I have not yet heard anything as egregious as, “Me went to the theatre last night; a friend gave I the ticket.” But it will happen. It is already as common to hear an assertion that something “cannot be underestimated” (when stressing the importance of something) as it is to hear the correct usage.
If this sort of thing makes you stroppy too, I recommend the list of 51 commonly misused words that I found in the Sydney Morning Herald.
Yesterday Mrs SG and I went to see a filmed telecast of a performance of Peter Grimes by the ENO (English National Opera). The tickets were much pricier than for an ordinary film, even though the production cost must be much lower – after all, the live audience is paying to see the show and the telecast just involved setting up a few cameras.
The singing, acting and staging were superb, as one would expect from the ENO. But we could understand no more than one word in twenty. They might as well have been singing in Swahili.
Opera singers are trained to use their voices like musical instruments, to produce beautiful sounds and express emotion. This apparently precludes clear enunciation of words. So I will contact the cinema and suggest that in future they ask for copies of such films that have English subtitling.
In fact Mrs SG and I often turn on the subtitles when we’re watching TV, especially during American shows which have more shooting than singing. So I reckon operas should always, always have subtitles or surtitles. Does anyone agree with me?
All languages evolve and we English-speakers claim to be proud of the speed and agility with which our language does it. We have a word for almost everything, usually half-a-dozen at least. If we lack a word we pinch one from someone else – pied-à-terre, schadenfreude and bimbo come to mind.
But sometimes something that’s just plain wrong gets used so often that, through usage, it becomes right. That’s not useful evolution. That’s just plain ignorance working hand-in-glove with sloppiness. I’m thinking of two egregious examples at the moment.
The first is ‘begging the question’, which means ‘including the conclusion of an argument in the premise’. Nowadays it is much more commonly used to mean ‘causing the question to be asked’. According to Wikipedia (to whom I urge all users to donate money from time to time) the misuse arises from a change in the meaning of the Latin word petitio over time.
The second is harder to understand. People are saying ‘one cannot underestimate…’ when they mean ‘one cannot overestimate’ and vice versa. I’m not sure how this has crept into the language, like a mischievously misplaced apostrophe, but I suspect people think they’re saying ‘one should not underestimate’.
One cannot overestimate the harm that is done to clarity of thought and expression by the misuse of language. I beg my readers not to join the ignorant herd of misusers.
It being a new year, I have resolved to bare my soul to my readers. Within reason anyway. When I’m at home and alone, and if it’s not too cold, I do without clothes. This sometimes leads to mild embarrassment, as when I went out to the clothes line and met my neighbour walking near the invisible boundary between our properties. We smiled in silent greeting. I had never seen her before and I never saw her again.
On another occasion I was baking an apple crumble (my favourite food) and I heard a bell ring. I quickly pulled on shorts and a tee-shirt and opened the door. No-one there. As you’ve probably guessed, it was the oven timer.
“Hold on,” I hear you say, “This is not the kind of serious stuff we expect from StroppyGit!” You’re right. It is just a clumsy introduction to commenting on a nuance in the English language. Is there any difference between ‘naked’ and ‘nude’? Almost all European languages make no distinction, but I think English does. ‘Naked’ implies vulnerability, shame, helplessness. ‘Nude’ is proud, self-confident, empowered.
Or am I talking bunkum? How do you use the words?
StroppyGit 