Showing posts with label English language. Show all posts
Showing posts with label English language. Show all posts

The Unheard I, by Kiriti Sengupta, Reviewed.

on Wednesday, August 28, 2013
This short piece of esoteric literature came my way via contacts on Facebook. The book is divided into three sections: A Serious ToF (Twist of Fate); Yogic Poetry: the Indian Heritage; The Translator ‘I’. So, I think you will realise this is not a work of interest to what might be called the ‘common reader’. It is a scholarly piece that will appeal to those with an interest in poetry, particularly spiritual poetry expressed as literature, as well as those who have a leaning toward or a significant interest in Indian myth and religion.

The Twist of Fate referred to above is an anthology of pieces collected together to present to readers as a way of gathering funds to help those left in distress by the tornado that hit Oklahoma in May 2013. And this first chapter of the book is a presentation of the author’s experiences in contributing to that anthology.

Poetry, let alone Yogic Poetry, is a genre of which I have little experience. My admiration of the craft lies within the bounds of the variety of works produced by the two Dylans (Bob and Thomas). And my knowledge of Indian culture is minimal. So, I found this section both illuminating and confusing. The many references to the Yogic culture were lost on me, but the general sense of spirituality came through.

The Translator ‘I’ deals with the author’s work and attitudes regarding translation as a craft. He is an acknowledged translator of work from Bengali to English. I’m no linguist, but I have always admired the skill that allows those who understand more than one language to translate not just words but meaning. The ability to convey the essence of a piece written in one language when converting it into another is almost magical to me.


So, not a general reader’s book, but a piece of work that will undoubtedly find favour with those interested in the subject matter discussed. It is to those readers that I recommend the book.

The book is currently only available via Smashwords; link here.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Do You Love Words?

on Sunday, August 4, 2013
Regular visitors will know I love words. As a reader and a writer, I'm fascinated by these small
packets of information that allow us to communicate, imagine and to explore our world. Here is a website I came across recently that I think will interest those with similar interests. I've copied the most recent of the weekly newsletters, with, of course, the permission of the site owner, Michael Quinion. Have a read, and if you're intrigued like me, you can easily sign up for the newsletter by going to this link: http://www.worldwidewords.org/

Newsletter 843
Saturday 3 August 2013
Contents
1. Culprit
This is a common word with a strange genesis, arising out of an old legal abbreviation, compounded by popular etymology.
When England was conquered by the Normans at the Battle of Hastings, French became the language of the law. It remained in use among lawyers even after the language of the courts changed to English in the fourteenth century, latterly in a stylised and degenerate form called law French. Fragments of law French survive even to this day in parliamentary proceedings.Culprit is another survivor.
The records are sparse, but the usual explanation goes like this: if a prisoner in a medieval court pleaded not guilty to the charge, the prosecutor would respond with the words, Culpable: prest d’averrer nostre bille, which may loosely be translated as “We believe him to be guilty and I am ready to prove the charge”. This was recorded in the court rolls as cul prest or cul prist.
The two key words are culpable and prest. The former remains in English in the sense “deserving of blame”, ultimately from Latin culpa, blame or fault.Prest is Anglo-Norman, meaning “ready”, which survived in English until the eighteenth century, but which has become prêt in modern French (as inprêt à manger, ready to eat, or prêt à porter, ready to wear).
The abbreviation cul prest became modified down the years and was somehow misunderstood very late on in the history of law French to be the way that the accused was to be addressed. It turns up first in the record of the trial in 1678 of the Earl of Pembroke for murder; he was asked: “Culprit, how will you be tried?”
Culprit became part of the language in the sense of the accused person. During the following century people came to believe that it meant a guilty person, perhaps in part because of a confusion with culpa.
2. Pony up
Q From David Shapiro: Where does pony up come from?
A This is a classic American expression, but one now widely known in other parts of the English-speaking world. To pony up means to pay what you owe or settle your debt. It usually refers to a smallish sum of money:
The promotion offers Virginians 16 and older the chance to fish without a license for three days in the hopes some of those folks will have so much fun they’ll decide to pony up a few bucks for the privilege of fishing for the next 12 months.
The Roanoke Times (Roanoke, Virginia), 2 Jun. 2013.
It dates from the early nineteenth century. This is the earliest example so far known:
The afternoon, before the evening, the favoured gentlemen are walkingrapidly into the merchant-tailors shops, and very slowly out, unless they ponied up the Spanish.
The Rural Magazine and Farmer’s Monthly Museum, May 1819.
(Spanish here is slang for money, a term known a little earlier in Britain — Francis Grose recorded it in the 1788 edition of his Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue. It’s short for Spanish money, from an association of Spain with rich treasure fleets, doubloons and pieces of eight.)
It seems very likely that pony similarly derives from English slang. It appears in several works at about the same time, including the 1796 edition of Grose’s book. It also turns up in another famous work, which will expand even further your knowledge of long-obsolete slang terms for money:
It’s everything now o’days to be able to flash the screens — sport the rhino — show the needful — post the pony — nap the rent — stump the pewter.
Tom and Jerry, by W T Moncrieff, 1821.
The presumption is that it comes from the equine pony because it was a small horse, as relatively small as the sums of money which users were concerned with. Among the moneyed classes a pony at this time meant 25 guineas (later 25 pounds), a very large amount at the time by most people’s standards, but presumably not thought excessive by individuals who paid their bills in guineas. Horses for courses, you might say.
3. Sic!
• “The quote below,” emailed Hal Norvell, “is from a local newspaper here in central Maine. The source is the Associated Press. ‘A court in Cameroon found two men guilty under the country’s law banning gay sex on Tuesday, a lawyer said ....’”
• Nancy Miller found this in the Premier Traveler magazine for June & July, reviewing ANA business class: “The meal was expertly finished off with a decedent Pierre Hermé Paris dessert: vanilla and dulce de leche ice cream with raspberry sauce.”
• Speaking of decedents, the New York Times obituary of 26 June for the photographer Bert Stern contained this sentence, Kate Schubart reports: “His death was confirmed by Shannah Laumeister, a longtime friend, who said she and Mr. Stern had been secretly married since 2009. No cause was given.”
• It-could-have-been-better-punctuated department: in a story about acute oak decline, a bacterial disease which is afflicting British trees, the Guardian on 16 July referred to “Brian Muelaner, an ancient oak adviser at the National Trust.”
• Detlef Pelz read a Reuters report dated 1 August on the website of The Agein Australia: “Mr Chong’s lawyers have said that he was arrested at the home of friend during a raid by a drug enforcement task force investigating an ecstasy trafficking ring that included DEA agents, sheriff’s deputies and San Diego police officers.”
4. Useful information
World Wide Words is copyright © Michael Quinion 2013. All rights reserved. You may reproduce this newsletter in whole or part in free newsletters, newsgroups or mailing lists online provided that you include the copyright notice above. You need the prior permission of the author to reproduce any part of it on Web sites or in printed publications. You don’t need permission to link to it.
Comments on anything in this newsletter are more than welcome. To send them in, please visit the feedback page on our Web site.
If you have enjoyed this newsletter and would like to help defray its costs and those of the linked Web site, please visit our support page.

Share on facebook

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Before E, Except After C?

on Thursday, May 23, 2013
English: So many words to keep track of!.
English: So many words to keep track of!. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
If ever a writing rule was overstated, it must be this one. Once it becomes evident that there are more exceptions than examples following a rule, the rule becomes seriously unhelpful; redundant at best.

We all know about receipt, receive, ceiling, etc. But there are actually more words used in English that have the ‘ei’ construction than those using ‘ie’.

Don’t believe me? I offer a mere handful:
Heir, weir, Eire, weird, being, deific, leisure, meiosis, neighbour, eisegesis, neither, peignoir, reiki, seismic, vein, weigh, zein, either, feign, height, rein, reiterate, seine, seize, teise, veil, zeitgeist, eight, deign, deity, eider, feint, heifer, heinous, Leicester, peise, reign, feisty, geisha.
Have a think: I’m sure you’ll find hundreds more.

Okay, I accept that some of these are ‘foreign’ words, but English is a conglomerate language, made up of words and expressions stolen from invaders and the victims of Britain’s ancient and extensive empire. Modern English is said to contain over 1,000,000 different words, exceeding any other language.


So, to return to the rule: forget it. Your English teacher was wrong. Most schools in Britain have stopped preaching this erroneous rule now, so you can allow yourself to ditch it as well. Go on, you know you’d love to. It’s not helpful.     
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Comedy of Errors, by William Shakespeare, Reviewed

on Thursday, November 29, 2012

Heresy! Infamy! Thou darest malign the Bard?

The Comedy of Errors appears to be based on a premise that I found impossible to swallow, for two simple reasons. First; why would the twins, both sets, not have been named prior to their separation and therefore have different names? It seems unlikely that these infants were so young as to have been denied such a basic ceremony as naming. Secondly, and perhaps more to the point, why were both sets of twins dressed identically, bearing exact copies of the same hairstyle, using the same manner of speech? So identical, in fact, that they could not be separated by the intimate servants or, in the case of Antipholus of Ephasus, by his wife and her sister. One was raised in Syracuse, a town in Sicily, with, admittedly, Greek influence. And the other in Ephasus, in Turkey, again, with Greek influence. However, the manner of speech in these two widely distant provinces would undoubtedly have been equally wide. Manner of dress, customs, mannerisms etc would all have been very varied, and Shakespeare would have been aware of such regional differences from his exposure to such during his everyday life in England.

A farce, and this play is definitely a farce, requires the audience to suspend their disbelief in order to appreciate the confusions caused by the plot. I found I was unable to suspend my incredulity to the extent necessary to enjoy this piece of comic drama.

I’m an admirer of our national Bard; what writer of English could fail to prize the literary skills of this world renowned wordsmith? But I couldn’t push past what quickly became an insuperable barrier to my enjoyment. This impediment was further reinforced by the poor quality of the poetry of the piece. We’re all used to the subtlety, variety, cleverly composed and richly metaphorical nature of Shakespeare’s dialogue. But in this, one of his earlier plays, he seems not to have quite got the hang of things. The language is unnecessarily convoluted, as if he’s more concerned with impressing the audience than with conveying his meaning. The usual contemporary references aside, I found the meaning often difficult to determine because of the structure of the sentences and the employment of obtuse metaphors. I accept, when reading Shakespeare, that some of the language’s more subtle meanings will be lost on me: I’m not a scholar of the period and I lack the time to delve into references that require lengthy searches to unpick. But, in this play, I felt the playwright was more concerned with fireworks than with substance. Also, although I’ve never seen a production, I very quickly knew the outcome, since this was flagged too clearly in the first act.

So, not the best of his work, but, hell, it’s Shakespeare, so it must be good, yes? 

####
To my regular readers, my apologies for the lack of a piece on writing today. My ME/CFS has returned and it limits my energy and creativity. I'll try to get back to normal next week. Thank you for your patience.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Does it Matter if the Words Are Not Right?

on Thursday, October 25, 2012

This might seem an odd question from a writer. I was prompted to ask by a fit of annoyance over poor language used by a journalist on television. She was reporting on a local news item and used the expression, ‘This problem is, of course, very unique to…’ and went on to ask her interviewee just ‘how unique’ he felt the issue was.

So what? Well, ‘unique’ is an absolute. There are no degrees of uniqueness. Something is either unique or not; it can’t be partially unique, very unique or, indeed, almost unique. We have other words to express such things. ‘Rare’, comes to mind, as do ‘uncommon’ and ‘scarce’. Because rarity is an elastic concept, we can use qualifiers with impunity. It’s fine to discuss degrees of scarcity, that degree dependent on the amount by which the object under discussion veers from the commonplace. 

If we begin to use absolutes in such a way, we diminish their real power in describing an event or quality. If I say that a woman conveys a ‘unique beauty’ I paint a picture of someone who is singular, incomparable. If, on the other hand, I describe her as a ‘rare beauty’, then I put her in a class along with others; the number contained in that class can be defined more or less by using qualifiers such as ‘very rare’, ‘unusually rare’, ‘moderately rare’, etc. So, in the ‘unique’ case, the reader is clear that the person described has no equal. In the ‘rare’ case, we know that there are others, though not a great number, who are comparable. It’s a fine distinction, but one worth retaining, I think.

In another example of poor journalism, one increasingly repeated these days, I heard a reporter talking about how ‘…there are less people involved in…’, when, of course, he should have said, ‘...there are fewer people involved in…’.  This is a slightly different matter, however. The use of less or fewer always provides the information that a smaller number is involved than the comparison. Whilst the use of the correct word is preferable, it doesn’t actually alter the basic idea being communicated. So, whilst I find the usage lazy and inaccurate, I can reluctantly accept its adoption because meaning isn’t changed when the error occurs.

This, then, is my question: If meaning is maintained, does it really matter if the wrong word is used to convey that meaning?

Are we concerned about correct usage simply for the sake of correct usage? Or is our concern, as writers, more to do with style, perhaps? Does wrong usage, whilst acceptable to many non-writers, merely illustrate a lack of care, education, or intelligence to those of us who write?
  
Language is primarily a means of communicating ideas. So, if those ideas are expressed without confusion in spite of wrong usage, does that incorrect usage really matter?

I pride myself on knowing correct usage, most of the time, but do my readers care, or even notice when such errors occur? As a writer, I feel duty bound to utilise the many fine shades of meaning possible within the English language. I feel that allowing such distinction to be eroded by ignorance, carelessness or expedience is a step along the road toward ultimate confusion and bedlam, as fine discriminations disappear under a carpet of banality. The poet in me abhors such laziness. But, apart from other poets and writers, do my readers care? That’s what I ask you. And I welcome your responses.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Plea for Uniformity in the Presentation of Writing for Editorial.

on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Typographic quotation marks (top) versus strai...
Typographic quotation marks (top) versus straight quotation marks, or "dumb quotes" (bottom). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If you’re a writer, you’ll understand my frustration at the multitude of different formats we’re required to adopt in presenting our work to various different organisations, I’m sure. You may even share it.

You write a story and want to send it to a British magazine. So: wide margins, double spaced lines, double, curly quotes for speech, indented paragraphs without space between, a standard proportional font like Times New Roman or Ariel, and, of course, British English spelling and idiom. The latter two are understandable; though, more on that later.

You then decide to send it to an American magazine. So: wide margins, double spaced lines, single, straight quotes for speech, no indents for paragraphs, but each separated by a line space, a non-proportional font like Courier, which makes the piece look as though it’s been produced on an old-fashioned typewriter, and, depending on editorial policy, either your original or American spelling and idiom.

Next, you wish to produce it as an ebook. So: strip out all formatting, reduce margins, single line spacing, use straight quotes and avoid any ‘special’ characters, paragraph formatting again requires an indent, but a smaller one than for the printed text, and a proportional font again. Here, it’s a personal choice which linguistic idiosyncrasies you choose to adopt, though consistency throughout the work is advisable, of course.

These are just three of the varied styles we’re required to adopt. There are many small variations, dependent on the house style of the publication chosen. And, as the writers, we’re expected to adapt to each individual set of requirements. The fact that we are the creators, the originators, of the material is immaterial as far as the publications are concerned. It is we who have adapt to their specific peculiarities.

Almost without exception, the reasons for these idiosyncrasies of presentation are based on simple tradition. The publishers have always done it this way; therefore, that is the ‘right’ way for it to be done. I’ve argued, in a previous post, that tradition is not always a good thing. In fact, it can frequently be a very bad thing. It’s tradition, after all, that maintains the custom, prevalent amongst certain ill-educated and socially backward clans, of violating their women by the horrendous imposition of female circumcision. I doubt there’s a single modern individual who would uphold such a tradition.

Is there, in reality, any reason why there should not be a single, straightforward style of presentation that could be used for all manuscripts submitted to journals, publishers and ebook producers? I can think of no technical reason. The oddities of ebook formatting requirements are largely down to lazy and/or non-standard software programming; something that could so easily be changed. Such standardisation would be of benefit to readers as well, since it would make it very straightforward for them to read their purchased books on any given ereader.

All the individual publishers, publishing organisations, national bodies and organisations would no doubt come up with reasons why their particular style should be the one adopted, of course. Such is the nature of tradition and habit. But such objections could be negotiated into a sensible solution and, in reality, once a standard form of presentation was adopted, users would very quickly become familiar with it. We, the writers, the creators, the originators, would then be left free to get on with our job of making instead of having to mess around with all the variations we’re currently required to deal with.

The linguistic elements I alluded to earlier represent a more difficult area of change. However, it’s clear from current developments that English will be the language most widely spoken (and, perhaps, written) for the foreseeable future. Perhaps, instead of allowing it to deteriorate organically into the more or less incomprehensible Panglish that is the predicted outcome, we should organise ourselves into a guiding role and consciously modify the language to make it more understandable by the majority? Clearly, the use of phonetic spelling would help non-native speakers to learn and use the language; a plus in the spread of our means of communication. There will always be a need for irregulars, of course. But, surely, we could determine that plow is a more sensible version than plough. I’d even argue for the more sensible thru to replace through.

I know the purists will hate the very idea. But we live in a world with a growing population and shrinking borders. Surely it makes sense to help our decedents get along with each other and remove one of the many barriers to cooperation and mutual understanding. It’s been said, with some justification, that wars have been started because of linguistic misunderstandings. Let’s actually do something to avoid future incomprehension rather than allow events and tradition to dictate ever increasing chaos in our methods of communication. Language is how we swap ideas. Let’s work to make the exchange easier, rather than increasingly difficult.

Or am I being idealistic here? What do you think?

Enhanced by Zemanta