Assume v. Presume

It seems they want to go the German way with compound nouns - but this has been an ongoing trend, probably go as long as language. For example, even within a generation or two, "to day" has become "to-day" and now "today". What is to me a "hard-working head teacher" will be a "hardworking headteacher" to the next generation. We can lament it, and comment on it, all we like, it won't change a thing - just as no doubt those of the last generation scratch their heads over "today".

However, this is AvP, and I say "headteacher" is wrong!
 
Why has everybody who actually works for a living suddenly become hardworking? Call me Dave has got a lot to answer for as well.
 
Trev said:
Why has everybody who actually works for a living suddenly become hardworking? Call me Dave has got a lot to answer for as well.
Click to expand...

It's the constant devaluation of superlatives through over-use, particularly by the media.
Like 'hero'. That used to be someone who showed exceptional bravery (though stupidity might be a better description in a few cases), but these days seems to be applied to anyone doing a remotely risky job - regardless of the fact they chose it and get paid for it.
(Sorry, pet rant :oops: )
 
I once got criticised for calling someone competent at their job rather than brilliant. I used the word I meant to use as it was the one that in my view was the accurate one.
 
It will probably get taken over by Weatherspoons and turn into a giant space bar. Happening a lot these days.

(in response to #1400)
 
I have devised an alternative (and potentially more accurate) expression for PC (standing for political correctness or politically correct). How about RA - reputationally astute.
 
Second, third or fourth?

On the news today, Brasil is playing for third or fourth place in the world cup. We know Germany is better than them, but do we know that Argentina is? Brasil could be second. Since when did third and second mean "top four, but not 1st or 4th?" What is happening to our language?:eek:
 
Mike0001 said:
On the news today, Brasil is playing for third or fourth place in the world cup. We know Germany is better than them, but do we know that Argentina is
Click to expand...
It is is pretty clear that they are. What we don't know is if Germany is better than Holland.
 
It doesn't matter who is the better of two teams. It's which one scores the most goals that counts.
 
Mike0001 said:
Second, third or fourth?

On the news today, Brasil is playing for third or fourth place in the world cup. We know Germany is better than them, but do we know that Argentina is? Brasil could be second. Since when did third and second mean "top four, but not 1st or 4th?" What is happening to our language?:eek:
Click to expand...
This isn't a language problem, it's an interpretation problem.

I was surprised that the 1st and 4th seeds met in the Wimbledon final - if the seeding system had been implemented properly, the 1st and 4th seeds would have met in the semi-final (presuming they each won their matches up to that point). Apparently the Wimbledon tournament only puts 1st and 2nd seeds into separate halves of the competition, and the rest is done by draw. Regardless, assuming the best player/team win at each stage, in a knock-out tournament it is only possible to conclude that the winner is the best player/team overall - the losing finalist is not necessarily the second best, and the losing semi-finalists are not necessarily the third and fourth best.
 
And if the best player retires from their first round match through injury then not even the winner is the best.
 
In any competition it's the best player at the time that (should) win - a player who is forced to withdraw is clearly not the best player at the time. Competitions that are subject to judging rather than unambiguous application of rules are clearly an exception (eg figure skating, synchronised swimming, diving, ballroom dancing...) where the opinion of the judges can be influenced by previous form.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top