Wordsmith.org
Posted By: belligerentyouth prioritise over - 04/24/06 01:40 PM
Is this a valid construction? 'To prioritise one action over another ...'? It sounds a little funny to me. I feel it should just be 'to prioritise sth.' (e.g., simply 'The files were prioritised'). I have read numerous adjectives used in connection with prioritise (e.g. to prioritise one thing against another). I think it perhaps should be stated simply as 'to give sth. priority, rather than another' is what I'm getting at. I get the feeling that these corporate usages get progressively foggier. Any usages comments appreciated.
Posted By: Buffalo Shrdlu Re: prioritise over - 04/24/06 02:01 PM
I'm with you, "over another" seems redundant, since that's what prioritize means, no?
Posted By: Myridon Re: prioritise over - 04/24/06 03:10 PM
I don't know... It seems to me if your working with items in the middle of a list 123...ABC...xyz and changing the priority of C with respect to B but leaving the priority of A the same, i.e. not necessarily moving C to the top of the list but just anywhere above B that "prioritizing C over B" provides a lot more information than just "prioritizing C". The same applies for "de-prioritizing B".
Posted By: AnnaStrophic Re: prioritise over - 04/24/06 03:23 PM
I agree with Myridon. I hate corporate-speak as much as the next guy, but how else are you gonna say, in as few words as possible, that you will work on C before B?
Posted By: Buffalo Shrdlu Re: prioritise over - 04/24/06 03:35 PM
Do C before B.
Posted By: maverick Re: prioritise over - 04/24/06 03:48 PM
neat, eta.

But c'mon, you can surely see that 'prioritise' also codes additional information? For me, it signals resource issues, not just timelines: for example, I might get on with priority #2, #3, #4 and #5, having set in motion a longer-term action on the top priority. It is a truism of business to learn to discriminate between the urgent and the important; they rarely coincide.
© Wordsmith.org