Words That Should be Retired from the English Language. Forever.

College Confidential Community
1

<p>How about, the overusage of "awkward"-- although it's a usage issue, it drives me crazy!
Sketchy and guesstimate are ridiculous words and they need to go away.</p>

2

<p>Sam Brownback.</p>

3

<p>I don't like "typically" for some reason...</p>

4

<p>add ballin' to the list.</p>

5

<p>So, thus far:
-awkard (overusage)
-sketchy
-guesstimate
-Sam Brownback
-typically
-ballin'</p>

<p>ANY disagreements?</p>

6

<p>...like...</p>

7

<p>I disagree with sketchy... I'm a late adopter ;)</p>

<p>should I know what Sam Brownback means, cuz i don't</p>

8

<p>How about the n word?</p>

9

<p>Definitely nix, tight (in the sense of something being "cool"), and flabbergasted (just looks weird).</p>

10

<p>terrorist. And every word related to it, or derivative of it. I wanna see bush make a single speech without using that word. Oh wait, he can't.</p>

11

<p>Interesting - overuse to the point of complete emptiness</p>

<p>Fly, tight, and solid should be retired into the Hall of Fame for their killer retro meanings.</p>

12

<p>Definitely, actually, in fact, "the point" -- overused by pretentious teenagers and those who want to like, look smart and stuff. In fact, I was actually using those words 9 months ago. Yes, definitely candidates for removal. This is my first point.</p>

<p>My second point is that I definitely disagree with words "nigger" and "awkward": first is actually a part of history and second is definitely ineffable by other words.
Actually, that's definitely my point.</p>

13

<p>hey I like the word guesstimate... it sounds funny. I agree that we should say goodbye to flabbergasted.. I remember hating it when I studied for the SAT :)</p>

14

<p>get, got, thing, a lot.</p>

15

<p>I sorta overuse the word 'sorta' way too much! I guess it can be on the list too!</p>

16

<ol>
<li>come</li>
<li>get</li>
<li>give</li>
<li>go</li>
<li>keep</li>
<li>let</li>
<li>make</li>
<li>put</li>
<li>seem</li>
<li>take</li>
<li>be</li>
<li>do</li>
<li>have</li>
<li>say</li>
<li>see</li>
<li>send</li>
<li>may</li>
<li>will</li>
<li>about</li>
<li>across</li>
<li>after</li>
<li>against</li>
<li>among</li>
<li>at</li>
<li>before</li>
<li>between</li>
<li>by</li>
<li>down</li>
<li>from</li>
<li>in</li>
<li>off</li>
<li>on</li>
<li>over</li>
<li>through</li>
<li>to</li>
<li>under</li>
<li>up</li>
<li>with</li>
<li>as</li>
<li>for</li>
<li>of</li>
<li>till</li>
<li>than</li>
<li>a</li>
<li>the</li>
<li>all</li>
<li>any</li>
<li>every</li>
<li>no</li>
<li>other

<ol>
<li>some</li>
</ol></li>
<li>such</li>
<li>that</li>
<li>this</li>
<li>i</li>
<li>he</li>
<li>you</li>
<li>who</li>
<li>and</li>
<li>because</li>
<li>but</li>
<li>or</li>
<li>if</li>
<li>though</li>
<li>while</li>
<li>how</li>
<li>when</li>
<li>where</li>
<li>why</li>
<li>again</li>
<li>ever</li>
<li>far</li>
<li>forward</li>
<li>here</li>
<li>near</li>
<li>now</li>
<li>out</li>
<li>still</li>
<li>then</li>
<li>there</li>
<li>together</li>
<li>well</li>
<li>almost</li>
<li>enough</li>
<li>even</li>
<li>little</li>
<li>much</li>
<li>not</li>
<li>only</li>
<li>quite</li>
<li>so</li>
<li>very</li>
<li>tomorrow</li>
<li>yesterday</li>
<li>north</li>
<li>south</li>
<li>east</li>
<li>west</li>
<li>please</li>
<li>yes</li>
</ol>

17

<p>R u that bored CT?! :D</p>

18

<p>Oh, by the way, CT, have u ever seen that, ur username can't exist in my location! <em>cool</em>!</p>

19

<p>I second "a" and "the." People just sound so stupid and uninformed when they use them.</p>

<p>And... I hate it when really pretentious "intellectuals" use the word "rather." Not like: "Rather than eat her hamburger, she stuffed it in her pocket." I mean, when people use "rather" to retract and correct previous statements. You know what I mean. Maybe. Possibly. Ehh.</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
Oh, by the way, CT, have u ever seen that, ur username can't exist in my location! <em>cool</em>!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you suggesting that within a black hole, there will be a certain radius of convergence x ∓ y where all values within this range, when applied to a function, will converge to a single value, z? Can we add a value k to x ∓ y such that f(x ∓ y + k) diverges, and does not equal z? This must occur if x ∓ y contains a finite amount of values. The Chaos Theory suggests that for a value x, f(x) = z, there exists a very small number q such that f(x + q) ≠ z, but instead equals a completely different value.</p>

<p>I think. Anyone care to validate? :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Arrrgh, don't mind my mindless mumbling.</p>