February
2nd 2011
Amazing.

Posted under: American history, bad language, European history, unhappy endings

Not actually Mary Rowlandson

“Amazing” has become my least favorite word through inflated overuse.  As the Oxford English Dictionary entry for the adjective illustrates that over the past 400 years or so, the meaning of the word has completely flipped (like awesome after it in the later twentieth century).  Whereas the obsolete definition (with sixteenth- through eighteenth-century examples) is “[c]ausing distraction, consternation, confusion, dismay; stupefying, terrifying, dreadful,” the word was clearly in turnaround in the eighteenth century, because it’s also defined as “[a]stounding, astonishing, wonderful, great beyond expectation” with overlapping examples from the eighteenth- and nineteenth centuries. 

I don’t quarrel with those who use the more modern definition (which it itself pushing 300 years old by now), but I regret the loss of the alternate meaning and especially its overuse in recent years.  I frequently hear “amazing” to describe restaurant food or a vacation experience or activity.  The word has been leached of its power to amaze, if you will.  In Mary Rowlandson’s captivity narrative, The Soveraignty & Goodness of God (1682), she describes a brutal Wampanoag and Narragansett surprise attack on the English settlement at Lancaster, Massachusetts in 1675 in which her house was set afire; her sister, brother-in-law, and nephew were killed; and her youngest daughter was mortally wounded: 

About two hours (according to my observation, in that amazing time) they had been about the house, before they prevailed to fire it [set it ablaze] which they did with flax and Hemp, which they brought out of the Barn. . . . Now is that dreadfull hour come, that I have often heard of (in time of War, as it was the case with others) but now mine eyes see it.  Some in our house were fighting for their lives, others wallowing in blood, the House on fire over our heads, and the bloody Heathen ready to knock us on the head, if we stirred out:  Now might we hear Mothers & Children crying out for themselves, and one another, Lord, what shall we do? . . . .

Thus were we butchered by those merciless Heathen, standing amazed, with the blood running down to our heels,” 2-4.

Now, Rowlandson’s experience would certainly have been amazing.  This is the woman who eats a fetal deer in captivity and on the run from the English, and pronounces it “so young and tender, that one might eat the bones as well as the flesh, and yet I thought it very good,” after all.  And that was a good day for her!  The queso dip at “3 Margaritas”–not so amazing, after all.  (And needless to say, awesome would be an overreach too.)

What are your least favorite words and usages?

65 Comments »

65 Responses to “Amazing.

  1. Bardiac on 02 Feb 2011 at 7:32 am #

    There’s a bit in Spenser where the “in a maze and thus confused and at least somewhat in danger” comes through the idea of being “amazed.” (But I can’t remember where now, alas.) It’s good to think about etymologies and the power of words!

  2. BC on 02 Feb 2011 at 8:01 am #

    I’m pretty sure that the word “terrific” (now quaint-sounding) went through the same transformation as “amazing” and “awesome.” I guess we’re hardwired, over time, to translate our fears into thrills, and then glory in what’s thrilling. What’s Mary Rowlandson’s narrative if not sensational?

  3. Historiann on 02 Feb 2011 at 8:08 am #

    Thanks, Bardiac. BC–I agree! It’s absolutely an adventure story on crack. (I mean, for a world devoid of John Grisham and Sue Grafton, right?) I don’t care if Increase Mather ghosted the whole thing. He might have made it better, because it’s a pretty great read for being 329 years old.

  4. Katrina on 02 Feb 2011 at 8:59 am #

    “Incredible” is one that like amazing has shifted a bit… it now seems to have only positive connotations.

    Very annoying misused words: “nonplussed” and “literally”.

    I love Mary Rowlandson’s text. In my long-ago Masters I wrote about captivity narratives and cultural identity in the Pacific. Hers was definitely an influence on how those stories continued to be told through the C19th (both in content and style), in different colonial sites.

  5. Dr. Crazy on 02 Feb 2011 at 9:07 am #

    I really hate the use of the word “impact” as a verb or adjective, as in “This novel impacted the way I see the world,” or “I found this novel very impactful.”

    I wish that it was only inexperienced students who use “impact” in this fashion, but once you notice it, you see people doing this all. the. time.

    And now that I’ve alerted you all to it, you will not be able to ignore it either.

    You’re welcome.

  6. Katrina on 02 Feb 2011 at 9:20 am #

    Ugh. “Impact” – I’ve heard it too, not from students but political soundbites. Perhaps it is a fad that will pass?

  7. Notorious Ph.D. on 02 Feb 2011 at 9:31 am #

    Here’s one that’s actually in the dictionary, but shouldn’t be: “Better” used as a verb. Yes, the dictionary says you can, but we have a perfectly good and non-obscure word (“improve”) for it, making this one of those words that simply shows how poor most language is becoming.

    Even worse is the substantive “betterment.”

  8. quixote on 02 Feb 2011 at 9:36 am #

    “Impact.” Ugh. No, it’ll never pass, because on being afraid of “effect.”

  9. quixote on 02 Feb 2011 at 9:37 am #

    (Erm, … because it’s based on being …)

  10. Historiann on 02 Feb 2011 at 9:42 am #

    “Impact” used as a verb bugs the $hitte out of me, too. It’s one of those bureaucratic-speak or NASA-like useages that “went viral” (to employ another foolishly overused phrase.)

  11. Mary on 02 Feb 2011 at 9:52 am #

    I just finished a book that keep using “milieu” as a catch all for ideas that the author didn’t fully explain. Ze talked about the working-class milieu, the middle class milieu, etc. to explain all sorts of generalizations. I’m not opposed to the word generally, but I found this author’s use very distracting.

    I hope you’re staying warm out their on the plains Historiann! My institution (reluctantly) called their first snow day in ten years.

  12. m on 02 Feb 2011 at 9:54 am #

    I’m the rare academic/nerdy type who loves these kinds of transformations rather than being irritated by them. (I’m irritated by plenty of other things, though, so don’t think I’m judging.) I love the echoes of the twists and turns of usage–hearing Mary Rowlandson’s amazement in the background of someone’s mundane comment on salsa is great. Better as a verb makes me think of Victorians bettering themselves through numerous schemes of admirable self-improvement. And so on.

  13. Tom on 02 Feb 2011 at 10:21 am #

    Thank goodness for language change–lexical, semantic, orthographic, syntactical, whatever: without it, even Comrade PhysioProf’s pseudo-archaisms would read like outrageous neologisms to those conservatives who prefer Proto-Indo-European to all its newfangled descendants.

    And I personally am always delighted to recall that even Chaucer uses the word “newfangled.”

  14. Feminist Avatar on 02 Feb 2011 at 10:38 am #

    Is using better as a verb a novel idea? I have a feeling I have seen it used in ye olden day texts- ‘to better oneself’ certainly sounds Victorian… (Yes, the very academic gut instinct test).

    I have been guilty of using impacted as verb (though never as an adjective)- I know because I got told off in peer review recently when using it in a sentence about sex, where apparently it caused great amusement… historians and their scatalogical humour!

  15. TSS on 02 Feb 2011 at 11:09 am #

    “Grow” used as a transitive verb when the direct object is anything other than vegetation. You grow corn. You do not grow your business. (Even if corn is your business….) This one drives me even crazier than “impact” and “better” as verbs.

  16. Paul Spring on 02 Feb 2011 at 11:22 am #

    Didn’t the words “awful”, “dreadful”, and “terrible” all originally mean something like “awe-inspiring”? I could be wrong, but the meanings of those three seem to have gone in the opposite direction from “amazing” and “awesome” – from a mixed meaning to an exclusively negative one.

    “Better” used as a verb sounds somewhat quaint and Victorian to me, as does “betterment”.

    “Impact” as a verb sounds perfectly fine and sensible to me, I’m not sure why it would bother anyone.

  17. koshem bos on 02 Feb 2011 at 11:26 am #

    Not being sure whether the search is for words that transformed or phrases that lost they original meaning or became watered down, I go with the second.

    - on the other hand (out of how many)
    - prudent (way too relative)
    - intelligent (usually refers to average person)
    - welfare (starts with $1 and end with a trillion of $)
    - socialism (everything I don’t like)
    - constitutional (only it’s what I want)

  18. Fratguy on 02 Feb 2011 at 11:35 am #

    I’m with TSS on the “grow” thing. I swear in the name of all that is holy the next middle management drone that tells me I need to “grow the pie” (ie increase my hours and commuting time to cover another hospital that is in the middle of nowhere) is going to get a sharp stick in the eye. How’s that for being “impactfull”.

  19. Indyanna on 02 Feb 2011 at 12:08 pm #

    For definition creep I’m kind of partial to the word “admire.” In eighteenth century Quaker milieux, or at least in Henry Drinker’s Philadelphia, if a letter said “I admire that thee did not answer my last [letter],” you didn’t bask or preen. You sharpened a new quill and improved an hour with abashed alacrity. And preferably, in most cases, you enclosed an overdue bill of exchange. One that wouldn’t be “protested.” Do this and fail not, the admirer suggested, or you surely won’t be growing your business in this port anytime soon.

  20. Dr. Crazy on 02 Feb 2011 at 12:34 pm #

    Paul writes: ““Impact” as a verb sounds perfectly fine and sensible to me, I’m not sure why it would bother anyone.”

    Well, if you go to the OED, the primary verb meaning of “impact” is to pack in, so the most common usage of that would be something along the lines of when people talk about impacted wisdom teeth.

    The way that you hear “impact” used as a verb now (as a synonym for affect) is only about 3 or 4 definitions down, and the first usage in that way is in the 20th century. So why it would bother people is that it *hasn’t* entered into everyday usage enough not to grate, and it hasn’t been around long enough to have acquired standard status. Ultimately, it probably will become a more standard usage, but for now, it isn’t.

    In contrast the noun “impact” as it is most frequently understood today enters the language around 1600.

  21. Fratguy on 02 Feb 2011 at 12:41 pm #

    One of Eddy Izzards many takes on teh abuses of the English Language.

  22. Historiann on 02 Feb 2011 at 1:24 pm #

    AHA-hahahaha! “‘It’s awesome, sir!’ ‘What–like a hot dog?’”

    Yeah, “impact” when used as a verb always sounds dental and painful to me. Its usage should be restricted to dentistry.

    Indyanna (& anyone else interested in early Americana), I’ve been re-reading Olaudah Equiano/Gustavus Vassa’s Interesting Narrative this week, and have therefore been reminded of a time when a gentleman described as “condescending” or having “condescended” to talk to an inferior was actually a compliment! “Admiring” even.

  23. AltoidsAddict on 02 Feb 2011 at 1:38 pm #

    I think I’m sick of superlative or hyperbolic speech on general. Good things like a nice slice of pie or slightly unseasonable warmth are “amazing” or “awesome” or “the best” or “fantastic.” Why do we reach for extreme descriptors for the ordinary, the good, and the serviceable, and use generalizing terms for the specific?

    I should note that it became a pet peeve only because it annoys me in my own usage, but since I’ve become aware of the overuse of superlatives, it’s starting to bother me when I hear others do it too.

  24. Northern Barbarian on 02 Feb 2011 at 1:42 pm #

    I’m not sure which is more painful, “impactful” or “grow.” Regarding “awesome,” it did indeed once mean “inducing awe and fear.” Ivan IV “the Terrible” was really “Groznyi,” as in “inspiring awe and fear like God does.” For Russians this was a positive. Back to reading student papers on the “incredible impact” of the emancipation of the serfs.

  25. The Rebel Lettriste on 02 Feb 2011 at 1:42 pm #

    “Impactful”just hurts. It always makes me think of wisdom teeth. Or asteroids.

    I also despise:
    “incentivize”
    “dialogue”
    “trending”

    There’s also “epic.”

  26. Historiann on 02 Feb 2011 at 1:45 pm #

    AltoidsAddict: it’s like profanity in that the overuse of hyperbole numbs one to their effects. (Or impact, which is perfectly fine as a noun.)

    Just Say No to the overuse of hyperbole!

  27. Historiann on 02 Feb 2011 at 1:47 pm #

    Rebel Lettriste: those words are all worthy of your despite (n. obs.)

  28. Dr. Crazy on 02 Feb 2011 at 1:55 pm #

    I also feel like the close cousin of “impactful” is “healthful,” as in, “Not only is this delicious, but also it’s a really *healthful* meal.” Rachael Ray says it all the time, but she’s not alone. Since when did “healthy” go out of fashion?

  29. Historiann on 02 Feb 2011 at 1:58 pm #

    “Healthy” is so overused that RR is probably looking for a synonym that she can use instead of it sometimes. I agree with you: “healthful” is unnecessary. It is to “healthy” as “utilize” is to “use”.

    Besides, “healthful” recalls the promotional literature for 18th and 19th C mineral baths or spas, doesn’t it? (Frequently spelled with two final “ls.”)

  30. Janice on 02 Feb 2011 at 2:11 pm #

    ‘Impacted’ only works for wisdom teeth and astronomical collision, I’m afraid. Sadly, my students love to tell me how events impacted people and cultures.

    Actually, on second thought, they rarely express the ‘how’. It’s enough, in their mind, to say that X impacted Y. They don’t show a causal relationship but they’re very sure that since X is important, that it must have an impact on Y. And the word sounds more important than ‘affected’ or ’caused’, doesn’t it?

  31. Historiann on 02 Feb 2011 at 2:12 pm #

    It sure sounds more violent and disturbing than “affected” or “caused,” Janice! As though the significance of the impact negates the need to offer evidence or an argument.

  32. rustonite on 02 Feb 2011 at 2:13 pm #

    I did linguistics as an undergrad in a department that was big on mathematical formalism/nominalism, so this sort of thing mystifies me. Getting irritated over changes in word meanings is like getting mad because the clouds moved and you can’t see a rabbit up there anymore. The rabbit was never there, it was just in your head.

  33. Paul Spring on 02 Feb 2011 at 2:28 pm #

    When I said “impact” sounds fine as a verb, I was actually thinking of it in the sense of a collision. I don’t mind when the term is used to describe one event “impacting” another, though. It’s kind of like the metaphor version of the first meaning.

    Annoying as it may be, though, remember that changes like this are inevitable in any language that isn’t dead.

  34. Dr. Rural on 02 Feb 2011 at 3:33 pm #

    I agree that “grow” as in “grow your business” is very annoying. Does anyone else tear their hair out at “gifted” when “gave” would do just as well? (“He gifted the university ten million dollars!”)

  35. Indyanna on 02 Feb 2011 at 3:41 pm #

    The weirdest renegade verb-usage of “impact,” I think, emerged in Ted Kennedy’s Washington office in the 1980s. A staff aide was assigned to perform an analysis of the energy-consumption implications of virtually every vote, every regulatory procedure, and down even I think to whether to schedule the intra-office softball picnic on a holiday weekend Saturday or the following Monday. According to a New Yorker profile that I can vaguely remember reading, he was teased by his office cohorts for responding to every situation by reducing his assignment to the phrase “I have to impact energy.” That’s about as derivative as you can get and still be speaking.

  36. Dr. Virago on 02 Feb 2011 at 4:23 pm #

    Wow, how has no one mentioned “relatable” yet? As in: “I found this book really relatable.” No, the speaker doesn’t mean “I could easily retell this story to someone else;” they mean, “I could relate to the book” (which also bugs me because it’s so vague — you could understand it? or identify with its characters? what?). At first this was restricted to students, but now the writers of Entertainment Weekly — who have had very fine educations and are *usually* model writers — have started using it, too. Sigh. It’s all over now.

    Rustonite: yeah, I do historical linguistics (at least in the classroom), so I understand your bafflement. But sometimes it’s cathartic to complain about infelicitous or inexpressive language, even as you recognize that the beat goes on.

  37. Historiann on 02 Feb 2011 at 4:29 pm #

    To be clear: I wasn’t complaining about the changing meaning of “amazing.” After all, as I note, it’s a change that’s 300 years old at this point. This was a post about my irritation at the overuse of a particular word (and others that other commenters have noted.)

    “Relateable” is just a dumb, imprecise word, as you note, Dr. Virago. Does it mean “readable?” A real page-turner? Why is “relateable” a prized quality in literature? (Do we all have to “relate” to a story in order to get something out of it? Do I “relate” to the world of merchant mariners on whaling expeditions led by crazed captains, or to the experience of captivity among Algonquian Indians?)

  38. BC on 02 Feb 2011 at 5:03 pm #

    I’m with Historiann and Janice on “impact” as a verb. I explicitly tell students not to do it.

  39. truffula on 02 Feb 2011 at 5:38 pm #

    I am irritated by verb creation via the suffix ize, for example to democratize, but my number one source of irritation is utilize in situations where use is the word best suited to the intended meaning.

  40. Historiann on 02 Feb 2011 at 5:52 pm #

    But utilize sounds so much more scientific and techological and NASA-like, truffula!

  41. Indyanna on 02 Feb 2011 at 6:18 pm #

    And then there’s that old chestnut of a word that got murdered in the 1960s and 70s: “relevant.” I bet if academic departments had websites then, and in a perfect universe of content, that word would be up there with workhorse staples like “the” and “and.” Do any literary folks out there examine (interrogate?) discipline-speak at the level of e-phemera like departmental websites? I hope they’re being archived, as it would be a great study someday.

    Miriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, @ p. 527ff, has some interesting observations about the (literally) career of “impact” as a word.

  42. Sisyphus on 02 Feb 2011 at 7:01 pm #

    I am reading student paper drafts right now and they are amazing. I certainly feel like the very blood is running down to my ankles! My head hurts!

    “Grow” and “better” used as people have described set my teeth on edge. I do have a grad student friend who asserts that “utilize” actually means something specific and different from “use” —- that it means to use an object for a purpose it was not intended. So you use a knife to spread butter, but utilize it to jimmy open a door. (well, maybe *you* don’t actually jimmy open doors…)

    I don’t know if that’s true, but her argument is that it is a real word that is being used incorrectly rather than a neologism.

  43. Dr. Crazy on 02 Feb 2011 at 7:33 pm #

    I just want to chime in (late) with H’Ann’s last comment to say that I also get that language changes, and those changes are interesting, inevitable, and part of language being alive.

    In real life, though, change can grate on one’s nerves. For example, I cling to the whole pronoun number agreement thing, even though I think it’s fair to say that “their” has probably taken the place of “his” or, more equitably, “his or her.” Are my students, politicians, and people all over the world going to be impacted by my clinging? Probably not. But my preferences about how to utilize the language represent, I think, a healthful resistance ::P

  44. Historiann on 02 Feb 2011 at 7:43 pm #

    Dr. Crazy: yes, exactly. We ain’t from the folklore department, we’re *English* and goddamn History!

    As Ali G. would say: Respek.

  45. Comrade PhysioProf on 02 Feb 2011 at 7:53 pm #

    I hate the worde “head space” as used to refer to “state of mind”.

    Amazing is a fucken awesome worde!

  46. truffula on 02 Feb 2011 at 8:30 pm #

    Indeed, Sysyphus, your associate’s assertion is mine as well. Utilize has both correct and incorrect usages.

  47. Dr. Crazy on 02 Feb 2011 at 8:41 pm #

    CPP – Thank goodness you’re not in an English department. We hired a creative writing professor who is a very nice person but who, much to my chagrin, used the word “mindscape” throughout her job talk. “Head-space” is positively wonderful compared with “mindscape,” though, to be fair, I would clobber any student who used either in writing that they submitted to me for a grade.

  48. a little night musing on 02 Feb 2011 at 8:47 pm #

    I lament the drifting of the meaning of the word “sketchy” in recent years, away from “lacking in detail” to… well, I’m not really sure what, but the people I hear saying it these days seem to mean something more like “questionable” or “morally dubious”.

    Language drift, in general, doesn’t bother me so much. It’s just that I can’t seem to come up with a word to replace “sketchy” in its original (?) sense. Every time I want to say that something is sketchy-as-in-like-a-sketch, I find myself having to explain that that’s what I mean by the word. Which kinda reduces the elegance of my prose. :P

    @Mary: a certain radio personality also (over-)uses the word “milieu” in a similar way to what you describe. I’ve never been able to figure out what he means by it, quite.

  49. Historiann on 02 Feb 2011 at 8:47 pm #

    Mindscape: So tempting just to add a stray r to make it mindscrape!

    Now, I have to go scrape another annoying word from my beautiful mind.

  50. a little night musing on 02 Feb 2011 at 8:48 pm #

    That wasn’t meant to be a smiley face. Mistress of emoticons, I am not.

  51. Comrade PhysioProf on 03 Feb 2011 at 4:01 am #

    Mindscape is fucken horrible, as is mindshare. One corpdouchespeake word I *do* like is “traction”, like “Do we have the traction to make that happen?”

    It makes me thinke of the shoes of people in a tugge-of-war game trying to obtain and maintain enough traction against the ground to pulle harde.

  52. Feminist Avatar on 03 Feb 2011 at 4:28 am #

    The reason I like ‘impacted’ is because of the implication of ‘collision’- the idea that one event/idea/ whatever meets something else which has consequences, but that those consequences might be multiple, complex, scattered- and also forceful- so not a tap, but a bang. ‘Affect’ just doesn’t cut it; while ’caused’ suggests a linearity that isn’t reflected in the messiness of life (in my imaginary world of the meanings of English language).

  53. JJO on 03 Feb 2011 at 7:35 am #

    I always utilize impactful verbiage to grow my mindscape.

  54. Another Damned Medievalist on 03 Feb 2011 at 10:46 am #

    I pretty much dislike all the ones mentioned. Also, “hermaneutics,” but that is likely due in part to its use signalling the beginnings of a conversation that will be heavily laced with jargon and could be made much, much clearer.

    I do like following change in usage, though — my peeves are all rooted in changes that come from corporate/edu-/government-speak that is itself a result of poor language and vocabulary skills. So, for example, “refudiate,” which I expect will be common, colloquial US English in about 20 years. However, I *do* like “truthiness,” but that is because when Colbert coined it, he gave it a clear meaning that conveyed a particular message.

    Having said all that… Depending on the context, I may not have any problems with, e.g., “amazing,” “awesome,” or “epic.” “Epic Fail” is a wonderful phrase: I just don’t want to see it in an academic paper or on the news. But if students described Napoleon’s Moscow Campaign as Epic Fail, I wouldn’t be displeased — I’d just ask them to give specific examples!

  55. Another Damned Medievalist on 03 Feb 2011 at 10:47 am #

    Um … “if,during a class discussion, described…”

  56. fannie on 03 Feb 2011 at 11:13 am #

    I love this thread.

    I would agree with “epic.” And also, I am irritated by the hyperbolic use of “phenomenal” and “golden” as synonyms for “good.”

    Example: “I have a six-pack and a football game to watch today. I’m golden.”

    Barf.

  57. The Rebel Lettriste on 03 Feb 2011 at 1:11 pm #

    Or how about the use of “good” to mean “no thank you?” As in, the server asks, “would you like some more water?” And the person says, “No, I’m good.”

    I concur with “relatable.” It’s so … Hollywood tv-pilot, or something. As in, “wow! That Anna Karenina, she’s so relatable for this target audience. Vronsky will totally give us more traction with the 30-50 male demographic, too.”

    Barf again.

    I actually lost my shit when a job candidate once expressed her fervent desire to “make literature relatable” to our students. WTF does that even mean? Good for you if your subfield might be “relatable” and relevant and 20th c. enough. But sometimes literature and history are expressly NOT “relatable.” I’m thinking here of … oh… Beowulf? Maybe the Prioress’ Tale? The Tain bo Cuailainge? Sometimes strangeness and difficulty is the motherfucking POINT of reading.

  58. Speculative Speculum on 03 Feb 2011 at 10:12 pm #

    “Terrific” reminds me too much of E. B. White.

    I love the word “amazing.” It’s even better when expletives are added like, “damn, that was an amazing night.” ;)

  59. Another Damned Medievalist on 04 Feb 2011 at 5:57 am #

    can I just say how much I love the Rebel Lettriste?

  60. The Rebel Lettriste on 04 Feb 2011 at 9:01 am #

    Respek, ADM. Much respek.

  61. Rachel on 04 Feb 2011 at 9:05 am #

    It bugs me when people say something is “really unique.” I hear it all the time. How can something that “is the only one of its kind” be even more one-of-a-kind? Really?

    I had a similar experience as Mary’s milieu, while reading Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight Saga. Now granted, I was not reading it for its literary genius, but she kept using the word “incredulous” over and over again to describe just about everything. After the 33rd time she used it, I was reminded of the great Inigo Montoya when he says to Vizzini, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

  62. Comrade PhysioProf on 04 Feb 2011 at 9:54 am #

    I like “epic”, like in “Buuuuuuuuurble…Cough! Cough! Whoa, duude! That bonghit was fucken epic, maan!”

  63. anonymous on 04 Feb 2011 at 11:06 am #

    One of my favorite public notices:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/pretz/756807881/

  64. Speculative Speculum on 04 Feb 2011 at 2:31 pm #

    I still enjoy the word “epic.” I sometimes think of my life as one giant epic failure. lol

  65. Mamie on 04 Feb 2011 at 8:29 pm #

    “State,” used as a verb, outside a courtroom.