Posts tagged ‘overused words’

January 2, 2018

#136) Language court 2018: the D-Theory verdicts on the LSSU 43rd annual list of banished words

Let me ask you this: was 2017 an impactful year or was it a big nothingburger? Hopefully you didn’t spill your covfefe while you were drilling down the tons of fake news stories over the hot water heater at the office – if so, you might have quickly learned about your company’s offboarding process. Let that sink in.

Truthfully, I was a little perplexed and disappointed by this year’s edition of Lake Superior State University’s Banished Words List. Did over use of “pre-owned” really come to that much of a head in 2017? How is it more annoying than the words and phrases that didn’t make the list? Am I really the only one who has to hold back violent impulses when confronted by the terms “Fri-yay”, “Sunday Funday”, “Adulting” and “Fam Bam?”

Oh well, I guess lists are meant to be debated, so debate we will. Because of the tepidity of this year’s list – several items did get me nodding my head but still fell short of making me say, “Thank GOD it’s not just me!” – a new level has been introduced: guilty parties will be divided into misdemeanors (annoying but not as severe) and felonies.

Court is in session. Time to unpack this list!


Charges: “Misused word for analyze, consider, assess.”

Verdict: Guilty (misdemeanor). The charges are valid but this word will soon run its course and will be as obscure to future generations as “real gone” is to millennials.


Charges: Refers to an exaggerated quantity…”Lots” would surely suffice

Verdict: Not guilty. Maybe I’m just hopelessly out of touch but I didn’t feel over-saturated by the word “tons” in 2017. Is “Lots” really that much more eloquent?


Charges: Let’s go back to “talk about” and leave the dishes in the cupboard.

Verdict: Not guilty.


Charges: “What’s so disgraceful about owning a new car now and then?”

Verdict: Not guilty. Like “Tons”, this one has been around and at the same level for a while; sure, it could be retired but it’s harmless enough.


Charges: Being a creature from the Human Resources lagoon.

Verdict: Guilty (misdemeanor). If Mike Judge decided to remake “Office Space” he would surely have some fun with this one – but like “Unpack” it will probably just soon fade into obscurity – especially as the gig economy takes over.


Charges: Says nothing that “nothing” doesn’t already.

Verdict: Guilty (misdemeanor).


Charges: “One could say, shocking, profound or important.”

Verdict: Not guilty. Yes, it’s a little preachy and ponderous, but there tons of far more preachy and ponderous things out there than this nothingburger.


Charges: “Just ask the question already.”

Verdict: Not guilty. These days people are jumping to conclusions without asking enough questions. Questions are important – even if they are wordier than necessary.


Charges: A frivolous word groping for something “effective” or “influential.”

Verdict: Guilty (misdemeanor). When people realize they will no longer sound hip by using this word, it will fade.


Charges: Self-explanatory.

Verdict: Guilty (felony). If you reward the two year old with a poopy diaper when he has a temper tantrum, you can’t get upset when it happens again.


Charges: “Instead of expanding on a statement, we drill down on it.”

Verdict: Not guilty.


Charges: “Fake news” is any story you disagree with.

Verdict: Guilty (felony).


Charges: “Hot water does not need to be heated.”

Verdict: Not guilty; let’s stay away from this slippery slope. Do we want the court docket clogged every time someone says “ATM Machine” and “PIN Number?”


Charges: “Gigs are for musicians and stand up comedians.”

Verdict: Guilty (misdemeanor). The court hopes that a slap on the wrist will prevent this (so far) minor offender from becoming gratuitously overused and making anyone old enough to remember the first Bush presidency embarrass themselves by misusing it.

What say you?

January 2, 2017

#122) Language court 2017: the D-Theory verdicts on the LSSU 42nd annual list of banished words


(Well, are you?)

New Years Day means different things to different people. For some folks, it’s the first day without alcohol, tobacco or child pornography. For others, it’s the day they have to start remembering to write a new number in the “date” field on their personal checks. For nerds such as the court, by which I mean myself, it’s the release of Lake Superior State University’s eagerly awaited list of words and expressions that are “banished from the Queen’s English for misuse, overuse and general uselessness.” I often find vindication in seeing phrases that annoy the estrogen out of me singled out on these lists (surely I can’t be the only one who wants to sack-tap anyone who says ‘curated’ – from the 2015 list – or ‘break the internet’ from 2016) and I’ve even gone so far as to make my own (after the response I got, I decided it would be better to let LSSU do the dirty work).

In that spirit, I ask that you dock your selfie drone and focus on this historic town hall meeting in the echo chamber as we guesstimate how many of the 831 items on Lake Superior State University’s 42nd annual listicle of banished words are true bete noires and how many are mere simply post-truths.


Charges: “Hails from a far more civilized era when duels were the likely outcome of disagreements.”

Verdict: Not guilty. The court has found that while those who use this expression tend to think they are more droll than they actually are, it is not ubiquitous enough to warrant punishment.


Charges: “Overused when concentrate and look at would be fine.”

Verdict: Not guilty. The court finds that when looked at in the context of….ooh, shiny!


Charges: Being a pretentious synonym for “pet peeve.”

Verdict: Not guilty; the prosecution didn’t even seem to care that much about this one. Note: the court apologizes for not being able to figure out how to create the accent circumflex that goes over the first “e” in “bete” in the WordPress platform.


Charges: Being a misnomer (“Candidates seldom debate in town halls anymore.”)

Verdict: Not guilty; given the election cycle we just witnessed, what we call our debates is the least of our problems.


Charges: Being a trendy way of describing how politicians and others have been able to get people to ignore facts.

Verdict: Guilty. Just as Capone’s tax evasion and O.J.’s memorabilia hijinks stood in for more significant crimes, we are happy to set up “post-truth” as a fall guy for all of the other annoying “post-” expressions that inundate pop culture: “post-punk”, “post-hardcore”, “post-Sasha Fierce”, “post-Freddy Got Fingered” et. al.


Charges: Overuse

Verdict: Not guilty. The court finds that prosecuting this chronic low-level offender will be more trouble than it’s worth.


Charges: Shorthand for “I love you” – 8 letters, 3 words, 1 meaning. “Never encrypt or abbreviate one’s  love.”

Verdict: Not guilty. If this one survives until 2018, it will only be from hipsters using it ironically, which may prompt the case to be reopened.


Charges: Being “thrown around far too much.”

Verdict: Guilty. The court hopes that this verdict serves to inspire those in attendance to avoid hyperbole and find more creative adjectives.


Charges: Overuse

Verdict: Not guilty. The word does have a sort of real-estate-salesman-y feel to it but has not been overused to the point of being divorced from its original meaning.


Charges: Overuse

Verdict: Not guilty (for now). Like its accomplice “confirmation bias” this is a reasonably concise way of describing a clearly valid concept.


Charges: “Needs to return to its genesis: perfectly groomed eyebrows.”

Verdict: Guilty. The fact that as a society we find eyebrows important enough to nickname is bad enough; worse is that this phrase is already on track to become inescapable and will cause adults to embarrass themselves when using it in the name of hipness, such as Taco Bell CEO Brian Niccol.


Charges: Being used by Donald Trump

Verdict: Not guilty. This is the aspect of the pending Trump presidency that we’re going to get upset about?


Charges: Being slang for abruptly ending communication, especially on social media

Verdict: Not guilty. Even the prosecution has its doubt: “Is it rejection angst, or is this word really as overused as word-banishment nominators contend?”


Charges: “Empowering dads to pursue a sedentary lifestyle.”

Verdict: Guilty. This word (“the flabby opposite of a chiseled male ideal”) isn’t the one who actually robbed the bank; it was just slower than the ring leader (“dad joke”) in running to escape the word police after the alarm was tripped.


Charges: A portmanteau of “list” and “article.”

Verdict: Not guilty. The problem is the item itself, not what we call it.


Charges: Unknown.

Verdict: Not guilty.


Charges: Breaking new ground in selfies by tasking a drone to enable new angles (“How can this end badly?”)

Verdict: Not guilty. As with “Listicle” there is a difference between a truly annoying, overused expression and simply naming something that shouldn’t exist in the first place.


Charges: Being “another food group co-opted by ‘frankenfood’.”

Verdict: Guilty. People have a right to get their dandruff up about genetically modified organisms, but words such as “frankenfruit” that are intended to scare people into ortheorexia nervosa instead might scare some of them straight to McDonald’s.


Charges: This classic Van Halen guitar solo is charged with inspiring would-be guitarists at music stores across the country to butcher it while trying out instruments, thus making a…oh, sorry, I thought you said “Eruption.” “Disruption” is charged with “bumping into other over-used synonyms for change.”

Verdict: Not guilty. There can never be enough synonyms for “change.”

As for “that/those/dat ____, tho”, “I’m just going to leave this here” and “[no words]”: consider this a warning.

What say you, sir?

January 4, 2016

#105) Language court 2016: the D-Theory verdicts on LSSU’s newly banished words

So, it looks like this conversation about manspreading is going to break the internet unless we walk it back to before the stakeholders held their presser.

It’s that time of year when language geeks such as myself peruse the various lists of words and phrases that are nominated for banishment. Though many such lists exist, the one published by Lake Superior State University tends to carry the most weight. Like many people, I have made resolutions to be more productive and make greater contributions to society in 2016 and if running down my own personal verdicts on these words doesn’t contribute to society, then slap my ass and sign me up for the Peace Corps. D-Theory Language Court is now in session, the honorable judge D-Lock presiding.


Charges: Peter Gabriel’s fifth solo record is charged with containing the track “In Your Eyes”, thus making people forget about “Games Without Frontiers” and “Family Snap…” Oh, wait, what’s that? Wrong “So?” My bad. “So” is charged with “…Being overused as the first word in the answer to ANY question.”

Verdict: Guilty.


Charges: Being a bland, non-offensive, non-specific alternative to words such as “debate”, “discourse” and “argument.”

Verdict: Guilty. To the above mentioned charges, the court adds, “Making a company look desperate when they ask customers/viewers/readers to ‘join the conversation.'”


Charges: Being a “corporate-academic weasel word.”

Verdict: Not guilty. It does tend to get overused, but what’s the word that we should use instead? Cunty?


Charges: Being over-used in business to describe customers and others.

Verdict: Not guilty. Yes, it may be a word that folks simply use to sound smart and important, but the court has not found it to be as ubiquitous as some claim.


Charges: Using two words when one will do.

Verdict: Guilty. It has a connotation among those who use it that the product is somehow superior.


Charges: Being a metaphor for success based on the fast food industry.

Verdict: Guilty. If you brag about something, it’s no longer a secret.


Charges: Being hyperbole about the latest controversy that is already becoming trite.

Verdict: Guilty. The court adds the charge of begetting the equally annoying tendency to force the verb “Win” into situations where it doesn’t belong (“Win the internet”; “Win Yom Kippur.”)


Charges: Being an unnecessary synonym for “Back pedal.”

Verdict: Not guilty. The prosecution has the burden of proof and failed to provide any meaningful evidence.


Charges: Being an unnecessarily trendy term for “Press release” or “Press conference.”

Verdict: Not guilty. The court sees this word as a minor offender which will soon slip from popular use.


Charges: Being a term for taking up too much room on a subway or bus.

Verdict: Not guilty. As the LSSU prosecution team itself notes, the term is mainly “familiar to those in bigger cities, where seats on the bus or subway are sometimes difficult to find.” Thus, the term is unlikely to infect those in rural areas or places like Los Angeles where one tends not to use public transportation.


Charges: Describing the act of “smoking” E-cigarettes.

Verdict: Not guilty. As long as E-cigarettes exist, some word will be necessary to describe the act of using them. We can let “Vape” serve that purpose until something better comes along.


Charges: Being an over-used phrase for “making me laugh.”

Verdict: Guilty. Perhaps it’s not as ubiquitous as “Break the internet”, but it still is overwrought.


Charges: Being over-used by sports broadcasters and writers.

Verdict: Not guilty. When you get tired of broadcasters who talk simply to hear the sound of their own voice, remember that your remote control has a “mute” button.

Those who are curious can check out this blog’s verdicts on the 2015 LSSU list.

What say you?