Today’s wordification talks about the gentle care that many users of the English language display when addressing something that you want. Most of the time you don’t even know that you want it, but they’ll point you to it. It’s a mode of expressing that I have mostly encountered in North America.
The word in this case is: you’ll want. When you drive somewhere and someone is next to you, pointing where to go, it is common to hear “you’ll want to go left here”. (Unless you’ll want to go right, or straight on, depending on the situation of course.) There is no question about it, you will want to go that way, even if you don’t want to (but no one bothers to ask about that).
The point that the speaker wants (!) to make of course is that you need to, must, should or have to go in that direction. Otherwise you won’t reach your destination. I keep being surprised by the carefulness that so many people feel they have to (or will want to?) display when directing something. What’s wrong with saying you ‘have to’, or ‘need to’ do something? Why ‘will you want’ something? Is this a form of deranged political correctness? (Excuse me for this error, political correctness is already deranged.)
I sincerely hope that this way of expressing oneself doesn’t get any worse than what we’ll want, because if we ‘might consider the option to agree with the idea of maybe wanting to turn into this or that direction, unless you desire to discuss this option and weigh it against potential alternatives‘, we’ll shoot past our goals more and more…
Welcome to another post in Weird wordification. This time I want to talk about something real that’s really not so real as it might look.
Probably everyone has heard the expression Old Skool. A reference to days gone by where walkmans (MP3-players with cassettes) ruled the street view. When there only were dumb phones with smart users (which doesn’t mean that smart phones nowadays have dumb users – have you ever tried to use one of those? Smart phones, I mean, not their users).
I am from that era. Actually I am from before that era, so one might call me ancient skool. Were it not… that I object to both these expressions. And why do I, you wonder?
In old and certainly ancient schools people learnt how to spell correctly. Old skool would have been properly named Old School back then.
Of course, my objections are overruled by the rest of the world, and I understand that. Old Skool is a modern expression, it bears no relation to the spelling taught in old schools. Is this something that casts shadows over ‘our’ language? It seems to happen.
A while ago I had an interesting discussion with someone from America who claimed that ‘b4’ is exactly the same thing as ‘before’. I tried to convince him that this is not an absolute truth, because I (being Dutch) first interpret this ‘b4’ as ‘bay veer’. French people may interpret it as “bay kah-tr”. Trust me: “bay veer” and “bay kah-tr” in either language has nothing to do with ‘before’. It’s all fine for everyone whose native language is English. Or people who’ve been subjected to this kind of acronym or shorthand long enough…
You may know my habit of doing odd things with words. Today I had an encounter with an expression that probably every American citizen has encountered (and many more people around the world as well).
These words appeared with someone holding a bowl. Immediately I wondered if that one bowl would be large enough to contain enough fabric to dress an entire ranch in it!
I delight in little things like that. My mind makes strange turns and finds the strangest paths behind words, thus finding hidden meanings behind them.
The next thing I thought of was: how would one go about to dress as a ranch? Unfortunately the interwebz did not have an answer for that, so I just assume it will involve a lot of wood that one fashions into a portable version of a ranch. That, sandpaper and a good lick of paint on the inside to prevent splinters. And suspenders. One needs suspenders to move about while dressed as a ranch.