I conniption-fit cringed when I read this sentence in a major
newspaper admonishing a NFL player’s performance: ‘(Jacoby) Jones seemed to
revert back last season…’ Defined by Merriam Webster, the verb ‘revert’ means
"to come or go back (as to a former condition, period or subject)." Thus, the attachment
of ‘back’ to revert is redundant and wasteful like a discarded crab cake sandwich
for which you just forked over $18.00.
If this example registers a mild grammatical error, consider
another violation frequently peppered in workplace emails: Although ‘Read
receipts’ serves a limited acknowledgement function, I take offense to a writer’s
‘respond back’ directive. Are you kidding me, since ‘respond’ suggests a reply
should be returned?! In this instance, ‘please respond’ is sufficient.
And if that’s not illustrative enough of a communication F-game,
check this out: A prospective candidate casually mentioned that she’d recently ‘relocated
back’ to Texas during an interview. Since command of the English language is my
professional expectation, it would’ve been more palatable had she said she’d ‘returned to
Texas’ instead of ‘relocated back.’ After all, the prefix ‘re’ is synonymous with
the original place.
The more back baby has, the better, some say. This preference
rings a lyrical bell for another Kanye West ode to Kim Kardashian, his current
flavorite who is packing plenty ‘back.’ For those unhip, ‘back’ is equivalent
to ‘junk in the trunk’ or a plump derriere.
Getting back in the language saddle requires language
liposuction and although throngs may find ‘back’ attractive, the word has no rightful
place in the examples above.
No comments:
Post a Comment