Call me self-indulgent, call me a pedant, but there are a few linguistic atrocities up with which I will not put.
The Crown Prosecutor, who is usually a coolly competent type, referred to evidence waiting to be 'forensicated'.
I stopped her, and said: "to be what?"
She looked puzzled, so I rubbed it in. "can you say that in English?"
"Sorry, sir", and she produced a decent paraphrase.
Surely we have to draw the line somewhere?
To be fair, I was rather enjoying myself.
I have previous.
Musings and Snippets from a recently retired JP. I served for 31 years, mostly in west London. I was Chairman of my Bench for some years, and a member of the National Bench Chairmen's Forum All cases are based on real ones, but anonymised and composited. All opinions are those of one or more individuals. JPs swear to enforce the law of the land, whether or not they approve of it. Nothing on here constitutes legal advice.
Well done. It's time to stamp out this appalling corruption of the English language.
ReplyDeleteEveryone knows it should be forensicked.
ReplyDeleteUsing the American pronunciation of harassment and harass is my personal bete noire.
ReplyDeleteQuite right too. Our friends across the pond are particularly fond of this kind of linguistic abuse and, inevitably, it's happening here now.
ReplyDeleteI blame CSI...:-)
ReplyDelete"(...) atrocities up with which I will not put."
ReplyDeleteWow! If I may say so, Sir.
Do I take it "atrocities I will not put up with" would be an atrocity?
I was, I believe, quoting Winston Churchill.
DeleteSadly you weren't. As with so many wonderful Churchill quotations it is misattributed:
Delete(http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001715.html)
I am grateful to m'learned friend, but I shall keep an open mind.
DeleteThe word is under review with the Collins English dictionary. English is a living language and there is a perceived need for a shorter term for "forensically examine"
ReplyDeleteAnonymous John, Should that not be 'examine forensically'?
DeleteI believe that this should be put to a vote by L'Académie Anglais (whose august members are known as "les incompréhensibles" due to their motto, "Eschew Obfuscation"). Why (you may well inquire) are they so titled in French? Because French is the only pure language extant. Just ask a native francophone.
ReplyDeleteForensicated : anagram of Forties Dance...
ReplyDeleteI hope it's a long time before the American term "Burglarize" arrives here. Presumably a person who burglarizes a house is known as a burglarizer?
ReplyDeleteI hope so too, but I fear for the language. I was in the pub this very lunchtime when some barbarian said "can I get a Coke?". Bah!
DeleteYou probably don't realise "burgle" is a back-formation.
DeleteIt may well be, but at least it follows the somewhat standard English pattern of noun and verb. (eg a robber robs, a driver drives, a hammer hams).
DeleteHopefully I didn't make any mistakes in this post or I'll have to come back and editorize it. (Edit is also a back-formation)
I don't have a problem with new words. Language is a servant, not a master. The only rule is to not mistreat it - that is a deliberately split infinitive, since "not to do" is different from "to NOT do".
DeleteI fear that Bystander is the Little Dutch Boy, having heard American news reporters use "forensicate" on the US evening news. You cannot plug the dyke against the deluge of Americanisms.
ReplyDeleteReminds me of the Little Belgian Boy, whom noone remembers, who did the same deed, but was standing on the other side of the dyke ;-)
DeleteWhat gets on my last nerve is American tv shows where they 'proceeded to proceed along the sidewalk' in order to 'burglurize' an appartment.
ReplyDeleteIt is a typical Americanism: trying to sound objective and official, their lack of vocabulary quickly defeats them.
DeleteI do wonder whether that is better or worse than casual racism.
DeleteYou mean it should be little EU boy ?
DeleteLanguage is, as someone pointed out above, a servant not a master, and changes with time; even your most formal judgement would be virtually unrecognisable to an Englishman of 500 years ago, and will be unrecognisable 500 years hence.
ReplyDeleteAnyone trying to preserve the language in amber is Cnut standing on the shore, and many of the 'ancient' rules they try to defend were invented out of whole cloth in the 19th century.
Overall James Nicoll had it best:
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary."
A lengthy and hugely busy non-CPS court today produced many examples of bureaucratic jargon, but I winced audibly when one of those applying for utility warrants said that it was his intention to "de-energise" the property that afternoon, provided no children or vulnerable adults were found on the premises. I never did find out whether there was any difference between de-energising and disconnecting a property from mains gas or electricity.
ReplyDelete