{"id":545,"date":"2006-07-04T01:05:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-04T08:05:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/rifftides\/wp\/?p=545"},"modified":"2006-07-04T01:05:00","modified_gmt":"2006-07-04T08:05:00","slug":"the_last_word","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/rifftides\/2006\/07\/the_last_word\/","title":{"rendered":"The Last Word"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Our colloquy on annoying, useless, stupid and redundant words and phrases could probably go on forever, but it won&#8217;t. It&#8217;s time to wrap it up with these entries from <em>Rifftides<\/em> readers.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Any time soon.<br \/>\n<br \/>Ramping up.<br \/>\n<br \/>Heart-wrenching.<br \/>\n<br \/>(From Gene Lees)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>Add to the list of unnecessary expressions:<br \/>\n&#8220;To utilize&#8221; means nothing more than &#8220;to use.&#8221;  I can&#8217;t think of a single instance where &#8220;utilize&#8221; would be more clear or more precise than the word &#8220;use.&#8221; There seems to be no reason to utilize the longer word at all. But I could care less.<br \/>\n<br \/> (From Dave Frishberg)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>Your mention of &#8220;data&#8221; reminds me of my pet peeve. That word is plural (the singular being datum). People consistently use a singular verb with it though (The data is based on on a large sample size, rather than: The data are &#8230;) One last pet peeve: comprise. That word is NOT followed by &#8220;of.&#8221;<br \/>\n<br \/>(From Jeff)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>I hate marketers who turn nouns into verbs. (e.g. leverage, network, and task).  I, like Ted O&#8217;Reilly, get NAUSEATED by people who say they are NAUSEOUS.<br \/>\n<br \/>(From Scott Faulkner)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>As a Brit I&#8217;d rather not get into a debate about &#8216;mispronunciations.&#8217;<br \/>\n<br \/>(From Gordon Sapsed)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>Disinterested is often correctly brought up in word misuage discussions. I looked up the word today in the <a href=\"http:\/\/education.yahoo.com\/reference\/dictionary\/\"target=\"_blank\"><em>American Heritage Dictionary<\/em><\/a> online and learned:<br \/>\n&#8220;Oddly enough, &#8216;not interested&#8217; is the oldest sense of the word, going back to the 17th century. This sense became outmoded in the 18th century but underwent a revival in the first quarter of the early 20th. Despite its resuscitation, this usage is widely considered an error.&#8221;  <br \/>(From Garrett Gannuch)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>An odd one is the phrase &#8220;is that&#8221; inserted without logic or neccessity, creating phrases like:<br \/>\n&#8220;What you&#8217;re forgetting is, is that I didn&#8217;t graduate.&#8221;<br \/>\nI call this the double &#8220;is.&#8221;  You hear it all the time in conversations on the radio. <br \/>(From Bill Crow)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>Being the chief of the language police has some heavy resposibilities for you in this era. One thing that I would suggest is to advise all of your readers to avoid the stock channel (CNBC) at all costs. Today, after the Federal Reserve raised interest rates a quarter of a point, one of the commentators stated that it &#8220;was pretty much exactly&#8221; what he expected. <br \/>(From Charlie and Sandi Shoemake)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I have resigned as chief of the language police. The criminals are winning.<br \/>\nAs <a href=\"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/rifftides\/archives\/2006\/03\/other_matters_o.html\"target=\"_blank\">John Ciardi <\/a>would say if he were still with us, good words to you.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Our colloquy on annoying, useless, stupid and redundant words and phrases could probably go on forever, but it won&#8217;t. It&#8217;s time to wrap it up with these entries from Rifftides readers. Any time soon. Ramping up. Heart-wrenching. (From Gene Lees) Add to the list of unnecessary expressions: &#8220;To utilize&#8221; means nothing more than &#8220;to use.&#8221; [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-545","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-main","7":"entry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/rifftides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/545","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/rifftides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/rifftides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/rifftides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/rifftides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=545"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/rifftides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/545\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/rifftides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=545"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/rifftides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=545"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/rifftides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=545"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}