When the Language Police nvite nominations for exile, my first choice is "basically."

Basically, I see the word "basically" used with increasing frequency. In my opinion it adds nothing of value to the meaning. Whenever I see it I recast the sentence, omitting "basically," and invariably see no difference between its inclusio or omission.

Comments?

Excellent observation, JT! I concur.

Fundamentally I agree.

Actually, so do I!

real

Real is often used unnecessarily, by politicians, for example: We have produced real growth in this area.

I always used to delete loads of words ending in -ly from my writing, as well as quite. We don't need such qualifiers

Fer REAL, man!

Clearly, I am sick the word "clearly!"

Whereas "non-words" such as the ones cited here, could often be omitted without detriment to meaning, I consider that they can serve a similar purpose to the oil on a hinge. That the hinge will work quite adequately for years with no more protest than a squeak and a little stiffness is undeniable. However, the application of a little oil makes its operation so much more smooth and sweet that it's usually worth the doing.

After all, we have all of us complained about "text-ese" where the omission of parts of speech is the norm - without there being any significant loss of meaning.

Don't condemn all non-words simply because their omission doesn't affect meaning; they can serve more purposes than simple communication.

Like I said earlier, I dislike people starting out an answer with "Like I said earlier..."

Due to limitations of my browser (or something) I can't edit my posts. The one that got this topic started is, for me, a lesson in getting it right the first time. Itshould have been as follows:

quote:

When the Language Police invite nominations for exile, my first choice is "basically."

Basically, I see the word "basically" used with increasing frequency. In my opinion it adds nothing of value to the meaning. Whenever I see it I recast the sentence, omitting "basically," and invariably see no difference between its inclusion or omission.

Comments?

Richard, you are right. There's more to communication than mere words. "Basically," for example, might mean "I know more about this than I am telling you."

I agree with Richard. I was trying to think of a succinct reply that would explain my point and Richard has done it perfectly for me, so thank you .

I agree that some words can become annoying, but perhaps that's because they are overused rather than useless. For example, I may use 'basically' when paraphrasing somebody without quoting exactly. If I just say 'X said...' then I'm guilty of giving false information to the listener; they'll assume I'm quoting verbatim. If I say 'X basically said...' or 'Basically, X said...' then the listener knows they're getting edited highlights and can ask me to clarify. Of course, I'll also use phrases like 'In essence...' or 'The gist of what X said is...' or even 'What I can remember is...' for variety.

The thing is, qualifiers et al can add variety or interest to one's speech or writing. Plain English is great for instructions and the like, but the artist in me likes to hear what my dad calls 'flowery language' from time to time!

I think there is a gender gap here, generally. Men on the whole want to get straight to the verbal destination, while women tend to prefer the scenic route.

Generally, I said generally! Don't lynch me!

One thing that does annoy me, as much in myself as anyone else, is the overuse of "And I was like 'Oh no!*'" Occasionally it's fine, but I use it far too much - I can't even remember what I used to say before it came into common parlance! "And I thought 'Oh no!'" seems odd, and "I was [emotion]" doesn't give the same detail as quoting yourself, and can be misleading.


*[or whatever]

I agree that Richard said what was on my mind, too. I often use the phrases posted here that I and others are complaining about! However, I also agree that they are often used just too frequently.

Cat, as far as women taking the scenic route (I like that phrasing!) and men getting straight to the point, I definitely agree. I see that in our meetings all the time. When sitting through a boring meeting, thinking about all you have to do...I prefer the way men talk!

BTW, another phrase that I see used (and I use) way too much is: "Let's agree to disagree." I don't think it is really all that honest of a statement. Isn't it a fact that we'd really like to persuade the other person to our way of thinking? It usually is for me!

quote:

I think there is a gender gap here, generally. Men on the whole want to get straight to the verbal destination, while women tend to prefer the scenic route.

That is a fabulous analogy!

quote:

I think there is a gender gap here, generally. Men on the whole want to get straight to the verbal destination, while women tend to prefer the scenic route.

And not just in matters of verbal intercourse, might I remark (see my posting elsewhere for more on this topic).

I think there is a gender gap here, generally. Men on the whole want to get straight to the verbal destination, while women tend to prefer the scenic route.

Usually, I don't have a problem with these kinds of statements, unless I feel that the person making them is talking about genetics rather than ethnology.

Useless words ...

Is there any such thing? Most of what passes for grammatical criticism is better subsumed under rhetorical or perhaps logical criticism.

OR in teen-speak...

"Whatever."

quote:

And not just in matters of verbal intercourse, might I remark (see my posting elsewhere for more on this topic).

Oh, Richard, it is so tempting to ask you what others matters of intercourse you were referring to, but I won't.

I'm undecided on this issue. There are any number of modern words that keep getting put in the dictionary that I don't like or approve of but if I advocated getting rid of them that would make me incredibly elitist and judgemental. It's a case of which is the lesser of two evils I suppose.

Having said that, I'm not keen on the word 'nice'. I think it was drummed into me too much at school that this was an awful word. I also don't like 'boring' as I think it's overused and often describes something that you just haven't bothered to take enough interest in.

I agree about 'boring', although that doesn't stop me using it from time to time. The thing is, boring is subjective. I, for example, find the following really boring: going out every weekend to pubs with no soul, too-loud music and not even a dance floor (meaning all you can do is buy more drinks and grin at your friends) before throwing up in the gutter, struggling home and remembering none of it the next day - but enough people do it to make me think SOMEONE must enjoy it (although I suspect that some do it because they think they should).

Boring - or fun, interesting, etc - is an opinion, but too many people try to use it as an objective judgment.

There is certainly an element of following the crowd that annoys me. Many of the kids I teach dismiss things like Dickens or Shakespeare as 'boring' before they have even opened the cover. It's depressing at times how many of them appear so keen to worship at the altar of ignorance.

How to use words?
Are useless words not utile?
One man's dictionary lists as many of the words as he can that are.
Another dictionary lists only the words its editing lexicographer approves of.
Words without meaning can be used and often are.
Why?

I think all words can be useful, depending on the individual. What one person doesn't like ("boring," "nice," "epicaricacy"), another most likely will...except perhaps the very technical words. Similarly, you pick your dictionary to meet your needs. That some dictionaries have only "chosen" words (obscure word dictionaries), while others (the OED) try to include every word, gives the linguaphile some choice.

quote:

, I'm not keen on the word 'nice'.

Doad notes the debasement of a once-noble word: "Yes, that's nice, dear."

But in the old sense, it meant fine, as in the thin threads of a "nice" fabric. It then came to mean a fine distinction. It was a "nice" observation to distinguish passacaglia from chaconne, understand the difference between zeugma and syllepsis, or know rules changes among bandy, shinty and hurling.

You are perfectly correct that it is the way the word 'nice' is used in the modern world that I object to. The other good word that has been destroyed in modern society is 'gay' in my opinion as it is now virtually impossible to use it in everyday convesation as it was originally intended.

Much as this may stun CW, there is one word used in American English that I partcularly like. When I was last in America some years ago I noticed that a number of street signs used the word 'yield' at a junction. There is something about that word that I really like and I think it's a great shame that we don't use it more in England. 'Give Way' just doesn't have the same ring to it somehow!

Don't let this American success go to your head CW.

quote:

passacaglia from chaconne, understand the difference between zeugma and syllepsis, or know rules changes among bandy, shinty and hurling.

Robert, you really must post here more regularly! You always are sending me to the dictionary, which is a nice thing!

BTW, here is a previous discussion of "nice."

quote:

I, for example, find the following really boring: going out every weekend to pubs with no soul,

Cat. You're going to the wrong pubs (and drinking the wrong drinks - but we've already had this discussion!)

quote:

When I was last in America some years ago I noticed that a number of street signs used the word 'yield' at a junction. There is something about that word that I really like and I think it's a great shame that we don't use it more in England. 'Give Way' just doesn't have the same ring to it somehow!

Don't let this American success go to your head CW.

Oneth - do you actually have street signs that say "Give Way"?

Twoth - a joke:
A hillbilly woman was in an accident, and the police officer asked why she pulled out in front of oncoming traffic when there was clearly a Yeild sign.
In a very strong accent, she replied, (I'll try to write this phonetically) "Well, I yeeled and I yeeled and I yeeled, but them cars juss kep' on a'comin!"

Threeth - listen to me giggle maniacally knowing that even DOAD will admit to something American being better!


I agree with you wholeheartedly about the word "gay".

I agree with you wholeheartedly about the word "gay".

It's funny how, in another thread, nobody thinks that the word ligature has been destroyed because it has, at least, four different meanings. Why then gay? When I read a book called The Gay Science, I know what Nietzsche meant. When I read an article called "A History of Gay Liberation", I know what its author meant to mean. I can only assume that gay's newer meaning is what did the destroying. What a fragile thing is one's vocabulary; sort of like marriage. Sigh.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
Cat. You're going to the wrong pubs (and drinking the wrong drinks - but we've already had this discussion!)

Lol! No Richard, I avoid said 'wrong' pubs like th plague - you won't catch me in Birmingham's Broad Street on a Saturday night! *shudder*

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Caterwauller:

Threeth - listen to me giggle maniacally knowing that even DOAD will admit to something American being better!


Don't get carried away CW, it's only a street sign!

quote:

nobody thinks that the word ligature has been destroyed because it has, at least, four different meanings. Why then gay?

Because ligature has not been used as a rude epithet against an entire group of people.

Those flaming ligatures - they really get on my nerves.

See? It doesn't have the emotionally charged intent that gay has assumed.

It doesn't have the emotionally charged intent that gay has assumed.

So, it's not that the word gay has changed its meaning once again during its history, but that the new meaning refers to an emotionally charged issue. It's not the word; it's people.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jheem:
It's not the word; it's people.


This opens up quite a field in my opinion. Surely it is the case with any word that its impact is derived from the interpretation and emphasis placed on it by the person listening. In the age of being 'politically correct' it is possible that we may say something in all innocence but if someone else decides to take offence at it, it is an offensive word or phrase.

Perhaps I should elaborate.

In England a woman may be referred to as a 'cow' but whether it is offensive or not depends on the way in which it is said and the context. Conversely, when I lived in Scotland it was almost always seen as highly offensive yet the word 'f**k' was part of everyday life to a far greater degree than it is in England and people rarely took offence. Here you can lightheartedly refer to a woman as 'you cheeky mare' and it is good fun but when I inadvertently used this phrase to an American woman online she was highly offended and I had to apologise profusely.

It isn't just the way the listener interprets a word or phrase, it is also a matter of who says it. A white person cannot refer to a group such as African-Americans as 'niggers' (and rightly so in my opinion because I certainly find it offensive) yet this phrase is far more acceptable when used between members of that same racial group.

It seems to me that as English is a living language it can never be just the word, it is always down to the people and how we choose to interpret it in any given situation. This gives us numerous problems in the use of language but also provides much of the fascination. One of the reasons I enjoy talking to Americans is the fun I can have in seeing the way you use English differently. Once again, it's people. Perhaps there is a new thread here about how our nations/countries use language in different and often surprising ways. That is assuming you haven't already done it.

There's a new series on TV which is about that changes in standards and what is acceptable in broadcasts. This week's Radio Times has an article on the series.

One significant change is how swearwords, expecially sexual ones are now much more acceptable than was the case thirty years ago and even the most extreme words rarely get more than a handful of complaints. The new taboos are the racial terms and these are the ones that get the viewers writing.

Interestingly, in spite of this shift, when the Radio Times used certain words to illustrate its article it seemed happy to use "nigger", without censoring it, but could only bring itself to print "f***" when exemplifying sexual swearwords.

quote:

Because ligature has not been used as a rude epithet against an entire group of people.

Ahhh...well..."ligature" has has been used to describe a murder weapon!

Perhaps there is a new thread here about how our nations/countries use language in different and often surprising ways.
Doad, go ahead and start it! We have a British/American thread, and we may have talked from time to time about how other cultures use words differently, but I don't recall a whole thread on it. Even if there was one...let's start another. It is a great subject!

It seems that you have already run a thread on this as I've been sent the link already, nevertheless, I can't deny that it is alot of fun and given the reaction I've already had to the question I put about the American use of 'off of' in a sentence I may well go ahead and break my duck by starting that thread. Keep your eyes open!

Because ligature has not been used as a rude epithet against an entire group of people.

I've been mulling this over for a while. First, the homosexual meaning of gay was not originally used as a rude epithet. It has come to have a newer negative meaning, but it was originally positive. I am reminded of the character of Homer on The Simpsons complaining to John Waters (a gay, American director) that he's upset that the homosexuals have taken "our" word queer and tried to repurpose it.

Homer: "Yeah, and that's another thing! I resent you people using that word. That's our word for making fun of you! We need it!! Well I'm taking back our word, and I'm taking back my son!"

(Episode 4F11.) It's always seemed to me that this scene is the writers' little dig at people who complain about the word gay having been co-opted.

Secondly, though as I've pointed out elsewhere gay has an older meaning as a term for female sex workers in late 19th century London, I don't believe that was the origin of the homosexual sense of gay (as I've remember reading in one etymology of gay). I've always assumed that the word was adopted as a self-designation because of its slightly effete connotations (at least to mainstream male heterosexual America).

Also, and perhaps I am behind the times, I just don't consider gay rude. I consider it a description of a homosexual male. I know that it can mean female as well...it is just used that way rarely.

I do realize that more recently gay has been used as a slur, as in "That's so gay." However, it isn't how it was first used to describe homosexual; it is a further evolution.

break my duck This is a new phrase to me. What does it mean?

quote:

break my duck

This is a cricket term, but is used metaphorically very often. It was originally "duck's egg". It means to start scoring, and is from the resemblance to an egg of the zero that appeared on the scoreboard against the player's name up to then.

I understand that Americans have a similar expression for a zero score: "goose egg".

See also Michael Quinion at World Wide Words.

Thanks Arnie. It's one of those phrases that I use without thinking about it and I never realised where it came from. I found your explanation very intersting. Do you (or anyone else) know when this phrase was first used and also why Americans settled on a goose egg rather than a duck egg?

quote:

why Americans settled on a goose egg rather than a duck egg?

Because everything's bigger in the US of A (apart from pints of beer, of course - they're smaller)

I should have guessed really shouldn't I. They clearly have no sense of priorities!

Reverting to the byplay on "gay," I ran across an interesting divagation:

Here's an interesting story from the New Orleans Times-Picayune:

Spurred by a case of "Gay" pride, Leigh Clemons tried to order a New England Patriots jersey last month online. Clemons, an assistant professor in Louisiana State University's Theater Department, had watched one of her former pupils, Patriots defensive back Randall Gay, play a key role in New England's 24-21 win against Philadelphia in Super Bowl XXXIX and wanted to show her support for the former LSU standout.

But the NFL intercepted her attempts in mid-February to buy a jersey, personalized with Gay's name on the back, from NFLshop.com, the league's official online merchandise center.

When Clemons entered the last name of the Patriots cornerback, her request was rejected. The Web site accompanied the rejection with a message that said, "This field should not contain a naughty word."

What's naughty about a football player's name? Well, it turns out that gay has another meaning, as Wikipedia explains:

Gay, in addition to meaning "merry," "joyous," or "glad," also means homosexual.

The word gay has had a sexual meaning since at least the nineteenth century (and possibly earlier). In Victorian England, female and male prostitutes were called "gay" because they dressed gaily. Eventually, "gay boys" (renters) became used as a term for any male homosexual. Whilst females would usually describe themselves as lesbian, some resent this term and also call themselves gay. In the United States, the term may have arisen from the hobo community: a young hobo, a "gay cat" or "geycat," often had to befriend an older more experienced hobo for education and survival. Such a relationship was implicitly sexual, hence the term "gay cat" came to mean "a young homosexual."

We're just glad Randall Gay didn't grow up in Victorian England. With a name like that, he would've been mercilessly teased by the other kids.

Robert, thanks for that. I had no idea that "gay" has been used as a synonym for "homosexual" for so long!

Because everything's bigger in the US of A (apart from pints of beer, of course - they're smaller)

You'd better be careful with a remark like that, Richard!

Seriously, it really is strange the we decided on "goose egg," while England decided on "duck egg."

quote:

You'd better be careful with a remark like that, Richard! Wink

But it's true! The US pint is a poor, emasculated thing compared to the proper Imperial pint. A couple of good swigs and you need another one!

quote:

or know rules changes among bandy, shinty and hurling.

Hurling? There's now a vomiting game?

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
The US pint is a poor, emasculated thing compared to the proper Imperial pint. A couple of good swigs and you need another one!

Actually, Richard, it is we in the US who preserve the traditional measures. You Brits had the same liquid measures as we until, by your Parliament's 'Weights and Measures Act of 1824', you redefined your 'pint', etc. as a larger unit. I shall say nothing about the psychological implications of an attempt at self-enlargement.

It was then a half-century after our Revolution. We in the US, having long since ceased to pay attention to what you do, continued upon our way with the traditional measures.

quote:

But it's true! The US pint is a poor, emasculated thing compared to the proper Imperial pint. A couple of good swigs and you need another one!

Ahhh, Richard, suffice it to say, when referring to your comment about everything being bigger in the U.S. execept the pint, I wasn't referring to the pint!