Not a word but that whole hashtag is getting beyond silly.
I don't mind it on twitter as I'm not using it, but it's now everywhere, followed by a long tirade, a five word oneliner merged into one word.
Pietro Paolo Virdis wrote: Not a word but that whole hashtag is getting beyond silly.
I don't mind it on twitter as I'm not using it, but it's now everywhere, followed by a long tirade, a five word oneliner merged into one word.
Plurality when intended to mean relative majority. There is nothing in the word implying that meaning. It literally means several. Just that - several.
I'm all for the American can-do attitude, but go easy on making up nonsensical words, eh?
Yes, it was a favourite word from the co-commentators (on the international feed, usually Aus/NZ ex-players). But what did we call it before?
(also, having skimmed through this ancient thread from the start, I think I may be a serial offender, though that probably applies to anyone who's had a conversation in the past 15 years ...)
Yes, it was a favourite word from the co-commentators (on the international feed, usually Aus/NZ ex-players). But what did we call it before?
"Win/lose the ball," probably.
TBH, I do think that such moments have increased in importance in the game in recent years, as the speed and effectiveness of counter-attacking football has improved.
Far too useful a term I'm afraid. It's a common and standard political tool in 2023.
I want to throw in the term "not fit for purpose". It allows people who know nothing and understand less complain aggressively about something, while sounding authoritative, while offering no path to improvement other than "put me in charge".
It's one of those phrases that allows you identify what "side' you are on, without having the first clue what you are talking about. File with 99% of the uses of "neo liberal"
I'm probably the only one on here who routinely finds themselves reading news articles written by college students. All too frequently, they use words that don't mean what they think it means. It's discouraging.
The latest example was "respective" when they meant "respectable." Examples abound.
As I've said before... "Game-changing" or "game changer."
I don't know why everything needs to be referred to as a game that way. What it usually means is "business-changing" or "market-changing" or "clinical practice-changing." So just say that.
Of course, as often as not, it refers to something that will, at most, cause an incremental change in whatever field of human endeavor it's supposed to change.
It was used frequently throughout COVID for all manner of test technology, new kinds of masks, etc. and so forth. The only thing that really "changed the game" were the vaccines.
A "game changer" is the pitch clock in baseball or the back-pass rule in soccer or something like that.
Slightly less ubiquitous since Johnson was sacked, but "world class" and "world leading," by politicians.
"Brand of cricket."
"Visceral," especially in film reviews.
I'm with Sits on "Gaslighting." Let's call it what it is: repeated lying, abuse of the democratic process, ruling party control of the media, propaganda, etc, according to context.
I'm probably the only one on here who routinely finds themselves reading news articles written by college students. All too frequently, they use words that don't mean what they think it means. It's discouraging.
The latest example was "respective" when they meant "respectable." Examples abound.
Comment