Latest news with #PoliticsandtheEnglishLanguage
The Herald Scotland
8 hours ago
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
It's no surprise to us the hulking nonsense Glen Sannox is failing
The size and scale of the Glen Sannox, Caledonian Isles, Glen Rosa (and others) is singularly down to the fact that the trade unions and Scottish Government insist that the crew must be provided with onboard accommodation. Free board and lodgings to you and me. For the Glen Sannox, the majority of the upper deck spaces are taken up by the 33 or so ensuite cabins for the crew. Passenger spaces are squeezed around the side of the boat. Check this out next time you travel. This (hotel space) adds an exponential amount to the build cost and ongoing operating costs across many routes. Solution: build bunk houses at the pier side for crew at a fraction of the cost of on-board rooms and this would have three immediate benefits: less bulk above the waterline (using catamarans) meaning greater reliability of sailings; substantially lower build costs; lower operating costs – no need for so many cooks, cleaners and maintenance people and the like. All in all, this is a great example of a government with no spine or reverse gear to break with nonsensical procurement and operating requirements for a ferry service that will forever fail the communities it is meant to serve. Derek A Robertson, Lamlash, Isle of Arran. Read more letters What's so clever about AI? There was a stark contrast between two articles in Tuesday's Herald (June 3) discussing Artificial Intelligence. On page 15, there was Neil Mackay's "When AI kills off the ScotRail lady, you know we're all in trouble… is this what we want?" And on page 17, there was the Agenda article, "How to make AI work for SMEs in Scotland". Neil Mackay's piece is concrete rather than abstract; it lays out an argument that is coherent, intelligible, and intelligent. The meaning is clear; the language is of the real world, humane, and passionate. By contrast, the Agenda article, as a piece of prose, is almost entirely devoid of meaning. It could well have been written by a robot. Every sentence exhibits abstraction, and lack of precision. An example: "The application layer is not a black box, it's an enabler, a multiplier of human potential." I've read the piece several times, and still have no idea what the application in question is supposed to do. George Orwell saw it all coming, this eradication of meaning in abstraction. In Politics and the English Language (1946), he translated a verse from Ecclesiastes into modern prose: "I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all." Here is Orwell's version in modern English: "Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account." Well done to Neil Mackay for dumping AI from his phone. Dr Hamish Maclaren, Stirling. • Neil Mackay's article on AI strikes a chord with me. A couple of weeks ago while doing my weekly task of making slides of Bible passages for our Sunday service, I was interrupted by my Microsoft Copilot suggesting that "ecstatically happy" would be much better than "very happy". Considering that I was working with an already-typed document I was not inspired to make the change. Having had a few previous interruptions I looked for ways of getting rid of my undesirable "friend" and was delighted to find that I could uninstall it. A couple of sentences later there it was again, this time asking "Is a comma appropriate there?" I spotted the chat box and typed in "I thought I had uninstalled you." Instantly back came the typed reply, "Well, it seems I'm still here". Had it been delivered in the voice of Stanley Kubrick's Hal, I could not have been more freaked out. Who needs this? David Adams, Glasgow. Legal v illegal It is legal to buy and sell tobacco. Restrictions apply so that only adults, who know the health risks, can use it. That's all we need. Banning the purchase of a legal substance by birthdate is nonsense ('MSPs vote to ban tobacco for young', The Herald, May 30, and Letters, June 3). In years to come, can anyone visualise the application of this new law in your local Spar, where middle-aged adults are asked for their birth certificates? The issue is freedom of choice, as it is with the overly emotional discussions around "assisted suicide". The fact is, committing suicide is not illegal. So how can helping someone to do something legal be a crime? AJ Clarence, Prestwick. Beware of the lynx The proposed introduction of the lynx to our countryside reminds me of advice given when I suggested taking a walk in Californian woodland many years ago. 'Sure,' said my host, "...remember to take your gun.' Those walking here should be similarly equipped if the introduction of wild species proceeds. Wolves have also been suggested. These creatures are not jolly Disney characters. They are dangerous wild animals. Malcolm Parkin, Kinross. There is a campaign to reintroduce the lynx to Scotland (Image: Getty) The Red and Green blues For some reason, the Red Route tourist bus still goes to Glasgow Green. I imagine a revised commentary for visitors: 'This is the People's Palace, which is closed and behind it are the Winter Gardens which are also closed and on my left is the Doulton Fountain which doesn't work and has bits of the stonework falling off, so moving swiftly on, let's take you to George Square, oh no, wait a minute...' Stuart Neville, Clydebank.
Boston Globe
4 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Looking for an edge, Democrats? Just look around you.
Here's a simple, cost-effective, noncontroversial, and human response to the chaos: storytelling. Telling stories about the real-life human consequences of this administration's policies and directives could cut through the noise. Run 15-second spots about real people and their stories nationally across multiple platforms from now to the midterms and beyond. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Hear from a mother returning food when the grocery bill is too high, a student dropping out of college because child care is unavailable or too expensive, a pizza shop owner without a dishwasher, or a contractor who cannot find painters. Watch a parent being arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement with their children watching. Show a grandfather waiting hours to talk to Social Security, or a woman taking her medication every other day because health care costs are too high. All in 15 seconds each. Advertisement By telling people about the results of policy decisions and executive actions in clear, simple ways, the Democratic Party can create a groundswell of informed, engaged citizens ready to advocate for change and hold their leaders accountable. It would be powerful. Advertisement Deborah Heller Boston Democrats shouldn't get lost in words A Washington Post report featured in the Globe ('Debate revives over left-wing buzzwords,' Political Notebook, May 27) suggests that terms like 'Food insecurity' sounds like an anxiety disorder. Children in the depths of poverty are not experiencing food insecurity. They are hungry or starving. The Trump regime is not an oligarchy; rather, it is a dictatorship with one ruler enabled by people like Marco Rubio and Mike Johnson, who are not fellow oligarchs but, rather, bootlickers or, to use the fancy Greek word, sycophants. In 'Politics and the English Language,' George Orwell demonstrates how politicians use vague, sugar-coated, euphemistic terms (like 'food insecurity') to justify behavior, policy, or circumstances that cannot be justified. Such words are lies in disguise. Donald Trump's supporters often say they like him because he speaks his mind. He's upfront. He doesn't talk euphemistically, like other politicians. No disguises. Right. He just lies and lies and lies. The mystery is why so many Trump supporters don't seem to care how often or how blatantly he does so. John R. Nelson Gloucester The writer is a professor emeritus of English at North Shore Community College. The poor get poorer while the Trump family gets richer An article on Page A6 of the May 26 Boston Globe was headlined Advertisement The Democrats certainly have to promote a better path forward, but highlighting Trump's abuses while putting forward a plan for the future would be a foundation on which to build. There's so much at stake for the economy, health, education, the environment, and the rule of law that Democrats can champion in contrast to the utter destruction we're seeing now. John Cotter Melrose If populism thrives on grievance, we need a new brand of populism As Larry Edelman and countless other commentators have pointed out, populism thrives on grievance ( We've seen increasing signs of the human tropism toward divisiveness and an 'us against them' mentality. A 'revenge is sweet' refrain now echoes around the world. It's considered not just sweet but justified. Not just justified but necessary. Populism will always thrive on carefully choosing its targets. And though hurting Harvard or immigrants or health research will improve the lives of no one, that doesn't matter. Revenge is rarely rational or well-reasoned. It's emotionally intoxicating. Therein lies the enduring lure of populism. Until the Democrats figure out how to build their own brand of populism, one that captures the hearts, souls, and imaginations of the populace, we will all be forced to endure life in an 'us against them' society. Advertisement Elaine Mintzer Keene, N.H.
Telegraph
27-02-2025
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
‘I literally died laughing' – are you guilty of everyday hyperbole?
'The slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts,' wrote George Orwell in his seminal 1946 essay Politics and the English Language. We're certainly guilty of thinking foolishly about bread, if the language used by chefs is anything to go by. This week, the lexicographer Susie Dent took restaurants to task for their use of ' flowery embellishment ' on their menus, taking particular objection to a description of what is essentially a slice of toast as 'artisanal organic signature sourdough, toasted to a golden hue and suffused with salt-encrusted butter'. She's not alone: two friends of mine compete to see how many times they can spot the phrase 'pan-fried salmon' on a menu. But it's not just chefs, or their marketing advisers who have elevated the everyday to the extraordinary, as Meghan Markle might put it. Hyperbole is now a part of everyday discourse to such a degree it has, ironically, become the norm. Modern capitalism, social media and the reality-distorting nature of political discourse in the era of Trump and Musk have conspired to produce a hyperinflated form of language whereby context and meaning within everyday conversation and notably on social media have become untethered to an arguably absurd degree. 'Since the days of Blairite spin doctors, public figures have imitated marketing in pressing a relentlessly, breathlessly positive message,' agrees Tony Thorne, director of the Slang and New Language Archive at King's College London. 'But this has become even more relentless as online influencers vie to get clicks, likes, kudos and clout.' In other words, language is being weaponised to stake ever more preposterous claims. So which words are the worst offenders? Literally The word literally stems from the Latin root litteralis, which means to take words in their natural or customary meaning, without any ulterior spiritual or symbolic meaning. Not that this bothered the former footballer, turned Sky Sports pundit Jamie Redknapp, who took literally's secondary function as a means of adding emphasis to mind boggling proportions during the noughties with his literally nonsensical descriptions of the action. My favourite example being: 'he had to cut back inside onto his left, because he literally hasn't got a right foot'. It's similarly used all the time by Gen Zedders to sensationalise online their mundane personal experience, a la 'OMG I'm literally dying'. In the new world order, however, literally is being used less in the service of figurative fancy than to create a new truth. ' It's literally the best cabinet the country has ever had,' Musk said yesterday on Trump's new top team, which includes, er, him. Stunning Stunning has long departed from its Middle English root meaning to render unconscious. Its present-day ubiquity as an adjective for something extraordinary is a particular pet hate of Thorne, who partly blames the ad men. 'Back in the 1950s and 1960s, stuffy, repressed Brits used to wonder at or mock American advertising and marketing language –'super', 'terrific' 'grrrreat' etc,' he says. 'Some professions were more guilty than others – estate agents, for instance, who have been overusing 'stunning' for many years. But anyone who can 'curate an online identity' can now promote themselves, so the need to 'stun' is even greater and the gushing has become a torrential tide. Even casual conversations are full of 'once-in-a-lifetimes', and 'world-beatings'. Such hyperbole is also unimaginative and frequently untrue. Not every ice cream is 'sublime' and they are never 'insanely good'.' Tragic The word tragic, or tragedy, jumped from the theatre – whereby it historically means a man or woman brought down by hubris – into national conversations during the 19th century, as people reached for 'epic' words to describe the impact of tumultuous events such as the death of Abraham Lincoln. These days, it's used routinely to describe an event in which a person loses their life. But it's also often used in everyday conversation, particularly on social media, to describe with flippant, sometimes self-deprecating irony events that are anything but. To be clear: the death of a child or a devastating flood is tragic. Wearing an ill-judged outfit on a night out is not. Also in this category is the word 'trauma' which I frequently hear people use without irony in general conversation to describe commonplace experiences, and 'triggering', which has become confused with 'made me think of'. Iconic My absolute favourite hated word. The pernicious reach of branding into everyday discourse has a lot to answer for, but the widespread overuse of the word iconic is surely the most self-defeating. An adjective that used to be the preserve of religious sculptures is now applied by marketing enthusiasts and people on Instagram to everything from sausage rolls to sunsets in order to ascribe singular worth to something that is either widespread or unexceptional. In a world that has also long lost its sense of the sacred, perhaps the overuse of the word iconic is the last gasp of a civilisation trying desperately to find value amid the essential meaninglessness of existence. To this, we can add a couple more pet dislikes of mine, such as 'blessed' and 'reach out', both of which are pseudo-spiritual hyperbolic replacements for 'fortunate' and 'get in touch'. 🤣 (Rolling on floor laughing emoji) Hyperbole is the de-facto language of online messaging, whereby users have not only given up on nuance, but they've also abandoned language itself for outsized symbolism. Hence the use of a 'rolling on the floor laughing' emoji routinely given in response to a wry comment, or a hands in the air emoticon to convey feeling mildly frazzled. Indeed, the need for a swift, unambiguous response to something – rather than a medium which allows more subtleties such as a letter – could well be one reason for the growth of everyday hyperbole. No one has the time to parse the nuance of 'wry' or 'mildly' anything. 'We are now in an 'attention economy', says the author Henry Hitchings whose books include The Language Wars: A History of Modern English. 'Exaggeration has been normalised.' As has unnecessary communication. I can no logner send an innocuous text to a friend without them endorsing it with a 'thumbs up'. Transformational A good person who devotes their life to helping others might once have been described as having a 'transformational' effect. Now, with routine life viewed in terms of experiences and journeys, it's one the most overused words in business and PR, heard and seen everywhere from board rooms to labels on bottles of wine. 'The problem with transformational change is that it implies ordinary change has no change in it whatsoever' once quipped the comedienne Sandi Toksvig. 'Transformational is the sort of dynamic, buzzy, aspirational word that self marketeers love,' adds Hitchings. As indeed does AI, which he argues is behind the proliferation of the word on professional networking sites such as LinkedIn. 'AI-generated content, when the user prompts the AI to strike a professional and dynamic note, tends to stray into the realm of grandiloquence.' Unprecedented Unprecedented, which is used to describe something that has never previously happened, has a logical paradox built into it since, as the old maxim goes, it's impossible to prove a negative. Still, its meaning is fairly clear, although that hasn't stopped commentators and ordinary people from describing world events as unprecedented on a fairly regular basis. Only last October Keir Starmer said that Britain faced 'unprecedented challenges', and earlier that year promised to fix ' unprecedented stagnation '; it was also word of the year in 2020. But perhaps it is not in the end hyperbolic to say that unprecedented is the word that truly best describes how it feels to be alive in these interesting times, rocked as they are by pandemics, climate change and rapidly shifting geo political plates. 'The problem is, reality is changing so that boosterism and hyperbole is no longer entirely exaggeration or falsification,' says Thorne. 'The language – and the reality – of Donald Trump and Elon Musk, to take just one example, really is unprecedented.'
