Confusion, all is confusion

Last time, I wrote about men’s and women’s language and since then I have come across some surprising items in the press. Instead of enthusiastic reporting, the following, published in The Express on 11th August, should have been roundly criticised: John Hennigan made the mistake of calling Judge Patricia Lynch, QC, a “c***” as she jailed him for 18 months. In measured tones, Judge Lynch replied: “You’re a bit of a c*** yourself. Being offensive to me doesn’t help.” Hennigan, 50, shouted: “Go f*** yourself!” Judge Lynch simply retorted: “You too.” Instead, the judge seems to have gained a reputation as a no-nonsense member of the judiciary who puts offenders well and truly in their place. Nonsense, she should be reprimanded and told to uphold the dignity of the law.

Not only language, but feminine matters are becoming invasive, too. There was also a detailed article about the clitoris in Le Figaro recently, not just text, oh no, but photos to boot. I know it’s a French publication, but… And lunch-time television adverts seem frequently to be about creams to relieve various irritations that only afflict women. This does nothing for my appetite and makes me think that soon Big Pharma may start to demonstrate the efficacy of their potions on ED, with graphic illustrations of course; now that would liven things up a bit at midday.

Another article in the Daily Mail related how a transgender woman found romance with a man who also changed sex. This really is a most confusing area. LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender. The word ‘sex’ as an administrative category on forms seems to be destined to disappear and to be replaced by ‘gender’ which used to be a grammatical term. Sex and gender in grammar and sociolinguistics were used to refer to different things. The debate in the United States at both federal and state level about which lavatories should be used by different people depending on whether they were born male or female but also whether they felt they really belonged to the other sex or neither of those, is going to lead us where? Administrative forms, censuses for example, will they show in future Male, Female, Other (please give details)? What will these details be? What proof will be needed? What will happen to comparative statistics? Will there be universal acceptance of three, or more, sexes? Will same sex marriages become the new normal?

The BBC ran a headline yesterday: “Transgender soldier becomes first woman on Army front line”. The article goes on to explain that the soldier joined the Scots Guards as a man in 2012 but began hormone therapy in the last month, and has officially changed her name. The Army said it was delighted to have its first woman in a close-combat role. The Guardsman, who had official documents changed by deed poll from her birth name of Ben to reflect her new name and status, has now been informed she will be able to stay in the infantry, as a woman. The BBC uses neither the term ‘sex’ nor ‘gender’, but ‘status’. Confusing?

That George Sand was in fact the pseudonym of Amandine-Lucile-Aurore Dupin, a nineteenth century lady writer who fought for women’s independence, is well known. That Jan Morris was born James Humphrey Morris, historian, author and travel writer is perhaps less well known. Jan Morris is described as a trans woman who was published under her birth name until 1972, when she transitioned from living as male to living as female. These examples, in their day, were exceptional. There are new vocabulary items specifically created, such as “trans” woman and the verb to “transition”, which the OED dates to 1993. Nowadays, the sheer number of people involved, the various sexes, genders, statuses generated, leave many people unable to comprehend.

This situation in society will have to be reflected socio-linguistically. What I started by describing as men’s and women’s language reflects social evolution that is not really very complicated, in fact it’s rather trivial; it’s simply a matter of standards, of gravitas. The sex/gender question by comparison is a sea-change. It will be interesting to see how society in general and the different generations cope with it.

Advice on the kind of English to learn and use

The Complete OED

Below, there are two paragraphs. The first is written and inspired using the clichés and fashionable jargon of business and financial reporting. The second is the same paragraph rewritten in what I think is more usual, more acceptable English. Both versions have the same number of words.

Downside is quite a common expression, but the way it is used here makes absolutely no sense to me. Today, there is no Authority for English language usage. There never has been an English Academy like the French or Spanish ones, but in the past, there were Fowler, Gower, the Society for Pure English and the Committee on Spoken English of the BBC. Alas, they are no more. The BBC can no longer claim to set any standard. The Oxford English Dictionary is perhaps all we have left, and its standard is that of vocabulary, for which we should be thankful.

The challenge facing learners of English is whether to learn this type of buzzword and, if yes, whether to use it. Depending on your level, my advice would be to be aware of these words but not to use them in writing, and definitely not to use them in spoken English. Used by native English speakers, they offend my ear, used by non-native speakers they sound wrong, out of place, out of register. It’s better to concentrate on more standard usage and vocabulary in the early stages. When you attain mastery, you can do whatever you like. When you begin learning English, your teacher and your course books are the Authorities and I hope they are not using this style of English.

It could be said that these buzzwords have value in the sense [note the correct use of sense here] that they add something to the meaning, they provide nuance. Sometimes this is true, but mostly it is not. Basis points adds nothing that standard fractions and percentages do not already have, and will, therefore, very probably disappear before long. It’s a question of training and experience, but data just screams plural. I have a suspicion that Latin plurals may be on the way back, owing probably to the many people interviewed on television using referendum-a after Brexit. Football stadium-a also seems to be making a comeback. Anyway, I hope you enjoy thinking about this and watching out for other examples in your daily life.

Paragraph 1

The government's numbers give no sense of the true numbers involved. There is an uptick, sure, but this is one of multiple upticks; there have also been multiple spikes and hikes. Stability is not about to return anytime soon to the markets. Investors will continue to be hit by this volatility until companies pivot their growth away from European markets and deliver value for money. Airlines that operate intra EU routes will probably be secure post Brexit but there are significant risks to the downside going forward. There is no chance the data over the next few weeks is going to suddenly improve and losses will continue to increase big time. Any increase over 25 basis points would negatively impact companies. (121 words)

Paragraph 2

The government's figures give no indication of the true numbers involved. There is clearly a slight increase, but this is one of several; there have also been numerous larger increases. Stability is not about to return to the markets in the near future. Investors will continue to suffer from this volatility until companies move their growth away from European markets and provide value for money. Airlines that operate routes within the EU will probably be secure after Brexit but there are significant future risks […to the downside???]. There is no chance the data are suddenly going to improve over the next few weeks and losses will continue to escalate. Any increase above one quarter percent would have a negative effect on companies. (122 words)

Pointless, Harry Potter and passports

A quiz program I watch regularly is Pointless. I like the concept of the game and I am an admirer of the presenter Alexander Armstrong and his “assistant” Richard Osman, both of whom are cultured and speak decent English. My admiration diminishes every time Alexander Armstrong says: “All of our questions were asked to 100 people…” and invites contestants to:  “...please step up to the podium”. I’m sure they’ve received countless tweets and emails about this:  …were asked of / were put to, would be better and a podium is generally a raised structure, whereas the prop they use is more like a lectern. If they don’t like this, they could simply say: …please step forward. I’m sure they’ll forgive me for this pettiness. Another thing that strikes me when I watch is that the majority of (younger?) contestants only know the answers to literary questions because they have seen the film based on the novel. Very few seem to have read the book.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

For some reason, this makes me think of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone versus Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone which is the title of the American edition. I have always thought that one of the most valuable aims of books for children was to introduce them to new words and ideas, to increase their vocabulary and knowledge. Is this not valid in America? J.K. Rowling, although agreeing to this change, is said to have regretted it later. The title change brought the following comments:

"Sorceror" sounds exciting, "philosopher" sounds boring, and nobody in America knows what a philosopher is.

Famous title changes to take account of the incredible ignorance of the average American include "Licence Revoked" which became "Licence to Kill", when over 70% of those polled didn't know what "Revoked" meant, and "The Madness of King George III", which had to drop the "III" because it was realised that Americans would be uninterested in the film since they'd obviously missed the first two films of the trilogy”, and

 “Perhaps it was thought that an American readership wouldn't pick up on the mystical connotations of "Philosopher's Stone", and

“American kids (and parents) are far less likely to have heard of the Philosopher's Stone”, thus depriving American children and their parents of the following information concerning the said Philosopher’s stone:

“A reputed solid substance or preparation supposed by the alchemists to possess the property of changing other metals into gold or silver, the discovery of which was the supreme object of alchemy. Being identified with the elixir, it had also, according to some, the power of prolonging life indefinitely, and of curing all wounds and diseases”. OED.

                                                                                                                          

In France, H P and the Philosopher’s Stone became Harry Potter à l'Ecole des Sorciers (HP at Wizard’s School). I’m not sure why as the French have la pierre philosophale  and the same historical references. The Spanish do much better with: Harry Potter y la Piedra Filosofal.

This then made me think of that statistic about the number of Americans who have a valid passport. According to the State Department, the answer to this, as of January 2014, was about 46%. So, all the stories about only 10% of Americans having a passport are false, but were true around 1994. That settles that, then.

To finish on a couple of my hobby-horses, Norman Smith, one of the BBC's finest, has now started to sprinkle the awful Americanism big time over his reports in addition to overworking his most favourite awful Americanism, …give us a sense of what’s happening in Westminster. Talking of Westminster, I was delighted to hear Mrs May saying at her first Prime Minister’s Questions: I'm going to meet Mrs Merkel... and not meet with. Perhaps we can now look forward to the English language being used more carefully, more elegantly, in Parliament at least.

Learners of English – BEWARE

Because you hear it on the BBC’s Today programme or said by the Prime Minister’s spokesman doesn’t make it acceptable English. John Humphrys, one of the presenters on the BBC’s Today programme has written at least two books on the English language: Lost For Words: The Mangling and Manipulating of the English Language’ insists that laBeyond Words’. He is a much-respected journalist and broadcaster, he’s Welsh and therefore knows a thing or two about language. All this does not stop him from using a bunch and stuff as well as give us a sense of. I wish he wouldn’t. One of his colleagues, Sarah Montague, when asked the other morning: how are you? replied: Good. I really wish she wouldn’t. John Humphrys is guilty of using sloppy Americanisms and Sarah Montague of using sub-standard English. I should like them to be role models for what used to be known as the Queen’s English, to be people that learners of English could use as a reference.

nguage should be simple, clear and honest, and ‘

By drawing attention to the following points, a few among many, I hope that learners of English will resist the temptation to imitate the unfortunate habits of rather a lot of native speakers who don’t care or who don’t know any other way of expressing themselves. They follow verbal fashion and are often difficult to understand. I know that sounds conceited, but that’s because I feel strongly about good English. An (*) indicates an incorrect form, a solecism.

Fewer / less

*The less people who know, the better. *He made less mistakes in the previous match.

This one is a marathon-runner; it just keeps on going. In 2008, Tesco raised the hackles of many people by putting up a sign at a till saying *10 items or less. They chose to replace it by “Up to 10 items” rather than “10 items or fewer” on the grounds that it was easier to understand. I suppose this might be called dumbing-down and may explain why a lot of people have a problem with this distinction.

It's interesting to note that "The less people know, the better" is grammatically a perfectly good statement. So it's not simply a question of collocation.

Figures / numbers

It is now fashionable among some financial journalists and analysts to talk about “the numbers” and nothing but the numbers. There are stock market numbers, companies publish their numbers, numbers are good or bad. Figures are disappearing. Why? This is American influence again. Perhaps they think it sounds more professional or with it to say numbers all the time. Numbers are mathematical symbols. When they have been processed in some way, they magically become figures. Companies publish figures or why not results? Numbers are things you dial on a telephone, or they identify the house in the street where you live.

Station / train station

More transatlantic influence. There is a concept known to linguists as “marked / unmarked terms”. It’s a most useful idea, beautifully illustrated by this present pet hate of mine. In British English, Station is unmarked, it’s neutral, it's the place where you go to catch a train. Marked forms of station are bus station, power station, police station. If you want to use a marked term to make sure there’s no misunderstanding about where to meet somebody, why not call it a railway station like we always have done.

Queue / Stand in line

This is moving in at a rapid pace. Admittedly, queue is a funny one to spell but is that an excuse for everybody to stand in line?

*For John and I

This is said by people who care about the language, who have been taught at school that there’s something to be careful about here but have forgotten what it is. What they were told is that John and I are great mates, but they don’t like John and me. They explained this to John and me, but we didn’t understand. After a preposition or as the object of a verb I becomes me. It happens with the other pronouns, too: he/she/we/they become him/her/us/them. It doesn’t drive me mad, but when I hear it used correctly, I always mentally give the speaker a couple of gold stars. A current TV advert for mis-sold insurance claims, includes the following:..that have been sold to you and I.

Out there

Out there is a very frequently-heard thinking-stopper. It means everything and nothing. Its precise meaning is what its two words indicate and no more. It’s best to leave it out.

Stuff

What can I say about “stuff”, except “ouch”, another thinking-stopper. It seems to have completely taken over from “things”, our own British home-grown thinking-stopper.

How are you? – *good

Another one moving in fast under American influence. The cost of this type of fashion is that a pair of words, in this case good/well, is reduced to one. The other one disappears in a relatively short space of time and we have permanently lost a useful shade of meaning.

Meet with

Nobody meets anybody anymore, but they constantly meet with somebody. This has now got its feet under the table. When I hear that somebody has met somebody, I pause for a few seconds and give thanks.

Basis points

The British fashion-oriented financial brigade ought to sort this one out. It's been around for a while, but some of them still seem to think it's smart to use this American mumbo-jumbo. Do 50 basis points better or more clearly express one half percent? Are 30 basis points 0.3% or not? Is it supposed to be simpler? It's nothing but another useless layer of jargon

Sense

I am now finding the use of sense enervating: give us your sense of the situation, which has the value of understanding or feeling, is as annoying as give us your take on the situation, another horror. If this continues much longer the verbal use of sense: do you sense that this situation is getting out of control? and the nominal use: common sense, the five senses, what sense are you giving to this expression? are going to become confused. People will begin to hesitate and possibly even avoid using the word.

If you listen to journalists, there are specialists of the “one sense fits all” school, like Norman Smith on the BBC. His excellent reports and analyses contain lots of my sense of the situation, which is a pity. This usage is taking over at the BBC.

To Grow a company

Growing companies now happens all the time. Tomatoes or potatoes, yes, but companies, no.

Deliver

Everything is now delivered, including education, policing and government. Provided? Nothing at all?

Impact

Earnings were impacted by the decline in oil prices, hit or affected will do the trick. French needs this verb and has taken it. English doesn’t. Used as a verb, there is a sense of physical contact, collision.

Bunch

A bunch of grapes, bananas, even a bunch of fives or hooligans, but not a bunch of files, companies or books.

Key

When I was at school, we were not allowed to use the adjective nice, felt to be lazy, over-worked and almost meaningless, and we had to find another word. I feel the same way now about the adjectival use of key. It has traditionally been used attributively as in key player, key industries, key factor. It began to be used predicatively around 1970 and, like knotweed, is now all over the place. Everything is key, factors are key to our success, the use of military force is key in this strategy. Hardly anybody says vital or crucial any more. These two adjectives are under threat.

To gift

27 per cent said they had gifted their items in the last month (given away?)

To Pause

As a precaution the UK's A400M aircraft are temporarily paused (grounded?)

Referencing

Referencing Conservative pledges to cut the welfare budget (regarding?)

Post

Post 1945. Post bellum, post hoc. But, Post the EU referendum? Post lunch?

Multiple

It’s everywhere, multiple sandwiches, multiple buses, multiple pairs of shoes. This used to be very restricted in use: multiple injuries, fractures etc. Several and many are going to disappear.

Firefighters

Firemen have disappeared.

First responders

Emergency services says it so much better.

Shooter

This is slightly ridiculous; makes me think of pea-shooter or the dated slang word for a pistol. Have Americans forgotten the word gunman or sniper?

It’s all about a lack of elegance, style. Standards unfortunately only go in one direction, South, and that’s another one that should be on my list.

Demographics, French labour law and language

My support for super fresh milk was vindicated. Our Cow Molly was given first place in the BBC’s Food and Farming awards. The competition was stiff, aquaponic technology for example. It’s somehow comforting that the production and marketing of fresh milk was judged to be inspiring. Pleased also to see that fresh milk is of interest to many people.

The Spectator magazine of 23rd April reported that In 1952 life expectancy at birth was 66 for men and 70 for women. It is now 79.1 and 82.8 respectively. There were 300 Britons over the age of 100 in 1952. There are now 14,500 with another 527,000 over 90.

Current public unrest in Paris, and elsewhere in France, is a reaction to the government’s attempts to change certain aspects of the country’s labour law. The Medef, the employers’ organisation, blames in part the complexity of the labour law for the lack of new job creation since employers are reluctant to hire because it is so difficult to fire employees at times of economic downturn. The cost to employ is also high in France and this too is partly blamed on the Code du Travail, and the 35 hour week, for example. During a televised debate on the subject, Sur I Télé, 27 September 2015, the Code du Travail was shown to contain 3900 pages of which 675 were the laws and the remainder contained commentary on the spirit and the application of the laws. These figures refer to the Dalloz edition which is the most commonly used. Companies of a certain size find it necessary to employ specialists in labour law to defend their interests against what is, in effect, a document which exclusively defends the interests of the salaried employee. As soon as a company employs its 50th person, it becomes subject to many more articles of the Code du Travail and this administrative load is extremely difficult for SMEs to cope with. There are others who argue that the size and complexity of the Code du Travail has little to do with the high unemployment rate in France, Thomas Picketty for example. This is a subject which has created serious problems for successive governments.

In parallel, the gigantic order to supply Australia with state-of-the-art submarines that France has recently won in the face of Japanese and German competition, should be a major boost to national morale and have some effect on the unemployment figures.

From a language usage standpoint, what’s been annoying me recently? The use of “multiple”. It is usual in multiple fractures, 9 is a multiple of 3, but now it’s everywhere: "…with multiple people claiming that it lost them their jobs." Business Insider, 01.04.16. Yet another American usage. What’s wrong with or so unattractive about words like many and several? Are they too ordinary? It must be that “multiple people” is so creative and original that I’m missing the point.

I was heartened to read an item by an American commentator, quoting Mr Trump: “It’s the novel syntax. The free-form grammar - ‘This is a story that seems to be more and more happening’ ”. Andrew Romano, Yahoo, 31.03.16. Ah, well.

I shall close with a complex mix of syntax provided by Joe Lynam, a journalist specialising in Business on BBC’s Radio 4 programme Today: “...much fewer companies”. Joe also uses a lot of Americanisms…

Fresh milk, Americanisms, buzzwords and pennies

I was interested to hear about super fresh milk produced and delivered by a small dairy farm near Sheffield. Their brand is Our Cow Molly. They are finalists for the BBC’s Food and Farming awards. The milk collected during the day is processed overnight and delivered the following morning to their customers, one of whom is Sheffield University. The dairy industry is going through hard times at the moment and this seems to be a way of making people think about the milk they are drinking, milk which is usually sold at rock-bottom prices to the large wholesale processors, then to high-street retail chains before being sold to the public still at very low prices. Our Cow Molly sells super fresh milk at a modest premium and their customers pay this willingly. I understand that the local Cooperative Wholesale Society is now also a customer.

It’s interesting because I don’t think about the milk I drink although I drink quite a lot of it and am convinced it’s good for me. I vaguely know how much it costs and whether I’m drinking low-fat, semi-skimmed or full-fat, otherwise I don’t give it much thought. This strikes me as being a pity. I don’t think I have drunk truly fresh milk in the last half century and this strikes me as being even more of a pity. I wish Our Cow Molly massive success and hope that their model will inspire others to adopt a similar production and marketing approach.

The BBC recently reported on a Paris court case thus: A Paris tribunal has ruled that calling a male hairdresser a "faggot" is not homophobic. This provoked me into sending an email to this august institution, expressing my opinion, and that of the OED, that the word faggot in this context is originally and chiefly U.S. slang. I trusted that they were keeping a close eye on the ever-increasing use of Americanisms in the daily written and spoken word. Much good will it do me!

The French have the same problem, as English creeps daily into their language under the most erudite noses of the Académie Française. If you’re interested in this area, Le Figaro newspaper ran a short article on the subject in June 2015: Le guide de survie contre les anglicismes au bureau, Par Lucile Quillet.

I approve of a key requirement but not this requirement is key, because adjectives like crucial and vital are disappearing under the relentless pressure. I had a quiet snigger when I heard a French speaker on the radio saying ça, c’est clé. The French are not noted for their rapid uptake of this kind of buzzword (itself originally a U.S. buzzword), especially in another language.

Another annoyance, a BBC journalist whose name escapes me, referred in his report to one pence. The OED records that this is sometimes used colloquially to refer to the new penny after 1971 decimalisation. I part company with the OED on this one.