BS: Language Pet Peeves part II

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 03 Jul 26 - 07:20 AM

Has the abominable abusage of "optics" in the Press ....

I can't say that I've noticed it myself. Could you give a couple of exampies, along with your preferred alternatives, please?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Jul 26 - 08:38 AM

It's been used for decades stateside. (Some will say, "I should have known!")

I first noticed it in the '80s - possibly earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: meself
Date: 03 Jul 26 - 10:46 AM

"The optics of this don't look good!"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 03 Jul 26 - 11:02 AM

"The optics of this don't look good!"

Which means?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Jul 26 - 11:27 AM

"What is a good call back number?"

I'm always tempted, and sometimes respond "I'll give you a bad number."

That question is poorly worded and has spread through the call center world. A better way to ask might be "what phone number can we reach you at during business hours" or "what is the number to reach you in the evening" and let the party clarify home or business or cell.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Jul 26 - 12:38 PM

Except "What's a good call-back number?" gets right to the point without any unnecessary qualification or time- and breath-wasting extra syllables.

Of course, "What's the *best* call-back number?" is even more to the point, but anyone smart enough to use a phone would automatically give the "best" number if there's a choice to be made.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Jul 26 - 01:35 PM

I thought about "best" as well, but it still implies there is a worst number, that you have a less-good number to use. (I do have a number I give to people I never want to hear from, it's on Google Voice and I can check that account for stray messages or important calls that arrive there, but I have it set not to disturb so I never hear it ring if anyone calls.)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: meself
Date: 03 Jul 26 - 01:59 PM

Back to "optics" - e.g., "Whether or not there's actual corruption, the optics aren't good." In other words, the "appearances". But, to my mind, the term "optics", as it's (mis)used, has slightly broader connotations than "appearances"; it suggest different angles, views, and devices, as well as calculations and (mis)uses ....

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 03 Jul 26 - 03:00 PM

Thanks for the explanation. I'll keep a lookout for examples in the future.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Jul 26 - 03:34 PM

This is no more rational than anything else on this thread, but I cringe whenever I hear a TV news person call the Presidential Oval Office the "Oval."

Presumably people who work in the White House have been saying this since shortly after the first version of the office was added to the building in 1909, but I can't say it went national before G. W. Bush, if then.

The office really is oval, so what bugs me about the usage is clearly a symptom of neurosis.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: meself
Date: 09 Jul 26 - 01:19 AM

Here's one from the 'crawler' under a national TV news broadcast tonight: "Most livable North American city in the world is in Canada" .... !

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves part II
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 10 Jul 26 - 10:14 AM

.... Hm: calling the Emperor's blingosphere "The Oval" just ain't cricket.