Can you separate legitimate language gripes from mere pet peeves? Visit Barbara Wallraff's new Web site and find out. There are usage forums, too.
I passed all the quizzes but one. See if you can guess which one I would have answered "none of the above" to.
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
1. Are all peeves, by definition, unfounded?
2. Shouldn't the objective be to keep the thing caged?
Ok, I give. Which one was it? I came up with all "right" answers.
And are you two in agreement that the same one is wrong? Why?
Enlighten the masses.
I thought the "proactive" question should have come with an answer along the lines of "It is a word, but it's an annoying buzzword that should be avoided."
Barbara argues that there is no equivalent word for the concept, and sure enough I haven't come up with a good alternative.
Looking at the quiz again, I think it was the pooh-poohing of the hit man that led me to avoid that answer. I know the word is in the dictionary, but an execution-style slaying still might be appropriate.
I can't say I agree on substituting "active," though.
All quibbling aside, Barbara's site is clever and useful, and it's appreciated.
“Active” is not a universal substitute for “proactive.”
“Proactive” automatically denotes good intention and carries a built-in time reference, a sense of anticipatory intervention. “Active” doesn’t.
Try changing “proactive sex education” to “active sex education” in a local school story and see what happens. (And you can’t just delete “proactive” there, because the meaning would be altered.)
Jack the Ripper was active. Whoever picked up the pieces of the Hindenburg was active. Neither was proactive.
I’m no big fan of “proactive,” but I think there’s a place for it, and I’m willing to let it slide sometimes. Words come and go. The language evolves.
Now, that's what I call prioritizing your decision-goal objectives.
My horoscope for today:
By Jeraldine Saunders
... LIBRA (Sept. 23-Oct. 22): Being stuck in situations with those of different philosophies and conflicting viewpoints can try your social skills. Make the best of dull one-upmanship games, and wait to forge agreements or extract promises.
It's in the paper. It must be true.
Barbara, I think that's a good edit. At least, it's much less likely to trip people up now. But would you mind posting the old answer here for posterity's sake?
Peter Fisk wrote:
“Proactive” automatically denotes good intention and carries a built-in time reference, a sense of anticipatory intervention. “Active” doesn’t.
Try changing “proactive sex education” to “active sex education” in a local school story and see what happens. (And you can’t just delete “proactive” there, because the meaning would be altered.)
*******
OK, Peter, so “active” is a poor substitute in this case, but “proactive” still chaps my behind. One, it’s just plain ugly. Two, it’s ambiguous. What is it, sex ed for virgins? Sex ed taught by a professional sex educator? By a professional sex worker?! Sex ed that stresses condom use? Abstinence?
“Anticipatory intervention”? One person’s good intention is another person’s invasion of privacy. Time to elect a few new school board members!
Notwithstanding a former colleague’s insistence that “proactive” is a portmanteau from “prophylactic” and “active,” there are plenty of words more accurate and descriptive.
Post a Comment