"To be fair", "Let's be honest", etc.

[More Strides than Rides]

Linguistic repertoires are a reality for every person who communicates. Nobody but a robot uses the same structures in every situation. As long as a message is understandable, it should be acceptable. The purpose of grammar rules, syntax, etc. is to standardize meaning so that people's production and understanding are on the same page.

But, while it may be seen as lazy to use abbreviations, or misspellings, those structures often exist with their own meaning. IMHO means something different than if the poster actually typed out in my humble opinion (one is more of a "get ready for my perspective", while the other is a more genuine statement of personality).

Further down the road are real mispelling, and porr gramer. People prioritize the package of their content differently. One poster may not care for the cosmetics of their post if they are confident they can still convey their message. There shouldn't be a problem with posters who choose not to polish their production, but can convey a message. Often, they still can (like above). When posts are unclear, it is not uncommon to see requests for clarifications (especially with the multilingual background of many posters here). There is no problem with that. Infact, usually, misunderstandings are the result of more complex ideas, rather than poor expression. Unrefined grammar can still convey the intent of the poster, and people shouldn't have a problem with that, just like riders shouldn't be concerned with how much effort other riders are putting into their exercise.

Similarly, to be fair, lets be honest ect. aren't structures with meaning tied to the sum of the parts. Like others have said, it is a chunk used to acknowledge one point and offer another. That's not easy to do on the internet, where all forms of nonverbal communication are removed from the process. Those phrases serve the purpose to prime the reader in a way that more "acceptable" phrases might not.

Finally, i'm going to pull a quote from a blog I like to read. More abstract than just online writing, but applicable

Extending the narrative

Did you wake up fresh today, a new start, a blank slate with resources and opportunities... or is today yet another day of living out the narrative you've been engaged in for years?

For all of us, it's the latter. We maintain our worldview, our biases, our grudges and our affections. We nurse our grudges and see the very same person (and situation) in the mirror today that we did yesterday. We may have a tiny break, a bit of freshness, but no, there's no complete fresh start available to us.

Marketers have been using this persistence to their advantage forever. They sell us a car or a trip or a service that fits the story we tell ourselves. I don't buy it because it's the right thing for everyone, I buy it because it's right for me, the us I invented, the I that's part of the story I've been telling myself for a long time.

The socialite walks into the ski shop and buys a $3000 ski jacket she'll wear once. Why? Not because she'll stay warmer in it more than a different jacket, but because that's what someone like her does. It's part of her story. In fact, it's easier for her to buy the jacket than it is to change her story.

If you went to bed as a loyal company man or an impatient entrepreneur or as the put-upon retiree or the lady who lunches, chances are you woke up that way as well. Which is certainly safe and easy and consistent and non-confusing. But is it helping?

We dismiss the mid-life crisis as an aberration to be avoided or ridiculed, as a dangerous blip in a consistent narrative. But what if we had them all the time? What if we took the resources and trust and momentum that helps us but decided to let the other stuff go?

It's painful to even consider giving up the narrative we use to navigate our life. We vividly remember the last time we made an investment that didn't match our self-story, or the last time we went to the 'wrong' restaurant or acted the 'wrong' way in a sales call. No, that's too risky, especially now, in this economy.

So we play it safe and go back to our story.

The truth though, is that doing what you've been doing is going to get you what you've been getting. If the narrative is getting in the way, if the archetypes you've been modeling and the worldview you've been nursing no longer match the culture, the economy or your goals, something's got to give.

When decisions roll around--from what to have for breakfast, to whether or not to make that investment to what TV show (or none) to watch on TV tonight, the question to ask is: Is this a reflex that's part of my long-told story, or is this actually a good decision? When patterns in engagments with the people around you become well-worn and ineffective, are they persistent because they have to be, or because the story demands it?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I would encourage Americans to try to listen to Geoffrey Nurmberg on NPR when possible. He's a linguistic analysis professor at Berkley and picks phrases and idioms from society out like this all the time. Here is his website.

As to lack of empathy, coupled with greed and selfishness, etc. While this type of thinking has gone on forever, but mostly since about the 80's, I have to admit now it seems more prevalent than ever. This thinking that being hyper greedy and competitive is somehow good for society. What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine if I can somehow get it from you legally (or illegally and not get caught, or be able to buy my way out of). It's disturbing.

 

[pedaling squares]

In the last few months I've noticed how expressions like "To be fair", "Let's be honest" and variants thereof have been plaguing spoken language and even Internet forums.

They are being used in wider and wider contexts, to the point that they don't add anything to the phrase at all. Seriously, next time you see one of these used, cross it out and reread the phrase. It will probably sound better.

I know, sometimes it's hard to come up with connectors and ways to keep your speech going, but abuse of "to be... , let's be..., fair enough" is not the way to go. Especially as most of the people I've heard talking like this are native English speakers.

This is becoming really annoying, it makes me cringe every time I hear someone utter those words. And lately it is very, very often. What are your thoughts on this?

It's not as bad as throwing the word 'seriously' in front of a point which you wish to make look really, really serious. Just make the point bro!

 

[Cancellator]

It's not as bad as throwing the word 'seriously' in front of a point which you wish to make look really, really serious. Just make the point bro!

Thanks for pointing it out, I hadn't noticed that. We can all help each other improve the way we speak/write.

 

[Elagabalus]

...He also taught me from an early age to be a language pedant...

Listening to your father was your first mistake!! Since he was probably over the age of 35 (when you became his pupil) and therefore could not be trusted!

... In human conversation we can say a lot with our tone of voice, that written conversation can't convey. That's where emoticons and acronyms have come in ... The evolution of language through the internet is not so much the result of texting or forumspeak, but it's more the adapting of the written language to approximate the informal nature of spoken communication. Who speaks in fully formed, grammatically correct sentences? ...

WORD!!!

 

[Martin318is]

Another thing that technology is destroying is the English language. Technology makes people lazy and greedy.

Current debate in Victorian school system is whether to even bother teaching children cursive writing (thats "joined up" writing for those who are not familiar with the word). Apparently they are thinking that nobody writes much on paper other than post it note style items and so block writing is enough and everyone can touch type on electronic devices instead.

One of the most stupid theories I have heard in a very long time...

On the face of it not really about the original topic, however, this is indicative of the attitudes in education which gives a pointer towards how things will look in the future. In my view, the majority of people who use these common phrases (To be fair, etc) are using them in the same way they use LOL. They are not meaning it to be taken literally, it is just something they have come to habitually say in certain contexts.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Listening to your father was your first mistake!! Since he was probably over the age of 35 (when you became his pupil) and therefore could not be trusted!



WORD!!!

Ok. I'm in need of some edication. This is the second time I've seen the expression "Word". What does that mean? (I know I need to get out more often). I'm thinking it might mean "yes", "seriously", or something like dat. Help!

 

[Frosty]

When someone writes or says, "to be perfectly honest ......" , it makes me wonder if they have been lying to me beforehand.

Susan

My parents used that phrase a lot and i do too. I think its more a way of saying 'to be direct' rather than trying to subtly suggest something or joking about things. I can see why people can interpret it differently.

My dad was very strong on the written word too and his hatred of opostrophe's being incorrectly placed rubbed off on me. Well, that was until i saw the head of the Opostrophe Protection Society talking and, when asked if he was being pedantic, he started getting pernickety about the exact meaning of the word pedantic. I dont know if he was being ironic or not.

To be honest , i don't notice a lot of bad spelling nowadays. Normally i only notice it when someone points it out, ie there/their. You can normally understand what people mean.

One thing i do notice is the use of 'of' rather than 'off.' One of my friends recently talked about his holiday and in doing so he mentioned how much he likes a 'month of work' which is obviously quite different to a 'month off work.' Amazing the difference one consonant can make!

 

[Rip:30]

Current debate in Victorian school system is whether to even bother teaching children cursive writing (thats "joined up" writing for those who are not familiar with the word). Apparently they are thinking that nobody writes much on paper other than post it note style items and so block writing is enough and everyone can touch type on electronic devices instead.

One of the most stupid theories I have heard in a very long time...

On the face of it not really about the original topic, however, this is indicative of the attitudes in education which gives a pointer towards how things will look in the future. In my view, the majority of people who use these common phrases (To be fair, etc) are using them in the same way they use LOL. They are not meaning it to be taken literally, it is just something they have come to habitually say in certain contexts.

To be fair, does anyone really use cursive though? I write on paper quite a bit but totally abandoned cursive after the age of 10. Non-cursive is just easier and pretty much just as fast plus other people can actually read it.

 

[Martin318is]

To be fair, does anyone really use cursive though? I write on paper quite a bit but totally abandoned cursive after the age of 10. Non-cursive is just easier and pretty much just as fast plus other people can actually read it.

Do you often interview people or take notes in meetings etc? I may be different but I find I can write nearly twice as fast in joined writing.

 

[BroDeal]

If we all spoke the Queen's English then we would not have great energy drinks like Booty Sweat, a delicious and bump up struttin’ energy drink that will pump up a brotha’s ass right-pronto. This swill will crank yo’ metabolism up skippin’ right over jiggy to straight G-pimp level, word to your mutha. Brothas will be layin’ down the 2-3 on the wiggy jig focusing the energy flow into cold-face benjamins that will fill yo’ pimp pockets to burstin’. Damn straight! Booty Sweat will keep a brotha pitchin’ straight game all night to the baby-dolls.

 

[pedaling squares]

Let's be honest, Bro raises a valid point.

 

[Cancellator]

In my view, the majority of people who use these common phrases (To be fair, etc) are using them in the same way they use LOL. They are not meaning it to be taken literally, it is just something they have come to habitually say in certain contexts.

That is exactly my point! And, to be fair, it becomes annoying after you hear a person using it four times in two minutes.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

It is like when someone starts virtually every sentence with "Listen, ....." or constantly goes "umm......ummm......"

Drives me crazy!

Susan

 

[Kiara is a rational girl]

The amount of people who do not know when to use capital letters or how to spell basic words is a result of social media.

********. They never knew, but they never had a public forum in which to demonstrate their ignorance quite like the internet either.

3 letters can convey a phrase to somebody now instead of using the actual words.

Do you know what shorthand is? Or telegraphese? They're no different to IM-style communication, and they far predate 'social media'.

If we all spoke the Queen's English then we would not have great energy drinks like Booty Sweat, a delicious and bump up struttin’ energy drink that will pump up a brotha’s ass right-pronto. This swill will crank yo’ metabolism up skippin’ right over jiggy to straight G-pimp level, word to your mutha. Brothas will be layin’ down the 2-3 on the wiggy jig focusing the energy flow into cold-face benjamins that will fill yo’ pimp pockets to burstin’. Damn straight! Booty Sweat will keep a brotha pitchin’ straight game all night to the baby-dolls.

Is that sarcasm? Aren't you worried the tight-laced, humorless forum overlords will ban you for being racist? I mean, you're taking the **** out of African American Vernacular English, and more broadly, out of African-Americans - like the English they speak is somehow inferior to the version you speak. You also evaded the language filter, which is ****ing ghastly.

 

[Spare Tyre]

Is that sarcasm? Aren't you worried the tight-laced, humorless forum overlords will ban you for being racist? I mean, you're taking the **** out of African American Vernacular English, and more broadly, out of African-Americans - like the English they speak is somehow inferior to the version you speak. You also evaded the language filter, which is ****ing ghastly.

Aside from that - I wouldn't begin to guess at BroDeal's motivation here - it's probably almost totally incomprehensible to most English speakers.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Aside from that - I wouldn't begin to guess at BroDeal's motivation here - it's probably almost totally incomprehensible to most English speakers.

I suspect his motivation was to see how far he could go with racist comments and sexual innuendo before the mods step in.

Need I say, the line has been reached?

Susan

 

[auscyclefan94]

********. They never knew, but they never had a public forum in which to demonstrate their ignorance quite like the internet either.



Do you know what shorthand is? Or telegraphese? They're no different to IM-style communication, and they far predate 'social media'.

Also, the use of bad language is a sign of someone who lacks a large range of vocabulary. I think you could take that on board.

I am not exactly sure by the meaning of "they never knew" but I am going to take a stab at it. Are you trying to say that in general, people have never really had a proper grasp on grammar and punctuation? I disagree wholeheartedly.

Telegraphese was used in telegrams because it was crucial that those sorts of messages were conveyed as short as possible. It didn't mean that grammar, spelling and punctuation suffered because of telegraphese. Same with shorthand.

Now, coming from someone who has not long ago come out of the secondary education system and inside the tertiary education system that teachers and lecturers can see the difference in the quality of English that students 20 years ago had to current students. My grammar and punctuation isn't necessarily perfect because of social media amongst other things. Grammar and punctuation isn't taught after primary education in Victoria or it is at least very rare. English classes are too obsessed with unpractical, useless curriculum for students in regards to the future.

 

[hrotha]

Also, the use of bad language is a sign of someone who lacks a large range of vocabulary. I think you could take that on board.

Disagree. The use of bad language isn't a sign of anything. Failure to adapt to a high register communication situation *is* a sign of a lack of vocabulary, or of mastery over the language in general, but using bad language in an appropriate informal setting or to express adequate emphasis is perfectly fine.

 

[rhubroma]

Oh dear. It will come as no surprise that I wholeheartedly agree with the old(er) farts here.

My father was probably a lot like Susan's father with his opinions about the influence of modern music. He also taught me from an early age to be a language pedant, and to treat the written word with respect. It has been a depressing learning curve for me to have to accept that the vast majority of people posting their thoughts and opinions on the webz clearly don't give a hoot about how they write, or about what others think about 'how' they write.

It still annoys the hell out of me when I see clearly intelligent people not willing to make the small effort required to construct paragraphs, and to check what they've written before posting. Worst of all are people whose posts are full of obvious, glaring typos, and who can't be bothered to use capital letters where they belong. (I am not talking about non-native speakers making spelling mistakes!) I've lost count of the number of regular posters around here, many with huge post counts, who seem to think that the upper case is some historical folly that should be ignored. These are many of the same people who cannot be bothered to take 10 seconds after they finish writing to correct their typos, and instead simply post something that looks horrible and is annoying to read.

Certainly, much of this sloppiness and lack of respect for the language has been brought about by the texting times of recent years, but there is no excuse in my book for most of the horrible liberties that many take with the language nowadays.

Communication skills in both the writen and spoken contexts have become reduced, in our modern consumer and market driven world, like all the commercial publicity, to mere selling points. Our culture, especially in the English language, has streamlined communication, to the point at which many are incapable of expressing complex thoughts for themselves through an adequate use of language. Naturally writing skills have dropped as a result, while many schools aren't really teaching grammar anymore. And when one is thinking simplistically or too superficially, then one's speaking and writing is also imbued with an over-simplistic tone. Hence the constant access to linguistic ticks such as inserting "like" every 5 words, because one is incapable of articulating what they mean, or where their points are headed with any greater sophistication or eloquence. This is not good for critical thought, which any democratic society should encourage to the fullest among the citizenry.

End result: we are producing a generation whose thought processes are being simplified and are more in tune with, indeed have probably been shaped by, the superficial means with which communication technology has facilitated individual expression within the commercial-corporate based consumer culture.

The humanistic ideals upon which early modern Western society was built, have thus been betrayed in our prevalently business dominated culture and by a civilization of conspicuous consumption. So that personal dignity is no longer wrapped up in the ways in which we comport ourselves and express our thoughts - the art of self-representation - but is measured in how much buying power we have.

I have seen this, unfortunately, in my students essays and term papers all to frequently: they are writing poorly, because they are thinking too simplistically and superficially about the issues they have been asked to critically analyze. Yet they all Tweet incessantly and understand their personal economic worth and buying power, but their cultural intelligence is often at nearly zero.

 

[hrotha]

And when one is thinking simplistically or too superficially, then one's speaking and writing is also imbued with an over-simplistic tone. Hence the constant access to linguistic ticks such as inserting "like" every 5 words, because one is incapable of articulating what they mean, or where their points are headed with any greater sophistication or eloquence.

"Like" is just a discourse particle. Standard German is full of them. They're not simple, they're every bit as sophisticated as any other part of speech.

 

[aphronesis]

I have seen this, unfortunately, in my students essays and term papers all to frequently: they are writing poorly, because they are thinking too simplistically and superficially about the issues they have been asked to critically analyze. Yet they all Tweet incessantly and understand their personal economic worth and buying power, but their cultural intelligence is often at nearly zero.

Setting aside the various points of the rest of your post, this raises the question of the culture being formed in place of the one you describe. Speech, wrting, thought, are not merely business driven, instrumentalized, etc. but do retain cultural attachments that will shape the contours of societies and cultures to come.

Also, students at the higher end schools are more resistant to this for now, but--to dismantle the less obvious point of brahdeals riff--there are students at the lower end schools who, by virtue of technological access and cultural leveling, are able to write perfectly well, but without any real stakes. More so, there are those who perceive certain cultural stakes, but simply haven't been trained to write. It cuts in several directions.

 

[aphronesis]

"Like" is just a discourse particle. Standard German is full of them. They're not simple, they're every bit as sophisticated as any other part of speech.

Technically speaking yes. You know that wasn't his point. At a certain level--the immanent one--it becomes a question of whether one is fascinated by the ways in which that particle is deployed. Who is using it. And what are the terms of the communication. At which door the psychology of the interaction is checked?

 

[rhubroma]

"Like" is just a discourse particle. Standard German is full of them. They're not simple, they're every bit as sophisticated as any other part of speech.

Italian has allora, dunque, quindi, comunque...

But do the young Germans when pressed on complex matters of social relevance speak like this: "It's like, well, you know....like....I mean, like.....on the other hand, its also like.....like....like. It's like that, you see."

No word in and of itself is simple, but whether or not it can be considered sophisticated depends on how it is rhetorically used. My position is that this is what our market and consumer culture, which seems mostly to have catered to the lowest common denominator, has caused in driving eloquence out of the common modes of speech, and hence modes of thought. By its modes and objectives of comunication, which are predicated upon encouraging rapid consumption, though a simplification and synthesis of the advertized message. In fact we as a society don't seem to comunicate much at all any more, apart form the direct and simplistic forms known to commercial publicity. Indeed the mode of comunication promoted in the Twitter phenomenon, appears to be connected to this same market logic of simplification for mass consumption: the commercialization of individual thoughts. If I were to Twit, which I don't, I'd probably say "Twitter makes me sick."

Perhaps speech, at the colloquial level, has been taken far too much for granted today, when even during those times in which the situation demands a higher form of communication, one is no longer able to provide it, despite mass education. Whereas if we take the example of the political class, often its modes of talking to the public are appalling, while intellectualism and intelligent speaking have gotten vilified as "snobbery."

Apart from the ars rhetorica of classical antiquity - Ars rhetorica est ars liberalis bene dicendi et scribendi (“The art of rhetoric is the liberal art of speaking and writing well”) - the ancients and the early modern humanists even pondered the ways in which our immaterial thoughts projected through voice and expressed in words, correspond to the nature of things in the material world. The ancient Greeks called such intellectual discipline, ekphrasis, the art of describing things, while they engaged in "putting a face" to inanimate objects (simulacra), like statues, by giving them a voice, prosopoeia , through poetic verse.

Certainly democracy and the consumer market have spread material well-being to more and more citizens, much of which, though, is entirely superfluous and superficial; however, they seem to have, and no doubt for this reason, at the same time impoverished us in those immaterial aspects of our existence that gave less developed societies a common dignity we have lost. And I’m talking about even the way people dressed before globalization and the market. This was achieved by inculcating in the masses a superficiality that came with easy access to material goods, which has had negative consequences for the structured complexity of the current generation's thoughts and speech. In other words the models that our market culture have put forth for mass consumption on TV and in the shopping malls, have not worked positively in forming performed mental habits in this regard. As if things like eloquence and sophistication no longer matter in post-class society, because they are no longer signs of particular achievement or status, but which today still corresponds to what is called the leadership class. Being self-consciously enslaved to rules of elegance, especially if used merely to reinforce class status, is of course condemnable; however, between that, and aspiring to no forms of sophistication whatsoever en masse is simply a demonstration of having no class at all. It’s one thing to be raw and brutish because living in abject poverty, entirely another to have all the material comforts one could need and still be crude and underdeveloped in ones thinking and means of communication in today's democracy of mass education. What is to blame for this apparant contradiction in our society? I have indicated a possible hypothesis. While this is what I meant before in accusing today's society of betraying the aspirations of the early modern humanists.

I know that in the post-war European democracies, a major concern was mass literacy and access to good, democratic public education – public being the operative word, because there was a value and nobility attached to the res publica; and that the greatest sign of the success of a democracy was the level of critical thinking that a public education could inculcate in the citizenry. The effects of globalization, the consumer market and the financialization of the State in accordance with the economic imperatives of neoliberalism, have certainly placed those ideals and the institutions responsible for realizing them under great structural stress. Priorities change, fine. But the present historical course has placed certain mechanisms into action, which seem to have worked directly against all those noble, and decidedly immaterial aspirations, upon which modern Continental democracy was based: to elevate, and not to sink everyone down to the lowest common denominator (a reverse classism), in the way the citizenry thinks and communicates through excellent public education. An educational system, furthermore, that was seen as democratically fundamental to ensure having continued model types in the civic institutions.

The image is of one of Rome's famous ancient talking statues from Antonio La Frere's Speculum romanae magnificentiae (1575), placed in situ at the angle of a wealthy cardinal's palace around 1500. The art of prosopoeia and ekphrasis was thus revived in Rome during the age of humanism. The staff, donkey ears, ram horns and ribons, were apparantly used to dress Pasquino on feast days when he would "talk" to the Romans as a public bard.

Oh, by the way, Pasquino still talks today:

 

[Anonymous]

If we all spoke the Queen's English then we would not have great energy drinks like Booty Sweat, a delicious and bump up struttin’ energy drink that will pump up a brotha’s ass right-pronto. This swill will crank yo’ metabolism up skippin’ right over jiggy to straight G-pimp level, word to your mutha. Brothas will be layin’ down the 2-3 on the wiggy jig focusing the energy flow into cold-face benjamins that will fill yo’ pimp pockets to burstin’. Damn straight! Booty Sweat will keep a brotha pitchin’ straight game all night to the baby-dolls.

Me n BroDeal see eye to eye on nut-in... But that was straight up post 'o the year, yo.