Speak English boy!

[Gav]

I've come across this article in the Online Magazine 'Plain English'. It seems as though the Governator has had enough of the dense, incomprehensible or just downright bad English that is the de rigeur in official communication. Here's a copy of the text:

Report encourages Schwarzenegger to terminate jargon

The governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, may soon order the state’s workers to use plain English. He has been given a draft executive order after government review condemned long-winded sentences such as “No person shall exercise the privilege or perform any act which a licensee may exercise or perform under the authority of a license unless the person is authorized to do so by a license issued pursuant to this division.” Or to put it another way, “You can’t do this without a license.” Among the other cases highlighted by the review was an employment form asking “Did you work or earn any money, whether you were paid or not?” Helpline staff said they received calls about this question from confused readers every day. The draft order says, “Californians who better understand their government are more likely to trust it and feel a part of it.” It recommends “the use of common everyday words, the use of personal pronouns, the active voice, easy-to-read design, short sentences, descriptive headlines and sub-headlines and avoiding jargon, technical terms, acronyms and other abbreviations.” If Mr Schwarzenegger signs the order, it is unlikely to lead to legal action against anyone who doesn’t follow it, partly because it doesn’t have an enforceable definition of ‘plain’ language. But the publicity could inspire government workers to think again about their writing, as well as letting the public know that they should expect clear communication as standard practice.

I have to deal with rubbish English all day. I don't mind it so much on BB's [like Fencing.net] although I don't like to see people using any kind of excessive shorthand (like acronyms, incessant abbreviation, txt spk or Haxxor). I think that, if you are unable to present your thoughts clearly, then why try and communicate using any kind of written media? Yes, that does include the Internet. What's worse is that I see comments in the news all the time to the effect 'Declining standards in schools force lecturers to give undergraduates grammar courses.' Yet in these same publications [often in the same article] you see real howlers.

Back to the politics. So how important do we all feel it is for our representatives to be able to communicate effectively? By effectively I mean clearly, concisely and without newspeak.

*Funnily enough I was given grammar as part of my English education - it appears that this is because I received a Scottish education apparently things are different in England. I'm no pedant I make plenty of mistakes - there's [probably] plenty in this thread starter. I am talking about the real rubbish that people trot out daily. My current favourite is not putting words in the correct order.

[Louweasel]

Well said Gav. It can be difficult in matters of law though - I know from experience that long sentences exist to cover every possibel angle so that lawyers can't find a loophole. And considering tah so many cases these days are fopught on loopholes rather than te strength (or otherwise) of the evidence), it's quite important.

Btw, I was taught English grammar at school, in England. That was a state primary school, nothing fancy. It just differs from place to place.
And *mischievous* it should be "there are plenty [of mistakes]" not "there's plenty" Hee hee... I'm not perfect either though, that was jsut for fun.

Although I admit I growl at the radio whenever Gwen Stefani's latest single "If I was a rich girl" is played - I end up shouting, "Were! Were! If I WERE a rich girl!"

[Alain]

Well said, that man! I'm a bit of a stickler, I must confess. Sad, perhaps, but it really gets to me when people put in random apostrophes and such. I know I'm far from perfect (I'm half French, after all), but still...

Has anyone read Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss..?

[LUDICROUS]

I usually cannot be bothered to speak near perfect english on internet forums. I know why, too. I spend a fair amount of time on MSN Messenger, an instant message based thing. So naturally I am VERY lazy when it comes to such.

Only on the internet though. Schoolwork is usually top notch.

[Zilverzmurfen]

As a friend of words, language and languages I fully agree with what's already been said.

However, being a non-english speaker on an english speaking (well written, now that we're marking words ahem... ) forum I do expect being forgiven for not spelling properly or using the correct grammar. (And it seems I am understood, most of the time anyway.)

As for my own language (swedish) it really annoys me when people do not know how to spell and construct proper sentences!

I find it somewhat worrying how many people - even at my own age - who separate words 'à la english' and invent their own spelling. It is not always a good thing to encourage creativity...

[Gav]

Has anyone read Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss..?

Yes and I quite enjoyed it. Some of the anecdotes are quite funny and I am certainly sympathetic to the "sticklers". I am just reading "Lost for Words" which is also rather good.

[Svidrigailov]

Personally, I think the way a person writes is directly related to the way a person thinks. What kind of mental prowess can be expected of a politician that mangles grammar on a regular basis? Unfortunately, I think there are very visible examples out in the world today...

[Epee_Pox]

Who wants a politician with mental prowess? That's a recipe for disaster. I want my politicians to have a hard time figuring out how to screw us.

[Svidrigailov]

If I get screwed I might as well get screwed by someone I respect. The current slew of dull politicians has screwed us well enough (i.e. social security, bankrupcy act, lowering taxes for the poor) to put the most brilliant politicians to shame.

[mrbiggs]

It's about time a politician has taken a stand against this beaurocratic time wasting. I wish it was someone other than Arnold, because I don't respect him much as a politician, but this just has to be said.

I think that the worst places are tax forms. Every year, hundreds of millions are expected to read these tax forms and fill them out accurately. Every year, the only people who can really fill them out are the accountants and tax specialists. Why? Because they are nearly impossible to read and understand.

My parents actually save money by paying someone to do their taxes each year, because there are thousands of dollars in deductions that they could not possibly know about. And my parents are smart people. How could the government possibly expect some uneducated, barely literate factory worker to fill out tax forms with such ridiculous wording?

I hope this idea spreads to the federal level.

[Soldier]

Personally, I think the way a person writes is directly related to the way a person thinks. What kind of mental prowess can be expected of a politician that mangles grammar on a regular basis? Unfortunately, I think there are very visible examples out in the world today...

Are you kidding me? What the hell does vocabulary have to do with mental prowess?

I don't know chemistry very well. Does that mean I'm moronic, or that I chose instead to focus on engineering?

Just the same, grammar is a field of study - one which I don't happen to get, actually. Couldn't diagram a sentence to save my life.

Does that make me stupid, just because I never thought it worthwhile to study the rules and mechanics of grammar, aside from the basics?

[lochinvar]

In your case, Soldier, you are intelligent enough to have absorbed grammar and proper usage through "osmosis", if you will. You listen, you read, and you pay attention.

There are many, however, who are not so bright. Even though exposed to proper spelling and usage every day, they have failed to absorb the standard structure of the language they allegedly speak. Perhaps that makes them stupid, or merely lazy, or just uninterested in getting it right. Any way it boils out, it's irritating to those of us for whom THE WORDS, AND THE WAY ONE PUTS THEM TOGETHER, MATTER.

[lochinvar]

Gav, to answer your original question I prefer a plain-speaking leader to one who subscribes to the useless elaborations which unfortunately have achieved a patina of respectability among the undiscerning--phrases like "empowering the paradigm of our core competencies", and the like.

That having been said, there is a reason why official renderings take the form they do. Laws and public regulations are bound to affect some of the populace negatively, so the "boilerplate" has evolved to minimize challenges in court. The language has stood the test of time, so "don't fix what ain't broke" as my grandmother used to say. That's not to say that it couldn't use a good, sharp blue pencil, but politicians are at core a pretty conservative lot when it comes to form if not function.

[rmyounis]

There are many, however, who are not so bright. Even though exposed to proper spelling and usage every day, they have failed to absorb the standard structure of the language they allegedly speak. Perhaps that makes them stupid, or merely lazy, or just uninterested in getting it right.

You do have to make a distinction between "wrong," and "dialectical," though. Sometimes its not using the rules of grammar wrong, its just using a set of rules (dialect) inappropriate to the occasion.

[lochinvar]

Agreed. Context is (almost) everything, as I tried with greater or lesser success to impress upon my children, e.g., "It is not appropriate to talk to elders and/or strangers in the same way that you talk to your friends and peers. Among yourselves you perceive it to be humorous; elders and some strangers perceive it as just being rude."

[Peach]

a politician that mangles grammar on a regular basis?

That would be "a politician who mangles grammar."

[oiuyt]

That would be "a politician who mangles grammar."
:mutant:

Only if you think of politicians as people rather than objects. :)

-B :)

[mrbiggs]

That having been said, there is a reason why official renderings take the form they do. Laws and public regulations are bound to affect some of the populace negatively, so the "boilerplate" has evolved to minimize challenges in court. The language has stood the test of time, so "don't fix what ain't broke" as my grandmother used to say. That's not to say that it couldn't use a good, sharp blue pencil, but politicians are at core a pretty conservative lot when it comes to form if not function.

Yeah, but it's a shame that a lawyer is required for anyone who even hopes to understand the law, and an accountant is required for anyone who hopes to do their taxes correctly, no matter what their intelligence is. Precise wording is good, but the vast majority of law is, I think, illegible.

Here's a fine example of a well-written, in my opinion, piece of legislature. (it's not really legislature, but whatever.) The Constitution. With a good middle school education, a smart person could read the constitution and describe the basics of how the US government works. Yet the document is worded very well, so that it has lasted 200 years with about 25 changes. (Prohibition doesn't count.) Laws, of course, should be more precisely worded than the constitution, because individual laws should not be left open for interpretation. But there's a difference between being precise and being wordy. I think I'm rambling.

[Point_Left]

Only if you think of politicians as people rather than objects.

-B

Can a person be a person if they don't have a soul? If one must have a soul then I guess a politician is a thing.

[pammie003]

Hey! There are people on this board (like myself) who have souls and are considering politics as a career! There must be good ones out there, and if there are none, just wait a few years.