I recently came across this article that was written awhile ago in the NYT. I do think a few of these words could at least be used less. For example, do we really need as many "gluten-free" foods as we have these days (at least here in the US)? Of course there are some people who are sensitive to gluten, but not nearly as many as one might think. Secondly, how many "best practices" can there be??? I am so tired of that phrase.

Do you have any dumpster words?

Consumer tops my list. Whatever happened to customer, user, or purchaser? Outrageous follows as my most ummm... outrageously overused word. As for "brand," if someone takes a red-hot iron to your hide, you're branded; if not, you're not.

PS: Other dumpster-ready words are "brutal" and Tragic. One assumes a certain level of unkindness in assaults, so "brutal" is redundant. Not every death is "tragic;" some are relieved by death. (Corrected a typo)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Geoff,

Not a word, but a phrase I am tired of hearing is "You know what I'm saying?". Another is '"That's what I'm talking about" to express pleasure at an accomplishment which no one has mentioned.

We call dumpsters 'skips' in the UK.

There's a very old Laurel and Hardy movie about their going to France. Oliver says to Stanley, "We've been in Paris for three days, and I still haven't been to the Louvre." Stanley replies, "That's alright, Ollie, it's probably just the water."

I am sick of the phrase, "You're all set," which is commonly said after ordering something, making an application, etc. When yet another clerk said that to me today, I started to think, "all set?" "Set" for what? I realize there are a lot of meanings of "set," but that phrase hardly makes sense to me.

With all due respect, I see the words and phrases offered here for dumpster fodder as all being rather tame and INoffensive, particularly when the world offers ubiquitous examples of some seriously stomach-turning diction.

High on my list of such latter phraseology is "reaching out" - when not being used in connection with a bunch of grapes just beyond one's reach. For example, "The police are reaching out to the city's Hispanic population." Egad, I couldn't even write this example down on a full stomach!

The overused "whole new paradigm" is another piece of modern phraseology that has to go. These words are the inevitable adjectival precursor to a talk on some banal and hackneyed concept that someone is trying to paint a new color, usually fatuously!

A horrible expression that has gotta' go is the "Valley-Girl" word "like" - when used as a substitute for "er" or "ah", I mean. This word is a firm marker of modern "teen-speak", most particularly for teen girls. I am very much afraid that it is here to stay, however. Ugh!

There is a significant set of disgusting business-speak sludge that really must be consigned to the dumpster. Two examples are “enclosed please find” to mean “enclosed is” and “at this point in time” to mean “now”. Other examples are the wholly superfluous phrases “please be advised that”; “during a recent review of our records we discovered that”; “please do not hesitate to”; and “the month of”. This latter dumpster-fodder is particularly bewildering. What impels us to substitute “the month of January” for “January”?

But do you get the impression that I am just getting warmed up? You’d be right! I haven’t even mentioned the raft of advertising-derived usage that is poisoning real-world language. This stuff HAS TO be jettisoned into our dumpster. For me, “home” to mean “house” is perhaps the most ready – and offensive - example. But this is closely followed by the use of words such as “system” or “technology” to magnify and add significance to the picayune, as in “tooth cleaning system” or “tooth cleaning technology” to mean “toothpaste”.

Also to be consigned to our dumpster is all of the “soft language” diction that is cluttering our modern language. So, usage such as “may we suggest” and “we are pleased to announce” have to go.

However, in the interests of brevity (or at least, some semblance of it) I’ll arbitrarily stop there, even if I have but dented my long list of diction that I’d love to see dumpster-bound!

Drawn from the world of business, more sure-fired dumpster fodder - and the sooner the better:

"Thinking outside the box" (ugh!)
"Scalable"
"Take to the next level"
"Raise the bar"
"At the end of the day"
"Buy-in"
"core competency"
"empower" (egad, my stomach roils at this word)
"to give 110%"
"walk the talk" (God, I hate this expression!)
"where the rubber meets the road"
"pay grade" as in "above my pay grade"
"knowledge worker" (often used pejoratively to mean "a political numbskull"))
"human resources"
"stick to your knitting"
"high end"
"Steak" vs "Sizzle" (horrible!)

This is not a complete list, but just to show that I am not simply consigning any and all business jargon to the dumpster, I do admire some of it. One example is "With all due respect". I like this because of he inclusion of the word "due". Also I would hate seeing the sardonic expression "dog and pony show" in the dumpster. The same is true of the following expressions:

"Drink the Koolaid"
"drop dead date"

... cheerio.
... but most business jargon leaves me neutral.

I guess it's a matter of taste. For example, some of yours I don't mind (what's wrong with "reaching out"?), though some I've not heard ("knowledge worker"). What's the whole "steak" vs "sizzle" mean? Not sure I've heard that, too.

I think there are core competencies, at least in nursing. I like to "empower" our students - that's when the "rubber meets the road."

"Steak" and "sizzle" are ubiquitous marketing argot to describe an offering of some sort in terms of "the substance" and the "thing that will reel in the customer" (aka as wow factor), respectively. BTW, it is NOT good to be all or only sizzle.

Interestingly, every article - or more moderately, the majority of them - I read listing business argot that MUST GO, rails against "reach out". Personally, I find it cloying, maudlin, and it sticks in my craw in a way that few others do.

"Knowledge worker" is an interesting term originating with Peter Drucker, but it has "deteriorated" since then. Today you'll find it used by people who manage their careers solely by networking, and where who you know is seen as vastly more important that what you know. Human Resources specialists and MBA's will use this - often in a mildly derogatory fashion - to describe employees who actually know what they are doing, as opposed to those who manage, coordinate, head up, sit in meetings, and so on. So, I have heard, "Oh, he's just a knowledge worker."

"Core competencies" is a loaded term. It's not that the basic concept is awry (people do have different skills, and positions have differing skill requirements), but it is one of the terms that earmarks the current Human Resource a-la-modality of reducing people and job requirements to a set of objective identifiable characteristics. The problem arises when a human being is entirely seen, measured and rated by those skills - something that is increasingly the case in the corporate world. Some things are not better by being measured, for if the improper thing is measured (because, for example, of what can reasonably be identified), focus will be on enhancing the measurables and away from what might be proper! Of course, this is a huge subject, and tough to answer in a simple paragraph, but I do have some poignant examples of what can happen! Anyway, the term "core competencies" has taken on a pejorative aspect, and needs to be discarded.

"Empower" is another sinister and over-used term, but it is well-liked and probably here to stay. A close sister to this word, with similar meaning and bearing the same aura, is "enable", as "we must enable our employees".

"When the rubber meets the road" has, as far as I know, no stigma attached to it beyond that it is hackneyed and banal in the same way as are the over-used phrases "please do not hesitate" and "enclosed please find". Ugh!

Of course, all these terms - and their value - are a matter of personal opinion, and I know that there are many people, particularly here in NA, who fill their communications with them.

Some of them are hackneyed, I agree, but some are absolutely necessary, such as core competencies. What other term would you use for the essential part of a discipline that one must master? Core competencies sure does it for me.

I do remember knowledge worker now. I do agree with that one - and many coinages.

Why do I sense that you are channeling James J. Kilpatrick and William F. Buckley?

quote:

What other term would you use for the essential part of a discipline that one must master?

Any of the following: "Skills required", "Job Requirements", "[Minimum] Skills Required", "Minimum Requirements", "Prerequisite Skills", and even "Prerequisites", "Basic duties", or "[Minimum] Functional requirements".

The concept that a position, a job, or even a firm, requires an set of essential, basic or fundamental skills to produce its deliverables is as old as the hills, and there are many terms to describe those, depending on what particular aspect or "direction" is to be emphasized.

The origin of the term "core competencies" dates back to 1990, and was a fad attributed to Prahalad and Hamel. This was later disputed by James Quinn who complained that the term was his, but that the Harvard Business Review [pointedly?] delayed his publication until Prahalad and Hamel's paper introducing the fad had been published first. Silly squabble, and the whole thing was a storm in a teapot, but the cognoscenti are well aware that connecting one's name to a fad that gets taken up by the mob (the equivalent of today's "going viral") can do much for your career!

Some experts hold that "hot new" or fad terms like "core competencies", with their attendant strategy, have done much to contribute to "lack of clarity" in the world of business management. (cf: Strategic management and core competencies: theory and application, Anders Drejer, 2002.) No kidding!

It is probably clear by now that my personal preference - at least with respect to business writing - is for as much simplicity as one can muster and still get the job done. This is nearly a religion for me, particularly as I have a lot of direct experience with how abysmally North Americans (ie, Americans and Canadians) perform business writing, at all levels in the corporation, and how this can invite cascades of very hot water!

So substituting flamboyant or "sexy" new terms such as "core competency", "reach out", and "empower" is tempting, to be sure, but often they are used incorrectly, and many readers are not quite sure what they mean anyway. In constructing your communication pieces (notices, letters, announcements, etc) it is a pity to eagerly jump over an old and well-understood piece of phraseology, only to substitute a hot (and often muddled) new term precisely when the entire focus should be on clear communication! The old word "does such a lot of work for you" that it might be considered foolish not to use it!

So, for me the idea in business writing (and, to some extent, in other business communication), from the first sentence onward, is to get down to the facts, and get finished, all with minimum verbiage! I hardly need add " ... without being curt, terse or rude".

By the way, All, this posting is not business writing - it is fun - and so, please spare me the [otherwise utterly applicable] snide remarks!

quote:

It is probably clear by now that my personal preference - at least with respect to business writing - is for as much simplicity as one can muster and still get the job done.

Hmmm...it's a bit unclear to me - you're a bit verbose.

Whoops, Kalleh, I guess you missed my warning:

quote:

By the way, All, this posting is not business writing - it is fun - and so, please spare me the [otherwise utterly applicable] snide remarks!

... so I'd better explain. Here, in the forum, I am having fun, and not engaging in business writing. I was anticipating that someone might quite rightly "call me" on my verbosity! I would never offer any of my posts as examples of good business writing. Heaven forbid!

Business writing has its own rules, and you might have a look at my "Soft Language" thread to see what I comprehend under it. BTW, even my suggestion there - for the letter's wording, I mean - is more verbose than absolutely required, and I might have been called on it with full justification! Incidentally, that extra verbiage was not some clever design of mine; it was simply an error that I noticed later.

So, many would argue that verbosity is never a good thing, and that conciseness is always to be preferred. I might even agree. What do you all think?

Here, in the forum, I write in a sort of conversational style ... more or less as thoughts occur to me. As we all do, maybe? I do not normally see the forum as a place to post "finished" articles or essays. These latter things require re-arrangement, editing and idea consolidation, and I make no pretense of having done that!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: WeeWilly,

Pretty sure that luittle smiley face meant Kalleh was fully aware of your meaning and just having a little fun...

Perhaps, BobHale! Or she may be telling me to be less wordy. I certainly can't find fault with that!

My candidate for the dumpster is the introductory-yet-totallly-devoid-of-meaning "So..." in response to any question.

quote:

My candidate for the dumpster is the introductory-yet-totallly-devoid-of-meaning "So..." in response to any question.

Like, really?

quote:

Whoops, Kalleh, I guess you missed my warning:

Bob was right, WeeWilly - I was pulling your leg a bit.

Hab, I so agree with you about " so ..."



[Having written the above about pulling one's leg, I found this.]

... so be it!

quote:

My candidate for the dumpster is the introductory-yet-totallly-devoid-of-meaning "So..." in response to any question.

... from Haberdasher.

I take serious issue with this, although maybe only because I don't understand your rider "in response to any question". So, perhaps you may give an example?

The introductory "so" often does yeoman service with minimum verbiage! It is certainly not devoid of meaning! Used as the introductory expression that you so despise, it, like "therefore", and "thus" means "As a result of the previous arguments ..." or "Following from the reasoning to date ...". But, it also means "Given all that ...", as in the following example:

"You have railed against censorship because you feel that any censorship puts society on a very slippery slope. So, what should we do about child porn?"

Notice that in this example, none of "thus", "therefore" and "hence" is a good substitute for "so". Even "however" doesn't strike the right tone, because that would tend to introduce a flat counter-argument or objection, when this is not what is intended! "So", as it is used here, is an obvious invitation to the listener/reader to specifically show how his position or argument copes with [the explosive notion of] child porn.

And if you leave out the "so", the construction appears to introduce "child porn" as an almost new item, rather than linking it back to the current discussion.

So, if you throw the "introductory 'so'" in the dumpster, you will leave English the very much poorer.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: WeeWilly,

Kalleh;

I have been thinking about "Core Competencies", what it means, and about my contention that it is good dumpster fodder. The fact that I hate the term is hardly reason enough!

The term does indeed comprehend more than mere "basic skills" in that it suggests that the following be true of the the skills in question (thanks to Wikipedia):

* They help accessing the desired marketplace.

* They should be seen as valuable by the marketplace.

* They should be difficult to imitate.

Key to the term's being applied to the basic skills possessed by any entity - a business or a person, say - is the notion that those skills define how that entity sets itself apart from the rest of its competitors, and in a way that [potential] customers are likely to value! It is exceedingly valuable, then, for a firm to know - and to know well - what its "core competencies" are, as these will tend to define how a company addresses the marketplace, where it funds its research and development, where it focuses its customer service, and so on - viz, its whole working effort! It is also key to a employee (or to a person looking for work) to fully grok his/her core competencies so that they can be pitched to a [potential] employer. If well understood and defined, these directly address employers' questions such as "Why hire you and not Joe Soap?" or "why should I give you the raise you are asking for?

So, I may be too quick to throw this word into the dumpster.

Aw, thanks WeeWilly! We use the term in my profession for new graduates. Core competencies aren't that easy to measure, though, particularly in a practice discipline.

As for "so," I have to agree with Hab. It seems superfluous to me, though I see your point.

Here is the phrase we hear all the time in my workplace, and I am beginning to hate it - because it seems too ambiguous: "I'd like you to take your department to the next level." Or "Let's take our program to the next level." What in the world does that mean?

"Core Competencies" is not a well understood concept, but it is not useless! It will never be a natural part of my vocabulary, but that remains personal choice, I suppose.

I entirely agree with your remark about "taking something to the next level". This is definitely a phrase for the dumpster. It suffers from extreme vagueness (no-one can have any idea what it means!). In this way it is similar to the two very in-vogue words "empower" and "enable" - great sounding, but equally devoid of meaning.

As for consigning "so" to the dumpster, I simply do not understand how you can see my point about it, but still believe it should be dumpster bound. My whole point is that the word "so" does some pretty significant service for us! Therefore, if anyone throws "so" into our word-dumpster, I am jumping in to retrieve it!

Totally agree with your thoughts on "taking it to the next level," and I've seen people fired for not being able implement that core competency.

I think my rationale for "so" is probably more one of emotions, rather than one of brains. I find myself using "so" in all the ways I hate - so, I can understand it's use. On the other hand, it is annoying to me when I hear people starting every other sentence with a "so."

I presume this conversation is about the use of 'so' in speech, rather than the written word. It's quite a common verbal tic which some people use as a placeholder while thinking up the wording of their response - rather like 'um...' or 'uh...'. Like most such tics, they can be irritating to the listener and very often the speaker doesn't even realise that they are uttering them.

Presumably, when written down, a writer/editor would spot the repetition of 'so' and change the text accordingly.

Yes, arnie, we are only talking about speaking.

This is 'The Written Word' forum.

Actually, arnie, I missed altogether that we might have been discussing "so" as a "verbal tic" in speaking. That would put a very different complexion on matters!

arnie was just kidding (I think), WeeWilly, because we talk about spoken words here, too.

quote:

arnie was just kidding

Hence the smiley.

Hey Wee Willie, I am resurfacing (land of the living), & very much like many of your selections for the dumpster.

Could you be by any chance a teacher? Teachers of writing, of course, eschew extraneous verbiage, cliché, jargon, & opaque usages.

But I speak of today's browbeaten US teacher, that sad 'knowledge-worker' immersed in the upside-down world of ed-'reform', forced by legal mandates in many states to prove his 'efficiency' via his students' test scores' 'evidencing' of 'core competencies' or lose his job. Alas, that teacher's 'skill set' proved not to be 'scalable'.

What I object to here has actually little to do with writing skills. It's the politicization of public education-- it's worth as a public good. It is the attempt to diminish the complexity of pedagogical matters by re-codifying them in the language of econometrics ('accountability', if you will.)

Hi Bethree5;

Actuarial mathematics and programming are my thing, for I was VP, Technical Services at a Canadian life Assurance company. So, I am not a teacher, but, at the request of my firm some 30 years ago, I did conduct at work a course on business writing for "line staff" in customer service, sales and marketing. This is somewhat off topic, but you may find the following of interest…

Generally, North Americans are execrable at business correspondence, and this at all levels of the hierarchy. Indeed, our firm found that ordinary writing skills were so bad that the writing itself was at the heart of some very serious customer relations problems. Moreover, I have read that this problem is widespread in the business world. Apparently some insurance firms were considering [actually implemented?] having all such correspondence being passed through their legal departments! What an appalling thought! Our firm’s approach to this was to produce [some 700+] customer-service “letter templates for all occasions” that could be used by line staff in formulating their correspondence. Our customer service VP actually threatened staff with being fired if they wrote a non-template “self-constructed” letter to a customer. Egad! Of course, this was stupid, but it does show the sort of desperation that surrounded this issue. As an aside, part of the problem with this template approach was that the templates, constructed by a dedicated customer-service team, were themselves terrible examples of good business writing.

Anyway, at its basic level, business writing is quite easy, and I found that people rapidly achieved a reasonable proficiency at it once they got rid of the notion of filling their writing with the roundaboutation and "business-sounding" drivel that are the steady diet of modern business writing. Of course, as with anything, business writing does have room for flair and creativity, and people bring these to the task with differing capabilities, but the basic job at hand - to write clearly and directly - is easily within reach of anyone with a moderate education.

The way I ran my business writing course was - after a short introductory lecture to “position” the problem - to invite the attendees to bring in samples of real correspondence, and we would re-write it "to course standards" - to wit, to be accurate while being as short and simple as possible, unambiguous, and polite. An overriding requirement was that the correspondence should "close with" its subject matter with minimum lead-in. Have a look at my first posting in the “soft language” thread, for this illustrates the approach to a tee.

Everybody at the course enjoyed this very much indeed, and approached with gusto the business of stripping away the sort of dumpster-fodder we have been discussing in this thread, and replacing it with "clean writing". The attendees very soon attained the proficiency I spoke of earlier; usually a week was enough. The real issue in attaining this "skill" was largely to get people to lose the drivel and to recognize simplicity as an alternative measure of proper business writing! I was only a supervisor in my mid-twenties at the time, but I had two VP's (from Marketing and Customer Service), and one Executive Director (from IS) come in for the course, and they enjoyed it as much, or more, than anyone! As you can imagine, this was a collaborative and learning experience for us all, and very far from a pedagogue holding forth to his admiring students!

North American schools have much to answer for in this lack of ordinary writing skills! There is a lot to discuss on this head, but it is probably not a fit matter for this forum, that focuses on words and their usage. But good to hear from you!