing has become almost slang. A number of ARG writers have given up on the Times.
The Times told us (maybe quoting a functionary at the White House) that Mr Biden had Covid but "he is experiencing mild symptoms". Plain English would be "He has a mild case" or "His symptoms are mild"; but every idiot these days has to use the word "experience".
Facebook recently sent out this message to its clients (addicts):
"Starting soon, the option to switch back to the classic Pages experience will no longer be available for your Page(s). Over the coming months all Pages will be updated to the new Pages experience and the classic Pages experience will no longer be available."
Another web site says, "All your existing features and passwords are still available in this exciting, new experience." The generation that buys these products and patronizes these sites apparently seeks "exciting experiences". Ugh.
The latest catalog from Upton Tea Company has "tea experience" on every page. A new apartment building opening in Cincinnati advertises "a curated living experience". Everything now (including concerts, of course) has to be an "experience"! (And "curated" is also spreading like a disease.) It's a miserable word, vague as well as vogue.
The Times briefing tells us a new Broadway show has "dropped". They used to talk about premieres. The use of "drop" is very recent.
The Times advises us to get a "quality tree" for Christmas. "Quality" is not an adjective. Usage manuals call this a "vogue" usage and "casual". Well, that newspaper is now happy to be both. It's also vague: what on earth is a "quality tree"?
Actually the trendy usages are mainly deplorable precisely because they are vague. They are cases where one word is used to cover more and more meanings—largely because it takes little thought to grab an easily accessible approximation. "Pause" has become a verb and substituted for many more exact words—most recently for "postponed". "Ongoing" has been substituted for "still" and "remaining" in addition to "continuing". The overused words just get used more and more—it's the nature of "the media" and all its followers.
Have you noticed that the traditional "half an hour" and "half a mile" have become "a half hour" and "a half mile"? It's not wrong, but it's conformity, because people say it the way they hear it or read it. The Dnieper River has become Dnipro, because everyone wants to favor the Ukrainians. (But we have proper English-language names for cities and rivers, and we are using them less and less. Still, I can't imagine that we will give up "Munich" or "Florence".) Who determines the current way of saying things? Apparently it's "the media"—the press, TV, and Internet.
In a recent article about "global warming" the Times estimated it would be "between 2 or 3 degrees". "Between" takes "and", not "or".
The Times also tells us "the researchers focused on issues..." How cliched! How unoriginal! How utterly predictable and pitiful.
Cliches abound, though they are often irrational. How often do you read "across the globe"? Or even "every corner of the globe". If it's a globe, it has to be "around"—globes don't have corners. And why not "around the world"? Why have "globe" and "global" completely replaced "world" and "worldwide"?
Nothing is just a threat; everything is now an "existential threat". Prices never just go up—they "skyrocket". News is exaggeration.
A news headline: "The housing slowdown is speeding up." What does that mean?
How often we read of a "prequel", but there is no such thing. It's worse than "underwhelmed". We are told that something "premiered", but "premiere" is not a verb. And writers love to talk of a "bucket list" place or activity. It's another recent fad term, and it seems to be the trendy way to say, "here is something you have got to do or see". How often do you read "anytime soon" or "opt for" or "going forward"? You can spot a bad writer because he will use these trendy cliches.
"Refresh" is not a noun, but we increasingly see it used that way. That is probably because of computers. "Message" is not a verb; how can we tell that to "cell phone" users?
An Australian scientist at a major university said "If an omicron vaccine is going to be any good to you and I..." "Myself and many other writers..." turns up fairly often. People use "myself" instead of I or me—maybe because they don't know which to use.
In a book review in a major magazine we read, "her insights are as insightful...as ever."
Another redundancy we've seen recently is "the cause of death was due to..."
Economist magazine has started to use the idiotic "doable". (It is difficult but it is doable.) What's wrong with "possible" or "can be done"? In November Economist talked about something that would "wreck havoc" (should be "wreak").
From the same magazine: "Government bonds are the new meme stock." What on earth could that mean? What is a meme stock? Is it like an "iconic" stock? I am glad that word seems to be passing, but only to be replaced with "meme"? That is the latest fad word, and much of the time it even means "fad". Current words of general approval are mostly slang. It has been that way for a long time: people automatically use the latest word (remember "awesome"?). They want to sound "with it". Good writers don't.
Also from Economist: "Captains of industry have a history of striving for cordial relations with whomever is in power." Wrong. It has to be "whoever", the subject of the clause. Economist headline in October: "The War on Drugs Don't Work".
A recent Times briefing referred to "rowhomes" and "townhomes". Have we given up the distinction between a house and a home? Another blow to the language. The Times also uses the word "optics" to mean "how it looked" or "appearances". And one Times writer has fallen into "indices" instead of "indexes". (Usage books call that "pretentious".)
The US was described as having some quality "more than every other country combined". They mean "all other countries" I guess. How can every country be combined?
Another magazine used "disinterested" when the intent was "uninterested"—extremely common. It also referred to "energy usage" instead of "use"—also common now.
An opera critic called Violetta (in Traviata) "a diverse role". What could that mean? Current writers go to desperate lengths to use these "buzz words".
Another magazine had a whole article about the "legacy astronauts" who are still working for NASA. Why the odd adjective? (Actually it's slightly insulting—implies "out of date".)
"Age is one of the biggest risk factors for dementia and it can't always be prevented." (GoodRX website) Preventing age is simple: just die.
The word "empathy" and the related "empathetic" have become extremely common. They are powerful words that careless use has weakened into mere (often miserable) sentimentality.
A huge supermarket chain sent out in November an advertising folder titled "Holiday Hacks". Whatever that may mean, there is no dictionary definition that makes any sense of it. It is illiterate.
Language should not change so fast as it is now. It's democratic idealism and the sentimental assumption that anything anyone says must be accepted and not criticized. Expecting intelligent usage and decent grammar is now "elitist" (maybe even "racist"). These anti-elitists are degrading our language. In turn that degrades thought and ideas—and, of course, education. It is truer than ever that people with a lot of education don't necessarily have a lot of intelligence or wisdom. Nor do they nowadays know how to write or speak. (One would think that to be a minimum goal for an education.) These lists of stupidities could easily be much longer.
From a restaurant review—exact words:
They were understaffed, however, that did not negatively impact our dining experience.
Uplevel your social media marketing now.
Aromatise the meal.
On a can of soda water "essence" is used as a verb. How can you "essence" anything?
It has finally happened: the horrible trendy word "meme" has turned up in the NY Times as a verb. Now you can "meme" an idea.
A story in a major magazine referred to "home builds" (apparently the writer meant "houses built"). The verbizing of nouns continues unabated.
And the "nouning" of verbs. The latest one I saw is "to tokenize".
The NY Times said there would be storms "throughout much of the Midwest". Contradiction: it can be "throughout" OR "much", but it can't be both. This kind of sloppy thinking and writing are everywhere now. Using the simple word "in" in place of the overused "throughout" would resolve the problem—but people avoid simple words.
Also in the Times, on the same page the word "dropped" is used to mean "announced" and later "eliminated" or "abandoned".
People love wild exaggerations. Something is not just a threat, but "an existential threat". Every storm is a "dangerous" storm. A person with a disapproved idea is called "toxic". "The News" (and even the weather report) is almost entirely exaggerations and misrepresentations, designed to induce fear.
Failure of subjunctive: "The West is in a position to insist that its weapons are not used to attack Russia." "Are not used" should read "not be used"—but it's from a British magazine, and they have forgotten about the subjunctive. "Are not used" is also present tense, and what they mean is something future.
I read that someone in our government is a "China hawk". Dictionaries tell us that in politics a "hawk" favors force and military action. But does a "China hawk" favor action for or against China? It's all rather vague.
A magazine article on the Amazon (river) mentions "natural destruction"; they mean "destruction of nature". An example of "natural destruction" would be a tornado.
Any online discussion you read will show you that schools in the USA and the UK have failed to explain the difference between "its" and "it's"—something those of us who are older learned in our first few years of school.
The NY Times tells us they "reached out" to a group of senators. The context reveals that they surveyed them, asked them, interviewed them. "Reached out" is a stupid colloquialism (and, as usual, a general and vague way to put it).
It was also the Times that said "venues are back to throwing parties". Can a "venue" throw a party?
The Times also tells us about a man who "emptied the majority of his savings account" for a trip. Illiterate young writers; no editors. "Majority" is not a fancy word for "most".
The Times called a woman "the top seed". It's a new usage, and from the context (sports) it seems to mean "pick" or "contender". Tennis fans may use the term, but why should the general reader be expected to know it?
The word "stan" is turning up too. It seems to mean a very strong, extreme fan. It's not a needed word, because ardor is part of fanhood.
"Her mom" is everywhere and now practically normal, though it is wrong, is slang.
On Quora we have the question, "At what mileage do most cars start having issues?" Asinine.
I called a local utility and was put on "hold" (of course) and had to listen to repeated messages until I screamed and gave up: "Your bill is comprised of", "based on your usage", "if there are issues with your meter", it "is located at", and finally, "If you feel you may be in danger". All the "hold" messages were ungrammatical—usually it's not ALL, but that's the way it's going. No one seems to know right from wrong—no one at any company seems to be able to correct the grammar of the publicity people—or even sometimes of their chief executives. And it has been at least 40 years since you could expect decent grammar from TV news. That doesn't matter to me, because I never watch it.
A major magazine said that a political group was "among the most fulsome supporters for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan". They meant "strongest supporters". "Fulsome" means "insincere". No one uses a dictionary and there are no editors, so writers don't use words correctly—and that is everywhere!
Magazines are now asking for money to support them. At the end of the year one gets piles of emails saying things like, "this is our final ask of the year". "Ask" is, of course, not a noun. They seem to mean "appeal".
The reverse is also wrong but common: making nouns into verbs. You cannot "author" a book or "critique" a performance.
The NY Times doesn't know how to conjugate "sink". They told us that a US warship "sunk" an enemy one in the Middle East. The same newspaper refers (at least online) to a bomb in Gaza "killing multiple people". What are multiple people?
A "news" briefing online referred to "Biden's messaging". The idiot who wrote that is of the cell phone generation. He or she probably meant statement, speech, or comment.
"Parking lot impacted"—this from a local YMCA. Idiotic way to say parking will be difficult today.
Have you noticed that everything is an "existential crisis" or an "existential threat". It's actually a serious crisis of language when it is routinely exaggerated like that.
Another exaggeration that has become normal is "skyrocketing prices". Prices have been rising, that's all.
We read "zero" all the time, when the correct word is "no". Another stupid fad.
And, of course, you don't "loan" someone money—you LEND it. That has been wrong for many years, like lie and lay. "A certain paternalistic vision may underlay this humbling of St Nick." So said Economist in December. "Underlie" is correct. "Lay down" is not the same as "lie down". You can lay down a carpet—or the law, but you lie down to sleep, though yesterday you lay down. Usage experts declare this the most often seen or heard bad usage.
Atlantic magazine tells us that "people are being guilted". This has actually begun to turn up in newer dictionaries, but it is obviously a case of a noun becoming a verb—very common in these sloppy times.
In a recent book on the miseries of air travel in the USA, the author (Ganesh Sitaraman, whom I admire very much) tells us that the government allowed a law to "sunset". That is legal jargon. In plain English, the law was allowed to expire.
From the announcement of a new "app"—exact words, all cliches that tell us nothing at all:
"Apple Music Classical is the ultimate classical experience with hundreds of curated playlists, thousands of exclusive albums, insightful composer biographies, deep-dive guides to many key works, intuitive browsing features and much more."
Writing like that should guarantee that no classical music lover will bother with it.
The Danish String Quartet was coming to Cincinnati. The publicity was all hype and didn't tell us what they were going to play. To publicity people the music doesn't matter; it's the celebrity factor that counts. That is the American way. It is increasingly the case that in publicity the only thing that is being sold is the players. Often we are not told the time or the place—or the actual music that will be played.
We often get publicity advertising "a new tradition". That is wishful thinking. It is also an oxymoron; there can be no such thing. Tradition by definition is old—something that has developed and lasted over time.
We got a notice that started "Legacy musicians in live performances". "Legacy" is NOT an adjective. It means something handed down from the past. And therefore it cannot possibly be "live". Idiots who can't write think that in a democracy anyone can. They even get a job writing crap like that!
An opera company that sends us publicity announced the new season "featuring ground-breaking, immersive opera experiences". The same cliches turn up almost everywhere. Phrases like this (however hackneyed and ridiculous) are probably perfectly natural to the people who write them—but they are also trying to make opera "trendy".
New York Philharmonic publicity for the next season consistently refers to Felix Mendelssohn as "MENDELSSOHN,FE". Why? Fanny Hensel wrote almost nothing that is likely to turn up in an orchestral concert. And like Amy Beach and Alma Mahler, she is known by her married name. "Political correctness" strikes again.
Publicity often tells us that an opera company is going to "workshop" a new opera. "Workshop" was always a noun, not a verb; but as we all know, the distinction is weakening. A newer dictionary does list it as a verb, with the meaning "to create or revise a drama or literary work based on the suggestions or criticisms of a group of collaborators". Even that meaning is being stretched. Apparently the opera is experimental, and we are not sure how well it will go over. But almost any new opera is in that category, isn't it?
English National Opera tells the public that Jenufa is not a good opera for beginners. "An emotionally intense piece of work, those new to opera may want to opt for something lighter.... The diverse and impactful story line makes for more of a complex viewing, which may be difficult to follow if you're not familiar with the variety of opera formats." They recommend "Mozart's The Magic Flute" for beginners. This and other bits of publicity reveal that inability to write a grammatical English sentence does not disqualify you from a publicity position with a major music company in England.
Also in England, the new chief executive of a major orchestra writes about her new "community board" that it is "a group designed to build connections with a diverse range of voices across the city and help the orchestra to engage more proactively with communities in the region that are currently underrepresented in classical music...and discuss the orchestra's work and ways it can be more relevant and impactful". Trendy and meaningless cliches; Big Brother propaganda—brainwashed and brain-dead stuff. I'd like to ask, "What if people "currently underrepresented in classical music" just don't happen to like it?
An orchestra brags in its publicity about a "superstar violinist".
Nouns continue to become verbs at an astonishing rate. The Democrats may "primary" someone. Circumstances can "advantage" some people. There are more examples every day in publicity and journalism.
From a printed weather report: "Winter storm packing snow and ice hit Atlantic Coast." Obviously it should be "hits", but apparently many people are allowed to write such things even when they can't figure out the subject of the sentence. I see this very often now. A new generation is writing these things and doesn't know plain old grammar. Ignorance thrives and grammar dies.
"Confirmed by his manager, the acclaimed pianist passed away...after battling multiple prolonged illnesses." Gosh, his manager should never have confirmed him.
Met Opera publicity: Lucia di Lammermoor encores this week. "Encore" is not—cannot be—a verb. An opera cannot do it either!
Houston Grand Opera now has a "Chief Marketing and Experience Officer". Publicity people think in cliches. One told us that they have been "experiencing a heavy work load". (In plain English they "had" or "faced" a heavy work load.)
A piece of publicity tells us what a composer is "messaging" in his music.
Lately some publicity people said their artists will "revolutionize the concert experience" (ugh!). That means a drastic change, but in reality business goes on as usual, despite the publicity.
The Violin Channel tells us that "69 violinists will compete in the upcoming violin competition". Stupid, unnecessary "upcoming". And what a surprise that they are competing in a competition! Many people who write publicity can't write and don't know the language. The illusion of equality means that most things in this country are done (and run) by incompetent people. You can't have quality with "equality". You have to choose.
From an orchestra: "I am reaching out to share our press release..."
A local health center: "Share your passion for pickleball." It's only a game; "passion" is wasted on games.
"The Ohio Department of Taxation is continually looking for ways to improve the customer experience. As part of this ongoing effort, we are excited to announce new changes that will simplify how you file and pay your taxes... Our vision is to create a seamless and user-centric experience."
Cincinnati Museum Center:
"In 2024 CMC completed a historic campaign to reimagine its museum experience by creating bold, vibrant, and engaging exhibits...creating lifelong impact throughout our region for generations to come. We're proud to say, we accomplished just that!"
How can they know that? "For generations to come"? Who writes these things?
We were invited to a local art event where someone will be "pouring a selection of wines from his portfolio". I'll bet that looks odd. It's like the corners of the globe.
Publicity: "_________shares new tracks." Shares the tracks with whom? Another singer?
"Taylor Swift is dropping 4 unreleased songs ahead of her tour." Dropping? It's the new publicity way of saying "releasing". But if they are released they cannot be unreleased.
And suddenly a person can be "diverse". That's logically impossible, of course, but many publicists use "buzz words" indiscriminately and never think of meaning or sense.
The NY Times had a headline that Biden and McCarthy "failed to reach a consensus". By definition a consensus cannot be reached by just two people. The word applies only to groups. Also in that publication, we are told that Biden doesn't want to "aggravate" liberal Democrats. The correct word is "annoy", but a whole generation of writers thinks to aggravate is to annoy. To aggravate actually means "to make worse". We have come to expect sloppy grammar and usage in the NY Times—and terminal trendiness. The daily NY Times briefing has almost no real news in it and reads like a magazine edited by "influencers" (Ugh). It tells us what we should eat, buy, watch, read, etc. If you do not need to be told all that, what use is the Times?
In one issue of Economist I read about "multiple children" and a book in the Bible called "Revelations". The same issue used "presently" to mean "now", the phrase "recommends that they are", and told us some people "receive unequal access to" something. It is almost impossible to find a well-edited magazine now.
Economist—a major English magazine with worldwide circulation—also said in May, "Tougher environmental laws mean many countries now insist tyres are recycled." There are several things wrong with that sentence, but the most obvious is the failure to use the subjunctive ("be" instead of "are"). That makes the meaning ambiguous. Are the tires recycled or are they not?
American sloppiness includes "too big of an ask" and "time for the reveal", both seen in recent publicity. Verbs as nouns. It is extremely common now to see "a good read" (book) and "a good pour" (wine). Orchestra publicity says they have been "gifted" so many dollars. All of this is slang, but slang is taking over, because it's all some writers know. How did they get their jobs? Where did they go to school?
Local Cincinnati website: "Construction crews report fire in former Cincinnati area grocery store". That is the headline, and it is repeated in the story itself word for word. Does that news department have an editor?
"Issues" is one of the horrors of American English these days. One of our computers recently told us "54,828 issues are slowing down your PC". What could that mean? It's a vague word that is used to mean something like troubles, glitches, difficulties, and dozens of other more exact things. It has come to mean so many things that it is an almost useless word—and it perfectly illustrates how vague common speech has become.
"Plethora" is now everywhere used to mean "a lot", but it actually means "too much".
We continue to read everywhere "We are hopeful..." instead of "we hope". Americans talk and write in cliches (and adjectives where verbs are called for). "Ongoing" is also ubiquitous—and utterly unnecessary. I read both these words in one article this morning in a major magazine.
"...a destination shopping experience"
"As a reminder, your payment is due..."
The New York Times briefing told us that some people were "mislead". This is not just a homonym problem! The Times has become trendy, slangy, sloppy, and ungrammatical. Another recent example: "After being exonerated, an officer in Georgia shot him to death." Why was the officer exonerated? (Oh—they mean the guy who was shot. But that is not what they wrote.) They routinely use "those" without a referent simply to mean "people". The Times has become too shallow and stupid for intellectuals. A recent "briefing" (online) began, "If you've been having trouble finding a show to watch...here are some upcoming offerings." And they never say "around the world"; they prefer "across the globe", which is logically wrong (a globe is round). There probably no longer is a newspaper for intellectuals. All is aimed at the stupid masses. No more elitism!
This was the headline in a full page ad in the New York Times in December for a new bathroom faucet. The buzz word "immersive" turns up a few lines later, and it ends with, "Explore the visual language of moving water". Golly!
Call a business number and you will likely hear, "We are experiencing a higher call volume than normal". In plain English, "We are getting a lot of calls." Then they will likely say, "Someone (or "an associate") will be with you momentarily." They mean "soon" rather than "for a moment", the primary meaning of "momentarily". This kind of sloppy usage is almost universal now. And they don't assign many employees to the telephone, because they want you to struggle with their dreadful website—so you will wait a long time.
"Families of missing people are receiving few updates." That's their problem; if the updates are offered or given, why would they not receive them?
Economist tells us that missiles directed at Israel were "successfully intercepted" (redundancy abounds).
"Share" is fast replacing "tell". We are told that Pope Francis "shared an address focused on..." Lately "share" has been used for "report" and "announce". This is how a very small list of words takes over the language, making everything vague. We have made the democratic assumption that any idiot can write—so most of the writing we read and hear is idiotic.
"Reach out to" is replacing "ask", "contact", "get in touch with". I got a phone call the other day from someone who was "reaching out" to me about an "upcoming appointment". I almost screamed at her, "Why are you so illiterate?" The NY Times used "reached out to" instead of "appealed to". They follow the rule that trendy usage is always preferable.
Everyone uses "opt to" or "opt for" instead of "choose"—and thus, of course, "options" instead of "choices".
"Gaslighting" is becoming more popular as a vague replacement for "deceiving" or "deception". As words like these become trendy they replace many more exact ones, and they themselves become vaguer and less exact in meaning, because they are stretched so broadly.
A major magazine said "the housing market looks toxic". Why toxic? It's a trendy word—that's the only reason.
Another magazine said someone "provided a reveal"!!
Another one wrote, "This wasn't an isolated chatbot fail." On the same page of that magazine we read "focus" twice and "opt" instead of choose and "source" as a verb—as well as yet another wrong "receive". We are told that something was "pre-planned"!
And, of course, "multiple" is everywhere—and always vague. In fact, all these popular usages are matters of ignorance and conformity.
A weather forecaster recently said that "flash flooding may be ongoing".
"The mapping is still ongoing" says a major magazine. We used to say it was still going on or continuing (or "continues") or in process, but now everyone falls back on the cliche.
Most writers have a tendency to go for nouns and adjectives when they should use verbs: "his death" instead of "he died", "his retirement" instead of "he retired", "is expressive of" instead of "expresses", and (related) "played with precision" instead of "precisely played". We are told in the news that someone should "be supportive of" something. In plain English, he should support it—but no one writes plain English any more.
Economist tells of a government that "will spend months focused on internal matters". The miserable "focused" can of course be omitted with no change in meaning—but there are no editors. The same magazine routinely uses "throughout" where "through" would do. In fact, like the New York Times, it has become "trendy". What is a voracious reader to do? There is less and less worth reading, and you have to translate everything as you go into plain English.
A medical website talked about "when you want to itch your skin". Your skin can itch, but you cannot itch your skin. No one seems to understand the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs. Does "grammar school" still exist? Does it teach children grammar? Apparently not. We now call it elementary school. But this grammar business IS elementary!
One of my favorite classic English mystery writers is Margery Allingham. I just read one of her few non-fiction books, The Oaken Heart, where I was reminded that even in 1940 (when it was written) the subjunctive was dead in England. Sentences like "she insisted that we went" are everywhere. It sounds pretty stupid.
New English novels routinely tell us that someone is "six foot tall". No usage book would defend "foot" instead of "feet", but the English are as sloppy as Americans when it comes to the language.
In reading one finds that an English person can survive being strangled, but an American cannot. Is this a difference between American and English English or between people? Also, the British word for equipment is "kit" (slang).
A fairly new English novel set in 1916 says that a detective was upset because he was "tasked with deciding". No one talked like that in 1916 or for 100 years thereafter. Normal English is "had to decide". Other novels set in that period had people with "issues"—also about 100 years too soon. Novelists don't seem to know that some of these expressions are very recent.
On a Montessori School bulletin board: "Have a fun summer."
Verbs becoming nouns: "fails" instead of errors or mistakes. We commonly read about "builds", too.
Nouns become verbs: politicians say they want to "sunset" a law. We know what they mean, but that has to take place when the law is passed—it may be passed with a "sunset" provision—an expiration date. Once it's passed it can only be terminated. "Sunset" is not a verb.
In August Amazon announced "a simplified seller feedback submission experience"! Every time I read "experience" I groan, but that one takes the cake. We are told by our bank that "your accounts have been migrated to the new Online Banking Experience". Aren't people fed up with "experiences"? And can they "migrate" the account? (Maybe. In the computer world anything is possible, and words take on expanded meaning quite often.)
We saw the verb "prevaricate" where the writer obviously meant "procrastinate". To prevaricate is to be evasive, not to state the truth. Politicians prevaricate daily. It's not quite the same thing as lying, but close.
An article talked about "college degrees that do not pencil revenue in the job market". What does that mean? No dictionary can explain or sanction it. Language is becoming chaos. Another example in the same field is the word "upskilling".
"Zero" is certainly trendy: zero evidence, zero tolerance, etc. (see May/June 2019). Why? "No" is correct.
"We can make sure we don't repeat it again" says a magazine I subscribe to. Repeat it again?
In August a major magazine wrote, "The priest provides spiritual guidance to whomever seeks it..." (should be "whoever"). The next paragraph in that article uses the F word 8 times. Yes, it's quoting someone (that priest?), but editors used to clean up quotes like that and should still. Such words are usually fallen back on when the speaker can't think of the right word. Editors can help.
Quite a few articles are discussing "smartphone usage". They mean use of those phones or "using smartphones". "Usage" refers to language. A sign in the YMCA refers to "locker usage".
Another magazine refers to "fostering a sense of fatalism". They mean "fostering fatalism", which is a sense that we can't avoid disasters. As usual, people don't know how to use words; and yet they write articles for major magazines.
I like book reviews, but in a favorite magazine 2 of them in a row ended with "read" as a noun (which of course it is not): "an engaging and illuminating read" and "a powerful read". Should we call a recording "a powerful listen"?
It is fairly common now to read "hopefulness" for hope and "thankfulness" for gratitude. And "presently" is everywhere used to mean "now" or "currently" (it means "in a little while").
An article referred to "symbolology" (symbolism, I think). Similar: "methodology" when they mean "method(s)".
Slang like "vibes" and "merch" are taking over for correct English in books and magazines. In fact, the frightening news is that slang is taking over almost everywhere. Economist magazine routinely uses the word "gilt". From the context it seems to have to do with bonds. The dictionary calls it "slang" for "money". Another slang term used in every issue of that magazine is "kit" to mean equipment or machinery—even weapons of war. That one isn't even in American dictionaries.
"Bankroll" is also slang, but it is turning up as a verb in respectable magazines. What is wrong with "finance", "support", or "underwrite"? Or even "pay for"?
The 1970 American Heritage Dictionary did not allow "spotlight" or "benchmark" as verbs. Recent dictionaries accept "spotlight" (to pay special attention to) but still not "benchmark".
A catalog sent by a major company thinks the plural of "pair" is "pair". They suggest we order "6 pair" of gloves. A reader tells us that he reads "a couple" where it should be "a couple of". He has seen that in more than a couple of magazines.
Americans don't seem to know the difference between "its" and "it's"—they often get it wrong. Elementary grammar.
The English, as we know, have given up the subjunctive—no English journalists seem to know it. In a recent Economist article we read: "Another possibility is that the tariffs of 50% which [should be "that"] the American government placed [should be "imposed"] on Brazilian goods in July are [are?] increased..." Pitiful writing. In another article: "Schools increasingly demand that phones are kept in lockers..." If they "are" kept in lockers, why demand it? "Demand" requires the subjunctive ("be"), and that tells us that they are not kept in lockers. They also often avoid the conditional, replacing it with the present tense—which causes an educated reader to stop and ask himself what they are getting at. Economist proves in every issue that the language is not doing well in England either.
Today's mail had a folder all about "pre-planning"! Actually, to "plan" is often replaced by "curate" these days—fancy nonsense that also substitutes for gather, put together, select, and choose.
We came across the ridiculous "anytime soon" in a major magazine (again) as we were writing this. And also "partially" to mean "partly". Cliches live on.
In Ohio a major highway is "experiencing construction", and travelers "may opt to" follow another route. A road can't experience anything, though travelers may choose another route. Public signs and notices are increasingly illiterate and that's part of why the children don't learn correct English, which in turn is part of why incorrect English proliferates. They will grow up to write those signs and notices! (and teach!)
2 Cincinnati Airport announcements leading up to Christmas:
"As a reminder, TSA advises against wrapping gifts prior to baggage screening." and "Passengers will soon get an upgraded lounge experience."
From an airline: "Just Dropped: New Sky Miles Experiences Curated for You". 3 terrible fad words in one line (not a sentence!). "Curated experiences" (whatever they are!) have been dropped?
A major news magazine refers to "when the vaccine dropped this fall". To drop something is to refuse to deal with it any more. But her publicity tells us that Taylor Swift "dropped a new tune". The word is being used almost opposite to its actual meaning. It can't be good for a language when a word is used to mean opposite things. (Think of the confusing "sanction".)
A newspaper mentioned "forest coverage" (forest cover?)
Turning up even in good magazines these days:
—"is comprised of" (nothing can be comprised of)
—"good paying jobs" (jobs can pay well, not good)
—"one of the only" (the only can only be one)
—"impact" (a recent Economist article had it in every other sentence). Usually the word people want is "affect" or "effect".
—"existential". Recently The Economist said the English voting system "may be existential for smaller parties". What on earth can that mean? Why that word, and why so often?
—Economist used "focus" 6 times on a single page. It has taken over from many better words.
—We are told someone is "worried about access issues". Why "issues"?
—"shared": A composer tells us in the notes, "I am so happy to share my new album." He means "present my new album". We are told someone "shared attacks on social media", and on the same page of the same magazine someone "shares data with the Trump campaign". Another article talks about "the story that he shares". You don't "share" a story; you TELL a story. A sign here says, "Share your passion for pickleball." The word is replacing many other words, all more specific. And only idiots get passionate over games.
—"reach out" is another dreadful recent cliche like "share".
—"holiday gifting". Why has "gift" replaced "give"? One gives a gift; one does not gift it.
—Science News headline: "US moms say their mental health is getting worse". What is a "mom"? Whatever it is, it's slang.
—Economist headline: "A routine test for fetal abnormalities could make pregnancy safer for mums". What are mums? The editor (if any) should have cut the last two words. (But then they wouldn't sound "folksy" and colloquial.)
—"the priorities they focus on" (redundant buzz words)
—words that end in ly to begin a sentence: regretfully, promisingly, worryingly, admittedly, peculiarly, and more
—dangling participles and phrases. Recent examples: "Simple in design...I have chosen". And "Known for its natural beauty, artists have...: The writer is not simple in design; nor are the artists beautiful. Bad writers just string these things together and never think about what modifies what.
—a major news magazine accused a politician of "flaunting of constitutional norms". They meant "flout", not "flaunt". These words are often confused—but once we had editors to correct them.
—Another noun is now a verb: "primary". How do you "primary" someone?
—Yet another: a good magazine says "to arbitrage away a return". What could that mean?
—Science News tells us they are "providing intel". Eek!
—A British reporter tells us he "doorstepped" a bishop.
—The Associated Press said that someone "paused" a deadline. Idiotic. He extended a deadline. But "paused" is trendy.
—It is common now to read "neither of the 3" and "neither this, nor this, nor this". But "neither", like "either", can only be applied to 2 items.
—Also common is "disappear" as transitive. You cannot "disappear" someone!
—"Disappoints" cannot be intransitive. It has to be either "disappoints readers" or "is disappointing".
—"across the globe" in a notice from a graduate school I attended. A globe is round. They mean "around the world", but that sounds old-fashioned.
"due to the fact that" instead of "because". This has been around for a good many years, sad to say.
"spend" as a noun (budget, expense)
"ask" as a noun (request or, again, budget)
"read" as a noun. It's always wrong, and often they mean "reading". "A good read" means "good reading" or "worth reading". Our writers are not allowed to call a recording "a good listen".
Homonym department: an English newspaper wrote about someone's closeness to the "thrown". Spell-checkers won't catch that, but one wonders about a British journalist who cannot spell "throne".
Every doctor sends reminders of an "upcoming appointment". Redundant and ungrammatical—but that's the way people talk