atw: Re: Pronounseeashun
- From: Ken Randall <kenneth_james_randall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:15:40 -0800 (PST)
Wow.
In Shakespeare's day it was acceptable to spell according to one's own taste,
so there was less-than-standardised spelling. "I'll talk as I please" was the
convention at that time, and it was later discarded. If the other person does
not understand what is being said, as Shakespeare is difficult to understand
sometimes, then the whole thing is a waste of time.
That English is the international language is relevant here. If
native-speakers find "I'll talk as I please" a barrier to understanding
sometimes, then what must it be like for those for whom English is a second
language. There are more of them than there are native-speakers.
An international language is helpful, and English-speakers are lucky that it is
English. Just as it is to America's own benefit to maintain the integrity of
the reserve currency, English-speakers should do the same with English.
--- On Fri, 6/1/12, Geoffrey <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Geoffrey <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: atw: Pronounseeashun
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Received: Friday, 6 January, 2012, 8:14 AM
On 5 January 2012 14:46, Ken Randall <kenneth_james_randall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:"Aitch" is definitely correct. It is in the majority in both age groups
cited. In otherEnglish-speaking countries only "aitch" is acceptable, a fact
which should betaken into account since English is the international language.
No good purpose isserved by "haitch".
--- Good grief. It truly staggers me that, in the twentieth-first century,
we are still harbouring the illusion that any particular linguistic practice is
correct or incorrect. Does anyone today speak, spell, construct or punctuate
as Shakespeare did? No. So is the way we write today incorrect because it
differs so markedly from the writings of an acknowledged master of the English
language? Or was Shakespeare a crap writer? Likewise, do the Americans
punctuate incorrectly because they use the serial comma when it is not used in
most other contemporary Englishes? Anyone game enough to tell the Americans
that? The whole application of the concept of correctness to a mere convention
(as language is) is a category mistake pure and simple. A linguistic practice
might be conventional or unconventional, effective or ineffective. But it
cannot be correct or incorrect. (Yes, I deliberately started that last sentence
with a conjunction. Feel free
to prove to me, by either a priori means or a posteriori, that my usage is
incorrect. Show me the logic; show me the evidence. How might you even start?)
Or if you want to be relativistic about it—and say that correctness can be
applied to majority conventions even if the conventions are changeable—then you
would have to say that those women who refuse to change their surnames after
marriage are behaving incorrectly. A bit silly, eh? It further staggers me
that contemporary folk are judging others by the way they pronounce their
words. I thought we had defeated this sort of class-ridden snobbery during the
cultural wars of the 1960s and 70s, along with judging a person’s worth by the
clothes they wear or the length of their hair. I’ll talk as I please, thank
you very much. “Acceptable” my arse. Do youse understand? Geoffrey Marnell
Other related posts:
