Friday, September 29, 2006

At Least That's What You Said

Word I Read Just Now That I Hate:

Look, I'm the first to say that I use big words.
I think they're fun in the same way as Jazz composition. As long as you understand and/or feel it, feel free. But when a word is retrofitted for the sole purpose of sounding "new," I have a problem with it.

In Robert J. Samuelson's column in this week's Newsweek, Trickle Up Economics?, I had only one problem. It wasn't of a political or feduciary nature. Only that he (or his editors, those fuckers) didn't say "influx" when he meant influx.

Influx is not a big word at a mere 6 characters. Regular readers, nay, everyone that reads that specific article, knows what influx means.
To be fair, I know enough about language to appreciate that influx probably entered the lexicon under pretentious circumstances; its lineage being of Latin descent.

It would appear that inflow made its first appearance decades later and it didn't exert itself, in my lifetime anyway, as the cooler word. Influx is fun to say. Inflow blows.
Sure we could play the F#9dim at that point of the song, but does it serve the song?

It stands: Influx is a word understood by most through prolific usage. Contextually or not, it's a word not to shy away from.
I suspect it's another example of the re-wording that is efforted by all media to make things seem homogenistic.
But when they're not coming up with new terminology, I find it issuatic. See?! That's no fun!
What's so funny 'bout peace, love and influx?

This is only interesting to me.

I can't finish an idea.

And about that, I think we're all in agreeance.


Blogger Genevieve said...

I don't like those sorts of words either. "Incentivize" is one I really hate. What happened to "motivate?"

10:38 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home