What is a stronger alternative to “avoid”?
In the command form, "avoid" seems to have a weak connotation. For example, the sentence "Avoid Macaroni and Cheese" almost seems to have the clause "if you can" in it even though it doesn't.
So, is my observation correct that avoid is a weak command or at least has the connotation? If so, what are some alternatives to it that might be stronger?
I considered "Stay away from," but I think the length and separateness makes it lose its emphasis, so I would prefer something shorter.
word-choice connotation
|
show 3 more comments
In the command form, "avoid" seems to have a weak connotation. For example, the sentence "Avoid Macaroni and Cheese" almost seems to have the clause "if you can" in it even though it doesn't.
So, is my observation correct that avoid is a weak command or at least has the connotation? If so, what are some alternatives to it that might be stronger?
I considered "Stay away from," but I think the length and separateness makes it lose its emphasis, so I would prefer something shorter.
word-choice connotation
2
Emphasis is often achieved by verbosity and specificity. "Never eat .." is more forceful than the generic and terse "avoid," because it is specific and takes long enough to say that the speaker must really, really mean it. So, in this case, if you want force, I would shun "shun" and use something with more syllabic mass. (Think of it as a type of linguistic projection whereby loudness is mapped as semantically unnecessary syllables.)
– remarkl
6 hours ago
3
Eschew. Excuse me.
– Zebrafish
5 hours ago
2
@remarkl I have to respectfully disagree. Syllabic mass, by itself, tends to dilute rather than strengthen a statement. It is more often a sign that the speaker has not given serious thought to the matter than the opposite. While joking, Twain's famous statement "I didn't have time to write a short letter so I wrote a long one instead" summarizes this. A carefully chosen intensifier might help "completely avoid" eliminates any implied "if you can", but in my opinion "shun" is even stronger, partially because it is shorter.
– TimothyAWiseman
4 hours ago
1
Stay away from, shun is for people.
– Lambie
3 hours ago
2
You don't need a different word. You can use the same word but make it stronger. Avoid like the plague. Avoid at all costs. Do avoid. Whatever you do, avoid. Definitely avoid. Positively avoid. Absolutely avoid. I don't need to go on, the possibilities are endless. That's what language is all about. Not creating a dedicated word for every possible shade of every possible meaning, but taking just a bunch of basic words and combining them in just a bunch of simple ways to form thoughts of any degree of complexity, clarity, strength.
– RegDwigнt♦
2 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
In the command form, "avoid" seems to have a weak connotation. For example, the sentence "Avoid Macaroni and Cheese" almost seems to have the clause "if you can" in it even though it doesn't.
So, is my observation correct that avoid is a weak command or at least has the connotation? If so, what are some alternatives to it that might be stronger?
I considered "Stay away from," but I think the length and separateness makes it lose its emphasis, so I would prefer something shorter.
word-choice connotation
In the command form, "avoid" seems to have a weak connotation. For example, the sentence "Avoid Macaroni and Cheese" almost seems to have the clause "if you can" in it even though it doesn't.
So, is my observation correct that avoid is a weak command or at least has the connotation? If so, what are some alternatives to it that might be stronger?
I considered "Stay away from," but I think the length and separateness makes it lose its emphasis, so I would prefer something shorter.
word-choice connotation
word-choice connotation
asked 7 hours ago
The ZThe Z
1465
1465
2
Emphasis is often achieved by verbosity and specificity. "Never eat .." is more forceful than the generic and terse "avoid," because it is specific and takes long enough to say that the speaker must really, really mean it. So, in this case, if you want force, I would shun "shun" and use something with more syllabic mass. (Think of it as a type of linguistic projection whereby loudness is mapped as semantically unnecessary syllables.)
– remarkl
6 hours ago
3
Eschew. Excuse me.
– Zebrafish
5 hours ago
2
@remarkl I have to respectfully disagree. Syllabic mass, by itself, tends to dilute rather than strengthen a statement. It is more often a sign that the speaker has not given serious thought to the matter than the opposite. While joking, Twain's famous statement "I didn't have time to write a short letter so I wrote a long one instead" summarizes this. A carefully chosen intensifier might help "completely avoid" eliminates any implied "if you can", but in my opinion "shun" is even stronger, partially because it is shorter.
– TimothyAWiseman
4 hours ago
1
Stay away from, shun is for people.
– Lambie
3 hours ago
2
You don't need a different word. You can use the same word but make it stronger. Avoid like the plague. Avoid at all costs. Do avoid. Whatever you do, avoid. Definitely avoid. Positively avoid. Absolutely avoid. I don't need to go on, the possibilities are endless. That's what language is all about. Not creating a dedicated word for every possible shade of every possible meaning, but taking just a bunch of basic words and combining them in just a bunch of simple ways to form thoughts of any degree of complexity, clarity, strength.
– RegDwigнt♦
2 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
2
Emphasis is often achieved by verbosity and specificity. "Never eat .." is more forceful than the generic and terse "avoid," because it is specific and takes long enough to say that the speaker must really, really mean it. So, in this case, if you want force, I would shun "shun" and use something with more syllabic mass. (Think of it as a type of linguistic projection whereby loudness is mapped as semantically unnecessary syllables.)
– remarkl
6 hours ago
3
Eschew. Excuse me.
– Zebrafish
5 hours ago
2
@remarkl I have to respectfully disagree. Syllabic mass, by itself, tends to dilute rather than strengthen a statement. It is more often a sign that the speaker has not given serious thought to the matter than the opposite. While joking, Twain's famous statement "I didn't have time to write a short letter so I wrote a long one instead" summarizes this. A carefully chosen intensifier might help "completely avoid" eliminates any implied "if you can", but in my opinion "shun" is even stronger, partially because it is shorter.
– TimothyAWiseman
4 hours ago
1
Stay away from, shun is for people.
– Lambie
3 hours ago
2
You don't need a different word. You can use the same word but make it stronger. Avoid like the plague. Avoid at all costs. Do avoid. Whatever you do, avoid. Definitely avoid. Positively avoid. Absolutely avoid. I don't need to go on, the possibilities are endless. That's what language is all about. Not creating a dedicated word for every possible shade of every possible meaning, but taking just a bunch of basic words and combining them in just a bunch of simple ways to form thoughts of any degree of complexity, clarity, strength.
– RegDwigнt♦
2 hours ago
2
2
Emphasis is often achieved by verbosity and specificity. "Never eat .." is more forceful than the generic and terse "avoid," because it is specific and takes long enough to say that the speaker must really, really mean it. So, in this case, if you want force, I would shun "shun" and use something with more syllabic mass. (Think of it as a type of linguistic projection whereby loudness is mapped as semantically unnecessary syllables.)
– remarkl
6 hours ago
Emphasis is often achieved by verbosity and specificity. "Never eat .." is more forceful than the generic and terse "avoid," because it is specific and takes long enough to say that the speaker must really, really mean it. So, in this case, if you want force, I would shun "shun" and use something with more syllabic mass. (Think of it as a type of linguistic projection whereby loudness is mapped as semantically unnecessary syllables.)
– remarkl
6 hours ago
3
3
Eschew. Excuse me.
– Zebrafish
5 hours ago
Eschew. Excuse me.
– Zebrafish
5 hours ago
2
2
@remarkl I have to respectfully disagree. Syllabic mass, by itself, tends to dilute rather than strengthen a statement. It is more often a sign that the speaker has not given serious thought to the matter than the opposite. While joking, Twain's famous statement "I didn't have time to write a short letter so I wrote a long one instead" summarizes this. A carefully chosen intensifier might help "completely avoid" eliminates any implied "if you can", but in my opinion "shun" is even stronger, partially because it is shorter.
– TimothyAWiseman
4 hours ago
@remarkl I have to respectfully disagree. Syllabic mass, by itself, tends to dilute rather than strengthen a statement. It is more often a sign that the speaker has not given serious thought to the matter than the opposite. While joking, Twain's famous statement "I didn't have time to write a short letter so I wrote a long one instead" summarizes this. A carefully chosen intensifier might help "completely avoid" eliminates any implied "if you can", but in my opinion "shun" is even stronger, partially because it is shorter.
– TimothyAWiseman
4 hours ago
1
1
Stay away from, shun is for people.
– Lambie
3 hours ago
Stay away from, shun is for people.
– Lambie
3 hours ago
2
2
You don't need a different word. You can use the same word but make it stronger. Avoid like the plague. Avoid at all costs. Do avoid. Whatever you do, avoid. Definitely avoid. Positively avoid. Absolutely avoid. I don't need to go on, the possibilities are endless. That's what language is all about. Not creating a dedicated word for every possible shade of every possible meaning, but taking just a bunch of basic words and combining them in just a bunch of simple ways to form thoughts of any degree of complexity, clarity, strength.
– RegDwigнt♦
2 hours ago
You don't need a different word. You can use the same word but make it stronger. Avoid like the plague. Avoid at all costs. Do avoid. Whatever you do, avoid. Definitely avoid. Positively avoid. Absolutely avoid. I don't need to go on, the possibilities are endless. That's what language is all about. Not creating a dedicated word for every possible shade of every possible meaning, but taking just a bunch of basic words and combining them in just a bunch of simple ways to form thoughts of any degree of complexity, clarity, strength.
– RegDwigнt♦
2 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
I think the simplest way to emphasize avoidance would be to use the word shun.
shun v. tr.
to keep away from; take pains to avoid.
See TFD Online
Note the "take pains" in the definition. It suggests a strenuous avoidance, which should be what you're looking for.
Nota bene: To all those who subscribe to the narrow viewpoint that shun is archaic, or only ever used for people, or subject to other strictures, here are a few current links. Note that the first link is from the Washington Post and is no more than a few months old.
Will the new women in Congress embrace bipartisanship—or shun it?
Do you shun the use of autoclickers?
Dividend ETFs Tend to Shun Tech Sector—Barron's
CR Boldface: Shunning the use of titles
NM debtors tend to shun filing Chapter 13
Why did nomadic peoples shun the use of pottery?
... and my current favorite:
Consumers shun macaroni products (!)
Shun is not only commonplace but is frequently used in a variety of contexts by intelligent English speakers—especially when they want to make a strong statement about avoidance. This has been true for centuries and is still true today.
8
While technically correct usage of the word, I suspect "shun macaroni and cheese" is more likely to be heard in comedy than as serious advice. I would not choose "shun" in the example context. It is a very unnatural phrasing.
– jpmc26
4 hours ago
8
shun macaroni and cheese? I don't think so. How did this answer get so many agrees?
– Lambie
3 hours ago
1
@Lambie Because many non-native speakers (and native speakers, but not as many) on this site think they have mastered English, when they are, in fact, very far away from doing so. Probably not the answer anyone wants to hear, but it's true.
– only_pro
2 hours ago
This word is archaic and is never used by any native speaker of English. (With one exception - it is the word used to describe family and friends rejecting someone who leaves a Christian cult. It's used because it's archaic language, taken from the Bible.)
– Graham
1 hour ago
1
@Graham while I agree that shun is not the correct word in this scenario, it's certainly not an archaic word. The New York Times uses it.
– Justin Lardinois
45 mins ago
|
show 4 more comments
The expression to steer clear of something or someone sounds stronger, I think. It's oftentimes used in situations where you're advised to avoid something that can be very dangerous for you. Somebody advising you against doing drugs would be one good example. The following is how the Cambridge Dictionary defines this expression:
to avoid someone or something that seems unpleasant, dangerous, or likely to cause problems
Example sentence:
They warned their children to steer clear of drugs.
add a comment |
How about plain old Do not? It's not sexy, but it gets the point across unambiguously.
I'm jumping in with an edit...
Avoid setting the cat/house on fire.
Shun setting the cat/house on fire.
Abstain from setting the cat/house on fire.
Do not set the cat/house on fire.
It does not work with nouns, though. I would have to specify actions.
– The Z
4 hours ago
2
+1. Saying "eschew" or "shun" macaroni and cheese seems very strange to me (US); "abstain from" is a little better; but "[please] Do not [let him/her] eat macaroni and cheese" is clear, direct, and natural.
– cag51
2 hours ago
add a comment |
The phrasing "Avoid <noun>" implies physically avoiding contact with it. It may be necessary to replace the noun (in the example "macaroni and cheese") with a verb phrase clarifying the activity you want to be avoided (presumably eating in this case).
In any case, if you are going to introduce a verb phrase, it would be better to just say "Do not <verb>...".
"Avoid macaroni and cheese" - Ambiguous. Should I just not be in the same room as macaroni and cheese?
"Avoid eating macaroni and cheese" - Better, but still not an absolute command.
"Do not eat macaroni and cheese" - Most direct
add a comment |
Abstain
restrain oneself from doing or enjoying something
While abstaining, a person consciously restrains himself from taking pleasure.
E.g.
"she intends to abstain from sex before marriage"
New contributor
Siddharth Garg is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
"Abstain" means consciously avoiding something you would actually enjoy. If you're avoiding it for reasons of religion or diet, it's correct. If you're avoiding it for more serious reasons, it is not. A person with nut allergies doesn't "abstain from" eating nuts, and we don't "abstain from" tapdancing on the edge of a cliff or juggling hand grenades.
– Graham
1 hour ago
add a comment |
In income tax terminology, evade is a much stronger word than avoid. In fact, avoiding taxes is legal and evading taxes is illegal.
An example of avoiding taxes is to have paid some medical bills in 2018 which were not due until 2019. The floor on the medical tax deduction for 2018 is 7.5%, as opposed to 10% for 2019. Of course the calculation is not this simple, and you would have to take into account what your medical bills were in 2018 versus what they are likely to be in 2019. But this is legal, and avoiding taxes is recommended by CPAs. (If you didn't do this already, it is too late.)
An example of evading taxes is to not report income or to overstate deductions. For example to "make a mistake" by overstating your charitable deductions. There are many sophisticated ways to evade taxes, and they are illegal.
See, for example What is the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. I will not quote from this article, because it would only verify what I said above, not significantly add to it.
Whether you can take this distinction and apply it to diet busting foods like chocolate cream pie a la mode is problematical.
add a comment |
Not sure how strong you want to be here, but, eschew is pretty strong.
From MW eschew:
eschew v.
to avoid habitually on moral or practical grounds
It's also archaic, and you'd have a fair challenge finding native English speakers who know the word. Technically correct, but it won't help the OP to get the message across.
– Graham
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I agree with @Robusto that shun is the simplest and therefore in most situations the best. All the alternatives I can think of are slightly (or very) anachronistic.
That said, spurn - while a little old-fashioned - adds an extra note of active disdain.
spurn v.
to reject with contempt
And "shun" is possibly the most archaic of them all. Fine for the King James Bible, not appropriate today unless you're putting on a 17th century costume drama.
– Graham
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f484546%2fwhat-is-a-stronger-alternative-to-avoid%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I think the simplest way to emphasize avoidance would be to use the word shun.
shun v. tr.
to keep away from; take pains to avoid.
See TFD Online
Note the "take pains" in the definition. It suggests a strenuous avoidance, which should be what you're looking for.
Nota bene: To all those who subscribe to the narrow viewpoint that shun is archaic, or only ever used for people, or subject to other strictures, here are a few current links. Note that the first link is from the Washington Post and is no more than a few months old.
Will the new women in Congress embrace bipartisanship—or shun it?
Do you shun the use of autoclickers?
Dividend ETFs Tend to Shun Tech Sector—Barron's
CR Boldface: Shunning the use of titles
NM debtors tend to shun filing Chapter 13
Why did nomadic peoples shun the use of pottery?
... and my current favorite:
Consumers shun macaroni products (!)
Shun is not only commonplace but is frequently used in a variety of contexts by intelligent English speakers—especially when they want to make a strong statement about avoidance. This has been true for centuries and is still true today.
8
While technically correct usage of the word, I suspect "shun macaroni and cheese" is more likely to be heard in comedy than as serious advice. I would not choose "shun" in the example context. It is a very unnatural phrasing.
– jpmc26
4 hours ago
8
shun macaroni and cheese? I don't think so. How did this answer get so many agrees?
– Lambie
3 hours ago
1
@Lambie Because many non-native speakers (and native speakers, but not as many) on this site think they have mastered English, when they are, in fact, very far away from doing so. Probably not the answer anyone wants to hear, but it's true.
– only_pro
2 hours ago
This word is archaic and is never used by any native speaker of English. (With one exception - it is the word used to describe family and friends rejecting someone who leaves a Christian cult. It's used because it's archaic language, taken from the Bible.)
– Graham
1 hour ago
1
@Graham while I agree that shun is not the correct word in this scenario, it's certainly not an archaic word. The New York Times uses it.
– Justin Lardinois
45 mins ago
|
show 4 more comments
I think the simplest way to emphasize avoidance would be to use the word shun.
shun v. tr.
to keep away from; take pains to avoid.
See TFD Online
Note the "take pains" in the definition. It suggests a strenuous avoidance, which should be what you're looking for.
Nota bene: To all those who subscribe to the narrow viewpoint that shun is archaic, or only ever used for people, or subject to other strictures, here are a few current links. Note that the first link is from the Washington Post and is no more than a few months old.
Will the new women in Congress embrace bipartisanship—or shun it?
Do you shun the use of autoclickers?
Dividend ETFs Tend to Shun Tech Sector—Barron's
CR Boldface: Shunning the use of titles
NM debtors tend to shun filing Chapter 13
Why did nomadic peoples shun the use of pottery?
... and my current favorite:
Consumers shun macaroni products (!)
Shun is not only commonplace but is frequently used in a variety of contexts by intelligent English speakers—especially when they want to make a strong statement about avoidance. This has been true for centuries and is still true today.
8
While technically correct usage of the word, I suspect "shun macaroni and cheese" is more likely to be heard in comedy than as serious advice. I would not choose "shun" in the example context. It is a very unnatural phrasing.
– jpmc26
4 hours ago
8
shun macaroni and cheese? I don't think so. How did this answer get so many agrees?
– Lambie
3 hours ago
1
@Lambie Because many non-native speakers (and native speakers, but not as many) on this site think they have mastered English, when they are, in fact, very far away from doing so. Probably not the answer anyone wants to hear, but it's true.
– only_pro
2 hours ago
This word is archaic and is never used by any native speaker of English. (With one exception - it is the word used to describe family and friends rejecting someone who leaves a Christian cult. It's used because it's archaic language, taken from the Bible.)
– Graham
1 hour ago
1
@Graham while I agree that shun is not the correct word in this scenario, it's certainly not an archaic word. The New York Times uses it.
– Justin Lardinois
45 mins ago
|
show 4 more comments
I think the simplest way to emphasize avoidance would be to use the word shun.
shun v. tr.
to keep away from; take pains to avoid.
See TFD Online
Note the "take pains" in the definition. It suggests a strenuous avoidance, which should be what you're looking for.
Nota bene: To all those who subscribe to the narrow viewpoint that shun is archaic, or only ever used for people, or subject to other strictures, here are a few current links. Note that the first link is from the Washington Post and is no more than a few months old.
Will the new women in Congress embrace bipartisanship—or shun it?
Do you shun the use of autoclickers?
Dividend ETFs Tend to Shun Tech Sector—Barron's
CR Boldface: Shunning the use of titles
NM debtors tend to shun filing Chapter 13
Why did nomadic peoples shun the use of pottery?
... and my current favorite:
Consumers shun macaroni products (!)
Shun is not only commonplace but is frequently used in a variety of contexts by intelligent English speakers—especially when they want to make a strong statement about avoidance. This has been true for centuries and is still true today.
I think the simplest way to emphasize avoidance would be to use the word shun.
shun v. tr.
to keep away from; take pains to avoid.
See TFD Online
Note the "take pains" in the definition. It suggests a strenuous avoidance, which should be what you're looking for.
Nota bene: To all those who subscribe to the narrow viewpoint that shun is archaic, or only ever used for people, or subject to other strictures, here are a few current links. Note that the first link is from the Washington Post and is no more than a few months old.
Will the new women in Congress embrace bipartisanship—or shun it?
Do you shun the use of autoclickers?
Dividend ETFs Tend to Shun Tech Sector—Barron's
CR Boldface: Shunning the use of titles
NM debtors tend to shun filing Chapter 13
Why did nomadic peoples shun the use of pottery?
... and my current favorite:
Consumers shun macaroni products (!)
Shun is not only commonplace but is frequently used in a variety of contexts by intelligent English speakers—especially when they want to make a strong statement about avoidance. This has been true for centuries and is still true today.
edited 7 mins ago
answered 7 hours ago
RobustoRobusto
129k30304519
129k30304519
8
While technically correct usage of the word, I suspect "shun macaroni and cheese" is more likely to be heard in comedy than as serious advice. I would not choose "shun" in the example context. It is a very unnatural phrasing.
– jpmc26
4 hours ago
8
shun macaroni and cheese? I don't think so. How did this answer get so many agrees?
– Lambie
3 hours ago
1
@Lambie Because many non-native speakers (and native speakers, but not as many) on this site think they have mastered English, when they are, in fact, very far away from doing so. Probably not the answer anyone wants to hear, but it's true.
– only_pro
2 hours ago
This word is archaic and is never used by any native speaker of English. (With one exception - it is the word used to describe family and friends rejecting someone who leaves a Christian cult. It's used because it's archaic language, taken from the Bible.)
– Graham
1 hour ago
1
@Graham while I agree that shun is not the correct word in this scenario, it's certainly not an archaic word. The New York Times uses it.
– Justin Lardinois
45 mins ago
|
show 4 more comments
8
While technically correct usage of the word, I suspect "shun macaroni and cheese" is more likely to be heard in comedy than as serious advice. I would not choose "shun" in the example context. It is a very unnatural phrasing.
– jpmc26
4 hours ago
8
shun macaroni and cheese? I don't think so. How did this answer get so many agrees?
– Lambie
3 hours ago
1
@Lambie Because many non-native speakers (and native speakers, but not as many) on this site think they have mastered English, when they are, in fact, very far away from doing so. Probably not the answer anyone wants to hear, but it's true.
– only_pro
2 hours ago
This word is archaic and is never used by any native speaker of English. (With one exception - it is the word used to describe family and friends rejecting someone who leaves a Christian cult. It's used because it's archaic language, taken from the Bible.)
– Graham
1 hour ago
1
@Graham while I agree that shun is not the correct word in this scenario, it's certainly not an archaic word. The New York Times uses it.
– Justin Lardinois
45 mins ago
8
8
While technically correct usage of the word, I suspect "shun macaroni and cheese" is more likely to be heard in comedy than as serious advice. I would not choose "shun" in the example context. It is a very unnatural phrasing.
– jpmc26
4 hours ago
While technically correct usage of the word, I suspect "shun macaroni and cheese" is more likely to be heard in comedy than as serious advice. I would not choose "shun" in the example context. It is a very unnatural phrasing.
– jpmc26
4 hours ago
8
8
shun macaroni and cheese? I don't think so. How did this answer get so many agrees?
– Lambie
3 hours ago
shun macaroni and cheese? I don't think so. How did this answer get so many agrees?
– Lambie
3 hours ago
1
1
@Lambie Because many non-native speakers (and native speakers, but not as many) on this site think they have mastered English, when they are, in fact, very far away from doing so. Probably not the answer anyone wants to hear, but it's true.
– only_pro
2 hours ago
@Lambie Because many non-native speakers (and native speakers, but not as many) on this site think they have mastered English, when they are, in fact, very far away from doing so. Probably not the answer anyone wants to hear, but it's true.
– only_pro
2 hours ago
This word is archaic and is never used by any native speaker of English. (With one exception - it is the word used to describe family and friends rejecting someone who leaves a Christian cult. It's used because it's archaic language, taken from the Bible.)
– Graham
1 hour ago
This word is archaic and is never used by any native speaker of English. (With one exception - it is the word used to describe family and friends rejecting someone who leaves a Christian cult. It's used because it's archaic language, taken from the Bible.)
– Graham
1 hour ago
1
1
@Graham while I agree that shun is not the correct word in this scenario, it's certainly not an archaic word. The New York Times uses it.
– Justin Lardinois
45 mins ago
@Graham while I agree that shun is not the correct word in this scenario, it's certainly not an archaic word. The New York Times uses it.
– Justin Lardinois
45 mins ago
|
show 4 more comments
The expression to steer clear of something or someone sounds stronger, I think. It's oftentimes used in situations where you're advised to avoid something that can be very dangerous for you. Somebody advising you against doing drugs would be one good example. The following is how the Cambridge Dictionary defines this expression:
to avoid someone or something that seems unpleasant, dangerous, or likely to cause problems
Example sentence:
They warned their children to steer clear of drugs.
add a comment |
The expression to steer clear of something or someone sounds stronger, I think. It's oftentimes used in situations where you're advised to avoid something that can be very dangerous for you. Somebody advising you against doing drugs would be one good example. The following is how the Cambridge Dictionary defines this expression:
to avoid someone or something that seems unpleasant, dangerous, or likely to cause problems
Example sentence:
They warned their children to steer clear of drugs.
add a comment |
The expression to steer clear of something or someone sounds stronger, I think. It's oftentimes used in situations where you're advised to avoid something that can be very dangerous for you. Somebody advising you against doing drugs would be one good example. The following is how the Cambridge Dictionary defines this expression:
to avoid someone or something that seems unpleasant, dangerous, or likely to cause problems
Example sentence:
They warned their children to steer clear of drugs.
The expression to steer clear of something or someone sounds stronger, I think. It's oftentimes used in situations where you're advised to avoid something that can be very dangerous for you. Somebody advising you against doing drugs would be one good example. The following is how the Cambridge Dictionary defines this expression:
to avoid someone or something that seems unpleasant, dangerous, or likely to cause problems
Example sentence:
They warned their children to steer clear of drugs.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
Mike RMike R
4,69521742
4,69521742
add a comment |
add a comment |
How about plain old Do not? It's not sexy, but it gets the point across unambiguously.
I'm jumping in with an edit...
Avoid setting the cat/house on fire.
Shun setting the cat/house on fire.
Abstain from setting the cat/house on fire.
Do not set the cat/house on fire.
It does not work with nouns, though. I would have to specify actions.
– The Z
4 hours ago
2
+1. Saying "eschew" or "shun" macaroni and cheese seems very strange to me (US); "abstain from" is a little better; but "[please] Do not [let him/her] eat macaroni and cheese" is clear, direct, and natural.
– cag51
2 hours ago
add a comment |
How about plain old Do not? It's not sexy, but it gets the point across unambiguously.
I'm jumping in with an edit...
Avoid setting the cat/house on fire.
Shun setting the cat/house on fire.
Abstain from setting the cat/house on fire.
Do not set the cat/house on fire.
It does not work with nouns, though. I would have to specify actions.
– The Z
4 hours ago
2
+1. Saying "eschew" or "shun" macaroni and cheese seems very strange to me (US); "abstain from" is a little better; but "[please] Do not [let him/her] eat macaroni and cheese" is clear, direct, and natural.
– cag51
2 hours ago
add a comment |
How about plain old Do not? It's not sexy, but it gets the point across unambiguously.
I'm jumping in with an edit...
Avoid setting the cat/house on fire.
Shun setting the cat/house on fire.
Abstain from setting the cat/house on fire.
Do not set the cat/house on fire.
How about plain old Do not? It's not sexy, but it gets the point across unambiguously.
I'm jumping in with an edit...
Avoid setting the cat/house on fire.
Shun setting the cat/house on fire.
Abstain from setting the cat/house on fire.
Do not set the cat/house on fire.
edited 5 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
DaveDave
1887
1887
It does not work with nouns, though. I would have to specify actions.
– The Z
4 hours ago
2
+1. Saying "eschew" or "shun" macaroni and cheese seems very strange to me (US); "abstain from" is a little better; but "[please] Do not [let him/her] eat macaroni and cheese" is clear, direct, and natural.
– cag51
2 hours ago
add a comment |
It does not work with nouns, though. I would have to specify actions.
– The Z
4 hours ago
2
+1. Saying "eschew" or "shun" macaroni and cheese seems very strange to me (US); "abstain from" is a little better; but "[please] Do not [let him/her] eat macaroni and cheese" is clear, direct, and natural.
– cag51
2 hours ago
It does not work with nouns, though. I would have to specify actions.
– The Z
4 hours ago
It does not work with nouns, though. I would have to specify actions.
– The Z
4 hours ago
2
2
+1. Saying "eschew" or "shun" macaroni and cheese seems very strange to me (US); "abstain from" is a little better; but "[please] Do not [let him/her] eat macaroni and cheese" is clear, direct, and natural.
– cag51
2 hours ago
+1. Saying "eschew" or "shun" macaroni and cheese seems very strange to me (US); "abstain from" is a little better; but "[please] Do not [let him/her] eat macaroni and cheese" is clear, direct, and natural.
– cag51
2 hours ago
add a comment |
The phrasing "Avoid <noun>" implies physically avoiding contact with it. It may be necessary to replace the noun (in the example "macaroni and cheese") with a verb phrase clarifying the activity you want to be avoided (presumably eating in this case).
In any case, if you are going to introduce a verb phrase, it would be better to just say "Do not <verb>...".
"Avoid macaroni and cheese" - Ambiguous. Should I just not be in the same room as macaroni and cheese?
"Avoid eating macaroni and cheese" - Better, but still not an absolute command.
"Do not eat macaroni and cheese" - Most direct
add a comment |
The phrasing "Avoid <noun>" implies physically avoiding contact with it. It may be necessary to replace the noun (in the example "macaroni and cheese") with a verb phrase clarifying the activity you want to be avoided (presumably eating in this case).
In any case, if you are going to introduce a verb phrase, it would be better to just say "Do not <verb>...".
"Avoid macaroni and cheese" - Ambiguous. Should I just not be in the same room as macaroni and cheese?
"Avoid eating macaroni and cheese" - Better, but still not an absolute command.
"Do not eat macaroni and cheese" - Most direct
add a comment |
The phrasing "Avoid <noun>" implies physically avoiding contact with it. It may be necessary to replace the noun (in the example "macaroni and cheese") with a verb phrase clarifying the activity you want to be avoided (presumably eating in this case).
In any case, if you are going to introduce a verb phrase, it would be better to just say "Do not <verb>...".
"Avoid macaroni and cheese" - Ambiguous. Should I just not be in the same room as macaroni and cheese?
"Avoid eating macaroni and cheese" - Better, but still not an absolute command.
"Do not eat macaroni and cheese" - Most direct
The phrasing "Avoid <noun>" implies physically avoiding contact with it. It may be necessary to replace the noun (in the example "macaroni and cheese") with a verb phrase clarifying the activity you want to be avoided (presumably eating in this case).
In any case, if you are going to introduce a verb phrase, it would be better to just say "Do not <verb>...".
"Avoid macaroni and cheese" - Ambiguous. Should I just not be in the same room as macaroni and cheese?
"Avoid eating macaroni and cheese" - Better, but still not an absolute command.
"Do not eat macaroni and cheese" - Most direct
answered 2 hours ago
Harrison PaineHarrison Paine
1,10056
1,10056
add a comment |
add a comment |
Abstain
restrain oneself from doing or enjoying something
While abstaining, a person consciously restrains himself from taking pleasure.
E.g.
"she intends to abstain from sex before marriage"
New contributor
Siddharth Garg is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
"Abstain" means consciously avoiding something you would actually enjoy. If you're avoiding it for reasons of religion or diet, it's correct. If you're avoiding it for more serious reasons, it is not. A person with nut allergies doesn't "abstain from" eating nuts, and we don't "abstain from" tapdancing on the edge of a cliff or juggling hand grenades.
– Graham
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Abstain
restrain oneself from doing or enjoying something
While abstaining, a person consciously restrains himself from taking pleasure.
E.g.
"she intends to abstain from sex before marriage"
New contributor
Siddharth Garg is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
"Abstain" means consciously avoiding something you would actually enjoy. If you're avoiding it for reasons of religion or diet, it's correct. If you're avoiding it for more serious reasons, it is not. A person with nut allergies doesn't "abstain from" eating nuts, and we don't "abstain from" tapdancing on the edge of a cliff or juggling hand grenades.
– Graham
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Abstain
restrain oneself from doing or enjoying something
While abstaining, a person consciously restrains himself from taking pleasure.
E.g.
"she intends to abstain from sex before marriage"
New contributor
Siddharth Garg is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Abstain
restrain oneself from doing or enjoying something
While abstaining, a person consciously restrains himself from taking pleasure.
E.g.
"she intends to abstain from sex before marriage"
New contributor
Siddharth Garg is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Siddharth Garg is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 6 hours ago
Siddharth GargSiddharth Garg
1333
1333
New contributor
Siddharth Garg is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Siddharth Garg is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Siddharth Garg is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
"Abstain" means consciously avoiding something you would actually enjoy. If you're avoiding it for reasons of religion or diet, it's correct. If you're avoiding it for more serious reasons, it is not. A person with nut allergies doesn't "abstain from" eating nuts, and we don't "abstain from" tapdancing on the edge of a cliff or juggling hand grenades.
– Graham
1 hour ago
add a comment |
"Abstain" means consciously avoiding something you would actually enjoy. If you're avoiding it for reasons of religion or diet, it's correct. If you're avoiding it for more serious reasons, it is not. A person with nut allergies doesn't "abstain from" eating nuts, and we don't "abstain from" tapdancing on the edge of a cliff or juggling hand grenades.
– Graham
1 hour ago
"Abstain" means consciously avoiding something you would actually enjoy. If you're avoiding it for reasons of religion or diet, it's correct. If you're avoiding it for more serious reasons, it is not. A person with nut allergies doesn't "abstain from" eating nuts, and we don't "abstain from" tapdancing on the edge of a cliff or juggling hand grenades.
– Graham
1 hour ago
"Abstain" means consciously avoiding something you would actually enjoy. If you're avoiding it for reasons of religion or diet, it's correct. If you're avoiding it for more serious reasons, it is not. A person with nut allergies doesn't "abstain from" eating nuts, and we don't "abstain from" tapdancing on the edge of a cliff or juggling hand grenades.
– Graham
1 hour ago
add a comment |
In income tax terminology, evade is a much stronger word than avoid. In fact, avoiding taxes is legal and evading taxes is illegal.
An example of avoiding taxes is to have paid some medical bills in 2018 which were not due until 2019. The floor on the medical tax deduction for 2018 is 7.5%, as opposed to 10% for 2019. Of course the calculation is not this simple, and you would have to take into account what your medical bills were in 2018 versus what they are likely to be in 2019. But this is legal, and avoiding taxes is recommended by CPAs. (If you didn't do this already, it is too late.)
An example of evading taxes is to not report income or to overstate deductions. For example to "make a mistake" by overstating your charitable deductions. There are many sophisticated ways to evade taxes, and they are illegal.
See, for example What is the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. I will not quote from this article, because it would only verify what I said above, not significantly add to it.
Whether you can take this distinction and apply it to diet busting foods like chocolate cream pie a la mode is problematical.
add a comment |
In income tax terminology, evade is a much stronger word than avoid. In fact, avoiding taxes is legal and evading taxes is illegal.
An example of avoiding taxes is to have paid some medical bills in 2018 which were not due until 2019. The floor on the medical tax deduction for 2018 is 7.5%, as opposed to 10% for 2019. Of course the calculation is not this simple, and you would have to take into account what your medical bills were in 2018 versus what they are likely to be in 2019. But this is legal, and avoiding taxes is recommended by CPAs. (If you didn't do this already, it is too late.)
An example of evading taxes is to not report income or to overstate deductions. For example to "make a mistake" by overstating your charitable deductions. There are many sophisticated ways to evade taxes, and they are illegal.
See, for example What is the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. I will not quote from this article, because it would only verify what I said above, not significantly add to it.
Whether you can take this distinction and apply it to diet busting foods like chocolate cream pie a la mode is problematical.
add a comment |
In income tax terminology, evade is a much stronger word than avoid. In fact, avoiding taxes is legal and evading taxes is illegal.
An example of avoiding taxes is to have paid some medical bills in 2018 which were not due until 2019. The floor on the medical tax deduction for 2018 is 7.5%, as opposed to 10% for 2019. Of course the calculation is not this simple, and you would have to take into account what your medical bills were in 2018 versus what they are likely to be in 2019. But this is legal, and avoiding taxes is recommended by CPAs. (If you didn't do this already, it is too late.)
An example of evading taxes is to not report income or to overstate deductions. For example to "make a mistake" by overstating your charitable deductions. There are many sophisticated ways to evade taxes, and they are illegal.
See, for example What is the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. I will not quote from this article, because it would only verify what I said above, not significantly add to it.
Whether you can take this distinction and apply it to diet busting foods like chocolate cream pie a la mode is problematical.
In income tax terminology, evade is a much stronger word than avoid. In fact, avoiding taxes is legal and evading taxes is illegal.
An example of avoiding taxes is to have paid some medical bills in 2018 which were not due until 2019. The floor on the medical tax deduction for 2018 is 7.5%, as opposed to 10% for 2019. Of course the calculation is not this simple, and you would have to take into account what your medical bills were in 2018 versus what they are likely to be in 2019. But this is legal, and avoiding taxes is recommended by CPAs. (If you didn't do this already, it is too late.)
An example of evading taxes is to not report income or to overstate deductions. For example to "make a mistake" by overstating your charitable deductions. There are many sophisticated ways to evade taxes, and they are illegal.
See, for example What is the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. I will not quote from this article, because it would only verify what I said above, not significantly add to it.
Whether you can take this distinction and apply it to diet busting foods like chocolate cream pie a la mode is problematical.
answered 5 hours ago
ab2ab2
24k95995
24k95995
add a comment |
add a comment |
Not sure how strong you want to be here, but, eschew is pretty strong.
From MW eschew:
eschew v.
to avoid habitually on moral or practical grounds
It's also archaic, and you'd have a fair challenge finding native English speakers who know the word. Technically correct, but it won't help the OP to get the message across.
– Graham
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Not sure how strong you want to be here, but, eschew is pretty strong.
From MW eschew:
eschew v.
to avoid habitually on moral or practical grounds
It's also archaic, and you'd have a fair challenge finding native English speakers who know the word. Technically correct, but it won't help the OP to get the message across.
– Graham
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Not sure how strong you want to be here, but, eschew is pretty strong.
From MW eschew:
eschew v.
to avoid habitually on moral or practical grounds
Not sure how strong you want to be here, but, eschew is pretty strong.
From MW eschew:
eschew v.
to avoid habitually on moral or practical grounds
answered 3 hours ago
Reginald BlueReginald Blue
22315
22315
It's also archaic, and you'd have a fair challenge finding native English speakers who know the word. Technically correct, but it won't help the OP to get the message across.
– Graham
1 hour ago
add a comment |
It's also archaic, and you'd have a fair challenge finding native English speakers who know the word. Technically correct, but it won't help the OP to get the message across.
– Graham
1 hour ago
It's also archaic, and you'd have a fair challenge finding native English speakers who know the word. Technically correct, but it won't help the OP to get the message across.
– Graham
1 hour ago
It's also archaic, and you'd have a fair challenge finding native English speakers who know the word. Technically correct, but it won't help the OP to get the message across.
– Graham
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I agree with @Robusto that shun is the simplest and therefore in most situations the best. All the alternatives I can think of are slightly (or very) anachronistic.
That said, spurn - while a little old-fashioned - adds an extra note of active disdain.
spurn v.
to reject with contempt
And "shun" is possibly the most archaic of them all. Fine for the King James Bible, not appropriate today unless you're putting on a 17th century costume drama.
– Graham
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I agree with @Robusto that shun is the simplest and therefore in most situations the best. All the alternatives I can think of are slightly (or very) anachronistic.
That said, spurn - while a little old-fashioned - adds an extra note of active disdain.
spurn v.
to reject with contempt
And "shun" is possibly the most archaic of them all. Fine for the King James Bible, not appropriate today unless you're putting on a 17th century costume drama.
– Graham
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I agree with @Robusto that shun is the simplest and therefore in most situations the best. All the alternatives I can think of are slightly (or very) anachronistic.
That said, spurn - while a little old-fashioned - adds an extra note of active disdain.
spurn v.
to reject with contempt
I agree with @Robusto that shun is the simplest and therefore in most situations the best. All the alternatives I can think of are slightly (or very) anachronistic.
That said, spurn - while a little old-fashioned - adds an extra note of active disdain.
spurn v.
to reject with contempt
answered 4 hours ago
itsbruceitsbruce
3,44221026
3,44221026
And "shun" is possibly the most archaic of them all. Fine for the King James Bible, not appropriate today unless you're putting on a 17th century costume drama.
– Graham
1 hour ago
add a comment |
And "shun" is possibly the most archaic of them all. Fine for the King James Bible, not appropriate today unless you're putting on a 17th century costume drama.
– Graham
1 hour ago
And "shun" is possibly the most archaic of them all. Fine for the King James Bible, not appropriate today unless you're putting on a 17th century costume drama.
– Graham
1 hour ago
And "shun" is possibly the most archaic of them all. Fine for the King James Bible, not appropriate today unless you're putting on a 17th century costume drama.
– Graham
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f484546%2fwhat-is-a-stronger-alternative-to-avoid%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Emphasis is often achieved by verbosity and specificity. "Never eat .." is more forceful than the generic and terse "avoid," because it is specific and takes long enough to say that the speaker must really, really mean it. So, in this case, if you want force, I would shun "shun" and use something with more syllabic mass. (Think of it as a type of linguistic projection whereby loudness is mapped as semantically unnecessary syllables.)
– remarkl
6 hours ago
3
Eschew. Excuse me.
– Zebrafish
5 hours ago
2
@remarkl I have to respectfully disagree. Syllabic mass, by itself, tends to dilute rather than strengthen a statement. It is more often a sign that the speaker has not given serious thought to the matter than the opposite. While joking, Twain's famous statement "I didn't have time to write a short letter so I wrote a long one instead" summarizes this. A carefully chosen intensifier might help "completely avoid" eliminates any implied "if you can", but in my opinion "shun" is even stronger, partially because it is shorter.
– TimothyAWiseman
4 hours ago
1
Stay away from, shun is for people.
– Lambie
3 hours ago
2
You don't need a different word. You can use the same word but make it stronger. Avoid like the plague. Avoid at all costs. Do avoid. Whatever you do, avoid. Definitely avoid. Positively avoid. Absolutely avoid. I don't need to go on, the possibilities are endless. That's what language is all about. Not creating a dedicated word for every possible shade of every possible meaning, but taking just a bunch of basic words and combining them in just a bunch of simple ways to form thoughts of any degree of complexity, clarity, strength.
– RegDwigнt♦
2 hours ago