Mutating Language
Friday, December 19, 2008
It sort of bothers me when people take a phrase and get it wrong, and then defend their wrongness. It bothers me even more when they claim that the language is changing and that I should "get with it" or somesuch nonsense.
Recently encountered howlers:
"that would be a bit of a damp squid."
- the word is "squib". Saying a squid is damp is...silly. Of course it's damp. It lives under water.
"Lip-singing"
- have you tried singing without lips? It's "Lip-synch", because you synchronise the movement of your lips to the playback.
"to be pacific"
- because you are not an ocean, and because you mean "specific".
"irregardless"
- double negative hell-word.
I think particular ire should be reserved for those who insist on propagating their ignorance and defying correction. I don't think we need go as far as pillorying, or burning at the stake, but I do think a rolled-up newspaper to the forehead might be instructive.
Of course, anyone using the word "irregardless" probably also uses the phrase "pro-active" and that's a shooting offence.
5 comments:
'...also uses the phrase "pro-active" and that's a shooting offence.'
I literally could not agree more.
I had yet another argument about the use of this so-called word at work yesterday - why people can't simply use 'active', what with it being both the correct and, more importantly, the more elegant word escapes me. Perhaps they think p*oactive sounds somehow 'more' active? Or maybe it's because they're idiots.
Although, phrase-wise, it's 'cheap at half the price' that gets me...
I keep ranting about this sort of thing.
What they want is a word that says "we were active before the need to be active" and there is a perfectly good word for this: "pre". The phrase should be "preactive" just like "prepare" and "previous". Basic etymology escapes most people.
It's also meant to be "cheap at twice the price" indicating that the price is so low, no word of a lie guv, that even if we wos to double it, you'd still be getting a really good deal.
Cushty.
'It's also meant to be "cheap at twice the price"...'
I think that's why that one bothers me so much - the most cursory glance reveals it's essential wrongness straight away, yet people keep using it. It's almost as if it's so blatantly wrong no-one notices - the phraseological equivalent of a Chris Morris interview?
I've noticed that Americans say 'cheap at twice the price' which is entirely to their credit. Although they then blow it by saying 'I could care less'...
But when you point out the contradiction they stop talking and stare at you in a sort of Midwich manner.
It's all very uncomfortable. I have learned to not make a fuss and just get on with it. Whatever "it" happens to be.
Of course, even the average American pales into insignificance compared with people who misuse the common apostrophe.
My personal problem (did i tell you i had a personal problem?) is with 'I could care less.' Which should be 'couldn't', which makes sense.
Of course this has been going on for centuries. I used to use gruntling to mean delightful, so that gruntled was the antonym of disgruntled, until i found out that those last two mean the same: disgruntled began as an emphatic form of gruntled. {sigh} I still miss my very gruntling occasions.
Post a Comment