Sunday, November 12, 2006

Linguistic Abuse

The eternal bard once said "What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Maybe true. But every word has a meaning. And to use a word in a manner as to distort its meaning is unfortunately, today's journalistic trend.

For example, take the word (phrase?) "high-tech". It stands for high-technology - which means technology of a certain calibre, a certain novelty, and a certain degree of precision, one that stretches the state-of-the-art in a field. How do our papers use the word? Well, simply, everything in the 'high-tech' (sic) city of Bangalore is high-tech. The bus-stand is hi-tech, even though it doesn't have proper water-proofing. The buses are hi-tech, even though they run on 80s technology. The government is hi-tech, even if it doesn't understand technology. Everything is hi-tech. Most vulnerable to this phenomenon is the New Indian Express - which is otherwise an excellent read.

Here is an other one. "Militant". Websters' defines "Militant" as someone who takes to arms for a selfless cause. A "terrorist", on the other hand, is one who "systematically uses terror as a means of coercion". So, are the terrorists in Kashmir working for a selfless cause? Or are they using terror to coerce the Indian government into accepting the two-nation theory? Well, if you go by the anchors, they are those fighting for a selfless, no doubt, secular, cause.

I'll add more as I remember them.

2 comments:

Stier said...

have to agree with u gops...

and what do u know...in a few years these meanings will go into oxford dictionaries too...just the way many of the "Hinglish" words have gone in

Gops said...

Stier,

Unfortunately for these journos, the word high-tech already has a well defined meaning in the oxford dictionary, so I'm guessing (hoping) it won't make it in there! ;)

G3,

Yeah, I mean, compare what a Shekhar Gupta writes to what some of the newbies write...as they say in Kannada - "Ajagajaanthara". Along with what you said, hasn't 2-minute journalism ruined the rest of the lot? I mean, if everything gets reduced to a sound-bite, then the best sound-bite (albeit the most meaningless one) 'wins', right?