UPDATED WORDS & PHRASES ABUSE-64

I wrote about the American language in a 2007 blog essay, Misused or Abused Words & Phrases and a short follow-up essay, Further Thoughts on Dissimilation, but now I feel compelled to write again. It is not only that the general public commits unbearable sins and embarrassing written and especially spoken gaffes in regard to our language to the point that sensitive souls want to feign blindness and deafness as mechanisms to bring about surcease from pain and suffering. No, it is people in which speech is central to their professions that are the most egregious culprits with the least excuse who annoy me the most. Journalists on TV, radio, and in the print media as well as TV and radio talk show hosts are equally guilty. Not to mention politicians, academics, and business leaders who also depend upon communication skills to do their jobs properly, yet they do not write and speak properly – that is to say without using clichés and repetitious, trite, and hackneyed expressions which diminish their ability to convince people, especially people like me, of anything. When it comes to not recognizing incompetent and lazy speech habits Ignorance is NOT Bliss. Rather it is confining and intellectually constricting not to be aware of speech, written and spoken, which is poorly put forth. This country is not going to fall like the Roman Empire because a big majority of people in all categories has lost their ability to communicate effectively and with style and grace. Nevertheless, I don’t believe that it will project a national sense of pride and confidence either. What in particular am I going on about? As I wrote in my 2007 essay, the word “very” is by far the most overused word in the American language. Since then it appears to me that this overuse has increased by an order of magnitude (one order of magnitude is 10, two orders 100, three 1000, etc.). I wrote back then that “very” had practically become a compound word as an adverb being used as a modifier for adjectives. I now see the necessity of excising the word “practically.” If you think I am exaggerating then you are clearly not paying attention to the way people, on TV and radio and in private conversations, are expressing themselves. I am fully conscious that if you have not noticed this then I may be doing you a disservice to call it to your attention. Once you become aware of it, perhaps you will want to upbraid me for the annoyance it will then cause you. Go right ahead if that will make you feel better. Not only does it become excruciatingly painful to keep hearing the word “very” being unceasingly overused, but also its function as an intensifier is so diminished that it becomes meaningless. If everything is emphasized, then nothing is. It is as if every negative situation is labeled as the direst, then none is or every positive situation is the greatest then, again, none is. I would only caution you NOT to interrupt and confront the speaker by telling her/him to damn well quit overusing that word (by at least one order of magnitude). That would not be proper manners and, who knows, might lead to fisticuffs or other physical violence. Even barring that, it could well result in an unpleasant oral argument that would be undignified to say the least. If you feel you must intervene, then by all means take the uninformed speaker aside and in private gently attempt to correct this wayward misuse of our language. What else? There is plenty more to come. You, gentle reader, are surely aware of the ubiquitous, unceasing, omnipresent use of the expression, “you know.” It is not even used as a question any more such as “You know?” It is merely a speech filler without any merit whatsoever. Some people use this phrase in their speech blissfully unconsciously and others as a nervous habit, also seemingly unconsciously. I was once discomfited by the inane insertion of this phrase into so many people’s speech, but now I am convinced that it is infuriating to the point of driving the insane, sane and the sane, insane (I am in an aporetic state whether I fit in the first category or the second – the reader may have no such doubt that I belong in a third state; insane before and after). Professional athletes are especially prone to incessantly insert “you know” in their responses to sportswriters during interviews. Even allowing that these athletes are known for their physical prowess rather than their mental acuity, many of them did go to college, albeit nominally. Perhaps the professional football players should have spent a bit more time learning to speak better rather than trying to knock each other senseless. The class action law suits now being undertaken by retired football players against the National Football League because the players claim they were not sufficiently warned by the league of the risk of damage to their brains indicates to me there wasn’t much there to damage in the first place. Just what the hell did they think would happen when they repeatedly banged each other in the head even when wearing helmets? Even though I have not had that experience, I am convinced I would rather undergo “water boarding” than continue hearing a speaker keep using that expression. Despite my previous imprecation against confronting people who keep saying “very” I might well resort to physical means to silence those bleating miscreants who keep babbling on incessantly with “you know”, “you know”, “you know” ad infinitum. I just might want to kick a few of them in the head, sans helmet no less. No sensible jury would convict me for whatever I do to achieve this highly desired result. How many times have you heard TV and radio newscasters as well as TV hosts of various programs breathlessly intone the mantra “You are not going to believe this.” when they are about to introduce a news story containing an unusual element? I’ll guess the answer is myriad times or even a myriad of times (When uses as an adjective “myriad” means many times and when uses as a noun “myriad” means precisely 10,000 times. Don’t take my word for it, look it up in an unabridged American lexicon.). If they opine that the listener is not going to believe what they are about to be told then why bother to tell them. I realize, as I have stated in the aforementioned essay, that the American language, in fact any language, is not to be confused with logic. Still, that does not mean that statements should be intentionally illogical. How about one being sensible? Is that too much to ask? To answer my own question – apparently it is. Despite my previous attempts to enlighten the ill educated among the Americans, it appears that I have failed. I will tell you straight out, I do not enjoy having to classify myself as an abject failure. Newscasters, especially on TV, are still calling the period after a disaster, an “aftermath”, as when, for example, the damage is still being assessed when a tornado has devastated a town or small city. “In the aftermath of the tornado the people who were in its path are coming together to deal with the destruction and pain.” Again, as I have previously explained, “after” means second and “math” means harvest. In this case it is a bitter harvest, yet there has not been a second destructive event following and caused by the first. The classic example of this is the fire following the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Is that a concept difficult to grasp? To repeat myself, apparently it is. What actions have I taken in the past to educate those dummkopfs? I have repeatedly written e-mails informing them of their benighted language skills, yet it was all in vain as I never heard from any of them and the mistake keeps being repeated. Let us make a covenant. I will continue to tilt, a’ la Don Quixote, at the windmills of ignorance if you will take up a cudgel to combat language deficiencies wherever you encounter them. Deal? Do you hear the expression “at this point in time” still being used? I do. It is Nixon/Watergate era usage. How droll and dumb that it is being used in contemporary speech. There was precious little reason for it back in the 1970’s, say nothing for its continuation now, but at least then there was the element of originality. What just punishment should be imposed on its users today? I have a suggestion. For this and the other enumerated sins the following might be appropriate: Many years ago the brother of William F. Buckley put on a public speaking seminar for professional people such as top business leaders, university deans and presidents, and high level government officials. You could well imagine the fee was not unsubstantial. One of the techniques he used was to have the participants practice delivering a speech in front of the group. Immediately in back of the speaker was a gong that was loudly rung if said speaker made extraneous or unnecessary sounds such as “ah”, ”uh”, “you know”, “very this”, very that”, or other such unnecessary folderol. Can you imagine the shock and chagrin the speaker would experience on hearing that sound in such close proximity to his ears? For the modern language butcher I would substitute his head for the gong and make sure the instrument striking it contained substantial heft. Don’t be queasy – sacre blu! Those dummies deserve that and more. How common is it for people to exclaim “to tell you the truth”; “I am going to be honest with you”; “I am not going to lie to you”; or some similar formulation? We have all heard this repeatedly so the answer must be it is common. There is no cogent reason for any honest person to have to insist they will tell whomever they are talking to that they will be truthful. On the other hand maybe Mark Twain was right when he said, “I think we never become really and genuinely our entire and honest selves until we are dead - and not then until we have been dead years and years. People ought to start dead, and they would be honest so much earlier.” And some people believe I am a cynic. There is one language affliction that adult Americans do not seem to suffer. That one is the nonstop insertion of the word ”like” in their conversations. This seems to be restricted to teens and tweens. I suppose it is a bit unfair to criticize too harshly these immature humans as their brains are largely just a hash of mush. I once tried to mock my granddaughter and her friend over their continued use of “like” in what passed as conversation, but I might as well have been talking to the wind. I was either disdainfully or unconsciously ignored. With that young generation it is difficult to discern their thought processes. Despite my adjuring Americans, especially trained journalists, authors, and public speakers, about not using such modifiers as very, almost, quite, extremely, etc. with the word “unique” in my 2007 essay, it is readily apparent that in the years since absolutely no one has paid any attention to what I wrote. Yet, and yet, is there a word more universally misused, at least in the United States, than unique? If something is unique it is one-of-a-kind and therefore no modification allowed; that is if the speaker wants to be considered a truly educated and literate individual who has more than a basic understanding of the American language. An unhappy note, as least to me, was a recent C-SPAN Book TV event where author and American Enterprise Institute president, Arthur Brooks was introduced by House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor (R-VA). It was a stellar introduction until Cantor said in closing, “and now without further ado….” which is an expression that was a cliché at least 60 years ago. I had heard it used a couple of other times on Book TV in the past few years, but it was with great disappointment that such an esteemed person as Eric Cantor would employ it. How sad. “The reservation was made for Bob and myself.” Have you ever heard that type of construction? If so, what is wrong with it? The answer is plenty. People who use such monstrosities simply do not have the knowledge or confidence in their use of the American language to properly express themselves. The rule is simple and even easier to apply if one’s ear is at all attuned to the American language. First, for clarity, let me state the rule. If it is the subject of the sentence then the proper pronoun is “I”, “she”, “he”, “we”, “they”, or “who”, but if it is the object, then it is “me”, “her “, him”, “us”, “them”, or “whom.” The subjective pronouns are actors and the objective pronouns are acted upon. Consider the opening sentence of this paragraph: “Reservation” is the subject so the correct pronoun should the objective one, “me.” Whether it is a compound subject or object, as in this case, makes no difference. No native American speaker would say, the reservation was made for “I” or “myself”; “me” would unfailingly be used. Usually the objective pronoun comes after the subject in a sentence, but not always. If I say, “My wife has a better memory than me” I may be factually accurate, but I would not be grammatically correct. A simple test would be to ask her to name all 50 of the state capitals. No, just joking. By completing the sentence “My wife has a better memory than I have” the correct, subjective pronoun becomes obvious. The “self” pronouns are neither subjects nor objects. They are reflexives (I hurt myself – one would not say “I hurt I” or “I hurt me”) or intensifiers (I myself witnessed the accident). Do you not agree that when so explained, the proper use of pronouns becomes, like the Egg of Columbus, as clear as the sun at mid- day?