I just realized that it's been over a year since I've updated my blog. (Bad blogger!) Just to maintain continuity, I'm posting an oldie but goodie, with some updates and a spelling correction (I'll let you find it on your own).

Editing has been a big part of my livelihood for about 15 years now. Certain words and phrases have the power to trigger my gag reflex. Many of those words and phrases appear with distressing frequency in business communications. As a cry for mercy, I am sharing links to three blog posts (one of them mine) as a guide to words and phrases that you must NEVER EVER EVER EVER USE! I'M NOT KIDDING! DON'T MAKE ME DO A GLOBAL SEARCH AND REPLACE ON YOUR DOCUMENT!! (whew, I got a little carried away there for a moment)

http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/42556.aspx
http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/43415.aspx

http://wordchemist.blogspot.com/2009/09/controlled-verbiage-act.html
Sunday, September 27, 2009
The Controlled Verbiage Act
by Nancy McGuire

I'm a word person, and it bothers me when words are misused, over-used, used to obscure the speaker's intent, or otherwise abused. Here in the United States, we have a Controlled Substances Act, which classifies various drugs according to their medical uses and potential for addictiveness or abuse. Perhaps we need a Controlled Verbiage Act to regulate the use of certain words with a high potential for abuse.

The lowest level of enforcement would be reserved for words that are often misused, but you more or less know what the speaker meant. Examples would be the interchangeable use of "lay" and "lie", "effect" and "affect", "flaunt" and "flout". These are the Schedule IV words. They may be used by lay people without a prescription, but word processing programs should come equipped with directions for usage and warnings of the potential side effects when these words are not used as directed.

Moving on up the list, we have the Schedule III words. These can be used to convey a thought, but they have a high potential for overuse, even addiction. In addition, their misuse may do damage to the rest of the language by setting precedents for sloppiness and fuzzy thinking. Business writing is rife with Schedule III words and phrases. "At the end of the day", "at this point in time", "capturing value", you know the genre. Language-damaging words include such "verbed" nouns as "resulted", "impacted", and the abominable "architected". Throw in such commonly used, but unhelpful, words as "utilize". These words should be kept behind the counter at the editor's shop, and those wishing to use them should present some form of identification and sign a statement that these words are being used in a satirical fashion, as dialogue in a work of fiction or a stage play, as a direct quotation in a news story or documentary, or in professionally-written linguistic performance art.

Schedule II words have legitimate linguistic uses, but they are almost universally misused when placed in the hands of amateurs. These words include "enormity", "comprise", "quantum", and other impressive-sounding but poorly understood terms. When these words are misused, the reader can be left wondering whether the author meant to say that the new shopping mall is a disgrace and an abomination, or merely that it is very large.

Schedule I words have no use other than to demean, disgrace, or belittle other people or to suggest acts of violence or subjugation. You know what these words are. I'm not going to repeat them here.

Arguments vs. Fights

Words of wisdom from "Thinking with Flying Logic" by Robert McNally. This was passed along to me by my co-worker John Forbes.

"When we think of an argument, many of us envision scowls, angry gesticulation, and yelling. We imagine petty name-calling, a parade of unforgiven grievances, and other emotional power plays. Most importantly, we imagine arguing to get our way— to show that we are right and others are wrong. But such an interaction is not an argument— it is a fight. In a fight there may be winners, but there will certainly be losers, and injuries for all.

A real argument is a shared search for truth. In an honorable argument people can still be passionate, but they follow the rules of logic just as drivers follow the rules of the road. And even though people approach a situation from different perspectives and with different preconceptions, the positions they take should be seen as suggestions that are ultimately intended as win-win, even if they initially fall far short. Indeed, even such flat statements as, 'We’ll get along fine as soon as you learn to do things my way,' hint at a common objective: getting along.

When argument is viewed as a search for truth, it becomes possible to see adapting one’s position to new information and ideas not as weak or wishy-washy, but as a challenge to which only a mature, strong, and honorable person can rise. More pragmatically, all sides can begin to look forward to not merely getting their way, but getting something better in the form of a win-win solution."