|· Guidelines · Portal||Help Search Members Calendar|
|Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )||Resend Validation Email|
|Welcome to Weaselwords. We hope you enjoy your visit.|
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:
Posted: Nov 22 2007, 01:20 PM
Member No.: 284
Joined: 24-August 06
Hi, another one i feel like getting off my chest. Perhaps not true weasel words, instead they fall into the category of uses (abuses) of language that are currently really annoying me. Perhaps seen elsewhere, i often seem to come across these gems in lifestyle type newspaper articles. Good grief, it occurs to me to ask why i would be reading this stuff in the first place... Anyway!
While describing a place, person, drink, concept, wine bar (concept wine bar anyone?), the writer will attempt to conjure an image in the readers mind by starting a sentence with, "think..."
For example, this review of 'heroes' from the age includes:
They just get worse from there.
My other peeve is writers dropping in a sentence starting with "Oh.." as if it was something they had just thought of and wanted to let you know before rushing their article off to their subbie. Or some gem of wisdom that they are willing to impart. Puhleese! Spare me!
Ahh, that feels better. See you on the other side of the election...
Posted: Dec 13 2007, 07:08 PM
Member No.: 242
Joined: 5-April 06
Tricky one, donktec.
The deliberately pre-announced metaphor or simile.
It might be a necessary strategy in some parts of the world, where things like metaphors and similes, or even irony and the like, aren't automatically recognised and need a bit of a hint. I can imagine movie goers getting really cranky in some places when , after reading a review that says "X-Men meets Watchmen", they head of to a movie and find that none of the cast of either movie appear in the film being referred to.
But I do sympathise.
But then, dare I say it, there is the current overuse of pseudo-words like "Puhleese!.."
Rod "ducks for cover" (- though personally I reckon ducks are far too unbulletproof to offer much in the way of protection! )