The illiterate and unimaginative media continue to perpetrate their assault on the language, undeterred by my periodic rants. And why shouldn’t they – they get paid good money for what they do, and I don’t. All my pet hates survive and prosper, despite my efforts but - a voice crying in the wilderness - I persist and here are some of my perennials -
WORDS
enormity refers to the awfulness, the wickedness of an event, not its size.
ironical does not mean coincidental.
medieval has four syllables, not three – it’s meddy-eeval, not med-evil.
The last four letters of undoubtedly are edly, not ably – it is pronounced undowteddly, not undowtabbly.
mischievous is pronounced misscheevuss, not Miss Cheevyuss.
suspect is a noun, and adjective and a verb. When used as a noun or an adjective – e.g. arrest the suspect, or the suspect package - the stress is on the first syllable: as an adjective or a verb – e.g. I suspect John Doe - the stress is on the second syllable.
refute means disprove by evidence, not reject. I reject your statement and I will refute it by the following facts.
fulsome means cloying, excessive, fawning, Describing a tribute, statement or speech as fulsome is an insult, not a term of approbation – it is a pejorative term. (The misuse of this word is a source of constant amusement to me, especially when it comes from Tory MPs toadying to their leaders. Many Tory MPs described Liam Fox’s statements as fulsome – they were spot on, but hadn’t meant to be …)
MEDIA clichés
News presenters have now adopted a style consisting of clichés strung together like beads on a wire, in the manner of sports presenters since time immemorial. One example, which I have complained of recently is the may be --- but formulation that now opens almost every analysis of political situations, with the occasional addition of the may be --- yet variation to add a spurious air of spontaneity to the tedium.
I say – the English language is infinitely varied, expressive and economical when necessary, but – or yet – you use it lazily and inaccurately.
Of course, a media presenter would have said - the English language may be infinitely varied, etc. – but …
Bollocks. There’s no may be about it – it is infinitely varied, etc. The but and the yet, magnificent and precise wee words, are entirely sufficient on their ain. So there …
Posts
""""""undowtabbly""""""
ReplyDeleteI hadn't realised people said this.
Do journalists say it?
An enormous number of on-line sources indicate "Enormity" has multiple meanings.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, Joe Public - it has now, because usage - and only usage - determines acceptance by dictionaries and others. But what has happened is that a valuable word is well on its way to being lost to the language, and while both usages exist, so does confusion as to what was meant.
ReplyDeleteThe same applies to both enormity and fulsome - I cannot risk using them in their vital orginal meanings because some asshole will miss my point entirely ... Ironical will soon go the same way.
But usage dictates all, and I cannot hold back the tide. The semi-literate teachers, reporters, sub-editors and media folk of the 1980s have now spawned the illiterate 21st century versions.
I left school at 15 years of age. Thank God I had the literate teachers of the 1940s - or maybe I shouldn't ...
I know a certain First Minister who says it all the time, Stevie - and he's not alone ...
ReplyDeleteDefinitely? usual def-in-ate-lee grr.
ReplyDeletedef-nit-lee me mmm
I don't have any problems with pronunciation if meaning is clear, cynicalHighlander - and definAtely is a Glasgowism, to give emphasis - in Surrey they would say 'most definitely'
ReplyDeleteRemember, spelling is a rough guide to pronunciation - the spoken word preceded the written version, or as musicians say, the music came before the dots ...
I'm afraid he can't pronounce 'th' either but now that you mention it - yes he does.
ReplyDeleteMy real pet hate is the destruction of the word 'awesome'.
This word is one of the few words that allow us to gaze upon the universe in wonder and be humbled by the immensity and incomprehensible nature of things.
Now a new flavour of bubblegum is 'awesome'.
I need anger management with that one.
Yep, awesome is long gone, Stevie - no way back for that one. But awful went the same way generations before that ...
ReplyDelete"Lose" getting mixed up with "loose" really fetches my caprine, and if I hear "I'm like" used instead of "I said" again, well, I may be forced to resort to admonition, contumely or even obloquy.
ReplyDeleteThe use of 'like' as a filler for expression is often thought to be a recent manifestation, but I remember it being in widespread use among adults in the late 50s/early 60s. It often goes with a use of the present tense to describe past events. I can accept it when it is forced on those who have not had the benefit of decent teaching and language skills, but it annoys me when it is picked up as a fashion accessory.
ReplyDeleteBut at the end of the day, getting angry about language is pointless. I accept usage shifts and vigour of expression, even if technically ungrammatical. Grammar/syntax is not a rule book - it is an imperfect attempt to describe the structure that speakers seem to abide by. It should be observational, not prescriptive.
What I try to protect is loss of distinctions and loss of meaning - and I do feel that those who make their living by words, by communication, should at least make an effort to get it right.
Know what I mean, like? (rising terminal inflection here)
I know, and agree, with your definition of Grammar/Syntax as observational not prescriptive, Peter. What is hard for me, as a confirmed logophile, is the loss of richness in the language, and the concomitant weakening of self-expression in our culture and our country.
ReplyDeleteWhile words have always been born, died, been reborn, or evolved, I don't think we have ever lived in such a period of reductio ad absurdum in our communications with each other. There are so many nuances of ideas that simply cannot be expressed or considered anymore by huge numbers of our population.
While renovating my abode a few years back, I encountered, under the layers of carpet and lino, an old copy of Glasgow's Evening Times. It is the sister paper of the Herald and has always been seen as the working-class equivalent of that formerly august publication.
The main headline was "Franco advances on Santander" - which will give you an idea of its vintage. The depth and breadth of ideas and vocabulary written within would put to shame the modern "quality" Press, and particularly the Herald. Practically every article would have been rejected by modern editors as "too complicated", "too analytical", or just plain "too clever."
Yet this was a paper, presumably comprehensible by ordinary working people, that boasted a circulation modern-day editors can only dream about. It's about time they reflected on the increasing poverty of ideas and language that they have presided over in our lifetimes and memories.
By their constant appeals to the lowest common denominator, they have dumbed-down the media, and, by extension, the educational expectations of the populace, to the point where flexibility and accuracy of thought (as permitted by the use of synonym, near synonym, and the exactitude of the mot juste) are virtually impossible for many. Not, I hasten to add, because of lack of innate intellect, but because of the lack of tools to develop and express said intellect. The incessant repetition of the same reduced vocabulary I hear everywhere, from the supposed late-night "intellectuals" to the "like"-bespattered conversations overheard on my daily bus-run,bears sad testimony to this.
Speaking as a "jumped-up" product of the working-class myself (first-ever in my family to be formally educated past 15 years of age), I am constantly dismayed at what so often appears to be a deliberate plot to keep us all "in our place."
It is very hard to combat the subtleties of entrenched authority without the tools to do so. Of course, part of keeping us "in our place", and a very relevant and contemporary part, is the campaign to keep us "too weak, too wee, and too stupid" to have a truly progressive, independent Scotland.
It is to the credit of so many Scots that, despite the attempts, subtle and otherwise, to keep them, mushroom-like, in the dark and fed c**p, they are still capable of saying, to cite the great Scots philosopher, Karen Dunbar, "Ah smell sh**e!" when the likes of Rennie, Moore, Milliband, and Cameron open their mendacious mouths!
What can I say, except that I agree, Bobelix.
ReplyDelete