Essential Snobbery 101: Don't be a purist, just speak well

Just simply unrefined

It suddenly occurred to me how people are so poorly educated in the use of language, or in some cases, they make no appreciable effort to improve vocabulary, expression and breadth of use beyond the perfunctory.

Sadly, there are too many cases where a lot can be said with the finery of prose that conveys a lot more than the animal grunt of a blurted-out expletive.

However, people cannot be bothered to exercise themselves through reading good material and elevating their speech to a level of sophisticated comportment.

For a song, it goes

For example, I asked if the cakes on sale at the end of the day were going for a song; now, crudely, one could have asked if the cakes were cheaper, but I believe the choice of words makes for a better class of person.

You wonder whether Basic English idioms need to be taught in school, too. Also, in a rather high-brow shop on Jermyn Street a few weeks ago, I could not see myself shelling out so much for so little, so for the convenience of the shopkeeper and myself, I offered that I would not be making such a big hole in my pocket.

We both understood I would not be buying what they had on sale, and I went on my way.

Giving other languages a good shake

In the same vein, I believe I do speak Yoruba quite well, and even though I left Northern Nigeria in 1977, I can still get by with rudimentary Hausa.

I find that Yoruba is quite rich in expression, not just through the choice of words, but in the use of idioms, adages and proverbs. Quite recently, I have taken to sharing proverbs on Twitter, many quite laden with meaning that only the aficionados would nod in acknowledgement.

What bothers me is how quite a few of us whose mother tongue is English have not only mastered the use of Yoruba, but are sometimes seen as probably better speakers of Yoruba.

Just do it right

The slight perfectionist in me would mostly write with all the essential diacritical marks so as to avoid any misunderstanding, and though one can deduce the context of what is being said without the marks, nothing speaks better than being proper.

Yet, everyday users of the language usually cannot complete a sentence without the use of colloquialisms or borrowed words for all sorts of reasons, a classic case of letting the side down.

Indeed, we should all simplify communication, but at the same time, a lot more is learnt and shared by working a language in all its aesthetic quality – this only comes with a love for learning.

You are not saying it right. Work at it and get better. What is worth saying at all is worth saying right and well.

Excoriating the unacceptable in written English communication

Rotten text English

I happened upon a posting on Facebook where the writer in expressing disapproval of the content of an email he received, posted the text stating the sender was a graduate of an unnamed university and the person had been previously warned about writing in that manner.

The email contained a greeting, lots of bad punctuation, misspelt words and bad grammar forming the basis for a request along of the lines of being engaged for some project by the recipient of the email.

Social Media is hardly the problem

The comments that followed the posting gave a general idea of what people might think of such communication that I was compelled to add an opinion that I have expanded into the blog below.

The first comment, suggested this was what you get for spending so much time on Social Media, however, I begged to differ with the this statement - I do not think the excuse is time spent on Social Media, I come from the telegram generation where words cost a lot of money and we did not succumb to such sloppiness.

Adapt to the platform

In fact, with the advent of Short Message Service (SMS) on mobile phones restricted to 160 characters and now tweets on Twitter restricted to 140 characters, the need to be correct, concise and clear should not be sacrificed to this nonsensical mode of communication.

Now, the use of phonetic spellings, homophones, abbreviations and words missing their vowels are becoming the standard mode of communication amongst many. In fact, if this were used as personal shorthand to be transcribed to proper text for public dissemination, I would have no problem with it.

I have had instances where visiting another country, the need for sentences to be properly formed and written is essential for the use of an online translator, if people speaking different languages need to communicate – this kind of writing using strange words does not help.

No excuses

Another comment asked if the person were a possible hire; unlikely, would be the response. We must not confuse this lack of attention to language communication with dyslexia; this fad has crept from informal communication into formal letters, the writers being none the wiser about how this reflects on them and their prospects.

There is no excuse for writing English letters this way, most especially in emails or on Facebook, where there is enough space and spellcheckers are available to ensure good and correct spelling. Besides, to ignore such promptings to spell correctly is both reckless and irresponsible, such stubborn use of unconventional text should be penalised.

Call me old-fashioned but communication between animals if they had script would never be reduced to this.

Standards in written language communication matter

Other comments followed from absolving the writer from any blame to asking the recipient to be more amenable to such faddish style of writing. I guess this represents how many feel about this, but if we should maintain standards; that includes everyone, and dictionaries are not to become a compendium of a jumble of letters given any meanings suited to the times, some of us have to decide what is acceptable and what is not.

On this occasion, I suggested the writer needs a stern telling off for today, just in case the person encounters a less forgiving person on matters that concern opportunity and prospect after this.

I am probably a purist of sorts, I make mistakes, but I strive to ensure that I use dictionary reviewable words of the language of choice when communicating with people. I have lapsed into sesquipedalianism at times, but that is to maintain context and carry a message.

When it comes to Twitter, I have learnt brevity, concision and precision is possible with the use of correct English grammar and proper English words in the limited space of 140 characters – I believe, there are no excuses for sloppy writing, regardless of the platform.

A protagonist is a proponent in my book

All comments are still very welcome

And suddenly, a blog written sometime ago gets read and a comment is left pertaining to the subject matter, at other times, some smart chap and I like smart people challenge the ideas, the context, the content and even the usage in grammar of words.

I welcome all this because, I learn by taking on new knowledge or help the contributor see another perspective of my views.

Whilst in some ways, I am a sort of purist – spitting it out with self-loathing – I am exercised by having to engage with people of my ilk. Should I then be a protagonist or proponent of the rightful usage of expression and words in English?

Telling me something new

You left a comment on my blog regarding my use of protagonist in the write-up http://akin.blog-city.com/dutchpederasty.htm.

You use the term 'peado-protagonists' as though a protagonist meant the supporter or champion of some idea. In fact 'protagonist' is not the antonym of 'antagonist'. The root is not the Latin 'pro', but the Greek 'protos' meaning 'first'. So the protagonist is the main character, and although modern usage seems to allow a pluarality of protagonists, the meaning of 'principle characters' is maintained, whatever they are 'for'

Get the word book

Rather than dispute your views, I simply took this from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary and found that I have rightfully adopted usage in relation to the second meaning which infers the supporter of a cause.

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=protagonist

Furthermore, Wikipedia suggests that in the 20th Century protagonist is commonly used in place of proponent, in line with your comments where a better synonym might be advocate or champion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagonist

Then my Collins Concise Dictionary ISBN 000470777X (Out of Stock) has this to say.

The use of protagonist as the definition 2 (a supporter) is regarded as unacceptable by some people on the grounds that the word derives from the Greek prõtos first, higher ranking, not from Latin pro in favour of.

While the second sense (a supporter) has undoubtedly developed as a result of confusion over the etymology it is now well established in English; careful writers and speakers may, however, prefer to avoid this use and employ an alternative word such as proponent, champion, or advocate.

In either of its uses, the word has a sense of chief and so does not need to be qualified by this or any similar adjective: a protagonist of the movement not a leading protagonist of the movement.

Language leaving purists behind

The American Heritage Dictionary says this

Nevertheless, the word has been used in the plural to mean “important actors” or “principal characters” since at least 1671 when John Dryden wrote “Tis charg'd upon me that I make debauch'd persons … my protagonists, or the chief persons of the drama.” Some writers may prefer to confine their use of protagonist to refer to a single actor or chief participant, but it is pointless to insist that the broader use is wrong.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/12/P0611200.html

Trying to be kind

I have every respect for purists and welcome their contribution to keeping the use of language at a standard of unimpeachable quality; however, in doing so, you failed to exercise the latitude of an erudite that should do requisite research before debunking ideas or usage.

Thanks, for your comment, the knowledge and your time.