... why we can't pay more attention to the great thinkers and communicators of the past, giants of the written and spoken word. Among my favorites is Winston Churchill. Here is what he said:
"All great things are simple and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honour, duty, mercy, hope" and "Broadly speaking, the short words are the best and the old words best of all."
Winston Churchill was a master of the English language. Reading him is a joy and a lesson. Wherever you open one of his books, the text glows and the reader's mind reflects that golden aura. If only more of us could emulate him linguistically. Apparently, we can't.
Language is under attack on all sides, dumbing us down, denying our highest linguistic aspirations. "I go . . . ," "and she's all" . . . and "So I'm, like . . . " refer to speaking, in a wretched modern perversion of speech. How many times does your average multi-million-dollar 'celebrity' say "Y'know"? Caroline Kennedy managed 232 'y'knows' in one recent interview, in the record. Or try one of GM's relentless TV advertising jingles, from a Mellenkamp 'lyric,' " . . . folks like me and you." How do you pronounce 'nuclear?' It's, let's see, well, um, duh, shucks, 'nucular.' MayORal and electrORal, instead of the correct MAYoral and ELECToral (at least they don't say 'pecTORal'). Or the ever-popular 'Feb-yoo-erry,' vs. the correct Feb-roo-erry.' The list of abuses is endless.
Where does it start? In the home and in school, where no one is in charge of getting it right and no one seems to care. The neglect of proper usage extends from home and school like ripples in a pond, engulfing us in a tsunami of illiteracy. It reaches up, in the record, to the highest offices and institutions in the land, with 'leaders' who can hardly pronounce their own names and have the seeming IQs of pre-pubescent gerbils.
And our leaders, for example some of those aspiring to the highest office in the land? I want to be led and inspired by intelligent, curious and well-informed men and women who are at the top of their game and their profession, who can express themselves with blinding clarity. "Speak proper English, you're regarded as a freak" (thanks, GBS and Alan Jay Lerner). Elitist? So sue me.
Media prolixity, pomposity and bafflegab have ousted Winston's plea for simplicity, and are often wildly wrong. 'Momentarily' sounds important except when used to indicate 'in a moment' -- "We will return 'momentarily'," says the announcer, unaware that it means 'for a moment.' What exactly is a 'restauranteur' (sic) as described by Lesley Stahl on '60 Minutes' on January 8, 2012? 'Presently' means 'soon,' not 'now.' 'In the event that' = 'if.' 'I am of the opinion that' = 'I think.' '. . . in the northbound direction' = 'north.' You get the idea. I'll stop the ranting and browbeating.
Where does it end? It doesn't, as far as I can see. In fact, it's worsening daily. There is no hope.
Why should we care? Because our inability to express ourselves with clarity, simplicity and vigor is the death of effective human affairs. The light at the end of the tunnel is that we, if we care enough to speak and write properly, will shine.
That's how Winnie would have wanted it. I am sure of it. Clarity begins at home.
The meaning has been around for a century. Native speakers should have no trouble determining, from the context, which sense is meant.
'Presently' means 'soon,' not 'now.'
If you read the OED, you'll find sense 2, meaning "at the present time, at this time, now" dates at least as early as 1485, and predates the meaning of "soon" by a full century. Merriam-Webster says this: "An ill-founded notion, of fairly recent origin, holds there is something wrong with the sense of presently that means 'at present, now." The mistaken idea originates from the mid-70s, and ignores five centuries of actual usage.
'In the event that' = 'if.' 'I am of the opinion that' = 'I think.' '.
Yes... I don't see your point, unless you're complaining about wordiness. But that's merely an issue of style. Do you object to George Bernard Shaw when he said "I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community"? That is an old, old phrase in the English language. Google Books shows it dating to at least 1652, an era that often prized wordiness over succinctness. Again, a matter of style, not correctness.
Purely in whimsy, I am reminded of the line from 'My Fair Lady,' uttered by the late, great Rex Harrison: "Speak proper English, you're regarded as a freak."
I don't know if TV is to blame, or the internet, or what, but our culture has changed. We do not revere the written word. Our spoken words are therefore no longer pronounced properly and their meaning is no longer considered, We revere the overall appearance of something a lot more than the word that we used to 'see' in our mind that describes it. So we use visually oriented jargon and smiley faces and "you knows."
Few public school teachers and principals today can send home a note with your child that doesn't have a spelling or grammar mistake. But few are left who cannot fire up a computer and run a Power Point presentation. Nobody is calling them to task, and you get what you allow. As Mencken said, "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
Madagain's comment below misses the entire point, which is that without correct grammar and vocabulary... not necessarily sesquipedalian words (long words of many syllables)...one's ideas cannot be expressed clearly, either in the head of the writer or the reader. Class does not impede anyone from omnivorous reading and it is reading that grows vocabulary and keeping a dictionary close to make sure one learns new vocabulary all through life. Madagain's professional expertise is admirable, he is obviously intelligent anaccomplished in his profession but the problem of the working classes is that they confuse learning with class snobbery. Intelligence appears in every class and it is the duty, of every intelligent person to foster their intelligence by reading voraciously; increasing their knowledge and thereby, increasing their intelligence all their lives . Confusing snobbery with good vocabulary and grammar is the bane of the working class and keeps them slaves of exploiters like the politicans now making themselves laughingstocks every time they open their rich, but basically ill educated, mouths. Good grammar and good speech are free to all who don't confuse them with class snobbery.
For example, if a person makes an effort to express an idea, and has a good point, but misspelled a word, does the point now become his spelling, instead of his idea?
Look, we did not all do good in english grammar. Using me as an example, I graduated high schooI, served in the US Army, went to trade school, got a state electrical contractors licence, and established an electrical company. My spelling is atrocious, my grammar is probably worse. But at no time in my 47+ years as an electrician, did my grammar have a detrimintal effect on my work.
Are the only relevant opinions, those of writers, english teachers, and editors? Did not Winston have a proof checker? If I put an e where an i should go am I "erelevant?" (sp) Does the fact that I just had to look up about ten words to make this comment mean that I should not be heard?
Your spelling is not atrocious, and your grammar seems all right.
Futhermore, the "dumb kids" argument has been around since long before Churchill's day. It is a signpost of any generational divide, and it is more reflective of the mindset of the generation that is being forced to cede influence to their offspring than it is of some failing of the younger set. Also it is always dangerous to make generalizations like this. In any generation, the cream will rise to the top and they will do so by exceeding the standards that are expected of them. At the same time, they have to be aware of their audience. Going around talking like Churchill is all well and good, but should we expect the same of movie stars? Should we even hold them to the same standards as movie stars of the past who didn't have cameras on them virtually every time they stepped out of the house. These are among the many nuances that need to be considered if this is even going to be put to debate.
I find more evidence that literary skills are increasing, than declining. Before the Internet, how often did the average person regularly actually write? Unless they were published, they might occasionally write a note and leave it on the table, send a personal Christmas card or two.
Now, nearly everyone is writing on a regular basis, even if it's just a quick note on facebook. Others respond to blog posts and write coherent (or not) arguments.
People who think abbreviations like "u" and "r" are ruining the language should look into the 1830s, which gave us humorous abbreviations like "o.k" (for "oll korrect"), or during the age of the telegraph, with its monetary interest in keeping messages as terse as possible.
This is a golden era for the English language! An age! An epoch!