LANGUAGE ABUSE

The constant silly use of the word “Window” to convey a limited time period reached its peak absurdity last week in The Guardian. This was in an article about a missing woman which has gripped the British media, primarily with attacks on the police because of their unnecessary revelations about the woman’s personal troubles. It even drew the Prime Minister’s comments.

Her body has now been found, exactly where the police always claimed it would be, namely in the Wyne river they always believing she had fallen into while walking her dog.

Reporting on this The Guardian wrote,  ”…detectives believe there was only a 10 minute window when she was out of sight”.

If it was a bloody window then the last thing she was was out of sight, moreso given the police had produced an actual window, if they must use this silly term, tracing all of the woman’s movements leading up to her disappearance.

Good speech is ALWAYS plain speech and the habit of silly terminology is a regrettable modern development tracing back to the early 1970s.

Then the word “fundamental” came into vogue in New Zealand by Labour Party spokespeople, usually to justify an assertion with no supporting evidence.

At the same time “at this point in time” replaced “now”, a classic example of voguish speech superfluousness. In a solo effort Winston Peters kept it alive long after it was abandoned by the public.

One currently in vogue is the word “Solutions”, now applied unnecessarily to a wide range of situations. Typical are company names. Bloggs Plumbing Ltd for example is now Bloggs Plumbing Solutions.

When TVNZ ran a business program each morning in the first decade of this century it always included a 10 minute session with a different share-broker each day.

My partner and I would lie in bed and wager with one another on how many “Going Forwards” the bugger would utter. They still do, long after the rest of the world has moved on as they’re the ultimate mindless fashion followers.

We’re picky about who we let into our buildings as tenants, the sole consideration being any adverse effect on other occupants. Thus if someone started a school for budding share-brokers and wanted office premises there’s no way we’d accept them.

That’s because people don’t want to share the lifts with vacuous young men in dark pinstripe suits with brown shoes and no tie, chanting “Going Forward” to one another.

On that note, the Nats would do themselves a power of good by insisting Luxon wear a bloody tie and at least look Prime Ministerial, even if he has nothing to say.