Results 16 to 30 of 118
Thread: Language and its abuse
-
29th October 2007, 06:07 PM #16
We don't need wordsmiths.
Why is it important they get it spot on? As long as they make sense
It seems more so to me, that the importance behind using words that few rarely use (filling paragraphs full of shyt that can often be summed up with just a couple of sentences) is to keep up appearances, or to sound clever to keep that all so important reputation strong etc.etc.
Pretention. Competition. manipulation. Puffing your chest and sounding important.
-
29th October 2007, 06:31 PM #17
Absolutely.
Each word has a meaning, and it is no less important to use words correctly than it is to make a piece of furniture correctly. A badly constructed sentence is like a table that still has the machining marks on it: people may know what it is, but they'll assume that the maker was unskilled.
-
29th October 2007, 06:49 PM #18
-
29th October 2007, 07:07 PM #19
Tripper, this is my point. In an effort to appear to be a "superior being" people add words that are superfluous to their language and as a result, the meaning of words is corrupted and debased. Good language gets the point across in the least number of words with the greatest amount of meaning and impact.
In the case of unique, if you can qualify it with superlatives, what word do you use to define something without peer or equal?
-
29th October 2007, 07:13 PM #20
-
29th October 2007, 07:32 PM #21
or peerless?
- Andy Mc
-
29th October 2007, 08:29 PM #22
Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending upon where you stand, the more of an education you have the more words you have at your disposal. This means that using the right word for what you are trying to say may seem pretentious to others. But then "dumbing down" could also be seen as patronising.
I know that in my case I don't take much notice of the standard of language. Wild Dingo's posts, for example, are a bit wild, long and erratic, but he's a very smart fella whose posts are well worth reading (if you have the time ).
I'd extend those same sentiments to you and your posts, Tripper.
-
30th October 2007, 01:32 AM #23SENIOR MEMBER
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- Sydney
- Age
- 64
- Posts
- 882
Saying "peerless" is basically saying the same thing as "unique" except with a more defined spectrum. In general usage it would imply that you're talking about the best/biggest/strongest etc., and it implies a performance component. With 'unequaled' it could also imply the worst/ least, but it's still a measure of volume. You're fingerprint is unique, but I wouldn't call it peerless or unequaled. It would be superfluous to use 'uniquely' as an adjective with these two terms, and vice versa.
'Unique' doesn't imply performance/volume and any superlatives should add a different dimension, e.g. 'uncompromisingly unique' if you've just developed a new Festool that's the best product that (lots of) money can buy, and you've spared no expense developing it.
You could also say 'devastatingly unique' if you were talking about a bird flue virus that's mutated to being able to infect humanity on a wide scale.
-
30th October 2007, 02:08 AM #24
That's me.
I don't have any recognised teaching qualifications nor any bit of paper that says I have any academic knowledge of the English language.
And I teach English to Japanese people every day.
So what's your point here?
Schtoo.
(Who makes a hobby of picking the faults in 99% of the English language text books written by people with acknowledged qualifications in both English and teaching.
But since I don't have a bit of paper, what the #$!%^& do I know... )
-
30th October 2007, 05:33 AM #25
Shtoo,
I'm sorry. I missed out an important part of the anecdote. A number of these people spoke English as a second language themselves and were not very good at it. I believe some standards were introduced as a result of this. I realised as soon as I'd posted that I was implying that one must have qualifications to perform a function. This is obviously not always correct.
Regards,
Rob
-
30th October 2007, 06:58 AM #26
The newsreaders (or those who script them) are as much to blame as anyone. I'm forever hearing them report an historical win.... at a week of (identical) presentations recently I went mad hearing one presenter reiterating again why something was important. It grates. They's just thick. They's contaminating the language. I'm gone....
1st in Woodwork (1961)
-
30th October 2007, 07:31 AM #27SENIOR MEMBER
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
- Location
- Nicholls ACT
- Posts
- 0
It does matter when words mutate. Not so much when they have completed but it can cause confusion during the period - especially if you know the first meaning eg "approximatly" used to mean as close as you could measure ie approximately 3.00 pm on a watch would mean 1/2 a second either side. Now the common meaning is more like "roughly" or "about". Decimate is also like that It means "reduce by a tenth" but has come to mean "reduce to about a tenth" or something catastrophic.
Pusser
-
30th October 2007, 07:36 AM #28
-
30th October 2007, 07:47 AM #29
I'm sick of hearing about :
maximums and minimums on the weather, police who fail to locate a person - it's find damnit. To locate is to place, as in locate a dowel in a hole or locate a nuclear power station in Canberra.
things that are in close proximity, it's just proximity
and fewer and fewer journo's are getting it right, not less and less, grrr.
Cheers
Michael
-
30th October 2007, 08:19 AM #30
I am sure in another guise I have read much of this thread before.
Solicitors/barristers/judges used to be the worst for wasting words and they were made to dumbdown for a better term if you like.
More so it was due to the fact that you pay for his (sorry their) services and the more words they can squeeze in the more they get paid as they charge by the minute.
Similar to jeno's and authors of some books many being student required reading or text books lines of explanation turned into incomprehensible tounge twisters.
Bookmarks