The Groan has a comment piece on language and the paper’s style guide. Chris Elliott talks of the changing meaning of words over time and discusses those who try to hold back the tide.
One such is the use of the term “accident” to describe a collision on the road. Some object to the term as it implies that it could not be avoided by one or other of the parties involved. This is why for a long time the emergency services have used the term “incident” to describe them. It’s neutral and implies nothing other than a collision has occurred, so, yes, it is potentially more accurate. However, as the editor at the Guardian points out, people may well be to blame, however, they did not necessarily set out to cause the collision, so the term “accidents” is equally accurate.
Then we get the old gender neutral stuff so that the masculine pronoun is neutered to make it less offensive to the thin skinned.
All of which is all very well, but what about legitimate words that have been thoroughly corrupted to the point where their accurate and original meaning is lost entirely? “Liberal” being one such. Many of those who write for and comment upon the Groan’s CiF call themselves liberals, yet their expressed opinions are decidedly illiberal, indeed, positively authoritarian. Then there’s “libertarian” as described by the Guardianista, being the exact opposite of libertarian thought. More recently, we have seen people described as anarchists in this very organ – people who are rampaging through the streets, causing property damage in support of more government may be many things, but anarchists, they ain’t.
Then there’s those awful terms “left” and “right” – Right meaning anything from Satan himself to a mere racist. The Left, of course, being fluffy bunnies.
I’m all for style guides and accurate use of language, but it seems to me that the Guardian is the last place to look if you want to see it used effectively and, importantly, accurately.
—————————
Further to this, the BBC also has a piece on language. Their take is on the rise of webspeak. It was inevitable, I guess, that the acronyms used on internet fora and comments on blogs would find their way into the parlance.
Although I accept that language evolves, I can’t say that I am overjoyed that LOL has found its way into the OED. The use of such acronyms and emoticons is an attempt to overcome the lack of nuance inherent in the written word. I’ve experienced the phenomenon myself often enough to recognise the need. A slightly facetious comment is taken seriously and offence taken and a flame ensues. So the smiley is an attempt to stave off such reactions.
However, I cannot help but harbour the sneaky feeling that more accurate writing, more precise use of language and punctuation, along with improved comprehension skills on the part of the reader would eliminate many of the misunderstandings and make redundant those silly acronyms. I don’t use them – indeed, my use of LOL has not occurred prior to this (to my knowledge), because I try wherever I can to convey my meaning using the language as it is supposed to be used. I may not always get it right, but I’ll carry on avoiding webby acronyms wherever possible. Call me an old curmudgeon if you like, but I just don’t like ’em.
That’s what happens when the left starts f***ing around with the language.
Do I detect a slight hint of exasperation from the ‘Guardian’ chappie over the hectoring emails from the man with a bee in his fakecharity bonnet?
If so, good! Now he knows how we all feel…
You’re an old curmudgeon (LOL!)
I can’t remember where I read it, but I think the people responsible for the violence at one of the recent protests said it a justifiable response to the government’s violence in cutting public spending.
Yup- “reducing public spending a bit” = “violence”. Amazing how language changes if people don’t think about what they’re saying.
Emoticonese is acceptable to me in text messages because typing with your thumbs is tedious in the extreme, but now I’m even hearing it in spoken language. From undergraduates. In Humanities. Be afraid, be very afraid about the future of our glorious language. There is evolution (healthy) and there is Newspeak. And if you can’t speak or write a thought, the thought is as nothing.
Loved the comment pulling him up on using ‘we’ for something that many would most definitely disagree with. Great catch.
Yes, I liked that too. I often see the term “we” and ask myself just who this “we” is, because it doesn’t include me.
Another old curmudgeon here. I occasionally use the odd smiley, but that’s about it. One real gripe of mine is the almost obligatory use of “like” every few words by the “yoof” of today. I keep meaning to count how many times my nieces and nephews say this in a 5 minute period, and then ask them if they realise they are doing it.
I gather this is primarily an import from the States, but somebody must have started it there in the first place.
And on the rare occasions that I send a text from my 7 year old NEC phone, I take as long as needed to compose it with the appropriate capitals, and punctuation.
Problem is, though, that liberal and libertarian means different things to many different people. It does irk me though that when I say I’m a liberal they suggest I vote Liberal Democrat!
XX Further to this, the BBC also has a piece on language.XX
Strange how these things seem to be “themed” accross multiple outlets.
Almost as if it is a “Government directive of the week”.
Not that I am suggesting “Government controls the news outlets….of COURSE not! 😐
I’ve never used LOL. It’s vulgar.
Furor. I read somwhere many years ago that there has traditionally been one member from both MI5 and MI6 on the BBC board of governors.
Can anyone clarify this?