For me it's not the word used, but rather the context in which it is used.
For example if someone wrote:
Tom possesses a gun.
I would find that person less educated than the person who wrote:
Tom has a gun.
Because the verb chosen doesn't quite fit the noun.
However, if someone wrote:
Tom possesses a diploma.
or
Tom has a diploma.
I don't believe that the education of the writer would come in to question as either verb in this case works.
Also, I think the word choice for the title of this article is also poor. While word choice can imply poor intellectual prowess, the context of the article really implies judgement in the educational level of the writer being judged. I believe that a better title would be "Why trying to sound smarter can make you seem less educated".
And for those of you who say spelling doesn't matter, I disagree. Poor spelling in the written work also implies a lack of education.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Except that 'possesses' has a more specific meaning than 'has' - for example:
Tom possesses a gun.
...means that Tom owns a gun - it may or may not be on his person at the moment.
Tom has a gun.
...may mean that Tom is carrying a gun at the moment, or that Tom simply owns a gun.
Similarly with the diploma example, although most would infer that 'has a diploma' means the same as 'possesses a diploma', because it's less likely that someone would be carrying one...
Tom possesses a gun.
...means that Tom owns a gun - it may or may not be on his person at the moment.
Tom has a gun.
...may mean that Tom is carrying a gun at the moment, or that Tom simply owns a gun.
Similarly with the diploma example, although most would infer that 'has a diploma' means the same as 'possesses a diploma', because it's less likely that someone would be carrying one...
you'll find that forms of "possess" are used in most legal documents. It's "legalspeak", but there is usually a reason for it.
"I also do a lot of editing in my line of work. I am constantly seeing hundred dollar words used in place of smaller, simpler words that mean the same thing (utilize instead of use, possesses instead of has) in an attempt to sound smarter."
In my humble opinion, the use of more simple words, in some cases, make one sound less intelligent. Take the use of the word "simpler"... I was taught to use a quantifier.
'More simple', instead of 'simpler'. 'More fun', instead of 'funner'.
One word has received tremendous notoriety... that word is, 'done'.
A word that traditionally meant: "cooked sufficiently", has become a catchall for, 'though', 'finished', 'completed'...
Even Merriam-Webster, lists the number one meaning as: "Arrived at or brought to an end "
(The traditional meaning is number five, in the M-W dictionary.)
One sees and hears these abominations of the English language, from every source, whether it be the internet, television or software. i.e., "Click here when done."
The English language has become diluted and more simple, for obvious reasons. It is less demanding, to teach people one word, that means many things, rather than teach them a diverse vocabulary.
Sad to say, I did not care much for English studies in school. I should have become an English teacher, only if to make Americans sound more intelligent and less common.
I am endeavoring to improve my language and writing skills, so before commenting on my post, realize that I do know I may have made grammatical and syntax errors.
(Such as first person and fragments)
In my humble opinion, the use of more simple words, in some cases, make one sound less intelligent. Take the use of the word "simpler"... I was taught to use a quantifier.
'More simple', instead of 'simpler'. 'More fun', instead of 'funner'.
One word has received tremendous notoriety... that word is, 'done'.
A word that traditionally meant: "cooked sufficiently", has become a catchall for, 'though', 'finished', 'completed'...
Even Merriam-Webster, lists the number one meaning as: "Arrived at or brought to an end "
(The traditional meaning is number five, in the M-W dictionary.)
One sees and hears these abominations of the English language, from every source, whether it be the internet, television or software. i.e., "Click here when done."
The English language has become diluted and more simple, for obvious reasons. It is less demanding, to teach people one word, that means many things, rather than teach them a diverse vocabulary.
Sad to say, I did not care much for English studies in school. I should have become an English teacher, only if to make Americans sound more intelligent and less common.
I am endeavoring to improve my language and writing skills, so before commenting on my post, realize that I do know I may have made grammatical and syntax errors.
(Such as first person and fragments)
I can't remember the source, but I remember reading a comment saying that modern English is the end result of Norse occupiers trying to get dates with Saxon barmaids. The language has been changing for millenia. It's going to keep changing. We don't have the equivalent of L'Académie française to keep the language static, and I don't think we need it.
And done has been the past tense of 'do' for much longer than it has signified completed or finished.
And done has been the past tense of 'do' for much longer than it has signified completed or finished.
Absolutely right, Nick. I may have done something before, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm all finished (done):
"Ever play video games?"
"Oh, yeah; I've done that."
"Did you make it all the way through any of them?"
"Nah; I never got done with any of them. I might get farther than I did if I do what I did until I'm done...."
(the above dialogue is to juxtapose 'past tense of do' with 'completed').
"Ever play video games?"
"Oh, yeah; I've done that."
"Did you make it all the way through any of them?"
"Nah; I never got done with any of them. I might get farther than I did if I do what I did until I'm done...."
(the above dialogue is to juxtapose 'past tense of do' with 'completed').
As difficult a distinction to many as is the distinction twixt infinite and finite forms.
It reminds me of the "We've got time to fill" banter among some TV newscasters.
This brings up a question. Is American TV a co-conspirator in the ongoing grammaticide?
This brings up a question. Is American TV a co-conspirator in the ongoing grammaticide?
The target audience is the lowest common denominator, I think the answer to your question is obvious.
Danish is more precise.
And there were anglon barmaids, and wives of other professions too (wife just meant woman, as in "fishwife" for a woman selling fish, and "old wives' tales" which survives as a saying).
And there were anglon barmaids, and wives of other professions too (wife just meant woman, as in "fishwife" for a woman selling fish, and "old wives' tales" which survives as a saying).
There were Angles, Danes, not a small number of Celts, Bretons, Normans, and the list goes on.
it's serving wenches!
...and foreigners.
...and foreigners.
"fast-food worker"! Of course! They drive the modernization of the English language!
God help us all!
God help us all!
The people we're talking about are the ones you *want* to chat up.
Even to the point of trying to speak a language you can't, and keeping it up until understanding is mutual.
Fast food workers seem to speak mainly in either grunts or memorized PR-ingots.
Even to the point of trying to speak a language you can't, and keeping it up until understanding is mutual.
Fast food workers seem to speak mainly in either grunts or memorized PR-ingots.
Check out the latest ad from Wendy's (paraphased) featuring hungry firefighters. "Me and Harold like this new sandwich...." Are they trying to be folksy? Are they inferring that firefighters are stupid? What is the problem with "Harold and I"?
If you show any intellect you can't be one of the guys I guess. Actually, I would dumb down my speech when I was playing basketball or some other related activity, you kind of have to so you can hold your own with the other guys. And if anyone thinks you don't, then you were one of the ones playing over at the other side of the court with the goobers not getting any better.
The problem here really is that English is growing increasingly subject-initial (from the viewpoint of a former, more flexible syntax)... so it doesn't matter one whit whether you use an accusative or a nominative in a sentence-initial subject. The accusative marking is not going to get the subject misinterpreted as an object, is it?
It being superfluous, stylistic concerns come into play.
People use deviant language to distinguish their own social group from the others. It is a universal tendency, largely subconscious too.
Harold and I conjures up an image of stuffy upper-class stereotypes sipping tea with their pinkies outstretched... at least to some/many people. If that's not the social group they wish to be associated with, then they don't use that construction. Simple as that.
The rules of language are an afterthought, like primitive aristotelian "physics" - they were never of the language, and probably didn't do the language any good at all. Language is a swirling vortex of dynamic equilibria, it needs no crutches and can only be hampered by outside regulation (before tearing itself free of it).
It being superfluous, stylistic concerns come into play.
People use deviant language to distinguish their own social group from the others. It is a universal tendency, largely subconscious too.
Harold and I conjures up an image of stuffy upper-class stereotypes sipping tea with their pinkies outstretched... at least to some/many people. If that's not the social group they wish to be associated with, then they don't use that construction. Simple as that.
The rules of language are an afterthought, like primitive aristotelian "physics" - they were never of the language, and probably didn't do the language any good at all. Language is a swirling vortex of dynamic equilibria, it needs no crutches and can only be hampered by outside regulation (before tearing itself free of it).
The greatest pain of all this is that the great works of literature will be lost to general society. Will all language go the way of Latin? Will written communication be reformed to fit on a cellphone display? Will grammatical propriety become so unpopular that we will have to provide extended explanation for our speech?
Tune in tomorrow for another installment of "As the Verbiage Flows"!
Tune in tomorrow for another installment of "As the Verbiage Flows"!
He has it down. Short active prose.
It is my job to translate "content" provided by people with much bigger salaries into meaningful information. Most of them could not pass 8th grade English.
We had a business writing class available for a few years that was very good. Then someone decided to save the money. It was a actually a remedial wrtiting class, "Bonehead English", but nobody would have enrolled in that.
It is my job to translate "content" provided by people with much bigger salaries into meaningful information. Most of them could not pass 8th grade English.
We had a business writing class available for a few years that was very good. Then someone decided to save the money. It was a actually a remedial wrtiting class, "Bonehead English", but nobody would have enrolled in that.
This is a very good point. Why is it that the higher in the corporate food chain the worse the ability to cobble together simple and well-constructed sentences into a coherent well written piece?
I think it may have something to do with the fact that they hire scribes to perform their writing tasks, and when self-written their lack of practice, or even concern for the reader, shines through.
The most profound stories, rendered out of the Norsk into English, use the most simple construction/syntax. Deep, deep content reads like 'Green Eggs and Ham', and comes across with added poignancy through its sparse, simple prose. If you enjoy getting your brain and sensibilities tickled, I'd recommend 'The Sibyl', 'The Dwarf', or my favorite, 'The Eternal Smile'.
The most profound stories, rendered out of the Norsk into English, use the most simple construction/syntax. Deep content reads like 'Green Eggs and Ham', and comes across with added poignancy through its sparse, simple prose. If you enjoy getting your brain and sensibilities tickled, I'd recommend 'The Sibyl', 'The Dwarf', or my favorite, 'The Eternal Smile'.
You observations are perspicacious. : )
Another thing that annoys me is the fake words created (usually by consultants) by reassigning what part of speech a word is; for example, "deliverable" became a noun at some point instead of a verb.
Or adding a suffix inappropriate for the root word, like "truthiness". Now, I realize that example was joke started by Stephen Colbert, but that's actually my point, those who make up and use these fake word sound like a joke to me.
Another thing that annoys me is the fake words created (usually by consultants) by reassigning what part of speech a word is; for example, "deliverable" became a noun at some point instead of a verb.
Or adding a suffix inappropriate for the root word, like "truthiness". Now, I realize that example was joke started by Stephen Colbert, but that's actually my point, those who make up and use these fake word sound like a joke to me.
Now it's become an object, and usually without even a prepositional phrase.
"A key strategy was their ground attack."---adj
"The ground attack was a key to their win"---n. with prep. phr.
What we hear now, hovever, is:
"The ground attack was key."---obj. That's the worst, to me; it makes me want to pimpslap the speaker when I hear it.
"A key strategy was their ground attack."---adj
"The ground attack was a key to their win"---n. with prep. phr.
What we hear now, hovever, is:
"The ground attack was key."---obj. That's the worst, to me; it makes me want to pimpslap the speaker when I hear it.
Are quite accustomed to saying "Key the mike". Sorry. It seems I have unwittingly participated in the destruction of our language, though in a miniscule way.
Edit 9-26 Oh, yeah, Key West, my Navy assignment, Key largo and hundreds of other small islands called "Key" something.
Please don't slap me, I'm an old man and my dentures will go a-flyin'..
Edit 9-26 Oh, yeah, Key West, my Navy assignment, Key largo and hundreds of other small islands called "Key" something.
Please don't slap me, I'm an old man and my dentures will go a-flyin'..
As you point out, that's a totally legit jargon-verb for the ham radio/CB crowd (no slap for you!). Us musicians have one, too: object of the preposition ("Play that part again; and please try to stay in key this time.").
The ability of words to be productively reclassified at will.
For example, you have Coffee the mass noun. Then you reclassify it as "A coffee" and presto, you have a countable with a different meaning.
Key is another good one, it's a countable noun - reclassify as a verb - now you have a new term.
As troublesome as homonymy can be in writing, it really doesn't seem to pose much of a problem in spoken language. Our brains can juggle incredibly complex sets of potential meanings, changing assumptions seamlessly as the context grows to rule out some intended meanings and underscore others.
This is easily observed by looking at transcripts of actual conversation... I'll try to find some good samples for you - I'll edit them in if I find them.
Ok, for reasons of scientific quotability I'm not going to paste the examples here; here's a link to a reasonably mild example: http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/ssca1/trans4.htm
Two more complex examples: http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/ssca1/lecture11CAapplic.htm
Especially the second one - this is how people actually talk. And we grok it. Even when it's gobbledygook. Because it's our kind of gobbledygook.
That last link is page 11 of a series of lectures introducing Conversational Analysis, I thought it was a fun read all the way through - you navigate with the little numbers in the horizontal bar near the top.
For example, you have Coffee the mass noun. Then you reclassify it as "A coffee" and presto, you have a countable with a different meaning.
Key is another good one, it's a countable noun - reclassify as a verb - now you have a new term.
As troublesome as homonymy can be in writing, it really doesn't seem to pose much of a problem in spoken language. Our brains can juggle incredibly complex sets of potential meanings, changing assumptions seamlessly as the context grows to rule out some intended meanings and underscore others.
This is easily observed by looking at transcripts of actual conversation... I'll try to find some good samples for you - I'll edit them in if I find them.
Ok, for reasons of scientific quotability I'm not going to paste the examples here; here's a link to a reasonably mild example: http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/ssca1/trans4.htm
Two more complex examples: http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/ssca1/lecture11CAapplic.htm
Especially the second one - this is how people actually talk. And we grok it. Even when it's gobbledygook. Because it's our kind of gobbledygook.
That last link is page 11 of a series of lectures introducing Conversational Analysis, I thought it was a fun read all the way through - you navigate with the little numbers in the horizontal bar near the top.
Another thing that grates on my nerves is the incorrect usage of the word "majority." Newspeople are supposed to be educated, but I constantly hear "The majority of the rain...," "The majority of the traffic...." "Most" is a great word. These people should use it more often.
We should remind people that the best writers kept it simple. The Bible: "In the beginning, God created heaven and earth...." Shakespeare: "Alas, poor Yurick. I knew him, Horatio. A fellow of infinite jest.....To be or not to be. That is the question."
Business writing and technical writing can be particularly verbose and obtuse. Here are some of my favorite examples from my current workplace:
"Support employees are grouped together according to similar areas of work and, respective competence. This logical grouping is referred to as a Team." (Aren't we belaboring the obvious?)
"Within a Team, all Members have the capability to represent one another." (What ever happened to the word "can?")
"Enclosed please find...." (Huh?)
The purpose of communication is to inform, not to confuse, not to impress. KISS (Keep it simple, stupid) is always the best strategy.
We should remind people that the best writers kept it simple. The Bible: "In the beginning, God created heaven and earth...." Shakespeare: "Alas, poor Yurick. I knew him, Horatio. A fellow of infinite jest.....To be or not to be. That is the question."
Business writing and technical writing can be particularly verbose and obtuse. Here are some of my favorite examples from my current workplace:
"Support employees are grouped together according to similar areas of work and, respective competence. This logical grouping is referred to as a Team." (Aren't we belaboring the obvious?)
"Within a Team, all Members have the capability to represent one another." (What ever happened to the word "can?")
"Enclosed please find...." (Huh?)
The purpose of communication is to inform, not to confuse, not to impress. KISS (Keep it simple, stupid) is always the best strategy.
"Troops". A SOLDIER is not a "Troop". When 15 casualties are reported as "15 Troops", it drives me wild. Since each platoon has 30 - 40 soldiers, and usually 3 to 6 platoons to a troop, It makes NO sense to refer to an individual soldier as a "troop". I think it dehumanizes the whole concept of individual human beings, as soldiers, and reduces them to an amorphous and inaccurate category.
Note that commas are probably the most undervalued, misused, and ignored form of punctuation. But how powerful they are when properly applied. Can't you see more clearly the author's meaning? Mom was a librarian, by the way.. and I still make mistakes all the time.....
Note that commas are probably the most undervalued, misused, and ignored form of punctuation. But how powerful they are when properly applied. Can't you see more clearly the author's meaning? Mom was a librarian, by the way.. and I still make mistakes all the time.....
I understood it to be short for 'trooper'. Military personnel in the US aren't, actually, divided into any formal unit called a 'troop' (neither do we have 'legions'). If 'troops' is used to mean 'military personnel, plural', then perhaps 'troop' IS its singular.......hmmmmm.
Armored cav still has Troops instead of Companies.
Where'd a flyboy learn that? Extra credit: complete the rhyme below....
"I'm Captain Jinks of the Horse Marines,
I feed my horse on corn and beans........"
"I'm Captain Jinks of the Horse Marines,
I feed my horse on corn and beans........"
Competency has been around since the late 16th century. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/competency
It has a long and solid history in the world of education and training development. That it has been subsumed into the category of business buzzwords reflects poorly, not on the word itself, but on those who use it in such a manner.
It has a long and solid history in the world of education and training development. That it has been subsumed into the category of business buzzwords reflects poorly, not on the word itself, but on those who use it in such a manner.
The purpose of communication is to inform, not to confuse, not to impress. KISS (Keep it simple, stupid) is always the best strategy.... unless you are William Faulkner or James Joyce.
Consider this year's grossly overused buzzword: "experience" as in "user experience" This is a sure way to make yourself sound just like every other blowbag salesman in the room.
"experience", like "cloud" and "mobilize" (bastardized to mean 'change to a mobile platform') are heavily over-used, but "user experience" will remain when the rest of the blowbags move on, as it's actually a meaningful term for something that has existed for decades. Otherwise we just refer to it as "non-functional requirements of the user interface"; which loses most of your audience at the first hurdle.
I can no longer use the saying
"Sticks and stones may break my bones
but
a vituperative diatribe can not hurt me"?
"Sticks and stones may break my bones
but
a vituperative diatribe can not hurt me"?
The biggest annoyance I have with the modern written word is not the use of grammar, the poor spelling - mine is atrocious - or the use of unwarranted, almost surreal sojourns into thesaurus abuse. it's da txt used by da unger generation 2 write.
It means "I don't know what the next word is" or sometimes it means "Now turn the transmitter on so that I can speak to the people at the receiver" (must be used at the beginning of the message, of course, not at the end).
My teenagers are awful with this. "I should have went there" instead of "I should have gone there".
I can't break them from using "like" at least half a dozen times in a single sentence. The listening can be painful.
I can't break them from using "like" at least half a dozen times in a single sentence. The listening can be painful.
That's real gone, man.
Of course, our lingo has been largely usurped by Valley Girls.
Of course, our lingo has been largely usurped by Valley Girls.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
