Hmm, I seem to have a knack of unwittingly sending posts that engender
these protracted discussions.
I think we have to agree that formality is a force that needs to be
reckoned with. I don't think I can join Warren in asserting that 'formally
is nonsense' - though I might like to. My concern was trying to come to
grips with what it really is. I wanted to ask the authors of that style
manual to provide guidance on what types of document call for a formal
style - but the more I thought about it, the more I realised how unlikely
it was that they could or would do so.
So in the end I remain puzzled as to what it is that makes us want to make
language so much more difficult than it needs to be. It's a bit like
wondering why we have to be so deferential to the royal family.
I certainly am sticking to my guns over 'show' versus 'illustrate'. But the
battle against excessive formality seems to involve many small wins and
progress that seems agonisingly slow.
Regards
Howard
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 at 2:42 pm, Michael Lewis <mlewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All good points, Peter, and a timely reminder that Orwell's
recommendations hit a lot of these nails squarely on the head!
- Michael Lewis
On 17/06/2017 14:33, Peter Martin wrote:
Can't let go on this one about "show" and "illustrate" which
immediately linked somehow into the idea of formality without pointing
out the long history of snobbery that still centres on words of
Latinate/French origin etc. (the formal languages of William the
Bastard's rule).
Nor should one avoid the point that "vulgar" "OE" "Anglo-Saxon"
"Germanic" spoken language is still probably better understood than
the more "upper-class: "literate" "formal" "Latinate" "Frenchified"
version. And to my mind, that suggests that the former should
generally be preferred over the latter .for most forms of
communication. Where usage rules, speech wins over the written word.
Of course, if ONE is in, say, an ecclesiastical court or giving a
formal address to a long-dead monarch (given that we finished up
reverting to the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha line and presumably don't want
French as a courtly language any more) ONE might have some excuse...
Suggestions that the Latinate polysyllabic alternatives are either
more "formal" or "proper" in written language positively invite the
suggestion that the conquest snobbery of the Normans is being
encouraged and that English class-consciousness is to be allowed to
persist centuries past its relevance. Long live four-letter words!
-Peter M
