|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Jun 20, 2019 2:03:32 GMT
I share the irritation that Vv and Twoddle feel about the use of unnecessarily elaborate language used by some, but I think that local government officers and civil servants are not the main culprits. Certainly, when I worked in local government twenty-five years ago, such language was frowned upon. Indeed, it was while studying for my degree in public sector management that I was introduced to Ernest Gowers and The Complete Plain Words. But, you know, “refuse collectors” is a much more accurate term than “dustmen” who collect much more than dust.
From time to time, there were linguistic problems in my authority but these were more related to trying to find straightforward ways of recognising and avoiding unintentional racist or sexist language (dustmen, for example, excludes women). This was important in an environment where many staff (and the public) were women or members of a racial minority or both. I worked in social services and I think it was right, and simple courtesy, to avoid giving offence. Although some people thought it overly politically correct, we were trying to change an outdated culture.
I think that the use of elaborate language is much more common in the private sector, especially that part which admires the American style.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 20, 2019 5:32:17 GMT
LJH: Sir Ernest Gowers's The Complete Plain Words (1954 edn, used) was the first non-school language text that I bought – at age 15 (I also have a recent edition, eds Greenbaum & Whitcutt). Reading Gowers eventually led to my membership of the South Australian government's Plain Language committee (which managed to achieve some worthwhile advances but could have gone farther). Once that particular progressive government was succeeded by a conservative mob, our achievements were undone by the compulsive liars, obfuscators, and the self-important who inhabit the halls of government.
My favourite passage from Gowers has long been the following:
A child's essay on the cow
(from page 48, 1st edn, or p. 39, latest edn):
Why do so many writers prefer pudder to simplicity? Officials are far from being the only offenders. It seems to be a morbid condition contracted in early manhood. Children show no signs of it. Here, for example, is the response of a child of ten to an invitation to write an essay on a bird and a beast:
"The bird that I am going to write about is the owl. The owl cannot see at all by day and at night is as blind as a bat.
"I do not know much about the owl, so I will go on to the beast which I am going to choose. It is the cow. The cow is a mammal. It has six sides - right, left, an upper and below. At the back it has a tail on which hangs a brush. With this it sends the flies away so that they do not fall into the milk. The head is for the purpose of growing horns and so that the mouth can be somewhere. The horns are to butt with, and the mouth is to moo with. Under the cow hangs the milk. It is arranged for milking. When people milk, the milk comes and there is never an end to the supply. How the cow does it I have not yet realised, but it makes more and more. The cow has a fine sense of smell; one can smell it far away. This is the reason for the fresh air in the country.
"The man cow is called an ox. It is not a mammal. The cow does not eat much, but what it eats it eats twice, so that it gets enough. When it is hungry it moos, and when it says nothing it is because its inside is all full up with grass."
The writer had something to say and said it as clearly as he could, and so has unconsciously achieved style. But why do we write, when we are ten, "so that the mouth can be somewhere" and perhaps when we are thirty "in order to ensure that the mouth may be appropriately positioned environmentally"?
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 20, 2019 19:32:23 GMT
I share the irritation that Vv and Twoddle feel about the use of unnecessarily elaborate language used by some, but I think that local government officers and civil servants are not the main culprits. Certainly, when I worked in local government twenty-five years ago, such language was frowned upon. Indeed, it was while studying for my degree in public sector management that I was introduced to Ernest Gowers and The Complete Plain Words. But, you know, “refuse collectors” is a much more accurate term than “dustmen” who collect much more than dust. From time to time, there were linguistic problems in my authority but these were more related to trying to find straightforward ways of recognising and avoiding unintentional racist or sexist language (dustmen, for example, excludes women). This was important in an environment where many staff (and the public) were women or members of a racial minority or both. I worked in social services and I think it was right, and simple courtesy, to avoid giving offence. Although some people thought it overly politically correct, we were trying to change an outdated culture. I think that the use of elaborate language is much more common in the private sector, especially that part which admires the American style. I suppose I'm a traditionalist and dislike change for change's sake. I know "refuse collectors" is a more accurate description nowadays than "dustmen", but we all knew what the latter meant (and I doubt there are many women in that job, but I stand to be corrected) so did we really need to change it? "Chairman" is another one. It originated with the Anglo-Saxons, so can't it remain the generic term for someone who manages a meeting? I'd be reasonably happy with "chairwoman" where appropriate, but "chairperson" sounds weird, and to call someone "chair" is just plain silly and a little offensive.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 20, 2019 22:59:09 GMT
That wouldn't work for Lonnie Donegan in his song My Old Man's a Dustman: "Oh, my old man's a refuse collector" just doesn't scan well. In Oz these days dustmen (always called garbos here, no relation to Greta) are resource * retrieval operatives. "Oh, my old man's a resource retrieval operative." I'd better not start on how every last burger-flipper is now a manager: patty manager at one major junk-food chain, according to a friend who holds such a job. Bloody hell! * Of course we no longer have rubbish, garbage, or waste; all discarded material is now a resource (for re-using, recycling, repurposing, recovering …), not that I take issue with reducing the load of landfill and ocean dumping.
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Jun 21, 2019 12:32:15 GMT
I have Googled “resource retrieval operative” with no results. Are you quite sure, Vv, that is what refuse collectors are called in Oz? I have seen female refuse collectors in the UK, Twoddle, but not many. The point is that, while the job is described as dustman, there might not be any, and in promoting sex equality one ought to avoid gender specific terminology. It is a practice which has led to the frequent abandonment of such terms as usherette, air hostess, comedienne, waitress and, even, actress — although the last is hanging on in many places. Whoopi Goldberg is reported to have said, “An actress can only play a woman. I'm an actor – I can play anything.” The joint style guide of The Observer and The Guardian prefers actor for both sexes but, of course, professional acting awards preserve the distinction.
Lonnie Donegan could have sung, “My old man’s a garbo”, I suppose.
Interestingly, to me at least, there is a small number of male midwives (0.4% in the UK). According to Wikipedia, “The word derives from Old English mid, "with" and wif, "woman", and thus originally meant "with-woman", that is, the person who is with the mother (woman) at childbirth” so, etymologically, the word is correct both male and female midwives.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 23, 2019 21:17:03 GMT
I have Googled “resource retrieval operative” with no results. Are you quite sure, Vv, that is what refuse collectors are called in Oz? [...] Perhaps I should have limited my claim to my local shire, one that's particularly PC, but that's what they're called here.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 23, 2019 21:17:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 26, 2019 3:02:27 GMT
Is it because we live in the era of the Me Generation, or have people simply forgotten (perhaps never been told) about the courtesy of placing others before self – as in "He gave it to Jesse and me", which is now almost universally rendered as "He gave it to me and Jesse"; or "James and I went to town", now rendered as "I and James (or even more commonly, "Me and James"!) went to town"? Over the past week I've encountered such reversals of courtesy in speech and in writing across many media at least 57 times (and those are only the instances I've remembered to make note of).
Perhaps I'm a fossil.
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Jun 26, 2019 16:18:19 GMT
I doubt it is lack of courtesy — more likely, grammatical ignorance. On the other hand, I recall, years ago, going to a football match to see Bolton Wanderers playing Middlesborough (Nat Lofthouse was playing, it was that long ago). Both teams normally played in black and white but, on this occasion, the home team, Bolton, played in red as a courtesy to the visitors. I am told that, nowadays, it is the visitors who are expected to change colours.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 28, 2019 10:54:48 GMT
Nothing to do with language per se, but perhaps of interest to some fellow "curmudgeons" here. Those of you who know of my disdain for the (anti)social media will not be surprised that I found this piece of clever digital trickery priceless. Of course, it affirms my opinion … LOL Queen – Opinion Rhapsody (Bohemian Rhapsody Parody)
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Jun 28, 2019 13:52:50 GMT
Excellent - and beautifully sung, too.
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Jun 28, 2019 23:30:56 GMT
Thinking back to the thoughts on sexist language, I have noticed that most reports on the current “FIFA Women’s World Cup” tournament refer to just that — the Women’s World Cup. Similar language is used in relation to cricket (and I think that these usages may be mandated by FIFA and by the International Cricket Council). I have never heard any competition for men referred to as a men’s competition. Should we deplore this? OK, I think we need to know the difference but, in the pursuit of equality, should we not also specify men’s competitions?
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 29, 2019 22:21:04 GMT
For the end of the month, a cartoon.
|
|