Today I ran into the word "synergies." This word is tragic on so many levels. Please, please, please, don't ever use this word or its slightly more acceptable singular form, "synergy." Ever. Like ever ever.
One of the multiple problems with this word is that, even if you are using it correctly (which this particular user wasn't), it makes you sound dumb and gullible. I've got some SYNERGY over here, man, you want some? Wowza, man, this stuff is CRAZY good! It's like a car salesman, a cheerleader, drug dealer, and the author of a self-help book all in one.
We all make enough unintentional mistakes in life...so making intentional ones is just silly. And using words like synergy is an intentional mistake you can avoid.
Synergy is a made-up word. There are lots of made-up words in the English language. Language, like people and their ideas, is constantly evolving. Some words are made up out of necessity, because there was never a word for them before (e.g. texting, blogging, smart phone), and some words very sadly evolved from perfectly respectable words (preggers, hubby). Other words didn't evolve from anything but sheer stupidity or wannabe cuteness (when people try to make something cute that's not*, or when they want to romanticize things), like "baby bump."
*NOT saying here that a woman's pregnant belly is unattractive or unsightly, although I do think the current media trend to bare all is inappropriate. I'm just saying that "tummy" worked perfectly fine for a long, long time, and I don't see the need for the change.
Need.
That's really what it's all about. I don't see the need for baby bump or synergy. But there are perfectly legitimate changes in English that I embrace.
Like the use of singular "their." There is a need for a gender-neutral, singular possessive pronoun. "His or her" and "his/her" combinations are ugly and disrupt the flow of speaking and writing. Made-up pronouns like "werf" are unnatural and draw too much attention to themselves. So, while the plural use of "their" as a singular pronoun used to be frowned on, it is increasingly becoming more and more acceptable. It makes sense, and it fulfills a need.
Laziness and stupidity are not needs.
A while back, someone on the 100 Hour Board wrote in, asking about the growing use of the word "resiliency." I was not the asker of this question, but I sympathized with the asker's frustration. Why use "resiliency" when we already have "resilience" ? I came upon this same situation in a Relief Society lesson a week ago, and it bothered me enough that I looked the word up (I told my nephews that I'd give a buck to the first person who brought me a dictionary).
What did I find, you ask? Resilience and resiliency are both words. They mean the exact same thing. BUT...but, but, but...resilience is the more standard usage.
People who study language know that there are two camps when it comes to usage. Descriptivists (or non-commital pansies, as I like to call them), will tell you that language is a beautiful, ever-changing thing, and that there isn't necessarily a right or wrong (or as Olympia folks like to say "It's what's right for you.") Okay. Really, they're not all that bad. But they are less likely to tell you how things should be and more likely to tell you how they are. And if everyone is using the word synergy incorrectly, they will probably tell you that that has become the new norm, and as long as the meaning is clear, it's okay. Essentially, if all a descriptivist's friends are jumping off bridges, they will too.
The other language camp is prescriptivists. These people are the ones who tell you that you can't ever, ever, ever end a sentence with a preposition, that infinitives should never be split, and that you should never start a sentence with a conjunction. These are the sticklers for rules and meanings. These are the ones who know the difference between nauseated and nauseous and discreet and discrete. These are the ones who, never fail, when you ask them "How are you doing?" answer "I'm doing well," instead of "I'm fine," or "I'm good," because "doing" is a verb and only adverbs (like well) can describe verbs, not adjectives (like fine and good).
Neither camp is totally right. They both have their advantages. Language does evolve, so we need to be adaptable. But we shouldn't be so adaptable that we allow it to lose all meaning or dignity. Language is a code, and codes have rules, and rules should be followed, unless there is a need that the rule doesn't address.
Ooh. See that? Back to need again.
There is no need for stupidity. Fun, laughter, freedom, yes. But stupidity, no. We all know that language rules can be broken for a particular purpose or effect. This involves knowing the rules, though, and then breaking them, not because you are stupid, but because you are deliberate.
So, breaking the rules intentionally, but without a purpose is deliberate stupidity....which could be the topic for an entirely new post.
I will end this now. You probably stopped reading four paragraphs up the page anyhow. But I hope you have a lovely weekend. Go forth, and don't be stupid. Stupidity is not a need.