Economics has become subject to such hyperbole that economic reporting is now even less valuable than it was a decade ago. Now just a 3% slump in the stockmarket is described as a "crash" or a "plunge". The oil industry (or, rather, the media's reporting of it), which I take an interest in, is worse. New oil/gas finds are consistently described as "massive", "huge", or whatever. We can all breath a sigh of relief in the knowledge that there will be no crisis! But the most recent find offshore of Brazil, that "may" contain as much as 8 billion barrels of oil (and is truly a biggie by discovery standards) can only supply the world for less than 4 months at current usage rates. It is the usage rates that are truly, incredibly, massively, enormously humongous - 1000 barrels a second or 30 billion barrels per year! It's all relative only the language the media uses has now ceased to reflect this.

A ground-breaking article conclusively demonstrating that the English language as we know it has been destroyed by the ceaseless torrent of hyperbole from all corners of the globe.

wizofaus: "A ground-breaking article conclusively demonstrating that the English language as we know it has been destroyed by the ceaseless torrent of hyperbole from all corners of the globe."

And beyond

Evangelicals are particularly given to journeying.

I went to a wedding reception, last year, at which one of the speakers nailed it with a particular intensity. He was describing how the newlywed couple had been traveling together -- you know, like, overseas, and stuff?

Some way into the impromptu homily, this faith community leader seemed suddenly to grasp the full spiritual-metaphorical value of his topic, and so he told us that 'a journey is, like, a journey.'

I hope I have represented his syntax accurately with the commas. It is a line that sustains infinite re-reading.

I was rather pleased with myself to realize that I have avoided upsetting the masses by the over use of adjectives which describe objects "over the top"....much as your article has highlighted. (on my own website and blogs) I didn't pick up though on you mentioning how cars are seen as "sexy"! An object that has nothing to swing or attract by implying "here I am and I'm ready!"

In the same way, in recent years interviews of TV shows will express the opinion that the incumbent of their interviewing chair is seen as a "sex object" and coyly asks how the person feels about that label...

For heavens sake "sexy" first has to relate to people, and secondly it has to be relevant to looks and age....a fifty year old is not generally "sexy" but to ask how they feel about being labeled as such usually brings forth the required twitter of embarrassment.

As for that stupid expression "Cool"! She's cool!......No I'm not!

I too am confused. The English language is more pulverized on blogs than in the media, which came first, chicken etc.

The economist is one of the worst with the journalist close behind.
When looking up terms these guys use you sometime wonder whether they have missed their vocation and should instead be writing fiction.

My father inlaw was a journalist and valued the english language as no other I have met. He must now be rolling in his grave.
I think it was in the seventy's that grammar and parsing of sentences were taken from school curriculum, slang in english accepted in creative writing.
I frequently find myself rereading too much to make sense of stuff written on blogs and papers written by academics, the latter being unable to express themselves well enough to communicate the knowledge they are "passionate" about. so disappointing.
I have a site,that I'm unable to find at this moment, where one journalist berates others of his own following for bad english, with examples, no less than four pages long!!
"the history of the english language" as shown on TV, wonderfully describes its devolution as a living language now has taken over the world, replacing to greater or lessor degree, Latin and French, although while including loads of words from their lexicon.
When trained as an engineer I well remember my boss admonishing me for incorrect spelling, now its the "rage"

fluff

A propos blogsites, I often get annoyed over "hate-filled". So many responses are described as hate-filled when about the worst a poster has done is to call someone an idiot. I often feel like referring people to John Knox if they want a bench-mark for "hate-filled". Some of his tirades, 400 odd years later, are capable of bringing me out in goose-bumps.

In sport, an area in which, arguably, there is still some room left for the odd superb act of human endeavour, the word magnificent now is commonplace. "What a magnificent catch!" the commentator gasps, when action replay reveals is as being merely foruitous.

The British series Ab Fab seems to have devalued the word absolutely forever. Its several meanings of perfect, complete, pure, positive, disappear completely when someone gushes over some vacuous "personality" (and yeah, the word personality itself could be added to the list) "I think they are absolutely wonderful." About the only people to get it right now seem to be Absolut Vodka.

But the usage that really gets up my nose is schizoid. Anyone who is the least eccentric, irritable, irascible, curmudgeonly, righteous, misguided, uninformed, mistaken or in any way differs from the herd is liable to be labelled with this term which has been eschewed even by the scientific community.

Where does the overuse of hyperbole lead, questions the writer? To the associated devaluation of absolutes, I gather. Its no longer enough to be certain: only very certain will convince. Unique finds itself qualified by "incredibly" and, in a text-book for teaching English as a second language I came across an entire section devoted to ones "most favourite" things

"The English language is more pulverized on blogs than in the media, which came first, chicken etc."

I believe that the media has been twisting the meaning of words since well before the internet became popular. It was literary elitists inflating their egos by creatively using their extensive vocabularies.

The hyperbole that aggravates me the most is the use of the word 'literally', which is typically misused by the younger generation. "If my parents find out they will literally kill me!". The whole purpose of the word is to indicate something is "free from exaggeration or embellishment".

There is a plethora of words mangled in todays media.

My bugbear is (not so much hyperbole) is vista. Television reporters standing in front of some beach creamin' their pants over the fabulous vista. Its a panorama!!

I remember a court case in the 90's where a barrister was given a caning by a judge for using vista instead of panorama. It was great to see!!

Actually, Desipsis, it's just plain wrong to use "literally" to mean "almost certainly, but in a metaphorical sense".

Nor do I see how using "vista" is hyperbole, seeing as it typically refers to something more restricted than a panorama. It's always struck me as a slightly pretentious word though, for whatever reason (Microsoft have done nothing to help that association).

OK 'fluff4', back to school with you! (Not sure whether you are just baiting me, but I'll take it anyway).

"in the seventy's" is just plain wrong. Nothing possessive about it. Try "in the seventies" or "in the 70s" instead.

Likewise the final phrase of your comment should read "it's the rage", not "its the "rage"". This rule applies whenever you're dropping the first letter of the verbs "is" or "are".

Thanks Dan!!
I will try to remember, I never was good at spelling either.
fluff4

Dan,

Actually Fluff's usage of "its" was o.k. by the rule of common usage. It is now considered correct to use its without the apostrophe unless denoting possession:thus "The vixen and its cubs" would still be considered incorrect, but Fluff's usage was o.k.

I am neither defending nor abusing the rule of common usage: simply citing it.

In fact I remember a stand up argument years ago with my editor over that old bugbear, the split infinitive. I maintained that no-one should "boldly go" even if common usage - not to mention Sci-Fi ad. blurb - had made people more forgiving. He accused me of joining the ranks of pedantic old reactionaries who would retard the progress of the English language if given the chance. I was 19 at the time.

Since then I rather grudgingly accept the common usage dictum and its application.

Actually Romany, you have it quite wrong. In fact you have it back to front. The possessive "its" has been the exception to the rule for eons, or at least a very long time. Whatever 'common usage' may decree (who is the arbiter of that one?) "its" connotes the possessive, and "it's" the shortened version of "it is".

Thus "The vixen and its cubs" is actually correct. Whereas "Its the vixen's cub" is incorrect and "It's the vixen's cub" is correct. Call your local qualified grammar expert to confirm or deny.

fluff4 et al,
This has got to be one of the most bestest topics literally ever.
I'm glad that you reminded us of "the seventy's" when things were gooderer, but I'm confused about renting a university qualification by becoming subject to a "lessor" degree.
English is a changing language. Its rules are a bit like sport, where nobody minds if you drop kick a tennis ball into the net.
Our aim should be to talk good, not proper.

Absoloutely

On the arms race that is gradually neutering the power of our vocabulary, has anyone noticed the increasing journalistic use of "profound" to describe every minor change in public life?

Pick up a copy of the Financial Review or the SMH or The Age and count how many "profound shifts" there are or "profound senses" or "nothing short of profound".

According to one article recently, we are witnessing a "profound shift" in the debate over dietary habits. It's ironic that the shallower we become, the deeper everything appears.

"Event" is another one. If you believe Channel Nine, their new US sitcom (which some daft programmer bought off the shelf for next to nothing on a drunken all-expenses 2-day trip to LA) is a "major television event".

Other examples of weapons of mass language destruction:

-- "shaking the foundations" (as in "The department's request for new stationery is 'shaking the foundations' of public service procurement procedures")
-- "undoubtedly" (this one is used when there usually is a doubt about someting. "The Home and Away newcomer is shaping up 'undoubtedly' as the greatest actor of his generation")
-- "inspiring" (someone who drags themselves into work with a headcold)
-- but number in the lexicon of the overused superlative has to be "legendary". EVERYONE is a legend this days. The bloke who mows your lawn is a legend. Someone who came fourth runner-up on Australian Idol in 2004 is a legend.

I blame it all on the American 'can-do' sales culture that is infesting every corner of our lives. In this world, anything less than unequivocal, 'I'm-the-best-that-I-can-be' 40 thousand watt overkill is a wimp-out.

Three cheers for the grumpy old men. They're grumpy for a damned good reason. The world has gone to the pack.

Hahaha - LOLed (really!) at your last sentence, Mr Denmore.

Some worthy additions to the list of abused superwords there, too, although I would contend that "legend" is in a slightly different category. The use of this word to describe nobodies is wilfully ironic, I think. Still, the joke has long run out of weeties.

Speaking of legends, Romany's post was a classic. Strewth, why do people find it so difficult to understand contractions (eg: it is > it's; we are > we're) and the difference between the possessive apostrophe "s" (eg: the cook's broth) and the plural form (eg: too many cooks spoil the broth)? It's not that bloody complex! Unlike some aspects of the language - spelling, for instance - contractions, the possessive apostrophe 's' and plurals are entirely rational in their grammatically correct forms!

Here's another flayed casualty of our beseiged language for good measure: iconic (grrrr).

Ross, possessive apostrophes might be rational, but it depends what the speaker's inbuilt "rule" is. For many people, apostrophes are associated with the possessive form, no matter what type of noun it is. So to use an apostrophe for the possessive form of "it" makes sense. Because it's wrong, we have to learn another rule that says: apostrophes aren't used for the possessive for pronouns like "it". That rule ends up getting over-generalised: "don't use an apostrophe for its", and everyone is thoroughly confused.
It's a mistake I still make regularly, and almost every time I write the word I have to think about it. I'm all for scrapping the apostrophe entirely - it adds very little of value to the language.

Its not like you cant understand written language without it. I dont think its needed. Maybe one day itll disappear - well see.

Dan,
I learned more than one lesson from your post. The first was, of course, that I have been using the words "its" incorrectly for the last ten years. Thank you for so clearly - and objectively - putting me right.

The second was how damn lazy I am. Having been "corrected" on my usage the first time, I never once checked that in fact the information I was given was correct.

Both of these were somewhat embarrassing lessons to learn in a public forum!

But the third lesson was, for me, a little more positive. I also learned how much I had progressed in the last ten years.

The arbiter of what is and isn't "common usage" in these two (and other)cases was the editor of a weekly column I used to write, who reserved the right to standardise my copy. Back then I viewed this person in awe. The split infinitive argument was the only one I ever nerved myself to have in the eight years of our association.

Since then I have "nerved myself" to do a lot of things - one of which was returning to Uni where, presumably, I spent four years mis-using "its" in certain contexts. I can't imagine myself these days allowing someone to have the sort of power over me that I gave to that woman - in more ways than spurious grammatical rulings.

Sometimes I get really peed off with OLO posters but then something happens that reminds me how of much one learns through these forums and why I joined in the first place. Thanks.

BTW - To the poster who "couldn't understand" how some people got things wrong that he found easy to remember? Why, its easy-peasy. One just keeps in mind that fallibility is a human attribute. And, if one is in danger of forgetting this, is also careful never to invest in a house that features too much glass.

Romany
Thank you - that was a very gracious post you made.

My wife was taught by experts (Irish Josephite nuns) and she is always pointing out my many grammatical mistakes.

I was also taught by the Josephites, but wasn't such fertile ground for them in the grammatical field.

However, they did have some simple ways to make us remember some of the more difficult examples, and the "its/it's" rules have always stuck in my mind.

As another person commented here, a lot of these things are in fact quite logical and rational once you realise the basis for the variations.

Maybe it has been forgotten by some teachers that there are fairly easy formulae or tricks that once explained to students can help them to remember some of these peculiarities of standard English grammar and spelling.

Of course these days it is becoming more difficult for each of us to maintain consistency as we are being engulfed by American media with their (standardised) variations from Australian standard English, and this phenomenon has been exacerbated by the ubiquitous American default spellings on computerised word processing programs.

This makes it easy to see why young people and newcomers to English get very confused about both grammar and spelling.

Undoubtedly a new 'international standard English' is emerging, but at the moment we are still in a difficult phase where different versions are contending and many people are thus befuddled.

I imagine that people coming to English later in life would probably benefit a lot from having access to the kinds of tricks that the Josephites were able to teach in the past.

I suppose some of them are fortunate enough to get some of this style of teaching, whilst others are left high and dry!

"back to the drawing board for me"
Just two days ago I invested in a spell check.
I'm on a mac and don't know a lot about windows. For years I used the
"lite" version which while free, only one dictionary was available in the version, American English.
With my new investment other dictionaries/thesaurus became available namely British English, no Australian version.
Little had I realised, "there, I've said it again" that ten years of using American English, moulded my expression.
Just in these passages I've had the dreaded underline indicating the incorrect spelling of something. Nisus thesaurus and an English-english spell checker can't work together, three corrections to be exact.

What to do? ignore my spell checker or throw the thesaurus out?
Gee this is fun!

fluff4

Fluff, go on, dare to be different: keep the English/English spell-check. Wish I had one. I not only steadfastly ignore the red decoration to words like colour and formalise but actually talk back and tell 'em to get outta my face. Drawback being, of course, that I subsequently often miss a word that actually is spelled incorrectly by accusing it of being a trans-Atlantic wannabe.

I am in fact hugely concerned by the incursion into China not just of American spelling but of American culture. Not, I hasten to say, that I am running down American culture. But the idea is gaining ground that American = Western. The ramifications of this, now that China is opening trade/goodwill links all over the world, are more serious than the matter may at first seem.

So in my classes I insist on standard British English spelling and received pronunciation ( especially of words like Zeebra) as an introduction to an entire semester during which I try to open up the world a little more to my students.

Romany, Could I sugest your fighting a losing battle, but I'm glad there are those of us who would protect English from sloppy use.
In the "history" there is pointed remarks about the arbitrary decisions on spelling, when first determining dictionary spelling. This I think could/should change as the logic is suspect, sometimes based on historical premise, to appease authors of little merit, IMO.
fluff4

Everybody should be gobsmacked at the amount of people who could care less about the approaching train wreck of our language.