The things people say

It's pet peeve time again.

It may start with the use of unnecessary and increasingly annoying phrases like "at the end of the day" and "in relation to", but please let's be clear about where this sort of thing leads.

Today's copy of The Age carried a story by Brendan Nicholson about the status of David Hicks and other Guantanamo Bay inmates. In it he quotes US ambassador Robert McCallum, whom he interviewed for the story:

At least 12 previously detained enemy combatants have reappeared on the battlefield and that has been confirmed by normal forensic evidence which could include, but would not necessarily conclude, DNA testing, photographs, medical records, things of that nature that allow forensic scientists to identify individuals . . .

Well, I'm open to learning new turns of phrase. At least that one was understandable. Can't really say the same about his next pronouncement:

There has not been to my knowledge any dispute that some of the individuals who have been adjudged to be no longer a risk to the United States, and have been released, have then been either apprehended and detained again or have been killed and then identified.

It could just be my simple mind . . . . Did anyone else need to draw a flow chart to extract the meaning from that sentence?

And finally:

Therefore it is indisputable, and I don't think anyone disputes it, that Mr Hicks qualifies as an enemy combatant.

To my mind, not only does this qualify Mr McCallum as unique among diplomats, I'd go so far as to say there's no-one else like him.

Moving forward

Language like this (from a job advert on seek.com) threatens to numb my brain; that is, when it's not short-circuiting it entirely:

You will be researching the development and implementation of a range of social policy issues to create strategies for moving forward.

To this I say:

Going forward, we are strongly committed to ensuring enhancement in relation to written and verbal communication skills by limiting recent innovative approaches to expression -- currently extensively in evidence -- that have a negative impact upon language usage.

(i.e. I hope this trend passes quickly.)

Thirty-six words: only two tensed verbs!

Can you pick them?

Udderly amazed

"Moo-Arr! Westcountry cows moo in farmers’ accents!"

I simply can't let this pass without comment.

I have no problem with the fact (asserted by West Country Farmhouse Cheesemakers) that

West Country cows are wrapped up in cow coats and they are played classical music to help them relax whilst being milked.

I'm even ok with Glastonbury cheesemaker Lloyd Green's claim:

I spend a lot of time with my Friesians and they definitely moo with a Somerset drawl.

No problem there. Everyone has a right to express their personal observations.

What I find disturbing is Mr Frege Green's leap from anecdotal evidence to proof-by-analogy:

I’ve spoken to the other farmers in the West Country group and they have noticed a similar development in their own herds. I think it works the same as with dogs - the closer a farmer’s bond is with his animals, the easier it is for them to pick up his accent.

Of course! It's much easier to accept the world is flat when you realise it would roll straight off the backs of those turtles if it were round.

- - -

Reuters have reported on this, or you may have seen it on the ABC.

A writerly turn of phrase

Australian author Gerald Murnane recently described his soon to be published collection of short stories to The Australian's Rosemary Neill:

Barley Patch, he says, resembles the "fungus on a corpse of a book that would have been the biggest and most ambitious I've ever had published".

The complete interview here.