Information fatigue

Modern technology has allowed everything to be captured, structured and stored. Artificial intelligence, including machine translation, in both theory and practice, has made extremely rapid progress. The Turing test, to tell from a screen and keyboard interaction whether you are communicating with a real person or a computer, is likely soon to show that it is no longer possible to make this distinction. A project has recently been identified the aim of which is totally to eradicate all diseases within the next few years, showing the power of computing and the ambition of scientists.

Virtually all information is now available, legally or illegally, and language is no exception. If you are in the habit of checking via your web browser that an expression is correct in this or that form, you are certainly going to find examples which justify anything you wish to say. Someone, somewhere, will have used it rightly or wrongly. Vocabulary and usage are therefore expanding incessantly and the user ends up not knowing what to say or write. This expansion takes place often by the adoption of formerly specialist, technical terms.

This leads to information fatigue: too much information, too much choice, too little discrimination. And this leads to communication which is difficult to understand from people who are confused about what they want to say. Lack of discrimination plus a penchant for following fashion means we often don’t understand what some people are talking about.

In addition to ‘different’ or ‘several different’ we now have information from multiple sources provided by multiple people. The problem, or should I say issue, is not the use of ‘multiple’ which until now has been reserved for more technical circumstances like ‘multiple fractures’ but that ‘different’ is going to find itself not sufficiently sexy, too simple, and will become relegated to history.

The bottom-line (net profit or loss to accountants), used with the meaning of anything from ‘result’ to ‘what I mean’. Definitions include ‘the fundamental and most important factor’, ‘the most basic fact or issue in a situation’. Again this seems to be an Americanism and personally I find it problematic to distinguish whether the user means ‘the result’, ‘the required result’ or ‘what I mean is’. I first came across to second guess about thirty years ago. I didn’t know what it meant then and I still don’t know what it means to this day.

Another example is ‘to prink’ which means to groom, smarten up. You have to have a pretty extensive vocabulary to know this. Currently, there is also to prink, meaning to pre-drink, which itself means to drink alcohol, often at home or in a pub, prior to going on to a club with the aim of becoming seriously inebriated. Compare this with to pre-load which has the same alcoholic meaning as to prink. But ‘to preload’ relates in cardiology to the tension in the heart muscle, as opposed to ‘afterload’. I should hate to think that our cardiologists might end up confusing these terms as other people do with the verb ‘to smoke’: are we talking about tobacco or marijuana?

The BBC reported the following on 23^rd September: “playlists account for 31% of listening time across all demographics, while albums lag behind on 22%”. Do we have to have a term straight out of anthropology when we could easily use ‘audiences’? It’s a good thing to help improve people’s vocabulary, but this one reeks of “Look at me, I’ve just learnt a new word”. So far, we’ve been spared the term ‘cohort’ in this context, from anthropology and statistics again, but I predict that it’s on its way.

On the cusp of, the intended meaning being ‘on the point of’, “the cease-fire was on the cusp of being agreed to”; another technical term, from astrology, incorrectly used when a simple alternative exists. The 2005 annotated edition of the OED does not recognise this usage, but if you look for it on the web, sure enough, it’s there: I am sitting on the cusp of middle age;  X's behaviour is only on the cusp of acceptability; we're on the cusp of something really wonderful. Should you use this expression in your next conference paper? What exactly does it mean? It’s a wonderful expression to use when you don’t know exactly what you want to say.

Just out of interest, I saw an item saying that September 24 was “officially National Punctuation Day, and we’re sure that you’re planning to celebrate by wearing “period” costumes and tossing back a few exclamation “pints.” Thank you to Brad Tuttle of Money for that. Now, there’s a most laudable initiative. Punctuation is a matter of precision.

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.

Men’s language and women’s language

With thanks to Penguin Books
for this image..

There was a time, maybe fifty years ago, when English had a class of vocabulary known as “men’s language” as opposed to “women’s language”. This men’s language was a group of swear words and expressions which could only be uttered by men and then, usually, by men of the lower orders. Polite society never used them and did not recognise their existence, or would not admit to knowing them. I’m talking of course about the infamous trio:  f**k, c**t, t**t. Even now, with them all covered in asterisks, I find it shameful to write them. There are others, but these three are at the top of the tree and in ascending order of horribleness. Women’s language doesn’t exist in this context; the expression is used simply to countervail men’s language. Women’s language has the value of all that is correct, acceptable and pleasant to hear. Well, that’s how things were, Jane Austen-y I suppose.

The OED not only admits to knowing about this trio, but gives full-blooded definitions and etymologies. Even the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary shows them, with remarks like “taboo, slang” and “offensive” somewhere in the definition. Fifty years ago, these words would not have been published, anywhere, there would have been an instant hue and cry. How many, today, remember the prosecution of Penguin Books under the Obscene Publications Act for having published D. H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover? The trial was held at the Old Bailey in 1960 and a unanimous verdict of not guilty was returned. It was seen as a test case opposing modern progressive culture and public morals and decency. Modern cultural expression won and so began the Permissive Society. The result of this trial is the presence in dictionaries of this trio. Today, almost any vocabulary is printable. Philip Larkin recalls this case, with his inimitable “serious” humour, in his poem Annus Mirabilis:

“Sexual intercourse began

In nineteen sixty-three

(which was rather late for me) -

Between the end of the Chatterley ban

And the Beatles' first L.P.”

And in This Be The Verse his famous first line: “They fuck you up, your mum and dad.” would never have been published a dozen years earlier, but both were published in High Windows in 1974.

Today, in the age of feminism and equality of everything for everybody, these “men’s” words are now used by everybody, men and women alike. Young women now share laddish behaviour and violence, get drunk and fight outside pubs on a Saturday night; why shouldn’t they use these words? They are now banal.

That being said, I should recommend that they not be used by learners of English. In fact, I should recommend that they not be used by anybody in normal, polite, conversation or writing. When learners use them, it doesn’t ring true; there’s a conflict between a lack of mastery of the language and the native-speaker ability associated with these words. One final indication or test of fluency is the native-speaker ability to insert f***king between an adjective and its noun or between two nouns: “I hate the noise of a Harley f***king Davidson” or “not warm f***king beer!" This takes skill and it’s not quite the same as “f***king warm beer”, so be warned!

As I often say, standards only go in one direction, downwards.

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.

The referendum – where to Guv?

The shock wave

There is a frenetic rush to bring out the next horrendous story in this British cataclysm. The Telegraph reveals a French plot to topple the City. The Guardian recounts that Standard Life has shut its property fund. Why the UK is plunging towards an economic nightmare, clarions another. These are testing times, agreed, but in the midst of all the noise, the thinking process has begun.

The BBC reports that “lawyers acting for a group of business people and academics, said it would be unlawful for a prime minister to trigger Article 50 without a full debate and vote in Parliament ...because they would be overriding the 1972 European Communities Act that enshrines UK membership of the EU ...constitutionally only legislation can override legislation and an act of Parliament is required to give the prime minister legal authority”. Or, again, will Britain have to invoke Article 50 before starting to negotiate terms as a European commissioner has suggested? The details of our new relationship are going to take years to settle; what we don’t need is interminable legal debate about whether we are in or out.

Agree or disagree with the referendum result, we need a government and we need an opposition, asap. Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage are no longer candidates for anything. The Tory leadership election is underway. The Brexit worthies in the party seem to think that only a candidate who supported leave can do the job; that is probably Mr Gove or Mrs Leadsom. I don’t follow this; it’s an odd kind of logic. The future leader and Prime Minister will do what is best for the country and must be chosen on merit. Are they saying that a candidate who voted to remain is somehow going to commit only half-heartedly to the job or might even sabotage Britain’s negotiations? Is this an example of Mr Gove’s superior intellectual powers of which we hear so much? Mrs Leadsom no doubt has many qualities, but I know nothing about her;  mea culpa I’m sure. Mrs May has far more experience at home and abroad than all the others put together. Mr Corbyn’s Labour party will eventually re-organise, with or without tears. Sooner would be better than later because Her Majesty’s opposition is a vital part of our government process.

While we get our house in order, as we shall, we should remember that our European allies have their own problems. Belgium’s Le Soir says it all; the whole of Europe is feeling the shock waves from Brexit. Frau Merkel has her own immigration sword of Damocles to dismantle. France has so many concerns, it doesn’t know what to deal with first. Apart from terrorism, unions and an egregious unemployment rate, among others, Monsieur Valls is currently having his own spat with the European Commission about the Bolkestein Directive, voted in the European Parliament in 2006, which France has always hated. It began with the Polish plumber and in 2013 Ryanair was fined by the French government because its Marseilles operation was using Irish contracts to save on social charges. France has very high costs to employ, so it doesn’t like cross-border provision of services where a European employer toes the line on the minimum pay and health and safety regulations of the host country but pays the lower social contributions of the service provider’s country. The Le Figaro newspaper said yesterday that it would cost less to employ a French worker on the national minimum wage than a Polish worker. Just in case anybody has forgotten, Europe has its own troubles to sort out.

The status of EU citizens living in UK and vice-versa has also rightly drawn attention. They must not be used as pawns in any negotiation, this is self-evident and I’m sure they will not be. But negotiations will take place and this provision for continued, unchanged residence will have to be ratified. In this context, Germany has proposed dual nationality for British citizens. This type of solution is pleasant but nugatory.

Britain needs Europe and Europe needs Britain. The task now is one of re-design and both Europe and Britain will have to rethink some of their tenets. The word negotiate derives from two Latin words for not and ease. Lines are drawn, there is much posturing and sucking of teeth. Hand-wringing and hair-tearing are not acceptable. We have lots to negotiate with and the future is unwritten. We shall be involved in something like a game of chess where checkmate will never be reached. Only a draw.