Of course. Who is arguing it shouldn’t?
A few folks here are trying to explain why in a narrow corporate environment some ways of communicating are actually more effective. The problem is others are disregarding those direct experiences and saying no they’re not, despite not being in that environment.
Sure some corporate speak is silly, but the stuff that sticks is the stuff that works.
It depends on what you meant by ‘fluid’; and you are guilty of the fallacy of stating a false dichotomy. I tried stating something more detailed but you obviously cannot grasp the subtleties. I am stating facts (that language, among other things, is a marker of class); what I believe is irrelevant.
I gave you an explanation of why some people object to this kind of language. It has to do with things other than communication per se; it also has to do with ‘class marking’ and etiquette.
That is why they are so frequently and justifiably the object of so much derision.
You might want to read this article. It explains why these things are important:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_structure_of_the_United_Kingdom#U_and_non-U
Please pay particular attention to the part entitled:
Accent and language and social class
When there are many available options and you are presented with a false choice that limits those options, that’s a false dichotomy. When there are actually two and only two options, saying so is not a false dichotomy. You are either alive, or dead (unless you work with Billy Crystal). You are either pregnant, or not pregnant. For these things there is no in between. Business language is not about being subtle.
Language is either fluid, or not fluid. Period. It either can change over time, or it cannot. There is no in between. You can argue the nature or manner of that change, sure. This does not change the fact that the ability to change over time, i.e. being fluid, either exists or it does not. This is a very simple question. It warrants a yes or a no. Feel free to explain your answer, but to do that, you need to actually answer. Care to try again? Do you believe language is fluid?
Hiding behind the phrase “some people” is pretty weak shit. It’s a direct question about what your specific beliefs are. You. Not that other guy over there. Or that group of people somewhere else. You. Feel free to think others who speak different than you exercise poor etiquette or have low class. You’ve still failed to answer the question.
To say that language is fluid runs the risk of being misinterpreted as saying you can do whatever the hell you want. I don’t like the word ‘fluid’ because it is open to that very misinterpretation. Of course language does and can change. But again, that does not mean that you are completely free to ignore traditions and norms. There is more to it than just ‘effective communication’. How you say things is often more important than what you say.
The bolded part is where you go wrong. There is nothing “natural” about this preference, and it remains to be seen why the preferences of a small subset of English speakers should be considered authoritative.
See, that wasn’t so hard, right? I’ll take that as a ‘yes’.
At least you’ve admitted that language changes over time. Progress! I suppose then your argument must rest on the fact that you or some group you favor should decide how those changes occur to the exclusion of all others? Is that about right? It’s arrogance then, yes?
Well it is, whether you or I like it or not. Not to *recognize *the authority of ‘U’ speech is a faux pas.
Having just left a company where I worked with a guy with an English title and lived in London who used the most ridiculous business speak - I call bullshit.
You must be a blast at parties.
Using the phrase “what’s the ask” or even using ‘ask’ in this fashion is not directional. It occurs between many different levels. As a manager, you can say to a member of your team “what are you asking me to do?” or “what is the ask?”. A person can also direct the same question to their manager. There is no value judgement or peacocking going on, necessarily.
The reason why you need to check your availability is because often you are scheduled for meetings on your calendar without your knowledge. Each day, I start by looking what’s on my calendar. Most of the events I didn’t put there. When someone asks a question that can’t be quickly resolved through IM, I tell them to find time on my calendar and schedule a meeting. Or I tell them if they want to discuss something further, my calendar is current. So if someone asks me if I have time, my response is often, “I don’t know, check my calendar.” That’s pretty much the same thing as saying “let me check my availability.”
You keep putting words in my mouth. The situation is more complex, subtler, and more sophisticated. I do not accept your formulation, calling this ‘arrogance’.
Read this entire article, if you would be so kind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_structure_of_the_United_Kingdom#U_and_non-U
Language use is part of a larger cultural whole.
In the United States, as an English-speaking country, the same factors are at work, but in somewhat different form. There is a distinction between sophisticated northern urban elite speech and Southern and Midwest rural speech. This is the basis of the humour in television shows such as The Beverly Hillbillies.
Here is a related article
He was obviously not the sort of fellow of which I speak. English gentlemen usually don’t work.
Maybe we need to take baby steps then. You agreed that language does and can change. The question then becomes how does this change come about, right? At some point, someone, or some group would have to decide what changes were acceptable and which were not. You seem to believe that you yourself are a part of this group, and that others who do not share your beliefs are not. That’s pretty much arrogance.
No, thanks. I skimmed it - it seemed like bullshit but then again I just skimmed it. Maybe you’d care to elaborate on why you think it’s relevant or which specific passages you’d like to discuss.
The article explains everything so much better than I could. And I deny that any part of this could be characterized as ‘arrogance’.
More effective at what? In many cases, the user’s goal is not to communicate, but to create the appearance of communication while obfuscating. That can be “more effective” at advancing some twit’s career, but it is not “more effective” at communicating.
In which century? Cause now most of them do work.
Precisely. Some aspects of language have nothing to do with communication at all. Some writing is intentionally vague.
This only true so long as everyone else believes it. It’s only a faux pas to wear white after Labor Day so long as everyone else thinks this rule binds. Collective self-reinforcement is the source of social authority. If you talk like an Edwardian dandy in a business setting, then you will be justifiably mocked both to your face and behind your back. Just like you said in the other thread, you have to learn how to talk to authority. If your betters say “incentivize,” then that’s what you say, too.
You may think it’s a pity that one’s betters these days don’t read the classics. Believe me, I do, too. But if you have ambitions to be anything other than a professional crank, you will suck it up, just like a semiliterate English laborer in 1915, who, ignarus consuetudinis nostrae, needed to learn the difference between “who” and “whom” to talk to power. I have no doubt this was a subject about which he didn’t give a shit.
‘Traditionally’.