Root Cause and Other Clichés

I just finished reading Paul Krugman's editorial in the Times today and to my dismay, but of course not surprise, he used the heinous grammatical misconstruction "root cause" on no less than two occasions. Hasn't he read his Words into Type? or any of the other style manuals used by writers?

Something is either the root of a situation or the cause of it, but not both. Why? Because both words mean essentially the same thing, and therefore using both is redundant, as well as wordy. Never use this construction in a written document of any sort, and if you find yourself saying it in conversation, stop. Train yourself to listen to what comes out of your mouth and stop saying things that are grammatically incorrect. That's how I gained an "ear" for grammar. I believe we write as we speak and vice versa, so whenever I learned a new rule in grammar, I incorporated it into my everyday speech.

I think the "root cause" problem was one of the earliest misconstructions I cleaned out of my vocabulary, so whenever I hear it—and that's a lot—it's like fingernails on a blackboard or the hinge of the back door on my Honda when it screeches as I open it. There isn't enough grease in the world to kill a cliché, but a bit of conscious intent helps slow down its proliferation.

Another phrase I hear all the time is "each and every." Well, guess what. Each is one thing. Each child had a hot dog. It carries with it the sense of the individual child. "Every child had a hot dog" has nearly the same meaning, so the phrase is wordy and redundant. Either say one or the other. Most likely, in my example, you'd want to say "Every child had a hot dog," because it sounds more inclusive.

I'm being very emphatic in this discussion because these phrases are a symptom of verbal and intellectual laziness. People say them without giving them a moment's thought. As I said in an e-mail to friends recently, words are not macaroni that you can toss in the air and expect to come down and land randomly, giving meaning to nothing substantial. If you say something, think about it. If you write it, look at it to see whether it's the best way of giving voice to your thought or feeling. Using a mealymouthed, cliché-ridden verbal expression just insults the listener. Worse it perpetuates bad habits of speech and thought.

Now Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize winner, but that's no excuse for bad grammar. He's an academic and an economist, but still no excuse. Nothing a person does, no matter how noble, is an excuse for bad grammar. Sorry, but I stand by my opinion on this.