Dear Editor:
I must express gratitude to Kate Zimmerman's Oct. 9 article on the current state of English language usage (I'm Taken Back by Bad Grammar Everyday, North Shore News).
The 1996 revision of the Oxford Dictionary spawned a London Times article tackling the question of why we should bother with correct English at all? The answer, in part is that it behooves civilization to aspire to, and assume there exists a precise, correct language. All languages are symbolic, limited to symbols representing thought.
If someone has ever told you a story translated from another language, only to pause with, "sorry, but there's no English word for this," it's easy to appreciate the importance of a language's ability to convey concepts. This can be expansive or limiting. If a person feels anger, yet habitually expresses this only as being "pissed," he or she will be unable to identify or understand if the actual condition is one of affronted moral indignation, impatience or frustration of some form, such as a voice unheard. These are huge distinctions.
While the current dumbing-down of English is a concern, the results are often humorous. "Overview" means responsibility to survey, where "oversight" means failure to notice. But now it seems a person is responsible for "oversight;" hilarious.
Zimmerman cites "taken back" in place of "taken aback." It means revulsed or repelled, yet I've heard it to describe being pleasantly surprised, attracted. Professional radio announcers claim, "the amount of people is less," rather than the number of people is fewer. It's a chuckle to envision people as a mass of dough, more or less, than actual numbers. "There was much damage thanks to the recent hurricane." "Thanks" implies gratitude, not likely the initial reaction to a hurricane.
It's a Monty Python world where people are saying the opposite of what they intend, especially when trying to sound clever: "Iconic" doesn't mean best definitive example, but a representation pointing to something else as the actual item. Zimmerman laments that repeated misuse eventually becomes accepted as correct, as dictionaries follow common usage, rather than dictate it.
If you love someone (singular), set "them" free? How many people live in there? I'd set that person free, too. There is no such word as "irregardless," regardless of how many times we hear it. The celebrity on the talkshow couch responds to, "How are you?" with, "I'm good!" Good at what? Not adverbs or adjectives. I'm "well," thank you, despite the verbal mangling.
As parents hopefully say, correct English please; use your words wisely. Our ability to say what we mean depends on it.
Al Hawirko
North Vancouver
