EMC Editorial - Last week, I came across a piece in New York Times Magazine that captured my interest; the article referenced a list of words and phrases that annoyed former magazine editor Kurt Andersen, which he did not want to see used in his publication. Some, such as “hubby,” “celeb,” “eatery” and “a who’s who of” I agree with completely and try to avoid at all costs. Other list-makers, such as “overly” and “lifestyle,” I realize I am guilty of using all the time, and feel a certain duty to stand by.
Either way, the article got me thinking about language, and why we describe things the way we do. At the risk of sounding like a hopeless cliché, I have always been fascinated by the English language. I love how the right word can turn an otherwise boring sentence into something that is powerful and memorable. I also love how, unlike other languages such as French, English is self-consciously malleable, and relatively welcoming of change.
Indeed, fresh words emerge all the time to describe new fads or technologies. Many, like “smartphone,” are pretty much universally accepted as being necessary to describe something that did not exist in the past.
Others are more controversial. Every time I see or hear the word “foodie,” for instance, I feel as though someone is scratching their very long, sharp fingernails along a chalkboard. Don’t get me wrong – I do recognize that our culture needs a new word to describe one who participates in the recent fad of intense food appreciation – I simply find the look and sound of “foodie” distasteful. (No pun intended).
Interesting too how definitions of long-established words can shift to meet the needs of a new generation. I find it amusing, for example, how unfortunate situations can now be labelled “ironic” so long as the speaker qualifies that Alanis Morrissette brand of irony is being referred to. My head begins to spin when I try to calculate just how many levels of intentionality are present in such statements. I think it has to do with alluding to an ironic appreciation of a song that ironically does not reference any pre-existing version of irony– or something like that.
Furthermore, I believe that using “epic” to express something so ever-so-slightly grander than “great,” and “hot” to describe someone ever-so-slightly sexier than “good looking” really does add something to the language.
Other words, it seems, are collectively offensive to our culture. And I’m not just talking about profanity. Society’s curious fear of the word “me” is notable. If I had a dime for every time I’ve seen somebody on Facebook incorrectly describe a photo of being of “[friend’s name] and I,” I could retire tomorrow. Think about it, friends – if the photo was of you alone, would you write “this is a photo of I?”
The sheer ubiquity of this error has got to stem from countless, well-intentioned parents and teachers pounding into everyone’s head that “Jimmy and I are going to the store,” as opposed to “Jimmy and me,” etc. For some reason, the complete version of this rule never got told, and poor little old “me” was unjustly left with a less-than-favourable reputation.
My husband suspects that our aversion to the word may relate to a lingering cultural bias, and that we stay away from ‘me’ because it smacks of distasteful haughtiness and greed. I’m not sure I totally agree with him, but I certainly think that studying the way culture affects the language of personal pronouns could lead to some very exciting findings – at least for English nerds like me.
Thus, if I were to start my own list of objectionable words and phrases, it would undoubtedly include “I” when used as a first person object pronoun, as well as “foodie” and certain other abominations like “staycation” and “gamer.” But certainly not all new words are bad. What do you think, dear reader? What would be on your list?
No comments:
Post a Comment