Thursday, September 13, 2007
Logistics
Small mystery of the modern world - What is this word Logistics that crops up everywhere, especially on the sides of lorries and vans? I know what Solutions means (i.e. absolutely nothing) - but Logistics? Maybe it means deliveries or removals... Anyway, I just saw the entertaining spectacle of a very long lorry, with Logistics written all along it, that had managed to get completely stuck on a tight corner, unable to move backward or forward, creating an impressive traffic tailback. How logistical was that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A blog about, among other things, imaginary ideas - What ifs? and Imagine thats. What if photographs looked nothing like what we see with our eyes? Imagine that the Berlin Wall had never come down. What if we were the punchline of an interminable joke? All contributions welcome.
how long was it?! it's quite a short word on my computer screen.
ReplyDelete...are you sure it wasn't just big writing?
ReplyDeleteHope you were on foot and walking past it, not stuck in a car behind it.
ReplyDeleteOn foot Susan - Ialways am. And Ian I think it was nearly all along the side to be strictly accurate, but a big word, in big letters...
ReplyDelete'Logistics' means about as much as 'solutions' which means less than nothing, but is used by people who want to con you into believing they're at the cutting edge of the modern world, when in truth they're just having you on. Both silly uses of the words emanate - as you might guess - from america, the same place as 'collateral debt obligations' and 'sub-prime mortgages' where words (pace Alice in wonderland)mean anything they want them to mean.
ReplyDeleteThe 'g' is hard as in dog. So logistics are sticks that are a bit like logs. Obviously.
ReplyDeletenow phillip. you brits say "orientated" instead of "oriented," thereby adding an unnecessary syllable. it's not always americans who make gobbledy-gook of language to obscure certain meanings or make them look more learned than they are.
ReplyDeleteI direct you to treatises by George Orwell and Erasmus on the subject and, if you really must have an american, I urge you to read fredric jameson's "the political unconscious." he makes the point -- via his own intensely dense, obscure language -- that to write in clear prose is the sure mark of the bourgeois and that clarity is deceptive for it lures readers into an identification with the ideology of the writer.
in his view, far better to make reading difficult -- no one will get sucked in that way. On the other hand, no one, other than unlucky Ph.D. candidates forced to read awful literary theory, will ever read more than a few pages of the turgid, obscure stuff.
in dog? not lodge, as in lodge a complaint?
ReplyDeleteyes, it's important to be accurate, nige. we don't want Appleyards going Wiki on us.
I think it's military jargon that's been appropriated - logistics is the process of keeping an army supplied in the field. Somebody obviously wanted to be thought macho.
ReplyDeleteHow silly, Mrs Balee, to accuse the English of being long-winded when americans never use a short word (or phrase) when they can invent a long one instead. 'Transportation' is a good example on point, and 'railroad' for train and a whole host of others which i can't be bothered to type out. Why did you accuse the English of greating 'gobbledegook' out of language when practically all the horrors in modern English come from america?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what point you're making about clear writing - I thought the whole point of language was to communicate with other people, if it's 'bourgeois' to do so, then language is pointless - which it is rapidly becoming across large parts of England and america.
Wow. Really?
ReplyDeleteUm, Philip, i'm making fun of Fredric Jameson's ridiculous theory, not agreeing with it. And by the way, it's "Dr.," not "Mrs.," though just a Doctor of Philosophy (in English language and literature), as opposed to an M.D.
I believe Charles Dickens was one of the first English writers to describe the phenomenon of railroads -- and rail carriages -- to his fellow countrymen in the 19th century. We are deriving our usage from him; "train" is a more recent phenomenon. Perhaps it derives from French, "en train de," though I'm not sure.
Train means a sequence or number of things drawn along in a string - it can be animals or wagons or whatever. it comes from an overlap of meanings between the old french 'trainer' to drag and 'traine' meaning guile.
ReplyDeleteBut let's not get stuck on one word - look at the thousands of others which prove my point; there's no point in your disagreeing with me because it's so obviously true; what would be interesting would be to discuss the reason why americans are so ponderous and long-winded both in speech and writing.
My view is that it stems from a fatal combination of self-importance and poor education. But there is no doubt that most americans (and an increasing number of English people, by the way) are unable to communicate in subtle language. If you compare the sophisticated writing of ordinary people who had had what was classed as a 'rudimentary' education at the time (tradesmen, artisans and farmers) in 18th and 19th century England with their counterparts in modern Britain you will see what I mean.
It seems that we are steadily losing the ability to express ourselves clearly and precisely both in speech and on paper. You of all people must have an opinion why this is happening.
But I do disagree with you, so it can't be pointless. Far from seeing people --Americans in particular -- as ponderous and long-winded (big exception is academics), I see more people being abrupt and monosyllabic. Except teen girls, whose conversations are endless and annoying and filled with interjections of "like" and "omigod."
ReplyDeleteBut I think language is protean and whatever form it takes is what it's meant to take. I also think every "in" group has its own jargon, so if you're talking to some group of American businessmen or bureaucrats, you will hear the Latinized, ponderous speech you deplore. I was just reading a bit of Nancy Mitford's "Noblesse Oblige" today, a great deal of which is devoted to U and nonU (Upperclass is what the "U" stands for) language. You might find it interesting.
I'm leery of big generalizations because so much depends on class, age, sex, race, and education. I will say, though, that I find British people -- in general -- to be much wittier than Americans. At least on blogs, which is why I frequent this one. But of course there are lots of exceptions. You only have to see "The Simpsons" to recognize we do have a sense of humor too.
What do the rest of you folks think? Don't leave me hanging here. Are Americans all ponderous and long-winded?
Actually, Susan/Philip, a poll on that very question was taken recently down at the corner store on Main Street somewhere in Middle America. 52% said "Yup", while the other 48% said "Nope".
ReplyDeleteI direct you to treatises by George Orwell and Erasmus on the subject and, if you really must have an american, I urge you to read fredric jameson's "the political unconscious." he makes the point -- via his own intensely dense, obscure language -- that to write in clear prose is the sure mark of the bourgeois and that clarity is deceptive for it lures readers into an identification with the ideology of the writer.
ReplyDelete