re: bad English

From: Mike Golby <mikeg_at_laragh.co.za>
Date: Tue 05 Jun 2001 15:04:44 -0500

KENNY KNOWLES <angeloak_at_sc.rr.cojm> WROTE:

>Am I wrong? How does
>grammar stack up in advertising these days? Or is it
>acceptable to use it in emails? Okay, maybe; but
>business emails? Whadya think, ya'll?

In one respect, I agree with you, Kenny. There is no
excuse for poor grammar in any form of written or
spoken communication unless it is used specifically to
sell a product.

Is this a dedicated advertising forum? I don't know but,
if it is, we should be ever mindful of the way we use
language to communicate with those with whom we share
it. In some societies, your use of Denise's phrase might
be seen as insensitive. However, in others, it might
not :-).

A global medium, the Web accommodates myriad forms of
English, some of which are abominations. Others form
a melange of eclectic preferences.

Surely the English (those living on that horrible little
windswept rock in the North Sea) should be able to lay
claim to a certain knowledge of what constitutes "proper"
or, as I prefer, "correct" English? After all, it is
their language. Perhaps we should take their lead for a
change. We should then start speaking of "robots" instead
of "streetlights", substitute "pavements" for "sidewalks"
and "petrol" for "gas", etc.

I am neither English nor American but I try, to the best
of my ability, to make myself understood to the audience
I address. This, I feel, is at the heart of good English.
I understand Denise. As a kid, I understood every
magnificent line ever written by Jack Kerouac. Kerouac's
English would have him thrown out of First Grade, but his
writing is at once ineffable, euphonic, melodic, brilliant,
scintillating.

Where would we be had we trashed James Joyce for his
syntactic gymnastics? Did these writers use good",
"bad", "proper", or "improper" English? I don't
know but, hey, who cares? It worked like wonder!

To make myself understood, my posts accommodate the
American "z" instead of the English "s", the many
variations of double and single "l"s, the favoring (sic)
of "o" instead of "ou", and countless semantic
peculiarities, e.g. "I'll write you" instead of "I'll
write to you", or "different than" rather than "different
to". It's not a problem. I do it to be understood more
easily. English can take the strain.

Is Denise's statement "I'd strongly suggest they
spend 3-6 months promoting their site theirself..."
any more disconcerting than the ubiquitous misuse of
"you and I", the widespread use of the abbreviated
"it's" in place of the possessive "its", or the maddening
(and peculiarly American) habit of turning nouns into
verbs, e.g. "burglarize" instead of "burgle"?

Ah, hell, and to use another - to my mind - egregious
act of linguistic barbarity, I really wouldn't 'obsess'
over all this. The important thing is not *how* we write
but *that* we write...

Kind regards.

Mike Golby
Laragh Courseware
Web: http://www.laragh.com
e-Learning Matters

BTW, whaddaya mean, "stack up"?



Received on Tue Jun 05 2001 - 15:04:44 CDT