Ugly usings

Many of us have a personal bias about particular word formations. My latest gripe is with the plural gerund ‘learnings’.

Ugh. Sorry, it even hurts me to write the thing. As a not-quite synonym for ‘lessons,’ this word not only grates on my ear it fails to do the job it promises. I consider it to be a sphincter-clenching vogue word. But I freely acknowledge my prejudice, just as I acknowledge that the word—though aesthetically ugly—may have a purpose. Also it has given me pause.

What exactly is wrong with ‘learnings,’ other than my distaste for it? As an example of ever-evolving English, the phenomenon of plural gerunds has probably irritated writers and readers for centuries. When I line this one up with its linguistic bedfellows ‘learnings’ is hardly remarkable. Many of these ugly ducklings have long been part of standard English, e.g. findings, sayings, beings, makings, winnings, workings, doings, belongings, failings and writings. So I, like others before me, may just need to get over it.

This leads me to wonder whether my dislike of ‘learnings’ could be symptomatic of a legion of other writers and readers who take objection to a new spelling or coinage. For example, what about nouns turned into verbs? I know a few souls who have vented their wrath on such words as an abomination; I also know many more readers who haven’t even noticed. A warning for the language purists–please look away now. Some of these may distress: ‘to diarise,’ ‘to incentivise,’ ‘to action,’ ‘to access,’ ‘to benchmark,’ ‘to party,’ ‘to caveat.’

And turning a verb into a noun is no more palatable, e.g. ‘a disconnect,’ or ‘a big ask.’ This development is probably an aspect of increasing informality in English that has slowly been affecting standard speech until all the Samuel Johnsons and Jonathon Swifts–like all the king’s horses and all the king’s men–are powerless to intervene.

Last week I heard a new plural gerund. I’m told it’s been floating around management and adult education circles for some time: ‘trainings.’ Easy, stomach. At committee meetings and information forums I have also collected ‘usings,’ ‘doings’ and ‘succeedings.’ Why do we need these clumsy new coinages when there are perfectly good nouns available?

Perhaps the phemomenon belongs to an impulse for novelty and terminological inflation. By that I mean the tendency towards bombast, whereby ‘dustman’ (Britain), ‘trash collector’ (USA) or ‘garbo’ (AUS) becomes ‘garbologist’ or ‘sanitation engineer.’ We have entered the era of overblown nouns. Doorways become ‘entry systems’ and teachers are ‘learning facilitators’. It’s no longer impressive enough to be a storeman or storeperson: now the title has to be ‘inventory controller’. This syndrome even extends to the tasks that people are required to perform. Managers used to manage: a difficult enough role without inflated task descriptions that may now include ‘deployment activities to support process institutionalisation and sustainment’ and ‘business methods enhancement’. Managers no longer merely train, coach and supervise staff: instead they ‘identify process competency gaps,’ ‘meet corporative objectives’ and ‘target core deliverables’.

So pardon me if I continue to choke on ‘learnings.’ And I won’t be using ‘usings’ any time soon. Doesn’t stop me worrying about it though.