One of My Pet Peeves
February 10th, 2006 | by Craig |The phrase per se means “by itself.” Tacking the phrase onto any random sentence makes you sound like a gooberhead, not an intellectual.
Taking a noun and making it a verb does not make you sound smart. “Transition” is a noun, not a verb.
Communicate is a verb, not a noun.
I know that it was a chore diagramming sentences in 8th grade, but there was a purpose to it.
These folks are on the same page as I am.
Don’t even get me started on “irregardless.”
13 Responses to “One of My Pet Peeves”
By Jim - PRS on Feb 10, 2006 | Reply
That article citing various examples of “corporatespeak” gave me chills.
By Jeff on Feb 10, 2006 | Reply
You know, I’ve heard people complain about “irregardless,” but I can’t say I’ve encountered it outside of that.
“Transitioning” appears in dictionary.com’s dictionary, but not in two other online dictionaries I tried. I always thought it could be used that way (though it’s sort of awkward).
By dogette on Feb 11, 2006 | Reply
As a side-peeve of my own, please help me understand why some TV talking heads pronounce the word “pundit” as “pundint,” and why some people say real-a-tor instead of realtor. I do read/hear “irregardless.” I also see confusion with just about every form of possessive. It’s, its. Oh yes, people just love to throw in the apostrophes: Welcome Member’s: 50% Off All Pork Rind’s on Saturday’s.
By Craig on Feb 11, 2006 | Reply
Jeff–
Chances are, you will.
Dogette–
The apostrophes are, indeed, way out of hand.
Also, another one of my faves: “visioning.”
I’m all for honest mangling of the language, a la Yogi Berra, but my beef is with the folks who are making up words just to try to make themselves look smart.
By McQ on Feb 11, 2006 | Reply
“Instantaneously”. What in the world is wrong with plain old “instantly?”
By David Summerlin on Feb 11, 2006 | Reply
My favorite from the current corporate vernacular is “servicing,” as in “…servicing our clients.” I know I’ve got a dirty mind, but it’s all I can do to keep from laughing every time I hear it.
By Chad on Feb 11, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
I used to have the same opinion that you have regarding the mangling of words. I was always taught — as I expect that you were that if it wasn’t in the dictionary, it shouldn’t be used as a word.
But who writes the dictionaries, and why? There isn’t a set arbitration board that decides what is and isn’t a word in English. Dictionaries are not written by those who tell us what the language should be, rather they are written by those that tell us what the language is. I realize that this is not intuitive, but rather counterintuitive. But if you look at the etymology of the words ‘intuitive’ and ‘counterintuitive’, you see that they entered the lexicon four hundred years apart.
Irregardless of what we might think language is or isn’t, just because ‘transition’ is not currently listed as a verb doesn’t mean it won’t transition into one, per se.
By Ed Kemmick on Feb 11, 2006 | Reply
Craig: I thought everyone knew the right word was “disirregardless.”
By Craig on Feb 12, 2006 | Reply
Chad–
I remember some rather lively discussions about prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar. As for me, I know that the grammar I use at home is far different than the grammar I use at work. Further, my grammar at work can even depend on who I am talking to at a given moment. I have a far different vocabulary and constructs when I’m talking to upper management as opposed to when I’m chatting with the mechanics in the break room.
Ed–
If Strunk & White were alive today, they’d be spinning in their graves.
By R. Alex on Feb 12, 2006 | Reply
I’m with you on all points except the verbification of words. I believe that words are meant to be free of the confines of their original part of speech.
By Tony Rosen on Feb 13, 2006 | Reply
As you already know, irregardless on what you think of corporate speak, per se ………….. man, that’s just dangerous.
By keith on Feb 19, 2006 | Reply
There are new words that suck, but there are some that are useful. I LIKE the word “deliverables”. I think it is concise, much better than “the portion of our work that we, um, gotta have ready to deliver to the customer”.
There is also nothing wrong with inside lingo or implied language. The use of “offsite” as a noun is perfectly acceptable at a meeting if everyone knows you are implying “offsite meeting”. You gotta be freakin anal to have a problem with that one.
English is evolving, mostly for the better. Snobbish composition rules hinder more than help the process. Take a look at the long windblown way people wrote back in the 30’s. Even our ‘neologistic corpo-speak’ is better than that arrogant garbage. My 2 cents.