The last seven days have been particularly difficult for those of us who are as concerned about falling levels of literacy and comprehension as we are about rising levels of bigotry and hatred. And especially difficult for those of us who believe those two phenomena are inextricably linked. We have been told, repeatedly, – and using such similar words (including the American spelling of ‘characterised’) that one might almost be forgiven for suspecting that they’d been copied and pasted – that when the noun ‘rage’ is preceded by the adjectives ‘pure’ and ‘cold’ then it suddenly takes on the precise opposite meaning of every definition of the word ‘rage’ that’s ever been published in every dictionary ever. And absolutely everyone knows this – which is presumably why no dictionary has ever felt it necessary to clarify this peculiar linguistic quirk – apart from ‘lefties’. Specifically, the type of ‘lefties’ who drape themselves in English and British flags in order to travel across the country to attend earnest discussions about dialectical materialism, organised by noted Marxist intellectuals like Tommy Robinson and Lozza Fox. And to hurl bricks and wheely bins at coppers, obviously. ‘Lefties’ like the ones in the picture.
And, ironically, the people who are giving us these lectures on English usage are the same ones who usually accuse us of being ‘Grammar Nazis’, because we understand the difference between ‘their’, ‘there’ and ‘they’re’. People who think saying ‘Liebour’ and ‘Too Tear Kier’ is the height of wit and sophistication. People who think ‘semantics’ is something to do with Jewish people, ‘etymology’ is something to do with insects, and ‘homophones’ shudnt bee aloud too inndoktrinate are childrun. End off. I asked one of these sesquipedalian vocabularians if this was perhaps an example of an oxymoron. He then got upset because he said I was calling him and his fellow logophiles ‘morons’. Which, I have to acknowledge, was incredibly insightful of him, as I wasn’t planning on doing so until after he’d posted his reply! I can only imagine that this sort of clarity of thought is the consequence of imbibing ten pints of pure, cold Stella. He then went on to tell me that he knew more about English than I do, because he’d got a degree and I’ve only got an A’ Level and a couple of O’Levels… I know it was incredibly insensitive of me to reply using these precise words, but I’m an incorrigibly terrible person and I just couldn’t help myself: “I don’t think you have, mate.”
Of course I am aware of the distinction that Ferdinand de Saussure made between synchronic and diachronic approaches to studying linguistic development, but nevertheless I’m going to stick my neck out here and say that, in terms of manufacturing implausible scenarios in a desperate attempt to create plausible deniability, this is right up there with ‘the dog ate my homework’, ‘you wouldn’t know her; she goes to another school’ and ‘bigger boys did it and ran away’.
TLDR (too long didn’t read): Their definition of ‘pure cold rage’ is unadulterated steaming bullshit.
