41st REPLY

NAME: Nick Dean   

DATE: 09 March 2015

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1964-71

Some of Susie Dent's recent TV pieces [see replies 28 & 38] have been among her most interesting historically, illustrating how changes in words have been engineered and the sometimes arbitrary nature of 'correct' spelling. She has drawn attention in particular to Renaissance scholars' superfluous and pretentious insertion of letters in words imported from French to make them appear more like Latin - eg salmon, doubt, debt, plumber, fault. Then there were words from Norman French, like 'gaoler', which were altered to appear more fashionably Parisian (though, as SD pointed out, even Oscar Wilde used 'gaol'), and others which have enjoyed a lasting legal duality from a time when French words were gradually being used in place of Old English and so lawyers resorted to tautology to ensure clarity (eg 'will and testament', 'breaking and entering'). Finally, a point of my own on the singular/plural front. I keep noticing how 'phenomenon', like 'criterion', may be on its way out. Even the Governor of the Bank of England (admittedly a Canadian!) recently used 'phenomena' in the singular when appearing before a Parliamentary committee.

42nd REPLY

NAME: Nigel Wood  

DATE: 10 March 2015

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1957-64

Yes Nick, you're quite right about 'a bacteria' and 'a phenomena' taking over from 'a bacterium' and 'a phenomenon'. Even commoner is 'a criteria'. I feel gentle but mounting pressure to use 'this data' rather than 'these data' when wording A-Level exam questions, but so far haven't had to succumb. I suppose that this trend is inevitable, now that Latin and Greek are rarely taught in state schools, and many children learn no foreign language at all. In an ideal world, knowledge of a short list of a dozen or so weird foreign plurals would be a requirement of GCSE English, but perhaps that's being a bit naïve... Without experience of any other language than English it must be difficult even to discuss some language concepts; "forming a plural" might be taken as simply synonymous with adding an 's', if indeed the idea of forming a plural is accorded any sense at all. (Where is Wittgenstein when you need him?) In reply 4 I had a go at analysing my motives for deploring 'this criteria' and suchlike. I wasn't altogether proud of what I uncovered.

43rd REPLY

NAME: James (Jas) Cowen    Then & Now

DATE: 15 March 2015

CONNECTION WITH QE: pupil 56-63

In regard to Nick's comments on Susie Dent (Countdown) [reply 28] I have watched a few more of the afternoon Countdowns whilst enjoying late lunches and resisting my annoyance at that horrible 30 second countdown noise (banned once but alas brought back.) I have particularly enjoyed some of Susie Dent's recent word origins and especially talk of the Vikings invasions and words that were adopted from them and those that were not. I am currently reading John Humphrys Lost for Words (sub-titled The Mangling and Manipulating of the English Language and published by Hodder & Stoughton in 2004) and maybe I will comment on some of it when I have finished it or even maybe before. I certainly enjoy him and the rest of the team on Radio 4's Today programme and especially Sarah Montague, whom I think is a superb broadcaster.

44th REPLY

NAME: Nick Dean   

DATE: 15 March 2015

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1964-71

The reality is that 'decimate' [replies 26,27] has virtually lost its literal meaning and does tend to be used to mean something much more extreme. For example, you could say that the British army was decimated in the First World War, which statistically is roughly the case, but people would probably think you were perpetuating the myth that fatalities were much higher. (Probably a dubious use of 'myth' if I recall what John Finnett had to say about Ovid!) Even so, 'decimate' is often deployed with too little discrimination. During Sky's coverage of the cricket World Cup I heard one commentator describe an Afghan fielder has having been "in danger of being decimated" by a shot from Alex Hales.

45th REPLY

NAME: Nick Dean   

DATE: 17 March 2015

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1964-71

Interesting piece in The Times by Oliver Kamm (14/3) about the 'verbifying' of nouns, prompted by 'empty chair' [see reply 11] and in particular a self-critical tweet by Michael Crick deploring his own "awful" use of it as a verb. Kamm says that using nouns as verbs is well established in English - sleep, dream, contact - and that about a fifth of verbs have arisen that way. He takes issue with pedants who, for example, still decry the use of 'loan' and 'host', the former being established as a verb this side of the Atlantic for at least 800 years and the latter deployed by Spenser in The Faerie Queen. Kamm concedes that some such verbs sound awkward - I think I would include empty chair, agenda, caveat, yellow card - but, then, as he says, if you don't like them, don't use them. Final point, which I read on-line in a piece about business jargon, is that using nouns directly as verbs - eg mainstream, action - is often much better than inventing ugly new ones - eg mainstreamify, actionise, diarise, ?verbify

46th REPLY

NAME: James (Jas) Cowen    Then & Now

DATE: 18 March 2015

CONNECTION WITH QE: pupil 56-63

I have continued to read John Humphrys' book [see reply 43] and in fact am about half way through. I find a lot of it interesting and agree with much, though some I think a little too much on the pedantic side. I must confess to saying "I'd like a nice cup of tea" when arriving home, though strictly speaking it is "I'd like a cup of nice tea." depending on whether I have a nice cup or not. Would others be sympathetic to me or not as the case may be? One of John's pet gripes I don't find so bad, the use of the present tense in talking of past events. Each to their own view I say but of course that will mean an end to lengthy discussion on the point.

47th REPLY

NAME: Nick Dean   

DATE: 19 March 2015

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1964-71

I agree entirely with Jas about 'nice cup of tea'. 'Cup of tea' (sometimes abbreviated to 'cuppa') is virtually a noun in its own right. And, frankly, it's the 'experience' as a whole that's nice, not the specific blend or the way it's been brewed. 'The cup that cheers' comes to mind.

48th REPLY

NAME: Vic Coughtrey   Then & Now

DATE: 19 March 2015

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1954-59

Indeed; and I'm not sure how someone who can't see that 'cup of tea' is a noun-phrase referring to a quantity of tea and not the receptacle is qualified to offer us a book on English usage. I can't find any evidence that Humphrys, though a Welshman, knows any Welsh, but if he did he would realise that the English construction parallels (if you will pardon the verbification) the Welsh equivalent, except that in Welsh you have to say a cupful, glassful, bottleful etc. That could make it clearer to him how it works in English.

I would also take issue with the other example of Mr Humphrey's expert opinion, as given by Jas, concerning the historic present tense. Alas, as part of a vaguely working-class, vaguely London dialect, it seems to be on the wane, but the following example of my grandmother's use of it, which made such a strong impression on me as a small boy that I've remembered it to this day, illustrates its effectiveness in bringing past events alive:

Then 'e turns round and says "I say, don't you look the flighty type, done up to the knockers like that!" Well, she does no more, if you please, but what she fetches 'im one, right acrawst 'is chops!

Among historians, on the other hand (and this is what JH may be talking about) it's a linguistic device that's going from strength to strength. They've adopted it as a tool of the trade to bring the past into the present - an important function of theirs. It works and good on them!

49th REPLY

NAME: Stephen Giles  

DATE: 28 March 2015

CONNECTION WITH QE: inmate 1957-64

James refered to "Barrie Martin, the chair of the governors" in 108/63. I will read that as ""chairman of the governors". A chair is what you sit on, if it's all the same to you (he Celia Johnsoned!!)

50th REPLY

NAME: Nick Dean   

DATE: 01 April 2015

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1964-71

Prompted by Jas [reply 43] I've been reading the copy of John Humphrys' book that has lain on a shelf since my wife ploughed through it about 10 years ago. Sadly, although I agree with quite a bit of what he says, it does come across as a massive whinge - almost as frustrating as listening to his verbose interviews and lacking the light touch and easy humour of, for example, Eric Partridge, Bill Bryson (Mother Tongue, Made in America) or, as cited above, Susie Dent. It also grates that he takes the opportunity to settle old scores (such as with Alistair Campbell). Many of JH's points amount to no more than personal preferences, such as berating those who say "attempt" when there is nothing wrong with "try".

Ultimately I found myself attempting to spot his own shortcomings - a bit like looking for anachronistic Routemasters in period dramas (probably a term he wouldn't like because 'period' is a noun). For example, I noticed that, on the second page, he refers to "the last paragraph" when he means the previous one and he seems generally to eschew ("mostly there is no reason to split an infinitive") the possessive with gerunds. Perhaps the most important point JH makes is that "communication suggests an exchange", but even that is slightly lost in the midst of his over-serious sniping at the impact of TV shows like Friends and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (though he does cite with apparent admiration one priceless example of Slayer-slang: "Don't invade her personal space or she'll go all, like, special forces on you"). I wonder what he made of Samantha Cameron's recently commencing a sentence, in her one and only kitchen, with "Me and the children ..."? (The answer is on page 91: "We all know that 'My husband and I' is correct".)

51st REPLY

NAME: James (Jas) Cowen    Then & Now

DATE: 01 April 2015

CONNECTION WITH QE: pupil 56-63

If its all the same to you (and that's an interesting expression in itself and open to discussion), Stephen [reply 49], I will continue to refer to the chairman or chairwoman as the chair on the basis that it is now common usage, shorter and avoids arguments especially about ladies as whether they should be chairwoman, madam chairman or the chairperson. In reference to modern usage I quote from the Penguin English Dictionary (one among many): Chair: a) an office or position of authority or dignity, specifically a professorship. b) a chairman or chairwoman. However I promise that I did not use the term to provoke controversy and indeed if speaking to you or any others who object, in the interests of peace and harmony, I will use the term chairman if talking about Barrie Martin or a similar post holder. What is best in relation to ladies? I suppose reference should be made to them using whatever term they prefer just as some now like Ms rather than Miss or Mrs.

It is interesting what you say, Stephen, that a chair is what you sit on. Of course this has been extended both literally and figuratively to chairmen and chairwomen. They have sometimes literally been sat on and frequently have been sat on in the figurative sense. It is interesting also that you oppose black tie events but are all for the retention of original formal language, though you could say the reverse inconsistency applies to myself. Maybe others fall in to one camp or the other or have views about similar developments in our English language.

As I frequently use the Ludgershall Town Council offices for inputting to the internet I thought I would ask the Chairman of the Council here how he thought about being called the chair of the Council rather than the more formal Mr Chairman. He was quite relaxed about either being used. This is from a man who has been in local government for years and is steeped in all the traditions including wearing his chain of office at formal occasions. It was interesting to me that just before I asked him another local councillor, who was in the room, asked if he was going to be in the chair at the council meeting that evening. I don't think an explanation of what chair she was talking about should be needed. I remember, though, when I was the vice-chairman of Borehamwood Links Club Committee many years ago I would have perhaps groaned if called Mr Vice, though at my friend the Chairman's funeral I did say I was his only vice. He was also the best man at my wedding.

52nd REPLY

NAME: Nick Dean   

DATE: 04 April 2015

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1964-71

I tend to agree (albeit a little reluctantly) with Jas about 'chair' [replies 49 & 51], which, at at any rate, sounds much better than 'chairperson'. Even Ken Livingstone used to joke self-depricatingly about going out for a stroll with his Walkperson. And, of course, "the chair" has, over many years, often been referred to during meetings, as in, "through the chair" (although the symbolism of the chair is arguably distinct from the person occupying it). I remember an Oxford Union debate in which Ann Widdecombe, then a rather prim student officer of the society, got rather huffy about the use of "Madam Chairman", regarding it as a contradiction in terms and being quite content with "chairman" whoever was the occupant. Which reminds me of possibly the only occasion I can remember AW laughing heartily during an Oxford debate: a man whose name escapes me, but who I first encountered c1970 debating for Richard Hale against our own Elizabethan Union, gave only guarded support for her point of view with the words, "I wouldn't want to go the whole way with her ..." Such was the nature of Carry On humour in those days!

53rd REPLY

NAME: Paul Buckland

DATE: 18 April 2015

CONNECTION WITH QE: pupil 1962 - 1969

I am presently in Australia and discovered yesterday in a newspaper a wonderful new verb 'to farewell'. E.g "after we farewelled him ..." Enough said !!

54th REPLY

NAME: Nick Dean   

DATE: 20 April 2015

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1964-71

Somebody working in Australia wrote to The Times last year to say that he been introduced to a number of people described as "my de facto" [ie partner] and that, until someone enlightened him, he was surprised at how many deaf actors he had encountered.

55th REPLY

NAME: Nick Dean   

DATE: 21 April 2015

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1964-71

I noticed that, in a recent repeat of Dad's Army (made in 1977, but set, of course, in the 1940s), Warden Hodges threatened to "county court" someone - precisely the sort of language that makes some of us wince a little today! It was also amusing, from a contemporary perspective, to hear Private Fraser telling the good captain that (as also noted in the Radio Times), "I don't trust banks, I don't trust bankers and I don't trust you!"

56th REPLY

NAME: Nick Dean   

DATE: 25 April 2015

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1964-71

Oh dear. According to BBC TV's News at Ten, some have accused Tesco of "kitchen sinking the figures".

57th REPLY

NAME: Nick Dean   

DATE: 20 May 2015

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1964-71

The latest person to offend grammatical sensibilities appears to be Andrew Strauss with his reference to a "massive trust issue between Kevin and I". Even more surprising was that this has given rise to a substantial article in The Times by Oliver Kamm who cites various sources for the view that both Kevin and I/me should be accusative, but then applies the Sam C0cks principle that their books are wrong. Apparently, 'Kevin and I' is what is known as a coordinative phrase (I'm sure he makes these things up) and that a pronoun within such a phrase is "free to take either nominative or accusative". In such circumstances, I would look at the Latin: I'm sure both Timson and Finnett (and probably Strauss at Radley) would have said inter Kevinum et me (and there's already one ego, of course). Safe to say that, in a piece about KP's future, The Sunday Times has taken direct action and quoted Strauss as saying "Kevin and me".

58th REPLY

NAME: Nick Dean   

DATE: 23 May 2015

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1964-71

And a new verb from Southern Rail, quoted in the Evening Standard: "If passengers have no option other than to stand in first class they would not be penalty-fared."

59th REPLY

NAME: Nigel Wood  

DATE: 23 May 2015

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1957-64

No one is tempted to write 'to I', 'from I', 'by I', 'to we', 'above I', and so on (except, perhaps, as Mummerset-speak). In other words, English prepositions don't take the nominative. So what's the attraction, to certain sane and generally literate people, of 'to you and I', 'between you and I' and so on? It's probably the enthusiasm that teachers and parents once had for enjoining their children to say 'Fred and I' in sentences like "Me and Fred are going to beat you to a pulp.". That this applies when 'Fred and I' are subjects of the sentence is a point which was no doubt either forgotten or never understood in the first place. All that stuck is that it's wrong to say 'Fred and me', 'you and me'. That's my theory, anyway. It's rather amusing that in the case (no pun intended) of 'between you and I', the obvious way of pointing out the badness, by saying, "Well, you wouldn't say 'between I' would you?", doesn't really work ...

60th REPLY

NAME: Vic Coughtrey   Then & Now

DATE: 23 May 2015

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1954-59

The fact that 'between I' is useless as an example raises an interesting point. The phrase 'to him and me' is really short for 'to him and to me'. In other words, you there have two separate singular objects, each governed by its own preposition. 'Between you and me', however, is obviously not short for 'between you and between me'. What you have there is a single plural object-phrase (just as 'between us' contains a single plural object). I'm not sure why it's thought necessary for the preposition to govern more than one element of the single object-phrase. Although I myself would never dream of saying "between you and I" (cowardice), it seems to me that it may have at least as much going for it as 'between you and me'! (In Welsh, by the way, a conjunction always protects the word following it from being affected by a preposition or verb, although it will affect many words itself). Oh, while we're at it, what do you think about the reverse of the problem, as in "I'd rather him than me" or "It's only me"? Both wrong, surely?