IT has dominated our lives for nearly a year, but it seems the world is tiring of hearing about Covid-19 as it leads an annual list of recommended words that ought to be banished from common parlance.
Covid-19 takes the top spot?
It started all of this early last year and now it is number one on Michigan’s Lake Superior State University annual List of Banished Words, as determined by submissions to the poll. The University said: “A large number of nominators are clearly resentful of the virus and how it has overtaken our vocabulary. No matter how necessary or socially and medically useful these words are, the committee cannot help but wish we could banish them along with the virus itself.”
Most of the “banished” words are related to the virus?
Seven of the 10 words and terms that LSSU is banishing for 2021 are connected to the virus - in fact, out of 1,450-plus nominations, upwards of 250 of the words and terms suggested for banishment for overuse, misuse, or uselessness related to the coronavirus.
What else do we want to get rid of?
In second place in the top 10 is the phrase "social distancing", with LSSU saying "we'd be lying if we said we weren't ready for this phrase to become 'useless'...Many others clearly feel the same”.
“We’re all in this together”?
A phrase likely intended as a way of keeping everyone feeling safe and calm at the start of the pandemic garnered enough votes for third place, with the feeling that we are now all dealing with Covid-19 in different ways and as a result, “its usefulness has faded”.
Anything else?
In fourth place is the term “in an abundance of caution”, followed by “in these uncertain times” and “pivot”, with their vagueness put forward as reasons for their need to be “banished”. The list coordinators said: “The committee agrees that Covid-19 has upended everyday life and wishes this weren’t so. But putting things into imprecise context doesn’t help matters.”
Unprecedented?
This word was on the banished list back in 2002, but has been among those used extensively in virus coverage, “nominated many times this year for misuse in describing events that do have precedent” so LSSU felt its inclusion was again warranted.
What were the words not virus related?
“Karen”, which began as an anti-racist critique and broadened into a "misogynist umbrella term for critiquing the perceived overemotional behaviour of women" is in the seventh spot, followd by "sus" which is a shortened version of "suspicious" used in the video game, Among Us. It is included because "how much effort does it take to say the entire word”?
I know, right?
Described as a “relatively new construction to convey empathy with those who have expressed agreement”, “I know, right?” rounds off the 2021 top 10 because “if you know, why do you need to ask if it’s correct or seek further approval”?
The banished list captures the zeitgeist?
“It should surprise no one that this year’s list was dominated by words and terms related to COVID-19,” said Peter Szatmary, executive director of LSSU’s marketing and communications. “LSSU’s Banished Words List has reflected signs of the times since debuting in the mid-1970s, and the zeitgeist this year is - ‘We’re all in this together by banishing expressions like ‘We’re all in this together.’ To be sure, COVID-19 is unprecedented in wreaking havoc and destroying lives. But so is the overreliance on ‘unprecedented’ to frame things, so it has to go, too.”
The list is decades old?
LSSU has compiled an annual Banished Words List since 1976 to "uphold, protect, and support excellence in language by encouraging avoidance of words and terms that are overworked, redundant, oxymoronic, clichéd, illogical, nonsensical—and otherwise ineffective, baffling, or irritating". Over the decades, LSSU has received tens of thousands of nominations for the list, which now totals more than 1,000 entries. This year, nominations came from most major U.S. cities and many U.S. states, as well as from Australia, the Czech Republic, England, and Canada.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here