The Language Perfectionist: People Who Need People
Some language issues don’t lend themselves to a judgment of right or wrong, but rather are matters of style or rhetoric. Haven’t you encountered words and expressions that, though grammatically correct, strike you as awkward or grating?
Here’s one of my own pet peeves, illustrated by the following examples drawn from major newspapers:
• “The human body is complex, and effects seen in tests on small laboratory animals and in human cells don’t necessarily mean health risks to people.”
• “The technique for making embryonic stem cells without compromising the embryo has yet to be adapted to people… .”
• “MySpace uses algorithms and people to strike harassing or bullying images and content… .”
To my ear, this use of “people” sounds peculiar and even childish. To differentiate our species from others, “human beings” or “humans” is more appropriate. In the third example, “staffers” or “employees” or “human monitors”would have done the trick.
Again, the above examples aren’t wrong. But where superior and more eloquent alternatives exist, why not use them?
If these writers had followed my advice, I wouldn’t have been reminded of that scene in Soylent Green in which Charlton Heston screams… well, if you haven’t seen the film, I won’t be a spoiler!
[Ed Note: For more than three decades, Don Hauptman was an award-winning independent direct-response copywriter and creative consultant. He is author of The Versatile Freelancer, an e-book recently published by AWAI that shows writers and other creative professionals how to diversify their careers into speaking, consulting, training, and critiquing.]
Comments