Language matters! And don't you forget it.

[Ransonwrites]

Polemic... rant, call it what you will. It's been bugging me for some time and it's past time I vented it so I can get on with life. So here goes.

I pay attention to language, how it's used, how it flows, how both word choice, and peculiarities of grammar and punctuation, can be used to compose linguistic music, to imply meaning and create subtexts within a passage of prose that otherwise makes no direct reference to them. This is a great strength of language and a great boon to those who can master it.

Thus, I get very annoyed when I hear stupid and wilfully ignorant distortions of spoken English from people who are intelligent enough, and sufficiently educated, to know better.

This isn't simply a case of things like pronouncing hospital with a 'k' in it: the blame here lies squarely with one's parents for inculcating their child from an early age to mispronounce a word. Such bad habits are almost impossible to defeat in later life and I'm grateful for an upbringing that didn't saddle me with such a burden. My own parents never indulged in baby speak, for example. Hospital was always pronounced correctly. But don't get the idea they were some sort of education fascists! They used whimsical language, too. They simply used proper language. Doggy, for instance, contains the correct form 'dog' and as an adult I can make the choice to drop the 'gy'. This is not so with "hospikul".

But this is not my chief grievance. I am incensed by two very common and recent examples, in particular. These are the words 'impact' and 'lay'.

Rant Number 1.

I am gut sick of hearing 'impact on' all day every day. Impact on. What does this mean?

Well, the speaker is trying to say something that would otherwise involved the use of the word 'affect' or 'effect' but for some reason that I cannot fathom, fails to choose between either of these perfectly good words and, instead, finds a completely inappropriate word and slams it into their sentence as if hammering a square peg into a round hole.

But where is the confusion that led to this?

Affect is a verb meaning 'make a difference to'.

Effect is a noun meaning 'a result' or a verb meaning 'to bring about a result'.

But if that's too much to easily remember (and I sympathise, honestly: I use grammar but hate studying it) then try this useful mnemonic:

The action is affect; the end result is effect

I have underlined 'a' and 'e' to illustrate how the mnemonic also contains clues to remembering it, correctly.

So why oh why... oh why... do I have to listen to the constant use of 'impact on' all day?


Rant Number 2.

Why do people say lay when they mean lie?

For example, "I will lay down and look under it." When uttered by a native english speaker who has completed their formal education, this can only be a gross and inexcusable misuse of the past participle in place of the correct present tense, "lie".

"I will lie down and look under it."

Simples! But for some reason it is now taboo to use the word "lie" to mean anything other than a falsehood, and I can't get my head around it.

I can just about understand some confusion when it comes to the present continuous forms: lies and lying. I can see that some people would question whether the spelling of lying is correct as it isn't a very intuitive spelling. But I don't think this excuses the wholesale abandonment of "lie" and the resulting grammatical mess it results in.

And why does all this matter?

English, used well, is a beautiful and poetic language full of deep meaning and clever subtleties. But if we start 'dumbing it down' because we, as speakers of it, can't be bothered to remember (or to go and look up) the correct forms we will all be impoverished - those who speak will be unable to give voice to their thoughts accurately, and those who listen will be unable to hear them.

Mike's Law of Accurate Language #1:
The dumbing down of language is directly proportional to the intellectual diminution of the speakers of that language.

But before you accuse me of being a language Nazi and of ignoring the fact that language evolves, and that English is the most mongrel language of them all, let me first say that no, I am not and I do not. Then let me point out my use of 'dumbing down' in the paragraph, above.

When 'dumbing down' first came into being I was deeply uncertain of its merit, and categorised it alongside 'sex it up' as a journalistic buzz phrase that would probably die out in short order (opps... sorry... in keeping with the new rules of language I should have said "... would probably day out in short order.")

But it didn't die out. And now I appreciate it because it brings new meaning. I cannot simply substitute 'dumbing down' with 'simplified' or even 'over-simplification' because these last two words don't have the same meaning. Dumbing down provides a new dimension that 'simplified' doesn't have: it suggests an agenda on behalf of those accused of dumbing a thing down, and this is entirely in keeping with 'dumbing down's origins as a political and journalistic phrase.

Supplanting perfectly good words like affect/effect with 'impact on' adds nothing at all, and only weakens 'impact' in it's own right.

Playing silly games with tenses because the speaker is, for some inexplicable reason, reluctant to use the word 'lie' is just ridiculous and pointless and, apart from being incorrect and making the speaker look ill-educated, also destroys the poetic value of the sentence.

Here is a hasty and simplistic, yet illustrative example of the point I tried to make right at the beginning of this essay:

Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
I can't say lie because of the impact on you.

Grrr...

I shall now go and have some caffeine.

 

[HareBrain]

I shall now go and have some caffeine.

You mean you wrote that *before* caffeine?

I wouldn't of thought that was possibule.

Things like that annoy me too. But I'm wary of being too critical, because sometimes I get anti some new language development that I later end up preferring (though I share you dislike of "impact", which must have been coined by someone making a business presentation who was desperate to make it seem as exciting as a disaster movie).

 

[The Bluestocking]

Am slightly speechless after reading your rant

Would you mind coming round to tutor my students (ages 10 - 15) as they do make these basic mistakes? (And yes, I have been correcting them repeatedly.)

 

[Ursa major]

I expect 'impact' is used so often because it's a hit word.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

In defence of impact, within management roles (which often refer to impact on) it is a recognised control/review mechanism, but the impact should have been set at the beginning as a target to be achieved. So, whilst the sentence itself may not isolate the impact or what it's to happen upon, the wider context will have.

(Sorry, anoraks'r'us. I'll go and sit in a small corner and work out the impact on my wip of my planned pov changes. )

 

[Kylara]

Eugh I feel your pain. I get grumpy at people about language. Mainly "would of" instead of "would have" purely because they can't be bothered to remember what the contraction in would've is from...also "on the weekend" instead of "at the weekend" that one really annoys me. It really does, and I am surrounded by it every day.

Another I have issue with is the whole so and so and me/I use (subjective and objective pronouns), but I allow people that and correct them with an explanation as for most people they just have not been taught which one is correct when. For example it is so and so and I if the sentence works without the so and so and is the subject. But it is so and so and me if both are necessary and together you are the object. But that is a whole different issue regarding education about grammar...

 

[barrett1987]

Would of and would have are something that word auto corrects for me. I say Would of every single time though its obvious would have is the correct use. I think its my accent/area. West London. Working Class.

 

[Toby Frost]

Someone's got to mention "Politics and the English Language" so I might as well do it now. Consider it mentioned. I would add that accents are one thing - you can't really help what accent you grow up with, and not everyone is Received Pronounciation and nor should they be. I'm sure the very mention of it makes some of the regional nationalist movements wild with rage. It's a fine line, because very slack use of spoken English can make you sound like an idiot, no matter your accent. The misuse of words in writing, and in formal speech, is more severe.

I seem to run into quite a bit of management-speak, and I've come to the conclusion that one of its main purposes is to make banal observations seem complex and important. A simple question like "When will this happen?" can be turned into "Moving forward, what's the timeframe for progressing our objectives towards a deliverable solution?", which has a technical, clunky, exciting feel like American army jargon ("Tactical spec black special recon ops ghost team - go!").

 

[Mr Orange]

hmmm, whilst i have an intense dislike of baby talk, and agree with your second rant (although i'm not sure i have actually heard it used very often), i don't think your first rant is valid...

looking up "impact" in numerous dictionaries brings up a secondary definition:

influence; effect

so it seems it may be appropriate to use instead of effect.

of course its overuse in every day language is another matter entirely

 

[Hex]

"Moving forward, what's the timeframe for progressing our objectives towards a deliverable solution?"

I want you to know that I am screaming. And screaming.

(And not just inside my head)


The impact thing is beloved of UK funding councils also, so it has become almost invisible in my world's normal-speak.

 

[Brian G Turner]

"Moving forward, what's the timeframe for progressing our objectives towards a deliverable solution?"

That depends upon the team's synergy on actionables.

 

[HareBrain]

I say Would of every single time though its obvious would have is the correct use. I think its my accent/area. West London. Working Class.

I've never heard you speak, obviously, but I think most people speak it as "would've", which is how the confusion arose. I'm guessing you don't pronounce it "would of" where the "of" rhymes with the first part of "bovver"? (Or do you? I'm genuinely interested.)

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I want you to know that I am screaming. And screaming.

(And not just inside my head).

I have no idea why. It all made perfect sense to me.

That depends upon the team's synergy on actionables.

I used to play management bingo to while away long board meetings. You've won a prize!!!

 

[The Bluestocking]

The impact thing is beloved of UK funding councils also, so it has become almost invisible in my world's normal-speak.

"Impact" is also a word that is part and parcel of the nonprofit/social enterprise world where I spend my working hours. In this case, it generally means "measurable proof that you're making a difference in the lives of the folks you aim to help." Industry jargon and suchlike...

 

[The Bluestocking]

"Moving forward, what's the timeframe for progressing our objectives towards a deliverable solution?"

I admit to being guilty of using "moving forward", "timeframe" and "solution" as a legacy of my days working in the corporate world.

 

[Kylara]

but I think most people speak it as "would've", which is how the confusion arose. I'm guessing you don't pronounce it "would of" where the "of" rhymes with the first part of "bovver"? (Or do you? I'm genuinely interested.)

The people I hear actually say "would" and then "of" (ov) as a separate word, if they said it with the contraction then I wouldn't mind so much, but the emphasis placed on the "of" (ov) infuriates me no end).

Also with accents, I have a friend from "up north" who seems incapable of pronouncing the "th" sound. Which is fairly annoying, but it is how the accent where she grew up taught her how to say three. And it is easy to tell what word she is saying. So free and three sound close enough to their respective "correct" pronunciation that understanding her has never been a problem. As someone with an actual Hampshire accent, I seem to spend my days mucking my accent about to not stand out as a "posh idiot" who is purposefully making them sound bad. The sad fact for me is the only people who don't bat an eye at my actual accent are in my polo club, many of whom have a stronger Hampshire accent than me and fully embody the "toff voice" category

 

[Devon.Q.Ly]

The action is affect; the end result is effect

Cool, to this day I have never fully understood the difference. Good to know.

 

[Mirannan]

Cool, to this day I have never fully understood the difference. Good to know.

Just to muddy the waters even more. "effect" can in some circumstances be used as a verb as well. AFAIK, "effect a solution" is correct. And "affect" can be used as a noun as well, although usually only in psychology.

 

[Mouse]

Sorry, can't be bothered to quote people. Just general comments...

At primary school my teacher always used to correct my use of 'would of' by scoring out the 'of' and writing 'have' and giving absolutely no explanation whatsoever. I always used to think but I say would of! It wasn't until I realised I wasn't saying would of, I was saying would've that it clicked. Ever since then, people using of instead of 've irritates me. I'm sure that, like with me, nobody's bothered telling them they're not saying 'of.'

Regarding 'free' vs 'three'... I once made a clock during woodwork at school and, for some reason I can't remember, I didn't have a number three. I remember asking my woodwork teacher if he had a 'free' and he did not have a clue what I was saying to him until he worked out I was talking about my clock.

I also recall my (very posh) old boss at the hotel where I used to work taking the Michael out of the way I'd say 'cottage.'

What bothers me the most is the your/you're thing. I don't even understand how people don't know that one.

 

[Laeraneth]

Small and curious note: my brain just seems to interchange the -f- and the -th- sounds at will on a few specific words (free/three being one pair of them). I've always been aware of it, various people have mentioned it, I KNOW exactly what I'm saying, but there just seem to be a hazy area in my speech centres that can't be bothered to use the right sound at the right time.

It's kind of frustrating (which I have never pronounced with a -th-incidentally)

Now I think (which I'm 99% sure my mind just 'mouthed' as a -f-) about it, I'm pretty sure it's only -th-'s being replaced with -f-'s (but not ALL of them)

Darn it...