BS: Sloppy use of language

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 01:33 PM

Last night at our (UK) folk club the MC said that in honour of our US guest spot the wine for the raffle was Appalachian Controlleé which I thought quite witty

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Noreen
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 01:20 PM

Glossy posters at a special event locally last weekend, advertised a peel of bells from St Stephen's church, and later on a display of Appellation dancing...

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 01:14 PM

. . .. and 'humungous'

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 01:06 PM

May I register my objection to the unnecessary and invasive neologism "horrendous"? The person who coined it was a wit: the next person to say it, a half-wit; and so on.

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: saulgoldie
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 01:01 PM

OK, then. Here we go! I'll add some of my own after I go for a bike ride on this splendid day. I'll give this thread 200, easy. And it'll go on for weeks, or more.

Yeah, sloppy language. Too many folks either never learned in the first place, or learned but don't GAS. Or they are taking too many of their cues from whatever we call "the news" and other widely disseminated forms of communication. Ohboy!

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 12:49 PM

Some writers now seem afraid of using the word "difficult", so that every difficulty has to be described as "challenging". While some difficulties can, of course, be regarded as a challenge, it would usually be more helpful and honest to admit that they are a challenge BECAUSE they are DIFFICULT.

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 12:39 PM

In the US, "exceptional" children are now those with learning disabilities, who were formerly described by the now forbidden "R-word," which originally meant only that their learning was extraordinarily slow compared to that of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 12:10 PM

Jim, Its hard to say where the writer was going with that without full context, but I would take that to mean that Einstein was eccentric as compared to other geniuses.

Kind of like,

Most basketball players are tall, but Shaq, at 7'2", was exceptional.

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 12:04 PM

We were waltzing up on my air hockey table.
So don't tell me that we were not able,
To be literally dancing on air!

One in ten grapes I ate
Oh how I love to decimate!

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 12:02 PM

"Exceptional"

If you say, "Most geniuses are somewhat eccentric, but Einstein was exceptional," I would take you to mean Einstein was not eccentric, that is, he was an exception to the rule.

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 11:59 AM

"Oh My Cod! Captain! The sloop is beginning to flounder! Skipper, Ship's Master, Commander, Pilot, Watch Officer, what are we gonna do?"

"Quit carping Mr. Cheney. The tide is ebbing higher, we will be         ebullient in no time!"

"Captain Bush! You are the best!"

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 11:58 AM

Oh, yes, the use of 'literal' to mean just the opposite. (Jim Dixon, of course, uses it correctly)

Songs do it too. In The New Tennessee Waltz, the writer says they were "literally dancing on air." Unless they were being hanged, 'tisn't likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 11:57 AM

At least half the time that people say "literally," they mean the exact opposite.

"This movie will literally knock your socks off!" I wonder what happens if you're not wearing socks?

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 11:53 AM

I am often annoyed by the overuse of "incredible" as a term of praise. People have gotten so used to hyperbole that they seem to have forgotten that the word has a literal meaning as well.

If you tell me an incredible story, I won't believe it. I will conclude that you are either lying, joking, or sadly deceived, and rather gullible to boot.

If a movie is advertised as incredible, I would expect some sort of fantasy or at least a comedy, with deliberately unrealistic plot elements. If an allegedly non-fiction book were termed incredible, I probably wouldn't want to read it; I would expect it to be full of cockeyed conspiracy theories and the like.

Most of the time, it is better to be credible.

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 11:36 AM

Happens all the time. Sometimes it's a good giggle "on-sight manager", for instance, but in a book or a 'permanent' presentation it is an irritant. I have seen numerous ones but the only one I can think of at the moment is where I read that the Hereford bull bellowed, "his black hide glistening in the sun".

Hereford cattle are red.

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: autolycus
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 11:33 AM

Defoe did have Crusoe swim out to the wreck of his ship naked, climb aboard and put some biscuits he found in his pocket.

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 11:31 AM

My personal bete noire..."decimate", which literally means reduce by ten percent, used as a synonym for "devastate".

Subject: RE: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 11:24 AM

I don't know what Clavell had in mind, but it's cvertainly possible for a ship to "flounder," at least *through* waves if not *under* them.

Subject: BS: Sloppy use of language
From: EBarnacle
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 10:41 AM

I have been annoyed over the years by the choices that authors and their ignorant editors make. [Yes, I have earned money as an editor.]

Clavell was exceptional in this. On the first page of Shogun, he has the mate telling the captain that their ship was going to "flounder." Others have committed this same error publicly. In Tai-Pan, he refers to one vessel as a sloop, gunboat, ship of the line and a flagship, which combination is clearly impossible. This all occurs within the space of two pages. Her captain is referred by several titles, clearly as a statement of contempt.

I am sure there are many others. Here's your chance to chime in.