American Destruction of English
There are phrases, words and coinages that have cropped up in American English that are some of the worst bastardizations of this beautiful tongue of ours. So distasteful these constructions are to my ears; an examination of them is imperative. English speakers everywhere, please beware of these insipid mouthings.
This coinage is one step above meaningless. Its creator deserves an old-fashion flogging. I presume the idea of this non-word is to convey some intensity of its root word ‘active’. But, to prefix it with ‘pro’ doesn’t do this at all. It renders it confusing. Is this ‘pro’ prefix meant to be used in the sense of ‘for’ in ‘favor of? In that case proactive becomes ‘being for activity’ or ‘in favor of being active’ but this is almost senseless. Since active is not positive or negative, being ‘for activity’ is not saying anything about the nature of activity. But, that’s the intent. It is suppose to mean being ‘a go to it kind of person’. Somebody that is enthusiastic about getting things done. Yet, this is not the literal meaning that can be attached to this word. Think about forming its antonym, on the model of this word. That should be conactive. Doesn’t this sound even more nonsensical? Conactive should mean a person that avoids getting involved, and won’t participate in group work with enthusiasm. At least this is what it should mean, if we follow the connotative meaning that proactive has. If we look at its construction literally, it means being against activity. And that in turns means being lazy. So conactive is a shiftless bum and proactive is a hopped up work addict that wants to get stuff done. This word should be banished from the language. No, better yet, this word should be deactivated.
2. NOT AN OPTION
This phrase has become so common among people in this country that consider themselves to be speaking in a sophisticated manner; it almost makes me want to vomit. Option is meant to indicate choice and this phrase, strictly interpreted is meaningful. The problem is it’s used in such inappropriate settings it has become cliché. You hear it all sorts of either-or situations: in movies, at community gatherings, on the lips of every television personality there ever was or will be, sportscasters regularly employ it when discussing opposing teams, during Sunday morning political talk shows you get at least 3 dosages. Here are a few cases:
Negotiation with terrorists is
not an option
When it comes to the education
of our children waiting is not an option
When it comes to drugs:
experimenting is not an option
Democratic senators in Congress
say postponing Social Security funding is not an option.
I’m sure there must be many more examples of this overused phrase. Its use in these constructs is at best redundant because when it’s employed, it is understood not to be optional. Look at any one of the cases above, isn’t it clear that the phrases describe situations where choices are not arbitrary? So, this phrase not an option, in those sentences is redundant. The usage of a redundant phrase to characterize widely varying situations is worst than cliché, it's inarticulate. Solution?
3. WHAT PART OF
This is a sarcastic phrase meant to insult the person to whom it is said. Sarcastic speech is offensive to most of us, but when sarcastic speech becomes overused just like NOT AN OPTION it becomes unbearable. Everybody these days uses this little smart-ass remark to impress upon a listener that they are being stupid. In fact, what is stupid is this sarcastic remark. If someone misunderstands, or doesn’t listen to what a speaker has said, making a sarcastic remark to draw their attention to that fact is obnoxious. To speak in this fashion is a dumber form of colloquy. Yet, it has become so popular you can't go through a day without hearing it. What can be done about it? You can't beat'em, but God knows please don't join'em? Please! Okay, promise you won't?
4. THEY SAY
To be fair the above phrase is not specifically an Americanism. It is used by English-speaking people the world over to make a statement without attributing the source of the statement to anyone in particular. Thus, we get comments like: They say, that life begins at 40. Or, They say, it's always better to share than take. We hear 'they say' uttered on TV programs all the time. In our real person-to-person conversations we hear those, whom believe themselves to be making profound commentary using it. I remember talking to a coworker once, and she said: They say, love is the only emotion that never harms anyone. I wished at that point, half the English-speaking world would show up right then and there (all 300 million of 'em), and shout at cute little Belinda WE DID NOT! She'd jump back terrified at the multitude of people confronting her and say: Who the hell are all you people? They would reply: We're 'they' and stop attributing comments of whom you don't know the source to us! If you can't find the reference don't say it! Of course pretty Belinda would have fainted by then, I would finally have gotten the chance to take a peek at her delicious--uh, I mean, uh... well that's another story entirely. Anyway, getting back to the subject, 'They say' is not really a misusage in English grammatical construction. It's just vague. It's like the use of passive voice when the speaker or writer is not sure of his information. You've heard reporters say on TV: It was reported that shots were fired on American troops outside Baghdad last night, but no one was injured. This kind of statement attributes the source of the gunfire to no subject. It does because the reporter has no information on whom fired the shots. Well, that's just what 'they say' indicates. You don't know who really said whatever it is that you're uttering, so you cover it by saying 'they' said it. Now that ain't right is it? I am sure some readers of this article will think to themselves: Yeah, as if he's never used 'they say'. Well, to be honest with you, they say, people like me get busted in the head for being grammar snobs.
5. REPORT BACK
This one is the worst of the lot. And strangely it's now not just an American corruption of the tongue, though I believe this misusage began in America. To show you it's gone abroad, I heard a correspondent on the BBC use it this morning (6/30/08.)
It's redundant in the extreme. Report means to return, so for instance To report an error, or report a crime, or to write a report, or report stocks dropped sharply, to report GDP for 2007, etc all indicate giving information to you or people in general. So, why would anyone, anywhere ever follow report with the word 'back'?
6. ONCE UPON A TIME
This construction is so confusing you could never make sense of it by understanding its component words. 'Once' is a word that refers to numeration as in: just once be quiet. 'Upon' describes a spatial relationship, as in:he was upon her body in fierce passion. Maybe that’s a rather crude example, but what the hell? Lastly, we know what 'time'means and no explanation is required. Put these all together and they make no denotative sense. If we try to denotatively apply meaning to this phrase it comes out like this: At one time something was on something? What? Of course, English speakers know it means a specific point in history, as it does when it’s the opening line of a fairy tale. But, it is extremely idiomatic. Wouldn’t it be better to say: At some time in the past--No? You’re not going for it? Ahh, there’s another idiomatic phrase. Okay I don’t consider this a mangling of the language, just an odd idiom.
7. YOU KNOW....
A phrase that is used to open discussion of any topic of in popular colloquy. It is used to mean everything but what it literally declares. And I will admit at the outset, its not uncommon in other languages. For instance, I’ve heard: você sabe said in Portuguese just as often with the same careless intent. But, I’m railing about English colloquial misuse, so lets leave that aside.
People will say something like this: You know, I don’t agree with that. But, well if I know you don’t have to tell me, that you don’t agree, right? Because well, you started by saying I know. Mind you this sentence is never uttered like this: You KNOW I don’t agree with that! In that emphatic case, it’s fine. Or take this example: You know, I was wondering if we should have a surprise party for Duale on his birthday next week. No, I don’t know, you’re asking me? How could I know something before you ask me? Or the most meaningless usage is when it’s used as an interjection as in this sentence: Yeah, then I told’em just stop doing that, you know, you know, he says: Doing what? Making stupid comments to people when we’re out somewhere! That sentence might even be followed by another meaningless: you know. The usage of the phrase you know has become so generic, as a preposition it is losing its original meaningful substance.
Ken Wais 9/29/03