Shroombuck on Language

[Shroombuck]

For me it is a cause of some upset that more Anglophones don't enjoy language. Music is enjoyable but it seems so are dance and other athletic forms of movement. People seem to be able to find sensual and sensuous pleasure in almost anything but words these days. Words, it seems belong to other people, anyone who expresses themselves with originality, delight and verbal freshness is more likely to be mocked, distrusted or disliked than welcomed.

The free and happy use of words appears to be considered elitist or pretentious. Sadly, desperately sadly the only people who seem to bother with language in public today bother with it in quite the wrong way. They write letters to broadcasters and newspapers in which they are rude and haughty about other people's usage and in which they show off their own superior 'knowledge' of how language should be. I hate that, and I particularly hate the fact that so many of these pedants assume that most are on their side.

When asked to join in a 'let's persuade this supermarket-chain to get rid of their 'five items or less-sign' I never join in. Yes, I am aware of the technical distinction between 'less' and 'fewer' and between 'uninterested' and 'disinterested' and 'infer' and 'imply' and all the rest of them, but none of these are of importance to me. 'None of these are of importance' I wrote there, you'll notice the old pedantic me would have insisted on 'none of them is of importance'.

Well, I am glad to say I have outgrown that silly approach to language. Oscar Wilde, and there have been few greater and more complete lords of language in the past thousand years, once included with a manuscript he was delivering to his publishers a compliment slip in he had scribbled the injunction: 'I'll leave you to tidy up the woulds and shoulds, wills and shalls, thats and whiches.' Which gives us all encouragement to feel less guilty, don't you think?

There are all kinds of pedants around with more time to read and imitate Lynne Truss and John Humphrys than to write poems, love-letters, novels and stories it seems. They whip out their Sharpies and take away and add apostrophes from public signs, shake their heads at prepositions which end sentences and mutter at split infinitives and misspellings, but do they bubble and froth and slobber and cream with joy at language?

Do they ever let the tripping of the tips of their tongues against the tops of their teeth transport them to giddy euphoric bliss? Do they ever yoke impossible words together for the sound-sex of it? Do they use language to seduce, charm, excite, please, affirm and tickle those they talk to? Do they? I doubt it! They are too farting busy sneering at a greengrocer's less than perfect use of the apostrophe. Well fuck them to the gates of Hades!

They think they're guardians of language. They're no more guardians of language than the Kennel Club is the bloody guardian of dogkind. The worst of this sorry bunch of semi-educated losers are those whom seem to glory in being irritated by nouns becoming verbs. How damn dense and deaf to language development do you have to be, hmm? If you don't like nouns becoming verbs, then for the heaven's sake avoid Shakespeare who made a doing-word out of a thing-word every chance he got. He tabled the motion and chaired the gathering in which nouns were made verbs.

I suppose new examples from our time might have some getting used to: he actioned it that day, for instance might strike some as verbing too far, but we have been sanctioning, envisioning, propositioning and stationing for a long time, so why not 'actioning'? 'Because it's ugly,' whinge the pedants. Well it's only ugly because it's new and you don't like it. Ugly in the way Picasso, Stravinsky and Eliot were once thought ugly and before them Monet, Mahler and Baudelaire.

Pedants will also claim, with what I am sure is eye-popping insincerity and shameless disingenuousness, that their fight is only for 'clarity'. Ohh, this is all very well, but there is no doubt what for example 'Five items or less' means, just as only a dolt can't tell from the context and from the age and education of the speaker, whether 'disinterested' is used in the 'proper' sense of non-partisan, or in the 'improper' sense of uninterested. No, the claim to be defending language for the sake of clarity almost never, ever holds water! Nor does the idea that following grammatical rules in language demonstrates clarity of thought and intelligence of mind.

Having said this, I admit that if you want to communicate well for the sake of passing an exam or job interview, then it's quite obvious that wildly original and excessively heterodox language could land you in the soup. I think what offends examiners and employers when confronted with extremely informal, unpunctuated and haywire language is the implication of not caring that underlies it. You slip into a bespoke suit for an interview and you dress your language up too. You can wear what you like linguistically or sartorially when you are at home or with friends, but most people accept the need to smarten up under some circumstances it's only considerate.

That is of course an issue of fitness, of suitability; it has nothing to do with correctness. There is no right language or wrong language any more than there are wrong tailors on Savile Row. Context, convention and circumstance are all. I cannot deny that a small part of me still clings to a ghastly radio for newspaper, letter writer and pedantry, but I fight against it in much the same way I try to fight against my holiness, anger, selfishness and other vices.

Ohh, language and ohh, British English thy are so enjoyable!

[Picard]

As a disinterested French speaking person, I applaud your stance on the matter. I enjoy learning the finer subtleties of the English language and I do agree that people should try to widen their vocabulary.

However the real challenge when writing an email, an essay or what not is to be able to write a short sentence that retains all the information that a longer sentence would. The ability to be concise is what, in my opinion, is truly hard to achieve in any language. Anyone can write 10 pages on a subject, but to do it in one paragraph and still get all the points across is a true challenge.

The French have something to protect the integrity of their language called "L'académie Française". Perhaps something similar should be created for the British Empire.

[Costello]

You didn't write this. It would be prudent to cite the source:



I was often criticised in matters of academic formality over my romantic writing style, it has seldom been suitable or delectable to the eyes of these mundane paper-pushers of the working world. I've often been forced to expunge the originality and be more corporate, it's a necessity of life. But my, what a shame.

[Shroombuck]

You didn't write this. It would be prudent to cite the source:

You spoiled all the fun.

How lame.

[Carbonizer]

Stephen Fry definately is the ultimate badass.