We here at Harpyness are utterly convinced that language matters. We’ve gone on record with our feelings on the multitude of names for ladyparts, for example. And we’re always up in someone’s grill about the way language contributes to sexism and stereotypes. But we’re also just plain into words, as you can probably tell by how many of them we pour into this site every day. Personally, I’ve spent my entire professional life making a living from words and writing, and every single day gives me a chance to appreciate the dynamism and versatility of English, which shamelessly borrows from every culture in the world, giving it the widest and deepest word pool of any language. It’s truly one of the greatest achievements of humankind.
That said, there are plenty of English words that are stupid or squicky or that you wish would just go away. And who better to ask about those words than poets, whose talent lies in distilling the fewest number of words into the most vivid language? At the recent Ledbury festival in England, poets were asked “which word do you hate most and why?“ Some of the responses were brilliant. Check out Philip Wells’s explanation of his hatred for the “should sound nice but doesn’t” word pulchritude:
“It violates all the magical impulses of balanced onomatopoeic language – it of course means”beautiful”, but its meaning is nothing of the sort, being stuffed to the brim with a brutally latinate cudgel of barbaric consonants. If consonants represent riverbanks and vowels the river’s flow, this is the word equivalent of the bottomless abyss of dry bones, where demons gather to spit acid.”
Top that!
The one I most agreed with, though, was Welsh poet Rhian Edwards on chillax: “the most unnecessary and obnoxious linguistic blend to have ever been coined.”
There are some similar words that raise my hackles with their sheer laziness. Don’t tell me you want to have a convo, for example. I love a conversation. A convo makes me want to smack you. So does your rhapsodizing about your great summer vacay. Just use the whole fucking word, okay? Cutting a syllable won’t save you that much time, but it will make you look like a moron.
And for the record, I’ve always hated herstory. I love feminism and I love history. I do not love it when feminism takes the perfectly decent and not even remotely sexist word history and gives gender reassignment surgery to its first syllable. The word is not a combination of the English words his+story. It’s from the Greek verb historien meaning “to inquire.” There’s no gendered English his to it, so can we all please direct our outraged red pens elsewhere? After all, there are plenty of other words and phrases that genuinely do need them.
What words get under your skin? Which ones should the language police crack down on? Let’s have a conversation in the comments…
Becky – yes tragic is completely overused and it thoroughly irritates me.
PS – undoubtedly there’s a class thing here but I have to be honest and admit that the correct use of words is something I do feel strongly about and yes it probably makes me a snob. Part of the reason I feel strongly about it is that, to take the UK system as an example, spelling and the meaning of language or grammar is no longer considered important in GCSE English so instead it becomes all about the student’s response to a piece rather than a critical analysis of it and I think that’s bad teaching. I think it leads to solipsistic thought and the idea that subjectivity trumps objectivity which I personally disagree with. I’m not saying that language shouldn’t be flexible just that I personally dislike management speak being substituted for actual English and text speak being considered an acceptable way to structure sentences. Yes, actually there’s no way round it I am a horrible snob about this and an unapologetic one at that.
PHDork – the problem with spelling is that with all due respect your nation spells incorrectly. (No I am not being serious – although I have to admit that I found it incredibly jarring to read a recent American biography stuffed to the gills with so and so wrote so and so, they wrote to them damn it. I know, I know, stuck up English issues ahoy.)
I haven’t gone through all the comments yet to see if this was already said, but I really loathe the word “panties.” I just do. It is just…..yuck. Conjures up all kinds of creepy imagery for me. Squickety Squick.
The phrase “it’s about” irritates the hell out of me. It’s so bloody overused and it makes whatever comes next sound like a commercial.
I read a book by an African-American professor of linguistics on the west coast whose name completely escapes me. He argued that language is such a dynamic thing that even calling one form the proper one and all others dialects was incorrect, as each one has evolved to serve the purposes of its users. I tend to get cranky when people use it’s instead of its, and it makes me sort of sad that the “ing” suffix is going the way of the dinosaurs, but our language is what we make it.
As on the bf question, I had a law school professor who referred to the man in her life as her sweetheart.
So, this might be throwing firecrackers but I’m in a firecracker throwing mood, and I think everyone’s already gone home.
I think that the focus on proper grammar and erudition IS classist and racist. If we argue against ignorance we are endorsing a standard which is set, historically, by white males for other white males. It ignores that the languages used by minorities and the poor, while they may consist to some degree of English words, are not the bastardized little brothers of Standard English, they are different animals with a different set of linguistic ancestors.
All of this to say, while it is practical to teach everyone to speak standard English well, it is also ignorant to ignore the value and tradition of dialects and patois and it discounts the cultural worth of the people who speak in them.
Most respectfully!
Bella
So Bella, if the focus on proper grammar and erudition is classist and racist, do you propose to eliminate those things in an effort to eliminate classism and racism? How would that work, exactly?
First off, I’m with you, Marigold, on panties. I hate that word. Knickers FTW. Or underwear. Second, I concur on “slacks.” I wear trousers.
The misuse that drives me batshit insane is when people use “weary” when they mean “leery” or “wary.” So, PSoul, although I see your point about language snobbery being pretty classist, your proper use of the word “leery” is nevertheless a soothing balm on my privileged yet disgruntled soul.
On the other hand, reading “ethnic” dialogue in a book I know was written by an old white man makes me super uncomfortable. I read an unseemly number of spy paperbacks, and there is ALWAYS a black character from the ‘hood, and lest you forget he’s black and from the ‘hood, every time he opens his mouth, “he gon’ be droppin’ Gs an’ makin’ sho he gets ‘nough respeck, a’ight?” It smacks of blackface to me. And it’s lazy writing. I’m looking at you, Robert Ludlum, even though you’re dead.
Penny, add Margaret Mitchell to that list. The Mammy dialect in GWTW damn near ruins it for me.
Becky:
Nope. I don’t think we should eliminate grammar and erudition, but I think there is value in realizing that what we think is proper is only proper because we (as a society) value whiteness and middle to upper-classness more than we value inner citiness or Kentucky coalminer-ness or Jamaica-ness or whatever-ness. And for that reason, when we ask people to speak “correctly,” what we are saying is, “Speak like we do, because that is correct.”
For that reason, I think Standard American English should be taught as one acceptable way to speak in certain situations. As in, you have the option to speak this way or in the completely acceptable way you were taught to speak in your home and community. Both have their place.
Yep, totally agree.
YAY!
–Wymyn, when used as a singular noun. I’m not a big fan of the word, but I’ll tolerate it when it’s used as a collective noun and womyn/womun/something along those lines is used as the singular. Also, it has too many ys, which makes it automatically look lyke a product of hyppy neomedaevalism or the SCA.
“Herstory”, in contrast, I can go along with as a wordplay-ful short form of “women’s history”. Maybe this is partially because one of my Brownie badges was named “HerStory”.
Bella, are you arguing that it’s classist/racist to dislike certain words (the topic of the post) or to cringe when people swap “weary,” “leery” and “wary?”
Because whilst I don’t believe the upper-class white male standard of speech is “correct,” there are proper ways to use words and improper ways to use words. “Weary” and “wary” are not synonyms, for instance. Using words incorrectly is not a dialect or a feature of a particular culture.
@bellacoker, @BeckySharper, @SarahMC: the place I look to for how to talk about class/race issues & the correctness of speech is English with an Accent, by Rosina Lippi-Green. Her focus is on dialect, more than accuracy, but the book gives a general framework with which to think about where language authority comes from, and what subtexts are communicated in discussions of appropriacy.
Language policing is a form of social control, and it’s a form of social identity. And beyond that, I’m ambivalent — even vacillatory — about this whole discussion. (it’s been years since I read Lippi-Green’s book; I suspect I’d have a more solid opinion were it fresher in my mind.)
That said, there are words that bother me, mostly because of their sources. “Hysterical” comes to mind. If I’m going to play the word police, I want words with that kind of sexist recent origin stricken from my language.
[...] Which words do you hate to use? 2. The meek potato’s contribution to civilization. 3. Finnish trash [...]
I used the word “effusive” around some people at work today and they had no idea what the word meant. I blame my father for my lexicological affluence.
As for a word I hate… oh, there’s plenty. But I’ll say irregardless. I must admit I use chillax with my best friend.
OH! I hate “irregardless” too.
Maybe we can think of “proper” English as the common dialect among many in this country. We don’t have to say it’s the best or the right one, just the one we’ve agreed on as appropriate in common spaces such as work and school. If we don’t have a common speech, our cohesiveness as a nation (such as it is) will be threatened. But dialects and accents are fascinating and precious and should be respected and preserved too.
As for obscure words, saying we should limit our vocabularies because not everyone understands the words we use is like saying that we should only have vanilla ice cream for dessert because some people don’t know what creme brulee is. Long and/or obscure words are the dessert of language!
@mischiefmanager: I totally second all of the above. Despite my slavish love of English, I’m not one of those people who thinks America has to be the land of the white person’s standard English. Yes, we need a common dialect for work, school, business, etc. But regional accents, patois, dialect–I love ‘em (and have kept a lot of my Southern accent/vocabulary despite 13 years in NYC). I’m also all for America being a place where people speak second languages–I grew up among a lot of people for whom English was a second language, and I don’t get why the hell so many Americans feel threatened by it. Being able to speak two languages makes you SMARTER, not dumber.
@SarahMC
Not to be nitpicky (even though that’s kind of what this post is all about) but what you’re saying doesn’t make much sense from a linguistic standpoint.
You “don’t believe the upper-class white male standard of speech is “correct,” but DO believe that “there are proper ways to use words and improper ways to use words”? In the U.S. upper-class people, men and women both, are the ones that decide what is and is not proper in terms of language (and, if you’ll recall, proper is a synonym of correct), so it would logically follow that you believe that their dialect IS the “right” one.
If that’s not what you intended, what are you trying to say? That Standard American English (which is the dialect taught in schools and what most commenters seem to be advocating/typing in) is only slightly more correct than other ways of speaking? That’s a very dangerous line of thought, in my opinion. Setting up hierarchies doesn’t usually get us anywhere positive as a society.
Granted, there are academic and journalistic standards when it comes to things written specifically for those contexts that are not likely to change anytime soon, but what does it matter if people don’t follow the current prescribed language rules at all other times? My grandma is from a generation that never uses ‘text’ as a verb. I’m not. Does that mean her/their English is purer/better/more correct than mine?
Sorry for the spiel. I guess I should’ve just said that I agree with Pilgrim Soul and bellacoker.
K – while i think on rereading everything that Bella and PS and you are all making really good points (and for a fantastic screed on this you should track down James Kelman’s Booker prize acceptance speech in which he lambasts the ‘colonisation’ of the Scottish language by English imperialists and sounds the trumpet resoundingly for colloquialisms) and I truly do think that novels in particular would be all the poorer if you wiped out/ignored patois etc and wrote only in standard English. I also agree that language needs to evolve and flourish and can’t just be pinned down by people.
However my objection is to the idea (not outlined by any of you I hasten to add but certainly increasingly allowed in certain schools) that text speak is a valid way to express yourself in the context of a school essay or that it doesn’t matter if you can’t spell as long as you are ‘expressing yourself’. I don’t think that’s true. I think that in the context of your school education learning the basics of grammar and spelling is important even you do not have to express yourself in them in later life. I just don’t believe that self-expression is everything and I think we do people a disservice if we say that they don’t have to know the correct meaning of words and that whether or not they like a book is more important than analysing the author (this is a different point though so sorry for going off track).
As a sidenote, I object strongly to management speak and excessive legalese because it is ugly and unnecessary, but I accept that not every one has to agree with this opinion.
K, it seems people are talking about a bunch of different things, which are being conflated.
There’s spelling, grammar, dialect, definition, etc. Taking liberties with language in a poetry class is different from being sloppy in a cover letter. Nobody has insisted that everyone speak and write “proper” English in every aspect of their lives. But I agree with emilyanne that “…we do people a disservice if we say that they don’t have to know the correct meaning of words.” There’s slang and then there’s carelessness. I am troubled that young people seem to think “great” and “gr8″ are equally acceptable outside of text messaging.
i’m a little late to this show, but the misuse of the following words drives me bonkers:
ironic, when the situation at hand is in now way ironic
literally, as in “It’s literally raining cats and dogs.”
@BlueBears and BeckySharper and others, I also struggle with the BF/partner situation. I find when dealing with insurance, etc. I refer to him as “partner.” And when talking to people I always just use his name, because it sounds less juvenile than “boyfriend.” Of course, this irritates some people too, so there is not much win.
SarahMC: Hmmm . . . I would not say that it’s “wrong” to cringe when people misuse words, I would say that it’s a little like cringing when someone uses the wrong fork at a dinner party. You know? Understandable if you were raised knowing which is the “proper” fork to use, but perhaps a little fussy.
Language is a tool we use to make ourselves understood, and I would guess that, even using the wrong word, that person succeeded; just like the wrong fork transports the food to your mouth just fine.
In a perfect world, both participants in any conversation, be it at a bank or at a bodega, would go out of their way to understand the people they interact with. That this is not the case now highlights how language is a form of privilege, those with the privilege expect those without to do all of the heavy lifting that goes into making the conversation progress. That probably won’t change, but we should recognize that it happens, dontcha think?
[...] my post on words we hate–which yielded an awesome comment thread about not just nit-picky word-hating, but on language [...]
I hate the current trend amongst British young people for using “random” to mean unusual or a bit exciting. Constantly. For example, “I went out and got completely drunk and ended up sleeping in my clothes, it was completely random”. Or upon seeing something such as a man in a bear suit in Tesco “that is so random”. Grrrrr. “Basically” and “at the end of the day” are another two. And the Manchester habit of saying “was you” instead of “were you”. I could go on…
[...] year I blogged about how the Ledbury poetry festival asked poets to reveal their most hated words. This year at the [...]