At a recent gathering of family and friends, we stumbled into a conversation about what’s became a touchy subject to some: the shortening of words. You know what I mean: using words like “bro” for brother, perhaps in an attempt to sound cool.
Apparently there are many people who find this habit offensive.
We were a varied group, with representation from England, Germany, Japan, Mexico, South America and, of course, the United States. We were monolingual, bilingual and multilingual. English was the dominant language within our group and everyone spoke it fluently.
What was interesting about this conversation was that it wasn’t about whose language was superior or whether English should be the dominant language throughout the world, the normal direction of our group’s past conversations. This time we talked about the many ways in which the English language is abused, mutilated and torn apart, about the way we shorten words and overuse acronyms.
We were all seated at a large table at a Denver restaurant when the conversation turned in this direction after an innocent comment. Someone had asked for more “guac.” Of course, we all know that “guac” is short for “guacamole.” But that word annoys a good friend, who was sitting next to me, more than anything. She finds the use of “guac” to be offensive. Her face had quickly changed from a serene calm to extreme annoyance. And so it began.
“Why can’t people just say ‘guacamole?”‘ she stammered, to the surprise of the person who used the shortened word. “Really!” she continued, all other chit-chat coming to a halt. “What is so difficult with just saying what you really mean? After all, does it take that much more effort to say ‘guacamole’ than ‘guac?”‘ It was not a simple question.
To my surprise, the others seemed genuinely interested. I was fascinated. Playing with words has been a longtime passion; I sat back and listened intently to the opinions of the others.
Then we decided to make a game of it. We all took turns reciting the shortened word or acronym that we disliked or liked the most and why.
So it began, a round-table game of words. My offering was the term “delish” for “delicious.” I always thought it had such a nice ring to it. “That was simply delish,” or “How delish,” or “That strawberry cheesecake looks so delish.”‘ Imagine eating strawberries dipped in chocolate. Doesn’t it work? “Yum! That was simply delish!” It’s poetic.
The next person had a strong dislike for the word “cell.” “Why can’t people simply say ‘cellphone’? ‘Cell’ just has a negative connotation,” the person argued. Asking to use someone’s ‘cell’ just didn’t sit right. This one created some controversy. Some thought it didn’t fall into the same category as other shortened words. The biggest argument was that it was technically two separate words that was sometimes written as a compound word (as we do here at The Post). People make the choice to use the first part of the word (“cell”) or the second part of the word (“phone”).
At home, my husband admitted being bothered by the word “vacay.” “There’s no reason why people can’t just say they are going on ‘vacation,”‘ he said. Of course he’s right, but “vacay” has stuck around for a long time, just like “mayo.”
Shortening words and losing a syllable here and there is not a new phenomenon. Words like “bro” have been around for more than 30 years and are still widely used today. Our language is continually evolving and is a testament to our progress as a species. Although we may not like the way words are shortened and misused today, those same words may someday find their way into our dictionary.
By the way, our group got so caught up with shortened words that we never got to discuss the overuse of acronyms. Perhaps we can tackle that the next time we get together.
Emilia Fernández Valerio (emilia01@earthlink.net) is an educator and graduate student at the University of Denver who currently works at the central Denver Public Library. The contest for this year’s panel of Colorado Voices ends Feb. 20. See www. denverpost.com/opinion to enter.
