The use of the word 'inappropriate' as a euphemism is my current bugbear. Children are warned against 'inappropriate touching' instead of being told to watch out for being groped or felt up. A vivid, vigorous word like 'groping' makes it fairly clear, (without spelling things out in too alarmingly graphic detail) what they should try to avoid; 'inappropriate', by contrast, slides off the surface of actual events, gaining meaning only in relation to a structure that is rarely supplied (appropriate or inappropriate to what?)
In other contexts, the word fares no better. For instance, during the recent Australian federal election campaign, a former candidate for the prime ministership confronted our current prime minister in a highly aggressive and startling fashion.
Everyone could see that our prime minister was shocked, a bit intimidated and irritated that this man was trying to wreck things for her. It was also pretty likely that shortly after the incident she felt a surge of rage and realised she hated his guts and wished he could be struck down with a plague of boils. Yet, when asked about the incident, did she reveal any of this? No, of course not. Instead, she said she thought his behaviour had been 'inappropriate.' She would have won me over if she'd expressed even a bit of her true feelings, instead of resorting to the empty, abstract, latinate 'inappropriate', a word without emotional weight, without humanity, without any sense that this was a person rather than a party machine speaking.
But then, as I know to my cost, having spent large chunks of my life reading politicians' words (for payment, I hasten to add - surely no-one does it for pleasure), such a lot of what comes out of their mouths makes no real sense. That is to say, the sentences are often perfectly formed, but they contain no meaning. They are, in fact, akin to algebraic formulae. You can look at them for hours and never extract a concrete image or a piece of solid sense from them. It drives you mad in the end. Believe me, I am proof.
Hmm, I'm partly convinced, but saying 'inappropriate' does make one sound slightly more intelligent and superior than saying 'nasty/rude' or whatever, which sounds more like one is throwing a hissy fit. Better by far, surely, is to do what our current Romanian preident does and simply hit people... this was the third time he's done it - though the first child - and he's now just done it a fourth time :-).
ReplyDeleteThat's the spirit. And, with some of the independents we now seem to have in charge, it won't be long before our lot follows suit.
ReplyDeleteYou're spot on about 'inappropriate'. My oesophagus constricts every time I hear it. Mainly, I should imagine, because of the types of people that feel obliged to inflict it upon us, who can pretty much all be identified by their priggishness.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry about the independents. Worry about the fact that the only way out of your current impasse is to go through the whole election rigmarole again.
Recusant - I wish you had not spoken the truth in that last paragraph. It is so much easier to pretend it won't happen.
ReplyDeleteI find the term 'inappropriate' is 'not fit for purpose'
ReplyDeleteGreat post. One of my pet hates is 'counselled'. As in "the teacher/officer/rogue MP has been 'counselled'": It's nothing but a mealy-mouthed euphemism for "bollocked".
ReplyDeleteCan we also add 'lifestyle' to the list? Ninety nine times out of a hundred removing the style and keeping the life works just as well.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day, the issues the community have been flagging with us as first order concerns regarding their lifestyle choices going forward include a range of ongoing matters that we will be responding to within the framework of a continuing overarching requirement to be mindful of issues around health and safety and, in the final analysis, reflecting the diverse range of effective solutions available to us at the present time, while taking carriage of current and ongoing fiscal constraints within the context of wider budgetary concerns and regulatory mechanisms in a rapidly changing environment in relation to financial instruments and a nuanced approach to underlying structural difficulties, as and when they emerge, within the broader workplace environment.
ReplyDeleteAnd, Parrot, totally 100% agree about 'counselled'.
ReplyDeleteWho was it who said 'not fit for purpose', Worm? Presumably it meant a broken down wreck that had caused nothing but trouble?
And the other thing about 'counselled' is that, if the counselling doesn't work (or, rather, if it isn't 'fully effective') the person being counselled is usually 'with much regret, let go'.
ReplyDelete