Geoffrey, I agree with you that it's daft to say that "aitch" is *correct*and "haitch" is *incorrect *(Ken didn't make the second of these assertions, but I think it's fairly safe to infer that he believes it). But would you also deny that "the early bird get's the right size" is incorrect English? Would you deny that anyone can make a spelling mistake? (Well, anyone *these* days - most of us would let Shakespeare off.) My point is that nowadays English spelling and grammar is pretty well standardised, so the notion of correctness does make sense for them and it would seem silly to use the terms 'conventional' and 'unconventional' in that context - even though obviously these distinctions are, of course, ultimately based purely on convention. Where there's a fixed and generally agreed convention, we often use the terms 'correct' and 'incorrect', and speak, for example, of driving 'on the *wrong* side of the road'. So the point at issue is really which parts of language we recognised as fixed and agreed - and who fixes them and who agrees. Howard On 6 January 2012 08:14, Geoffrey <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 other**** > > English-speaking countries only "aitch" is acceptable, a fact which should > be**** > > taken into account since English is the international language. No good > purpose is**** > > served 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**** > -- *Not* sent from an iPhone or iPad