Chas Chastain suggests:
Tech-heavy Nasdaq. Is there another Nasdaq that I don’t know
about?
Monthly Archives: February 2004
Mexican cast-offs
Angelo Young sends these from Mexico:
I couldn’t find (on the Banned for Life page):
“shark-infested waters off the coast of…” or, “comes on the heels of…” or, because I live in Mexico, this one pops up on my radar: “drug
czar.” Since he’s fighting drug use, shouldn’t it at least
be ANTI-drug czar?) orany use of “ubiquitous“ And here’s a couple about my current home, Mexico City:
Any variation of “the polluted, crowded, crime-ridden metropolis”
or“ubiquitous green taxis“ and, in Mexico travel writing, get rid of any variation of “…the
hibiscus spills over the walls of…”
Utility, futility
Jeanne Yocum, public relations practitioner, suggests:
If a lowly PR person can be allowed in here: When/why did “utilize” become preferable to the simpler and…..errrr….highly useful “use?”
A pox on whoever started this nonsense.
Get off this program
Bob Lee sends a new one on me:
Because my employment as a computer programmer requires that I read books and articles written about the so-called “object-oriented” programming, I am often assaulted by the following non-words: “instantiation,” which means simply an instance of something; “instatiate,” a verb which means to create an instance; and the various forms of the verb, including “instatiated” and “instatiating.”For those software engineers who report to me, I can insist that “instance” always be used in place of “instantiation.” However, I cannot police the entire software industry. I’m told the misuse of these terms originated with military programmers who wanted to sound educated through the use of big words. Have you been exposed to “instatiation?” Can you recommend a way to discourage its use?
Editor’s note: To bastardize an old joke — “How do you keep
a programmer from charging? Take away his stock options.”
So-called style
Eric S. Harris calls the following shots:
Although I’m not a professional producer of journalism, just a steady
consumer of it (and sausage), I’d like to make a suggestion for your
“if I see this one more time I’ll scream” list.The word is “so-called,” when used in front of a legitimate
technical term or bit of professional jargon. It gives the impression
that the thing in question is not really a whatever-it-is.Preceding it with “so-called” is essentially putting it in quotes,
like someone is trying to pull a fast one. Just because a term is not
widely used (yet) doesn’t mean it has no meaning to anyone. For some
reason, computer terms seem to get this treatment more than others:
so-called routers, so-called compilers, etc,. but not so-called NSAIDs
or so-called MAO inhibitors or so-called multi-vehicle accidents or
so-called meth labs or the so-called Drug War.
Forward, march
Rory Costello forwards the following:
My nominee is going forward, a filler phrase that has pervaded
the minds of everyone on Wall Street (always a lode of clunky jargon)
and has crept into the business media too, especially CNNfn and Bloomberg.
It’s implicit in almost any context in which it appears.Also, it seems as if the business media now insists on the unnecessary
use of by with verbs and amounts: “the German market was
up by 1.5%,” “raising interest rates by 25 basis points.”
How unique can you get?
Kenneth D. Williams is uniquely suited to state as follows:
The absolute, number one misuse of a word that I have ever seen or
heard is that of the ubiquitous “unique.”If something is unique, it is by definition the only one of its kind. It cannot be “very unique” or “extremely unique” or have any other word there to describe it.It is just “unique.” One-of-a-kind is one-of-a-kind,
right?Number two would be nauseous. “I’m nauseous,” people
say. Do they really mean to say that their looks make other people want
to throw up? I believe the word they are looking for is “nauseated.”Also, I think you have forgotten a few phrases that should be banned.
Not necessarily written ones, but phrases that I hear misspoken every
day.
Not near or dear
Miccaela Baird Badger sent this missive:
What about “near miss?” Many journalists tend to
use this phrase to describe how two planes or trains nearly hit each
other, or some other sort of narrowly avoided accident. However, wouldn’t
a “near miss” actually occur when two objects nearly miss
each other, but still collide?
(Editor’s note: “near” in this instance implies distance,
not approximation — that is, a miss that was near vs. one that was
far, rather than things that nearly missed, but didn’t. Even so, I’d
ban “near miss” on the grounds that it isn’t a particularly
useful description. How near is near? When an asteroid comes
within a million miles of the earth, scientists call it a near miss.
Two aircraft 500 yards apart is another near miss. “Near”
is one of those weasel words like “almost,” “approximately,”
“several” and its ilk that we use when we’re too lazy to figure
out the precise measurements.
Cuts like a knife
Tara Calishain offers
I stumbled on your site while doing some research and
enjoyed it, especially the Banned for Life section. I’m not a newsie
(I’m a freelancie) but I would humbly suggest “cutting-edge”
as a phrase that needs to be retired.
A bitter pill
A judicious reader named Sam sent this along:
Must all Supreme Court dissents be “bitter“? Occasionally we get one that is merely “stinging.” Can’t the justices disagree nicely?