I was appalled at the person who wittered on about the 'pornification' of the UK with the opening of a new Bunny club in London's Park Lane. Now as much as I'm not into Bunnys (although I think those one of our Wardens had are cute) I think the language abuse the woman railing against them exhibited was more concern-making!
Not since I struggled with the moronic language abuse that was 'gayification' have I been so appalled. Why, oh why, do people feel that they can take such liberties with our language, especially when they're British? After all, even though I don't like it, I do understand that Americans, not having English as their first language, feel they have the right to be creatively grammatically (and etymologically and linguistically) wrong as part of their culture (think that's the right word).
Wasn't my 'funnest' experience, that's for sure!
Pax
8 comments:
Wow! You certainly get your priorities right!
"...the language abuse... was more concern-making!
Not since I struggled with the moronic language abuse that was 'gayification' have I been so appalled."
If nothing that has come to your attention between these two examples of linguistic infelicities has got you quite so riled, how come you manage to join in the ineptitude with your own contribution, "concern-making"?
I find 'concern-making' on a few of the "authoritative' sites and it drives me bonkers (like 'impacted' , rather than 'has an impact on' or 'summariser' rather than commentator and many others.
I also struggle with the contrived coalescence of gender (a social concept) and sex (a biological consideration) and many other abuses.
Thanks for comments Rob,
Hope you weren't too discombooberated :)
A Summariser is distinct from a Commentator.
A commentator makes comments. A summariser gives a summary of the action.
Odd that they were all sports commentators until relatively recently. Not sure I see any sense in the definition given for the person who tells me isn't providing a summary but the chap who provides a summary of the day's political happenings probably could be called a 'summeriser' yet is a 'political commentator'!
Phew :)
I agree with you Vic, concern-making and the others you point at niggle me too!
Also dislike mass-protest
should have added to Rob that I was being ironic (friends sometimes call it sarcastic, enemies call it facile) with my use of the word - must stop doing that,
V
John Motson announces the action in the match while Mark Lawrenson makes sarcastic asides, or answers questions set by Motson.
Blowers gives a ball-by-ball report of the action while Geoffrey Boycott explains how he would have played that shot better, or how his mum could have caught that ball in her pinnie.
As far as I'm aware TMS has had this set up since the '50s.
Two distinct roles. Why should there not be two distinct names?
The man who summarises the political goings on is Hugh Edwards, the newsreader. He presents the facts. The political commentator would be Nick Robinson. He provides analysis, insight and opinion.
I'm not quite sure of your point.
Not sure why it is such a big deal either but let's continue.
With the football, wasn't that long ago that we were told that the match commentators were 'n' and 'n' and now were told that the summarisers are.
Role hasn't changed but the name has and seems to me that this is less functional and more ???
Hey ho
Post a Comment