Scott Bush

If linguistic relativism is true, then we’re in for some trouble. I’ve found it’s becoming commonplace to use strange constructions or multiple simple words to name items for which perfectly good names already exist. Why is that? Laziness? Maybe at first… but I think it’s more than that. There seems to be a trend to “dumb it down” for people who “might not understand.” While it’s true that many people may not know a word, I don’t agree that they can’t use the opportunity to learn. If they chose not to, they remain ignorant. But if they do… then that’s a positive experience and strengthens the vibrancy of the English language.

Two examples will illustrate my point. A few years back, McDonalds valiantly tried to remake its image as purveyor of a healthy lifestyle by adding a pedometer to its “adult happy meals.” But they didn’t call it a pedometer. Instead they named it “stepometer.” Excuse me? Stepometer? Is that because they thought the typical McDonald’s customer doesn’t know the word pedometer? I’m all for healthy lifestyles and walking, but I’d eschew this thing on principle alone (that, and the fact I don’t eat at McDonalds).

At a recent backyard BBQ, the discussion turned to lawn care. “I use water from my rain barrel to water the lawn,” my friend told us. “Cool,” I exclaimed. “I wish more people used cisterns,” I added, using the term for a container to hold rain water. “Hmm? What’re those?” My friend asked. I explained that his rain barrel is supposed to be called a cistern. “Wonder why they didn’t call it that at the store?” He asked. Me too.

Anyone have other examples of names being omitted in favor of some silly construction? Perhaps a “big ground watch” for a sundial?