Languages in the Big Apple

If you’re feeling a little jealous of the BBC broadcasters who have their own personal grammar-helper at all times, worry not! There’s always Strunk and White…

The Elements of Style, first written by William Strunk Jr. in 1918 and modernized by Strunk’s former student, E.B. White in 1959, is still the dominant guide to American English. But in 2005, the somewhat dull prescriptive treatment of grammar and usage got a makeover courtesy of Maira Kalman.

Kalman, an artist perhaps best known for her New Yorker covers, contributed paintings and drawings to accompany grammatical adages such as “Somebody else’s umbrella” and “Well, Susan, this is a fine mess you are in.”

The result is a jazzed-up reference guide, bound in cherry-red and so full of pretty pictures, you’ll almost forget that you’re reading about language usage. Most of their advice still holds true despite the fact that the book has only been updated three times, in 1972, 1979, and 1999. The changes instituted in 1999 display a shift in the still-relevant grammatical question of gender pronouns: White’s case for using “he” for nouns embracing both genders was removed. The result, as we know, is a more lax approach to gender specifications; “to each his own” may be correct, but “to each their own” no longer represents grammatical ignorance — instead, it is often used as a statement of all-inclusiveness.

Check out Maira Kalman’s site for pictures of the book and other artwork.

Language purists are campaigning to enforce stricter adherence to grammar rules for BBC’s broadcasters.
Ian Bruton-Simmonds, a member of the Queen’s English Society, appeared on BBC’s Today show to explain the group’s proposal: a Language Adviser, or a sort of backstage watchdog who would assist on-air reporters in times of need. (How exactly this would work is unclear — if the reporter is on-air, I’m not sure how he/she could stop to seek advice. “Pst! Larry! Is it Who or Whom?”)
Bruton-Simmonds was one of the many signatories of a letter sent recently to the chairman of the BBC Trust that explained the channel’s need for a language watchdog; a spokesman for the Trust responded by saying:
“On matters relating to editorial standards and how these are ensured, the Trust’s approach is to create a framework which strikes the right balance between clear requirements reflecting the public’s high expectations, and an understanding of the pressures of live broadcasting and the need for creative freedom and some flexibility.”

Source

I think it speaks for itself…

New research at the University of Toronto has recently discovered that contrary to popular belief, the dumbed-down, abbreviated language we use for communicating over the internet in doesn’t actually affect our ability to write in formal English.

This is great news! It means you can sound as stooopid as you’d like when emailing, instant-messaging, or facebook-wall-posting with your friends, and still get an A on that Critical Theory paper.

In fact, the linguists at the University view this new lingo as proof of young people’s creativity!

After performing a study of 71 technologically-adept teenagers, the researchers concluded that
When chatting with friends, the teens cleverly fused different features of the language: written and spoken, formal and informal.
“It’s showing a real creativity and a firm grasp of the linguistic resources available to them,” said Derek Denis, a co-author of the study that is to be presented today at the Linguistics Society of Canada and the United States annual meeting in Toronto.
He said the unique study refutes fears that instant messaging is “the bastardization of the English language and the linguistic ruin of a generation.” It’s about time they chillaxed. (That was for you, Safire.)

Source

New Jersey, the neighbor-state we love to hate, may be the latest place to incorporate changes into its constitution in an effort to sound less asshole-ish and more PC. The State Constitution currently states that “No idiot or insane person shall enjoy the right of suffrage.”

Other states that categorize their mentally disables as idiots: Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Ohio.

On November 6th, New Jersey voters will decide whether or not to eliminate the offensive terms, which, according to the bill’s advocates, “perpetuate myths” about the disabled.

“The perception is still out there that if you have a disability that you can’t fully function, that you can’t be a participating member of the community,” said Colleen O’Dell-Multer, a Brick resident who has multiple sclerosis and is legally blind. “That perception is totally inaccurate.”

As a 1976 court opinion stated, “A mentally retarded person need not be an `idiot’ and a mentally ill person need not be `insane.’”

But don’t hold your breath — in 2002, voters in New Mexico rejected a bill that would remove the same terms from its constitution.

Still, when you think about it, even if they change the language of the constitution, the rule stays the same. So while mentally disabled people will continue to be excluded from the voting process, idiots will be granted ballots! Quite the conundrum.

Source

The San Francisco Chronicle recently featured an excerpt from Ilan Stavans’ new book, “Love and Language” (Yale University Press; 261 pages; $25). Stavans, an essayist, critic, and fiction writer, conducted a series of six dialogues with Veronica Albin, a senior lecturer of Spanish and translation at Rice University, to track the evolution of the concept of love.

Here’s a tiny peek:

Verónica Albin: How should the word love be defined?
Ilan Stavans: As a most amorphous human feeling, capable of extremes: attraction and repulsion, exultation and misery, life and death, Eros and Thanatos.
The definition is imperfect, however, perhaps more so than for any other feeling. How does one define hatred? And envy? In fact, think about the way Western civilization conceptualizes feeling, as the condition of being emotionally affected. But at what point aren’t we emotionally affected? And how many feelings are there? Five, like the senses? Seven, like the days of the week, or better yet, like the deadly sins? Try cataloging them and you’ll fall prey to confusion.
VA: Are feelings and emotions the same?
IS: They have become synonymous, yes, although this is something of a cliche. A feeling, the dictionary states, is an emotional state, a disposition. Conversely, an emotion is the part of the consciousness that involves feeling. In any case, I prefer the word emotion.
VA: Why?
IS: Maybe it’s a reaction. In the Mexico of my salad days, the word sentimiento, feeling, had a New Age quality. I remember the expression “estar en contacto con los sentimientos,” to be in touch with one’s feelings.
VA: What is the nature of an emotion?
IS: Emotions aren’t quantifiable; they aren’t even verifiable. Yet they rule our life from beginning to end. They are messy, rowdy and turbulent. While they might be predictable, their patterns depend on circumstance and temperament. We don’t fall in love because we want to, nor do we befriend a person by simply pressing a button. These actions are directed by an internal force. Reason might seek to control them, set limits to them, but emotions are autonomous; they exist beyond reason.
VA: How many distinct emotions are there?
IS: Let me offer an alphabetical, albeit partial, list of these nebulous experiences: angst, anguish, attraction, bereavement, betrayal, compassion, disappointment, ecstasy, elation, envy, exultation, failure, glee, gratefulness, guilt, happiness, hatred, helplessness, inferiority, insecurity, ire, jealousy, keenness, kinkiness, kinship, loss, love, meanness, misery, nostalgia, obligation, obsession, outrage, panic, pride, qualm, queasiness, regret, remorse, repulsion, revulsion, sadness, shame, trust, unhappiness, vulnerability, withdrawal, xenophobia, yearning and zealousness.
VA: What makes love different?
IS: The fact that its contradictions make each of us feel unique.
VA: Contradictions or not, we know when we are in love …

Read the entire article here !