The Lemon Fool

UncleEbenezer wrote:

swill453 wrote:Then you get to the situation where something like "literally" loses its meaning ("he literally killed me"), but what word can you use when you do mean literally?

Have you ever considered how "literally" took on its meaning? I'd imagine it arises from the authority of the written word, in an era when literacy carried authority.

No, it seems it more from "letter by letter", i.e. "to the letter of the language".

Scott.

swill453 wrote:

Lootman wrote:A fun aspect of this is how so-called misused words can become common and so ultimately be "correct".

Thanks to a couple of US presidents I now often hear "decider" and "bigly" used.

"The use of "I could care less" in place of "I could not care less" is another.

Use the "wrong" word enough and it becomes "right".

Then you get to the situation where something like "literally" loses its meaning ("he literally killed me"), but what word can you use when you do mean literally?

I think people take this too literally.

swill453 wrote:

pje16 wrote:

UncleEbenezer wrote:"Decider" was routinely used in my childhood, half a century ago.

The only time I use it is when 2 team/players are level in, say, a best of five
it is the 5th game

Is there any other meaning?

Scott.

yep
A person who makes the decisions in a particular situation: The president is the decider in these matters.

pje16 wrote:

Lootman wrote:Use the “wrong” word enough and it becomes “right”.

I keep hearing “myself” and “yourself” instead of "me" and "you" from dunces and those who should know better,
that will never be correct

But words do change meanings over time, sometimes ending up meaning the exact opposite of their original meaning.

pje16 wrote:

swill453 wrote:

pje16 wrote:

UncleEbenezer wrote:"Decider" was routinely used in my childhood, half a century ago.

The only time I use it is when 2 team/players are level in, say, a best of five
it is the 5th game

Is there any other meaning?

yep
A person who makes the decisions in a particular situation: The president is the decider in these matters.

Yes, the 'new" sense of the word "decider" is to use it about a person, not a thing or event. As when Bush Junior declared that "I am the decider".

Or an Irish fellas asking 'for a glass of....' an apple flavoured refreshing alcoholic drink.

Things definitely change through use. Apparently the FT style guide has just announced that henceforth "data" is always singular, not plural - "the data shows that..." etc.

https://twitter.com/alanbeattie/status/ ... 2202291203

Scott.

pje16 wrote:

swill453 wrote:The day one of my, previously respected, work colleagues used the phrase "reaching out" non-ironically was when I decided I needed to retire.

Scott.

You've missed out the biggest cringe

Blue sky thinking

Nah, I'd nominate as a bigger cringe "You have two choices"...

NO I DON'T, I have one choice, with two options!!

You know, I sometimes feel that people insert needless phrases in their speech.

I do abhor the American "Nucular", though.

TJH

tjh290633 wrote:You know, I sometimes feel that people insert needless phrases in their speech.

I do abhor the American "Nucular", though.

TJH

that's George Bush

And another trend over the past few years.......
Someone being interviewed on TV.
Interviewer asks a simple question, like "Do you think nurses should get more pay?"
Interviewee: "Yeah, no, well, blah blah blah"
doolally

doolally wrote:And another trend over the past few years.......
Someone being interviewed on TV.
Interviewer asks a simple question, like "Do you think nurses should get more pay?"
Interviewee: "Yeah, no, well, blah blah blah"
doolally

I've seen an increasing use of 'Yes' as a response to a question which demands a descriptive answer.

I first noticed it when Bradley Wiggins answered questions after the 2012 Olympics. He was asked something along the lines of 'How are you feeling?' and he started his reply with 'Yeah...' followed by quite a pause. I think he then got round to actually answering it in some way or another.

But once I'd noticed it, I found it cropping up regularly, and it annoys me

swill453 wrote:Things definitely change through use. Apparently the FT style guide has just announced that henceforth "data" is always singular, not plural - "the data shows that..." etc.

https://twitter.com/alanbeattie/status/ ... 2202291203

Scott.

At uni in Sweden my supervisor convinced me (and "strongly advised") that I should treat data as singular when writing (even formally) in English.

His point was that it was sufficienly common usage that if I used it "properly" I would distract both camps of readers; it would confuse the camp who did not understand it was a plural, and the other camp that did understand were likely to notice I had got it right to the detriment of what I was writing about.

I took his advice as he'd properly learnt the language like and thought about it more that us what were just brung up on it.

staffordian wrote:I first noticed it when Bradley Wiggins answered questions after the 2012 Olympics. He was asked something along the lines of 'How are you feeling?' and he started his reply with 'Yeah...' followed by quite a pause. I think he then got round to actually answering it in some way or another.

But once I'd noticed it, I found it cropping up regularly, and it annoys me

Yeah but no but yeah but....

I suspect that the "yeah" is really just a gap-filler that's there to fill the space while the speaker thinks of something more substantive to say to the questioner. Especially when he/she is on camera. If you fail to come up with an instant response, the interviewer might just move the microphone on to somebody else, so you fill the void between your mental gear changes with anything that comes to hand.

And although the habit does seem to be getting more widespread these days, we all do it to some extent, and we always have. In Britain, we're likely to say "Well..." In German it would be "Tja..." And the French would throw in an "Oh" (or "Or"), or maybe a dozen other lazy Gallic interjections.

I'm as guilty as anybody. I once did a live TV interview that I knew was being transmitted coast to coast across North America, and when the (fairly random) questions came at me I used a fair few of those little space-filler words, just to keep myself in the game. When I replayed the video afterwards, it was a relief to see that I hadn't used too many "errrrs", but as a viewer I probably wouldn't even have noticed my momentary hesitations.

Like......

BJ

bungeejumper wrote:

staffordian wrote:I first noticed it when Bradley Wiggins answered questions after the 2012 Olympics. He was asked something along the lines of 'How are you feeling?' and he started his reply with 'Yeah...' followed by quite a pause. I think he then got round to actually answering it in some way or another.

But once I'd noticed it, I found it cropping up regularly, and it annoys me

Yeah but no but yeah but....

I suspect that the "yeah" is really just a gap-filler that's there to fill the space while the speaker thinks of something more substantive to say to the questioner. Especially when he/she is on camera. If you fail to come up with an instant response, the interviewer might just move the microphone on to somebody else, so you fill the void between your mental gear changes with anything that comes to hand.

And although the habit does seem to be getting more widespread these days, we all do it to some extent, and we always have. In Britain, we're likely to say "Well..." In German it would be "Tja..." And the French would throw in an "Oh" (or "Or"), or maybe a dozen other lazy Gallic interjections.

I'm as guilty as anybody. I once did a live TV interview that I knew was being transmitted coast to coast across North America, and when the (fairly random) questions came at me I used a fair few of those little space-filler words, just to keep myself in the game. When I replayed the video afterwards, it was a relief to see that I hadn't used too many "errrrs", but as a viewer I probably wouldn't even have noticed my momentary hesitations.

Like......

BJ

For sure
It's "phatic" communication, just time wasting.

The one that really makes me notice it is the sharp intake of breath from Orcadians or Scandis (often older women) that acknowledges they're listening to you - but sounds like disapproval from your weedgie mum

bungeejumper wrote:

staffordian wrote:I first noticed it when Bradley Wiggins answered questions after the 2012 Olympics. He was asked something along the lines of 'How are you feeling?' and he started his reply with 'Yeah...' followed by quite a pause. I think he then got round to actually answering it in some way or another.

But once I'd noticed it, I found it cropping up regularly, and it annoys me

Yeah but no but yeah but....

I suspect that the "yeah" is really just a gap-filler that's there to fill the space while the speaker thinks of something more substantive to say to the questioner. Especially when he/she is on camera. If you fail to come up with an instant response, the interviewer might just move the microphone on to somebody else, so you fill the void between your mental gear changes with anything that comes to hand.

And although the habit does seem to be getting more widespread these days, we all do it to some extent, and we always have. In Britain, we're likely to say "Well..." In German it would be "Tja..." And the French would throw in an "Oh" (or "Or"), or maybe a dozen other lazy Gallic interjections.

I'm as guilty as anybody. I once did a live TV interview that I knew was being transmitted coast to coast across North America, and when the (fairly random) questions came at me I used a fair few of those little space-filler words, just to keep myself in the game. When I replayed the video afterwards, it was a relief to see that I hadn't used too many "errrrs", but as a viewer I probably wouldn't even have noticed my momentary hesitations.

Like......

BJ

I was a member of a College Society, where newly inducted members were required to express their thanks "in a few well chosen but broken words". The speech ended at the first well, err or um. One lawyer went on for several minutes. Ideally on word was enough.

TJH

And so.....

How many times does one hear someone start a sentence with "So,...." Often politicians being interviewed will begin "So, what we are saying is....".

There have been interviews in which almost every response begins with this annoying little word.


Arb.

swill453 wrote:Things definitely change through use. Apparently the FT style guide has just announced that henceforth "data" is always singular, not plural - "the data shows that..." etc.

https://twitter.com/alanbeattie/status/ ... 2202291203

Scott.

Mildly irritating, but not half as gross as "datums" for a plural. Let alone pluralising words that are already plural!

But these aren't really affectations, they're abominations!

Arborbridge wrote:And so.....

How many times does one hear someone start a sentence with "So,...." Often politicians being interviewed will begin "So, what we are saying is....".

There have been interviews in which almost every response begins with this annoying little word.

Arb.

Ah, the ITV news people (Peston, Bradby, Hills, etc). Everything starts with "So..." or often "Look..."
Grrrr

--kiloran

UncleEbenezer wrote:

swill453 wrote:Things definitely change through use. Apparently the FT style guide has just announced that henceforth "data" is always singular, not plural - "the data shows that..." etc.

https://twitter.com/alanbeattie/status/ ... 2202291203

Scott.

Mildly irritating, but not half as gross as "datums" for a plural. Let alone pluralising words that are already plural!

But these aren't really affectations, they're abominations!

Yeah but fewer (given they are discrete) than half the listed affections have been
It's been folk getting stuff wrong or different

For a real... nails on a chalkboard... affectation in an English speaker I'll offer the "pause to prevent interruption"

We're tuned to the rhythm of our language and THIS affectation is intentionally designed to mess with the listener.. and specifically their chance of interjection
- I first noticed it in Tony Blair

It's pretty common now.

The UN... natural pause in... a sentence so that you... can breathe without letting some...one...get a word... in.

Obviously taught - much like my arteries when I hear it...

-sd

servodude wrote:

UncleEbenezer wrote:

swill453 wrote:Things definitely change through use. Apparently the FT style guide has just announced that henceforth "data" is always singular, not plural - "the data shows that..." etc.

https://twitter.com/alanbeattie/status/ ... 2202291203

Scott.

Mildly irritating, but not half as gross as "datums" for a plural. Let alone pluralising words that are already plural!

But these aren't really affectations, they're abominations!

Yeah but fewer (given they are discrete) than half the listed affections have been
It's been folk getting stuff wrong or different

For a real... nails on a chalkboard... affectation in an English speaker I'll offer the "pause to prevent interruption"

We're tuned to the rhythm of our language and THIS affectation is intentionally designed to mess with the listener.. and specifically their chance of interjection
- I first noticed it in Tony Blair

It's pretty common now.

The UN... natural pause in... a sentence so that you... can breathe without letting some...one...get a word... in.

Obviously taught - much like my arteries when I hear it...

-sd

This pause thing really annoys me. Even in situations where there's no prospect of interruption - news stories or documentaries for example - there will be pauses....and then a final emphasis...on the last.... TWO WORDS!

None of us talk like that in real life, so why do they do it on the telly?

The opposite of the pause - much favoured by politicians - is NOT to pause between sentences, again to remove the opportunity to interject.

Watis