I value the use of precise, concise language for clear communication. However, I also recognise that the English language changes and evolves to meet the needs of its users. Thus, I can handle Americanisms like "protest" as a transitive verb or "obligate" when the user means "oblige".

What's giving me the irrits, though, is opening the paper every day this week and reading that the victims of paedophile priests want to meet with the "hierarchy" of the Catholic church to discuss an apology. What they mean is that they want to meet with the senior clergy. A hierarchy is a classification of structure, from the top to the bottom, and it's impossible to meet with it.

The "hier-" part of "hierarchy" is completely unrelated to the word "higher", and doesn't denote the senior or elite individuals of an organisation. "Hierarchy" means something very specific, and the language has no suitable replacement. Look after it.

That's all.

God knows what happened between writing and posting, but the title is "That's not what "hierarchy" means".

I hear your pain Sancho. For a long time I got annoyed when the wrong words were bandied about in the media and was even more annoyed by cliches (I saw 'Iguana-gate' coming from a mile away and winced when it arrived).

Now however, I just sigh and let it go. Regrettably, there will always be stupid or careless people in all professions.

(Though the next journalist who thinks they're clever by attaching 'gate' to some controversy needs a talking to).

There should be a support group for this kind of thing...

I'm concerned with the current 'Death By Hyperbole' attitude to all things media and marketing. Every problem is a 'crisis', and I long for something to be described as just 'good', rather than amazing.

There is no scope left for things that actually are amazing, or a crisis, or a real hero. So many words have lost all meaning.

I'll be back momentarily;-)

Its the quotation marks Sancho. They dont up on the thread heading.

Some of my pet-hate mispronunciations:

Paddick, philip ruddick, recignise, etc.

Estralya, Astraylia (Ostralya or Orstralia are ok mate!)

Dear Sancho,

One of the definitions of 'hierarchy,'
as given in the Random House Dictionary
of the English Language (unabridged
edition), is:

"An organised body of ecclesiastical
officials in successive ranks or
orders..."

In other words a collective body of
clergy.

And you most certainly should be able to
try to meet with at least some of them.
Depending on your place in the structure.

Totally agree there US, particularly the 'hero' bit.

I get so sick of hearing sports stars in particular being described as 'heroes.'

Okay, they may have a gruelling training regime. That's dedication. They may be a good role model. Fair enough, good on them.

They do however, reap the rewards of their efforts. I'm not impugning this in the slightest, but it ain't a selfless act.

'Hero' they are not, unless they happened to say, run into a fire to save someone, or risk something of theirs, for others.

Then there's the glorification of 'everyday battlers' into heroes. Call them 'battlers' if you will (even though it's horribly overused) but dedicated decent people aren't heroes just for being dedicated and decent.

I may well admire the charity worker who spends every day helping the less fortunate, but I'd still use the word 'hero' sparingly and I'm not sure they'd qualify. They'd have to be one hell of an individual to get that title.

We need that word to retain its meaning damnit. This overuse degrades it for the genuine heroes.

Language is in a state of flux. This has always been the case in the past, and will remain so forever. This also applies to "all" languages.

No language is "set in stone".

There's many different ways that language changes over time, and one very prevalent way is via "street level" usage. Slang, and other personalised versions of language, often find their way into "accepted" usage over time.

There's nothing wrong with language "change"; it's been happening since the beginning of time.

People who are capable of instigating and/or embracing "change" in the various areas of life, are often the people who are the happiest and they more easily achieve prosperity.

Dear Sancho,

I think it was Bryce Courtenay who
said that ours was,"...the language
of an uncertain ambivalent land
not yet entirely sure of who it is,
though bloody certain it isn't
returning to where it came from..."

He was critical of the way our writers
were too concerned with shape and form
and ancient purity of language, forgetting
and ignoring the local idioms to build a
well-constructed plot and tell a
rattling yarn.

His complaint was that too often
our writers ape the English way
and forget the beauty to be found in our
own native language. We're not a babbling
English brook, but a roiling, flood-rushed
creek.

Purity of language is all very well,
but don't sacrifice it by losing the
heart of the tale you want to tell.

Man's greatest inheritance is the gift of
speech.

The gift of words is the gift of imagination.

I agree 100% foxy.

Wow - something we can (at least broadly) agree on!

My pet hate is the adoption of Americanisms. I'll admit I'm not consistent on that; the Yanks are good at encapsulating things in a nifty word or two, so I'm happy to use terms like "Vanilla" or "Motherhood Statement". Agree that language is (and should be)evolving, but we should make sure that's for the better, not a deterioration of its richness.

For example, what irrits me is adopting sloppy errors like saying "alternate" instead of "alternative" ("the team was wearing their alternate strip"; "roadworks - please use alternate route"). The Yanks may not be up to knowing the difference between words that look vaguely the same, but we should be! Also hate their use of the same word for a verb or a noun ("defense", "license") - again, we are clever enough to distinguish, and shouldn't dumb down to that level.

I also dislike our culture being permeated by Americanisms that make us look like we want to imitate the US. As a football (AFL) fan, I hate the childishness of referring to "the Essendon Bombers", "the Carlton Blues" - no, those names are alternatives; the second is the a nickname, and they are not part of the same title. Just makes our league sound like it's aping the San Pedro Padres, New York Yankees, etc. Why?

.. and commentators' increasing use of the US term "Offence" instead of "Attack" in football - sorry, "playing offensively" means something quite different in Australia! And references to "the quarterback role", "a 10-point ball game", etc.

(Dissolves in puddle of aggravation)