View Single Post
Old 09-06-2012, 04:42 PM   #20
deandrecooke

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
493
Senior Member
Default
Back to the OP: These people are sportsphiles-not likely to be linguisticly gifted, or know much about unfamiliar sports linguistics. Listen [if you dare] to their usual speech patterns--I find them absolutely awful. They are a reason why I dislike remote sports listening or viewing. Silence is something their industry cannot accept, and thus their verbosity knows no bounds. I wonder if any of them have more that yr 10 qualifications, because they sound so uneducated, & a better qualified person would surely choose a better job? What they are doing takes only a specialized memory, not real intelligence.
I'm not sure if it still applies, but think that distinction was made very clear when the commercial cricket coverage began on TV.

People who loved the cricket on TV had real problems with the TV commentary, so watched the tv and listened to the radio simultaneously.

I can remember walking on summer evenings and being able to see cricket flickering on the tvs through the windows but hearing the ABC radio commentors.

Pretty soon the ABC commentators learned to include what was happening on the commercial cricket TV coverage in their commentary.
deandrecooke is offline


 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:17 PM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity