1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Obnoxious Vocabulary

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by McNuggetsMan, Mar 7, 2011.

  1. Big Circus

    Big Circus Well-Known Member

    It's not exactly vocabulary, but I once made a T.S. Eliot reference in a high school soccer gamer.

    Yes, I've gotten over myself since then.
     
  2. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Noted. One use of "abrogated." Star-Ledger.

    I'll stand by my last point, though.
     
  3. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    I asked it about somnambulant and I'll ask it here -- what if you're slotting and the word "abrogated" sounds perfectly natural to you and not all that difficult? How do you even know there's a problem? Drawing an artificial line can be difficult. Fairly presumptuous, too: I know this word, but I'm way smarter than those dumbasses reading our paper.
     
  4. dreunc1542

    dreunc1542 Active Member

    I really don't see the issue with abrogated. That's a word, especially in context, that should not be difficult to figure out even if you're not totally sure of its meaning.
     
  5. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I've gotten Animal House, Caddyshack, Fletch and Fast Times at Ridgemont High references past the desk.
     
  6. cfinder

    cfinder Member

    A bit of history and context (i hope):
    "Somnambulant" is a word unleashed upon the Post-Gazette sports readership several times yearly by several different columnists, dating to the late Bruce Keidan in 1984, at least. Perhaps the late Phil Musick invoked it before him as well.
    So it isn't unexpected (to use a bad-writing double negative) in a Pitt basketball column. It isn't unexpected from a great writer such as a Gene Collier, who has been spinning columns -- of the news variety for a time, too -- in his singular voice for more than a quarter-century. Yes, in Pittsburgh. Where he has written a very popular column every New Year's about the language of sports, his annual Trite Trophy. Younz guys should read him more often.
    To call him a "celebrity" doesn't come close to a full description. As side ventures, he got into performing morning-radio cameos, writing a stage production and even doing stand-up comedy. . . where he is a riot, even using sports-writing tales. But he was granted those stages, no pun intended (honest!), because of his columnist voice, style and creativity. For those journalists who are so inclined, he has won a bunch of APSEs, too, as both a columnist and feature writer.
    And this was neither a paid advertisement nor a message approved by Gene.
    chuck
     
  7. shockey

    shockey Active Member

    that is an unfair litmus test. we've (mostly) agreed here on examples of words 'making it through' that probably should not have. several issues could be at work, such as wanting to give a columnist some freedom; editors not wanting to suggest it might be a word out of the average reader's vocab since it indicates it may have been out of your own vocab, etc.

    a reasonable way in which i would question whether writer's word choice was necessary or vanity or verbal masturbation was to ask everyone on the copy desk their opinion; the sports ed at the time told us if more than one person gave pause we should 'get it the hell outta there.'

    obviously there is no foolproof system to dictate which words are 'too heady' for readers in general. now, addressing azrael's point in this case, perhaps 'abrogated' was discussed and passed muster. no way to know. i just know which way my vote would have gone. hey, i never claimed to have an exceptional vocabulary.

    but neither does the average reader. hey, words beyond my reach will continue to get through, unchallenged. i'm simply suggesting that many of them should. seems to be it services the writer's ego more than it does his readers.

    but hey, that's just me...
     
  8. NickMordo

    NickMordo Active Member

    I agree. It's too wordy, and the guy is trying to sound like a bighead.
     
  9. shockey

    shockey Active Member

    i'd hope any slot guy would consider 'abrogate' a seldom-used word in for any basketball story. if 'abrogate' does not at least make my slot man at least pause, i'd be thinking i'd need a slot man with better horse sense.

    and let's forget 'abrogate' for a sec, or even concede it may be a 'borderline' too-highbrow. surely all slot men/copy chiefs/sports ed's have words they'd consider ridiculous to appear in their section.

    and if not, they should. as for 'abrogate' in particular, well, i've been in the newspaper biz almost 33 years now, as both a reporter and copy editor. that also means i've been a voracious newspaper reader. it strikes me as beyond belief that 'abrogate' would easily flow past a vast majority.

    which isn't to say it would never pass muster. it just wouldn't pass muster on my watch without debate.

    and once a word is debate-worthy among editors, that should tell them they need to call the reporter/columnist to ask what word they'd like to be used instead.
     
  10. Some Guy

    Some Guy Active Member

    Generally, if it's one word in one story, and context clues point toward an obvious meaning, I'd lean toward letting it go.

    If it's multiple words in every story, then I'd have a problem.

    In general, I think a reader is far more likely to bail on a story if it is overrun with stats and numbers than if it contains one word they might not quite be sure of. Part of me wants to give our readership a little bit of credit.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page