If you could permanently ban a word from general usage, which one would it be? Why?
If I could permanently ban a word from general usage, I might choose “normal.”
Not because it is offensive.
Not because it is crude.
But because I suspect it is a fossil — a placeholder word left behind after better words quietly vanished.
The Hypothesis: Words Have Been Disappeared
Imagine this: language doesn’t just evolve — it erodes.
We know words enter vocabulary. We know words fade. But what if some words are not merely forgotten, but functionally removed? Lost through cultural compression, algorithmic flattening, media simplification. Replaced not with richer vocabulary — but with blunt substitutes.
If that were happening, we might not notice.
Because the replacement words would feel familiar.
And “normal” is one of those replacements.
Why “Normal”?
“Normal” pretends to describe.
But it actually erases.
It replaces average
It replaces healthy
It replaces common
It replaces expected
It replaces traditional
It replaces statistically probable
It replaces morally accepted
It replaces biologically typical
Each of those words means something different.
“Normal” collapses them into one vague social verdict.
When someone says, “That’s not normal,” what they often mean is:
It makes me uncomfortable.
I don’t understand it.
It deviates from my reference group.
It violates my expectation model.
I haven’t seen it before.
But language once had sharper tools.
If words have been disappeared — if precision has been sanded down — then “normal” is the foam filler pumped into the gaps.
How Would We Know Words Have Vanished?
We would notice three symptoms:
- Compression of nuance
When complex distinctions are handled by a shrinking vocabulary. - Emotional overloading of simple words
Words like “toxic,” “literally,” “problematic,” or “normal” carrying entire paragraphs of meaning. - Increased conflict over interpretation
When arguments are actually about definitions — because we no longer have the precise language to separate ideas.
In other words: social friction might be linguistic erosion.
The Case for Banning “Normal”
If “normal” vanished tomorrow, we would be forced to say what we actually mean.
Instead of:
That’s not normal.
We’d have to say:
That’s statistically rare.
That behavior is unhealthy.
That violates social convention.
That’s new to me.
That makes me uncomfortable.
The conversation would become specific.
Specificity is harder.
But it is more honest.
The Irony
If words truly have been disappeared from human vocabulary, banning one more might seem reckless.
But perhaps removing a vague, flattening word would create pressure for lost precision to return.
Language, like ecology, sometimes recovers when invasive species are cleared.
“Normal” is an invasive species.
If it vanished, maybe we’d rediscover words we didn’t realize we were missing.
And how would we know those words had ever disappeared?
We wouldn’t.
We would just feel conversations becoming sharper.
And we would call that… something more precise than “better.”
The Inner Monologue 
Leave a comment