Some words really rile an audience up. Just read The Chicago Manual of Style’s Facebook wall on any given day. Suddenly the conversation isn’t about your writing but about your word choice. Online, comment areas are taken over by people vehemently opposed to the way you used one word out of a thousand. But you looked up the word and you know your use of it matches a dictionary definition.
Bryan Garner refers to terms like these as “skunked terms.” In Garner’s Modern American Usage, he writes:
When a word undergoes a marked change from one use to another—a phase that might take ten years or a hundred—it’s likely to be the subject of dispute. Some people (Group 1) insist on the traditional use; others (Group 2) embrace the new use, even if it originated purely as the result of word-swapping or slipshod extension*. Group 1 comprises various members of the literati, ranging from language aficionados to hard-core purists; Group 2 comprises linguistic liberals and those who don’t concern themselves much with language. As time goes by, Group 1 dwindles; meanwhile, Group 2 swells (even without an increase among the linguistic liberals).
A word is most hotly disputed in the middle part of this process: any use of it is likely to distract some readers. The new use seems illiterate to Group 1; the old use seems odd to Group 2. The word has become “skunked.”
Words change meaning; language evolves. In his new book, What Language Is, John McWhorter writes that it is “general silliness” to resist a “language’s moving on as all languages always have … No one in Milan walks around annoyed that people aren’t speaking Latin.” Yet if you use a word that’s in flux or that has grown to encompass a new meaning, especially a meaning at odds with a traditional meaning, there will always be someone who will take you to task … loudly.
Related Articles:
2010 Words of the Year
Should You Use Refudiate?
Compose vs. Comprise
Lake Superior University goes so far as to publish an annual Banished Words List. Not all the words on the list are skunked terms in the sense that they have new definitions people object to, but several skunked terms have made it on to the list over the years, including refudiate (2011), czar (2010), green (2009), surge (2008), and awesome (2007).
Of course, what one person sees as objectionably another doesn’t even notice. Your audience might not blink at refudiate or surge or awesome, or they might storm the castle. For example, when I write for the Copyediting audience, I know that every word will be scrutinized. Many readers are language purists and wouldn’t hesitate to criticize the use of refudiate.
Unless an audience’s unbridled rancor at your word usage is your aim, your best bet is to know your audience and avoid terms that would distract them from your message. Once distracted, they won’t even give you credit for using the other 999 words correctly. Determining what riles your audience is the trick, of course. If they’re more linguistically liberal, you may have nothing to fear. If they are at all interested in language, you can expect them to notice at least the most contested words.
Here are nine to consider avoiding:
| Term | Traditional Meaning | Newer Meaning |
| bemused | to be confused; to be absorbed in thought | amused |
| comprise | be made up of | make up |
| data | plural of datum | datum |
| disinterested | impartial | uninterested |
| enormity | state of being outrageous, immoral | state of being huge, enormous |
| fulsome | excessively or insincerely flattering | copious, plentiful |
| hopefully | in a hopeful manner | it is to be hoped |
| intrigue | to secretly plot | to arouse interest in |
| nonplussed | surprised, confused | unconcerned, not worried |
What words rile you—or your audience—up? Share them in the comments section below.
* Stretching a word beyond its accepted meaning because its meaning isn’t properly understood, as with literally and verbal.
Latest Tweets
I continue to be torn over the word NIGGARDLY, which caused a politician some problems a few years back not because of what it means but because of what it sounds like. On one hand, it’s a good and useful word, so I want to keep it alive; on the other hand, though, I can see how it could draw too much attention to itself because of its homophone-ness.
For the time being, my solution is this: Use it in print, but not in speech.
Another skunked word — one whose skunkiness I wholly agree with — is RAPE. Unless you’re specifically talking about “The Rape of the Lock,” one should simply avoid using RAPE to mean anything but violent sexual assault.
“Momentarily” is my pet peeve. Its true meaning is “for a moment” or “briefly,” but now it has come to mean “shortly” or “soon.” Every time an airline attendant (or even the voice mail recordings at large corporations) uses it incorrectly, I cringe.
I feel the same way about “niggardly,” Andy, but I tend to avoid altogether. “Momentarily” as meaning “shortly” doesn’t bother me, but there’s nothing wrong with saying “shortly,” either.
Wow. I didn’t even know that “bemused” had changed.
I’m squarely in Group I with regard to “nauseous.” Unless you’re so sick to your stomach that the sight of you is making other people sick to *their* stomaches, you’re not nauseous, you’re nauseated.
Whatever happened to that expression editors always used: “Never use more words when ONE will do?” Some of those new word changes trash that editor concept, don’t they?
“Bemused” is one of the words that should NOT be allowed to change. Ditto for “nonplussed.” The so-called newer meanings are too far from the original, and probably came into being out of ignorance of the users.
However, with “enormity” and “fulsome” the newer meanings seem to express the word itself in better terms. Being of the old school, I’m on the borderline with the rest of the ones shown above.
It saddens me to think that “bemused” is a word to consider avoiding. It’s such a great word – in it’s traditional meaning, that is.
Thank you for such a thought-provoking article. As always, I have enjoyed your words.
~ V
Well, unfortunately, we who are fond of language don’t get to decide what will be changed…it’s the majority of the populace who decide that. They will drag us along, kicking and screaming, regardless of how we feel about it.
Language is, first and foremost, about communication. If communication breaks down due to conflict over word meanings, than language itself fails. It’s best to avoid those conflicts, because in the end, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a fibbertigibbet or an apple, so long as you got your point across.
Most folks would be bemused by this entire discussion.
@Andy, re: “rape” —
THANK YOU.
I wholeheartedly agree.
I’m also disturbed by the recent proliferation of the term “rapey” as a modifier meaning, loosely, “unfair.” It really, really bothers me. The implication that my grocery store checkout line’s slow progress could be named an event even remotely similar to the violent intimate assault of my person is … well. To use another phrase currently in popularity, it’s Not Cool, man. Epically Not Cool.
In any case, many thanks, all, for the discussion. We may be the few and the proud. But hang in there. It’s still worth it, I think.
[...] Brenner’s recent post at The Writing Resource, “Nine Words to Avoid in Your Writing,” wasn’t about banning words. [...]
Consider adding “cordial” to the list. It seems to be changing to mean arms-length, formal, and frosty.
“Enormity” is a noun, yet it’s definitions are adjectives; thus both are wrong.
I’m intrigued by the old meaning of “intrigue”. I’m familiar with “intrigue” as a noun, with a meaning that relates to this old verb meaning, but I don’t think I’ve encountered it as a verb with this meaning.
Seems easy enough to keep them straight, since one’s transitive and one intransitive. “Intriguing” may be another matter, but I would think context would make it clear.
We want our judges to be disinterested, but not uninterested. Data, media, alumna and many other Latin derivatives are abused daily. The perfect term “The Old Boy network” (Ivy League tweeds, cigars, leather armchairs, old money, etc.) has been misunderstood and mostly replaced, even by seasoned journalists, by the very different “Good Ol’ Boy network” (Big Southern men with gun racks on their trucks, not much of a network.).
Hi, Ellen. You’re right about the definitions of enormity. I’ve fine-tuned them to make them noun definitions.
The hijacking of the word ‘gay’. Homosexuals are not gay. They are homosexuals.
What about “problematic”? I was taught that it means “open to question or doubt,” but it is almost always used to mean something that is a problem. And of course, there’s the ever-popular “hopefully.”
Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. In many dictionaries, the homosexual definition is listed as the most common definition (listed first). And if you search on the word gay, the majority of results will be concerned with homosexuality, even in news copy.
Hopefully definitely qualifies as skunked. It has two definitions, but some will only acknowledge one. With problematic, I’m not sure the definitions listed are really that different. Merriam-Webster lists the “questionable” definition as a subset of the “something that is a problem” definition, and the OED has both senses in one definition that it dates to 1609.
I’m amazed that “hopefully” continues to make a list like this. I was raised as rigorously pedantic about English usage as it’s possible to be, yet it never occurred to me that the colloquial usage would be disputed until I was well into my adulthood. I’ve never actually seen a person object to it. The battle was lost so many generations ago that surely even the most po-faced grammarian must have given up by now.
Also, I slightly disagree with your newer definition of data. It hasn’t become the equivalent of datum, i.e., a single piece of information. It has become an aggregate noun instead of a countable noun. In other words, if you were comparing two quantities of data, you would say “less data” (like “less water”) instead of “fewer data” (like “fewer pennies”). This is why it has become singular. Considering the amount of data processed in the modern world, and how infrequently we think about it as a collection of individual points, this usage makes a lot of sense and I think it will eventually become standard.
Now if you want a *real* grammatical cat fight, talk about the usage of “media”
“architected” is a word I’ve heard in several meetings this year, and it makes me twitch. Proposals and contracts aren’t ‘drawn up’ or ‘written’ anymore. They’re “architected”. It seems to be a fairly new abomination, but I’m sure this is going to become a common one.
Architected makes me cringe as well, and I usually change it. My only defense is that it just doesn’t sound right. And OUPblog tells me I’m wrong: http://blog.oup.com/2008/07/architect/. Sigh.
I didn’t realize it had been in use, and debated, for so long. We are a little behind the times here. In the commentary it becomes evident that ‘architected’ is considered cumbersome at the very least, and that alone should make it undesireable!
Anyone getting into a lather about “hopefully” would be well advised to view this short video made by the editors at Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/video/0026-hopefully.htm. Pleasingly non-prescriptivist, as seems to be their take on language in general.
[...] may be misusing: 10 words that don’t mean what you think they do. And here’s a suggestion: Nine Words to Avoid in Your Writing. It’s not surprising that there’s some overlap in these two [...]
[...] Nine Words to Avoid in Your Writing – from The Writing Resource. “Suddenly the conversation isn’t about your writing but about your word choice. Online, comment areas are taken over by people vehemently opposed to the way you used one word out of a thousand. But you looked up the word and you know your use of it matches a dictionary definition.” [...]
[...] become furious with you if your meaning for the word doesn’t coincide with their meaning. The Writing Resource blog lists nine words that fall in this category, words that include intrigue, enormity, and [...]
Expedient! I think people hear this as “ex-speedy-ent,” and have now started using it interchangeably with “quickly.” Drives me nuts.
Histrionic. I heard a news commentator use this to mean “history.” This was John Tesh; it was during Olympic coverage, and he kept saying things like “If you know the histrionics of this event…” and “the histrionics of the sport are amazing.”
Thanks for adding to the list!