Well, uh, you are wrong about "titular." Yes, it *can* mean "in name only," but the word can also mean of, or relating to a title, such as "the titular hero of a play." It's a more specialized use of the word, but perfectly correct. Check Webster if you don't believe me. The link you offer actually has a correct use of the word. Mostly, this post makes you sound like an ass. IMHO.
As a fervent reader (and writer) of video-game reviews, I can't help but see certain patterns emerging in this (admittedly) developing art. Professional journalists are not immune to criticism (as anyone who's ever visited an author's blog might attest), so I've added them into the mix and you'll see that in one case, they are the worst offenders of all!
Sites that do not allow reader review submissions seem incomplete to me, as if they encourage a seperation of opinion between industry and consumer. This is a micro class-system that I feel is bad for all interested in games and game-reporting. I hope to read and write about games decades into the future - even when cybernetic simulants play and opinionate onour behalf.
So, never take these three items as discouragement (I know you've all got thicker skins than that anyhow), but more as a (hopefully) humorous poke at one of my favourite areas in game reporting. Here are three phrases that cheese me off:
What does it mean? Supposed, so-called, in name only
What doesn't it mean? Actual, literal. Definitely nothing to do with mammary glands.
Where do I see it? A staggering amount of professional reviews I come across sneak this into the first or second paragraph. Take this for example – a quick, lazy search yields many results at a competitor's entertainment site. I'm all for expanding ones vocabulary, but make sure you keep the expansion going! Besides, the phrase "-of the title" seems less stuffy and equally descriptive to this reader.
Friday the 13th is set on the titular Friday.
"IMO" or "IMHO"
What does it mean? Not all that much
Where do I see it? Mainly in reader reviews. This contracted and redundant acronym has snuck into common use across the forums and 'boards everywhere. But, this is where it should stay, for not only is it a tautology but it reeks of laziness and what I suspect to be an expression borne of obligation. When posting a message, dropping IMO in somewhere is a pre-emptory diffusion of potential lash back from fellow users. How many times have you yourself read something akin to: "…But this is your opinion, not FACT". Well of course it is – we're not authoring an encyclopaedia here…
Warning: Weak opinions for next 5 Miles.
"Click to find out!" | "Keep Reading to See!"
What does it mean? Possible insecurity by the author
Where do I see it? Only in reader reviews. A leading sentence is a great tool for generating interest in the reader. However, these kinds of phrases work better as question, not statements. The problem with "Keep Reading to See!"-statements is that they give no new information, they state the obvious, and they have an quasi advertisement-like subtext to them. Has anyone ever approached a review, wanted to read more of it, and never figured out how to access the rest of the text? If so, they would surely be in the minority, and a small, instructional phrase may be the least of help they need…
Read my review and I'll post you one!
Items 4, 5 & 6 to follow soon...
@Gooshnads, I completely agree. I use IMO to remind the readers that what I am saying is only opinion and that I am aware of it, it is not fact, should not be taken as fact and should not be argued as fact. While this may seem redundant since, most of the times when you post in a forum, it is only opinion anyway, some readers (Especially in a heated thread) take it as some personal attack on their points of view unless they're "reminded" of the fact that this is all opinions and nothing else.
When I grade papers, anyone who writes "In my opinion" or "I believe" gets an automatic downgrade of 1 letter. :)
If you are asking internet users to be grammatically correct or even moderately intelligable, I have a hunch you might be fighting a losing battle. I agree with you about the IMO thing. It's not the use of an acronym that bothers me but the assumption that an opinion should be respected by others despite being blurted out off the cuff with no prior assessment.
Since the invention of the internet the earths rotation has been propelled by english teachers turning in their graves. while english isn't my native language i really dislike the bastardization in most internet-lingo. Sadly, many who arent fluent in english to begin with don't "know better" as it's pretty much all they're being exposed to. when i use it myself, it's mostly for kicks and giggles in making fun of those who think it's cool to speak like that. If you're one of them, too bad. chances are i will find you annoying and simply chose not to interact with you.
"Titular" - "Definitely nothing to do with mammary glands." That one made me laugh, nice piece of writing ;) good job
I agree with this. It's not that he sounds like a language teacher, it's that all these review writers use a style that I tries to sound mature, but usually ends up looking like a 12yo wrote it (or someone who might have went through grade school using writing styles that should have stopped by the end elementary school). I will say I'm guilty of using IMO in forums though..
In my opinion, saying IMO is required because there is lots of fanboys that are just waiting for you to point the flaws on their titular favorite games, IMO. Sometimes the game they are defending are so bad it deserves 0 out 10 IMO. But of course this is just my opinion, because IMO people should respect other peoples opinions. And now, on to the blogs review..... read below This blog is bad IMO.
Oh yeah, 'titular' has been so annoying a thorn in my flesh. In fact, I question the intention behind my own posts sometimes when I preface them with "IMO" or imply that I'm "..just saying..". Great job calling all that out! :)
@GabuEx: Yeah, one of the challenges of writing a review is trying to make it sound like you're speaking with confidence and authority without making it sound like you're being arrogant about your opinion. But I get what you're saying now, I misunderstood what part of the reviews you were talking about.
i guess we use phrases like IMO because we're not physically there. we can't sense tone or body language using the internet. so we need phrases like IMO to properly convey what we are trying to say. it may be annoying, but if i have to use IMO to get some jerk off my back, its worth it, imo.
i have to agree with the IMO/IMHO thing. i'll admit, i use it in forum posts and such, but only because if i dont, some a-hole is gonna think im stating a fact, and will proceed to try and rip it apart. its a forum. of course im stating my opinion, unless im citing some known fact. its really annoying. i shouldnt have to back up what i THINK, because im not stating a fact. its just an idea. if i have reasons for the idea, sure, ill tell you. but otherwise, stop being an a-hole.
i read alot of music and gaming articles and i find that the gaming ones are consistently better written and more professional, which is nice
@Misfit1119: Well, by solid facts I mean stuff like what the story is about, what you do in the game, stuff like that - things that genuinely do contain absolutely no value judgments at all. I think that, if nothing else, additions of qualifiers noting that something is the reviewer's opinion at the very least shows the reader that the reviewer is able to make that separation. There's nothing more annoying to me when a reviewer discusses things like what the story is about and then segues into declaring it to be bad and still acts as though he's just talking about the bare facts of the game.
@GabuEx: While what you say is technically true there are plenty who would argue the point. For example if a story is terribly written technically or if the graphics to a game are terrible there are those who will defend it as "deliberate choices on the developers part" or adding to the charm of the title. So unless you're talking about things that are purely factual, like slowdown, glitches and bugs, then even talking about the "solid facts" of what's contained within a game can become a source of dissent. This keeps it firmly in the real of opinion. IMO anyways. :P
I've been meaning to type up an article about this for some time now. I too am tired of the bastardization of the English language. And yes, I am an English Professor. Thanks for the good read.
Of course I expect you to tell your opinion, you dolt! Don't pull that IMO or (God forbid) IMHO (humble my ass) rubbish.
Excellent stuff i like your comments on IMO and IMHO the phrases annoy me and although i do use them i also consider them to be weak and un confrontational. Oh and although an opinion is held by a individual it dose not mean its correct.
Its when someone uses the phrase "due diligence" that I stop reading immediately. That has to be the worst phrase concocted, it was made famous by one of the least intelligent political figures in history, and the worst part is, the phrase is catching on. It doesn't even make sense really.
@garey017 -- It all depends on what you believe it to be, really, as both "honest" and "humble" have been claimed as the word in the acronym by various people, so it doesn't really matter which you say it is.
imho i agree. by the way, i dont know why gamespot always scores games on a .5 or .0 scale now. no #.3 or #.7? makes no sense
When I write a review, I like to state facts about the game like "lots of weapons" and then state my own like "What S.O.B. put claymores in MW?!" Cool article, ashamed to say I have committed #3 :(
@nicktarist I always thought it was "humble" opinion. But I guess it doesn't make much difference...IMHO.
I don't mind "IMO", and I use it from time to time, but not too often. Most reviews, if not all, have a mixture of facts and opinions. Usually they should be pretty clear without "IMO", but I'll throw it in there occasionally just to make sure people don't misconstrue something, or think I'm being pushy and saying "this is how it is". It may be overused though, but I could think of plenty of other things that grate my nerves more than someone being a little polite.
I never knew what IMO meant up until this point. I don't think its really changed anything that I've read on this site. what does IMHO mean though? It's my 'hot' opinion? This internet language is an enigma to me. EDIT: honest opinion! I got it--phew, this is harder than Italian. :I
I think the writer is stating that 'IMO' doesn't belong in formal reviews. Which would, of course, be the writer's opinion. I don't think I've ever written 'IMO' in a review simply because it seems redundant. I have used it sporadically on forums though. I didn't know the word 'titular' until I started reading game reviews online...it does seem to be overused, but I don't think I've ever seen it used improperly. And yeah, those "Read on..." review qualifiers are annoying. If I want to read on, I will. If I don't, I won't. But trying to manipulate me into doing so isn't going to work in your favor.
IMO is an acronym for a phrase people use to clarify opinion from pure fact. They also use it to mitigate the extent to which they seem "all-knowing" and dictatorial.... oops, now I sound stuffy and pretentious. :-p
Part one? Was the sign indicating that there will be weak opinions for the next five miles on purpose?
cool read you know I never saw the word titular in reviews before I have to keep a look out for it now lol. Also I do like using IMO I don't know why and finally I agree with the last point completely I find that so annoying
BAM! right on the dot! i cant stand any of dose things. Each time i read or scroll down gamespot and see a gamers review link i feel like i want to vomit. Its kinda like playin Maple Story and having them littles jumping beans ask you 1000 times for mesos plox... EWWW!! cant stand that game >.>
language analysis. what fun! (sarcasm is another thing that doesn't come across clearly in text, isn't it? but hey! i meant this one!)
The IM(H)O thing bugs me too. I wish other users weren't so quick to attack people for having opinions, then every friggin view someone has wouldn't be prefaced with IMHO.
in regards to 'titular', the usage that journalists most commonly use means referring to the title or what the title is named after. for example Forrest Gump is the titular character of the movie Forrest Gump. even though someone already said that a few posts down, i just wanted to back them up. i also agree with GabuEx on the second point, "IMO/IMHO". The third one i totally agree with you though
People say IMO because they fear that others will think that it's not your opinion but some kinda fact that you heard somewhere. It's very reasonable to say IMO because others will know that it's what you think and not what you've heard somewhere and now claim as a ''true fact''.
@ Noct The phrase is actually "Get my goat". Though there are various stories as to it's origin I have never heard or read "get my goad" anywhere. Correction: I did find where some say it's "goad" but it's not verifiable. I gues it doesnt really matter anyway, don't know why I concerned myself with this anyway. This is why I shouldnt post at 3am mellowing on vicodin....
I don't mind any of these language peeves of yours when I read the player reviews. I appreciate people who have the time to contribute a review or blog. If I find that a review is very informative and well-written I would recommend or vote positively for it. If the article is a single paragraph of stupid, I would vote the other way. Can I get my $25 Wal-Mart gift card now?
@blythe31 well it doesnt have to be... what if they are stating a fact... then they want to state that it is their opinion and remind you that it is just opinion the point of the imo phrase well.. imo is just to tell people to make sure they don't get offended because the listening end may think that the speaker is forcing that idea onto them... not pointless at all, really.
I avoid abbreviations altogether as far as possible. As if life isn't already confused, these things make even the simple task of reading confusing !!!
I wouldn't normally point out a grammatical 'error' in a user post, but since (at least a portion of) the intent of this post strictly centers on the mis- and over-use of phrasing, I feel compelled to mention that the phrase is actually 'get my goad', not 'get my goat'. Fun post though; I whole-heartedly agree that 'titular' rears its head far too often. It's almost as if there is a play-book all reviewers pull from in an attempt to sound like industry insiders. I disagree on the use of IMO though, that is something I use all the time, and it's not about overstating that I'm only speaking for myself, as much as trying not to sound overtly pompous. Especially if I'm contributing to an online discussion on say, programming methods or something. Often times without adding in the IMHO it can come across as if I'm the authority on the topic as opposed to just dumping my two cents into the mix.