And another thing (or three).............

 
I love language. I find words and their etymology fascinating.
 
I wonder how many of the words and phrases we all use from day to day once seemed ridiculous or 'lazy', or appeared to be nothing more than contemporary 'buzz' words.
 
Language obviously evolves. Over time, slang words and phrases become mainstream and accepted, as do foreign words, technical terms, acronyms and even brand names (for instance, we all 'hoover' the carpet nowadays). At the other end of the scale, some words become archaic, and eventually obsolete.
 
I would assume all languages have similar histories (and indeed, futures) but the English language seems to be extremely fluid. It has a history not only of evolving, but of absorbing and naturalising words from other 'modern' languages, and words and phrases that have their roots deep in Latin and Ancient Greek.
 
Watching the Olympics earlier, I was amazed to learn that athletes (in this case it was cyclists) no longer 'cool down' or 'stay warm' immediately after an event. They now 'warm down'. To me that sounds all wrong - I know exactly what the process the phrase is describing is, but 'warming down' doesn't really say it properly. One might suppose that before a race, they might 'cool up'?
 
And so-called celebrity chefs have a lot to answer for. They no longer 'shallow' fry anything (as opposed to 'deep' frying) - they now 'pan' fry stuff. And they don't simply 'fry' anything anymore. No, nowadays an item of food is 'fried off'.
 
And none of these chefs and their minions 'clean' the kitchen and utensils after cooking. They don't even clean 'up' after themselves. They now clean 'down'.
 
And the one I cannot understand for the life of me is how you Americans 'could care less' about things. I'm assuming you say it to mean that really, you 'could not care less'? I mean if you 'double negative' the phrase 'I could care less' you end up with 'I couldn't care more'.
 
Or maybe (as someone once explained to me) it's that the intended meaning is implied by the inflection placed on the word 'could'? There always seems to be a slight but deliberate pause after the word - almost as if the could'nt or the could not part of the phrase is still there, but not pronounced. It's as if the phrase is knowingly uttered sarcastically - you're saying the exact opposite of what you really mean? I'd be fascinated to know if this is true, as I know it bugs the hell out of James
 
And speaking of 'bugs', the word should not be used as a generic word for all insects and other creepy-crawlies. And never (usually in the singular) to either the bacteria or viruses causing an infection. In taxonomy a 'bug' is defined as a species belonging to the order Hemiptera.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I've noticed a change in my lifetime.

The letter 't' and the 'th' sound both seem to be disappearing from the spoken word. I thought it was just a habit among the younger generation (maybe aping the way their heroes like David Beckham, and the cast of EastEnders speak) but it now seems prevalent across the  age range.

Instead of 'this and that' we're hearing 'dis and dat'.

Or instead of 'The thick youth thought about three things' we get 'Da fick yoof fort about free fings'
 
I don't fink dat's particular clever. But who am I to say? I'm just the thucking grammar police
 
 
 
And another thing - can anyone tell me why the young and trendy people no longer type 'I texted...' but insist on the truly appalling 'I have text...'
 
 
 

Nice post Steve. Things do creep in and become part of the norm, but that doesn't stop me being eternally irritated by them. 

'Can I get'..instead of 'could I have' that really gets my hackles up..i.e. ''Can I get a can of coke?''. I always want to say, no you can't get it, the guy serving will get it for you'' 


Mind you, my Mother-in-law always asks people to 'fetch' something rather than 'bring' it, and she's old enough to know better.

It has a history not only of evolving, but of absorbing and naturalising words from other 'modern' languages, and words and phrases that have their roots deep in Latin and Ancient Greek.

A lot of Indian words in the equestrian world -  'gymkhana', 'jodphurs' 'numnah'.


Oh yes, and all those politicians with their 'first priorities'.. It's either the priority, or it isn't...


..and don't get me started on 'have' being replaced by 'of'..should of, would of, could of...I mean, please..it makes absolutely no bloody sense..stop it.

Don't we have this debate every few days now?

I've so gotten over it by now I'm going to set this one out.

I'm going back to watching another of Team GB's teams podium after succesfully medalling.

Nothing wrong with that either.

Didn't we get some medalling after the pedalling?

I can live with 'wanna', but 'alright' can send me over the edge. 

I think I enjoy the nuances of the language more because of a long love of solving (and setting) cryptic crosswords, where word-play and alternate meanings litter every puzzle.

The most satisfying clues to solve (and compose) are often the 'pure' cryptic types, where we are unwittingly and laterally led up the garden path until the penny finally drops.

Cryptic puzzles are well known for being scrupulously fair to the solver, despite the atrocious amount of trickery and decepion employed by the setter. In other words, there must always be the correct and sufficient amount of information in the clue to allow it to be solved.

This maxim for fair play was famously stated by a setter using the pseudonym 'Afrit' (Alastair Ferguson Richie) and is known as Afrit's Injunction.

It runs along the lines of: "We must expect the composer to play tricks, but we shall insist that he play fair. The Book of the Crossword lays this injunction upon him: "You need not mean what you say, but you must say what you mean." This is a superior way of saying that he can't have it both ways. He may attempt to mislead by employing a form of words which can be taken in more than one way, and it is your fault if you take it the wrong way, but it is his fault if you can't logically take it the right way."
A few of my favourites:

• A stiff examination? (4,6)
• A number of people (11)
• A bar of soap? (3,6,6)

 
Or maybe:

• A wicked thing? (6)
• A jammed cylinder (5,4)
• Presumably one doesn't run after it? (4,5)
• He was rushed almost from the start (5)
• 014? (6,5)

 
 
 
 
 
 

This fred is like.......... so lame.

It's like........totally random.

Sounds like this SteveStrummer needs to get wiv da times, yeah ?

Hes like just totally wasted my time. He should of spent the time he spent righting this doing sumfin else.

Sum people are just to sad, innit ?

jamesg1213


Interesting how the word 'cool' has been adopted by every generation since the 1940's (although it probably goes back centuries)as their own..that one just won't die.

Cool!

my fave= Geg (9,3)

oh and, 'presumably...'slow coach

craigb

I love puzzles of this type, but am not familiar with this exact type.  Got a simple example?  I don't know what's implied by the numbers in parenthesis either...  Guess I'll go Google "Cryptic puzzles" while I wait to see your reply...

Craig, the numbers in brackets are just there to tell you the number of letters/words in the answer.
 
e.g: hair (4); Great Britain (5,7); low-budget (3-6) etc.
 
There are quite a few conventions and types of cryptic clues.
 
Here are a few examples:

• Multiple definitions - two or more words that all mean the same as the answer, but are written in such a way that you are misled:
  • Broken statue (4) = BUST (Broken = BUST; Statue = BUST)
  • Take notice of Gospel (4) = MARK (Take notice of = MARK; Gospel = MARK)
• Anagrams - the setter must always indicate an anagram, and which words/letters are to be anagrammed:
  • Weapon destroyed gnu (3) = GUN (We are told to 'destroy' gnu to find a weapon)
  • Neat prose translated into a universal language (9) = ESPERANTO (If we 'translate' the letters of neat & prose we will find a universal language)
• Bits and pieces/Additions/Subtractions - this can include literally putting together and/or removing bits and pieces of words/phrases/abbreviations to form the answer:
  • Finishing with a boxed ear - charming! (9) = ENDEARING (the word ear is literally 'boxed' inside a word for 'finishing'; i.e. ending to reveal: ENDEARING
  • Rubbish outside lair may suit this creature (6) = RODENT ('rubbish' = ROT is literally placed 'outside' 'lair' = DEN to reveal the creature RODENT
  • Headgear on communist invokes intense dislike (6) = HATRED ('headgear' = HAT is literally 'on' 'communist' = RED to get 'intense dislike' - HATRED
  • Endlessly talk about the field event (6) = DISCUS ('talk' = DISCUSS; we are told that it is literally 'endless' so we knock off the final 'S' to reveal the field event - DISCUSS
• Reversals - letters that you are told to reverse right to left (for across clues) or upside down (for down clues):
  • Have a little look round part of the fortification (4) = KEEP ('have a little look' = PEEK is [turned] round to get KEEP)
  • Exist the wrong way? That's bad (4) = EVIL ('exist' = LIVE, the wrong way [round] gives you EVIL)
• Hidden words - the word is literally written in front of you:
  • Some overenthusiastic kissing - one draws blood (4) = TICK ('some' [letters] of the phrase 'overenthusiastic kissing' reveal something that 'draws blood')
  • Powder used in ancient alchemy (4) = TALC (similarly, 'used' tells us that the phrase 'ancient alchemy' 'uses' the letters of TALC)
• Puns, homophones and soundalikes - words that sound similar:
  • Such a range of food is said to be satisfactory (4) = FARE ('satisfactory' = fare, which, when 'said', sounds like FARE = 'range of food')
  • Shakespeare in speech? It should be precluded (6) = BARRED (similarly, 'in speech', we hear BARRED as well as 'bard')
• Abbreviations/Numbers etc:
  • Miss West embraces novice man (4) = MALE (Miss West = MAE 'embracing' a novice 'L' [for learner] to give us our 'man' = MALE)
  • One hundred, very old and shut in (5) = CAGED ('One hundred' in Roman Numerals = 'C' + 'AGED' = 'very old' to give CAGED)

 
There are others types, and some clues may include more than one of the devices listed above.
 
What they all have in common, in keeping with the 'fairness' aspect of composing clues, is that somewhere in the clue there will be a 'straight' definition of the answer, even if that definition is itself 'cryptic'; the rest of the clue will be there only to show you how to get to the answer. The key in writing a good clue is in how well you can disguise the 'real' meaning. Punctuation is generally allowed to go out of the window, providing the sentence still makes sense. You're not permitted to write gobbledegook (the clue must be grammatically correct) or have a different tense between the clue and the answer; for example, you can't include "reversed into a space" as the definition part of a clue if the answer is "parking" - you would have to use "reversing into a space".
 
It's generally accepted that the 'better' clues are often the 'simplest'.
 
I once pondered for days over this beauty that appeared in a Times (Jumbo) puzzle:

• The inner state of the sausage (3,6,6,2,7)