|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 25, 2009 13:13:50 GMT
uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090318/tuk-are-you-cutting-out-coterminosity-dba1618.htmlthis is a list of all the office 'jargon' that we're supposed to laugh at and not use. But, typical BBC, it's not right. It says the 'coterminosity' means 'singing from the same hymn sheet'. It doesn't. 'Coterminosity' is NOT jargon. It is an incredibly useful concept, and I use the word daily to discuss what geographical area my services cover, and what geographical area other peoples services cover. E.g. we have acheived coterminosity with police divisions, but not with the Sheriffdom. What is it with people who don't work in offices that they think it's so hilarious to slag off the words we use? Nobody ever picks on scientists for this, and they DO use a whole lot of daft words that nobody else understands. Thing is, Riot, there are certain words used today ("paradigm" for instance), that until very recently I'd never come across. Now I hear it all the time - ALL the time. In that respect, I'd hazard a guess that there are other words that could be used and that the majority of people would easily understand, but paradigm has become the fashionable word and so its trotted out again and again. Similarly, coterminosity. Again, I've never heard of the word so why is it suddenly being used such a lot? Also, there's a difference between office jargon and scientific jargon. Office jargon could always be simplified, scientific jargon is used because it correctly describes something that could be misinterpreted by using local colloquialisms. Everso I struggle with 'paradigm' myself: I'm not sure I really know what it means or how to use it particularly well. But coterminosity Yes, it's a great word. And the reason we are all hearing it now is I suppose because local government has finally reached the somewhat obvious conclusion that it's maybe a good idea to have public services based on the same geographical areas, so that your health board and your council are based on the same area, etc. In Scotland anyway this has come about through the new Community Planning agenda, and I'm assuming (as the Community Planning agenda is pure New-Labour Stalinism) that you'll have something similar down south. I use 'coterminosity' regularly, as there is no other phrase or word which means the same thing. Or is there? |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 25, 2009 13:14:36 GMT
ACTUALLY . .
I don't so much use 'coterminosity' as I talk about whether or not services are coterminous. The adjective I use, but not the noun so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 25, 2009 13:15:24 GMT
'paradigm' Didn't she sing "Joe le Taxi"?  And marry Johnny Depp? |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 25, 2009 13:16:16 GMT
And then there is administrative jargon used even to obfuscate administrators. It's an interesting thought that that is probably why we think of Latin as so difficult, because a very late version of Latin was used in just this way for centuries. Managers use terms they don't entirely understand because it makes them sound grander and they hope to impress subordinates that even though they seem to have seen the obvious, because it has a Latinesque name, it must be a deeper principle. A few words are exceptions where the Latinate has become common and a touch of monosyllabic sounds exotic: so Goals not Objectives. It suggests the same idea of something so new that familiar terms won't do, so old ones must be brought out as a kind of metaphor. It can be folksy implying that the real concept is so far from folksy that to describe it in folksy terms implies its sophistication. The real problem is when jargon is extended inappropriately to what could be described perfectly well without it, in order to make it appear far more portentious than it really is. I don't know what 'portentious' means Piffle . . you jargonista! |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on Mar 25, 2009 13:23:52 GMT
You're just being pretentious Riot, in an inverted sort of a way  |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 25, 2009 13:39:20 GMT
You're just being pretentious Riot, in an inverted sort of a way I am? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? |
|
|
|
Post by everso on Mar 25, 2009 15:04:44 GMT
This is exactly what I mean. Yes, the word paradigm has been in use for a long while but with reference to linguistics and science. Now suddenly it crops up every time some spokesperson is interviewed on Radio Four. I understand its meaning is "a pattern or model, an exemplar". Why, suddenly, do so many people find it difficult to say pattern or model and use instead a word that many people (Riot and me included) don't really understand? And, while I'm moaning, why does everyone have to say "challenging" nowadays when what they really mean is "difficult"? |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 25, 2009 15:27:53 GMT
This is exactly what I mean. Yes, the word paradigm has been in use for a long while but with reference to linguistics and science. Now suddenly it crops up every time some spokesperson is interviewed on Radio Four. I understand its meaning is "a pattern or model, an exemplar". Why, suddenly, do so many people find it difficult to say pattern or model and use instead a word that many people (Riot and me included) don't really understand? And, while I'm moaning, why does everyone have to say "challenging" nowadays when what they really mean is "difficult"? I sort of knew what paradigm was when I was doing my LLB, as it was used to describe particular things that I understood. But you're right - I don't get the wider use it seems to have. But 'challenges' is one of our work buzzwords. It's part of maintaining positive dialogue so we don't all jump off bridges because of the 'challenges' that we have. After all, everyone likes a challenge, and nobody likes a problem. |
|
