Prose translation
Translate the following into Chinese
Mind your English language
While most people accept that language will change with use and time, Sarah
Churchwell appears to justify the increasing Americanisation of British English
(A neologism thang, innit, 10 May). Noah Webster may have produced the language
that should be known as "American", but that should not be a reason, as
Churchwell seems to imply, for British English to be altered to the American
version. American is characterised by a plethora of "z"s and a paucity of "u"s,
which doesn't even reflect the way we pronounce many of the affected words.
Churchwell seems to view the French influence on our language as in need of
purging. This has no justification. The French influence is part of the Latin
history of English, as is the impact of Spanish and Italian.
American terms and spelling are imposed on us via the internet, but television
and lazy journalism are also to blame. Not only is it "new" words, but creating
verbs from nouns is common. Witness her own example "hierarchize". American
versions of words are too common, as in "bathroom" or "rest room" for toilet,
"airplane" for aeroplane, and "stroller" for buggy. Our English is a rich and
varied language – it needs a strong defence.
John Edwards
Linlithgow, West Lothian
• There's no need for Sarah Churchwell to come back to these shores and feel the
underdog, just because she's an ex-colonial speaker of English. As such she must
know that language, above all, is social. She condemns "innit" but not "gotten"
because, at the moment, the former usage is English underclass and the latter
American mainstream. They both sound horrible, or OK, according to taste; some
even think they are "cool", democratic, like.
But no amount of genealogical research citing Shakespeare will effectively
whitewash the social meaning of each. They are abominable not because they sound
awful, but because they represent a depressed and depressing social status in
England, on the one hand, and a bland, thoughtless, faux-classless,
sold-by-the-yard cultural wallpaper from the US, on the other.
Dr James Andrade
St Albans, Hertfordshire
• What a pity Sarah Churchwell spoils her otherwise well-made case about the
inevitability of language change by a careless remark in her final paragraph:
"From an aesthetic standpoint, 'innit' remains an abomination." Perhaps this was
intended as tongue-in-cheek, but if so, I doubt it will be interpreted as such
by the purists she mentions. And if not, then Prof Churchwell of all people must
know there's no such thing as intrinsically aesthetically inferior (or superior)
language. As her article demonstrates, it's a matter of personal preference and
prejudice.
Prof Jennifer Jenkins
Chair of Global Englishes, University of Southampton
• I agree with Sarah Churchwell's attitude to the evolution of English, but I
wish to defend "innit", which she categorises as an abomination. Most languages
have a simple way of designating a question expecting the answer "yes", eg "n'est
ce pas?" or "nich wahr?". English has instead a bewildering variety of phrases –
"didn't he?", "won't they?", "am I not?" – which have to be crafted for each
context, a task which some non-native speakers find difficult. "Innit" fills the
vacant role of a generic verbal question-mark inviting agreement. I predict that
it will achieve the accolade of inclusion in the OED well before such redundant
items as "grrl".
Herbert Munk
Coventry
• I can explain to Sarah Churchwell why Scrabblers prefer the word "amongst" to
"among". Using all seven tiles at once gains a bonus of 50 points. To begin a
debate, it would be interesting to learn the strength of feeling amongst players
who believe one should always know the definition of their chosen word.
Mollie Holden
Westgate-on-sea, Kent
• The ending of "vendor" and "neighbour" is pronounced differently on both sides
of the Atlantic. Not just kowtowing to the French!
Alexander Good
London
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/may/12/mind-your-english-language