Language and its abuse

[munruben]

I just like to keep it simple.

[AlexS]

..fewer and fewer journo's are getting it right, not less and less, grrr.

Cheers
Michael

My pet peeve.

[pawnhead]

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".

I don't have a problem with that. I'd say that's more defined by the number of decimal places that you give, rounded to the nearest full digit. Approximately 3 pm could be within half an hour if you're reading a sundial on a foggy day, or guessing when something happened. If you wrote 'approximately 3.00 pm' it's a bit ambiguous since it's on the hour, but it should imply that it's within half a minute either side. Pi is exactly 3.14159 correct to five decimal places, but computers can rattle of billions of decimal places that are still only an approximation within the nearest half decimal place.
Now I'm really being anal.

Decimate is also like that It means "reduce by a tenth" but has come to mean "reduce to about a tenth" or something catastrophic.

Interesting.

[Groggy]

There are times when you need words to have a single meaning, otherwise death will result. In aviation, the last thing you want is an air traffic controller that responds "cool" (or even "roger") to a request to land. Responses need to be precise. In medicine, I do not want someone making holes in me unless he can explain clearly what he is going to do, without ambiguity. Likewise, I expect him to have been taught by someone who also was very precise in the meanings of the words and terms used. We don't need to be precise all the time, but there ARE times when precision is necessary. It bothers me that children sometimes cannot grasp a very specific meaning of a word and, worse, think it is ok to butcher and diminish the clarity of a word because they do not have the vocabulary to use the correct one. We don't need to use the skills every day, in every conversation, although for those who use precise terms frequently it becomes a habit that is difficult to break. For some, it may be a habit that is dangerous to break. Some may wish to simply be pedantic, others pedagogical, but not all are pedants.

[MurrayD99]

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

CHeers
Michael

[silentC]

I expect him to have been taught by someone who also was very precise in the meanings of the words and terms used.

This is what makes me nervous when I go to a medical centre or hospital emergency room and see a doctor who has poor English. We took our daughter to Bankstown once - she was sitting in the bath and suddenly came over with the red rash and her face started to swell up! Panic stations. Raced her off, got to see someone pretty quick, but this girl was having trouble understanding us (don't know if she thought our daughter was related to Bert Newton or what). After a few minutes of this crap, I saw another doctor, grabbed him and told him what was happening - two minutes later she was getting an adrenalin injection. Sorry, but in those situations, understanding and being understood are very important.

[boban]

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.

Coming from a person who no doubt has the experience to back up those accusations

Maybe it depends on the colour of the client. You know, the lawyer can charge more with the yellow client, so he/she uses more words than they would with say for example the red client because the red clients are not so flush with funds. But it all comes from the same factory, sorry, firm. You have to believe me because my daughter used to work as a secretary in one of these types of firms

As to any language, the sole purpose is communication (as put by Tripper). The evolution of languages or the means of communication has no effect IMHO on the standard of the society within which we live.

I would have thought that morality, or lack thereof, would be a more relevant consideration in respect to the present thread.

For mine, the premise(s) set out does not lead to the conclusion drawn by LGS.

[AlexS]

Boban may correct me, but I believe that the verbosity that lawyers used to be guilty of (possibly not so bad now - I can understand my latest will) came about because of the need to avoid ambiguity the GregoryQ mentioned, and to avoid any challenge to their meaning. They used a formula of words that had a specific meaning that was accepted by lawyers & judges. What a pity no one else could understand it.

[silentC]

I can attest to that. I had an on-line argument with an ex-barrister once about my use of the word 'conspiracy'. He was complaining about something on a site I supported, suggesting that information had been intentionally suppressed, because all of the information pertaining to a certain individual was missing from the site. In fact the information was missing because the spelling of the person's name was causing an error in a parsing routine - it had an apostrophe. So I asked him had it ever occurred to him that it might be a system error, and not some conspiracy. Well didn't he bang on and on for pages about the legal definition of conspiracy. He was most upset that I'd used it in a sense that did not conform to his brainwashing

[wheelinround]

Coming from a person who no doubt has the experience to back up those accusations

Maybe it depends on the colour of the client. You know, the lawyer can charge more with the yellow client, so he/she uses more words than they would with say for example the red client because the red clients are not so flush with funds. But it all comes from the same factory, sorry, firm. You have to believe me because my daughter used to work as a secretary in one of these types of firms

As to any language, the sole purpose is communication (as put by Tripper). The evolution of languages or the means of communication has no effect IMHO on the standard of the society within which we live.

I would have thought that morality, or lack thereof, would be a more relevant consideration in respect to the present thread.

For mine, the premise(s) set out does not lead to the conclusion drawn by LGS.

Have a mate (was best man at my wedding 31 yrs ago) who's a solicitor, also having been through a compensation claim where I had to meet the barrister who stated such I guess that would mean yes they do charge as they feel fit.

See easy when you know how isn't it.

[silentC]

Objection, your honour, hearsay!

[Gingermick]

Americanisation of our language irks me a bit. Your Honour, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ours Your Worships.
And the word narcotic. Seems that the meaing has changed to illegal drug from sleep inducing agent. As in Reading Hansard has a narcotic effect.

[silentC]

Don't know, never been to court

They call circuit judges in the UK "your honour", I know that much. Rumpole fan here

[silentC]

Found this in Wikipedia: Magistrates are still addressed as "Your Worship" in Australia, South Africa and Canada, mainly by solicitors, but this practice in other Commonwealth countries is nearly obsolete.

[Gingermick]