A light-hearted conversation on Radio 4 considered the etiquette of correcting a mistweet or dweet when retweeting. In conventionally written English, we note the solecism by adding '(sic)', which is a way of letting everyone know that one is aware of the error; a sort of grammatical snobbery.
The discussion quickly developed into an "eats shoots and leaves" debate, covering the usual suspects of greengrocer's apostrophes, malapropisms and other examples of linguistic general ignorance. All good fun and a great opportunity for some commentators to demonstrate their superiority.
As someone who has played fast and loose with the English language on many occasions, I listened with a smile. Of course language changes and develops. I'm sure there were some who criticised Shakespeare's neologisms. Great writers have written entire books without so much as a semi-colon; others have dispensed with the comma, though I'm not clear why or how.
Some solecisms, however, annoy me almost beyond reason.
As my children will confirm, I find 'different to' rather than 'different from' a real problem.
I hate the ubiquitous use of 'disinterested' to mean 'uninterested': we are losing a word from our lexicon.
I am also irritated by 'serendipitous' to mean 'coincidental'; again, an important nuance is disappearing.
And here's one from yesterday's Guardian: literary critic Nicholas Lezard of all people referring to the 'chief protagonist' of McEwan's novel, Solar. What is this new compound word? Does protagonist not mean principal player, without the need for any further qualification?
I could go on: imply and infer; complement and compliment; affect and effect; lose and loose.
Note, however, that I have not mentioned the split infinitive. Even though the split infinite usually sounds wrong to my ears, I do appreciate that this is a silly rule, deriving from the fact that, in Latin, it is impossible to do.
But we should be aware that the famous "to boldly go" gained much of its force from breaking an accepted rule.
You have to learn the rules, so you can break them properly.
Today's listening: England v India on 5 Live Sports Extra.
The discussion quickly developed into an "eats shoots and leaves" debate, covering the usual suspects of greengrocer's apostrophes, malapropisms and other examples of linguistic general ignorance. All good fun and a great opportunity for some commentators to demonstrate their superiority.
As someone who has played fast and loose with the English language on many occasions, I listened with a smile. Of course language changes and develops. I'm sure there were some who criticised Shakespeare's neologisms. Great writers have written entire books without so much as a semi-colon; others have dispensed with the comma, though I'm not clear why or how.
Some solecisms, however, annoy me almost beyond reason.
As my children will confirm, I find 'different to' rather than 'different from' a real problem.
I hate the ubiquitous use of 'disinterested' to mean 'uninterested': we are losing a word from our lexicon.
I am also irritated by 'serendipitous' to mean 'coincidental'; again, an important nuance is disappearing.
And here's one from yesterday's Guardian: literary critic Nicholas Lezard of all people referring to the 'chief protagonist' of McEwan's novel, Solar. What is this new compound word? Does protagonist not mean principal player, without the need for any further qualification?
I could go on: imply and infer; complement and compliment; affect and effect; lose and loose.
Note, however, that I have not mentioned the split infinitive. Even though the split infinite usually sounds wrong to my ears, I do appreciate that this is a silly rule, deriving from the fact that, in Latin, it is impossible to do.
But we should be aware that the famous "to boldly go" gained much of its force from breaking an accepted rule.
You have to learn the rules, so you can break them properly.
Today's listening: England v India on 5 Live Sports Extra.
RSS Feed