I think the point is that they're overused and that they take up unnecessary space.
I told my writing class that I would take a full letter grade off any paper that contains the words "basically" or "essentially." I challenged them to come up with a single sentence in which those words were necessary (excluding the preceding sentence, of course).
Essentially a "diamond geezer" is basically a cockney expression meaning that someone is a good and wonderful bloke.
The campaign for plain english are between a rock and a hard place if they wish to attack dialect expressions in this way.
To be honest, it's not rocket science and they are pushing the envelope a bit if they wish to get everyone to sing from the same hymn sheet.
It boggles the mind that they should be seen to be pushing the envelope in this direction.
The idea of plain english is to stop official gobbledygook and politically correct replacement phrases, not to attack common and popular everyday expressions.
But at the end of the day, going about it in this manner can only fail to address the issue.
personally I would probably live longer if I never heard "24/7" or "awesome" again... I just feel the life force draining out of me every time I hear one of those...
...and I immediately assign pretentiousness to anyone who uses the phrase "at the end of the day"...
I told my writing class that I would take a full letter grade off any paper that contains the words "basically" or "essentially." I challenged them to come up with a single sentence in which those words were necessary (excluding the preceding sentence, of course).
That's pretty narrow, don't you think? Certainly there are synonyms, but the words can be used correctly in sentences where they are not redundant. For example:
"The ethics of deliberately lying are not always clear-cut. One may be essentially honest, yet lie on occasion to spare someone else's feelings."
Removing "essentially" would cause the second sentence to be self-contradictory. It is a properly-placed qualifier in that usage.
Of course it was extreme, and I was clear on that when I spoke to them. I gave them this as an example of some rules which are not rules at all: they are preferences which can be broken without doing harm to the English language. But it is essential, I said, to know what a rule is so that when you break it, you are doing it with wisdom and not out of laziness.
Basically and essentially are overused. There's nothing wrong with them, and more often than not, they are used properly (grammatically speaking). But as a writer, I can tell you that each word should be used sparingly because they're just so danged convenient. People pepper their conversations with those words, which is fine in conversation, but on paper they become the equivalent of UMMMM, UMMMM, UMMMM.
Another rule which isn't a rule (but is almost never broken by good writers), is that it's improper to start an article with the date. The only time it is appropriate, I said, is when you're reciting the opening of The Odd Couple (which none of those whippersnappers gaughed at).
Split infinitives? They're fine, honest.
And there's really no rule which says you cannot end a sentence with a preposition, although there are grammar-nazis who insist that prepositions are not for ending sentences with.
On the local sports talk radio station they play a game called "you know". They play a piece of an interview and count the number of times the athlete says "you know". I think the record is 29 times in 15 or 20 seconds.
Try it yourself next time you hear an interview. It probably works with other folks as well, but it works best when athletes are involved. It just might make the interview bearable.
But what's really more irritating, poor language skills, or anal-retentive, elitist gimps who spend inordinate amounts of time compiling lists of the most egregious sins of those with the poor skills?
I hope I'm not the only one who noticed that the majority of these are "business speak." I'm suprised they missed words like synergy, touch-point, knowledge transfer, and all that other crap I hear about on a daily basis. (By the way, another guy has to "transfer his knowledge to me", supposedly because they want to be prepared in case he "calls in sick" some day. I warned him of the truth.)
Recommended Posts
Trefor Heywood
Most of these seem plain enough english to me.
What do they want to replace them with - Orwellian Newspeak?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think the point is that they're overused and that they take up unnecessary space.
I told my writing class that I would take a full letter grade off any paper that contains the words "basically" or "essentially." I challenged them to come up with a single sentence in which those words were necessary (excluding the preceding sentence, of course).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pirate1974
What's a "diamond geezer?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Essentially a "diamond geezer" is basically a cockney expression meaning that someone is a good and wonderful bloke.
The campaign for plain english are between a rock and a hard place if they wish to attack dialect expressions in this way.
To be honest, it's not rocket science and they are pushing the envelope a bit if they wish to get everyone to sing from the same hymn sheet.
It boggles the mind that they should be seen to be pushing the envelope in this direction.
The idea of plain english is to stop official gobbledygook and politically correct replacement phrases, not to attack common and popular everyday expressions.
But at the end of the day, going about it in this manner can only fail to address the issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
personally I would probably live longer if I never heard "24/7" or "awesome" again... I just feel the life force draining out of me every time I hear one of those...
...and I immediately assign pretentiousness to anyone who uses the phrase "at the end of the day"...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
The phrase "back in the day" irritates me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Now I like to be awesome 24/7.
But at the end of the day it doesn't always happen!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
"The ethics of deliberately lying are not always clear-cut. One may be essentially honest, yet lie on occasion to spare someone else's feelings."
Removing "essentially" would cause the second sentence to be self-contradictory. It is a properly-placed qualifier in that usage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Of course it was extreme, and I was clear on that when I spoke to them. I gave them this as an example of some rules which are not rules at all: they are preferences which can be broken without doing harm to the English language. But it is essential, I said, to know what a rule is so that when you break it, you are doing it with wisdom and not out of laziness.
Basically and essentially are overused. There's nothing wrong with them, and more often than not, they are used properly (grammatically speaking). But as a writer, I can tell you that each word should be used sparingly because they're just so danged convenient. People pepper their conversations with those words, which is fine in conversation, but on paper they become the equivalent of UMMMM, UMMMM, UMMMM.
Another rule which isn't a rule (but is almost never broken by good writers), is that it's improper to start an article with the date. The only time it is appropriate, I said, is when you're reciting the opening of The Odd Couple (which none of those whippersnappers gaughed at).
Split infinitives? They're fine, honest.
And there's really no rule which says you cannot end a sentence with a preposition, although there are grammar-nazis who insist that prepositions are not for ending sentences with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
On the local sports talk radio station they play a game called "you know". They play a piece of an interview and count the number of times the athlete says "you know". I think the record is 29 times in 15 or 20 seconds.
Try it yourself next time you hear an interview. It probably works with other folks as well, but it works best when athletes are involved. It just might make the interview bearable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Raf: Exactly. That's why I start sentences with conjunctions all the time...
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
But what's really more irritating, poor language skills, or anal-retentive, elitist gimps who spend inordinate amounts of time compiling lists of the most egregious sins of those with the poor skills?
I'll bet you can guess my vote...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Jeesh, George, you would think these people spent an inordinate amount of time on message boards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Ooops, guilty...
Here it is eight o'clock and I haven't managed to get my shoes on yet.
Just another productive day...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I hope I'm not the only one who noticed that the majority of these are "business speak." I'm suprised they missed words like synergy, touch-point, knowledge transfer, and all that other crap I hear about on a daily basis. (By the way, another guy has to "transfer his knowledge to me", supposedly because they want to be prepared in case he "calls in sick" some day. I warned him of the truth.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.