skip to content

home about CACN about crich parish council search

crich area community news

Crich village cross

Why don�t they say what they mean?

�A wit, whose name I have forgotten, once described Americans and the English as two nations divided by a single language. It seems to me that the English nation is also becoming subdivided by the same language. Take for example sport-speak (an American term). Football managers, players and commentators often claim when referring to an upcoming (American) match they wish �to get a� result� when presumably they mean� win. Unless the match is abandoned there will always be a result. When a team wins two matches one after the other, �they are said to win �back to back matches�.�Why? What is wrong with the word consecutive? I have another problem with sports personalities with their� frequent references to some aspect of the game as��That�s what it�s all about�. A cricketer of international repute referred to taking catches whenever the opportunity presents itself, as what cricket is all about he seemed to have forgotten that bowlers and batsmen have some part to play in the game.
Another subdivision of the� English nation, and surprisingly one once thought of as the guardians of the language, is not immune from linguistic idiosyncrasy: the�BBC, specifically, Radio Derby Road Traffic reporters. I have to allow them the luxury of such statements as �The M1 is moving well in both directions�,� because we conventionally describe kettles as boiling when they are not, it is the water inside them which is, but I do wonder where both sides of the M1 are going. I object to the oft repeated statement that �The accident has been moved to the hard shoulder�. An accident is a random event. It is impossible to move an event � it just happens.
Another sub division of society populated by those people who gain profit from borrowing and lending money has developed a lexicon of words and phrases which have been designed to make their business sound too complex for ordinary mortals to understand, or to deflect any blame for the economic disasters� for which they may be responsible.�A phrase of recent origin, sub prime mortgages, is a particularly good example. Prime suggests the very best, subprime not quite the best. The latter was, as we all now know, money lent to house purchasers who could not afford to pay the interest on� the loan and whose assets� were worth less than the� sum� borrowed. Now these subprime mortgages are called collectively, by� the� same wordmongers, toxic debts. This suggests that the once cosy relationship between money lenders and borrowers has been poisoned� by an external agency over which they had no control, which is false. Do hedge funds provide protective enclosures against the vagaries of the market? Are venture capitalists more than gamblers? What is the difference between negative growth and loss? If as a nation we do not produce more, provide more services or harvest more resources, how can our �economy� continue to grow?
At the end of the day, and there is another phrase which is at �best ambiguous or at worst meaningless, English society is also divided by a single language.
Jim Eggleston