Anyway - I listen to a lot of football stuff on the radio and internet and have become increasingly aware of what I called idiot football speak (hereafter IFS). From fans to managers to players to pundits a whole new language appears to be evolving - loosely based on English it takes metaphors, similes and proverbs and shapes them into utter nonsense which nobody seems to mind. WELL, I MIND...
IFS: At the end of the day
What it really means: No actual constructive meaning, used as an all purpose terminating clause when you are trying to make a forceful point
Analysis: This to me is the grand daddy of IFS and seems to have evolved into everyday speak beyond the realms of IFS. It has developed beyond its literal meaning and can now be uttered as a continuous sound along the lines of "adeeendoddaday". Why events should take on special significance during the evening in the IFS world is shrouded in mystery.
Rating:
IFS: The proof is in the pudding
What it really means: This is a corruption of the ancient proverb "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" meaning that although something may appear to be desirable, a further test of its qualities is needed.
Analysis: This one is a real current (sorry) favourite and seems to crop up a lot. There are various versions - "the proof is in the pudding" (what? where is this mystical pudding that contains only truth"; "the proof is of the pudding" (eh? proof and pudding are now the same thing?) and the staggeringly mystifying "the proof of the pudding is getting the away win on Tuesday" (total common sense breakdown).
Rating:
IFS: Yeah, its one of those...
What it really means: Almost defies explanation due to its vagueness but is best described as meaning "this is a situation which I have encountered before which I would liken to this current issue".
Analysis: This is a recent contender which has appeared on the scene. It is most often used as a launchpad to start discussing an issue which can be likened to a similar issue encountered previously. This skirts the fringes of IFS because it is not grammatically or logically incorrect in any sense. It just annoys me.
Rating:
IFS: Yeah, no, definitely
Evidence: Exhibit_1
What it really means: Has no real meaning - a general all-purpose way to begin an answer to a question.
Analysis: Seems to be a favourite of breathless footballers being interviewed post game who, when asked a question will respond with "yeah, no, definitely, we had a good game today...". Not sure what to make of this - my heart goes out to people abroad trying to learn English who hear this and try to make sense of it. Its kind of like an all purpose answer which covers every eventuality.
Rating:
IFS: Literally
What it really means: What I am describing actually happened. If I say "he has literally shot himself in the foot there" then I am saying that he took a loaded gun, pointed it as his foot and pulled the trigger. It does not mean that he has, figuratively speaking, done something which has set himself back or accidentally compromised himself. He has actually shot himself. In the foot. Blood and shoe detritus all over the place.
Analysis: OK, I am straight off going to concede that to take this under the wing of IFS is a little bold because people in all walks of life have been coming out with this rubbish for years. But it does seem to be a favourite of commentators and footballers alike who use it as a term of emphasis and come out with such gems as "yeah, the boy has literally run his heart out tonight" and "he literally leapt like a salmon to head that ball". I enjoy supernatural feats and surrealist whimsy as much as the next man but to suggest that someone has transformed into a fish mid-game is perhaps pushing things too far.
Rating:
IFS: Yeah, we gave 110% out there today
What it really means: We physically gave as much as we could give out there - actually we gave 10% more than it is physically possible to give bringing into question the fundamental laws of mathematics.
Analysis: Again, a bit presumptive to categorize under IFS because this is another one that has crept into the common vernacular. However, this is a favourite of the dim-witted interviewee who, through lack of expressive vocabulary attempts to persuade you of the veracity of what he is saying with mathematical gymnastics. It is just the sheer stupidity of this that galls me. If I have a pie and I give you 100% of that pie then you have all of the pie. I cannot give you 200% of the pie - that much pie does not exist - that is two pies; I don't have two pies. I enjoyed one interviewee on some talk show when asked if they were the father of some mewling pea-brain and they replied "yeah, definitely, 1000%" then, after a few seconds of cognitive fumbling came back with the qualifier "no, 1,000,000%". This is really raising the bar on how sure you can be on something. Or maybe, going back to our pie analogy, he was actually father to 10,000 mewling pea brains and therefore was spot on with him sums.
