Language and its abuse

[JDarvall]

If the wordsmiths can't get it right, what hope is there for anyone else?

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.

[AlexS]

Isn't "unique" a word to define something that stands alone and has no peer?

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.

[JDarvall]

: people may know what it is, but they'll assume that the maker was unskilled.

so where does one go from there ?.... badly written = what ? ...... a person you don't want to associate with ?

Its sounding like snobbery to me.

[LGS]

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.

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?

[Groggy]

In the case of unique, if you can qualify it with superlatives, what word do you use to define something without peer or equal?

unequalled?

Ok, ok, I'm leaving.

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

or peerless?

[Rossluck]

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.

[pawnhead]

In the case of unique, if you can qualify it with superlatives, what word do you use to define something without peer or equal?

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.

[Schtoo]

Wheelin, its a universal pheomenon, not a local issue. In the '70's people with no qualifications in English or teaching made a good living teaching English to Japanese students. Some were illiterate in English and so, what the students were taught was, in fact drivel.

Regards,

Rob

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... )

[LGS]

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

[MurrayD99]

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....

[Pusser]

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

[mic-d]

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....

You're just grumpy he was talking about RSA's win in the rugby world cup

CHeers
Michael

[mic-d]

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

[wheelinround]

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.