English Language in the Bangkok Post and Other Publications

[stilljustbrowsing]

Nowt' wrong wi' tha' me ould' mucka, the "sphere" kneeds a guid shake wi' a spear frae time tae time! Foresoothe thou speakest true!

[danreiter2]

Sean,

Thanks for your generous reply to my somewhat heated retort. Let's do share a cold one if we ever meet in "myuang Thai." I was also mixing you up a bit with stilljustbrowseing, and I apologize for that. Your last post did indeed kick up the level of discourse a notch; however, I still think you missed my main point. I certainly have nothing against Thais writing articles in English, even when (to a native speaker of English) their English sounds/appears obviously "strange." Indians have their own form of English and it has really become a separate dialect. But here's the rub: Since the Bangkok Post claims proudly to be "the world's window on Thailand," do we really want them publishing articles in a dialect of English rather than the real McCoy? And this is especially disappointing if the article has greatness, yet is marred by constructions that a native speaker of English cannot understand. (I type the "but" and "and" above in bold to draw your attention to them. There is absolutely nothing incorrect about beginning a sentence with these words. Some (you?) may think them stylistically lacking. But now you're getting into dangerous territory. What is good style to you is often poor style to others.) So we're into the realm of opinion and you know what they say about opinions and every one having one.

I definitely need to post a longer example of what I'm referring to. Too tired now. Just finished an exhausting week of teaching (guess what?) English to difficult students. (No, definitely not in Thailand.) Thanks for keeping this thread going.

[stilljustbrowsing]

Hey Danwrighter, how on earth can you mix me up with Sean? Geologically we are diametrically opposed!

[Sean Moran]

Sean,

1. Thanks for your generous reply to my somewhat heated retort. Let's do share a cold one if we ever meet in "muang Thai." I was also mixing you up a bit with stilljustbrowsing, and I apologize for that.

2. Your last post did indeed kick up the level of discourse a notch; however, I still think you missed my main point. I certainly have nothing against Thais writing articles in English, even when (to a native speaker of English) their English sounds/appears obviously "strange." Indians have their own form of English and it has really become a separate
dialect. But here's the rub: Since the Bangkok Post claims proudly to be "the world's window on Thailand," do we really want them publishing articles in a dialect of English rather than the real McCoy? And this is especially disappointing if the article has greatness, yet is marred by constructions that a native speaker of English cannot understand.

3. (I type the "but" and "and" above in bold to draw your attention to them. There is absolutely nothing incorrect about beginning a sentence with these words. Some (you?) may think them stylistically lacking. But now you're getting into dangerous territory. What is good style to you is often poor style to others.) So we're into the realm of opinion and you know what they say about opinions and every one having one.

4. I definitely need to post a longer example of what I'm referring to. Too tired now. Just finished an exhausting week of teaching (guess what?) English to difficult students. (No, definitely not in Thailand.) Thanks for keeping this thread going.

4. Back in 2007 when I was linking some of the stories from this newspaper to the forums I was playing on, it did occur to me that it might have come across as literary harrassment of the journalist concerned if I continued to publically shame reports of good stories in almost-good English, even though it might be on some unknown little forum somewhere out in the virtual wildrness that nobody bothered to read anyway. A pointless discouragement to the author, so that was the other reason I stopped with my obsezzive-compulzive <sic> enhancements. They only confused the forum reader as well as firing pot-shots at the messenger. I'd certainly never dream of correcting a published newspaper article here on this forum, except maybe very, very discreetly, so that the correction went unnoticed by the reader as well as the original author, hopefully.

I reckon that we might all sometimes notice these occasional minor errors without having to draw unwanted public attention to them or the reporters who might be rushing to get a breaking news story online. It's quite common if you monitor the breaking news column minute by minute that a new report might appear, only to be edited half an hour later. I dig those dynamics - at least the breaking news stories gets published ASAP, warts and all.

Would it perhaps be a more gentle operation to NOT publically relay these little imperfections, especially on this forum, as if you're right about the errors, then it will needlessly embarrass the author, and by the same token, if you're wrong, then egg-on-face to you just the same. It is clear that typos and plain old mistakes in spelling, grammar, and structure do happen, but it's hardly the way Dale Carnegie would advise us to win friends or influence anybody.

Sometimes, (and I'm thinking more of students at beginner and intermediate levels), it really helps me to notice some of the weird inconsistencies of the English language. I've learned a few things I'd never have realised by observing foreign language students mangle some of the quirks inherent to English. For instance,

Native speaker: "Hi there!"
Novice EFL listener: Huh? *looks up at sky * Where?

Say Hello, not Hi. Say difficult, not hard. Hard is the opposite of soft. Difficult is the opposite of easy.

Errors of this kind tend to point the finger straight back at the language itself, because the writer/speaker sees things that we mistakenly learned so long ago that we've become blind to. I don't like errors from native speakers, but they happen. Often though, ESL student errors can be a learning experience for the teacher, as I'm sure you'll understand if that's what you're doing thesedays, even if you're teaching literally-challenged native-speakers.

---o0o---

3. On the conjunctions, it is not a matter of style at all. It is a RULE. An old trap for new players, but still a well known rule of proper English - taught in school. I was hoping that the extract I c&p'd would explain this quite clearly, albeit forgivingly. One of the many errors commonly found in that most insidious of dialects, american English. It is now, IMHO also becoming a generational concern, where those of us who understand this rule will probably be in our graves in the next few years, leaving only the ignorant younger generation to further sabbotage the language. Mai pen lai. Not all that frightening until we think of what it contributes to the death of a culture already condemned to technicolor history.

---o0o---

2. Back at the start of this thread, the first main point I noticed was that you took the disregard for your concerns as a matter of "false pride". I remember writing something very similar on another forum regarding this forum's tinly little typo down in the footer last year where a minor typo made a BIG blunder in the words English Lessosns. I waited a whole darned 15 minutes for someone to read my Great Omniscient Advice and not a thing was done about it! NOTHING! So, naturally I did the only thing an arrogant troublemaker like me could do - I logged into another forum and ranted my heart out. Still didn't make any difference! Humph!

This maybe the World's Window to Thailand. Personally, having been stuck here on this desert island with ill health and no money for airfares for over two years now, it is indeed MY Window to Thailand. I do get a bit defensive and maybe overreact to some of the negative criticism, but it was your mention of "false-pride" that I responded to when I wondered what sort of pet you were qualified to vet. I was just being picky, according to the theme of this thread.

It seems to me that considering the excellent quality of writing in an English language newspaper based in a non-English speaking country, overall; you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Maybe if you write to the Washington Post and volunteer to proof-read their articles, that might be a good start to solving the linguistic crisis that English is currently suffering?

---o0o---

1. Don't mind SJB. He's an aviation specialist, not an English teacher. I reckon he can write whatever way he likes as long as the plane lands nice and gently. I haven't yet even begun to workout how to go about it, but I'm hoping once again to get back for at least a couple of weeks in May, and I'd be glad to catch up for a Chang if our paths cross. Not sure how long I'll be allowed to stay this time is all, or whether I'll be arrested at the arrivals lounge after some of my recent confessions here.

It's been a really teriffically (or was that terrifically?) fun discussion, and no doubt there's a lot more to talk write about, but I do wonder on the eventual outcomes of quoting various errors by other writers, not so much here on the forum, but that of the writers in the paper itself. What's that old saying? Don't mess with another man's rice bowl. Something like that. Particularly if it means lavishing american English sauce all over it.

[danreiter2]

Sean,

Nice reply. Wish I had as much free time as you to write longer contributions to this forum. Maybe once I retire in Thailand in two years. I'll need to find something to keep myself occupied, even though the end result might be zilch.

You seem obsessed with my use of the word "vet." Please check any good English dictionary; you'll see that the definition you find fits quite well with the meaning I intended. But I think you are getting into the realm of style again.

Now I know that if you are an Aussie, "vet" might be used only to refer to an animal doctor. However, here's your chance to widen your somewhat limited Aussie vocabulary.

As far as using "but" and "and" to begin sentences, your opinion (stated as a "rule" which it definitely is not) differs from mine. So be it. The magnificence of languages is that they change over time. What was once a grammatical rule has been swept into the dustbin of time. Get with it, Sean. Update your knowledge.

[Sean Moran]

Sean,

The magnificence of languages is that they change over time. What was once a grammatical rule has been swept into the dustbin of time. Get with it, Sean. Update your knowledge.

Languages evolve over time, but the foundations remain. That is why some people in the world still attend English classes even though they have cable-tv at home to lounge around watching all day if they didn't give a damn about it. I take it you are suggesting that we forget everything we know and just accept whatever standards of language Hollywood can sell us in the next big blockbuster. I reckon the term for where that sort of mentality belongs, (especially coming from someone who claims to teach the language), according to our gracious and benevolent mentors at Microsoft, is the Recycle Bin.

Updating one's knowledge does not mean forgetting the rules. If it did, then there'd be no grounds to criticise anyone's language skills. If it's freeform style and chaos that you're after, then let it be - that's progress! Definately just another "sign of the times", doesn't it?

You seem obsessed with my use of the word "vet." Please check any good English dictionary; you'll see that the definition you find fits quite well with the meaning I intended. But I think you are getting into the realm of style again.

Don't worry. I knew what you meant when you wrote "vet" rather than "edit" or "proof-read", but just saw the possible PC misdemeanour if indeed our language is evolving. What Twain wrote about being treated like a dog, we may not get away with thesedays. That was why I saw the opportunity to have some fun with it. There wasn't much material to work with.

Wish I had as much free time as you to write longer contributions to this forum. Maybe once I retire in Thailand in two years. I'll need to find something to keep myself occupied, even though the end result might be zilch.

It would be helpful if you had more free time to read and write here, but we all have our reasons for the pace of life we succumb to. I never have this much time in Thailand as here, due to the fact that I use Internet cafe's there, while I have this ADSL here at the apartment - allday everyday.

This is what I have been doing this week. A sign for the apartments here. Must be installed before next Tuesday when the strata hold their AGM. The wording of the sign is verbatim from the caretaker's pen, although I added the apostrophe myself, just to get it right. Do you think that the apostrophe should be removed to address the standards of our ever-changing language, or should it stay? I still have some work on the border and a few coats of clear laquer to stop the lettering from fading, but I'm not sure if I should scrub the apostrophe before I put it on the carpark wall:



What would you say about that apostrophe? I'm in two minds over it.

[danreiter2]

SJB,

Sorry about mixing a bit of you with a lot of Sean. I know you both only by your writing, and I think Sean might actually be the one to take offense at mixing him up (at all) with you.

Seriously, SJB..What about the substance of my post? I appreciate a good joke as well as anyone, but if this forum is used only for nonsense who, in the end, will end up reading it? And if no one reads it, it will cease to exist. If the nonsensical posts are really clever, fine. However, most are boring and tiring...

[stilljustbrowsing]

I really wish I could express myself better than I do. The thing is this, whether you can accept it or not, the majority of people who speak english do so at a "base" level. (in my oppinion)Whether they are "natural speakers" or have learnt english as a second language.
How many english speakers really understand the works of Shakespeare, not me for sure, perhaps that is why his works are still debated.
There would not be many good songs or poetry, if everyone adhered to the "laws of english language".
In my line of work, we are tought to write clearly and concisely, why write a hundred words when ten will suffice?
With regards to the substance of your post, it is correct. There is too much reliance on computer "word checker" systems these days. When the auther becomes dependant on such systems, the results appear obvious to me in the various newspapers.
I prefer accuracy of information rather than accuracy of literacy, for example, in some previous technical bulletins regarding work of a serious nature, the CAA wrote, "the following procedure is proscribed", we the "illiterate masses thought it meant it should be followed!" What is wrong with writing "following the procedure as written will kill you!"

[BarnacleBill]

May I quote to you from a book I use frequently? ("A Guide to the English Language and how to use it")
It is on the subject of the use of "and". It goes like this: "and: And has been commonly used as the first word of a sentence for ten centuries now - throughout the history of written English. The schoolroom prohibition on using 'and' to begin a sentence has not been going on quite that long, but it had become a well-entrenched traditional 'rule' of English grammar. And pedantic schoolteachers and stylists continue to abide by it and impose it on others.
But there seems no basis for the traditional rule - in grammar or logic - other than tradition itself, just as there is no good basis for the rule prohibiting "but" at the start of the sentence."

I have enjoyed all of your comments and responses on this subject, please dont stop.

[BarnacleBill]

May I quote to you from a book I use frequently? ("A Guide to the English Language and how to use it")
It is on the subject of the use of "and". It goes like this: "and: And has been commonly used as the first word of a sentence for ten centuries now - throughout the history of written English. The schoolroom prohibition on using 'and' to begin a sentence has not been going on quite that long, but it had become a well-entrenched traditional 'rule' of English grammar. And pedantic schoolteachers and stylists continue to abide by it and impose it on others.
But there seems no basis for the traditional rule - in grammar or logic - other than tradition itself, just as there is no good basis for the rule prohibiting "but" at the start of the sentence."

I have enjoyed all of your comments and responses on this thread, please dont stop.