“You go, Girlfriend!”, especially when spoken by lame white women, like Barbara Walters.
This probably isn’t in the spirit of the OP, but I’d support an honorable discharge for “whom” as well. It sounds archaic and stuffy, and it doesn’t really make the language any clearer.
I don’t think anyone has mentioned “synergy” yet. I think a blanket declaration that all corporate buzzwords–including Dumb Ox’s despised -izes–are punishable by slow torture would be appropriate. Pseudowords like “utilize” (in place of the perfectly acceptable “use”) merit especially vile torments.
I nominate “signage”, “verbage” (or “verbiage”), and “wordage.” Also “facilitate”. I was told once that my job was to “facilitate the coordination…” The one that really needs to die is “pushing the envelope.”
No! Don’t say it! That’s like saying we should get rid of him/her because we could just say he/she instead.
Back on the topic, I believe that no one should say “my bad” ever again, or preface a question by saying, “Question…” And if someone wants to talk to me, they better not ask me for a “dialogue.” It sounds like we’ll be reading form some script.
How about limiting the use of “empathy” to times when it is truly appropriate, and bringing back the word “sympathy” which is being steadily and consistently replaced by the former.
Or the suffix -gate appended to any scandal of any kind.
Ditto -oholic for any addiction.
Phil Agre at the Red Rock Eater News Service has come up with this list of words used by the press but by nobody else:
So the list reads as follow: bolster, burgeon, cull, foster, garner, glean, hamper, hike, laud, mull, quell, revamp, sideline, stem, stymie, tout, underscore, vie, and voice.
Personally, I’d like to see “leverage” go away at my office.
And “gravitas” in reference to the Bush campaign can go away now. What I like is that everytime a pundit or reporter uses gravitas they have to define it as well, making the whole sentence redundant.
I believe that no one should say “my bad” ever again. Endora, I could not be more in agreement. I detest that phrase.
Dolores Claiborne, I heard “pugugly” most of my life in Texas. I always thought it had to do with a very beat up ex-boxer (pug).
Endora said
Well, eliminating “him” and “her” would utterly change the nature of English. And they don’t sound pretentious or awkward when they’re used properly. But consider these:
[ul]“Whom is that gift from?”
“Perhaps you don’t understand whom you’re dealing with.”
“Guess whom I ran into at the store.”
[/ul][And don’t tell me I can’t end my sentences with a preposition. That is some nonsense up with which I shall not put. 
(Churchill, I think.)]
I’ll admit we can’t put “whom” out of its misery just yet. There are still some situations in formal writing that call for its use. But “whom” is on its way out, and when it’s finally ready to leave for good, I’ll be holding the door. I have some impressive support on this one. “Whom from?” you ask. No less an authority than Noah Webster proposed dumping “whom” some 200 years ago. Now, you may be able to cite some experts of your own. But no matter whom you bring up, I’m sure I’ll object. 
That said, I heartily agree with your other suggestions, particularly “dialogue.” Doesn’t anybody just talk anymore?
I’m proud to say that I single-handedly removed -oholism from my workplace. During a large meeting, someone referred to someone else as a “workoholic” and I made some smartass remark like, “What, he’s addicted to drinking workohol?” It grew over the next few weeks, with people speculating that workohol may just be work with an -OH group attached, etc, etc. Anyway, no one here has used the term since. Hooray for me.
We now return you back to your regularly scheduled thread.
I’ve also realized that I don’t object to all “-ize” verbs, just the ones that sound like they were put together by a committee. Many, like plagiarize, baptize, and sterilize are perfectly serviceable. Others, like itemize, utilize and strategize make me want to terrorize the speaker.
Thanks for the laugh, Smeghead. I will now lie in wait for the next unwitting soul to use workaholic in my presence.
Yes, but a lot of words that sound pretentious or awkward are indeed correct. They sound awkward because they are rarely used correctly. This leads to all sorts of strange truncations of the language (just look at how Shakespeare wrote compared to how we speak today), which, in my opinion, will one day lead us to using only proper names, basic verbs, and a handful of utilitarian adjectives, if any.
And I would never tell you that your sentence should not have a preposition to end with. Hee-hee.
dot.com Eek!
This is so ridiculous! When you say “dot-com,” it makes sense, but that’s how it should be written as well. When it’s written as “dot.com,” it’s like saying “dot dot com.” Damn Webster for adding that to his dictionary. Pleh.
Good for you, Smeghead; but wouldn’t “chocohol” be awesome?
This seems like the kind of crowd that would enjoy George Orwell’s sense of humor. Mr. Orwell, too, was disturbed by the bureaucraticization (pretty good, huh?) of English. To express his displeasure, he wrote a parody of this famous verse from the King James Bible:
Poetic, no? Orwell’s translation drains all the blood out of it:
And he did it without any -ize verbs.
Endora, I agree that grammatical errors repeated often enough start to sound right. But just between you and I :eek:, I see just as many errors from people trying to be too correct. Languages change. “Whom” has had a good run. We still aren’t quite ready to let it go entirely. But, as Samuel Johnson said, “The pen must at length comply with the tongue.”
I cannot stand it when people say “Sounds like a winner.” Absolutely irritating.
“Keepin’ it real” -what the HELL does this mean???
(OKay, I’m a scrawny little Polish/Irish girl from Pittsburgh.
)
“Talk to the hand”…JERRY SPRINGER!!! AAAAHHH!!!
“All that and a bag of chips…”
These have already been mentioned but I hate:
"24/7." Can’t stand it. Hate it with a passion.
"My Bad." I hate this one just as much.