alt.hn

1/15/2025 at 6:12:55 PM

A marriage proposal spoken in office jargon

 https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/a-marriage-proposal-spoken-entirely-in-office-jargon

by ohjeez

1/15/2025 at 8:41:19 PM

I think I could be alone, but one of my biggest office-speak pet peeves is using verbs as nouns.

Like “ask” (I hear this one all the time), “(value) add”, and “solve” (used in this article - I cringed).

I see this a lot on HN too, so again, many others here will obviously not agree. But I’ll intentionally use “request” or “question” over “ask” just in protest.

I know the English language has been using some verbs as nouns for millennia, but there are particular ones (like the ones above) that I mostly hear at the office (or outside the office, but spoken by “office folk”), and it’s definitely an annoy.

EDIT: Turns out I'm not alone. Thanks for the validate.

by jader201

1/15/2025 at 8:58:34 PM

>and it’s definitely an annoy.

You didn't have to do it to drive the point home, but boy did this do the job.

by alterom

1/15/2025 at 11:11:02 PM

Or in this generation's words: it's giving annoy

by ranger_danger

1/17/2025 at 8:50:52 AM

Yeah. It's definitely a fail rather than a win.

insert angry react

by alterom

1/15/2025 at 9:16:25 PM

> boy

And nouns as interjections.

by el_pollo_diablo

1/15/2025 at 10:54:09 PM

I think of the interjection "boy" as being some 1930s-1950s movie speak for earnest young people expressing surprise or excitement about something, not office related at all.

by bryanrasmussen

1/16/2025 at 8:26:31 AM

>And nouns as interjections.

Nouns?

"Boy" as an interjection, used for emphasis, has been used for over a century.

From Oxford English Dictionary[1]:

>boy: interjection (colloquial, originally U.S.). 1894–

>Expressing shock, surprise, excitement, appreciation, etc. Frequently used to give emphasis to the following statement.

You also say it as if it were unusual for interjection to be nouns.

Spoiler alert, that's not the case.

God is an obvious example (God is it tiring to see falsehoods online); so is surprise!, and many others.

All of that has nothing to do with office jargon.

[1] https://www.oed.com/dictionary/boy_n1#15546734

by alterom

1/16/2025 at 6:16:06 PM

My comment was meant as a joke, given the context. I am familiar with these interjections, even as a non-native anglophone. Sorry for the time you took to write a good reply.

by el_pollo_diablo

1/17/2025 at 8:45:31 AM

What's there to be sorry about?

It was fun for me to dig in and find out just how long boy as an interjection has been around for (which is, by far, not an obvious thing regardless of whether one speaks English natively or not).

Same goes for trying to think of other nouns which are used as interjections (the Wikipedia article on interjections lists very few, if any, nouns).

So it was fun to think (and write) about.

FWIW, English isn't my first language either — so I hope we both learned something.

By the way, I couldn't find out why or how "boy" came to be used as an interjection — it doesn't readily appear to be a minced oath — like gosh — or a euphemism (like darn). It remains a mystery to me. So familiarity with these interjections doesn't mean there's nothing to discuss or explain :)

(I don't think I'm getting what the joke was even now, but that's beside the point)

by alterom

1/16/2025 at 7:05:55 AM

Whenever you are about to say “boy”, say “sport” for immediate value add

by moi2388

1/15/2025 at 8:48:58 PM

I find that happens to me too (getting annoyed), but it's a good reminder to introspect when it happens. Clearly, there's nothing objectively wrong with actually using these words in their new meanings-- they're completely serviceable in their new usages, and clear too. There's some degree to which all people get annoyed with language changing and feel a conservative impulse to put a stop to it, but the annoyance with office jargon in particular seems to go beyond that. The source of our annoyance is thus revealed to be something else. I have a feeling it comes back to, like so many things, status games. Someone using new terminology that was just invented is (probably incidentally) asserting some kind of status one-upsmanship over you, demonstrating in passing they are more familiar with cultural norms. I wonder if my annoyance is actually stemming from insecurity that the other person is exactly right-- I am falling behind in the invisible status games. I can either accept my loss, try to adapt to it by using it myself, or remind myself of how little I really care about these status games.

by savanaly

1/15/2025 at 8:56:24 PM

Most of these words seem to be intentionally ineloquent. It's almost as though they were invented or first used by someone who is rich but illiterate. Or that the words were invented specifically to be "accessible" in some way.

Imagine getting a degree in English and then learning as an adult that an "ask" is modern jargon for a request, that a "learning" is a lesson, and an "add" is a differentiator. Business English always seems to involve a narrowing of the lexicon.

by pclmulqdq

1/15/2025 at 11:15:09 PM

I feel like modern office setting gives us unprecedented linguistic situation. On one hand, you want to use complex language to sound official and very important. On the other, most likely your room is full of non-native speakers, so they might not be familiar with particularly uncommon words. This creates a situation where you're looking for words that are, at the same time, simple and fancy.

by anal_reactor

1/15/2025 at 11:52:32 PM

It just occurred to me that I use "ask" as a noun when talking about development/fundraising in nonprofits. And it's been used that way going back to when I was in high school (1978-1982), at least. (I went to prep school so development was a thing.)

Outside of nonprofit fundraising land, however, ask is a verb. And only a verb.

by susiecambria

1/15/2025 at 10:58:07 PM

In a softly held defense of those words, they basically are an escalation level.

If someone asks you for something, it could be something with undefined scope or priority. An "ask" signals "this is official". Same thing with learnings: lesson is personal, learnings means ways things are changing.

Are there dumb business terms, absolutely, but these aren't bad IMO.

by Raidion

1/16/2025 at 1:15:44 AM

So you're saying that "an ask" is "an order" or "a demand", rather than "a request". Why not use those words?

I don't understand what "an ask" means. I don't know what the speaker intended with it, and I wouldn't know how a receiver would understand it.

It's just communicating badly, using words with no fixed shared meaning. Or somebody too afraid to be confrontational to phrase a demand as actually demanded.

And "learnings" is just somebody too lazy to say "lessons learned".

by reichstein

1/16/2025 at 5:10:59 PM

If it actually is stronger than a simple request, I could see saying "an ask" as a way of demanding using softer language. If your boss were to say "I demand ...", everybody is going to say they're a demanding jerk, but if they come to you with "an ask", that could carry the weight of the demand without sounding...demanding.

That said, I've never considered "an ask" to have any stronger meaning than a request. If I hear "an ask", I'm assuming I can push back the same amount I would to any other request.

by falcojr

1/15/2025 at 10:55:36 PM

I don't mind when language changes for a good reason. Maybe we're doing (or have) a new kind of thing and the old description of it was awkward. But changing the meaning or context of an existing word for the sake of _style_ is annoying and ought to be called out because it just adds the potential for utterly pointless confusion.

by bityard

1/15/2025 at 9:23:22 PM

I think what grates on me the most -- deservedly or not -- is that these particular words only end up being used this way in "business speak". I find business-type people to be profoundly annoying (shallow, surface-level/transactional relationships, etc.). For me, the fact that this is a business-speak phenomenon automatically makes it eye-roll-worthy by association.

by kelnos

1/15/2025 at 9:50:39 PM

These are awful, but the worst one for me is referring to "people" or "employees" as "resources". I feel a sharp surge of irritation every time someone does that.

by mwigdahl

1/16/2025 at 2:10:55 AM

Absolutely agreed. For me, this goes far beyond incorrect use of language: it's directly dehumanising because the term "resource" primarily describes inanimate objects. Resources are meant to be used, but people should be employed or managed.

In searching for the origin of this usage, I found this blog post[1] which attempts to explain arguments both for and against. But, to me, the arguments it lists under the heading "Why referring to people as resources is okay" are actually stronger arguments against. They're all about making certain management tasks easier by simplifying what's being managed. Unfortunately, this goes past simplification to homogenisation.

I've lost count of the times that I've seen management treat a big set of developers as equivalent resources, free to be reallocated to projects as needed. This approach never factors in how well certain people work together or the disruption caused by splitting up a well-functioning team.

It's not just that people aren't the same as objects; it's that people aren't even the same as each other.

[1] https://www.retaininternational.com/blog/why-are-people-call...

by yoz

1/15/2025 at 9:54:56 PM

I use to say "colleagues". That should be ok I hope.

by mongol

1/15/2025 at 10:13:10 PM

I used to work as a scientist in a large research org. I once had the director of HR address an email to us as "Colleagues".

Talk about cringe.

(Colleagues in my world connote someone who might be considered as a research collaborator. Definitely NOT HR bureaucrats.)

by fghorow

1/16/2025 at 9:11:20 AM

I find more "cringe" to not consider HR employees to be worthy of being called colleagues.

by benhurmarcel

1/16/2025 at 1:00:28 AM

How would you have preferred the HR director to address you in the email then?

by mongol

1/16/2025 at 8:24:55 AM

I learned that they did this because some though that personell or staff would be too offensive. Same thing happened in Germany, were the English term HR is now more commonly used.

Whowever decided HR being less offensive shouldn't make judgement calls like that at all.

by raxxor

1/15/2025 at 11:21:19 PM

We have switched over to "bodies."

by datavirtue

1/16/2025 at 4:54:47 PM

"Headcount." Even the rest of our bodies are not really required.

by ryandrake

1/15/2025 at 10:15:30 PM

Yes, or "talent"

by nicoburns

1/16/2025 at 1:50:33 AM

Or "customers" as "consumers".

by theandrewbailey

1/15/2025 at 10:56:19 PM

Agreed! I've been deliberately substituting "personnel" instead.

by anon84873628

1/15/2025 at 9:16:08 PM

It goes the other way too, nouns as verbs, and just as cringy: "you can solution this", "we need to action that".

Both ways come from subtle manipulation of language. "Ask" sounds like a polite word while "request" sounds demanding, so the former gets used even if it's the wrong word class. "Lesson" sounds harsh while a "learning" sounds positive. The word that gets used is whichever frames the speaker or conversation better, making them sound more courteous or cooperative and nudging the recipient towards complying.

by vikingerik

1/16/2025 at 3:17:54 AM

And the more unpleasant the idea, the more they pile on the jargon. Once I was at a meeting between a bunch of companies, discussing a move to some common standard, and one guy used five minutes of dense jargon just to say "what's in it for us?"

I'm not convinced though that it's just about sounding polite and positive. Normal english is quite capable of that. Using this odd jargon has a kind of distancing effect, emphasizing that you're just playing your part in the corporation, not acting as an individual human being. I wouldn't be surprised if the most morally questionable actions in corporate America were hashed out with the heaviest jargon, with the perpetrators going home feeling like they personally didn't do anything wrong.

by DennisP

1/15/2025 at 10:10:18 PM

> "request" sounds demanding

I wonder if this is a kind of euphemism treadmill. When the feds demand the records on a user from a service, it's an "access request", as if you could politely say no, I would prefer not to. So connotations from "demand" leak onto "request" over time?

by abecedarius

1/16/2025 at 7:09:07 AM

I’m pretty sure this is exactly what’s happening.

Also, I’ve noticed that for some reason more and more people care about the words rather than the intention.

by moi2388

1/15/2025 at 10:37:11 PM

My pet peeve is "utilize" when it means exactly the same thing as "use".

by stavros

1/15/2025 at 9:02:23 PM

Learnings.

Reminds me of Gurgi from Lloyd Alexander's Taran books (The Black Cauldron). Makes me giggle.

by drewcoo

1/15/2025 at 9:47:50 PM

I always make that connection too, with just that one word. Not sure why that one in particular, but it's consistent...

by mwigdahl

1/15/2025 at 11:04:42 PM

This one grinds my gears in particular because there's a common word specifically for that - lessons.

by frereubu

1/15/2025 at 10:44:54 PM

How about nouns as verbs? "The new dashboard will surface potential issues. If we find any ,I will calendar a meeting for the cross-functional group to workshop the list, and task the relevant partner-teams to resolve"

by sangnoir

1/15/2025 at 10:51:52 PM

"Surface" has been a verb for a long time, particularly relevant to marine biologists and submariners, although obviously it's just a metaphor in an office setting, like "bubble up" would be.

The others are on firmer ground as probably not good verbs.

by bityard

1/16/2025 at 12:10:11 AM

_Workshop_ is definitely a verb, as in "workshopping a play". Its meaning in performance arts is different from office use, but they are not too far apart.

by ilya_m

1/16/2025 at 8:12:46 PM

What's your opinion of "architect" as a verb? I was in a workshop once wherein the instructor paused everything to beratingly correct someone for 5 minutes on how you can't "architect" something because, he insisted, that word must only ever be a noun.

by jfactorial

1/16/2025 at 3:19:53 AM

Or as the proposal finishes up, "we can action on our solve."

by DennisP

1/15/2025 at 10:50:02 PM

surface as a verb isn't office jargon. Submarines and whales surface.

by dingnuts

1/16/2025 at 12:42:58 AM

That's different: in "the whale surfaced," "surfaced" is an intransitive verb with no object. In "the dashboard surfaced potential issues," "surfaced" is a transitive verb with an object. The transitive verb is definitely business jargon.

by f30e3dfed1c9

1/15/2025 at 8:59:12 PM

To me there are semantic distinctions. If I say there was a request, it's neutral. If i say there was an ask, you know I think it's something a bit bigger, possibly a bit unreasonable. If I say there was a question, you know it's just information being sought.

The article here points out the more annoying characteristic, which is using lots of stock phrases that don't contribute meaning over single words.

by stevage

1/15/2025 at 9:07:52 PM

> “There was an ask.”

This communicates nothing to me other than that the speaker probably is going to continue to annoy me.

by christophilus

1/15/2025 at 9:12:12 PM

same.

and actually A LOT less serious in my mind than a request. If you used request I would think you are really in need of my assistance and I am paying attention. I hear “ask” and I think totally not important and ignorable

by bdangubic

1/15/2025 at 9:11:54 PM

> If i say there was an ask, you know I think it's something a bit bigger, possibly a bit unreasonable.

That’s the point - it isn’t any of those things. It’s made up by you (nothing personal, waving in general direction) on the spot and is not in any way a part of some imagined shared lingo. It’s all complete and utter meaningless bs that some people like to imagine to be loaded with contextual depth. It’s not.

by VincentEvans

1/16/2025 at 7:50:53 AM

And just like that, the entire field of linguistics was destroyed.

by stevage

1/15/2025 at 10:20:35 PM

Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?

by dialup_sounds

1/15/2025 at 9:08:54 PM

Yeah, I'll still just say "large, possibly unreasonable request". :)

(And I've never inferred that distinction anyway -- in all the cases I've heard it, I could've replaced "ask" with "request"/"question", and it would've meant the same thing, especially with any additional context.)

by jader201

1/15/2025 at 10:12:34 PM

Almost literally every noun in English can be verbed, and verbs can often be nouned.

by kazinator

1/16/2025 at 8:37:44 AM

Not an english native, but I have the same with "win" -> "victory".

Like, "congrats for the win" or "big win".

by thefz

1/16/2025 at 4:17:24 PM

Well, "win" as a noun is a word from Old English attested before 1150 [1]. And as a word firmly in the language it has its own specific uses in comparison to "victory". It would be silly or pompous to call a win in a sports game a "victory," for example. It would similarly be out of place to call a victory in a battle a win. "Congrats *on the big win" doesn't sound out of place.

[1] https://www.oed.com/dictionary/win_n1?tab=factsheet#14538168

by istultus

1/17/2025 at 3:11:11 PM

"Team A was victorious" doesn't sound out of place to me (ESL) though. Also pretty sure I've seen victory being used in a sense of "destroying the other team" - but I'm not defending its use.

by wink

1/15/2025 at 8:59:49 PM

Totally agree. Before I clicked into these comments I was actually just thinking about the single example that irks me the most is "the understand".

by NoboruWataya

1/15/2025 at 9:04:31 PM

Oh wow, that's a new one. Have you really heard that in conversation?

I'm so sorry.

by jader201

1/15/2025 at 11:20:47 PM

You deserve an invite to our discord server.

by xbar

1/15/2025 at 8:57:50 PM

This point come up in every thread about office speak, so rest easy that you are not alone

by dymk

1/15/2025 at 7:02:23 PM

I have a long-time friend who, after years in fintech, now sometimes speaks this way unironically in non-work situations. I mean, I still think he's a good guy overall but when he recommends the DND party splits up to maximize ROI on a spell rather than just say "let's split up", it does make me cringe.

by lastofthemojito

1/15/2025 at 7:19:32 PM

It's actually a useful device when you like to pull an analogy. Instead of explaining the whole idea, you throw a jargon and everyone constructs the rest in their head and understand it and know how to work with it. The whole point of jargon is to have precise definitions, so it works as a rails and compression for ideas.

by mrtksn

1/15/2025 at 7:55:45 PM

Jargon like that in the link makes the message less precise and more meaningless, in my view.

Just simply state what you mean. Let the other person ask questions if they need clarification.

by rkagerer

1/15/2025 at 8:27:51 PM

There is no single "just simply" though. All communication is based on an (inherently fallible) estimate of the recipient's mental-state, priorities, and knowledge-base.

For example, "I would like one head of lettuce" is a kind of jargon-lite for "I would like one portion of the fully-grown plant known as lettuce which is found above-ground as a connected unit in nature." Which one leads to a "simpler" exchange will depend on your assumptions about the recipient.

by Terr_

1/15/2025 at 9:29:58 PM

Except that "one head of lettuce" is a widely-known "measure" that most people are going to understand.

Most of this business-speak jargon is incomprehensible to people who haven't heard it before in the workplace. It seems "normal" to people like us here on HN because most of us have interacted with these sorts of business types (or are even one of them), but I would guess that most of the people who know what a head of lettuce represents would have no idea what ROI or noun-form "solve" means.

by kelnos

1/15/2025 at 10:04:59 PM

I never said the marriage satire was normal. (Although, in that fictional world, those two fictional people seem to be surprisingly satisfied with their choices of language.)

Just that "simple" is deceptive, non-universal, and sometimes contradictory.

by Terr_

1/15/2025 at 8:05:38 PM

That's good when you explain something technical to a layman, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about explaining non-technical issue to a technical person using jargon for analogy.

For example you can use P2P to explain how some gossip spread or you can say that your relationship with SO is like UDP recently.

by mrtksn

1/15/2025 at 8:13:02 PM

So it's low latency and fast but in some contexts, firewalled?

by luke-stanley

1/15/2025 at 8:17:24 PM

It's like can't tell if she heard you

by mrtksn

1/15/2025 at 8:32:31 PM

How is "like UDP" clearer than just saying that?

by jonahx

1/15/2025 at 8:34:55 PM

It's not clearer, it's deeper. It implies a state and creates an image in the listeners mind. You can throw it casually when explaining something and your audience now has an image in their head so you can explain the actual thing you are after.

Jargons are shortcuts to pre-agreed ideas. Just a tool.

by mrtksn

1/15/2025 at 8:42:38 PM

In this case, I assure you it does not add depth, clarity, images. You're just using it as a kind of in-group joke.

by jonahx

1/15/2025 at 9:31:46 PM

I agree: it's absolutely an in-group joke. Maybe not joke, but a cutesy in-group way of expressing something.

Certainly someone who gets it will, well, get it. But in general it seems like a lot of effort in most cases to gauge whether or not the recipient will understand at the level you hope. Even the UDP example could be misunderstood by someone who is well-versed. Unreliable? A good low-level thing to build stuff on top of? These are both plausible meanings, but would convey very different things.

Better to just use clear language.

by kelnos

1/15/2025 at 8:53:02 PM

It means that you are not the intended audience because you know too much or too little about UDP.

Once I had a physicist friend freak out over my use of "exponential" to loosely explain something because he instantly began thinking about edge cases and obviously using "logarithmic" would have been more precise. We were not on the same page with the jargon, but then again I guess it requires social skills too so that you can pick where the analogy starts and ends.

by mrtksn

1/15/2025 at 10:11:44 PM

My biggest pet peeve is when people use "exponential" to describe an increase defined by two points (i.e. "Americans are anticipated to consume exponentially more cookies in 2025 than they did in 2024"). Fully meaningless.

by InitialLastName

1/15/2025 at 9:16:05 PM

I think the udp example is a counterexample personally.

"Hmm udp, so ...unreliable and...hmm...but high throughput?...hm, good to build stuff on top of?"

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, yet I know exactly what udp is.

If you just meant "unreliable", how was this better than just saying that?

by marky1991

1/15/2025 at 9:18:07 PM

It means that we are not on the same page with that and should not be used. With jargon, audience is everything.

Also, you use it in context. The jargon becomes illustrative for the analogy, not precise definition. After all, human can't have UDP connection.

by mrtksn

1/15/2025 at 9:34:01 PM

> If you just meant "unreliable", how was this better than just saying that?

It's not. Well, if the person you're talking to happens to get the intended meaning immediately, it's a cute in-joke. To me, that's the only real (dubious) benefit.

by kelnos

1/15/2025 at 8:39:02 PM

I mean, if you describe a relationship in terms of a protocol, sure, you're giving an interesting signal about the relationship, but probably not what you intended to say.

by groby_b

1/15/2025 at 7:41:49 PM

> The whole point of jargon is to have precise definitions

Well, not always. Per Webster:

1: the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group

2: obscure and often pretentious language marked by circumlocutions and long words

It would be great if it were only (1) but I’d often (2)

by JackFr

1/15/2025 at 8:11:52 PM

These are some effects of a jargon but the reason for its existence is precision. You learn it in an institution and then you are on the same page and there's no ambiguity over its meaning. Using jargon with a layperson is useless and could be stupid or pretentious.

by mrtksn

1/15/2025 at 8:35:27 PM

> but the reason for its existence is precision

In some cases yes, but the majority of the time jargon is primarily used as a shibboleth to establish group identity, camaraderie, and a sense of exclusivity.

by jonahx

1/15/2025 at 8:42:32 PM

I don't know why is this obsession over jargon. I know the cliche, it's not true at all except when you misuse it. Maybe can be used as part of a fraud or some power move or something like that but its intended use case is a shortcut to predefined ideas. It may have side effects but that doesn't mean that those side effects are the reason to exist.

by mrtksn

1/15/2025 at 8:47:01 PM

I am making an empirical statement. The majority of its actual use in life is to achieve social/political ends, not to improve communication. If you want to say the majority of its use is misuse, fine. But the misuse is intentional.

by jonahx

1/15/2025 at 9:00:24 PM

I disagree entirely, jargon use is to help us from keeping defining things so we can move on to the next problem. How do you even use "unsprung weight" or "distributed cache" for social or political ends? Maybe it can be used at some cringe encounter with layperson but that's not at all what jargon is used for.

by mrtksn

1/15/2025 at 9:44:59 PM

Something like "distributed cache" is valid jargon. I already conceded that it can be useful. But the majority of it (by raw numbers) is the kind of stuff of the OP is lampooning -- business and office jargon. Of course there is plenty of scientific and mathematical jargon that's legitimate shorthand.

Even there, however, the line blurs. That is, you have terms with legitimate use that were poorly chosen. Sometimes the poor choice is historical accident, but often it's motivated by a desire to sound more impressive and complicated that it is. Something like "applicative functor" might fall into this category.

by jonahx

1/15/2025 at 9:39:17 PM

I absolutely agree that some people use jargon as a gatekeeping device or an in-group detector, and that's lame.

But jargon does have value in communication where you know the person you're talking to understands it at the level you do. Jargon, when used well, can let you be simultaneously more precise and more terse.

Think about times you've sent email or even just chat messages to different professional audiences. You're probably going to use different language when talking to a manager vs. a sales person vs. an engineer. I'm not talking about level of formality; the actual language you use to describe the topic at hand will change. Some of that will be a matter of the level of detail you provide, but some of it will likely include jargon (when you're conversing with someone in the same "group" as you), and you might not even realize it.

by kelnos

1/15/2025 at 7:56:04 PM

Jargon feels like 1 for the ingroup and 2 for the outgroup.

by monitorlizard

1/15/2025 at 7:54:53 PM

These 1 and 2 are pretty much always apply at the same time.

Wherever 1 or 2 applies just depends on how used you're to the usage of said jargon.

by ffsm8

1/15/2025 at 8:22:36 PM

Office jargon in particular fulfills a social signalling role rather than a clear communication role. It's intended to tell upper management: "I'm one of you guys, please look kindly upon me and maybe promote me!" But there's a dynamic similar to that of "U" English vs. "non-U English"[0], as upper management is more likely to say things like "Just get the fucking thing shipped. Our business depends on it."

[0] It turns out that in England, upper-class aspirants are likely to use posher phrases and idioms than actual upper-class people, as the latter are aware of their own and others' social status and have no need for verbal affectations to communicate it. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_and_non-U_English

by bitwize

1/15/2025 at 10:32:31 PM

it only works with other white collar people who have heard the same jargon, normal people in the real world just won't understand what you're saying, so it's just bad communication

by PakistaniDenzel

1/15/2025 at 10:33:43 PM

That's right, with jargons the audience is the key.

by mrtksn

1/16/2025 at 12:02:12 AM

Except that with e.g. technical jargon, the audience is important because non-technical people don’t have the training/experience to understand what’s being said.

With office jargon, I understand everything being said, but the majority of it could be stated more simply and clearly without the use of it. This type of jargon is a social signaling tool, not a useful shortcut or simplification (again, most of the time). It’s also harder to parse for non-native speakers of English.

by angoragoats

1/15/2025 at 10:37:54 PM

Yeah, and then you sound like a jargoff.

by stavros

1/15/2025 at 8:53:37 PM

Jargon is everywhere but office jargon is its own sub genre.

For office jargon, it's maybe not a practical matter, but I could see a friend being a little put off by someone speaking in office jargon to them. Office jargon is sort of impersonal by design

by pastaguy1

1/15/2025 at 9:11:02 PM

IMHO office jargon is just as useful but because it's not technical its harder to adjust.

>Office jargon is sort of impersonal by design

That's one of it's functions. Instead of going over each time that the thing happening isn't personal and shouldn't be taken as such, you can utilize the jargon to keep it clean. After all, it's just a job where everyone tries to play their role to produce something. It hurts much more badly if you confuse the office work for a social interaction and things don't pan out at some point.

by mrtksn

1/15/2025 at 9:06:50 PM

Jargon is as much about social signaling as anything else.

Consider Cockney Rhyming Slang, which is intended to be insider-only speech.

Consider the rise and then mass-adoption of Valley Girl.

by drewcoo

1/15/2025 at 8:30:29 PM

Yeah and an "artifact" of that "compression" is the "signal" that "you're a dork"

by holtkam2

1/15/2025 at 8:32:37 PM

Jargon should be used only with the appropriate audience, obviously.

by mrtksn

1/15/2025 at 7:23:30 PM

At least post-mortems are filled with dead carcass.

by ozten

1/15/2025 at 7:08:17 PM

everyone knows you must maximize spellholder value

by macinjosh

1/15/2025 at 7:11:40 PM

It’s your magiciary duty

by kfarr

1/15/2025 at 7:12:26 PM

I’m ded

by eismcc

1/15/2025 at 7:15:30 PM

The swarm takes 5 rightsizing damage.

by lastofthemojito

1/15/2025 at 7:55:51 PM

This makes me want to have someone make a "Consultomancer" as a class just to read the spell descriptions.

by leeter

1/15/2025 at 9:03:08 PM

There's a whole TTRPG called "Murders & Acquisitions" as a possible option to scratch that itch.

by WorldMaker

1/15/2025 at 8:53:52 PM

Hah fantastic. I need to use this somewhere.

by robertlagrant

1/15/2025 at 7:18:34 PM

> maximize spellholder value

This is such a magnificent phrase and I don't think it will ever get enough credit

by bentcorner

1/15/2025 at 8:10:47 PM

I think ROI is getting into standard vernacular. I’ve had someone use the term in the bedroom regarding certain positions.

by teaearlgraycold

1/15/2025 at 8:31:19 PM

It's all fun and games until they bring out the scrum board

by Dilettante_

1/15/2025 at 9:21:19 PM

I'm not sure I'm Agile enough for that.

by stevenAthompson

1/15/2025 at 8:18:47 PM

This happens to engineers too, it sucks. I say throughput way too often in casual conversation.

by ericmcer

1/15/2025 at 7:48:50 PM

I un-ironically do that too in my personal relationships after many years in start-ups.

Sorry if it's offensive!

by lr4444lr

1/15/2025 at 10:59:56 PM

I'll cop to using "use case" in real life...

by anon84873628

1/15/2025 at 7:28:33 PM

Is ROI pronounced “roy” or “are oh eye”?

by a12k

1/15/2025 at 7:30:25 PM

Actually it's "uh-voyd youz-ing in so-shul si-tu-a-shuns"

by tony_cannistra

1/15/2025 at 7:33:42 PM

“are oh eye”

by HWR_14

1/15/2025 at 7:44:37 PM

"wah"

by CornishFlameHen

1/15/2025 at 8:18:11 PM

est mort

by dredmorbius

1/15/2025 at 11:14:11 PM

Never split the party!

by syntaxless

1/15/2025 at 8:53:12 PM

When I proposed to my wife, I met her after a couple of years and didn't know at the time if she was seeing someone. I nudged the conversation towards that topic and once I found out that she isn't, I literally proposed to her in office jargon. I said, "So if the vacancy is still available, can I apply?". She said yes, and we got married eventually but she still isn't too happy about that proposal line.

by guftagu

1/15/2025 at 9:31:57 PM

So, if I get it right... You didn't meet that woman for years. You meet her, subtly ask if she's alone, then propose?

That was bold of you, but even bolder from her to accept.

by cafeinux

1/16/2025 at 7:36:32 PM

We went to university together, had a semi-romantic friendship before as well. I always liked her and I thought she liked me back too but after graduating I was focused on other stuff, wasn't actively looking for a relationship. Hence the gap.

by guftagu

1/17/2025 at 3:49:02 PM

Thanks for your transparence about that gap in your romantic resume. :-)

by cafeinux

1/15/2025 at 10:10:38 PM

Safe to assume this is Indian or muslim culture where it’s customary to set up a marriage between acquaintances, no dating as we know it.

by ricardobeat

1/15/2025 at 9:39:11 PM

Yeah, I'm confused by this to. Did they not even date first, or was this how they asked her out?

by saghm

1/15/2025 at 9:43:09 PM

I think they meant that they'd dated in the past, but hadn't seen each other in many years.

Still bold.

by kelnos

1/15/2025 at 9:25:07 PM

I was about to say I was suprised she ended up as your wife after that.

To be frank: That is among worst possible lines you could've come up with, but glad it still worked out for you XD

by jdthedisciple

1/15/2025 at 6:48:50 PM

Another classic in this genre: https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/a-deep-dive-to-...

by grumpwagon

1/15/2025 at 7:02:25 PM

in a slightly different vein: https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/i-work-from-hom...

> OPERATOR: O.K., Robert, you understand that what you just described isn’t really lunch, right?

> ROBERT: It is lunch. When there are no rules, it is lunch, Cherise!

> OPERATOR: Did you at any point dip the green peppers in the peach yogurt?

> ROBERT: Probably. Sorry.

by setgree

1/15/2025 at 8:33:49 PM

>dip the green peppers in the peach yogurt

Reminds me of that Bloodhound Gang song

by Dilettante_

1/15/2025 at 8:34:27 PM

Woof, this one hit a little too close to home

by epiccoleman

1/15/2025 at 11:06:27 PM

This is great :) Also if anyone else is hitting New Yorker paywalls and can't read this, just disable JavaScript and reload.

by yashap

1/15/2025 at 7:01:40 PM

Hadn't seen this one before, it's great.

>As 6:30 P.M. rolled around, she felt sick in the pit of her stomach, like when she looked at a sentence that didn’t contain an acronym.

by ziddoap

1/15/2025 at 9:24:02 PM

This is incredible. The quality of the writing is on another level, it's not just about throwing corporate jargon but weaving it through a nicely written piece. Thank you for sharing, looking forward to reading more comments from you.

Regards, AA

by alonsonic

1/15/2025 at 8:00:59 PM

I'd like to think I minimize the bleedover of corporate/profession-related speech into my daily life, but "orthogonal" and "non-trivial" were just not a standard part of my vocabulary before college. Over a decade later, I find myself saying them a lot.

by bilalq

1/15/2025 at 8:03:20 PM

Ways to say: 1. "that's not what we're talking about" and 2. "this is fucking important you idiot"

are always valuable :D

by pempem

1/15/2025 at 8:03:19 PM

That sounds more like maths jargon that has bled into office speak (to my delight, but I'm a mathematician).

by quietbritishjim

1/15/2025 at 9:34:22 PM

Those are words I use a lot and I was starting to wonder if I the office jargon was bleeding too much on my personal life. Then I read your comment and realised I started using them after attending a math course at the University. I loved my teacher. Thanks for the memories.

by cafeinux

1/15/2025 at 8:02:52 PM

> I'd like to think I minimize the bleedover of corporate/profession-related speech into my daily life, but "orthogonal" and "non-trivial" were just not a standard part of my vocabulary before college. Over a decade later, I find myself saying them a lot.

As a mathematician, both of those terms are common in my technical and, therefore, everyday speech. If it helps, feel free to think of yourself, not as using corporate speech, but as using technical mathematical terms.

by JadeNB

1/15/2025 at 8:11:33 PM

That makes me wary. As any mathematician knows, "trivial" means solvable. "Nontrivial" means no one has solved it yet, but no one knows any good reason why it shouldn't be solvable in principle. And "decidedly nontrivial" means no one has a fucking clue whether it's solvable or not; best not try, unless you're Terence Tao or somebody, then... maybe.

So if I were your boss and you came to me casually describing a problem as "nontrivial" I'd be like... "so is the time frame gonna be years or decades?"

by bitwize

1/15/2025 at 9:35:01 PM

That's pretty much exactly what it means in software too? A trivial task is one that you think you know how to do. A nontrivial problem is one which sounds like it should be doable, but you don't immediately know what steps will be required, and until you look into it further it may take anywhere from days to decades.

by plorkyeran

1/15/2025 at 8:24:42 PM

"Trivial" in software means easy. So "non-trivial" just means not easy. As such whether or not something actually is trivial or not will vary person to person.

by pc86

1/15/2025 at 8:09:10 PM

The use of "orthogonal" is now common in SCOTUS oral arguments, both from the practitioners and the justices. Not infrequent in the intermediate appellate courts either. I do an imaginary eye roll whenever I hear it in those contexts.

by treetalker

1/15/2025 at 8:30:11 PM

Why? The entire point of a court case is to settle an argument over a specific case or controversy. So if something is orthogonal or tangential (pick your math metaphor), that means something.

by psunavy03

1/15/2025 at 6:43:27 PM

That's proper corporate speak, not so much office jargon. One note: to table in the UK means to put it to vote/address, rather than "put it under the rug"

by xxs

1/15/2025 at 8:08:05 PM

I noticed 'low hanging fruit' here is used differently than I'm used to. Where I've worked it always meant 'a task that is easy to get done'

by thomassmith65

1/15/2025 at 10:05:13 PM

Not just easy to get done, but has a positive impact greater than you'd expect based on how easy it is to get done.

by kelnos

1/15/2025 at 9:17:25 PM

In Robert's Rules (of Parliament Procedure), which are kind of the "base level" in US corporate politics, "to table" means to "send [back] to committee" in part coming from the idea of physically collecting all the debate notes so far and setting them aside on a table for the committee to collect to take to their next meeting in order to (try to) address concerns.

In Robert's Rules to address something is to "motion" it, with "call to vote" being a common sub-type of a motion to make. (Generally addressed to "the chair" of the meeting, or asking for wider debate from "the floor", so sometimes something might be "chaired" or "floored" to imply a vote/address, but usually "motion".)

The default vote in Robert's Rules is a show of hands or a verbal "aye"/"nay"/"abstain". It takes extra work to motion for a paper or ballot vote. I'm curious if the UK jargon for "table" is as much a difference/switch in that default among UK parliamentary procedure? More paper votes would involve more tables, if that were the case, so that would maybe explain things.

by WorldMaker

1/15/2025 at 8:11:45 PM

Huh, I'm in the UK and certainly every time one of my workmates has said "to table" something it's meant "let's stop fucking talking about this now"

by erinaceousjones

1/15/2025 at 7:41:41 PM

I have queries and doubts on the proposed union. See attached ticket. Please do the needful.

by stuff4ben

1/15/2025 at 7:48:28 PM

You joke, but I know an actual couple that has a “family” Jira instance. They have tickets for household todo items like “Paint fence”.

I’m not sure about performance reporting but I think overall velocity has gone down despite their team size growing in recent years. I think the new members aren’t contributing much yet in the way of story points.

by koolba

1/15/2025 at 8:18:44 PM

I worked with a sysadmin that did this for his kids, and even moved chore assignments around automatically based on grades (which he scraped from some school portal). Get a D and you'll have to do your sister's chores!

by ElevenLathe

1/15/2025 at 8:09:50 PM

I find in this situation that new member onboarding can unfortunately take years

by hokumguru

1/16/2025 at 12:20:17 AM

My wife and I use Trello for stuff like this. Though the main use case is as the world's most reliable checklist-syncing program for grocery shopping. The task tracking is also nice

by lelandbatey

1/16/2025 at 4:26:00 PM

Digital list with checkbox is not inherently evil

by cdaringe

1/15/2025 at 7:54:44 PM

Does that couple also work at the same company as product managers?

by i_love_retros

1/15/2025 at 7:46:02 PM

Ticket includes one (1) proposal of conjugal union. Action this.

by reaperducer

1/15/2025 at 6:53:14 PM

Start with the 'Wedding' epic in Jira. Add a few spikes to figure out the details and bring those into the current sprint.

by delegate

1/15/2025 at 8:04:48 PM

Adjacent News Radio Marriage Proposal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-yGUSRdNG4

by sporkland

1/15/2025 at 8:15:31 PM

I was reminded of that when reading, went to look it up on Youtube, clicked share, came back here to see if anyone had left a comment... "search news radio" yep... glance at the query... 'v=y-y...' Yep.

I highly recommend this clip.

by shagie

1/15/2025 at 8:42:41 PM

Congratulations! I hate it. You did forget to include my person pet peeve—learnings.

We already have a word for that—lessons.

by sarchertech

1/15/2025 at 9:55:29 PM

Mine is performant. People sometimes use it as a synonym for high performance when really it just means working about as well as you would expect it to. It doesn't imply anything especially great.

by criddell

1/15/2025 at 9:22:54 PM

There has only been one company I've worked for where 'learnings' was used extensively. It was Swedish. Not sure if that is relevant.

by madmountaingoat

1/15/2025 at 10:06:32 PM

This is one of the very few that I'm a little -- a little! -- sympathetic toward. I don't know its origins, but to me, "lessons" can sound kind of harsh, like in the sense of a parent wagging their finger at a child, "I hope you've learned your lesson!" In contrast, "learnings" sounds quite a lot more friendly and less charged.

by kelnos

1/15/2025 at 6:46:49 PM

If you don’t get the joke, you may be a product manager

by jckahn

1/15/2025 at 6:53:26 PM

Get a slack channel you two

by ramon156

1/15/2025 at 7:35:49 PM

You mean, they did not book that conference room?

by nine_k

1/15/2025 at 7:49:13 PM

Brilliant! But two phrases I was hoping to see weren't there: "reach out" and "embrace."

by kmoser

1/15/2025 at 8:04:45 PM

That would be subsequent to presenting a clearer ROI case across foreseeable quarters

by Applejinx

1/15/2025 at 7:51:30 PM

This is ripe for a Krazam adaptation.

https://youtu.be/1RAMRukKqQg?si=CrRUbA3Ktsm5v7Kk

by jbl0ndie

1/15/2025 at 8:00:42 PM

This is one of those Krazam clips I simply must watch again every time someone links to it.

Another is the one about Omega Star (whose team still haven't got their shit together and implemented ISO dates like they said they would!).

by the_af

1/15/2025 at 6:43:54 PM

Take this offline, you two

by bravetraveler

1/15/2025 at 7:51:21 PM

After we double click

by jbs789

1/15/2025 at 7:12:47 PM

I recently retired early from a large, F100 valley tech company and there are a few things I miss. But this is definitely something I will never miss!

by mrandish

1/15/2025 at 10:11:43 PM

Jumps off the creativity shark at "will you marry me".

Should be "shall we convince the board of directors of your parent corporation to underwrite a merger deal whereby we unite your corporate assets with mine under a single shelter?

As a modern organization, you may continue to operate under the same branding, if you choose, and the value of your stock shall not be diluted.

by kazinator

1/16/2025 at 6:00:58 AM

And the cost savings and tax benefits cannot be underestimated.

by kazinator

1/15/2025 at 7:58:55 PM

It's funny, but it sounds more like corporate/management speak than office jargon.

Employees, when no managers are present, seldom talk to each other like this. Sometimes, the way we actually speak to each other, would get us fired if someone from management was eavesdropping.

by the_af

1/15/2025 at 8:30:10 PM

I worked at a place where line employees talked like this to each other all the time. It was maddening. In particular, whenever the word "use" might be used, everybody at this company used the word "leverage" instead. They leveraged a piece of toilet paper to wipe their ass with. Madness! I felt like I was from space, like, am I the only one who sees how silly this is?

But again, this sort of jargon serves a social signalling function. It's metacommunication, not first-order communication. It's intended to suggest "I'm a true and honest member of the business class and should be taken seriously in business affairs."

by bitwize

1/15/2025 at 11:22:34 PM

> It's intended to suggest "I'm a true and honest member of the business class and should be taken seriously in business affairs."

> true and honest

I agree wholeheartedly.

by anal_reactor

1/17/2025 at 6:54:17 PM

That was physically painful to read.

Brilliant.

by eskatonic

1/15/2025 at 9:05:27 PM

I haven't worked in an office in over three years. I sometimes think I miss it but now I no longer don't.

by wkjagt

1/15/2025 at 7:40:53 PM

Solid but could have double-clicked on Excel and Powerpoint more to complete the roadmap.

by carimura

1/15/2025 at 10:05:23 PM

Lost opportunity to say "Would you accept a merger?" instead of marriage.

by grotorea

1/15/2025 at 9:50:47 PM

> But I’m so sorry, I have a three-thirty.

I assume that means that she doesn't accept the proposal (lit. she has a meeting at 3:30), but don't quite follow how that.

Can someone reach out and break that down for me.

by sam_goody

1/15/2025 at 11:11:56 PM

I have no clue either, but I'm feeling this is the point

by anal_reactor

1/16/2025 at 10:14:50 AM

Nothing about any sales, targets, deadlines, etc.? Not even an Excel or ppt reference? I'm dissapointed!

by M95D

1/15/2025 at 8:16:07 PM

Solves, asks, learnings.

It was a surprise when I discovered just how much negativity and frustration wells up in me when I see verbs turn into nouns when there are already perfectly serviceable nouns available.

I am motivated to passive aggressively retaliate by turning even more verbs into unnecessary nouns: seeings, helpings, deliverings, discussings, respondings.

by VincentEvans

1/15/2025 at 8:24:09 PM

Calvin and Hobbes - January 25, 1993 https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/01/25

Calvin: I like to verb words.

Hobbes: What?

Calvin: I like to verb words I take nouns and adjectives and use them as verbs. Remember When "Access" was a thing? Now it's something you do. It got verbed.

Calvin: Verbing weirds language.

Hobbes: Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding.

by shagie

1/16/2025 at 12:26:59 PM

My girlfriend did the same to me. Still haven't circled back till this day.

by ravish0007

1/16/2025 at 4:00:19 PM

I feel sick, good work - even if I couldn't get to the end.

by stuaxo

1/15/2025 at 8:52:48 PM

> we can action on our solve

This causes me physical pain.

by robertlagrant

1/15/2025 at 7:13:15 PM

I imagined Gary as Ira Glass and Cindy as Jen Psaki. I could make it only about halfway before I threw up a little.

by throw7

1/15/2025 at 7:22:57 PM

It reads like a script from Succession.

by remoquete

1/16/2025 at 4:03:49 PM

Pretty sure discussions like this really take place

by msarrel

1/15/2025 at 9:42:25 PM

We need a similar one for divorce.

by dennis_jeeves2

1/15/2025 at 8:19:20 PM

Wow, really impactful share! I feel like I got some great take-aways and learnings from this.

by bitwize

1/15/2025 at 11:15:42 PM

No "level set"?? Booo

by malingo

1/15/2025 at 8:30:12 PM

I threw up in my mouth a little.

by patrickmay

1/15/2025 at 8:32:06 PM

"I had a visceral reaction that was less than favorable"

by tibbon

1/16/2025 at 10:41:02 AM

I think our organisation needs to increase headcount.

by sjducb

1/15/2025 at 7:32:01 PM

Reminds me of a George Saunders story, though it's missing the horror element.

by throw4847285

1/15/2025 at 7:33:15 PM

oh, I think the horror element is there.

by mbowcut2

1/15/2025 at 9:07:32 PM

Really? Nobody is getting kicked to death.

by throw4847285

1/15/2025 at 8:49:38 PM

Is "solves" used like that in the wild? Haven't heard that one.

by pastaguy1

1/15/2025 at 7:41:37 PM

GARY: Hey Cindy, remember last week when we were debugging that system design issue?

CINDY: Yeah, we got some pretty elegant solutions out of that sprint.

GARY: Exactly. That got me thinking: our relationship feels like a system that’s not just functional—it’s optimized.

CINDY: Oh? I’d like to hear your use case for that.

GARY: Well, I’ve run some simulations, and the output is consistent. You’re my primary key, Cindy. The stability and scalability of our relationship are off the charts.

CINDY: That’s a strong endorsement, Gary. I’ve been analyzing our feedback loops, and I feel the same way. You’ve really reduced my latency and maximized my throughput.

GARY: So I figured it’s time to push to production. In addition to all the features we’ve developed, I’d like to add one more. (He takes a knee and pulls out a ring.) Cindy, will you marry me?

CINDY: I will, Gary! This takes our architecture to the next level.

GARY: Marriage is a big commit, but I think we’ve got the bandwidth to make it work.

CINDY: Absolutely. But we need to stay agile, especially during our onboarding phase.

GARY: Agreed. I’ll make sure to stay in sync during our sprints.

CINDY: Good. Because I have one non-negotiable: we need to maintain a clean codebase.

GARY: Let’s unpack that.

CINDY: My last relationship had too many tech debts. Every time I tried to refactor, there was pushback. It was impossible to iterate.

GARY: Sounds like a monolithic mess.

CINDY: It was. But with you, it’s different. You’re modular, efficient, and your logic is rock-solid. I just want to make sure we keep things lightweight and maintainable.

GARY: I couldn’t agree more. We’ll keep our dependencies up-to-date and document everything thoroughly.

CINDY: Perfect. Let’s set up a shared repository to start planning our roadmap.

GARY: Done. I’ll draft an RFC tonight so we can align on our deliverables.

CINDY: Great. Just flag me if you hit any blockers.

GARY: Will do. And Cindy? Thank you for being my forever stack overflow.

CINDY: And thank you for being the solution to all my edge cases.

by uptownhr

1/15/2025 at 7:50:10 PM

C'mon, don't just paste the content into the comments. The site doesn't have a paywall and from what I can see with a fresh browser window without ad blocker turned on there's no adverts aside from a request for subscriptions / becoming a patron.

by frereubu

1/15/2025 at 8:00:36 PM

It's not the linked article content. It's an even more audience-tailored version that I assume they made up, for our amusement.

by rkagerer

1/15/2025 at 11:03:17 PM

Ah, OK, my bad.

by frereubu

1/15/2025 at 7:58:26 PM

That's not the original content on the site

by las_balas_tres

1/15/2025 at 8:42:32 PM

In my former communist dictatorship country, we had a term for how the party officials spoke.

"Wooden language".

Applies very much to this too.

by nottorp

1/15/2025 at 9:15:52 PM

In the middle ages, all of Europe could hide behind Latin . . .

by drewcoo

1/15/2025 at 8:55:40 PM

Not believable, didn't read "double click"

by elijahbenizzy

1/15/2025 at 11:11:12 PM

They're perfect for each other.

by jfactorial

1/15/2025 at 8:33:48 PM

[ Runs off screaming into the woods ]

by davidw

1/15/2025 at 8:50:49 PM

I give them twelve quarters...

by hyperhello

1/16/2025 at 1:28:25 PM

Valuable insight!

by feralKitten

1/16/2025 at 6:00:09 AM

I am severely disappointed there is no a single "quick question", though there was a "quick win", which is bad but not as offensively bad.

by TwoNineFive

1/16/2025 at 1:28:36 PM

valuable insight!

by feralKitten

1/15/2025 at 6:45:46 PM

hahahaha. so good. so terrible.

by rowenaluk

1/15/2025 at 9:22:26 PM

[dead]

by uyghurFights

1/15/2025 at 9:02:59 PM

If I had to listen to this sort of shit on a daily basis I think I'd begin to understand why you all over the water are upset about the prospect of people taking away your big shooty guns.

by ratherbefuddled

1/15/2025 at 9:14:23 PM

> why you all over the water are upset about the prospect of people taking away your big shooty guns

All over the water? Ducks. It's the ducks. Ducks are the enemy. Unless we defend ourselves, the ducks will sap us of our natural vital fluids!

by drewcoo