The Times today has a news item and leader column about the Queen's English Society's proposal for an academy to police the English language and guard against its decline. The messages seem a little mixed, though. On the one hand they have given the leader the sub-headline "An academy for the English language is a bad idea" and describe the suggestion as "forlorn". They point out that an academy would have no actual effect on how people use the language, just as French pedants' criticism has not stopped anyone there using le weekend. But at the same time they suggest that the loss of the "original meaning" of beg the question or protest one's innocence* has been for no good reason

The news item is a little more factual, restricting itself, by and large, to reporting the comments from members of the aforementioned society. These comments also have something of a schizophrenic sound about them. They suggest that "[Language academies]...do not stop the language changing...but they do provide a measure of linguistic discipline and try to retain valid and useful changes new terms while rejecting passing fads." They say we "desperately need" such a body because of "the tragic failure" of our education system.
The brains behind the formation of this academy is Martin Estinel who, if the article is accurate, has the usual plethora of personal language foibles. He doesn't like "gay" in its modern sense but accepts that the dictionaries include it. (Good of him to accept such an obviously verifiable fact!). He doesn't like misplaced sentence stress (although it isn't clear what he means by that - perhaps he's objecting to rising intonations in non-questions although that isn't actually a matter of stress at all.) He objects to teenagers using "like", the confusion of "last" and "past", and the tendency to use "if I was" instead of "if I were".

Rhea Williams, described as chairman of the Society, is also quoted. She objects to "we was" instead of "we were" and if she was (sic) talking about in formal writing, I'd agree, but she says "for example, you hear, 'we was' a lot." Indeed you do, and have done for centuries, it depends where you live. It's by far the commonest spoken form in my locality. She also says that there are "mispronunciations and misunderstandings galore" but fails to suggest any. That's probably because there are far fewer than she thinks. Even if people do all the things that she, and so many others, object to, understanding still usually occurs.
The case against an academy is bizarrely presented by Jack Bovill, chairman of the Spelling Society. And I mean "bizarrely presented" as it ignores the issue of an academy more or less entirely to promote his society's view that "awareness of irregularities in spelling" needs to be raised and that while language adapts we should "do it deliberately" rather than "leave it to chance".

My view is that if they want their academy, let them have it. Give them a hall to hold their meetings in. Let them grumble and moan about the declining standards and the end of civilization as we know it. It won't make a blind bit of difference to how real people speak or write.


(*Incidentally I'm not sure what "original meaning" they are talking about in the case of "protest one's innocence")

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

the Queen's English Society's proposal for an academy to police the English language and guard against its decline.

What a tempest in a (celestial) teapot.

1. English is spoken in more nation states than the UK. What about Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the USA, and India? Do they get their own academies or do they have to kowtow to Mr Estinel and his coterie of GOF? Even the real academies in other countries (mentioned in the articles) don't really have much political power, although some have been able to get laws enacted that stop people from using deprecated bits of language in shop signs and such.

2. Even if they manage to wrangle a royal warrant out of ER2 does that make them legal? In the sense of they can say "No using moot to mean arguable: thus saith the Queen's English Society and its withered organ the Academy of English!" BTW, how do they get away with calling theirs the Queen's English Society if they haven't a royal warrant. Can I come over and sell the Queen's marmalade without one? I think not.

3. I'm sure Mr Estinel is ever so gay about the prospects of monitoring spotty teens misusage and abusage of the Queen's English, but his endeavor, as a whole, strikes me a fool's errand.

4. It's all been tried before. Swift, IIRC, trotted this one round the track back in the 18th century and not to much fanfare or success.

My only concern is how they'll pay for their little club house? Taxes? Yeah, maybe a txting tax.

I had a look at the QES site. They claim that every engineering disaster or other kind of failure is due to a failure to read and write documents in standard English. Unsurprisingly, they provide no evidence for this.

I love their concern over this cute kid - they have no wish to spoil his fun, but watch out! It's up to him to save the world!

I deplore the way that our language is being diluted by foreign (especially US) influences.

Damned colonials!

Also according to their web site all three of our main party leaders have committed a heinous linguistic sin.
They are featured on the rogues gallery. Their sin is displayed in BIG LETTERS for everyone to see.
They should hang their heads in abject shame.

What have they in common? What is the nature of this foul crime?

They have dared to say "If I was your Prime Minister" instead of "If I were your Prime Minister" and clearly no one could possibly understand such mangled English.

Words do sometimes fail me.
Usually when I try to think of the right adjectives to describe people who spout this gibberish.

I see the QES eschews the Oxford (i.e., serial) comma. It's in their masthead. The sad thing, really, is that they feel that they will make a difference. I may join just so I can gripe to them about solecisms on their website and in their copy. (But I doubt that they would take in a colonial who is actively ruining the language.)

I've only just noticed that they have registered charity status. That means they get tax breaks.
You can get tax breaks for this kind of stuff?

I'd apply but I don't think I could maintain the required level of pedantry.

quote:

(*Incidentally I'm not sure what "original meaning" they are talking about in the case of "protest one's innocence")

I wondered about this, too, Bob.

Interesting discussion. My loyalty to the U.S. rarely raises its ugly head, but it does here. What are we pilgrims supposed to do? Abide by the QES?

quote:

What are we pilgrims supposed to do? Abide by the QES?

Since you were granted status as an independent nation as a result of a small fracas in 1776, I feel you should all speak the President's English. That shouldn't be too difficult with Obama, but might have caused problems when you had Bush as president. It might be problematic switching Englishes every four years, too.

It's interesting that there does seem to be a "proper" English in England. That doesn't seem to be the case in the U.S., though we do have a lot of different dialects and accents.

This page is weird. They completely don't understand what a portmanteau word is. Also, wicked is a buzzword?

They have two articles on sentence-modifying "hopefully": one is a fact-free rant, while the other cites sources.

This page is unfortunate. Apparently either should be pronounced like "eye-ther" because it is spelled with "ei", and "ei" sounds like "eye" in German. What is this word "feist" they mention?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

Too funny, goofy. They seem not to know how to use a dictionary. Or, as with many peevers, they just make stuff up as they go along. They are just plain wrong about portmanteau; Chas Dodgson ought to be rotating in his British grave. Smog is a portmanteau word, but sanction is not. I wouldn't call wicked a buzzword, either. They seem a fine lot to be in charge of an English academy.

Feist is a small dog.

In their "eether/eyther" rant, they said "forfeit" is pronounced with an "ee" sound. For me, it is "for-fit."

Apparently the authors want to revert to the 1930's British upper-class pronunciation in all respects.

I once heard David Crystal lecture about one of the sometimes overlooked functions of language. Our grammar, lexis and pronunciation all serve to mark an in-group and an out-group. If you speak like me you are in my group, if not you are out of it. That last link from goofy reveals the real agenda of this group to be exactly this kind of group marking.

quote:

In the '50s, educated people pronounced "either" as "eye-ther" to rhyme with "my fur" and the uneducated masses said "eether"

Look at the language being used "educated people" but "uneducated masses".

Their agenda is nothing more than an attempt to define themselves as an elite who are better in every way than the uneducated masses who surround them. It has nothing at all to do with "protecting" the language and everything to do with protecting their perceived status.

With regard to "portmanteau words" it seems that there is nothing wrong with their completely ignoring the accepted meaning of a term and defining it as they choose but that no one else should ever do it. Of course self-styled elites always behave in this way.

I'm surprised and rather impressed that you guys have the stamina to wade through that site. I gave up after two pages.

They also spend a disproportionate amount of time on odd rants about gender and political correctness. The out-group seems to include feminists, the transgendered, and Americans:

quote:

It is a fact that most politically correct terms in English originate in the USA, a country with a very varied ethnic mix, a strange blend of religious fanaticism, vast swathes of complex-ridden, self-conscious, deeply inhibited people, an innate aggressiveness and an over-developed, hyper-sensitive and misplaced sense of personal dignity.

A UK language blog (Linguism) has posted a take on the QES.

The page about gender is a priceless example of the devil quoting scripture. For 99% of their ranting they ignore everything that dictionaries have to say on language but here, where it suits them, they dig up (partial) definitions of gender and sex in order to support their largely fallacious position.

As for the page on political correctness it shows that not only do they know little or nothing about language in general but they have absolutely no clue about socio-linguistics, psychology, sociology or, indeed, basic politeness.

Incidentally, I may be wrong, but I have never heard "vertically challenged" used in any sense other than as a mockery of the very "political correctness" they are railing against. I doubt anyone has ever seriously used the term to refer to a dwarf or midget.

Oh yes, nearly forgot. It's about time you women got this feminist chip off your shoulder.

quote:

Typical of this is the hang-up that many women have about having been exploited for centuries. Certainly they were but today, in the civilised western world, that is no longer the case. But they still have a chip on their shoulder and feel that certain words used in their correct sense in the 21st century assume the meaning they had in the 19th century and imply that they are being reduced to the status forced on them at that time.

Anyone else noticed how sometimes they want words to retain meanings they once had but sometimes, as here, want words to no longer mean what they once did. Can't have it both ways guys. Hence the title of this thread.

I've also just noticed that they seriously suggest the resurrection of long dead subjunctive forms.

We should not, they insist, say

Although it is impossible, I shall try.
or
Though he comes every day, I never see him.*

We must say

Although it be impossible, I shall try.
and
Though he come every day, I never see him.*

How long, I wonder, has it been since these were a normal English usage?

(*I believe they actually have it wrong in this example because it's not a second conditional it's a first conditional and hence does NOT require a subjunctive mood even if you are an insane pedant. Still, I've quoted it as they have written it.)

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
How long, I wonder, has it been since these were a normal English usage?

I found citations in the OED for "If we be" between 1500 and 1800. The OED calls this subjunctive.

quote:

1728 T. SHERIDAN Persius (1739) Ded. 5 Although you be now removed to another Soil. Mod. If we be in time, we shall find him at home.

This second sentence looks like a first conditional to me. The OED notes "For these the indicative forms have been occasionally substituted since the 15th c., and are now chiefly used after if, though, unless, etc."

The blog Sentence First has a post about the QES.

I do realize that many pronounce either with a long "i," though where I was raised everyone said "ee-ther." Does that mean I come from the "uneducated masses?" Haven't they heard of regional pronunciations?

Their definition of buzzwords is "words that often replace better, traditional words and that are so consistently overused as to become virtually meaningless." The online OED (their own gold standard) says, "buzzword (orig. and chiefly U.S.), a keyword; a catchword or expression currently fashionable; a term used more to impress than to inform, esp. a technical or jargon term; also buzz-phrase." It's hardly the same. The new use of "wicked," meaning "cool," is slang and not a buzzword.

Bob, in particular, will remember the Apostrophe Protection Society. Its founder and self-styled chairman (and sole member) is John Richards. The QES irresistibly remind me of Richards. They have the same attitude to the English language: "If I don't say/spell/arrange it that way it's WRONG".

However, the QES don't just restrict themselves to pontificating about apostrophes, although, given half a chance, Richards will pronounce on other matters too.

A really good read, goofy. I hadn't gotten around to Sentence First's entry and am happy you cited it. I see a couple of the Queen's Language Police have even deigned to post in the commentary. I was struck by this quoted sentence:

quote:

No-one expects or requires average citizens to be literary geniuses but a minimum level of respect for the conventions of the language — and for the readers can be expected!

They do seem enamored with the em-dash, although here it seems misplaced. I would add the comma as Mr Carey does, and lose the em-dash.

quote:

No-one expects or requires average citizens to be literary geniuses, but a minimum level of respect for the conventions of the language and for the readers can be expected!

Harrumph is a great word.

[Edited to correct typos.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

Yes, I enjoyed that Blog, too, Goofy. The problem with being so holier than thou is that you're always caught in some mindless mistake yourself. I thought this quite funny:

quote:

For the sake of my readers’ eyes I’ve removed the full capitalisation and replaced the ungrammatical hyphens with dashes. (I don’t enjoy nitpicking except when the prose in question comes from sanctimonious nitpickers. The aforelinked web page, incidentally, makes the QES seem like a religious cult; what’s inside only strengthens the resemblance.) Throughout the website, double and sometimes triple spaces appear between sentences “for ease of reading”, a formatting style that underlines the group’s anachronistic attitudes. Wikipedia is spelt WikipediA, to unintentionally amusing effect, though this idiosyncratic spelling probably owes more to naiveté than contrarianism.

Here at my conference we developed a fact sheet. Sure enough...one of the reviewers is an editor. We spent hours making it much worse in the end. Such is the job of prescriptivists, I guess.

Now I'm all upset.
I linked Sentence First, along with several other articles about the QES, on my blog
the day before goofy linked it here. I guess nobody here reads my blog.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
Now I'm all upset.
I linked Sentence First, along with several other articles about the QES, on my blog
the day before goofy linked it here. I guess nobody here reads my blog.

I do read your blog, just not every day.

Well, I read it, too, but like goofy says, not every day. Unfortunately, as you might have guessed with my 15,000 plus posts I am a little obsessive compulsive about this place.

Ain't modern-day technology wonderful? I can be advised within half an hour of almost anything published on the Web that relates to an area of my specific interest. Trouble is, it then sits on my machine until I get around to reading it, which in this case took almost a month. That preamble is to explain why it took me so long before I read David Mitchell's article in the Grauniad on line.

Mitchell is a popular comedian over here, BTW, and I've mentioned him before in Potpourri.

quote:

The Queen's English Society (to which my knee-jerk response is: "No she isn't. Doesn't everyone say she's mainly German?")

I wonder if he's read the_bear's post from 2003?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: arnie,