Skip to main content

Language That Bugs Me



Although I am not a member of the "speech police," I am annoyed that the media has recently adopted usages that I find irritating. I know that the English language changes over time, but I believe that changes should make sense.
For example, Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary defines the word "troop" as: 1.) an assemblage of persons or things; company; band. 2.) a great number or multitude.
I usually think of a troop as a group of boy scouts, state troopers or military personnel. As a result, when I hear the talking head say that more than 100 troops arrived home today, I imagine that the docks were inundated with thousands of soldiers, sailors or marines pouring out of a long line of ships. But this is media newspeak meaning that 100 service members, possibly a troop, arrived home today.
Another example from Webster's: unique; 1.) existing as the only one or as the sole example; solitary in type or character. 2.) having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable.
Recently I read an article in the New York Times, describing the Boston Red Sox pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka as being, among other things, so unique that blah, blah, blah. I presume that the writer feels that since Matsuzaka is “uniquer” than anyone else, he is the “uniquest” of all. I have also heard a TV host talking about one of the “most unique” things she ever saw.
Now I realize that Matsuzaka is unique, and the host may have been describing a unique object, but neither one is more or less unique than any other unique object. One would think newspaper editors and TV writers would know better. If your object is the only one of its kind in the whole world, it's unique. Otherwise it's not.
Many people complain that they have a disorder that prevents them from enjoying the sensation of touch. At least that's what they are really saying when they use the phrase "I feel badly. . . " to indicate they have a sympathetic reaction to some bad news. In this case, “badly” refers to the sensation of feeling, and might be correct if, say, ones fingertips were sanded off so that no sensation of touching passed to the brain. The word "bad" in "I feel bad . . " refers to the speaker, not to his or her nervous system; it indicates the emotional attachment one means to express. The same is true of all other linking verbs such as taste, smell, etc.
Although often heard, remarks such as "A-Rod is better than any player in all of baseball," and "Sir Clyde of Lemon is better than any dog in the show," don't even make sense. To be true, both A-Rod and Sir Clyde would have to be better than themselves. Give me a break!
A southern drawl or a Midwestern accent is one thing, but mispronunciation is something else entirely. TV reporters take great pains to avoid an accent, so when I hear one say that one event “ummediately” followed another, I assume that the speaker has some kind of speech impediment. To pronounce the word as if the first letter were "u" instead of "i" leaves a bad “umpression.”
Apparently some people who should know better have a problem differentiating "pre" and “pro” from "per." I often hear statements such as, "The accident could have been pervented." Please folks, when you talk like that it “persents” all your old English “perfessors” in a bad light.
From time to time new figures of speech appear in ordinary conversation, but lately one has appeared that is completely useless: "I want to say: yada, yada, yada." If you want to say something, just say it. I will jump to the wild and crazy assumption you wanted to say it, and if you didn't really want to, I will allow you to go back and make a correction. Life is short, save your breath.
Lastly, I will very briefly mention the language of athletes: sentences such as "It's like . . . you know …. whatever."
Enough said.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

There Are Only Seven Jokes - Introduction

      The statement “There are only seven jokes – all the rest are variations,” has been around for a long time, but no one ever seems to know what the original seven are. I think I have found the solution to the mystery.       The answer is to be found in an article published in the New York Times on May 2, 1909. Entitled “New Jokes? There Are No New Jokes, There Is Only One Joke,” it goes on to say that all jokes are a distortion, and lists seven categories of distortion. Supposedly every joke will fit into one of the categories. I believe that repetition changed the seven categories into the seven jokes.       Each of my next seven blogs will be devoted to exploring one of the categories. In addition, I shall attempt to give an example or two of jokes which I think fit the category.       You must realize that this article appeared over one hundred years ago, so most of the jokes appearing therein are so out-of-date that modern readers wouldn’t even understand them. For example,

By Today’s Standards Many of my Teachers Would be in Jail

I started school in a two-room building: grades 1 to 4 in one room; grades 5 to 8 in the other. One teacher in each room taught all four grades. I don’t remember first grade very well – the teacher left at the end of the year. I am pretty sure it was not my fault. Now keep in mind that reading the Bible every morning was the standard for all grades at that time. But my teacher in grades two to four went a little above and beyond the normal practice. As a member of a “plain” sect, she considered it her duty to lead the little heathens to Christianity. She offered a free Bible to all students who managed to memorize 20 verses. I memorized my verses – “Jesus saves” was my favorite because it was the shortest – and got my Bible with my twenty underlined in red. That would be illegal today (not the underlining), and rightly so. Teachers may not teach religion, although contrary to what many folks seem to think, students may bring their Bibles to school, read them, and pray their
The National Anthem I have a somewhat minor pet peeve. I say minor because in the grand scheme of things neither I nor society will do anything substantive about it, so my best bet is probably to suck it up and move on. Perhaps after writing about it I can lay it to rest. It came up recently while I was working out at our Wellness Center. A program on television was playing America The Beautiful , and I remarked to a lady I have known for 40 years that I thought that should be the National Anthem instead of The Star Spangled Banner. She replied, rather huffily, I thought, “Some people think God Bless America should be the national anthem.” At that point I decided, wisely, I think, to back off before an argument sprang up. Now I realize that The Star Spangled Banner is a very nice, patriotic song, but an anthem it is not. According to Wikipedia, “ An anthem is a  musical composition  of celebration, usually used as a symbol for a distinct group, particularly the  nationa