Not only is the undeserved praise of the brain a linguistic problem, the downgrading is also an old mistake! So, for example, the number of people is a piece , and significant accomplishments are a dozen words.
To the extent that it is an unfortunate use of the word figures who stray miles from the original meaning of this term ('star') as stars, or to call them queens district, district, settlement, institutional, etc. the winner of a women's beauty contest, the downgrading is also a big mistake! So, for example, the number of people is denoted by the piece , and significant achievements by the dozen .
A toothless vocabulary, the lack of knowledge and use of synonyms can also result in the speaker unintentionally giving his words a pejorative flavor, degrading values and important issues despite his intentions.
" There is piece ," reads the verbatim quote in one of the pages. The journalist did not want to offend him when he quoted the commentator during the presentation of a play! In the end he did. What mannerisms are forgivable in person should not be written in print! The interviewee would not have been offended: on the contrary, he would certainly have been happy if the quoted sentence, which turned out to be somewhat offensive in the end, came back in print like this: there is a main character ; the drama has a main character . Also: Only one or ( only ) one protagonist. (It is well-known: in a dramatic work there can be two, three, etc. more important roles, think of Madách's The Tragedy of Man or Beckett 's Waiting for Godot .) " A piece of human has seen all my writings," I read in an internet magazine. This announcement would have been more precise and tactful: Only one person (one person, one interested person) saw it... I found this call on a social media site: "Only two people are missing from the hundred!" More politely and sabbathly: Only two people are missing...; two supporters already missing... Also: "one guy accepted" in the shop. That's enough: a guy . There were "all familiar faces, all competent experts and one artist piece is less good-natured here than it is unnecessary.
We would like to add: the use of the part noun after the noun is unnecessary, even in the case of objects. I read online: "An employee is entitled to a maximum of subscriptions." The sentence is thus clear and precise: "An employee a maximum of three subscriptions." (Writing numbers under ten in running text with numerals: too official precision. Let's write them with letters!)
dozen (quantitative noun) should be avoided when referring to an activity, phenomenon, or (art) object that is mentioned as an "twelve is a dozen" in the mind. "There is no guarantee that the museums will preserve the works of these two dozen artists". Such a sentence contains a kind of linguistic disrespect, even if it is unintentional. More correctly: about a quarter of a hundred . "At least a dozen dance movies have been made." On a regular basis: at least ten or some . The stamped word is absolutely not suitable for huge, or more precisely, priceless values: " of paintings , including works by Francisco Goya, Diego Velázquez and El Greco, are leaving..." for museum presentation. The dozens of expressions in this case are not only disrespectful, but also carelessly inaccurate. As in the following statement: "More than a dozen champions and Olympic medalists took part in the commemoration...". Let's honor them - and not least their commendable performance - by writing exactly how many there were! Thirteen? Fourteen? Fifteen?
A smiling example: "only a dozen girls were interested in the beauty contest at the rural selections". But before someone misunderstands the content of the message, it is better if we correct it and clearly indicate the real intention of the speaker: at the rural selections, barely ten or a few girls were interested in the beauty contest.
The media doesn't spare itself from this word either, i.e. it doesn't respect itself enough either. I read in a report that "or two dozen press workers gathered" in the press center. Since the announcer didn't want to mention dozens of people here either, let's say this: twenty-some, almost thirty press workers gathered. But what would have happened if, for example, do they look at it for accredited newcomers and provide an exact number? Or one of the organizers would have counted how many members of the media were present. In this way, the – certainly unintentional – downgrading could have been avoided.
Author: Lajos Arany
