When it comes to written and verbal expression most of us have our pet peeves. Here are a couple of ours:
1. The misuse of the adjective "historic". The dictionary defines "historic" as follows: notable, renowned, famous, famed, memorable, epic. A vast swathe of people, however, use the word in common parlance to mean something which has merely happened in the past. In other words, they are confusing the adjective "historical" with "historic".
For example, we read in the newspapers of "historic sexual abuse allegations", or "historic treaty claims" and the reference is simply to sexual abuse which happened a long time ago or treaty claims about injustices alleged to have occurred in the nineteenth century, not about something momentous. "Historic" is too important an adjective to be thus abused and misused.
2. A misuse of the adverb (or, preposition) "around". This has only recently come into modern parlance, but its mischief is now everywhere observed. Apparently we may no longer speak, act, or communicate directly. We can only do these things indirectly. We now have a conversation "around" a subject or topic, not about the topic. It would seem that in this politically correct world it is rude to be forthright and direct. One must be sensitive, oblique, indirect. So we now prefer to address topics by talking around them, whilst never coming to the point.
Here is an historic example: apparently some staff at a government department had not been doing their jobs properly. Their work was not meeting requirements. The following is a quotation from the NZ Herald:
CYF deputy chief executive Bernadine Mackenzie said the review found some staff did not perform. "We have entered into a (human resources) process with three staff. A small number of others are having discussions with management around their work."What on earth does that mean? That conversations with three staff were had whilst wandering around their office?
No comments:
Post a Comment