Thursday, June 11, 2015

Modern English as it is mangled

Just because English is a fast-evolving language does not mean we have to put up with every new usage. Here are some of the more ghastly examples. I hope this will not be the first in a series.

What was wrong with giving? Does gifting actually denote anything different? Does anyone ever use this word in day to day speech?
"Darling, have you wrapped up all the things you are gifting this year?"
"I'm off to the shops for some serious gifting"
"Oh God, I'll be so glad when I can see the back of all this gifting"

No, I've never heard anyone say anything remotely close to these phrases, either.

In an email, BBC Publications, who really should know better, suggested pre-ordering one of their  magazines. You cannot pre-order anything. You either buy it outright or you place an order. The order will then be fulfilled. If the product is not in stock, you should be given a delivery date. Your order still stands whether in stock or not, the contract is based on the premise that delivery will be in a reasonable time in relation to the product and fair expectations.

The term pre-order is never used in business to business, where it is normal for goods not in stock to go onto back order for delivery as soon as they become available. I cannot see why this term is now used in retail, unless it is meant to be shorthand for "We want you to pay now but we don't have the goods in stock so we're going to sit on your money" in which case it should be replaced by "Prepay" and then everyone would know where they stood. If you are registering your desire to obtain something as soon as it becomes available and have not paid, and will not be charged until it is sent out, then you are ordering the product. Not pre-ordering. 

It is interesting that where you order a service in advance, such as airline or theatre tickets, you are not invited to pre-order. The phrase here is "book".

An Americanism which appears to have no discernable meaning at all. Funk, in English, means fear or cowardice. Funk in America used to mean a form of "music" involving excessive use of the amplified electric bass guitar and men shouting "huh, uh" at every opportunity to denote how cool, up-to-date and sexually desirable they thought they were. But the adjective funky gets routinely applied to anything you wish nowadays. It was even used to describe a kitchen featured on a "You're too lazy to go house-buying so we'll ferry you around and film you going "Wow" a lot so as to make a cheap TV programme" TV programme the other day.

I don't know if some users believe the word to be a bowdlerised form of a well-known four letter swear word, or, if some do, whether there is an Irish form called fenky but if not it can only be a matter of time.

When you phone almost any commercial organisation, you will be asked to make selections from a menu, then they will play three minutes of music at you and then you will hear a recorded message telling you that "They are experiencing a high volume of calls but one of their advisors will be with you shortly".

By "advisor" they suggest an experienced, reassuring person in a business suit, hired specifically to answer your call, who will calmly and efficiently deal with your enquiry. But you will, when you are finally connected to a real person, talk to an ordinary employee who works for the organisation and who routinely answers calls directed to them by the automated switchboard. They do not advise their employer. They do not advise you. They are not advisors.

Second hand. That's all it means. Someone owned the object before you. Whether they loved it or loathed it is not relevant. If you want it, you want it and if not, not. End of discussion. 

If a young bird fledges from its nest it is a normal event in the natural world. But if it is filmed for a nature TV programme the fledging will be described as a "drama".

Another TV misuse. If a popular comedian visits a part of the country on some trumped up excuse to fill up a six part series, she will be described as being "on a mission to...." do whatever is going on. Or it could be a well known business person dispensing advice to failing entrepreneurs. Or a singer teaching amateur choirs. Or a gardener espousing a particular form of gardening.

Leaving aside the religious aspect of the word, the essence of a being on a mission is that someone has required you to go and do something. Therefore it cannot be anything to do with a TV programme for nobody can be really tasked with doing anything in the world of TV; they have obviously consented to it, on the advice of their agent, and signed a contract for a nice fee, a book deal and a decent share of any spin-off adverts or feature films.

 I suspect that such shows commence in the office of a production company with someone staring up at the sky, folding their hands behind their head and saying in a reflective way to someone else who is half asleep after a long lunch
"How about we get Joe Blow to go to China to find the world's most talented panda?"
"Sounds promising" responds the second replete executive "But what would be the, ah, motivation?"
"Joe Blow is on a mission. No other reason needed. No further research required. One easy fee for him and an easier one for us"
"Excellent. What's for dinner?"

It is, if we wish to nitpick a little, possible to have a self-imposed mission, in the same way that I am sometimes impelled to check out if there any nuts left in the packet we started last week and so go on a mission to the kitchen to see, but then they should come clean about it. "Joe Blow is off to China because he felt like having a damn good holiday paid for by the TV production company he happens to own a half share in" - something like that would be refreshingly honest.

Let us end with a hearty round of abuse for this ghastly phrase, so beloved by politicians that it is used ad nauseum. I worked for over 40 years in the UK, paid all my taxes, continue to live here and intend to go on doing so. But I am not working now. Does this disqualify me as a voter, or mean I no longer have any claim to any benefits to which I may be entitled? No. So why go on and on about hard-working families when what they mean is "the British public"? Or do they? You see, that's the problem with these stupid phrases, dreamed up by speechwriters and image consultants. How long before we have a distinction between "the hard-working", the "easy working" and the "non-working"? If you work "hard" should you pay less tax? No, hold on, hard work is normally identified with earning more so paying more tax. Unless you are head of a large business and can base yourself somewhere like Jersey.  It's confusing. Politics should be simple and clear. I don't want to hear any more about "hard-working" people. Just "people", please.


No comments:

Post a Comment