Many years ago, a teacher at Emerson School spelled out a bit of wisdom and pasted it, in letters a
foot high or more, along the top of the blackboard in her classroom. I don't remember who the teacher was -- Miss Dyckman,
maybe -- but I remember what it said. It advised us to: "Speak clearly if you speak at all. Carve every word before you let
it fall."
That teacher would be appalled at what she might see and hear today. Mumbling has become fashionable.
And not just that. Words are misused and overused.
Not long after man decided to stand erect, he learned to make distinct sounds that proved to be an
improvement over grunts and gestures. Language was born. It has become a living thing, constantly changing and adapting. If
we can't find a word in the dictionary, we just borrow one from someone else.
In fact, our dictionary is full of words borrowed from French and German and other languages. With
so many words available, and others fairly accessible, you might think none of us would have any trouble making clear what
we have to say. Hah! Listen to almost any casual exchange today, especially between young people, and you have to wonder.
Properly used, "like" is a perfectly good word. It's like other short words with no subtle shadings
of meaning. I like it. But people have taken to dropping it into the most unlikely places. I'm, like, puzzled by that. What
does it mean in that context?
Using "like" as a kind of decorative element is no worse than tossing in "I mean" or "you know" after
every clause in every sentence. If "I mean" precedes a rephrasing of an idea that has just been expressed, fine. I'm all for
clarity. Too often, though, it's pure clutter. "You know" is acceptable as a question -- do you know? -- but it's rarely used
that way. Another example: "as we speak," usually uttered by a lone speaker.
Almost as bad as clutter is the tiresome use of a word to the point where its meaning becomes lost.
Take "awesome" or "outrageous" or "totally."
Exaggeration is an effective tool but, like steak, it can be overdone. Less irritating is the belief
that some nouns may be used only in connection with a specific adjective. Thus, no one can have a record except a track record,
unless of course he has a police record; there can be no alternatives that aren't viable.
People who ought to know better are guilty of eliminating a word used for centuries and replacing it
with another.
Educators, for example, or maybe administrators, have taken to calling schools "learning centers."
What, for goodness sake, is wrong with "school"? Schools in many places are not what they used to be, I know, but will putting
up another name fix the problems?
"Hospital" seems to have fallen out of favor, too. Now we have "medical centers." One institution I
know calls itself a "medical center and hospital."
Why? Isn't that redundant?
Does changing what you call yourself really help? A sociopath named Pete can change his name to Bill,
but that isn't likely to change his behavior. The Cubs aren't going to win a pennant by calling themselves the Grizzlies.
Some academics argue it's pedantic to insist on clinging to the rules, that nothing matters but making
yourself understood. But rules were adopted so we might make ourselves understood.
If we think something is unusual, or notable, or remarkable, even important or significant, we ought
to say so. But to say something is awesome, when it clearly isn't, is outrageous.
Francis B. Kent, who grew up in Gary, lives in North Hollywood, Calif.
Find 5 examples of other misused words for ten points.
