Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zeraph
Busy you are already familiar with and can be used in a wide amount of situations that I'm sure you're mostly aware of so I'll focus on time-poor. When I think of time-poor a situation with a deadline comes to mind. It's not that you are too busy to complete the project (you can devote all your time to it) it is that the situation is time-poor. In other words even working on that project 24/7 you will still not have enough time to complete it by the deadline.
Note: Notice I'm only defending a distinction between busy and time-poor, and not defending the way the word may have been originally used when the OP heard it. I am all against creating words just for the purpose of confusion to hide the fact that it's really an increase in taxes, or a company going out of business, etc.
|
Guess I should've scratched harder, eh?
I guess the point I was trying to make, albeit poorly, was that this is one case where simple might not be better. I believe that this movement towards a 'mix n' match' language is largely the result of laziness and I think it makes us look stupid--stupid for using it and stupid for tolerating it. Language should be complex; its complexity is its beauty. I certainly understand the need for abbreviated language and jargon in particular instances, but this crap is infecting the general lexicon. It's the corporate equivilent to 'ebonics' and 'texting.'