English Words that Nobody Should Use

[Large_Marge]

@Sample_the_Dog

Why? I really don’t understand this. It’s like complaining that some people use “many” instead of “several” too much, or vice versa. You’re just objecting to someone else’s dialect.

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m doing.

@Sample_the_Dog

I have friends from PA who say “it needs cleaned” instead of “it needs cleaning”. It’s just the way they talk. Some folks prefer “some” to “about”. Are you worried that “about” is going to get its feelings hurt?

Yes, I can’t sleep at night, worrying. :rolleyes:

It annoys me when I read “some” used over “about” in my newspaper. I think “about” is a perfectly good word and shouldn’t be abandoned for “some” exclusively.

@Sample_the_Dog

Huh? “Actual words” are the words people use and understand. Appearing in the dictionary means zip. <snip>

To you. Newspapers (AP, Chicago Manual of Style, NYT), the AMA, APA, ASC, MLA, etc., all follow style rules that include the use of a specific reference dictionary, and that is how they expect all communications to be written. It matters a great deal. Without rules, how can it be determined what is bad writing and what is good writing? Are you saying you taught your students to just write any way they desired?

@Sample_the_Dog

Who? Protecting it from what? I’ve made my living with words for most of my adult life. I’ve taught English at university and worked as a writer and proofer for years. I’ve never heard of these people.

Oh my. :eek:

As an English teacher, writer and editor, you should be working to protect the English language through your own writings, by correcting the writings of others as an editor, and by teaching its rules to your students. Librarians, editors, writers, academics, linguists, etc., are all professions that employ people who care deeply about the language and work to protect it. From what? From the many examples of bad writing currently being discussed in this thread and about three others, just for starters.

@Sample_the_Dog

So, do you believe that Shakespeare and Swift were wrong until people stopped objecting to their vulgar usage, at which point they became right? Were they right from then on only, or do they get to be right retroactively?

You’re missing the point, which is that people worked to protect the language by following what was considered at the time to be proper English. The same battles continue today. It’s the natural evolution of language. It doesn’t mean we have to go willingly. Some things are worth fighting for (like the right to dangle a preposition).

[Sample_the_Dog]

@Large Marge

Newspapers (AP, Chicago Manual of Style, NYT), the AMA, APA, ASC, MLA, etc., all follow style rules that include the use of a specific reference dictionary, and that is how they expect all communications to be written.

So who died and left the newspapers king? All of these guidelines are (1) optional, in that they’re adopted at will by those who decide to follow that particular standard – although people/orgs lower on the food chain certainly may be required to conform if they want to play with the big kids – and (2) limited in their scope – they have absolutely no authority outside of those groups who choose to use them.

@Large Marge

It matters a great deal. Without rules, how can it be determined what is bad writing and what is good writing? Are you saying you taught your students to just write any way they desired?

I have yet to see any set of rules that can adequately distinguish between good and bad writing. Good writing gets its message across effectively. Bad writing doesn’t. It is possible to produce perfectly standard writing which is confusing, boring, vague, and illogical. It is also possible to produce non-standard writing which is vibrant, effective, concise, and unambiguous.

Of course I taught my students to write to standard. I also explained how these standards evolved, and made sure they understood that no standard is universal for all situations, and that they shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking that it is somehow “wrong” to not follow the rules of standard academic English in contexts that don’t require it. As an example, I did not allow them to use the word “random” to mean “irrelevant”, “arbitrary”, or “of unknown origin” in their essays. During class discussion, however, they were free to use it in this sense because (1) it created no confusion, and (2) I wanted them to grok the difference between academic writing and informal speech.

@Large Marge

As an English teacher, writer and editor, you should be working to protect the English language through your own writings, by correcting the writings of others as an editor, and by teaching its rules to your students.

I feel no obligation to protect the language from nonstandard usage. The idea seems absurd. Writing to applicable standards has nothing to do with protecting anything. It’s a matter of getting the work done according to spec.

@Large Marge

You’re missing the point, which is that people worked to protect the language by following what was considered at the time to be proper English.

Not the way I see it. From where I sit, it was more often the innovators who were doing the best writing. Shakespeare and Swift weren’t concerned with “proper English”. Why should I be?

The threat to language, to my mind, is acceptance of meaningless phrases – whether in perfect MLA style or in casual conversation in a barber shop – as being meaningful. What makes me wince isn’t “I’m just totally, like, disinnersted in that, y’know”, but rather statements like this: “The overall root cause of the sexual assault problems at the Air Force Academy was the failure of successive chains of command over the past 10 years to acknowledge the severity of the problem.” – which sounds like it means something, but which in fact alleges that the “root cause” of a problem was the failure to recognize the scope of that problem. It’s like saying that the “root cause” of a fire was a failure to recognize how big the fire had become.

[zagloba]

@Sample_the_Dog

For example: “If we incent the stakeholders to prioritize their todos so that our goals align with theirs”.

How about just “If we give the stakeholders incentive to align their goals with ours”?

Strunk’s rule: omit needless words.

[wolfman]

Fortunately I only ever saw it once, but the worst example I ever saw was something like ‘reenergitization’ which I can only assume means re-energize.

[Sample_the_Dog]

@zagloba

How about just “If we give the stakeholders incentive to align their goals with ours”?

Strunk’s rule: omit needless words.

But here you’ve omitted necessary words.

Your version says that incentives will be offered to stakeholders who re-align their goals.

But this isn’t exactly what the original says. It says incentives will be given for changing the priority of tasks on the stakeholders’ agendas in such a way that everyone is working toward the same goal.

In my experience, the strategy expressed in the original is more likely to succeed than the strategy described in your shortened version. If you change your goals but don’t re-prioritize your tasks accordingly, the goals will probably not be met.

[Large_Marge]

@Sample_the_Dog

So who died and left the newspapers king?

Um, those aren’t all newspapers.

@Sample_the_Dog

All of these guidelines are (1) optional, in that they’re adopted at will by those who decide to follow that particular standard – although people/orgs lower on the food chain certainly may be required to conform if they want to play with the big kids – and (2) limited in their scope – they have absolutely no authority outside of those groups who choose to use them.

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about here. They’re not optional if you’re publishing in those industries. Many other groups within and outside of the various industries use stylebooks as a standard. For example, publications other than newspapers follow the AP or Chicago Manual of Style. And it isn’t just those “lower on the food chain” who conform to style - they are industry standards, followed by those in the industry. The standards exist so that different organizations within an industry can communicate consistently and effectively with little misunderstanding.

@Sample_the_Dog

I have yet to see any set of rules that can adequately distinguish between good and bad writing.

Then you aren’t looking very hard, because there are hundreds of books available on the subject.

[Sample_the_Dog]

@Large Marge

Um, those aren’t all newspapers.

I know.

@Large Marge

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about here.

Actually, I do. But I didn’t express myself very well at all.

The standards are optional in that they can be changed by those in positions to adopt them… in that God does not decree who must use Chicago, APA, or MLA style. People make these decisions, and those who have the responsibility to do so will, from time to time, change the standard.

People lower on the food chain, like me, obviously cannot choose. If I submit an article to a journal, I have to use their standard, whatever it may be. (If I start my own journal, if it’s independent, I can pick anything I like.)

But none of these standards are “right”, they don’t “protect” anything, and they do not ensure good writing. One can write utter drivel in perfect conformity to any standard you care to name.

@Large Marge

There are hundreds of books available on the subject.

Oh yes, there are plenty of style guides, style manuals, instruction books, writing theory texts, and the like. But there is no standard out there that will, if followed, produce effective writing by default. And it’s possible to produce effective writing that conforms to none of them.

I work with this stuff, too, y’know. I spend hours every week making sure documents conform in every detail covered by the stylesheets. And sicko that I am, I enjoy it.

But I can’t agree with these claims:

“[Librarians, editors, writers, academics, linguists, etc.] are responsible for monitoring and even protecting the English language.”

“Without rules [it cannot] be determined what is bad writing and what is good writing.”

The OP asked, what usages piss us off for irrational reasons. For you, it’s overuse of “some”. For me, it’s “strife”.

But it’s all irrational, really. Language is a wild thing. There is no central authority to English – there’s not even a loose authority. In fact, there are competing authorities. None of them has any better claim than the rest, and in the end, usage is king.

5 centuries from now, people will look back and laugh at the mavens who railed against vulgarities and “errors” that, lo and behold, became proper for no other reason than sheer critical mass.

The rules are fine for what they’re worth, and certainly they’re necessary for doing business (wouldn’t want to work for a publication/publisher who didn’t have any). But I’m glad no school marm was standing by with a red pen to correct Jefferson, Swift, or Muddy Waters.

[KellyM]

The history of “ain’t” as a contraction of “am not” (also spelled “amn’t”) goes back centuries. The use of this valid first-person contraction in the third person is relatively recent, however.

“I ain’t going” is correct; “He ain’t going” is wrong. Historically speaking, that is.

[Zoe]

Large Marge: You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about here. They’re not optional if you’re publishing in those industries. Many other groups within and outside of the various industries use stylebooks as a standard. For example, publications other than newspapers follow the AP or Chicago Manual of Style. And it isn’t just those “lower on the food chain” who conform to style - they are industry standards, followed by those in the industry. The standards exist so that different organizations within an industry can communicate consistently and effectively with little misunderstanding.

I used to work in publishing before I became an English teacher. Why do you think there are so many different stylebooks? “Industry standards” in publishing can vary depending on the publishing house.

This usage annoys me:

Verbally addressing a group as “people” or “you people”

I suppose there is nothing technically wrong. It just sounds bossy or rude to my ears (and looks that way to my eyes at the Dope).

Sample_the_Dog. you explain your point well. Even Harbrace changes with time. I tend to wait for that, but only out of long ago intimidation from a brilliant and inspiring college professor.

[Zoe]

:smack:

(Blushing furiously)

Sample_the_Dog, make that a comma after your name…