qondio.com/omEr

Mangled English

By Arthur Webster of Ask Old Coot

I am often being 'corrected' by American readers who do not know how to spell or use proper grammar in English. This can be annoying but I can live with it,

What I cannot live with is American English like the following total nonsense taken from a Yahoo! featured blog:-

"However, if you will only be taking one holiday this year, don’t be tempted to take out annual cover just in case. Buying a single trip travel insurance policy could work out up to 147% cheaper than an annual policy, according to Defaqto."

Now, excuse me for breathing, folks, but don't any Americans see what is wrong with this statement? Certainly none that I have asked have done so.

The subject of the statement is the benefit or not of buying an annual or individual travel insurance policy - that seems to be simple enough BUT what on earth does 147% cheaper mean? Is the insurance company going to PAY YOU to have a single trip policy?

This is either a typical sales blag or such a demonstration of a lack of arithmetic skills that I have to wonder who to believe or why I should believe anybody.

You can see this sort of blunder all over the place but this is the most blatant I have seen recently. It really grates - especially when combined with the use of 'z' instead of 's' and the steady acceptance of 'wanna', 'coz' and other such slip-shod terminology in otherwise acceptable text.

If this is the way language and precision are going, maybe I need to attend a refresher course or learn the American way of using English.

PLEASE VISIT THE CONTRIBUTOR'S WEBSITE

Ask Old Coot
An open invitation to ask questions.
www.askoldcoot.info

147% is a common mistake. It is most common in government and can result in thousands or millions of dollars of financial accounting problems.

It is probably not a mistake in spelling or Mathematics but a mistake in punctuation. There probably should be a decimal point between the 4 and the 7. This would make it 14.7%.

Up to 14.7% cheaper is a very precise estimate and would not really justify the "just in case" scenario being ignored.

I actually like some ways the Americans spell some words. Why do we need the 'u' in colour, why do we need the extra 'me' in programme, for example? Funnily enough, my Oxford English dictionary shows the word 'organization' as standard, with the alternative rendering as (-isation). In some ways we are just as bad as they can be with sloppy speech. We've even changed the meaning of some words for some strange reason, eg 'gay' and 'wicked' which didn't mean in our day what they usually mean now.

I love the way the Spanish spell their words - they spell them as they are pronounced. There are thousands of common words in Spanish and English so should we adopt Spanish spelling?

Bad grammar is common, bad grammar on the internet is prolific. Hurried composition, typos and so forth. Of course people strive to sound natural so they try to write like they talk...a mistake in my opinion although I've drifted that way due to peer pressure. As far as the percentage, the writer either doesn't understand OR thinks the audience is stupid enough to just be impressed by the large number.

I suppose if you run with the herd you are less likely to be run over by the herd.

American English is very different than "Queen's (or King's) English. American English is a composite of many languages including that of England. It also includes some slang.

Although the late William F. Buckley would undoubtedly agree with you, many of us colonists do not seem to have much interest in "proper" English.

Plus some of us are a bit, shall I say "quirky" about our preferences. I'm not including you in this (I feel I "know" you better than that) but some people use fancy words just to show off that they know them. I've had to suffer through movie reviews that read like a dictionary -- and to what purpose? One has to pick one's spots. If I am writing to or for a sophisticated audience, then I should write "sophisticated" (whatever that means). If I am writing for kids, I will use words like "wanna", or "gonna", or "ya" without shame. If I'm writing for a mix of people, I will mix and match formal with slang. If I am writing a resume or a technical manual, I will need to be precise.

I think it depends on who your audience is. But I will never try to appear sophisticated. I merely like writing in a conversational manner.

There are some of us, of course, who simply do not have a reasonable command of English -- American or "Queen's".

There's also another explanation. Sometimes we just make mistakes and don't catch them even though we try to proofread them. I see it all of the time. I've done it enough myself.

Writing for your audience can relate only to the words used and the structure of phrases and sentences.

When I was a child there were no books that condescended to me or assumed that my intelligence was less than average - indeed, childrens' authors tended to write just a little above the antcipated competence of the target audience in order to encourage the acquisition of more fluency with the language.

I certainly would never read anything that was addressed to me in colloquial short-hand. I have always ranted against anybody being patronised.

It is such a pleasure listening to people who have learned English as a second language and distressing when I have to explain how it is mangled by those who were born to it.

One thing I've never understood is the pronunciation of "Lieutenant." How on earth we in the UK get to pronounce this word the way we do is beyond me. How does "lieu" become "lef"? From Wikipedia-

'The word lieutenant derives from French; the lieu meaning "in place" as in a position (cf. in lieu of); and tenant meaning "holding" as in "holding a position";

Pronunciation of lieutenant is generally split between the forms lef-tenant (/lɛfˈtɛnənt/) and loo-tenant (/ljuːˈtɛnənt/ or /luːˈtɛnənt/ ( listen)), with the former generally associated with the United Kingdom, Ireland and Commonwealth countries, and the latter generally associated with the United States.[1]'

I have always understood 'lieutenant' to be a contraction of 'lief tenant'. This is a term that abounded in the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th centuries in England (or at least the separate kingdoms that would later be combined within that country).

A lief tenant was a bit like a bailiff but only wielded any power when the lord of the manor was not available to adjudicate in squabbles between serfs. The word 'lief' indicates that this person has ingratiated himself and is most unlikely to make decisions that would be contrary to the lord's wishes.

Lief tenants were not all that common because few lords would openly let it be seen that they could not afford to hire a bailiff. At the return of the lord after an absence, he would consult with his lief tenant to be sure he knew what had been done in his name. Unresolved disputes would be presented at the court of the lord and the lief tenant would be present with the lord to ensure full disclosure.

Well, you are certainly correct about the dangers of being condescending or patronizing. I worry about that all of the time when I am writing these childrens music lesson books and articles. I've got more than a little kid in me myself, and I tend to write to kids the same way that I talk to them. I have been fortunate that my way of speaking (teaching) to them has been successful so far. Some pros in the music biz tell me that so far I'm fine as far as the writing goes, but I guess I'm going to find out.

But it doesn't hurt to get gentle reminders from time to time... It can be a slippery slope.

The copyright for this content entitled "Mangled English" has been specified by the contributor as:

This content may be copied and distributed (but not modified), as long as the original author is acknowledged with a link back to the content page. If you use this content according to the license specified, you must link to the following URL: