April foolishness and sagacity

[Little Jack Horner]

This is keeping me busy but it is nothing to do with words. On the other hand, it is very important and, as a frequent contributor to this forum, I hope I can be allowed some latitude to make an appeal to everyone.

In November this year, the UK government will be hosting the United Nations sponsored COP26 which will decide on global actions about climate change. Representatives from every government in the world are likely to attend. So, if you care about climate change and loss of biodiversity, now would be a very good time to write personally to your political representatives and make sure they know your views. Politicians can only take account of what you think if you TELL them what you think.

[Verbivore]

LJH: I've probably wasted enough ink to cause an environmental catastrophe writing to MPs in Oz yet we still have a government determined to ignore global heating while pandering to the coal industry. The pollies need to be forced to eat coal.

Now for something we’ve all wanted to know(?):
How to pronounce Zulu clicks.

[Twoddle]

Apr 7, 2021 8:28:34 GMT Verbivore said:

Apr 7, 2021 8:13:21 GMT Dave Miller said:

Sounds good, Vv. I must admit I’m happy to have retired, but feel no ennui as I’m far too busy!

Busy was my plan, but …

When I took early retirement in 2003 my plan was never to take orders from another human being (excluding the Contessa, naturally) for as long as I lived. So far it's panned out well.

I never wanted to work for a living in the first place.

[Verbivore]

Today I found two of my bugbears (so and going forward) being discussed in The Guardian Weekly (AU edition, 12 March 2021, Vol. 204 No. 12; p. 6):

DIVERSIONS page

Notes & Queries

Question

When and why did the expression "going forward" start appearing in conversation when it serves no purpose? Never mind where it came from; it has such momentum that there's no going back.
– posed by John Read of Auckland, NZ

Responses

1. So, "going forward" appeared in the same week that everyone on BBC Radio 4 began their sentences with "So".
– Peter Mourant of Jersey, UK

2. During the pandemic, used by those who could see they had no future.
– Penny Boydell of Stroud, England, UK

3. It started when we began moving backward in our language proficiency.
– Warren Thorpe of Melbourne, VIC, AU

I concur with at least two of those.

[Dave Miller]

Going forward has been a bugbear of mine for many years; it’s not (here, at least) the recent arrival that those Guardian excerpts suggest.

So is more recent, but has been around long enough to show that’s it’s sticking. And to really annoy me.

[Little Jack Horner]

We’ve muttered to one another about SO before, but it is no less meaningful than the now archaic WELL with which we of the older generation are wont to preface our casual remarks. But it is amazing how quickly SO has become universal. One might write a thesis on where and why and when it happened. 

I am reassured to know that my irritation about “going forward” is shared by at least some others around the world. I don’t know what was wrong with “in future” although I am told there is a subtle difference in that going forward suggests progress towards the future. To me, both imply not making any change at all.

A pet peeve of mine is “re-imagining” in sentences like “re-imagining the future of urban living”.

But I am not sure whether there is a word limit on this forum — a list of my pet peeves would likely exceed whatever it might be.

[Verbivore]

Apr 8, 2021 14:51:30 GMT Little Jack Horner said:

[…] I don’t know what was wrong with “in future” although I am told there is a subtle difference¹ […]

A pet peeve of mine is “re-imagining” in sentences like “re-imagining the future of urban living”.²

But I am not sure whether there is a word limit on this forum — a list of my pet peeves would likely exceed whatever it might be.³

1 I'm inclined to see that subtle (?) difference as the difference between using Plain English and paying exorbitant consultant fees for suggested ways to appear more modern, upbeat, trendy … .

2 I hold Architectural Digest responsible for that horror.

3 I'm sure we could pool our lists of loathings and turn out yet another infotainment language book to accompany those half-arsed many already on offer. Something light, humorous, perhaps in the spirit of Eats Shoots & Leaves.

[Little Jack Horner]

In my last post, I wrote, “a list of my pet peeves would likely exceed whatever it might be”.

Years ago, I would certainly have written, “...would be likely to exceed...”. Have I perpetrated a solecism?

And which is more to be expected: probably or likely?

[Dave Miller]

Apr 9, 2021 10:23:38 GMT Little Jack Horner said:

In my last post, I wrote, “a list of my pet peeves would likely exceed whatever it might be”.

Years ago, I would certainly have written, “...would be likely to exceed...”. Have I perpetrated a solecism?

And which is more to be expected: probably or likely?

It read normally to me and “likely” is recognised as both adjective and adverb, so no solecism in my view. I actually prefer “likely” in your sentence, as being for some reason more delicate/refined.

[Verbivore]

Interactive IPA Chart

If you use your pointing thing to select in quick succession each symbol, the pronunciations of the vowels in the first chart might resemble a chap having an unwell moment talking to the loo. (Perhaps that's why the colour green was chosen?)

[Paul Doherty]

I first came across "So, ..." in the question-and-answer sections of academic or technical presentations, where it was used by the speaker (who often had a microphone the audience lacked) to re-state a portly heard or badly phrased question. "So, you're asking if it's a sheep or a goat? Well in fact it's a llama."

Seems to have a use there, and I suppose people copy it in the hope of making themselves sound more erudite or considered?

I'm currently irritated by inedible being used as a meaningless intensifier, especially for thins that are in fact entirely believable or unremarkable or untrue. Effect has been superseded by impact, and now that has become in turn superseded by incredible impact.

I heard someone on the radio recently (not a phone-in) commenting on a survey that had apparently found the 60 percent of 14-year-old respondents, when asked "are you happy with your body?" has replied "No". Explaining what it showed, she said "So, we know that 60 percent of children are incredibly unhappy with their body-image ...". There's a lot there not to like linguistically, and I'm afraid I found it impossible to take her seriously after that, even though the subject is serious.

Right, I have to go now. I have to reach out to Microsoft Customer Support.

[Verbivore]

Viral language

Language is a virus – Laurie Anderson, lyrics

Language is a virus – Laurie Anderson, song

Language is a virus – William S Burroughs’s The Ticket That Exploded, in which he describes his idea of language as a virus

[Verbivore]

How is this for ugly?

From an article on ABC News:

[…] the results went far further than she imagined.

Had the author used (I'd argue, correctly) farther rather than further, he could have written “the results went much farther than she imagined”.

[Little Jack Horner]

Yes. It’s ugly. Or, as my former English language teacher would have said, “inelegant”. He insisted that “I have got a...” instead of merely “I have a...” was inelegant. Also, he disliked “lot” in phrases like “a lot of items”.

But I can never remember the difference between further and farther and, if I am writing rather than speaking, I try to avoid them both – or I have to check.

[Dave Miller]

I think "further" is now generally accepted as having (also) the meaning of (something like) "to or at a greater distance, in space or time". In order words, where you'd find "farther" to be less ugly, Vv.

So, perhaps for some people it's more elegant to choose "further", but by no means is that nowadays generally recognised.