Words We Banned for Semantic Reasons

“Let’s not get caught up in semantics.” 

- Someone losing an argument.

Semantics is the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning, and meaning is the most critical aspect of communication. Tiny differences in meaning can change the course of a conversation, a relationship, even a whole life. The English language, in particular, is filled with near-synonyms that generate incredible nuance in verbal and written communication. 

Stemming from both Germanic and Romantic roots, English adopted many words from both sides with almost the same meaning. For example, in Spanish, “fantasma” translates to ghost or phantom; in German, “Geist” translates to ghost or spirit. In English, we have words for ghost, phantom, and spirit, plus a host of others like specter, ghoul, etc. Occasionally, we use these words interchangeably, but more often, each creates a unique feeling.

For example, if someone claims to have seen the phantom of their grandfather, the feeling is more menacing than saying they saw the ghost of their grandfather (even if you don’t believe them either way). 

Given the complexity and difference, there are times when we definitely should get “caught up in semantics.” 

Take a look at these everyday words that we at Siamo avoid using for the unnecessary damage they cause.

Why

Wait, you ask, why is why on the list? Why??

One of the most common words we use to question something is “why.” It seems innocuous, but when it is said to others, it often implies accusation (whether intentionally or not). Any accusation creates defensiveness in the recipient, quickly stalling further discussion or clarification.

Consider how differently these two phrases sit:

• Why did you put the videos in this folder?

• How did you decide where to put the videos?

Especially over text-based communication, where the reader interprets the tone, the first feels more accusatory.

If this seems like a petty difference, unlikely to cause large ripples, consider the fact that this particular tip comes from Chris Voss, FBI hostage negotiator and author of Never Split the Difference. In high-stakes situations with life and death on the line, Chris avoids the word “why” because of the inherent defensiveness it creates. He prefers open-ended questions like “how” and “what” instead. 

Working “why” out of our conversations with colleagues and partners can open discussions rather than narrow them, allowing for greater creativity rather than defensiveness.

Just

It seems like just a filler word, but “just” is the most common phrase used right before drastically minimizing the scope of something. Consider the following uses:

• I’ll just be a minute.

• We don’t need to tell the team; it’s just a backend change.

• Let’s deploy without testing; it’s just two lines of code.

• We don’t have to worry about billing; it’s just an operations thing.

• He just needs a kidney transplant.

• I left our children at the store alone just one time.

“Just” has a sneaky way of invalidating the thing it’s describing while disguising itself as simplicity. 

Many corporate projects are sold to the participants as “just a couple weeks’ effort” or “just a quick replacement of the CRM.” Fast-forward to “a couple weeks” later, and everyone is playing triage to repair all the previously unknown uses of the CRM. During this part of a project, you will often hear the phrase: “Oh, I had no idea <X person> used the system that way.” 

I am as guilty as anyone of overusing the word “just” right before stepping on the metaphorical rake, so I’ve simplified my philosophy when considering using that word:

Just don’t.

Should

Should “should” be on this list? Sure it should.

“Should” indicates obligation or an assessment of what is right and wrong, usually when commenting on someone’s actions. The obligatory feeling behind this word makes it ripe for misinterpretation; the inherent corrective nature instills resentment.

Consider the following uses:

• You shouldn’t have done that

• You should smile more

• No one should do this job like that

• This should be easy

Advice with a “should” feels hamfisted and overly prescriptive if we do not trust the source. In the workplace, it’s easy to feel like we are supposed to be the expert in our domain, or if we’re a leader, we are supposed to have the answer and give instructions. Instructions can be helpful, but replacing a “should” with a “would” can quickly change the tone of a conversation and the entire direction of a project. 

If we want to coach a teammate on a task, saying “you should do it this way” is more closed and potentially accusatory than “I would do it this way because ____, what do you think?” The latter is open for change and dialogue; the former is prescriptive and narrows the possibility of further discussion.

Another reason “should” makes this list is the power it has over our internal mindsets. All too often, we can find ourselves with thoughts like:

• I shouldn’t be upset about this.

• I should take the high-paying job over the fun job.

• I shouldn’t struggle this much.

As we train ourselves to be aware of “should” in external conversations, we begin to recognize it in our internal thought processes. Once we notice them, we see that “should” often indicates we are parroting someone else’s point of view or expectation. If whatever we are guilting ourselves about is true to our authentic self, we likely won’t be thinking “should,” or we won’t be thinking it with dread. 

Awareness and redirection of these impulses can stop you from “shoulding” all over yourself.

Word choice matters. Semantics matter. Minor tweaks amount to enormous differences.