Aaaargh!

[maxsims]

Don't tell me that "in spite" has become one word...?

[Joe Carillo]

Nope, maxsims, its spelling is still the two-word "in spite." You must be referring to the mistaken spelling in the dialogue balloon of the cartoon in the homepage. It's an inadvertent mistake by my web programmer. Sorry about that! Unfortunately, it can only be corrected tonight as he's taken the afternoon off.

At any rate, as you must have already found out, that cartoon in the homepage is in reference to my critique of the wrong usage of the synonymous "despite" by one of the Metro Manila broadsheets. Here's what I said about the misuse in My Media English Watch this week:

(a)   Wrong form of preposition – The preposition “despite of” is in the wrong form. It should be “despite” only, without the “of.” The alternative form for that preposition that correctly uses “of” is “in spite of.” Both of them mean “in defiance or contempt of” or “without being prevented by,” and they are freely interchangeable.

Thanks for alerting me about the error!   

[maxsims]

Chrissie Maher. OBE and founder of Plain English Campaign, could not take it anymore and said, “These sausage rolls have escaped from the technical production lines of the food industry to bring confusion and ruin the ‘ambience’ of our lunch breaks.”

One hopes that the above is not typical of THE Plain English Campaign, bearing, as it does, a strong similarity to the Australian Plain English Foundation's output.

It would appear that "any more" has become one word, and one is moved to ask "Why?".

Then, on reading the quoted sentence, one arrives at "bring confusion and ruin" and automatically associates the nound "ruin" with the verb "bring", only to discover that "ruin" is a verb whose object is "the ambience". (So spelt).   Confusion indeed!

A simple "to" in front of "ruin" would have avoided it.

[Joe Carillo]

I’ll look into the possible similarities between the prose outputs of the Britain-based Plain and English Campaign and the Australia-based Plain English Campaign. At the outset, though, I’d like to say that it would be perfectly all right with me if they are similar—or if they actually copied each other. After all, both are fighting for the same good English, aren’t they?

Yes, indeed, “any more” has now become the one word “anymore” in usage, and my digital Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary makes this entry and detailed usage note about those two words:

anymore
Function:adverb
Date:14th century

1 : any longer  <I was not moving anymore with my feet> — Anais Nin
2 : at the present time  : NOW  <hardly a day passes without rain anymore>
usage Although both anymore and any more are found in written use, in the 20th century anymore is the more common styling. Anymore is regularly used in negative  <no one can be natural anymore — May Sarton>, interrogative  <do you read much anymore?>, and conditional  <if you do that anymore, I'll leave> contexts and in certain positive constructions  <the Washingtonian is too sophisticated to believe anymore in solutions — Russell Baker>. In many regions of the United States the use of anymore in sense 2 is quite common in positive constructions, especially in speech  <everybody's cool anymore — Bill White>  <every time we leave the house anymore, I play a game called called “Stump the Housebreaker” — Erma Bombeck>. The positive use appears to have been of Midland origin, but it is now reported to be widespread in all speech areas of the United States except New England.

As to the grammar of Chrissie Maher’s statement, “These sausage rolls have escaped from the technical production lines of the food industry to bring confusion and ruin the ‘ambience’ of our lunch breaks,” I think the phrase “to bring confusion and ruin the ‘ambience’ of our lunch breaks” is grammatically OK both without or with the preposition ‘to” before ‘ruin’.” The use of the single “to” for the verbs “bring” and “ruin” as a compound verb phrase is perfectly good usage. However, as you pointed out, it would be much clearer if the two infinitive phrases “to bring confusion” and “to ruin the ‘ambience’ of our lunch breaks” are set in parallel, as in:

““These sausage rolls have escaped from the technical production lines of the food industry to bring confusion and to ruin the ‘ambience’ of our lunch breaks.”

It’s a matter of stylistic choice really.

[maxsims]

http://www.plainenglishfoundation.com/

Go to this site, see what is written under "What is Plain English?", and then tell me our language is in safe hands!     

[Joe Carillo]

Thanks for giving me a link to the Plain English Foundation site, maxsims. I've looked over the site with great interest, but I left it with a very uneasy feeling. Australian English may be in safe hands under the aegis of that foundation, but I do think that plain English need not be that plain and that it need not be as sterile as the English of that website. English trainers need not be gorgeous or debonair, for God's sake, but they need not be all that plain and unexciting! They must at least be interesting and lively in disposition, and the advertising and promotions for them arresting and a joy to read. For who in his right mind would ever want to train under specialists "in plain English training, writing, editing, and public speaking and events"? I'd rather train under competent specialists in good, plain, and simple English--whether it's in the area of writing, editing, public speaking, and events! And why would anyone want to study under "a plain English trainer and an experienced ESL teacher"? I'd rather study under a reasonably good-featured trainer in plain English, even if he or she isn't as experienced as an altogether plain-looking teacher! And finally, maxsims, I admit that I'm a stickler for good English prose, but I don't think I'd ever like or enjoy being edited by "a plain English editor and writer"--even if he or she has sterling credentials and all the fancy titles from the fanciest universities in the world!

Perhaps the resource persons and trainers of the Plain English Foundation are really great shakes--I'll grant the foundation that--but I do think that the quest for plain English need not be carried to deadening, rock-bottom proportions--at least not to the level of the English of that website!

[maxsims]

My sentiments exactly.    And I notice you were too gentlemanly to comment on the many errors.

[maxsims]

Blatant sexual innuendoes
in headlines can get newspapers
into a lot of trouble!

If an innuendo is blatant, can it by definition still be considered an innuendo?

[Joe Carillo]

Good, intriguing question!

Let’s see if “innuendo” will continue to hold water if it’s “blatant”:

Here’s the pertinent definition of “innuendo” according to my Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary:

innuendo
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -dos or -does
Etymology: Latin, by nodding, from innuere to nod to, make a sign to, from in- + nuere to nod; akin to Latin nutare to nod — more at  NUMEN
Date: 1678

1 a : an oblique allusion  : HINT, INSINUATION;  especially   : a veiled or equivocal reflection on character or reputation  b : the use of such allusions  <resorting to innuendo>

And here’s that dictionary’s definition for “blatant”:

blatant
Function: adjective
Etymology: perhaps from Latin blatire to chatter
Date: 1596

1 : noisy especially in a vulgar or offensive manner  : CLAMOROUS
2 : completely obvious, conspicuous, or obtrusive especially in a crass or offensive manner  : BRAZEN  <blatant disregard for the rules>
synonyms see VOCIFEROUS
–blatantly adverb

We’ll notice that the main characteristic of an “innuendo” is the obliqueness or equivocalness of the allusion; the adjective “blatant,” on the other hand, denotes being “noisy especially in a vulgar or offensive manner” or “completely obvious, conspicuous, or obtrusive especially in a crass or offensive manner.” In short, the blatantness of the delivery of an “innuendo” doesn’t nullify the degree of its insinuation or obliqueness; it even intensifies it.

I would think then that whether the “innuendo” is delivered as a whisper to one’s ear, shouted with a megaphone from the rooftops, or written in a contrived way in headline of a newspaper story, its nature will remain unchanged so long as the allusion remains oblique or equivocal.

[maxsims]

Exactly.    So it's not the sexual innuendoes that are blatant but the manner in which they are expressed.    Quite a different thing.

[magnus_alina]

What kind of reasoning is that? If the manner the sexual innuendo is expressed is, in fact, "blatant," why can't someone say that it is "a blatant sexual innuendo"? Really now, where's the guy who says this coming from?