Cliches

Topics which don't quite fit into any other category

Re: Cliches

Postby Gavin » 06 May 2014, 21:08

I don't mind "actually" when it's properly used and not over-used. I won't use "basically" though - for me it's become toxic now, so often and so unnecessarily is it used. It always seems somewhat patronising too, as if the speaker thinks they had better simplify what is already usually a very simple point, in case we don't understand it. Maybe the point is complicated for them.

I'm not very keen on the tautology "in actual fact". Nor on "clearly", as I think I mentioned before. Usually this word is used by some bureaucratic interviewee on the radio who is defending something which is not necessarily clear at all.

It's a shame how people corrupt words through over, inappropriate, and thoughtless use. This seems to happen a great deal more today than it did before.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Cliches

Postby Paul » 06 May 2014, 21:24

My example of the teacher saying 'basically' a lot was from 1977 - 79 and we, the recipients, were pupils. But it was noticeable, though to ourselves at the time soon became amusing. I've found myself using the word here and there over the years. But of course*, I have very often had to deal with churls!

* I've become self-conscious about using the term 'of course'. That sounds ultra-patronising to me, but ........ I can't stop doing it! I've even used it in this post.
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: Cliches

Postby Gavin » 06 May 2014, 22:12

Yes, I use "of course" a lot - sometimes I deliberately omit it. I use it to indicate that I don't necessarily think I'm saying anything that the reader hasn't already gleaned for themselves. Also sometimes to imply that evidence has well established the point I am making, despite the denial of some. I think "of course" is a bit like "clearly" - it shouldn't be used unless there is indeed ample and obvious evidence to support the statement.

On "clearly" again, I've noticed it is often used by police and politicians about crimes: "this is clearly a horrendous crime". I always think it is a bit odd in that use. If it's clearly horrendous just say it's horrendous, or don't say anything, because we'll know it's horrendous. It sounds somewhat insincere.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Cliches

Postby Grant » 07 May 2014, 07:43

The worst example of "actually" I've heard was from one of our esteemed commentators who told her listeners "I've actually found the actual numbers". One would swear she was being paid for the number of superfluous words she could conjure.
My other grumble concerns the use of "so", especially when it's used in place of "too".
Grant
 
Posts: 121
Joined: 01 Apr 2013, 09:14

Re: Cliches

Postby Gavin » 07 May 2014, 08:40

I've noticed that it has become commonplace for people to begin sentences with "So" now, as well.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Cliches

Postby Elliott » 19 May 2014, 21:36

Gavin wrote:I won't use "basically" though - for me it's become toxic now, so often and so unnecessarily is it used. It always seems somewhat patronising too, as if the speaker thinks they had better simplify what is already usually a very simple point, in case we don't understand it. Maybe the point is complicated for them.

That's why I use it. If I've been worming my way around a complex point, and am now at the stage where I can summarise it clearly, then I'll say "basically", and it's really for my own benefit rather than the other person's; it's a subconscious way of getting your mind into gear for speaking succinctly. So, I'd cut people some slack on this one, personally.

Grant wrote:My other grumble concerns the use of "so", especially when it's used in place of "too".

I've never heard that. Maybe it's an Australian thing?

Gavin wrote:I've noticed that it has become commonplace for people to begin sentences with "So" now, as well.

I agree this is becoming commonplace, and it is irritating and affected. Of course, what starts as affected pretty quickly becomes normal and unaffected... just think of up-talking!
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Cliches

Postby Yessica » 05 Aug 2014, 06:25

"Society"/"real people" and so on


Currently reading a newspaper article (unfortunately in German in "Die Zeit") about the daughter of a college professor and a development aid worker who attends a troubled school in a troubled subburb.

Have read a number of those. The motivation of the parents typically is wanting their kid to meet "real people". In this case the parents hoped that school might aid to
introduce their daughter into society
.

I thought that this was funny keeping in mind what introducing a professor's daughter into society would have meant one or two generations before: taking her to a ball once she turned fourteen where she would meet carefully selected young men from similar backgrounds.

How things have changed. Then only persons of high social background counted as real people, now only persons of lowly background seem to do.

It's not the first article I read about parents sending their child to a troubled school. Often the reason is wanting the youngster to meet real people.

Makes one wonder why poor Mulims are regarded more "real" than rich Christians. Most obviosly the school in rich neighbourhoods seem to be attended by people too.
I can understand why parents which their child to meet people unlike themselves which might broaden their horizon, but why not let him spend a year in the USA or France? Why not send them to a school where he might meet the child of a entrepreneur, who might be living in a "different world" from yours just as much.

Why assume that all white people who aren't desperately poor share one way of doing everything and your child cannot learn anything new from them?

I feel sort of sorry for the poor in this scenario as some of the parents who act like this seem not to see them as real human beings... rather as toys to teach the rich kids something about other ways of life.

Question is: What if the rich kid really likes their way of life better and want's to emulate them? What if the son of the atheist comes home and wants to be a muslim or the daughter of the professional mother comes home and wants to drop out of school at sixteen in order to marry and have a child? Would their parents still be cool with that? Would they still be cool if the man she was to marry planned to live on welfare for the rest of his life?
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: Cliches

Postby Yessica » 30 Sep 2014, 17:31

The 1960s (meaning what happened during that decade in the Western nations)

According to the Daily Mail
One third of Britons say they would rather be living in the Swinging Sixties than in today’s trouble-torn world, saying it was an ‘age of change for the better’.


If the 60s were really a decade of change for the better wouldn't it be even better to life AFTER the 60s because one could reap the fruits of the change then?

Obviously all things that happened after the 1960s were sown in the 1960s (and before) and if they make society worse then it was before the change cannot have been for the better.
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: Cliches

Postby Yessica » 31 Oct 2014, 09:30

A real family


Two sisters, brought up in a council house, who happen to be single mothers were chosen to represent a "real family" of Birmingham.

Miss Wearing, who won the Turner Prize in 1997 and is the partner of artist Michael Landy, said: ‘A nuclear family is one reality but it is one of many and this work celebrates the idea that what constitutes a family should not be fixed.


It is obviously true that single parents are a part of reality... but then why are they believed to be more "real" than married parents?

It seems to me that the statistically most likely case is that a family consists of two opposite sex parents not raised in a council house.

While other families of course are families too it is interesting to see that "real" always seems to mean being or having grown up poor, being a single parent or otherwise be deprived.
Reminds me of the statue of the disabled women which replaced (?) the Statue of Lord Nelson at Trafalgar Square. Is it still there by the way?
Fun fact about Lord Nelson: having lost his arm and one eye he was disabled but it is less well known.
Whether we like Lord Nelson or not: when we think of him we do not think of his disability first - and I guess that is the way he would have wanted it to be.

The artist could have chosen to portray a rich family surrounded by their assests... or the Christian patriarch reading to his wife and twelve children from the Bible...
Those would have been unusual families too... and no less "real" than the one chosen.
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Previous

Return to Other Topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

User Menu

Login Form

This site costs £100 per year to run and makes no money.

If you would like to make a small contribution to help pay for the web hosting, you can do so here.

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.