Thread: Illogical American expressions?

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

And insist on referring to aluminium as aluminum.

It might be argued that the US term is correct in that was the original name but Sir Humphry Davy, who discovered it, later added the "i".

Sir Humphry made a bit of a mess of naming this new element, at first spelling it alumium (this was in 1807) then changing it to aluminum, and finally settling on aluminium in 1812. His classically educated scientific colleagues preferred aluminium right from the start, because it had more of a classical ring, and chimed harmoniously with many other elements whose names ended in –ium, like potassium, sodium, and magnesium, all of which had been named by Davy.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/aluminium.htm

Originally Posted by vnx205

I understand that language changes over time. I generally don't like it since it almost always involves a loss of precision or subtlety, but I realise that it is inevitable.

However, I have great difficulty understanding why Australians are so ready to adopt American expressions that simply don't make sense.

I generally accept that once I hear a phrase on the ABC, trying to pretend that it isn't a part of our language has become a lost cause.

Tonight I heard on the ABC news that someone was complaining that the government was offering five time less than their property was worth.

That expression is quite nonsensical. Lets assume the property is worth $1 million dollars. Five times $1 million is $5 million. So is the government offering $5 million less than $1 million? Are they asking the owner to pay them $4 million to take his property from him?

I hear that an item is two time cheaper if it comes from China. If it costs $10 and two times $10 is $20, does that mean the price is $20 less than $10? In other words you will be paid $10 the take the item.

You might argue that even though the expression is illogical, you know what is meant, but there is a perfectly good, logical, simpler expression that we used to use to convey the same meaning. We used to say that the government was offering one fifth of what the owner thought the property was worth. We used to say that the item made in China was half the price.

My grand child is not ten times younger than I am (as Americans would say). She is one tenth my age or I am ten times older than her.

Americans seem fond of illogical expressions. Australians indicate their lack of concern by saying, " I couldn't care less." Americans express the same attitude by saying, "I could care less." Once again, that is quit illogical.

If the language has to change, wouldn't it be better if it changed so that it still made sense?

It's the creeping American Newspeak, a concept well described by Orwell, like calling a war of aggression a 'humanitarian intervention' and using words such as 'join the conversation' instead of debate or argue. I also particularly despise the increasing use of sport inspired American expressions like 'game changer' or the use of pejoratives such as 'regime'. All of which simplify and trivialise complex issues into meaningless factoids and make contradictions palatable. Its infantilisation via language.

Furthermore, it might be useful to start looking at the media and the active choices in language used therein as a means to manufacture consent (as first noted by Noam Chomsky), rather than the lofty goal to inform populations and to act as a checks and balances for governments etc.