Patrick Ross, author of The Artist’s Road blog, enjoins English speakers and news producers to stem the tide of “word inflation” when reporting compelling news items, this week’s hurricane reportage being the latest culprit. Few settled to call Sandy an immense storm, instead opting for “superstorm,” and while calling her a composite storm would prove unwieldy, the “Frankenstorm” neologism sounded equally outlandish. Ross recalls other atmostpheric events that have prompted similarly supersized vocabulary: Snowstorms of past years have earned monikers like “Snowpocalypse” and a Los Angeles traffic snarl was nimbly dubbed “Carmaggeddon.”
We have been doing this for some time, taking words that already encompass significant scale or impact–like “hurricane”–and modifying or replacing them with no good reason. Take “unique.” The word means “being without a like or equal.” Yet how often do we hear an interesting individual called “pretty unique,” or a rare item called “very unique”? How can you be degrees of unique? Why do we feel the need to insert a modifier in front of an absolute?
But I haven’t mentioned yet the nails-on-a-blackboard abomination that has permeated popular culture and, I fear, could find its way into permanent usage. Tell, me, honestly, why do we need the word “ginormous”? With “gigantic” we “are exceeding the usual or expected,” and with “enormous” we are “marked by extraordinarily great size, number, or degree.” I have yet to hear anything referred to as “ginormous” that could not have been fully described with one of these two words. This word inflation is a gigantic cultural problem, and its implications are enormous.
Just as intriguing as the grammatical unorthodoxy of supersized words, it seems to me, is their expression of our appetite for hyperbole. But as Ross explains, it doesn’t seem quite right to assume that the more baroque a word becomes, the more content it conveys. Lawyers may use ‘legalese’ to package complex ideas into manageable (usually Latin) phrases, and the Germans have poly-conceptual single words like Umweltverschmutzung (“pollution”). But the modern American scrivener’s rationale for lengthy new words seems to have more to do with overstatement than efficiency or precision. It’s a linguistic development we should watch, unlikely as it is to recede. And now that they’re with us, we can at least strive for consistency and call these new words by a proper name—Frankenwords.




November 1st, 2012 | 2:54 pm
“Ginormous” is attested as far back as 1948, according to the OED. It seems to have originated as military slang.
I like it. It rolls off the tongue well.
November 1st, 2012 | 3:44 pm
The real problem with “unique” is that if you set your sieve fine enough, everything’s unique, and coarsely enough, nothing is.
November 1st, 2012 | 7:24 pm
English is promiscuous by nature. Complaining about it is like holding one’s hand out to stop the incoming waves.
Also, pace Strunk & White (unfortunately, too many people in journalism don’t appreciate how un-English the S&W approach to style is when taken too far), American English is not naturally laconic in style. The pleonasms of Classical rhetoric find their expression in the ways Americans intensify their rhetoric as illustrated above.
November 2nd, 2012 | 10:18 am
I hope this is some way related to this posting: i note that there is a tendency to add “-gate” to the scandal du jour (“Monicagate”, “Benghazigate”) which can be funny but it is also lazy. It deprives us of some fancy and distinctive titles—The Bay of Pigs Fiasco, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Dreyfus Affair, etc.
I have always wondered who christened these events, who determined the official lingo—why not the Bay of Pigs Catastrophe, for example (although I love “fiasco”)?
November 4th, 2012 | 5:49 pm
Kevin,
I enjoyed your follow-up to my rant, and as much as I find myself resisting the creation of new words merely for the purpose of exaggeration, I must say that the term “Frankenwords” is perfectly coined. It conveys the horror, and the artificial nature of their construction.
I like how you brought German into the discussion. It’s quite fascinating how they create words that have great specificity through mashing others together. I learned of the word “heiligenschein,” which deals with shine from morning dew on grass (pretty specific), when watching one of the Scripps spelling bees. And who doesn’t love to use “shadenfreude”?
November 4th, 2012 | 5:59 pm
[...] Sullivan for highlighting this post on The Daily Beast. Andrew’s post guided me to an interesting follow-up post to this one by Kevin Staley-Joyce on First Things Magazine. Share this:TwitterFacebookGoogle [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact