Wash Those Words Out of Your Mouth--They’re Banned!

Every year since 1976, Lake Superior State University has published its annual list of words and phrases that are thenceforth banished from the Queen’s English.

In 1990, for example, it banned impact as a verb; good hands, as possessed by an athlete; prostate gland; the words sharing and special; words ending in aholic; and such redundancies as close proximity, new innovation, completely surround and foot pedal.

No doubt the language would be clarified and strengthened if indeed such abominations could be banished.

However, Lake Superior State has now published a calendar, “Banished in Perpetuity,” which reviews the words banished every year since 1976. It suggests that banished words do not go away.

A review of the words banned in 1976, for example, turns up many that have survived banishment.

The first one is input, as in meaningful input. Apparently it’s here to stay. (What’s your input on that?)

Among the phrases that received the most nominations for banishment in 1976 was at this point in time, which was introduced by John Dean, ad nauseam, in his testimony on Watergate. At this point in time, alas, it is still common.

In 1976 the university called for “the resignation of all sports reporters who fail to state clearly in their lead: The winner and the score.”

A quick check of any sports page will show that there has been no mass resignation of such errant reporters. (By the way, shouldn’t that lead in the university’s dictum be leads ?)

Implement and viable, as in that is not a viable alternative which we can implement, were banned but, alas, the ban has not been implemented. The words are still in use, if not viable.

Meaningful, as in meaningful dialogue, was banned as having lost all its meaningfulness. Alas, the word has outlasted many meaningful relationships.

Unique was banished not as being evil in itself, but for its presence in such combinations as very unique and most unique. (Of course, some things are uniquer than others.)

Yuh know, a teen-age crutch, was cited more than any other word or phrase. “Lake Superior State University admits there is little it can do about it,” the judges noted at that time. (It seems to me that the phrase is not as prolific as it was 15 years ago, but it’s still, yuh know, around.)

In 1978 the word situation was banned in such phrases as wet pavement situation. Football announcers invariably say, “It’s a fourth-down situation,” instead of, simply, “It’s fourth down.” Fourth down is a situation; it doesn’t have to be called one.

Detente was banished in 1976, with the observation that Henry Kissinger had introduced it into the language, but even he had forgotten what it meant. Detente is a word of French origin, much favored by diplomats. It means, “We aren’t getting anywhere, but we don’t want you to know it.” Do not look for it to vanish.

Also banished in 1976 was scenario. It was said to have spread like wildfire after Watergate. Scenario means plot, or series of events that one has arranged to happen or expects to happen. My wife claims that whenever we travel, I take along a suitcase full of worst scenarios. I think this is probably a useful word and is here to stay, as, unfortunately, are most of the others.

Let’s have another look at words banished in 1990. One was shoppe, for shop. Nothing new about shoppe. In the 1920s every beauty shop was a shoppe. It does not lend itself well, however, to such establishments as gun shoppes.

In 1990, the university also banned a mind is a terrible thing to waste, pointing out correctly that “it is a terrible thing to waste a mind.” Such illogicalities get lodged in the language and cannot be expunged by academic banishment.

In that year it also banned impact as a verb, as in “his speech impacted the audience.” Impact, it pointed out, is what a sledge hammer has on a brick wall. It is used as a verb, the judges said, by people who don’t know whether to use affect or effect . I suspect that is true. As for its effect, the banishment apparently did not affect the word’s misuse.

The judges also banished from the desk of, a common heading for notes. They note that desks can’t write. I receive many notes on this letterhead and find no fault with it. One may think of the note as having been written on the desk of so and so, or sent from the desk. I find this interdiction picky.

The university is also wasting its time in trying to banish In other words and Oh, well. These conversational crutches are filler. They separate one banality from another.

How could we talk without them?