War of the Words
There are always fads in language, but some trends need to be strangled at birth or, better still, knocked on the head with some kind of neologism morning-after pill which prevents it even implanting in the uterus wall of idiom.
That I’ve come across the range of words and expressions listed here implies only that they’ve spread as far as Oxford students. If you’ve not heard them, the good news is that your segment of society has not yet been afflicted. The bad news is that it is on your shoulders to stop the pandemic.
I’m perhaps stretching the definition of “neologism” here, because not one of my words is actually a new one. What is new is their forcible incorporation into people’s everyday dialect. Here, then, is a list of words which have incurred my semantic wrath through overuse:
-
Random
I think the misuse of this word is prevalent across the board. People everywhere exclaim “That’s random!” or “How random!” in response to descriptions of events which simply aren’t. “What a random thing to do!” implies that the doer chose from a fixed set of possibilities with an equal chance of each. It certainly doesn’t imply that the choice was unusual or wacky.
For those who feel the need to insert “random” into their every sentence, allow me to suggest a few alternatives: arbitrary, odd, weird, strange, ridiculous and surreal, each with their subtly different meanings, would almost invariably outperform “random”, both through being more accurate and, crucially, less horrifically over-used.
Your collection of photos on Facebook should not be entitled “random”…they’re not, are they? Did you make your camera take a photograph every time the number of seconds in the minute was a digit of π? No? How’s about the more accurate label “an intriguing juxtaposition of unconnected images”? At least the World would think you were pretentious idiot rather than just an idiot.
If this dilution of meaning continues, it may one day be possible to make coherent sentences entirely from the word “random” spoken with different inflexions.
However, despite its all-too-prominent misuse by all and sundry, there are a few sentences to which “That’s random!” is a sensible response: “Wow! I’ve just won the lottery!”, “This die got a six and then, when rolled again, a four.”, or perhaps “This radionuclide just underwent beta decay.”
-
Banter
It’s the new “random”. Taking root with the speed of a grammatical Chinese knotweed, it will not be long before any and every witty exchange is dismissed with a remark of “Ah, banter!”.
I’ve even heard it turned into an adjective, “banterous”, a disgusting-sounding linguistic chimera which makes you want to crush its progenitor to death with the complete twenty-volume Oxford English Dictionary glued into a vertical column to be administered by pile-driver to their face.
What’s worse than its all-too-rapid creeping into overuse, however, is its use as an excuse. Apparently, something’s being “banter” allows it to be pointless, unfunny and poorly-produced. Everything from the exchange of ill-thought-out insults to the production of a crap centrespread (I’m not kidding, I’ve heard it used in this context) can be justified, as long as the result is “banterous”.
Avoid.
-
Like
For too long, people have inserted “like” where it’s, like, stupid or wrong to do so. And when you tell them, they’re all like “Whatever!”
Like is neither a prelude to direct speech nor a replacement for the stalwart British hesitation “err”. If you’re not sure how to put the rest of the sentence, pause for, like, a moment and think about it.
Which brings me to the only use of “like” worse than randomly mid-banter: to pre-empt emphasis. Is your vocabulary really so limited that the most powerful word you can use to build up to your conclusion is the insertion of “like” mid-sentence? Like, no way. With a language loaded up with adjectives like “banterous”, how can you possibly be groping around wordless?
Any help eradicating these would be much appreciated.
However, except in France where they have a special government department to regulate new words, language is constantly evolving organically. New irritating words, or words newly irritating, will appear as surely as a distinctly certain thing.
So, the next over-used word? My money’s on “procrastinate”.
Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
March 15th, 2006 at 09:41
Well, since I don’t appreciate being called an idiot, I’ve taken the liberty of looking up the definition of the word “random” in a dictionary, perhaps something you should have done before launching into your tirade!
random (adj.) - 1a. Lacking a definite plan, purpose or pattern
b. made, done, or chosen at random
See, we don’t have to go far to find that calling a set of photos “random” is entirely, like, justified! By ignoring meaning 1, and concentrating on meaning 2, you’re the one who’s actually guilty of devaluing our beautiful language.
Ignore my irritated tone, it’s only banter…
March 15th, 2006 at 12:52
Don’t worry, I did take the liberty of looking up “random” in the dictionary before launching into my tirade…can you imagine me not having done?
Defininition one in my OED is “made, done etc. without method or conscious choice”, followed up with the statistical definition, and then one regarding the use of irregularly-sized stones in masonry.
I’m afraid I agree with my dictionary. I think “lacking a definite plan, purpose or pattern” should be under “idiotic”.
If I disclaim this with “Ah, banter!”, is another suitable useage to prevent offence being caused no matter what came before?
March 16th, 2006 at 10:59
Almost never hear anybody use the word “banter” over here. But what I do hear too much of it “literally”, particularly from my intellect-deprived co-worker, who insists on using it at every available oppertunity. “When I click the button, the computer literally crashes…” What? So you’re telling me that it actually collides with something at great speed? It’s particularly annoying then he uses “literally”, immediately followed by a metaphor. I’ve caught him doing this a few times, and I can’t think of any particular examples, but they’re of the form “it’s raining cats and dogs outside, literally,” to makes me immediately wonder whether my umbrella will be sufficient to fight off a “literal” shower of canines and felines.
Compared to the words you’ve suggested, “literally” is, like, random banter.
March 21st, 2006 at 14:12
As an English student, over the course of three years I’ve been repeatedly told that no use of language is intrinsically ‘wrong’, and that the language will continue to evolve regardless of convention or personal preference (education has slowed this process somewhat, since apparently it didn’t appreciate being ‘cleped educacioun’). However, my natural corrective instincts frequently lead me down the path of exasperation upon hearing the above fallacies, especially random. This word has become so widely misused that it seems to me almost a badge of honour for youthful middle class citizens, an identity I never thought I’d find myself cursing. Indeed, even I have caught myself in the act of using ‘like’ on numerous occasions, after which I administered ruthless self - beatings with my own personal and much treasured copy of the Oxford English Dictionary. One thing in particular concerns me: I have observed continued use of all three original bugbears by a certain person close to my mind, who shall remain nameless, but is Tamsyn. Indeed, only last week she made this scurrilous announcement: “Procrastinate is my favourite word at the moment”.
May 10th, 2006 at 09:38
I thought I should point out the other side of the argument. As a languages student (which doesn’t just mean learning foreign languages but also studying the development of language itself), I need to point out to you all that language is fluid and changes over time. Not just lexically but also gramatically. How do you decide what is right? Originally, in many countries it was based on the most widely used forms among the dominating social groups. If we were to hang onto the original forms and meanings, language would be very different to how it is today. Have you thought that maybe, random no longer just means what you say it means, but has recently taken on new meaning? That is how language develops!
This wasn’t intended to rubbish what you say, but there is a difference between using language badly, and using it in a way that does make sense.
May 10th, 2006 at 14:25
That argument can be accused of the naturalistic fallacy: taking something descriptive (”language changes”, or even “language changes and there’s nothing that you can do about it”) and converting it to something normative (”language should change” or “all linguitic change is good”).
Yes, I have considered that. This post’s original intention was to be a daft pedantic snipe at those who have adopted these new meanings, because, for some reason, this dilution of meaning genuinely does irk me. It was not intended as a polemic against semantic drift. However, that the meaning has changed is not itself a good thing: saying “that is how language develops” is loaded vocabulary, because it implies that language is making some kind of positive progress.
A consistent language, if such a thing were possible, would continue indefinitely to be mutually comprehensible to its speakers and readers. A changing language can, at best, hope to remain universally understood by universal acknowledgement of the changes. If we view language as a tool for communication, then change would appear to be bad.
I’m still not quite sure where I stand on the issue of language changing, and I’ll probably write a complete ‘blog entry at some point when I’ve finalised my opinion to the point where I’m willing to distribute it!
However, my fundamental point at the moment is that though philologists may say that linguistic change is inevitable, this doesn’t make it positive. It doesn’t make it negative, either, though, and that’s why I’m going to think about it a bit more.
June 16th, 2006 at 21:39
How about:
bantex (contraction of ‘banter vortex’) - a person lacking any banter