15 words you should eliminate from your vocabulary

[emsr2d2]

Enjoy!

http://mashable.com/2015/05/03/word.../?utm_cid=p-disp-fb#lHxBPJzBTRqW#1VMIkRhs2GqF

 

[MikeNewYork]

I agree with irregardless. The rest, not so much.

 

[Tarheel]

The word "that" has been used to refer to people for 200 years.

 

[emsr2d2]

Interesting. I would always delete "that" and change it to "who" after a reference to people.

 

[emsr2d2]

I agree with irregardless. The rest, not so much.

I agree that they shouldn't be deleted from one's vocabulary completely but they are certainly overused. "Irregardless" shouldn't be in anyone's vocabulary in the first place!

 

[Tarheel]

They left out "overcrowding" and some others that are on my list.

 

[Skrej]

I think this list is written more from a writer's perspective, than a speaker's perspective. While I'll acknowldege the author's points as valid if you're trying to create more engaging prose, I really don't see the problem with any (yes, even 'irregardless') of them from a conversational standpoint.

I've been known to say 'irregardless' myself, although since my spellcheck in Word pitches a fit, I normally avoid it in writing.

Interestingly enough, the forum spellcheck isn't flagging 'irregardless'. :lol:

It's really more of just a pet peeve list than anything else.

 

[Tarheel]

"Interestingly enough" is on my list. ;-)

 

[Tdol]

Literally seems to wind a lot of people up when it is not used literally.

 

[bubbha]

1. It really depends on the situation. I am more likely to use "that" when it clarifies the meaning, or when writing very formal English. I also believe "that" should not be used with people (use "who" instead) despite its history. "that" makes people sound like inanimate objects to my ears.

2. If you eliminate "went", you would also have to eliminate "go". Both are useful words. In formal writing I may write "attended school" instead of "went to school".

3. Yes, "honestly" or "to be honest" imply that what you wrote before may not be honest. I would not use it in, say, a formal letter to an authority figure whose decisions hold sway over you (e.g. a letter to a potential employer or university admissions committee).

4., 5., 7., 11. I'd say avoid these in creative writing, but they're OK in expository writing.

6. "really" is unacceptable in formal writing, in my opinion. It goes along with "a lot", "boss", "kid", and other similar words that I believe should be avoided in formal writing.

8., 9. I find that the Chinese love to use "always" in their academic writing. I advise learners to avoid it (and "never") unless they're prepared to back up their statements with evidence.

10. Just know how "literally" is supposed to be used, and I'm fine.

12. I'm ambivalent about "maybe". Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

13. "stuff" meaning "things". Avoid in formal writing. But: "He is made of sterner stuff" strikes me as acceptable, as is "the right stuff" (though cliched... but I don't generally get worked up about cliches).

14. Meh

15. Here's a place where I am fine saying "never": "never use 'irregardless'".

 

[Tdol]

I'd say avoid these in creative writing

Why should anything be avoided in creative writing?

 

[Raymott]

I've been known to say 'irregardless' myself, although since my spellcheck in Word pitches a fit, I normally avoid it in writing.

I've noticed a trend here. People generally don't disagree with contentious words or constructions that they use themselves.

 

[Tdol]

Yeah- irregardless just isn't alright. ;-)

 

[bubbha]

Why should anything be avoided in creative writing?

I find words like "very" to be colorless and bland. But if you think it fits, go for it.

 

[Tarheel]

Well, "very" only has four letters, so that's less typing than with some.

 

[MikeNewYork]

There is nothing wrong with "very".

 

[Tdol]

I can see why some people may want to look for alternatives to very, but I don't see that making rules for creative writing does anything other than limit creativity.

 

[BobK]

I think this list is written more from a writer's perspective, than a speaker's perspective. ...


It's really more of just a pet peeve list than anything else.

Not so much the writer's perspective as Mashable's perspective. They just want traffic to their site, and any list of pet peeves is going to do the job. I'm just {ahem} not buying ;-)

b