Briefly Comprising...
I cannot believe I'm the only one who gets nigh-on apoplectic when I look at estate agents' grammar. Let's face it, no kid goes to their careers officer and tells them that what they've always dreamed of was running away to Foxtons, but really - these guys are trying to sell something. They have a few precious words in which to do it. You'd think they'd use them wisely.
I'm not talking about the usual cliches - "bijou" (small) "cosy" (ditto) "compact" (ditto) "ideal renovation opportunity" (falling down) "individual" (weird) "sought-after area" (anywhere) "quiet" (miles away) "ideal transport links" (backs onto the Blackwall Tunnel Approach) "exposed beams" (exposed sky, too) "easily manageable" ( back to 'small' again...)
These are so bloomin' obvious they don't actually get used very much any more and when they are I almost enjoy them in a nostalgic kind of way - the same way I enjoy Prawn Cocktail, Black Forest Gateau and cheese and pineapple cubes on sticks. Or maybe it's more Blue Nun and Sparkling Pomagne...
No - it's the way they mangle the English Language that gets me. Here is the phrase I've just seen that inspired this post:
"...within a mile radius of Greenwich Village"
This gets three of my worst goats in one succinct sentence.
"Radius." Surely a radius is round. Not a posh way of referring to any old distance from A to B.
"Within." The usual use for "within" in the Estate Agent lexicon is a fancy word for "in." As in "situated within a highly sought after area." Here, of course, if "radius" was working, this would actually be necessary, but it's not, so it's just irritating the hell out of me.
"Greenwich Village." Have you ever heard anyone who isn't an estate agent refer to our town centre as "Greenwich Village?" Greenwich Village is in effing New York. We have the original. We don't need to tack "village" on the end of it to make it look cute.
It doesn't stop there, of course. Other phrases I detest: "briefly comprise" - "boasting a..," "at an asking price of..." and those horrid jaunty, jokey ads with the comedy-pun headlines.
The one I hate most of all?
"Home."
A home is what one makes of a building. Until it is inhabited and loved, a property is a house/flat/room/whatever. It is not a home.
Sorry. Not sure where that came from. Attacking an easy target is pretty rubbish of me, really. I'm even covering old ground - I've grumbled about all this before. I should just let it lie. I seem to be back to being a Grumpy Old Phantom again...
I'm not talking about the usual cliches - "bijou" (small) "cosy" (ditto) "compact" (ditto) "ideal renovation opportunity" (falling down) "individual" (weird) "sought-after area" (anywhere) "quiet" (miles away) "ideal transport links" (backs onto the Blackwall Tunnel Approach) "exposed beams" (exposed sky, too) "easily manageable" ( back to 'small' again...)
These are so bloomin' obvious they don't actually get used very much any more and when they are I almost enjoy them in a nostalgic kind of way - the same way I enjoy Prawn Cocktail, Black Forest Gateau and cheese and pineapple cubes on sticks. Or maybe it's more Blue Nun and Sparkling Pomagne...
No - it's the way they mangle the English Language that gets me. Here is the phrase I've just seen that inspired this post:
"...within a mile radius of Greenwich Village"
This gets three of my worst goats in one succinct sentence.
"Radius." Surely a radius is round. Not a posh way of referring to any old distance from A to B.
"Within." The usual use for "within" in the Estate Agent lexicon is a fancy word for "in." As in "situated within a highly sought after area." Here, of course, if "radius" was working, this would actually be necessary, but it's not, so it's just irritating the hell out of me.
"Greenwich Village." Have you ever heard anyone who isn't an estate agent refer to our town centre as "Greenwich Village?" Greenwich Village is in effing New York. We have the original. We don't need to tack "village" on the end of it to make it look cute.
It doesn't stop there, of course. Other phrases I detest: "briefly comprise" - "boasting a..," "at an asking price of..." and those horrid jaunty, jokey ads with the comedy-pun headlines.
The one I hate most of all?
"Home."
A home is what one makes of a building. Until it is inhabited and loved, a property is a house/flat/room/whatever. It is not a home.
Sorry. Not sure where that came from. Attacking an easy target is pretty rubbish of me, really. I'm even covering old ground - I've grumbled about all this before. I should just let it lie. I seem to be back to being a Grumpy Old Phantom again...
Labels: Debates
posted by The Greenwich Phantom at
12:10
21 Comments:
Oh dear, Phantom.
I think the problem is that all estate agents come from a factory in Bengal, where they are taught to speak English by someone who once bought an Oxford English to prop up his dining room table.
Before moving to Lewisham, hubby and I must have viewed 50 flats, most of which had at least three major problems we'd specifically told the estate agents would make a flat unsuitable.
And they look so pleased with themselves when they show you a poky, moldy rabbit hutch hanging off a rail bridge, and proudly extol the virtues of 'free', 'open plan living'.
Silly people.
LOL! My own personal bugbear too.
The one phrase I really can't stand is 'benefits from'. No, the house/flat does not 'benefit from' 3 bedrooms, it _has_ 3 bedrooms.
It's not just the vocabulary but the convuluted syntax and grammatical structuring of most of the ads that annoys me.
"Benefitting from a through-reception space with access to garden, and situated on sought-after residential road within catchment area of Halstow School, is this extremely well-presented house. Recommended is your earliest viewing. Meaningless rubbish is our ad."
Er, they're right about radius, though. You're thinking of circumference.
I'll get me coat...
Best of all - "For the DIY enthusiast" translation, it needs rebuilding.
Too bleedin' right Phantom. Wot they need is for you to learn em proper like.
As we can see they just make it up trying to sound like they know what they are doing and by doing that they show how obviously they dont know what they are doing , if you know what I mean?
A friend had her house valued recently by three Greenwich firms and there was a 120K difference between top and bottom!
Which makes me think if and when we come to sell I may as well just think of how much I would like for an easy retirement, say exactly where it is, what the square footage is and ....voila...I'm an "estate agent"
Kirsty: Ah yes, Yoda their ads writes, yes....
Phantom: I'm afraid Anonymous is right about the radius/circumference bit ;)
I know what you mean about the radius thing. I guess I just meant that it's a pointless way to say a distance - presumably the person buying the property doesn't care whether anything else is within that radius?
Being really pedantic, I feel bound to point out that actually, you can't be 'within a radius'. You can be situated somewhere along a radius, or within the circumference of a radius of a mile from the specified centre, but as a radius is a straight line, you can't be within it.
The original phrase, though, is so badly mangled that I couldn't work out whether the agent meant 'within a mile of', in which case the 'radius' is entirely superfluous, or 'within a radius of a mile of', in which case they're plain wrong.
Phew, that made me feel better ;-)
Hah hah HAH!
"MMmmmm, young Skywalker, must in painted-silly mini hop and to flat plan open without keys dash lately!"
Ahh, Phantom, Kirsty, PW, you've day mine made! snorkle, sputter
I surrender, I never shoulda defended them! Yes, it is really a pretentious word for the word 'distance', like all the other horrible meaningless blah they use.
The worst thing about estate agents though, is that after spending perhaps years despising them and their overpriced wares, the moment we're selling a house we're desperate to hear how ludicrously high the price of our own hovel has become. I've seen it happen to so many friends, it's like living in Invasion of the Bodysnatchers.
You know it's just occurred to me that, after the earlier post on catchment areas, and the point made that Halstow doesn't actually HAVE an official area, all those ads that say "within the Halstow Road School catchment area" are basically lying...
So what's new, I guess.
When the wife and I were looking around Greenwich for our house 12 years ago, I remember seeing some estate agent blurb referring to a house located in "Plumwell borders".
Obviously somewhere between Plumstead and Welling but they made up a new name for it! I'm sure this name doesn't exist anywhere outside an estate agent's head.
Sadly,as is often the case, a post highlighting grammar issues needs to exhibit perfect grammar, otherwise the author ends up looking like an ass!
Best to stay away from a post like this, it's as bad as posting an 'I'm perfect' post!
PS...
Forget grammar, they are plain dishonest. Any estate agent who thinks Lewisham or New Cross is Blackheath or Greenwich needs to live there to find out how far from the truth their statement is!
Hee-Haw
The things I like about estate agent 'speak' is there complete disregard for the postcode system. Also, can anyone tell me where 'Blackheath Common' actually is?
Isn't Blackheath exactly that? A heath?
Estate agenets are akin to used car salesmen; in the Arthur Daley mould. Most are double-dealing,crooks.... and breathe.....
@p&d: Isn't that just a way of saying it's close to the heath, as opposed to just in the general Blackheath area, and without heath proximity?
I can't stand the glossy magazine that comes through the door from Foxton's and says on the front "Welcome to your area"!! How very dare they.
Angie
Couldn't agree with you more Angie:
http://www.thegreenwichphantom.co.uk/2007/07/welcome-to-your-area.html
If only it was "briefly comprising ...". This is usually written "briefly comprising of..."
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home