Author Topic: When did  (Read 1513 times)

Offline Holders

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 7377
  • Non sumus statione ferroviaria
Re: When did
« Reply #40 on: June 11, 2019, 09:55:13 AM »
'Immersive' experiences (probably 'curated' just for you).  These are over-used rather than wrong. 

'Passionate', 'existential', 'evidence-based' :  all over-used, and I'm not entirely sure what 'existential' means.

'Amazing', 'awesome' :  both mean 'quite good'. 

" . . . and much, much, more" means, "We have listed everything and there is nothing else".

"Yeah, no" is often used in responses by sportspeople when being interviewed.

I've also noticed that 'question mark' is used in spoken reports, etc., when the word should be 'question'

Language is fascinating !

I think of 'existential' with a type of philosophy, Existentialism, associated with the post-war era, and the 50's, with the likes of John - Paul Sartre sitting in Parisian  cafes  drinking coffee and talking about individual freedom and the meaning of life, while smoking  strong fags, but today it just seems to mean 'existing'. An existential threat is just an existing threat, I think.

Nothing to do with Existentialist philosophy anyway, I don't think, which has confused me, and jars with me a bit.

But, as you say language is fascinating, and evolves all the time.

The tendency today seems to be to use a lot of flowery words, as you say, when simple language  would convey your meaning far more clearly. I prefer prefer straightforward, precise language. Why use existential if you just mean that something exists, for example?


I've understood an existential threat to mean a fundamental threat to the existence of something. E.g. climate change is an existential threat to the polar ice-caps.

Offline RaySmith

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 5744
Re: When did
« Reply #41 on: June 11, 2019, 10:20:09 AM »
Why not just say a threat to their continuing existence?

Offline Holders

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 7377
  • Non sumus statione ferroviaria
Re: When did
« Reply #42 on: June 11, 2019, 02:24:35 PM »
Why not just say a threat to their continuing existence?

Less words?


Offline Fulham1959

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1918
Re: When did
« Reply #43 on: June 11, 2019, 03:36:06 PM »
Why not just say a threat to their continuing existence?

Less words?

Or fewer words.

Offline Holders

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 7377
  • Non sumus statione ferroviaria
Re: When did
« Reply #44 on: June 11, 2019, 05:07:33 PM »

Offline abfg

  • Lakey/Dark Room
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: When did
« Reply #45 on: June 11, 2019, 06:07:11 PM »
People saying yourself or myself as a polite version of me or you. They mean different things!!


Offline ALG01

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 477
Re: When did
« Reply #46 on: June 11, 2019, 10:42:31 PM »
the oft used
revert back
should just be
revert
because revert back is a double negative

Offline kiwian

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 317
Re: When did
« Reply #47 on: June 12, 2019, 05:02:13 AM »
You are not wrong.

Offline LittleErn

  • Lakey/Dark Room
  • *
  • Posts: 92
Re: When did
« Reply #48 on: June 12, 2019, 11:17:26 AM »
I'm with you mate. I can only say we probably said an say things our parents thought the same,
Classic example my daughter , lived in OZ for 23 years now and on the deli counter sham asks can I get some cheese , prawns etc , not can I have.
VERY ANNOYING.

Precisely, like beginning replies with "so", instead of "well". That's crept in over the last few years as well and I even hear adults saying it.

Agreed wholeheartedly - to me it is condescending, as if what is about to be said follows automatically and must be self-evident. If you need time to gather your thoughts say "Well...".
« Last Edit: June 12, 2019, 11:19:12 AM by LittleErn »


Offline Holders

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 7377
  • Non sumus statione ferroviaria
Re: When did
« Reply #49 on: June 12, 2019, 11:34:34 AM »
I'm with you mate. I can only say we probably said an say things our parents thought the same,
Classic example my daughter , lived in OZ for 23 years now and on the deli counter sham asks can I get some cheese , prawns etc , not can I have.
VERY ANNOYING.

Precisely, like beginning replies with "so", instead of "well". That's crept in over the last few years as well and I even hear adults saying it.

Agreed wholeheartedly - to me it is condescending, as if what is about to be said follows automatically and must be self-evident. If you need time to gather your thoughts say "Well...".


Indeed.

I even saw a serious written piece today that even began with "so".

Offline Fulham1959

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1918
Re: When did
« Reply #50 on: June 12, 2019, 01:23:58 PM »
I'm with you mate. I can only say we probably said an say things our parents thought the same,
Classic example my daughter , lived in OZ for 23 years now and on the deli counter sham asks can I get some cheese , prawns etc , not can I have.
VERY ANNOYING.

Precisely, like beginning replies with "so", instead of "well". That's crept in over the last few years as well and I even hear adults saying it.

Agreed wholeheartedly - to me it is condescending, as if what is about to be said follows automatically and must be self-evident. If you need time to gather your thoughts say "Well...".


Indeed.

I even saw a serious written piece today that even began with "so".

That's a double 'even' !

There could be a great variation on the old Hughie Green Yes/No game :  the person would get gonged-out if they started a reply with "so".

I long to hear a radio interviewer say, "Before I ask any questions, could I please ask you not to start any of your replies with the word "so" ?

Offline Fulham1959

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1918
Re: When did
« Reply #51 on: June 12, 2019, 01:32:36 PM »
the oft used
revert back
should just be
revert
because revert back is a double negative

Not a double-negative.  It's 'tautology' or, as my English teacher called it, 'redundancy' :  "a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words".

Another example is "return it back" when "return" would suffice.  Actually, it's a combination of "return" and "take-it-back", so maybe not pure tautology.


Offline Jims Dentist

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1057
Re: When did
« Reply #52 on: June 12, 2019, 01:37:35 PM »
We've smashed it------------AAAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Offline abfg

  • Lakey/Dark Room
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: When did
« Reply #53 on: June 12, 2019, 07:34:41 PM »
I'm with you mate. I can only say we probably said an say things our parents thought the same,
Classic example my daughter , lived in OZ for 23 years now and on the deli counter sham asks can I get some cheese , prawns etc , not can I have.
VERY ANNOYING.

Precisely, like beginning replies with "so", instead of "well". That's crept in over the last few years as well and I even hear adults saying it.

Agreed wholeheartedly - to me it is condescending, as if what is about to be said follows automatically and must be self-evident. If you need time to gather your thoughts say "Well...".

I was told I was condescending once. That means talking down to people.

Offline Woolly Mammoth

  • Cliffy Dean
  • ****
  • Posts: 23124
  • Not one step back.
Re: When did
« Reply #54 on: June 12, 2019, 07:54:33 PM »
I'm with you mate. I can only say we probably said an say things our parents thought the same,
Classic example my daughter , lived in OZ for 23 years now and on the deli counter sham asks can I get some cheese , prawns etc , not can I have.
VERY ANNOYING.

Precisely, like beginning replies with "so", instead of "well". That's crept in over the last few years as well and I even hear adults saying it.

Agreed wholeheartedly - to me it is condescending, as if what is about to be said follows automatically and must be self-evident. If you need time to gather your thoughts say "Well...".

I was told I was condescending once. That means talking down to people.

My boss once told me I intimidate my co-workers, so I stared at him until he apologised.