Selasa, 28 Juli 2015

Loanwords: A Pitfall for All Students

Joseph W. Sheperd
Aichi Gakuin Junior College (Nagoya, Japan)

Originally published in
The Faculty Journal of Aichi Gakuin Junior College
No. 3, March, 1995

Few government decrees in recent years have been more controversial and even mirth-provoking than the decision of the French Culture Minister to ban the use of "borrowed foreign words" in the French language. Anglicized and other words of foreign origin will have to be replaced by French newspapers, broad-casting, advertising, video games, commercial ventures and public notices. French will be the main language in any international conferences held in France.(1)

To enforce the ban, government-appointed language observers will be empowered to take steps to correct what they consider to be violations of the law, and yet-to-be-announced penalties will be posed. It remains to be seen what effects the campaign will have in France, but there is no doubt that "loanwords" have become an integral part of almost every language and they have contributed greatly to the clarification and richness of native languages. But it can also be said that overemphasis on and improper use of foreign words can lead to misunderstanding and confusion, particularly for non-native speakers trying to learn a language.(2)

The purpose of this paper will be to outline briefly the history and development of "loanwords" in Japanese, and then discuss how these words can be of trouble for foreigners studying Japanese, and for Japanese studying English or other foreign languages. Finally, I would like to attempt to assess the cultural impact.

Origins of Loanwords

It would be next to impossible to calculate the number and catalog the origin of all loanwords used in Japan. Some words have been part of the Japanese vocabulary for so long that they are now considered as Japanese words. Others, which may be in vogue now, will soon disappear and be replaced by still other short-lived expressions. At any rate, a decade or so ago, researchers decided that more than ten-percent of currently popular Japanese vocabulary consisted of loanwords. And the percentage is still growing.(3) No one would dare to predict what colloquial Japanese will sound like in ten or twenty years.

In tracing the origins of loanwords, it can be said with certainty that English is the primary source today. But that was not always the case. In addition to words taken from Chinese, Korean, Ainu and Sanskrit, Portuguese, Spanish and Dutch were the earliest words adopted by the Japanese.

Interestingly enough, many of the loanwords were related to particular characteristics or qualities of the country from which they were taken. Thus, from Italian came words linked to music and food. French words reflected art and fashion; German contributed expressions associated with science, medicine and mountain sports. Words from English cover the whole spectrum of language.(4) Originally, most of these words conveyed ideas which could not be, or were not, expressed clearly by Kanji. But as the Japanese language developed, many loanwords were adopted for the sake of convenience or style.

Recent Sources of Loanwords

It is beyond dispute that the mass media is the leading source of new loanwords. News programs, documentaries, game and quiz shows, sports, even dramas add more and more foreign words and phrases to the Japanese language. But their contributions pale beside the additions stemming from the eye-catching slogans in advertising and TV commercials.

For some reason, copywriters believe that foreign words add class or mystique to their copy. It makes no difference that the average reader doesn't understand the message. They aren't supposed to. What does matter is that the text "evokes an image and attaches prestige value to the products being advertised."(5) Unfortunately, some of these strange usages make their way into dictionaries, and then students of both English and Japanese are confronted with ideas that can neither be understood nor translated.

Names or titles, too, reflect an unwarranted admiration for non-Japanese words. A quick scan of popular brand names, or titles of magazines and other publications, can mystify all readers, no matter what their linguistic background might be. And too often, the choice of titles is a source of merriment for those who understand the real meaning of the words. To confirm the above statement, readers might want to consult a recent paperback, Japanese Jive, by Caroline McKeldin.(6) The sub-title, "Wacky and Wonderful Products from Japan," says it all.

At any rate, even though the loanwords are spreading at an unprecedented rate. The problems for students are spreading with them.

Pronunciation of Loanwords

Although the pronunciation of loanwords usually resembles the pronunciation of the word in the original language, adjustments have to be made to conform to the Japanese phonetic system.(7) And when these words are written in Katakana, even the most skillful non-native speakers of Japanese are often hard-pressed to come up with the original spelling of the word.

Adding to the confusion, quite frequently loanwords are abbreviated or combined with Japanese words or other loanwords. They have no resemblance to the original source. One distinguished scholar has said that for foreign students, the study of loanwords is much more difficult than the study of Kanji or Japanese words in Hiragana.(8)

Finally, the rules of grammar of the original words are often disregarded when the words are used in Japanese. Prepositions become nouns, nouns become verbs, and conjunctions and suffixes just disappear. All in all, for the foreign student, confusion abounds. In the next few pages, I hope to point out some of the most obvious problems in the use of loanwords and try to find some ways to clear up at least a little of the confusion. At the same time, I would like to show that the misunderstanding of the proper use of Katakana English can cause no end of trouble for Japanese students struggling to master English.

Seven of the Most Difficult Challenges

Although a brief summary of special problems with loanwords has been given above, in this section, I will try to give a more detailed explanation. I am especially indebted to Professor Prem Motowani for the outline of this section.(9)

1. The vast majority of loanwords have been taken from English. However, in the Katakana words have only one meaning or usage. For example, 'akusesari' accessory - refers only to artificial or costume jewelry. Hats, ties, scarves or other such objects which are included in the English of the word have other terms in Japanese.

2. The "Japanization" of English words has in shortening, limiting, combining and extending English words to the extent that they are incomprehensible to native speakers. It would take a special imagination to link 'mai-kon' with the English micro-computer. 'Ame-futo' is a long way from American Football.

3. In many cases, loanwords are only used in combinations. Ice in English refers to a frozen substance. But in Japanese it is restricted to terms such as ice cream, iced tea, ice hockey and Ice box. 'On-za-rokku' fills in for Scotch on ice.

4. Distinguishing between loanwords used only colloquially and those used in written Japanese also demand study. 'Baransu' in one sense is used in written language, but in another it is colloquial.

5. Most loanwords are nouns in their original language. But in Japan they are often used as verbs by adding a Japanese verb ending or verb. Others merely add 'suru' to make a verb. 'Dabingu suru' for "dubbing" or "to dub" comes to mind.

6. Loanwords are frequently blended with Kanji or other loan-words to make a new word. "Denwa fakkusu" is a fax machine; "doa-tsu-doa" means from one place to another.

7. Finally, many former brand names now have taken on a general meaning. "Bando-eido" for Band-Aid, refers to a bandage or the verb to bandage. These specialized words require a knowledge of the original name in order to mean anything in Japanese. Certainly, many other categories could be added to this outline of special challenges. But I think we have enough now to realize that loanwords themselves call for extensive study on the part of any serious student of Japanese. A list of some of the more fashionable loanwords has been included at the end of this paper.

Some Possible Solution

As mentioned several times, loanwords defy logical explanations, and, therefore, there is no really logical way to study them. In preparing this paper, I spoke to several teachers of Japanese as a foreign language. They all stressed one point. Loanwords must be considered as Japanese words and studied in the same way. Their original meanings must not affect their or pronunciation in Japanese.

Secondly, and this sounds like I am avoiding the challenge, non-native speakers of Japanese should try not to use loanwords any more than is necessary. Even when clearly written in Katakana, they often don't sound right when used or read by non-Japanese. Foreign speakers tend to lean toward the original pronunciation and interpretation.

Next, students should not hesitate to ask what the loanword means, if the context of the sentence doesn't seem to make sense . In ordinary Japanese, the Kanji often clarifies the meaning. But Katakana offers no such assistance. Students can easily confuse the other speaker if they misinterpret or misuse words taken from other languages. And occasionally, the mistake might sound like an insult.

Finally, students should not rely too much on the interpretation of loanwords as given in standard dictionaries, Too often, editors seem to have relied on the assistance of native English speakers when defining loanwords. The idea, of course, is praiseworthy, but as I said earlier, loanwords must be considered as Japanese words. It takes a specialist to understand the basic meaning and nuances. I strongly recommend the use of dictionaries focusing on loanword usage. A few of the recognized works will be listed at the end of the paper.

Challenges for Students of English

Though the thrust of this paper has been toward helping students of Japanese understand loanwords, a few thoughts about the dangers loanwords present to students of English should also be given some consideration. It has been my experience that Katakana English is, without a doubt, one of the main sources of English pronunciation problems. Stressing every syllable and adding a vowel at the end of the word, English students often sound as if they are reading Katakana placed alongside of the words. It has often been pointed out that what students consider to be good English often is a confusing and meaningless Japanese-English or "Japlish." Add to that a wrong interpretation of the original loanword, and you can readily see why an interesting conversation a comedy of errors.

There is no simple solution for this problem. But for starters, Katakana should never be used as a guide for pronunciation in English textbooks. With so many useful tapes, videos and pronunciation manuals available, it is foolish for students to rely on Katakana as a sort of crutch.

Repeating the admonition given above to students for students of English, too, loanwords as used in Japan must be thought of as Japanese words - not as English, French, German or anything else. English students must learn the words in their own context, not as adaptations from the Japanese usage.

Particular attention must be given to grammar. Just because articles, prepositions, conjunctions and other such parts of speech are not needed in Japanese, it does not mean that English students can disregard them when using the loanwords in their original language.

Now, putting aside the problems of the correct usage of words, let's take a look at the influence of such words on the Japanese language itself.

Cultural Implications and Possible Effects on Japanese

Recently, The Japan Times had an interesting kind of hybrid dialect combining English and Spanish that is fast becoming a fad among the Spanish-speaking residents of parts of the United States. Sometimes called Spanglish - sometimes called Tejano - sometimes called Tex-Mex, it mixes the languages in ways that seem to make communication easier and faster.(10) Japan, too, is developing its own hybrid language. Popularly known as "Japlish" or "Janglish," it frequently makes no sense in either Japanese or English. Peter Milward in his Evening News gives what he calls a charming example of Janglish. "'To English or not to English?' It is so quaint ... and so ridiculous. . ..(and) it is so wrong."(11)

Throughout his article, Professor Milward points out that the misuse of English, and by extension, loanwords, not only abuses the foreign language, but serves to "impoverish the Japanese language" as well.(12)

Several other language scholars have bemoaned the fact that Japanese speakers are too willing to accept loanwords, and are too careless in attempting to give them a Japanese meaning in an artificial context. In some ways it might be said that the prevailing mood in Japan today is to take the "easy" way. If a simple loan-word does the job as well as well as a more complicated Japanese meaning, younger speakers and the media usually prefer to use the loanword. That is not always bad, but it does not bode well for the future. Ordinary Japanese may lose their appreciation of the beauty and richness of their own language.

When Kenzaburo Oe was chosen as the recipient of the Nobel Prize in Literature, the award stirred a spirited debate about the intellectual level of reading and literature in Japan. A New York Times article quoted in the Asahi Evening News said that Mr. Oe was greeted with what amounted to a scolding for pushing people to think too much.(13)

Japan is a success story in many fields, but what of its intellectual life? Professor Donald Keene, a renowned Japanese literary expert, is quoted as saying, "... Authors today are writing for the passing tastes of a young audience. University students were the real market for serious books, but they don't read them anymore. It's a very depressing period."(14)

Of course, loanwords themselves cannot be blamed for this crease of intellectual interest. It may well be that the roles reversed. That is, a decrease of interest in literature and language in general has brought about the proliferation of "easier-to-use" words. But to my way of thinking, the overuse of loanwords has played a significant role in the weakening of the Japanese language.

Conclusion

It may seem that the scope of this article has gone beyond its original intent. But a summary of its main points may show that it may be necessary for writers and media personnel to take a second look at the overuse and abuse of GAIRAIGO.

1. The current emphasis on loanwords may be out of control. Often, the usage is meaningless, even foolish. Frequently, older, well-educated readers can't understand what the words mean.

2. Loanwords pose serious problems for foreign students of Japanese and for Japanese students attempting to learn other languages.

3. The over reliance on loanwords may tend to weaken and cheapen the Japanese language. And it may lead to a kind of intellectual and cultural malaise.

I don't pretend to have any solutions to this complicated dilemma. Properly used, loanwords add richness and flavor to a language; overly and mistakenly used, they sow the seeds of confusion and possibly contempt. Although the French would like to purge all foreign words from the French vocabulary, I certainly don't propose any such radical and even impossible solution in Japanese. But I would like to see loanwords used to convey the meaning as given in the original language - not some exotic and incomprehensible meaning as dreamt up by the mass media.

Note l. A list of some examples of LINGUA NIHONGO. Taken from "Time Out Sunday," The Japan Times, 6 Nov. 1994.

References

1. Harris, Paul. "English Rules the World." The Japan Sept. l994

2. Japan Encyclopedia, S. V. "Loanwords."

3. Ibid.

4. Kamiya, Taeko. Tuttle New Dictionary of Loanwords, Rutland, Vermont and Tokyo, Japan : Charles E. Tuttle Publishing Co, 1994. p. vii.

5. Blair, R. Jeffrey, "Ware Ware Japanese-Stepping Out Linguistically." Unpublished Material, University of Hawali.

6. McKeldin, Caroline. Japanese Jive, New York : Tengu Books, 1993

7. Kamiya, Loanwords, p. xv.

8. Motwani, Prem, A Dictionary of Loanwords Usage - KATAKANA ENGLISH, Tokyo : Maruzen Co., Ltd., 1991. p. vii.

9. Ibid.

10. Lemieux, Josh, "Tejano crosses English-Spanish border," The Japan Times, 6 Nov. 1994

11. Milward, Peter, "To English or not to English," Asahi Evening News, 8 Nov. 1994

12. Ibid.

l3. Sterngold, James, "Japan Asks Why Prophet Bothers," The New York Times Weekly Review, 11 Nov. 1994

l4. Ibid.

Additional Reference Works and Dictionaries

1. Masden and Miura, Jama at naru Katakana Eigo, Tokyo: Yohan Shuppan, 199O

2. Potter, Simeon, Our Language, Revised Edition, Baltimore : Penguin Books, Inc. , 1966 3. Seidensticker and Matsumoto, Modern Colloquialisms, Japanese-English, Tokyo : Asahi Press, 1977

4, Webb, J., A Guide to Modern Japanese Loanwords, Tokyo: The Japan Times Ltd., 1990

A Few Examples of Japanese Loanwords in Use Today

LINGUA NIHONGO

The Japanese language has never the same since arrival of Admiral Perry's Black Ships. What was once a trickle is now an annual flood of new words - some last, many don't. They say the language people speak best reflects the way they live. If so, here's a tiny sliver of Japan today.

Make it snappy

bairin (gyaru) : billingual girl (usually terento)
hansuto : hunger strike
roricon : Lolita complex
tereka : telephone card
sekuhara : sexual harassment
yan egu : young executive

Meido in Japan

aidoru : teen idol
Konpanion : female guide for espos
tarento : TV personality/celebrity
orendi dorama : trendy drama

Parlez-vous Nihongo ?

Charumera : flute of roving noodle vendor (Portuguese)
enerugisshu : energetic (German)
hisuteri : hysteria (German)
randoseru : school satchel (Dutch)
Zubon : trousers (French)

Mix 'n' match

aruchu : alcohol
chudoku (addict)
asashan : asa (morning) shampoo
itameshi : Italian meshi
(food Kawajan : Kawa (leather) jacket
ronge : long ke (hair) (men only)

Purei boru!

gattsu po'zu : guts pose (fist triumphantly raised above head)
g6ru in : goal in (used also when the race is won)
no tatehi : no touch (ace serve in tennis ; also, off-limits topic)
sutandopure' : (grand) stand play

Well, kind of ...

gadoman : security guard
hurusu meta : health meter
pepa tesuto : written test
sukinshippu : physical contact
rippu (kurimu) : chap stick

Huh?

don mai : don't mind (don't worry)
uetto : wet, sentimental (as opposed to dorai/dry)
panchi : punch perm (afro perm)

Here today, gone tomorrow

derukaji : model casual (fashion of supermodels)
sukebo : skateboard
yanmama : yankee mama (ex-delinquent woman, with kids)
wanren : "one-length" hairstyle

The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. II, No. 2, February 1996
http://iteslj.org/

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Shepherd-Loanwords.html

Advertising and Language

The War of Words Between Copywriters and Language Purists

Joseph W. Sheperd
Aichi Gakuin Junior College, Nagoya, Japan

Originally published in The Faculty Journal of Aichi Gakuin Junior College No. 6, March 1994

In the most widely accepted use of the word, evolution is usually associated with biology. A lower species evolves into a higher one-a single substance or group divides into several distinct and some-times more sophisticated patterns. Evolution is concerned with living things.

Language, too, may be considered a product of evolution. It is constantly changing, constantly developing. And although some of the changes might not necessarily be for the better, the pattern of change is clear. For one group or another, the changes mean improved understanding and communication. Certainly it can be said that languages - all languages- are living entities. As Harrison Salisbury states so very clearly, "The wonderful thing about language is that it is always changing and always growing."1

In this paper, I would like to explain why and how some of these changes have taken place. And I would like to show that in today's society, there is no way to stop the changes. Taking a cue from Jack Rosenthal, editor of The York Times Magazine, I hope to demonstrate that formal written language as we knew it twenty or thirty years ago has given way to various forms of spoken English in all but academic and technical writing.2 And the mass media, particularly advertising and TV, continue to stress colloquial speech as the base for the written word. Language, whether it is written or spoken should "sound" right.

My main concern in this paper is "changing English." However, the principal ideas could be applied to Japanese or almost any other language. The central theme of the whole paper is that language can never be static. No one can possibly predict what the state of language will be in the early decades of the next century.3

As I mentioned earlier, the influence of the mass media cannot be stated too strongly. In this age of communication, we hear and read every kind of language from the Queen's English to the slang and even worse of the streets. But all language is a form of communication, and who is to decide what is right and what is wrong? However, it does seem that there should be some fundamental standards.

Standard English

"Respectable English...means the kind of English that is used by the most respected people, the sort of English that will make readers or listeners regard the speaker or writer as an educated person."

"(Grammarians) show us that standard English allows a certain amount of variation. That is, there is often more than one acceptable way of using the same word."4

It is impossible to give a clear definition of standard, or in some cases, even correct English. There are too many variables, Formal-informal, spoken-written, language of the highly educated-language of the streets. Language as it is used by any group can be said to be standard language for that group.

Overall, however, it is generally accepted that the standards for written language are much more demanding and rigid than the standards for the spoken word. The norms for written English evolve much more slowly than the standards for the more dynamic language used for conversation.

It is sometimes said that standard English is that used by contemporary writers. But in point of fact, some of the most talented and most beloved writers of the last three or four decades, Ring Lardner, Ernest Hemingway, Heywood Brown and a host of other excellent writers brought an "earthiness and directness to the prose" that soon was accepted as suitable for all.5

In their well-researched and entertaining work, "Harper Dictionary of Contemporary English,"6 William and Mary Morris solicited the opinions of more than 165 renowned writers and scholars concerning the use of various words and phrases in contemporary written English. Although the consensus of the opinions tended to support the more conservative and traditional usages, opposite opinions were numerous and logical. If eminent writers cannot agree on what is, or what is not acceptable English, I think we can safely say that standard English is indefinable, to say the very least.

Changing English

It is not my intention to make a detailed study of the many factors that lead to or have led to the changing of language usage. That would be a subject for another paper. But a short outline of some of the more important reasons might make it easier to appreciate the influence of the mass media, including advertising, on the use of English which we see and hear today.

Without a doubt, the mass media has played the most important role in the changing of the usage and forms of English in America. Until the end of World War l, written, and to a certain extent spoken English, were based on the formal and grammatically accepted rules of Victorian English.7 After the war, however, a sense of freedom and exuberance prevailed, The public began to reject many of the old restrictions and taboos. Individualism became the watchword of the academics and the people of the streets.

Writers began to explore new grounds, and then, suddenly, there was the advent of radio. The comfortable world of the language of the purists was shattered-it was never to be the same again.

By the 193O's, practically every home in America had at least one radio, and the influence of this medium of popular culture was immeasurable. In the beginning, the format and language of the programs were somewhat formal and stilted, but as the years went by, formality was replaced by friendliness, and the announcers and performers adopted different and less formal styles. And the public immediately followed the trend.

In addition to the influence of the mass media, geographical differences contributed greatly to changing language usage. People from almost every state in the Union began to move westward. New Englanders mingled with New Mexicans, People from the East began to live with citizens from the South and West. All these migrants from different cultural backgrounds brought their language patterns with them, and, as they met others from different backgrounds, their words and expressions were inevitably mixed. New language patterns developed rapidly.

Other factors, too, can be considered. Advances in education and technological terminology-increased immigration from Asia and other areas-the beginnings of "Black English"-all of these factors played a part.

One often overlooked source of change in English is "teenage language." In every generation, teenagers invent their own somewhat esoteric "lingo." Generally, their words are more a fad than an existing reality, but occasionally, some words and phrases carry on into the next generation. And eventually they end up in dictionaries. In this rather indirect way, teenage English becomes a part of acceptable English.

Many other sources of change could be noted. But now I would like to narrow the scope of this paper and concentrate on the influence advertising has had on language usage in all countries where English is a first or second language.

War of Words

Among the various professional groups, the "war between language purists and advertising writers seems of words" special intensity. Purists are making every effort to "preserve" the language-to set a kind of standard as to what is right and what is wrong .8

Copywriters, on the other hand, say that today's writers "dare to be different".9 They must find new ideas and fresh ways to say writers must express them. "Never hesitate to inject colorful thoughts and expressions into your copy. The different-and better way of saying something is usually interesting. This is what distinguishes Shakespeare from Spillane, what transforms a prosaic monolog into copy that is light and lively.lO

Of course, in some areas, both sides are right. And in others, both sides may be wrong. At any rate, in the next I will try to explain the reasoning of the copywriters. And later I'll make an attempt to justify the stand of the purists.

Copywriters

Copywriters consider themselves as word mechanics-skilled professionals with a fondness for words.l1 They must be imaginative, and still, their writing must be succinct and eye-catching. They are good writers, even though some of their vocabulary and structures may be somewhat unconventional. After all, their job is to attract the reader. If their copy is grammatically perfect but lacks fire and vitality, readers will not be interested. And the product will not sell.

One legend in the advertising world, Claude Hopkins, summed it up this way. "Copy writing is salesmanship in print. 12 The consumer must find something attractive in the ad.

Another way of saying the same thing is that copy is communication. It should attract the reader, inform the reader, interest the reader and persuade the reader to think about the product. Advertising copy is not intended to educate the reader in the general sense of the term. It is not intended for language purists.

Purists

To the horror of the purists, some copywriters say that it is permissible to forget about some of the generally accepted rules of writing, if the copy attracts the attention of the reader. Readership-not grammar-is the heart of the situation.

Another problem for the purists is that copywriters must use the vernacular of the day. "Use of stilted style, literary illusions, or pretentious phrases assures next to no readership.13 If an ad seems to lecture the reader or to show a sense of superiority over the reader, it will do more harm than good. Simple words, short sentences, catchy phrases, apt comparisons-these are the tools of the copywriter.

But the purists consider this kind of language as an abomination. They believe that they must be guardians of correct English. Even though they understand that change is inevitable, they hope to limit the changes as far as possible. Particularly, they want to guard against what they consider to be mistakes. Their objective is grammatically correct writing, using words and phrases generally accepted as standards by the so-called educated elite. One panelist writing for "Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage" expressed his opinion as follows. "The spoken language is supposed to be a testing ground for new words to enrich the language. But I find that Madison Avenue (the Advertising World), TV, and too many of the high school crowd don't even know the old words. How can they give us new and better ones?"14

Another panelist remarked that commercial, bureaucratic and technological writers are making a mess of our language. But what right do these purists have to judge what is accepted and generally appreciated language as it is used today?

Paul Horgan, also responding as a panelist, suggests that "advertising and its most powerful arm, TV, have made language the servant of commercial interests,"15

Columnist Rex Stout made one of the strongest comments. "Changes made by the genius and wit of the people are often desirable and useful. Those imposed by ignorant clowns such as advertising copywriters and broadcasters are abominable and should be condemned by all lovers of language."16

It would be possible to quote any number of conservative writers, but I think we have enough to make our point clear. Many distinguished writers and scholars are definitely concerned about the changes that are taking place in language.

And, on the other hand, many of the leading lights in advertising and other forms of the mass media believe that changes in the language breathe new life and freshness into language and communication.

What are we ordinary mortals supposed to think? Can we say which side is right and which side is wrong? I don't think so. For most of us, it is probably best not to take any stand. I believe we should be free to use the language we want to use, as long as it serves to communicate our thoughts clearly.

Of course, the language we speak or write must be within the bounds of respectable language. We should not stoop to vulgarity, profanity or other forms which might seriously offend ordinary people. (I am not including the obviously offensive and even obscene language found in so many novels and TV dramas. That is a different subject.)

Now, I'd like to note just a few concrete examples of the points of disagreement between the purists and the copywriters.

Problem Words and Phrases

Most of the difficulties could be listed under five general categories.

Grammar
Using nouns as verbs
Incorrect use of words
Adding the suffix...wise
Vogue words

It is impossible to give a detailed list of examples in all the categories. But a short explanation might be in order.

Grammar : "Winston Tastes Good Like a Cigarette Should." This catchphrase has been a thorn in the side of purists for years. In this phrase, "like" should be replaced by the conjunction "as." However, Jack Rosenthal, editor of The New York Times Magazine, quotes a friend in the advertising business. "No one cares about fussy things like "like" anymore.17 And some other authorities are quick to agree. This, of course, is just one example.
The use of nouns as verbs has been expanding rapidly. Verbs formed from nouns such as contact, impact, author, craft and gift now are commonplace. Some are acceptable and even useful, but others such as "He authored the book" seem somewhat forced. It seems to be a question of feeling and style.
Hopefully, thankfully, meaningful and other words are gradually gaining acceptance, other common words such as presently and momentarily are perfectly correct, but their usage is often incorrect. "Presently" means "soon," not "at present," and "momentarily" has the idea of "for a moment," or "briefly," not "in a moment." But I have a feeling that some of these secondary usages may be acceptable at some time.

"Wise" as a suffix has had a long history in English. Some words are considered legitimate by both conservatives and liberals. "Clockwise" is one word that comes to mind. But the more modern usage in the sense of "with reference to," or "concerning" is a bane to purists, especially when used in writing. It must be admitted, however, "... wise" is often more convenient than the more proper words such as "with reference to."

Finally, the so-called "vogue" words play a big part in contemporary English. They are words or expressions that suddenly become popular and are widely used in both spoken and written English. And then, just as suddenly, most of them just fade away.

"Charisma, thrust, credit crunch, zap and rap" all attained a certain popularity in recent years. But they have lost much of their glamour, and now "word polishers" have created a more recent set of terms such as "input, output, flap, camp and watershed," to note just a few.

The only sure thing that can be said about vogue words is that they come and go. Very few survive the test of time.

To sum up this section, I think that we could say that writers for the mass media are constantly creating new words and phrases to catch the eye and ear of the listeners. When somethrng is new or different, it usually attracts the ordinary listeners and writers. And quite often, the newly created words express the idea more clearly and more succinctly than the traditional expressions.

Unfortunately, however, purists, for the most part, reject change. They believe it is their sacred duty to preserve the language. They spare no effort to rid the language of what they consider to be unacceptable.

Conclusion

So where does that leave us who profess to be trained English teachers? Where should we stand?

I think three points can be made.

First, we must be careful about saying that this or that word or phrase should not be used. When I have doubts, I usually tell the students that I would not say it that way, but I will not say it is wrong.

Next, we should not insist on one correct pronunciation. There are too many variables today. If a pronunciation is accepted anywhere, we cannot reject it.

And finally, we should use extra care in correcting articles, prepositions and even verb tenses in some situations. Occasionally, what is grammatically suspect might express the speaker's real meaning more clearly.

I realize, of course, we need some standards. And we should encourage our students to write and speak English that is clear, correct according to accepted standards, and "meaningful." But we should not stifle communication and creativity by overburdening our students with too many "do's" and "don'ts."

References

William and Mary Morris, Harper Dlctionary of Contemporary Usage, Second Edition, (Harper Perennial-A Division of Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., 1985), p. xxvi.
Jack Rosenthal, "The fall of the written word. Who cares," Asahi Evening News, (August 8, 1993).
Morris, op. cit., p. xviii. 4. Bergan Evans and Cornelia Evans, A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage, (New York: Random House Inc., 1957), pp. v-vii,
Morris, op. cit., p. xvi.
Ibid., pp. xix-xx.
Ibid., pp. xv xviii.
Ibid., pp. xx-xxv.
Richard H. Stansfield, The Dartnell Advertising Managers Handbook, (Chicago: The Dartnell Corporation, 1969), p. 368.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 206.
Ibid., p. 355.
Ibid., p. 444.
Morris, op. cit., p. xxl.
Ibid., p. xxviii.
Rosenthal, op. cit.

In addition to the titles listed, I consulted many other dictionaries and advertising manuals. But the ones noted above were the principal sources of the article.

The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. II, No. 4, April 1996
http://iteslj.org/

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Shepherd-AdLang.html

Potentially Confusing And Embarrassing Differences between American and British English

We speak English in the UK.
So do you in the US.
But yet we don't speak the same language.

David Barton
Dept. of Geological Sciences, Durham University, South Road,
Durham, United Kingdom, DH1 3LE
d.j.barton [at] durham.ac.uk

David Barton maintains an extensive list of
Words That Could Be Confusing And Embarrassing In The UK & US
See the complete list at http://www.systms.demon.co.uk/ukus.htm.

It was said by Sir George Bernard Shaw that 'England and America are two countries separated by the same language'. My first personal experience of this was when I worked as a camp counsellor for two months in 1993 in a Summer Camp run by the Boy Scouts of America, as part of an international leader exchange scheme. Before I went, all the participants in the scheme were given a lecture by an American woman in Baden Powell House (the world headquarters of the Scout Movement) in South Kensington, London. We were told what to do, say and expect of the United States. As part of the talk, we were given a short list of words that are in common use in the UK which Americans would either be confused by or would even offend them. I memorised the words and thought 'I'll cope'.

When I finally arrived in the States three months later, I realised that perhaps a lifetime of watching American television and a half hour speech were not adequate preparation for appreciating and coping with the differences between American and British speech. In the first hour of arriving at the camp I was exposed to High School American English, Black American English and the American English spoken by Joe Q. Public, all very different to each other. Needless to say, I did cope in the end. I found the Americans I met to be very welcoming and helpful and were patient with me when I made a social faux pas when I used an inappropriate word or phrase.

Upon my return I began to wonder whether anyone had documented the differences between American and British English. I found several books on the subject but often these were written in a dry and academic way. I felt that I could do better and use my sense of humour and personal experiences to help people from both sides of Atlantic to communicate more effectively when they meet.

My research into the subject led me to several conclusions. Firstly, American English and British English are converging thanks to increased transatlantic travel and the media. The movement of slang words is mostly eastwards, though a few words from the UK (particularly defamatory words like 'wanker' - the slang word for an onanist) have been adopted by the more anglocentric Ivy League fraternities. This convergent trend is a recent one dating from the emergence of Hollywood as the predominant film making centre in the world and also from the Second World War when large numbers of American GIs were stationed in the UK. This trend was consolidated by the advent of television. Before then, it was thought that American English and British English would diverge as the two languages evolved and absorbed words brought to their respective countries by immigrants and their colonies.

In 1789, Noah Webster, in whose name American dictionaries are still published in to this day, stated that:

'Numerous local causes, such as a new country, new associations of people, new combinations of ideas in arts and some intercourse with tribes wholly unknown in Europe will introduce new words into the American tongue.'

He was right, but his next statement has since been proved to be incorrect.

'These causes will produce in the course of time a language in North America as different from the future language of England as the modern Dutch, Danish and Swedish are from the German or from one another'.

Webster had under-rated the amount of social intercourse between England and her former colony. Even before Webster had started to compile his dictionary, words and expressions had returned from the Americas and had infiltrated the mother tongue, for example 'bluff', 'canoe', and 'hatchet'. Very few people in Britain realise how many of the words they use are of American origin. Often this importation of American words has encountered a linguistic snobbery by the British, which was a manifestation of the cultural snobbery that bedevilled Anglo-American relationships for a long time. This is not, thankfully, the case now.

Secondly, there are some generalisations that can be made about American and British English which reveal the nature of the two nations and their peoples. British speech tends to be less general, and directed more, in nuances of meaning, at a sub group of the population. This can become a kind of code, in which few words are spoken because each, along with its attendant murmurings and pauses, carries a wealth of shared assumptions and attitudes. In other words, the British are preoccupied with their social status within society and speak and act accordingly to fit into the social class they aspire to. This is particularly evident when talking to someone from 'the middle class' when they point out that they are 'upper middle class' rather than 'middle middle class' or (God Forbid) 'lower middle class'. John Major (the current UK Prime Minister) may have said that we are now living in a 'classless society' but the class system still prevails. At the moment both he and the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Blair, are talking about capturing the 'middle England, middle class vote' as the key to winning the next general election.

American speech tends to be influenced by the over-heated language of much of the media, which is designed to attach an impression of exciting activity to passive, if sometimes insignificant events. For example, 'firing off a letter' and 'grabbing some lunch'. Yet, curiously, really violent activity and life changing events are hidden in bland antiseptic tones that serve to disguise the reality. Two examples come readily to mind - the US Military with their 'friendly fire' and 'collateral damages' and the business world with their 'downsizing'. British people tend to understatement whereas Americans towards hyperbole. A Briton might respond to a suggestion with a word such as 'Terrific!' only if they are expressing rapturous enthusiasm, whereas an American might use the word merely to signify polite assent.

The American language has less regard than the British for grammatical form, and will happily bulldoze its way across distinctions rather than steer a path between them. American English will casually use one form of a word for another, for example turning nouns into verbs (e.g. 'author' a book) and verbs and nouns into adjectives. In Britain, a disrespect for grammatical rules, particularly amongst the middle classes, would immediately reveal you to be 'not one of us'. Listening to listener feedback programmes on Radio 4 (one of the radio stations run by the British Broadcasting Corporation or BBC) would reveal this. People actually write into complain about grammatical mistakes made by news presenters!

Amongst young British people, this is not necessarily the case. British teenagers have long been accused of being poorly educated by politicians, parents and employers since they have little regard for grammar in their speech. As a consequence of American culture and speech patterns being commonplace on children's television programmes in the UK, I have noted that most young British children of my acquaintance now play with their toys in an American accent with the attendant syntax and grammatical structures. American teenagers have taken this disregard for grammatical form one step further and have almost abandoned syntax altogether. For example, a teenage girl might describe the time she met her new boyfriend by saying 'I looked at him and I was, like, whoa!'.

In my list (and in the sample below) I have described the words which cause the most confusion when a British subject and a United States citizen meet. I have chosen words that are used by all members of American society - or at least to the best of my knowledge. In the corresponding British slang, the words listed are used by Britons irrespective of social class, background or geographical location, unless I have stated otherwise. I have discovered from feedback about my web page that Americans on the Eastern Coast are exposed to more British culture through television and plays and, as a consequence, know, understand and use a greater number of British slang words than their counterparts in the Mid-West and on the West Coast.

The complete list is available at: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dgl3djb/ukus.html

Please send further suggestions for Anglo-American Confusions to:

d.j.barton@durham.ac.uk

The List

Anglo-american relations. Ask the average American what they think England is like and they may paint some romanticised image of Royalty, cricket, people who speak like the Queen / Dick Van Dyke, castles and their friend Bob who lives in London. When they get here they often disappointed to discover that England is smaller and damper than they expected and the sad fact that not every Englishman knows their friend Bob. Also, we don't have Twinkies, the Queen is never in and the house that Auntie Nellie lived in before she emigrated to the US has been knocked down and been replaced by a multistorey car park. Despite all this, millions of you guys visit our country and we are very glad to see you. A word of warning though. Some English people seem to think it is absolutely hilarious hearing Americans mispronounce place names. To spoil their little game here are some handy hints. Firstly, Leicester is prononced 'Lester'. Secondly, in place names like Birmingham and Durham the 'ham' is pronounced 'um' (e.g. Durham is pronounced Dur-um). Thirdly, Reading, the city, is pronounced 'redding'. Finally, Fowey is pronounced 'foy'. Unfortunately there are many others - too many to list here...

Billion. In the US a thousand million. In the UK a thousand times that amount. As a consequence there are considerably more US billion dollar industries than there are UK billion pound ones despite the exchange rate.

Bomb. Imagine you are a composer of musicals. Your latest magnum opus has just opened simultaneously in the West End of London and on Broadway. The reviews on both sides of the Atlantic have described your production as 'a bomb'. In the US, if the production was described as a 'bomb' it would mean that your musical is going to flop badly and probably won't join the ranks of your other successful masterpieces such as... erm... In the UK, the musical was described as 'going down a bomb' - a great success in other words. In this situation, your best hope would be that the UK production will make up the loss made by the US one - otherwise it will cost a absolute bomb (in the UK this means a lot of money).

Crib. I occasionally listen to rap music, so this word has puzzled me in the past. In the UK, a crib is small bed-like object that is used by newly born babies as place of rest in-between crying, eating, making a mess, more crying, relieving themselves, gurgling cutely when the grandparents come round and screaming loudly when they leave. I should know - I was a little anarchist when I was very small. Mind you, I soon progressed onto a cot - the same sort of idea but bigger and with reinforced bars to stop you getting out - much to my annoyance. Also, in the UK 'to crib' means to copy in an exam. In the US, you do not make a distinction between a cot and a crib. Anyway (getting back my original point), when a rapper is talking about taking his baby back to his crib (his small apartment), infant care may not be the most likely outcome. At least, not in the short term... By the way, a cot (for adults) is called a camp bed in the UK.

Cricket. Popular myth has it the sound of the English Summer is incomplete without the sound of willow against leather, scones with jam and whipped cream and a cup of tea in a fine bone china cup. This translates into American English as 'sitting around eating small plain cakes with jelly and cream watching a game where the idea is to stand around for hours on end.' Ah yes, but this is Tradition you see. Occasionally you might see a chap throw a ball at another chap with a bat, who is wearing padding on his legs, in an attempt to knock over the wicket (the sticks behind the batsman). If this ball bounces in an unexpected manner, this is called a googly. If it is a really erratic googly, the ball may hit the batsman in the goolies (male private parts) at which point the batsman is allowed to throw a wobbler (get upset). This might be a 'bit of a sticky wicket' (a problem)... If it is any consolation to our American Chums, a lot of English people don't understand cricket either and can't see the point in a three day game which ends in a draw. The English Cricket team is also spectacularly bad at playing the game that England taught to its former colonies, even if the rules were designed to make sure that only the English knew and understood them. As a consequence, most English people consider their country's cricket team to be a joke and certainly wouldn't go as far as admitting that they actually supported them. This could be a problem if Norman Tebbit (the Conservative Member of Parliament) gets his way an introduces the 'Cricket Test' (i.e. which cricket team you supported) as an immigration test.

Fag. A goody but an oldie. Over here a 'fag' is a cigarette. So in the song 'Pack up your troubles in your old kit bag' the line 'As long as you have a Lucifer to light your fag' is not a fundamentalist Christian's statement that all homosexuals will burn for eternity in hell, but saying that 'if you always have a match to light your cigarette...' Also, when at a public (i.e. private - confused you will be) school in the UK, you may have to 'fag' for an older boy. This usually involves shining shoes, cleaning up and performing other favours for this older lad. In return for fagging, the older boy looks after your interests and makes sure that you fit into the school and promote the school spirit (bon vivre, not necessarily the alcoholic kind). This may also be a fag (i.e. a tiresome thing).

Fancy. In the UK to be sexually attracted to or to desire. Also a tea cake.

Football. A classic example of our culture gap. To us Brits football is what you call soccer. To you football is what we call pointless. You probably think the same way about cricket... Our soccer commentators are every bit as annoying as your football ones since they speak in cliches (Over the moon, Ron; Sick as a parrot, Ron; The boy did good, Ron), wear bad 1970s tweed jackets, have unattractive hairstyles (e.g. the 'Brian Moore' where a practically bald man grows one side extra long and then combs it over his bald patch - this invariably flutters in his face in strong winds), have no idea what-so-ever about football and tend to be called 'Ron'. Then again, given the fact that most footballers are capable of great athletic feats on the pitch but are unable to string a sentence together without slipping into cliches (I gave it 110% today, Ron; I'm a bit choked (disappointed) after missing that penalty, Ron; I'm chuffed (glad) that we beat the local Junior School second eleven today, Ron) I suppose they are only making the best of a pretty poor situation. Worst of all the football commentators is the one they call 'Jimmy Hill' who is used as a bogeyman by soccer fans to frighten their kids.

Going shopping. Going shopping for the first time in the US is worrying experience for Johnny Brit. Firstly, everything is in sold in stores, rather than shops. Secondly, you push your shopping around in a cart rather than a trolley. Thirdly, all of your shopping is put into paper shopping bags rather than the familiar plastic carrier bags by someone called the teller rather than the cashier. Most terrifying of all is the thousands upon thousands of different varieties of junk food, all of which are very bad for you. Two cases in point - blue-berry kool aid and beef jerky. Yuck. Mind you, we do have Pot Noodle over here. These are freeze dried noodles in a spicy sauce that are reconstituted by adding boiling water - disgusting but strangely satisfying after you have been drinking...

Jelly & Jam. In the UK, jelly is either the stuff you US-types call jello or a seedless preserve made from fruit, sugar and pectin. To confuse things further, fruit preserves are generically called jam over here too. Hence, if you were in an English restaurant enjoying a piece of bread with peanut butter and fruit preserve on it you would be eating 'a peanut butter and jam sandwich.' BTW, I used to enjoy peanut and jelly sandwiches when I was little in the UK sense of the word... Sloppy, but very nice.

Lift. In the US the device used to travel between floors in a hotel is called an elevator. In the UK it is called a lift. Also, a word of warning for American hitch-hikers. When hitching it is best to ask 'for a lift' and not a ride (which is a sexual favour in the UK).

Lorry. A UK truck. A word used in the tongue twister 'Red Lorry Yellow Lorry' by parents to torture their kids. Try it. You'll hate me for it.

Momentarily. Imagine you are flying from the UK to the US. Just before you land, the air stewardess announces that 'we are about to land momentarily'. If she is American, she has just said that we are going to land in the very immediate future. However, if she is British, you may be spending less time in the US than you originally planned. The UK meaning in this context is 'for a short time' as opposed to the US 'in a short time'. Also, when an American stewardess said that the plane would be taking off momentarily on the way home, I had images of the Boeing 747 kangaroo hopping all the way back to Blighty...

Pants and Knickers You call pants what we call trousers; pants are the things that go underneath. In the US knickers are knee-length trousers similar to what the Brits call 'breeches'. In the UK, they are the things that go underneath. Typically British men wear pants under their trousers and women wear knickers, unless of course, you are a Tory (Conservative) MP and then anything goes... Also NORWICH (Norwich is a city in England famed for it's football team, it's cathedral and chat show host Alan Partridge) was an acronym used by service personel during WWII for '(k)Nickers Off Ready When I Come Home'. To be on the safe side when visiting the doctors it's best to keep your pants/knickers on...

Policemen. UK policemen are unarmed. As a consequence I feel safer over here than I did in the US. Anyway, the following are used to describe policemen: bobbies, peelers, filth, cops, pigs, the old Bill (or the Bill), rozzers, coppers, a plod or perhaps 'bastards' if you are feeling lucky. I'm not sure how many of those you guys might use. Imagine you are a tea leaf (cockney rhyming slang for a thief) and you spot a car in good nick (reasonable condition) so you decide to nick (steal) it. Along comes PC (Police Constable) Plod, puts his hand on your shoulder and says 'You're nicked mate!' even though he isn't your friend and he probably isn't wielding a knife. This is your cue to say 'It's a fair cop! You got me banged to rights and make no mistake. You'll find the rest of the swag (ill-gotten gains) in the sack!' if you are stupid or 'I aint done nuffink, copper!' if you are aren't. Since you had 'been a naughty boy' you would be taken to court, and you may find yourself confronted by a 'beak' (a magistrate), who might send you down for some time 'at her Majesty's Pleasure'. You would go to gaol (or jail), or 'nick' as it is sometimes confusingly called.

Randy. In the US a perfectly reasonable first name. Pity then, the multitude of poor Americans given this unfortunate appellation when they come over to old Blighty. Wherever they go, grimy street urchins snigger, little old ladies try desperately to stifle guffaws and ordinarily quite sensible members of society burst out in laughter. And why? In the UK, saying 'Hi, I'm Randy!' is akin to saying to our American cousins 'Hello friend, I'm feeling horny.' However, save your pity for poor soul Randy Highman who introduced himself to my supervisor at a conference not so long ago...

Rubber. In the UK a rubber is a pencil eraser. In the US, it is a condom. Don't be shocked if the mild mannered new Englishman in your office asks for a pencil with a rubber on the end. Especially when he says that he enjoys chewing it when he is thinking.

School. In the UK if someone said that they were 'going to school', it would mean that they are attending an educational establishment that has students between the ages of five and sixteen. In the US, it can also mean the place of higher education that you attend after high school which us Brits call University. Confusing? You bet.

Smart. In the US to be smart implies that you are intelligent, clever, witty, a joy to be with, wonderful company etc. It can mean this in the UK as well, but typically in the UK 'to be smart' means that you are well dressed. Being smart (UK) is not a prerequisite for being smart(US) though in my experience...

Table. Imagine you are in a boardroom. The chairperkin (note dubious PC nomenclature) says 'I reckon we should table the motion about the McBigcorp account'. If you were American you would think 'Gee, I guess we can forget about that for a while' - i.e. the motion has been postponed. If you were English, you would think 'Jolly good show old bean! I fancied talking about that one!', i.e. the motion has been brought up for discussion. How do people in trans-atlantic companies cope?

Torch. You and your British friend have gone camping. You've pitched your tent and have just got into your sleeping bags. Suddenly your friend says 'Where's my torch?' At this point you have images of him producing a US torch (i.e. one with flames) and setting the tent on fire! You feel relieved when he digs deep into his rucksack and produces ...a flashlight. Phew!

Z. The twenty sixth letter of the alphabet. You call it 'Zee'; we call it 'Zed'. A whole generation in England has had to relearn the alphabet after hearing the 'Alphabet song' on Sesame Street. Sadder still, the song doesn't rhyme with the English 'Zed'. At least the 'Numbers song' works (1-2-3-4-5, 6-7-8-9-10, 11-12, do do-do do-do do-do do etc etc...)

The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. II, No. 5, May 1996
http://iteslj.org/

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Barton-UK-USwords.html

Senin, 27 Juli 2015

Looking More Closely at Our Dictionaries

« on: March 23, 2009, 02:55:13 PM »

Several years ago, when I was still managing an English-language service, I chided one of my English-language tutors for insisting on using her 1980-vintage Webster’s Desk Dictionary as reference. The day before that, I had the 11th edition of The Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary in compact disc loaded on the computers in our office, and had asked my staff to delete from their hard drives all old dictionaries, particularly the British-English ones—the venerable Oxford English Dictionary included. I had also asked my staff to put away all of their print copies of the British-English Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture and the Collins Cobuild English Dictionary, both of which had long ago been bought inadvertently for our use.

These acts may sound like that of an Anglo-hater gone mad, but I assure you that there was rhyme and reason to them: I wanted to thoroughly bring the small company’s English usage to the American English standard. I was therefore a bit miffed that one of my staff should cavalierly resist the standardization effort, claiming that she was more comfortable using her fading but trusted Webster’s. So, not entirely in jest, I gave her an ultimatum: keep that dictionary out of sight, or I would throw it into the dustbin myself.

My reason for banning British-English dictionaries and outdated American-English dictionaries from our office was dictated not by a sudden anti-British feeling or spite for things old, but by a very pragmatic consideration: the business depended greatly on the consistency of our English grammar, form, and semantics with American English as the standard. We could ill afford even the slightest variation in the spellings, meanings, and usage of the language, in our understanding of its idioms, and in its punctuations, prepositions, and conjunctions.

It had become clear to me that our mixed used of British-English and American-English dictionaries was responsible for not a few of our gaffes—some innocuous, some serious—like spelling the word “center” as “centre,” “check” as “cheque,” and “aluminum” as “aluminium”; thinking of corn” as “grain” instead of “maize”; using the wrong prepositions in sentences like “We live in a quiet street in the city and stay in a farm cottage at weekends” (that’s how the British say and write it, while Americans put it this way: “We liveon a quiet street in the city and stay in a farm cottage on weekends”); and worse yet, using the wrong quotation marks and putting commas at the wrong places in quoted material.

A few months back, in particular, when a new editor of ours made a final copyreading pass on a long manuscript, she methodically replaced all of the double quotes with single quotes and took out all of the commas inside them and put them outside the quotes, British-style, like this: ‘This was the title of Paul Zindel’s book, “The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds”, and I thought it rather queer.’ Before that, the sentence used American-English punctuation, like this: “This was the title of Paul Zindel’s book, ‘The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds,’ and I thought it rather queer.” We were already way past our deadline, so we had to undo her well-meaning but ruinous work in white-hot haste.

Using a dictionary in the wrong English standard could, in fact, not only wreak havoc on our English but trigger needless controversies as well. Once, when a Filipino-Canadian reader of my English-usage column inThe Manila Times used the word “miniscule” in a letter that I quoted in that column, the newspaper’s editor in chief told me in good-humored ridicule that I was foisting the wrong spellings of English words on readers. “‘Miniscule’,” he said, “should be spelled ‘minuscule’—with a ‘u’ and not an ‘i’.” When I stood my ground, he opened the Oxford English Dictionary for me and for all of the other editors who were present to see. To my dismay, it confirmed “minuscule” as the official spelling, making only a passing reference to “miniscule” as a variant.

Checking the online Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary later, I discovered that it was even harsher on “miniscule”: “a common spelling of ‘minuscule’ that is not correct.” To my relief, though, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language accepts the variant without comment, and I also took comfort in my electronic Merriam-Webster’s assurance that while “miniscule” continues to be widely regarded as an error, it now commonly occurs in published writing.

Most of the English dictionaries we had on hand, of course, whether using the American or British English standard, were products of great scholarship, but in that former language business of mine, there was a screaming need for only one English standard and only one English-language authority. We simply had to be scrupulously consistent and current in our English, and it just so happened that in the Philippines and in many parts of Asia, the standard for English is American English. We really had no choice then but to begin to live up to that standard by getting a good, up-to-date American English dictionary—and that, I am happy to say, was precisely what I had done.

From Give Your English the Winning Edge © 2009 by Jose A. Carillo. All rights reserved

A Father's Letter to His Son's Teacher

« on: March 28, 2009, 02:03:38 PM »

During the enrolment period for the current school year, while buying textbooks for my sixth-grader son at the library of his school, I saw a wall poster whose message touched me deeply not only for its timeless wisdom but also for its felicitous English. Here, I thought, was something I wish I could have written myself and sent to the teachers of my daughter and two sons when they were still in grade school. What a difference it might have made on the content and quality of their teachers’ instruction!

The poster was entitled “Abraham Lincoln’s Letter to His Son’s Teacher” and carried the familiar photograph of the American president who led his nation during its devastating Civil War from 1861-1865. The letter that graced the poster was as follows:

   “He will have to learn, I know,
   that all men are not just.
   But teach him also that
   for every scoundrel there is a hero;
   that for every selfish politician,
   there is a dedicated leader...
   Teach him for every enemy there is a friend.

   “Steer him away from envy, if you can,
   teach him the secret of quiet laughter.

   “Let him learn early that the bullies
   are the easiest to lick...
   Teach him, if you can,
   the wonder of books...
   But also give him quiet time
   to ponder the eternal mystery
   of birds in the sky,
   bees in the sun,
   and the flowers on a green hillside.

   “In the school teach him
   it is far honourable to fail than to cheat...
   Teach him to have faith in his own ideas,
   even if everyone tells him they are wrong...
   Teach him to be gentle with gentle people,
   and tough with the tough.

   “Try to give my son the strength
   not to follow the crowd
   when everyone is getting on the bandwagon...
   Teach him to listen to all men...
   but teach him also to filter
   all he hears on a screen of truth,
   and take only the good
   that comes through.

   “Teach him if you can,
   how to laugh when he is sad...
   Teach him there is no shame in tears,
   Teach him to scoff at cynics
   and to beware of too much sweetness...
   Teach him to sell his brawn
   and brain to the highest bidders,
   but never to put a price-tag
   in his heart and soul.

   “Teach him to close his ears
   to a howling mob
   and to stand and fight
   if he thinks he's right.
   Treat him gently,
   but do not cuddle him,
   because only the test
   of fire makes fine steel.

   “Let him have the courage
   to be impatient...
   let him have the patience to be brave.
   Teach him always
   to have sublime faith in himself,
   because then he will have
   sublime faith in mankind.

   “This is a big order,
   but see what you can do...
   He is such a fine fellow, my son!”

Impressed as I was by the letter, I found it strange that something so well said and memorable could have escaped my attention all this time. Could it be part of some long lost Americana that surfaced only recently? It was also odd that the letter’s English sounded too contemporary for something written in the 1860s. I am not entirely a stranger to Lincoln’s prose style because many decades ago, as a high school student, I had to painstakingly memorize his famous “Gettysburg Address” for class recitation. I was therefore sure that the letter’s language patterns were significantly different from those of the address, so I decided to check the letter’s authenticity by sending e-mail to people knowledgeable about the American president and his writings.

Roger Norton, a retired American history teacher who maintains a very comprehensive web site on Lincoln, gave me this assessment: “I have been asked about this letter before, particularly from folks in India where the letter seems to have the widest circulation. There is no source for it. It is bogus. I have over 280 Abraham Lincoln books, including The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, and this letter is in none of them. It’s a thoughtful letter but it wasn’t really Lincoln who wrote it.”

James Gindlesperger, author of two American Civil War books, Fire on the Water and Escape from Libby Prison, made this appraisal: “Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it looks like this is one of those things falsely attributed to Lincoln. Most historians agree that this letter was never written by Lincoln. The style of writing is not Lincoln’s and there is no record anywhere that indicates that he could have written this. Its real author is unknown.”

Cindy VanHorn, registrar of the Lincoln Museum in Fort Wayne, Indiana, gave a similar appraisal: “Thank you for verifying this before publishing it. Abraham Lincoln did NOT write or speak these words. These phrases are not 19th century phrasing and definitely not Lincoln’s language patterns.”

The letter being decidedly spurious, how come that it had been memorialized into an educational poster? How come that it ended up on display unchallenged in the library of my son’s school and perhaps in many other places around the world?

As far as I can gather, the letter’s first recorded appearance was in the web site of the National Council for Teachers Education in New Delhi, India. This was reported by Thomas E. Scwartz in a bylined article, “Lincoln Never Said That,” for the Winter 2001 issue of For the People, the newsletter of the Abraham Lincoln Association. That web site no longer carries the letter, but its appearance there must have conferred legitimacy to it in education circles, for two years later, on January 22, 2003, The Tribune of India reported that a university vice-chancellor in the Punjab region, in a circular to teachers and students, had quoted extensively from the letter to justify a controversial amendment of a language usage rule. Among the quotes he invoked in Lincoln’s name: “Teach him to have faith in his own ideas even if everyone tells him they are wrong. Try to give my son the strength not to follow the crowd.”

So what do we do with this untenable state of affairs?

I think we have to decisively put an end to the spurious authorship attribution. I suggest that all copies of the poster be removed from educational or public display. Its very sensible advice need not be consigned to total oblivion, however, so the publishers of the piece can perhaps reissue it simply as “An Anonymous Father’s Letter to His Son’s Teacher.” After all, its timeless words of wisdom about educating children could very well stand on their own without guile or Lincoln. (July 3 and 10, 2006)

From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, July 3 and 10, 2006 issue © 2006 by The Manila Times. All rights reserved.

A Father's Letter to His Son's Teacher

« on: March 28, 2009, 02:03:38 PM »

Noble Thoughts in Similar Jeopardy

« on: May 08, 2009, 10:32:22 PM »

As every competent advertising practitioner or propagandist would know, people tend to uncritically accept ideas that conform to their strongly held beliefs or give vent to their own deepest desires and expectations. This was certainly true with the poster that spuriously attributes to Abraham Lincoln an anonymous writer’s letter to his son’s teacher—an attribution that I made an effort to rectify in my previous two columns.

There is another popular inspirational poster that similarly uses a wrong attribution to give more weight to its message. The poster carries a very well-worded meditative poem and credits it as follows: “Found in Old Saint Paul’s Church, Baltimore; Dated 1692.” This attribution makes it appear that the poem, despite its very contemporary English, dates back to the American colonial period over 300 years ago and had been written anonymously. As it turns out, however, the poem is of much recent vintage. It is a 1920s creation by a Terre Haute, Indiana lawyer and poet, Max Ehrmann (1872-1945).

That poem is “Desiderata.”

Because “Desiderata” (Latin for “things to be desired”) still has a subsisting copyright, I can only quote a few lines for those whose recollection of it may have somewhat dimmed through the years:

“Go placidly amid the noise and the haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.

“As far as possible, without surrender,
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even to the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons;
they are vexatious to the spirit…

“Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.”

Click to read “Desiderata” by Max Ehrmann in full.

How did the credits for this charming meditation on life get it all wrong?

It turns out that sometime before 1959, the rector of St. Paul’s Church in Baltimore had come across a copy of “Desiderata” and included it in his collection of devotional materials. When he made a handout of it for his congregation, he identified its source by putting this notation on top of the handout: “Old St. Paul’s Church, Baltimore A.D. 1692.” In the ensuing years, as the handout changed from hand to hand and went through many printings, some printer evidently took the notation as indicating that the poem itself had been found in Old St. Paul’s Church way back in 1692, its founding date. Nobody noticed this mistake, and the poem’s suddenly acquired centuries’ old patina gave it even more depth and charm.

Indeed, so popular had the poem become that the U.S. magazine Success printed it in its August 1971 issue. For this the magazine was sued for copyright infringement by Robert L. Bell, owner of Crescendo Publishing Co., which had acquired the rights to “Desiderata” from Ehrmann’s successors. After a five-year litigation, during which the defendants argued that “permission [to publish] was given gratuitously” in this particular case, the court ruled in favor of Success magazine. However, on the strength of a copy of “Desiderata” published by Indiana Publishing Co. with a 1927 copyright notice, Bell was able to pursue his copyright claim elsewhere in the U.S.

So then, as in the case of the spurious Lincoln letter, I think the producers of the “Desiderata” poster should stop using the poem’s wrong attribution once and for all and give credit where credit is due. This will not only give justice to Ehrmann, who said in his diary that he wrote the poem simply “to leave a humble gift—a bit of chaste prose that had caught up some noble moods,” but also give our children and ourselves a keener sense of history and a greater respect for it.

From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, July 17, 2006 issue © 2006 by The Manila Times. All rights reserved.