|
Post by Verbivore on Nov 6, 2021 19:29:33 GMT
Thanks for that link, LJH. There is some interesting history on this well-known piece of mnemonic doggerel.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Nov 8, 2021 2:57:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Nov 9, 2021 0:25:19 GMT
I sympathise with the feelings of the author of the report about problematic words. I have my own collection of words which I would like to see abandoned at least in their newer meetings. agency latency incredibly sustainable re-imagining going forward friends and partners in Europe stakeholders Incredibly it’s just another word for very, sustainable usually means unsustainable and “friends and partners in Europe” — well, really!
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Nov 9, 2021 0:44:12 GMT
From that list, LJH, my pet hate is going forward. Whatever happened to in (the) future? Going forward is biz-speak bulldust.
I share your scepticism of sustainable, probably because it's done to death by politicians.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Nov 9, 2021 10:15:39 GMT
I watched Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence this evening (yes, it takes me a while to get to popular culture) and noticed in the credits a style I'd previously not seen: P.O.W's.Why no period after the W? (I was pleased to find the comma of direct address in the film's title.)
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Nov 11, 2021 10:48:02 GMT
Everything today seems to be a solution: logistics solutions, planning solutions, pollution solutions … and now, heard on a British documentary on the building of London's Super Sewer, a problem has become a solution opportunity. I think that's a load of shite.
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Nov 11, 2021 13:04:08 GMT
The use of the word “solution“ is not so new was all that although I agree that it has become more common recently. I recall, more than 30 years ago, having a debate with the IT manager at my workplace. He was accountable to me at the time and arrive one day with a “solution”. I hadn’t been aware that there was a problem which required a solution but he was enthusiastic and suggested a problem which he could solve.
We debated it for quite some time and eventually he acknowledged that it was “IT speak” but I think that was only to shut me up without saying it out loud.
It’s on a par with “your call is very important to us” and “we are currently dealing with a high number of customers”. Most people I talk to find such language irritating and I am surprised that the people who record these messages haven’t realised that yet.
I am only slightly less irritated when estate agents’ house particulars refer to the property as “nestling” somewhere in the countryside and to it’s “boasting” some fairly ordinary feature.
Of course, I could fill several posts with examples of things that irritate me – it is, I suppose, a “function” of old age.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Nov 12, 2021 11:14:10 GMT
Don't get me started. How about, "Thank you for gifting us the opportunity to reach out to you"?
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Nov 12, 2021 11:41:39 GMT
Don't get me started. How about, "Thank you for gifting us the opportunity to reach out to you"? Groan!
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Nov 12, 2021 11:43:33 GMT
[…] I am only slightly less irritated when estate agents’ house particulars refer to the property as […]
… a home! They sell houses, not homes!
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Nov 12, 2021 12:45:19 GMT
This series of short talks about the Irish language may be of interest. It was originally presented as a Zoom meeting but I didn’t mention it before because I know the aversion that some people have to using Zoom. Here it is in a slightly edited version on YouTube. It is one of the few occasions when I have seen Irish pronunciation alongside Irish spelling. And then people complaining about English spelling!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFEqqw6f4x4&list=PLt_XradIp-myGuKol5CY2e2QTCWGIm_sb&index=9
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Nov 13, 2021 22:48:58 GMT
Silly use of an initialism Benjamin is an LGBTQIA+ man […]
While I have less of an issue with describing a community with the inclusive alphabet soup LGBTQIA+ I do take issue with its application to any individual. Though I identify as gay or queer, I cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as LGBTQIA+ when I'm only the G and/or the Q. There is no way I could be described as L(esbian), T(ranssexual), I(ntersex), or A(sexual). To describe individuals with that tag is ridiculous, but I've been unable to convince even many of my PC peers of that; they seems stuck in an ideology rather than reason. As a consequence of the silly misapplication, and of the ever-increasing letters added, I can now only use the initialism facetiously, thus: LGBTQIAC/DC+.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Nov 13, 2021 23:14:02 GMT
I thought the “Q” was “questioning”.
I’m “G”ay, and therefore no longer “Q”uestioning!
I too am one of the people supposedly included as ingredients in the soup, but am distrustful of it. The problem seems to be that there is no simple single word or short phrase to encompass the concept of “those who don't fit the rigid traditional view of sexuality”. Apart from not fitting, and therefore in like manner suffering the frictions that that produces in society, there is actually very little that adheres the elements.
I can’t think of any other example in English that recognises a gap in the vocabulary, but fills it with a series of initials.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Nov 13, 2021 23:44:25 GMT
The initialism is fraught, Dave.
According to some, the Q is for Questioning while for others (including yours truly) it's Queer. Similarly, the A can stand for Asexual or Ally (as in a non-gay supporter).
My squeeze once answered a new acquaintance's question as to what he was (meaning sexuality-wise), it was with "I am me". (Of course this pedant might prefer "I am I", which sounds odd, but that's another matter.)
In the '60s in AU queer was commonly used (deprecatingly) in the expressions queer as a three-pound note, queer as Christmas, and queer as a row of pink tents at a Boy Scout jamboree. (The last of those also had the variant camp as a row of pink tents at a Boy Scout jamboree.)
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Nov 16, 2021 12:19:44 GMT
>>LGBTQIA+ man<< For what it’s worth, I agree with Vv about the notion that the above initialism should not be applied to an individual. Perhaps if one inserted a small case ‘or’ before the A it might make sense? Or one might go the whole way and adopt A-Z and be done with it?
|
|