I was watching the women’s Euro football, when I heard something that almost made me spill my cocoa. A commentator declared: “the whole team played with real bravado”.
Her intention was to praise a team’s bravery. And this was merited: the XI looked like they were trying their best to play attacking, winning football. I admired their performance.
But “bravado”, by its correct definition, says almost the opposite of brave. Bravado is a pretence of bravery, an empty pose, a puffed-up braggart attempting to look courageous.
Not everyone has perfect English skills. I accept that.
Those who have the reading disorder dyslexia might make errors in identification of letters or letter sequences. This isn’t their fault.
A person who hasn’t had the gift of a good education might express heartfelt feelings with passion and honesty in a badly-spelled manner in sentences of questionable syntax. This can be a wonderful thing, and might be – in a way – a fabulous use of language.
That sort of person wouldn’t deserve an arrant pedant nit-picking at their delivery.
However, someone whose job it is to explain, interpret, and enhance the images we are seeing on our television screens should not, and does not, merit the same level of understanding.
I don’t care what accent is used. It is, as I have said in this column many times, anyone’s right to talk in a way that is natural to them.
But broadcasting companies should surely be able to find an articulate, engaging speaker who is knowledgeable and experienced in their subject but also reasonably skilled in language.
And I am not, I assure you, setting the bar too high.
Discreet (careful and prudent in speech or actions) and discrete (individually separate and distinct) are similar-sounding words that might be more difficult to use. The nuances of restive and restless might also be easily confused; or official and officious; gourmand and gourmet; equable and equitable, and many more.
“Bravado” isn’t an esoteric or rarely-used term. I’d expect nine out of ten adults to know what it means.
There can be no excuse for a speaker using a fairly simple word when they demonstrably did not know the meaning of it. This summariser insulted the people she intended to praise by trying to sound clever.
Ignorance is no shield. It is an easy task, in this smartphone era, to quickly check the meaning of any word.
My complaint here is very simple and, I believe, justified. If a person hired to use words doesn’t know what a word means, they shouldn’t use it.
If your vocabulary isn’t wide, don’t stray outside it.
Word of the week
Esoteric (adjective)
Understood by a small number of people with specialised knowledge. EG: “This column is not for the esoteric language geek, it is for every right-thinking person”.
Read the latest Oh my word! every Saturday in The Courier. Contact me at sfinan@dctmedia.co.uk
