It may be both historical fact and a feature of linguistic evolution that the young introduce new words including resurrection of old words as new (grotty and square have more ancient origins than Carnaby St in the 1960s).
In addition they may fulfil a pre ordained role in deploying existing words in novel ways. Both functions are useful providing they add to the array of communication tools at everyone's disposal. Certainly rejection of change on the grounds of unfamiliarity or youthful genesis is not warranted.
Some phrases which presently grace the market for oral communication do not however pass muster. Some of the young amongst us seem to feel the pre existing set of adjectives is not up to snuff and that a bit of re shuffling along with "more beats less" is the answer to this problem.
The result is the use of adjectival phrases such as "totally totally". Commonly, for example, the adjective "awesome" - which was formerly difficult to top, becomes "totally totally awesome". With an immense display of discipline in not questioning why it might be so, I note that frequent use of this expression is to be heard by those describing articles of women's clothing and hair cuts.
For these people too, the word "over" has apparently fallen down on the job as well and needs a little help. Thus it is possible for one to be "so over" this or that - a condition which is presumably that much more than merely "over" the phenomena in question.
Is this all that odd? Perhaps not. In many languages outside of English, notably those of the west, it is common to achieve emphasis of expression by piling on more words which lend weight. Thus adding phrases with a negative connotation is not poor grammar but merely adds to the strength of the original thought. Thus saying "not" in a sentence twice, in languages other than what Clouseau refers to as "the Queen's terng", simply increases the "not ness" of the sentence.
Not so in English. The Age of Reason saw to that. "I am not, not going to town" means I am going to town rather than I am definitely not.
There is logic either way here as far as I can see. But the current habit of "doubling up" adjectives - particularly when applied frequently, in numerous situations and when in doubt merely serves to make each and every one of the words impotent and arises through failing to understand the meaning of the original word. A similar sin in my day was to describe something as "particularly unique". Duh.
Hearing all this totally totally awesome hyperbole, all I can conclude is "Oh My God" or in a more textual form OMG.
In addition they may fulfil a pre ordained role in deploying existing words in novel ways. Both functions are useful providing they add to the array of communication tools at everyone's disposal. Certainly rejection of change on the grounds of unfamiliarity or youthful genesis is not warranted.
Some phrases which presently grace the market for oral communication do not however pass muster. Some of the young amongst us seem to feel the pre existing set of adjectives is not up to snuff and that a bit of re shuffling along with "more beats less" is the answer to this problem.
The result is the use of adjectival phrases such as "totally totally". Commonly, for example, the adjective "awesome" - which was formerly difficult to top, becomes "totally totally awesome". With an immense display of discipline in not questioning why it might be so, I note that frequent use of this expression is to be heard by those describing articles of women's clothing and hair cuts.
For these people too, the word "over" has apparently fallen down on the job as well and needs a little help. Thus it is possible for one to be "so over" this or that - a condition which is presumably that much more than merely "over" the phenomena in question.
Is this all that odd? Perhaps not. In many languages outside of English, notably those of the west, it is common to achieve emphasis of expression by piling on more words which lend weight. Thus adding phrases with a negative connotation is not poor grammar but merely adds to the strength of the original thought. Thus saying "not" in a sentence twice, in languages other than what Clouseau refers to as "the Queen's terng", simply increases the "not ness" of the sentence.
Not so in English. The Age of Reason saw to that. "I am not, not going to town" means I am going to town rather than I am definitely not.
There is logic either way here as far as I can see. But the current habit of "doubling up" adjectives - particularly when applied frequently, in numerous situations and when in doubt merely serves to make each and every one of the words impotent and arises through failing to understand the meaning of the original word. A similar sin in my day was to describe something as "particularly unique". Duh.
Hearing all this totally totally awesome hyperbole, all I can conclude is "Oh My God" or in a more textual form OMG.
Sometimes the sound of a phrase leads to the butchering of language. Long time friend and colleague Gary Swift has pointed out to me the increasing and increasingly irritating substitution of the preposition "of" for the perfect tense "have" in assertions such as "I could of scored a goal" rather than "I could have scored a goal".
I assume that this arises from running the words together such that the sound is something like "cudvvff".
I assume that this arises from running the words together such that the sound is something like "cudvvff".
10/04: More illusory language
Cameron Bagrie, ANZ Chief Economist on Morning Report when asked if we are entering a recession this morning:
“We prefer not to use the word recession because it can become a self fulfilling prophecy. N.Z. is entering a period of deferred achievement.”
No bloody wonder we are in a recession.
“We prefer not to use the word recession because it can become a self fulfilling prophecy. N.Z. is entering a period of deferred achievement.”
No bloody wonder we are in a recession.
17/07: Me Myself I
It used to be that there was considerable confusion over the use of "moi" as the French say and the perpendicular pronoun... as Sir Humphrey Appleby refers to it. Things have got worse....
08/07: Countables....
An irksome habit which grates is the increasing use of the term "amount" to describe situations where "countables" are involved. For example a large "amount" of people (number thank you), a smaller "amount" of people ("fewer" people or a smaller number thank you). This has become common and it may be a battle I shall lose. The rule is (or was) simply that where one can count the objects in question we use fewer, or we refer to a number. Where counting is not possible or makes less sense, for example the case of concrete (a large "amount" of concrete) we abandon "fewer" and "number" in favour of amount.
