American English is a rich
language. It’s always changing and evolving. New words and usages come and go.
Many that come along are helpful. They clarify, they improve, they enhance and
enrich.
But some are just plain
stupid.
They obfuscate, they
complicate, they confuse. They reveal a lack of understanding.
“Skill set” has become about
as ubiquitous as water.
One must ask why.
What does “skill set” offer
our language that isn’t covered by “skills” other than the fact that it adds a
syllable? And we all know how some people will never use one syllable when
two—or three—or four—will do. All those syllables make you sound smarter, don’t
they?
That question is easily
answered with a simple, one-syllable, two-letter word: no.
If you can think of a reason to use “skill
set” rather than “skills” let me know. The ability to change my mind is among
my skills—or is it within my skill set?
Rod, I couldn't agree with you more about "skill set." How about when people "reference" something, instead of refer to it? I could go on and on. I'm a curmudgeon.
ReplyDeleteRight you are, Nancy. We can, and will, go on and on. I like curmudgeons. I think I am one.
DeleteAnd then there is "oftentimes," when "often" will do. "Oftentimes" is redundant. What about "to orient" instead of "to orientate?" Just the other day I got an "invite" rather than an "invitation." That's not inflation but annoying just the same. Sadly, we could go on for a long time.
ReplyDeleteHow true.
Delete"Skills" took on vast new meaning for me, when I first heard the noun modified by the adjective "mad." Yep. Old Napoleon Dynamite. Who, if I'm not mistaken, was a Utah cowboy too, Rod.
ReplyDeleteThanks, John. Despite "Napoleon Dynamite" taking the world by storm, and being all the rage here locally, I confess I have yet to see the movie. Maybe I should.
Delete