Books on cross-cultural themes of rapprochement and bridge-building. See descriptions here at https://kaiaproject.com/:
Author: K.L. Hill
Enough said … Grammar
A double negative is a no-no. Author unknown
Only in grammar can you be more than perfect. William Safire
And all dared to brave unknown terrors, to do mighty deeds, to boldly split infinitives that no man had split before—and thus was the Empire forged. Douglas Adams in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
The past is always tense, the future perfect. Zadie Smith
I really do not know that anything has ever been more exciting than diagramming sentences. Gertrude Stein
A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with. Winston S. Churchill
If rhetoric study was the military, grammar teachers would be the drill sergeants. T.K. Naliaka
Grammar is like your overarching compulsion. It’s math with words. Thomm Quackenbush
The past, the present, and the future walked into a bar. It was tense. Lex Martin
As far as I’m concerned, ‘whom’ is a word that was invented to make everyone sound like a butler. Calvin Trillin
The Politics of Language
The role of language in politics becomes very evident during elections. For better or worse, language plays a crucial role in the entire process: in debates, speeches, on the Internet.
But what about the politics of language? To what extent is language shaped by or at least restricted or influenced by politics. In 2015 the Washington Post officially adopted the use of the singular “they” – that is, the use of the plural form of the third person to avoid awkward “he/she” or “he or she” constructions. Naturally this also includes the acceptance of the singular “their” in place of “his/her” and “his or her” but read more about it here.
And we have all struggled to find gender neutral terms for occupations: firefighter instead of fireman or firewoman, police instead of policeman or policewoman. These are the politically correct, excuse my triteness, designations for women and men’s occupations in our newest world, or word, order.
After 9/11 there was an attempt to change French fries to freedom fries, following an attempted demotion from French to french fries too. But it appears, fortunately, that there was no permanent consensus and support for these suggestions.
Beyond words, yet another area of language has been affected, namely names. For example, the Islamic group referred to alternately as ISIS or ISIL, or simply IS, for the Islamic State has been revisited. It has been reported that certain world leaders refuse to use any of these names citing the fact that the group is not officially a “state” instead preferring to call the group by the acronym in Arabic: ‘Daesh’.
The acronym Daesh in Arabic stands for the phrase al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham (or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). In fact, the Islamic group vehemently disapproves of the word. In Arabic there are two very similar words ‘Daes’ (one who crushes something underfoot) and ‘Dahes’ (one who sows discord) which can evoke a negative image in the eyes, or at least ears, of Arabic speakers. Certain world leaders elect to use the word; in the opposite camp, threats are being made to thwart the use of the name Daesh.
Thus we English speakers are bound to acknowledge and be aware of the subtle uses of words, phrases and names that can influence readers consciously or unconsciously. But isn’t that what effective writing is all about? Responsible writing however could incorporate neutral forms to inform rather than infect, incite and ignite. English neutral in all forms seems reasonable, doesn’t it?
There’s no “I“ in team
A phrase heard often to emphasize the meaning and essence of the word team. Interesting philosophically, but it does have implications for language use too. Namely, is team a singular or plural noun from a purely linguistic point of view?
Actually it varies depending on the variety of English used. Generally in the US, team as well as other words like family and government are traditionally considered singular – a unit that functions as one entity. However, in the UK most speakers adhere to the idea of “notional concord“ – that is, the notion of what is meant. Hence, the family (or team) are means the members of the group while the family (or team) is means the members function as one unit. But to return to the use of “generally“ in the US, things may be changing. Some sportswriters and sportcasters have begun adopting the notional concept and the Miami Heat are and Orlando Magic are have begun to appear in the American media.
As mentioned above, the concept of singular vs plural may be a purely philosophical argument and perhaps these questions should be left to the colleagues and followers of linguistic philosophers such as Paul Grice to address. But from a practical point of view, notional concord may be creating havoc among English speakers in my opinion, especially non-natives. More and more often I hear speakers exposed to notional concord incorrectly using unambiguously singular nouns. With the exception of editors and professional writers, notional grammar may have confused speakers enough to where they just throw up their hands and use whatever form seems handy at the moment. Perhaps the old rules are simply going down the proverbial drain.
And while on the subject of rules, we might consider whether English actually needs singular and plural forms of the verb in the present tense. For example, the Scandinavian languages have a verb structure very similar to English; they are fairly alike regarding the tenses. But the Scandinavian languages do not have the third-person singular “-s“ form in the present tense such as he is, she likes, it has. There is only one form in these cases, which in English translates to the plural forms – are, like and have respectively. It certainly would simplify English grammar, particularly for second language learners of English.
There is a precedence too for this type of reduction or loss. Historically, English with its Germanic roots had two forms of the second person pronoun: you and thou. Except for poetry and Shakespeare, thou (originally the singular) has basically disappeared in favor of you (originally the plural).
Back to the beginning of this discussion, since there is no “I“ in team, does that make team a plural? Or is it a singular, or both? In the same vein, there is no “we“ in government, so is it singular? Or a plural, or both? But that is definitely dangerous territory and does not only relate to language. Philosophical and political indeed.
Each fall the Center for Plain Language in Washington, D.C., grades agencies of the federal government, non-profits and private companies on their efforts to write clearly. Their reports certainly make interesting reading; see the full report card for U.S. government offices here:
Writing in plain language entails many different elements from words and phrases to euphemistic labels and clichés. English is often deliberately made obscure, unclear or overly complex — when the point should simply be to communicate. (But that’s a discussion for another time.)
Let’s begin with a list of some redundant words and phrases, usually labelled pleonasms or pleonastic phrases by linguists — and these labels are themselves perfect candidates for translation to Plain English.
|by means of||by|
|close proximity||proximity (or ‘is close’)|
|during the period||during|
|for a period of||for|
|in an effort to||to|
|set forth in||in|
|together with||together or with (but rarely both)|
The examples above are but one limited category of words that can result in obscure language or just excessive wordiness in writing. Keep checking this blog for some of the other categories.
The Center for Plain Language also publicizes awards annually, winners and losers basically: ClearMark and WonderMark. The name of the second award I dare guess is probably short for I-wonder-what-the-f-they-are-talking-about. You can see the lists of the latest finalists by clicking on the links below::
If you would like to read more about the center and its activities, visit their website here. In summary, it’s plain that we should keep our language clear and not leave our readers to wonder what we mean.
Enough said … the English language
We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary. Booker T. Washington
English is a funny language; that explains why we park our car on the driveway and drive our car on the parkway. Author Unknown
Writing in English is the most ingenious torture ever devised for sins committed in previous lives. The English reading public explains the reason why. James Joyce
If the English language made any sense, lackadaisical would have something to do with a shortage of flowers. Doug Larson
Making English grammar conform to Latin rules is like asking people to play baseball using the rules of football. Bill Bryson
I speak two languages: Body and English. Mae West
Drawing on my fine command of the English language, I said nothing. Robert Benchley
To write or even speak English is not a science but an art. There are no reliable words. Whoever writes English is involved in a struggle that never lets up even for a sentence. He is struggling against vagueness, against obscurity, against the lure of the decorative adjective, against the encroachment of Latin and Greek, and, above all, against the worn-out phrases and dead metaphors with which the language is cluttered up. George Orwell
When I read some of the rules for speaking and writing the English language correctly, I think any fool can make a rule, and every fool will mind it. Henry David Thoreau
English? Who needs it. I’m never going to England. Homer Simpson
Does English need colour and glamour?
For that matter, does English need favour, honour, flavour, savour and so many more -our words? Before our Australian, British and Canadian fellow English speakers panic – relax. This is just a point of discussion. From the standpoint of communication, it does seem that color, glamor, favor, flavor, honor and savor are satisfactory. Yes, these are the American spellings, but please note, US English generally prefers glamour. Thus the US -our/-or spellings are also not clearly defined.
Moreover, outside the US, the spellings are honourable but honorary (not honourary) so English in the UK is equally inconsistent. I must confess that I am a bit OCD and this type of untidiness is somewhat unnerving. While it is not going to end world hunger or solve world peace, I can’t help but ask whether we can come to some agreement on the lack of consistency and find some common ground. To add to this situation, some derivations of these words have already begun to lose the extra “u“ in the UK spelling. Note that the derivations of glamour and humour in the UK are glamorous and humorous, respectively. The combination of –our plus –ous appears to be a bit too much for all English speakers.
Noah Webster is basically responsible for many of the reforms in English spellings such as color ~ colour, center ~ centre and defense ~ defence. There has not been a real reform since then, in the early 1800’s, so it may be time to rethink some of these inconsistencies and redundancies. One argument for a reform is economic: producing text in all varieties of English can be very expensive.
Clearly there is a good argument for retaining the cultural flavo(u)r and historical development. English is richer for these details. Therefore I would like to ask you, do we really need “u” in our “our” words, or will “or” suffice for communicating on a worldwide basis?
Our native language is a very personal and emotional subject; language is identity. We all want to keep our individual identity and cultural perspectives. To quote a great observer of human nature on tradition and innovation:
An Englishman is a person who does things because they have been done before. An American is a person who does things because they haven’t been done before. Mark Twain
A polylingual multiglot?
In English the conventional terms are polyglot and multilingual. Of course. But what about polylingual and multiglot? Are these acceptable? Are they understandable? Can’t we just freely combine any “combining forms” like multi, poly, mis, dis, un, im, in, graph, kilo, auto, and so on?
Webster’s New World Dictionary (4th edition) has the following definitions of the traditional terms: polyglot and multilingual.
polyglot adj., noun [Gr polyglōttos < poly-, POLY- + glōtta, the tongue]
- speaking or writing several languages
- containing or written in several languages
- a polyglot person
- a polyglot book
- a mixture or confusion of languages
multilingual adj. [L < multus, much, many < IE base * mel-, strong, big > Gr mala, very combining form. ME < ML lingualis < L lingua:]
- of or in several languages
- using or capable of using several languages
These words entered English historically at different times: polyglot directly from Greek and multilingual through Middle English and (Middle) Latin. By convention we tend to combine Greek with Greek forms and Latin with Latin. However, descriptively I know of no real obstacle to being creative. Editors will surely shutter now. Apologies. But why not play with English.
We could create synonyms by crossing basic forms. For example, try Latin magna- instead of Greek mega- or macro- (all three mean ‘large or great’) and Latin urban instead of Greek politan (both basically mean ‘related to cities’). The results would be magnapolitan or mega-urban or macro-urban. Works for me. With all the roots from Latin and Greek, the possible combinations are numerous.
Let’s spice up our dull texts from time to time and be the first with a new twist on old words. Just for fun or at least in a blog.
Welcome to the matrix: English in binary form?
During several decades of teaching English in international settings, particularly academic English, I have encountered non-native speakers who are uncertain of the regional written varieties of English. In fact, there are also many native speakers who are just as uncertain. As the Internet exposes all of us to more and more markets, the lines continue to blur.
Many books have been written about the vocabulary differences between American and British English; many humorous stories circulate on the Internet. But the differences go beyond vocabulary; English also varies regionally in spelling, punctuation, slang and even grammar.
Generally speaking, most writers already know the guidelines when they approach a publisher and have prepared their manuscripts accordingly. However, there are times, especially for academics, when they would like to submit articles to American, Australian, British or Canadian publishing houses. They certainly increase their chances of being published, but only if their language conforms to the specific norm.
One solution I suggest is to embrace “English neutral” … to find the overlap in English varieties where we all agree and avoid the specific regional markers. Easier said than done? Yes. However it’s not impossible.
First there are the obvious spelling differences like center or centre, organize or organise, theater or theatre, etc. Often a synonym provides a quick solution: middle, order, play/film, respectively.
Then what about punctuation: the Oxford comma (also called the Harvard or serial comma), punctuation (period or full stop) with honorifics and abbreviations including Mr/Mr., Mrs/Mrs., Dr/Dr., etc, etc. Well, the serial comma is in dispute on both sides of the Atlantic, honorifics and other abbreviations can be dropped (or as I did above with et cetera, placed it at the end of the sentence.)
Next slang, but we can skip this one. In formal writing, just drop it. So we now come to grammatical differences. One of the most obvious differences is what linguists call notional concord — that is, the “notion” of what is meant in making the subject and verb “agree” – I agree, you agree, but she agrees. Brits can regard family and government, for example, as either singular or plural: the family are, the government are. The principle is what “notion” of the family and government is meant – as a single unit or as individual members. My solution has been to suggest that we always write using an indisputable plural: members of government, family members when the plural is intended.
There are many more details to consider; I truly welcome input, more examples, and especially solutions. Moreover if anyone can think of a neutral synonym that can equally replace color/colour, I would consider posting a reward!
But to return to the original premise: English in binary format. Unfortunately it’s not very workable. To begin with, binary code is based on letters, and thus the original spellings … so unless we change the original forms, we are back where we started — variations.
Note: except for the contrasting American/British examples, this entire blog has been written in English Neutral.
Enough said … editors and editing
Writing is like shadow boxing. Editing is when the shadows fight back. Adam Copeland
There are two typos of people in this world: those who can edit and those who can’t. Jarod Kintz
It is perfectly okay to write garbage—as long as you edit brilliantly. C.J. Cherryh
An editor is someone who separates the wheat from the chaff and then prints the chaff. Adlai Stevenson
The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do. Thomas Jefferson.
I believe more in the scissors than I do in the pencil. Truman Capote
There is a difference between a book of two hundred pages from the very beginning, and a book of two hundred pages which is the result of an original eight hundred pages. The six hundred are there. Only you don’t see them. Elie Wiesel
Proofread carefully to see if you any words out. Author Unknown
For I am a bear of very little brain and long words bother me. Winnie the Pooh
Some editors are failed writers, but so are most writers. T. S. Eliot