At a Loss for Words to Explain the School’s Track Record

Once again Lake Superior State University has published its annual list of words and phrases that ought to be banished from the English language.

In fact, the university does banish the words, but its track record of success is poor. Banished words do not vanish.

Among those banished for 1991 is track record , which I have just used to illustrate a point.

No. 1 on the university’s hit list for 1991, though, is myself , the reflexive pronoun that is replacing me in the language.

As it is, we are invited to have dinner “with my wife and myself,” instead of “with my wife and me.”

LSSU condemns this usage as “a compromise pronoun” used by those who fear being labeled self-serving; or a “refuge pronoun” used by those seeking to avoid personal responsibility. (“Please see Mr. Keating or myself for any large unsecured loan that you need.”)

I think, however, that myself is simply the refuge of those who don’t know whether me or I is correct in such sentences as “Please have dinner with my wife and myself.”

If it eliminates the use of “with my wife and I” in such constructions perhaps it is acceptable.

LSSU also banished parenting , a gerund formed from the noun parent . Parenting may offend purists, but I suspect it’s here to stay, like the job itself.

Also banned is rocket scientist , which they call a “new cliche.” A rocket scientist is anyone skilled in technology, as in, “You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to use this cordless screwdriver.”

I haven’t heard the phrase, but I know I’m not one.

LSSU also bans venue in the sense of a location for some entertainment or sports event. This usage appeared during the 1984 Olympic Games and has since been irrepressible. (“The Coliseum will be the venue for track and field events.”)

LSSU points out that a venue is the county or locality in which a legal action occurs or a crime is committed. A defendant may ask for “a change of venue.” The LSSU observes, “It is not an NFL stadium.”

I have an idea venue will die of its own pretensions. It will depend on whether our sportswriters are embarrassed enough by it.

LSSU would also like to banish the phrase “We can send a man to the moon, but we can’t . . . . “ Granted, that has become a cliche; but so many things remain undone in this high-tech society of ours that I sympathize with its use. We can send a man to the moon but we can’t cure the common cold.

Mopping-up operation is also banished. LSSU objects to its use in military reporting. “This is far too friendly a description for a situation where people are being shot at.” If we go to war in the Middle East, we will hear about plenty of mopping-up operations--a cliche that makes them sound easy.

LSSU would also interdict “if you will,” an affectation that afflicts the public remarks of politicians, bureaucrats, newscasters, pseudo-intellectuals and the like. I believe “if you will” is interjected to ask indulgence of some invalid metaphor or epithet. (“The freedom fighters, if you will . . . . “)

LSSU also banishes longer hours , meaning more hours. “Janitors work longer hours than bartenders.” True. An hour is an hour, and, while one hour may seem longer than another, it isn’t. I doubt, however, that this usage will stay banished. To say that someone worked “long hours,’ means not only that she worked more hours, but also that each hour seemed longer than an hour.

I share LSSU’s impatience with such advertising phrases as “up to over half off,” but nothing can be done about them except for buyers to stop going to those sales. Not likely.

End result is also banished. It does seem redundant. A result is a result. End result makes sense only if there are a series of preliminary results leading up to the end result. End result may be excused however as a device of emphasis.

LSSU is tired of address as in “We must address that problem.” It is hard to imagine a politicians’ speech without this word. “We must address the problem of the homeless.” LSSU asks why we can’t just identify, analyze and resolve such problems. Once a politician discovers a good, useful, evasive cliche, though, he won’t let go.

I like oxymorons as well as the next person, so it is with regret that I regard their banishment. A good oxymoron is hard to find (an oxymoron being a phrase or statement that is self-contradictory, like “heroic coward”).

LSSU nominates for oblivion the phrase “faux pearls and diamonds” sold with “a certificate of authenticity.” Since faux is French for false , what authenticity is the certificate guaranteeing?

Not to mention free gift .