NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/sci/lang/6144

Text File | 1992-07-28 | 3.8 KB | 83 lines

Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sunic!aun.uninett.no!alf.uib.no!hlirg
From: [e-mail] (Roger Greenwald)
Subject: Re: English and its Mutilation
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Bergen, Norway
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 00:03:25 GMT
Lines: 69

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kartik Chandrasekhar) writes:
>
>    I was disturbed to see how the language
>is used here in the USA. I am in full agreement with the idea of
>American English with colour spelt as color or rumour spelt
>as rumor. Hmm.. maybe it makes more sense. What I have really come to
>despise are expressions such as:
>
>"I did not get the invite."
>"Dont do drugs." (Seen on billboards all over the country.)
>
>To top it here is an example which appeared as a 3 inch headline in the
>San Jose Mercury News during the heady days of the Bush presidency.
>
>"Why Bush cannot be beat". (Instead of .... cannot be beaten).
>
>There is a lot of difference between the British or Indian Newspapers
>who use chaste English and the US newspapers who are careless and
>irresponsible. They have to realize  that it is through thier colomns
>that a language flourishes in todays world and they should not butcher
>the language. The editorial should also provide the everyday lesson in
>English to the people.
>
> I am not trying to compare USA Vs UK or Vs India it is just that
> when my 1 1/2 year son grows up here and starts reading the newspapers
> he should get more out of it than just the news and the scores.
>
>In conclusion I would like to say that I will gladly accept any flaws
>or corrections in my argument.
>
> kartik

Well. As you may know from reading earlier postings, I am all in favor
of carefully written "standard English" in publications that aspire
to that. But I'm afraid I have to come down on the other side of
the argument here. Vigorous and inventive use of spoken language
is what makes any language flourish. And cultures in which written
language never absorbs anything from spoken language end up
with very sterile written languages that have to be studied by
native speakers as if they were foreign languages.

It is commonly said that American English is unusually rich in
colloquial idioms and slang, and unusually good at inventing new
usages. This is probably true, but perhaps the phenomenon is simply
more readily visible in the US because people feel less constrained
about speaking and writing "correctly" than in some other countries.
Yet the UK has, of course, its own quite rich slangs and colloquial
usages, and I'm sure it is well supplied with newspapers that make
use of them (have a look at a few British tabloids!). I would venture
to guess that this is true of many of the languages spoken in India,
with the possible exception of English, in which everyone is
trying so very hard to be "good." (Well, maybe not everyone.)

If you will ask some of your English friends what they think of American
English, you may find they are not as horrified as you are, and are
perhaps even a bit admiring.

I would urge you to read H.L Mencken's THE AMERICAN LANGUAGE. It must
be about 60 years old by now, but still great. It will not only
give you a rich sample of the language, but a strong dose of
opinion contrary to that of the "schoolmarms."

As to your examples, an ad aimed at people who "do" drugs
of course tries to speak in their idiom. Did you _read_
the article that said "Bush Can't Be Beat"? This is an idiom
that means "Bush is terrific" (i.e. wonderful). If that's
what the newspaper thought of him, they may well have been
punning on "beat/beaten." (They were daydreaming, of course, but
we'll let that go.)
--
Roger Greenwald
[e-mail] (address valid only until 10 August 1992)