We have a rich and expressive language and therefore it annoys me intensely to hear people using it inaccurately. Two recent examples.
Firstly, the woman from Kent who was interviewed on the BBC news this morning. She has flown to the USA to support Michael Jackson in his hour of need because “I know he is innocent”. No. As someone who has never met or spoken to him, you cannot know he is innocent. You can believe it very strongly. You can hope desperately that it is true. But you can’t know it.
And secondly, our mightly leader trying to scare people again by talking about the dangers of terrorism. “They will cause death and destruction on an unlimited scale.” An unlimited scale? Unlimited? Think about it. That’s just nonsense.
What about the “This _will_ cause” part. Presumably then the death and destruction on the unlimited scale has begun seeing as it “will cause” rather than “may cause” or “could cause”.
The thing is, you’re judging linguistics against logic, which we were warned at A-level was a fatal mistake. (OK, you’re got me again, presumably you haven’t actually died as a result of your post!)It’s like the “double negative”, eg “I didn’t do nothing.” It’s quite clear what the meaning is, even though a strictly logical interpretation would come to the opposite conclusion.Bottom line: the language of rhetoric and political invective are designed to achieve a certain purpose, and whilst this might not be a purely technically accurate use of words, it’s more effective at achieving its aims.
Ian,You seem to being saying that it’s ok for politicians to exaggerate the facts (i.e. lie) because they are using some kind of poetical language. I think that politicians should be more careful than most in their use of words as they are more likely than most people to be held to account for them. See, for example, the 45 minute claims in the Iraq intelligence dossier.And use of the the double negative is simply incorrect English. Anyone using it should be assumed to be stupid.
Language in the media is full of meaningless hyperbole these days. I use a lot of hyperbole myself, but at least I try to keep it meaningful. :-)See also http://plasmasturm.org/log/117/And while we’re at it, what about triple negatives? I’m sure I didn’t never do nothing wrong with them. *g*
Dave,These aren’t very left-wing things to say! Are you sure you’re working at the Guardian and not the FT? When I did my A-level English language we were taught that language is “non-standard” as opposed to “incorrect”. Supporters of the double negative say it adds emphasis.I don’t think politicians should lie (which is why I’ll never be one!), but the “unlimited scale” example is a bit strange. Firstly, did he mean “unprecedented” and just say the wrong word. But even if he meant “unlimited”, the meaning that I would draw from it is simply that no activity is out of bounds as a target, rather than suggesting that all six billion people on Earth would be vanquished, before each neighbouring planet was then picked off.This is surely the beauty of language though, the way in which it can be made infinitely flexible. There’s More Than One Way To Do It, as I believe a wise man once said! (And for that his wife must be truly grateful.)
The double negative an indicator of stupidity? This is the kind of comment I simply can’t let go without comment. In fact I’d go as far to wager that you can’t honestly say you don’t use them yourself.And on the subject of the mangling of the English language I was most amused to hear a TV journalist yesterday speak of someone in hospital whose life was “literally hanging by a thread.”
Ok. It’s possible that I occasionally accidently use double negatives. But I’ll always correct myself if I notice.So let’s correct that to “consistant use of a double negative is an indicator of stupidity”. For example, if I was conducting a job interview and the candidate was using double negatives then that would be a very big mark against them.
What if they were Cockneys, and this was part of their regional dialect?