Patronising, pedantic or perfectionism?

I start this by laying my cards on the table, misuse of written and to some extent spoken English really bothers me.  Laying aside English as a second language (really would not dream of feeling affronted when it is not someone’s first language) there are words that have the ability to really irk me when substituted in the wrong context.  

Before I glissade down the snowy slope of which words pacifically send my blood pressure nucular I would like to have a look at why.

I love the English language.  The variety of words means that I don't have to be irritated or frustrated, I can instead be irked, piqued or vexed. I enjoy variety in description, the specificity with which emotions can be communicated or the exuberance with which something or someone can be brought to life.

I am easily submerged in poetry or a novel, completely immersed in another world as the language carries me to the time and place the author is writing about, to the extent that when someone talks to me I have to resurface and orientate myself to where I am.  In short, I find a happiness and relaxation in the use of language.

The wrong use of language causes, likely an out of proportion, level of irritation.  Some words more than others are particularly irksome. I believe this is because of my perception of why they have been used, oddly enough I am not too bothered by people using pacifically and nucular instead of specifically and nuclear but I do subconsciously give less credence to what they are saying.  Whereas the incorrect use of your, you’re, there, their and they’re  can make me stop reading all together and walk away.

At work this can be more devastating, I have been known to lose focus on a consultation with the patient saying ‘I was reaching all night’ my mind wandering to ‘what was he reaching for? Oh retching’ and by the time I have returned they have finished their story and I am none the wiser as to the entire problem. The other two words that I find difficult to tolerate are prostrate instead of prostate as I imagine the man lying face down on the floor and nauseous instead of nauseated.   The latter deserves a point of its own as it leads on to my sadness over language.

Nauseous has always been an insult, to call someone nauseous is to infer that they cause you to feel nauseated.  However, and this is the bit that I find sad, because of the constant misuse of nauseous by people who mean nauseated the oxford english dictionary changed the meaning around two years ago and now nauseous is listed as being interchangeable with nauseated.    I agree that language moves on and words change their meanings over time.  Suzie Dent has made a living and written at least 13 books on the subject! Language has to evolve with the times.  My sadness comes from the change in language because of what I assume is laziness, people not bothering to learn which word to use so language changes to accommodate them.  This in turn makes me feel as though my world is shrinking as I lose a little more of the vibrancy of descriptive language.

I take time over my use of words at work and at the weekend I wrote a death certificate agonising for 15 minutes over whether to include ‘with’ when writing tricuspid regurgitation amyloidosis as the cause of death (I decided it was more correct to leave it out).  I am dyslexic and I have ADHD, language helps me smooth out my existence in an often fraught world of pressure and conformity. I enjoy the submergence and expression words afford, so I am sure you can appreciate my level of facial twitch as I suppress an audible correction when my mother says to me ‘you are so pendantic’ 🤐.