Hacker News Reader

Comment by Normille | Hacker News Reader

  >"..reached out.."

When I'm king of the world. There will be public floggings for anyone using that puke-making phrase!

View on HN

What alternatives would you suggest? What are you willing to bet that they will stand the test of time without also becoming overused icons of language? "Reached out" at least has a warm diplomatic connotation so I personally don't mind it at all.

Yes, we can "circle back" in a few years and "touch base" with him to see if he still feels the same.

  >What alternatives would you suggest?...

How's about the ones we've used for centuries already; "contacted" or "got in touch with".

  >"Reached out" at least has a warm diplomatic connotation...

This is exactly the reason I abhor it so much. It's so blatantly trying to be touchy-feely it makes me want to puke! It's like some committee somewhere sat down one day and decided that terms like "contact" or "get in touch with" just weren't putting across how caring their faceless corporation was. So from now on it was going to be "reaching out" all the way.

What I also loathe about it is that, having thus been foisted upon us from nowhere [5 years ago I'd only ever seen the phrase in the Four Tops song], all of a sudden, all over the globe, people who have been quite happily "getting in touch with" others or "contacting" them are suddenly "reaching out" instead.

And, while you're all downvoting away. Just be aware that, in addition to the "reaching out" crime, my benevolent dictatorship is going to take a similarly flagellatory view of:

* Beginning the reply to a question with "So..."

* Using the word "super" instead of "very"

* Describing anything as "awesome" which does not meet an officially defined standard of awe-inducement

* Having entire conversations on social media, which consist entirely of fucking emojis.

* Using the phrase "I could care less about..." when you mean precisely the opposite.

[Phew! --that'll do for now. I think I need to lie down til that vein in my temple stops throbbing]

Perhaps we should make it illegal for all to use written language except for the most highly educated and those with the most serious of intent? This would weed out your qualms.

"Contacted" isn't the same as "attempted to contact" so you are semantically incorrect even though the syntax is well formed.

Why not "asked" for "reached out to ask"?

Because often times they didn't get to the asking stage, they got to the "can we talk to someone about X and ask questions?" stage and nobody replied by the article deadline.

"often times" ?!

Where did I put that cat'o'nine tails?

I'm too busy tilting at the 'just say use instead of utilize' windmill, but your cause is worthy.

I hate that one too. I think it's meant to imply a sort of pioneering by making something usable which previously wasn't, rather than merely employing it like some plebe. I've noticed an inverse correlationation between pomposity and substantiveness.

I had an english prof who'd take a mark off if you ever handed in anything containing "utilized". Now I see it every where.

At the end of the day, it is what it is.

It's certainly not what it's not, and it was what it was. Going forward, it will be what it will be.

Despite the claims from some quarters, it wasn't what it wasn't; despite the hopes from other quarters, it won't become what it won't become.

Some want it to be what it was, while others want it to not become what it is.

Everyone can agree that it might or might not become what it is. All anyone can do is learn from what it was, understand what it is, and work to make what it will be what they want it to be.

Oh "going forward" is another good one!

It's obviously designed to imply so much more 'progression', 'improvement' and 'boldly striding into the future' than the wholly unambitious "from now on"

At the beginning of the day too, most certainly.

Because it does not express how hard it was.

Why use punishment when a 10 week course on correct English usage would suffice :-) Since you are the king in that epoc, you could make it mandatory!

There is no such thing as "correct English usage". There is only "English usage that adheres to the expectations of the listners". It's always been this way in English and it would take authoritarian social controls (not language controls) to change it.

In other words, to quote Cheryl Tunt, "You're not my supervisor!"

He said he plans on being King, so he can simply dictate that people use ‘The King’s English’.

Dictate? He has met English people, right?

We don't really take to being dictated to that well. I can name half a dozen historic "circumstances" where that's failed quite catastrophically.

We don't like being told what to do...

The Kingship is a red herring. He just needs a bus with Chaucer's face above the words "The Ol' English of the Great British Empire" and a media campaign with pithy slogans like "Time to get on with English" and "English means English!"

Ah, the British. Us Americans are over here trying to influence everyone with sophisticated media silos and social networks, meanwhile in Britain someone's muttering "hold my beer" and "I'm going to need a bus and some red paint..."

Life imitates art. On the one side is the shambolic chaos that is Mike McLintock and on the other side is Malcolm Tucker, whose writ "runs through the lifeblood of Westminster like raw alcohol, at once cleansing and corroding."

Sorry, I apologize. Dictate was the wrong word.

He can proclaim that his people shall use the King’s English.

Also, the Tower of London is still a possession of the crown.

Whether it goes well or not is another matter, but I’m sure it will be invigorating.

> When I'm king of the world. There will be

Muphry's law?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com