The Queen’s English Society
- Author: Graham
- Filed under: Language
Jun 9,2010
I’ve been having run-ins with the Queen’s English Society since the early 1980s. Now they have raised their head again with the setting up of an English Academy, which the Society will run, and which is intended to be on a par with the French, Spanish and Italian Academies.
I’m all in favour of children being taught to write clear English, and even for them to be taught English grammar, but the question arises: what are the rules of English grammar which they should be taught?
The Queen’s English Society believes it knows the answer, but all the evidence I have is that its members each simply have their own prejudices. A former President, Godfrey Talbot – well-respected BBC journalist, by then long retired – gave a long speech at one of the Annual General Meetings of the Society in which he inveighed furiously against the intrusive ‘r’, all the while blissfully ignorant of the fact that he was constantly using it as he spoke. Others complain that the use of a double negative is “illogical”: “We ain’t got no tomatoes” is not usually misunderstood to mean “We have tomatoes”, and anyone whose response was “Good, I’ll take two pounds, please” would be likely to get an unwelcome answer! Spanish, meanwhile, regularly doubles the negative as reinforcement: “No hay nada” means “There’s nothing”. Does this make Spanish ‘illogical’? Language is not logical in a mathematical sense and cannot be made so.
The Queen’s English Society web site states “English is becoming corrupted in the age of mass communications, the text message, e-mail and the like”. Yet the society claims to accept that languages change through time: “English will evolve over time, but the QES exists to watch for and to resist changes that are detrimental to its impact and clarity”. I should be interested to know which changes its members see and hear happening today that they would consider not to be ‘detrimental’. The Appendix Probi, probably written in the 3rd century, gives a list of frequently mis-spelled Latin words (mis-spelled because ‘mispronounced’). The speakers of the day ignored these strictures and continued with their corrupt practices, until they created those well-known abominations of so-called language now known as French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian …
King Canute knew that he could not turn the tide, and proved this to his courtiers at Bosham. Who will prove the futility of the Queen’s English Society’s efforts to its members?
Archives
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
Links
Recent Posts
- Coerced pronunciation
- Eviscerating cholera
- Breast implants
- Ejectives again
- Garrow’s Law
- Clever Scientists
- Wrest or Wrestle?
- This is a must-have thing
- An unusual ‘intrusive’ r
- Political language
- A “new” word
- Prescriptive and Descriptive
- Nordic languages
- Norwegian – Bokmål and Nynorsk
- Utøya
Recent Comments
- Graham on Coerced pronunciation
- Marc Leavitt on Coerced pronunciation
- Laughman on lure, allure
- Jack Windsor Lewis on Coerced pronunciation
- Wingo on lure, allure
- Kevin on Eviscerating cholera
- Jack Windsor Lewis on Breast implants
- Jack Windsor Lewis on Eviscerating cholera
- Jack Windsor Lewis on Eviscerating cholera
- Graham on Eviscerating cholera
- John Maidment on Eviscerating cholera
- Petr on Eviscerating cholera
- R. Sabey on Breast implants
- Graham on Breast implants
- Svetlin Simeonov on Breast implants
14 Responses for "The Queen’s English Society"
No doubt the Society members would cite works like Shakespeare and the King James Bible as the paragons of English style. Show them how different Shaksepeare’s English was from that of 100 years earlier, and how relatively little the language changed in, say, the 20th century.
Surely they should call themselves the Cwenes Englisc society?
[...] but my lasting impression is of a well-meaning but thoroughly misguided group of fusty fusspots. Linguism has detailed some of the QES members’ inconsistencies, while a commenter to his post wryly suggests that they [...]
The post at “Sentence First” mentioned in the previous comment goes into the QES’s inconsistencies and prejudices much more fully than I have done.
If the QES was really interested in helping more people to use English well, it would campaign for reducing the inconsistencies of English spelling which make learning to read and write exceptionally difficult (see http://www.EnglishSpellingProblems.co.uk). Because of them, 1 in 5 speakers of English don’t even learn to read well and nearly half are extremely reluctant to write anything. This puts good use of English totally beyond their reach.
“1 in 5 speakers of English don’t even learn to read well and nearly half are extremely reluctant to write anything.” The subject here is “1″, a singular noun, so it takes a singular verb: “doesn’t”. If Masha Bell does not know that, what else does he or she not know?
As for the “1 in 5 speakers of English”, since English is the national language of many Commonwealth countries and a national language in the USA and Eire as well as the UK’s own national language, which of these countries is included in the “1 in 5″? And at what ages?
It could be the teachers’ fault.
“1 in 5 speakers of English don’t even learn to read well and nearly half are extremely reluctant to write anything.” The subject here is “1″, a singular noun, so it takes a singular verb: “doesn’t”. If Masha Bell does not know that, what else does he or she not know?
As for the “1 in 5 speakers of English”, since English is the national language of many Commonwealth countries, and a national language in the USA and Eire as well as the UK’s own national language, which of these countries is included in the “1 in 5″? And at what ages?
It could be the teachers’ or parents’ fault.
As for simplifying spelling, since English is the most widespread international language, who is going to tell the world to change the spellings of countless words?
And whose pronunciation will be used? Even in the UK, northerners take a “bath”, while southerners take a “barth”. Ova tu u, Masher.
By the by in French -ai, -ais, -ait, -ez, -é, -ée, -és, et, est are all pronounced the same.
How strange that in nearly every country there are so many people willing to criticize, but so few willing to do anything to help the situation.
If nobody fights against it, there will be even more generations saying,
“They was…..” and “I aint got no …..”
@Michael Allen-Williams
If only we’d had a Queen’s English Society in the Tudor era — then you would be saying “fighteth” instead of that Northern barbarism “fights”!
Personally, I think everything started going downhill when we stopped speaking Proto-Indo-European.
@Eric Hayman:
You are merging two phonemes of French (at least of standard Parisian French as is traditionally taught, which is the only sort of French I would expect a good QES supporter to care about).
In IPA, “et” is [e] and “est” is [ɛ]. The vowel qualities are comparable, although far from identical, to those of English LATE and LET.
Of your list, -ai, -ais, -ait, and est are usually pronounced [ɛ], while -ez, -é, -ée, -és, and et are usually pronounced [e].
We have set up a petition against the QES.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/queens-english-society-restraining-order/
I was also setting-up (or up-setting!) of the Proper English Foundation, a superior organisation in every way and one which will settle all English questions to a far more satisfying degree.
)
Eric! Well done on calling to our attention that
“1 in 5 don’t even learn to read well.”
does not exist as a sentence! You are quite correct and it really is necessary to rephrase it, for otherwise we’d need to concentrate on what Masha actually said.
I suppose there are some (bohemians) who would say that “don’t” and “doesn’t” fit equally well in this sentence, and that English-speakers today are slightly more free to choose and are less bound by superstitious dogma such as this. But, however, they are wrong! We need to find this one person who can’t spell and re-educate him.
(Masha is a female name, by the way, and double-posts may be avoided by avoiding them. In any case, your grammar has made your argument unassailable
As for spelling reform (a subject much more worthy of debate) – I doubt that an overhaul of English spelling would succeed, but a few changes to the most irregularly-spelled words is overdue. (The typical example given is the difference in pronunciation between tough, though, through and thorough.)
The Web-Master replied “You are merging two phonemes of French (at least of standard Parisian French as is traditionally taught, which is the only sort of French I would expect a good QES supporter to care about).”
I really wonder how many English speakers are in a position to differentiate between various dialects of any foreign language, including French.
To say that Parisian French “is the only sort of French I would expect a good QES supporter to care about” has more than a sniff of snobbishness about it. I have spoken my schoolboy French in various parts of France, in Belgium, and in half a dozen francophone African countries. Ditto my schoolboy German in Germany. At (Grammar) school, my Devonian English master would have been hard put to teach such minute sound variations as the “et” and “est” you posit.
My other examples “-ai, -ais, -ait, -ez, -é, -ée, -és” were all taught as the “ay” in “hay”, and no doubt they all appear in song and verse as full rhymes.
While I concede, in retrospect, the “et”, “est” difference may be true in “standard Parisian French”, what is the use of any “standard” dialect if it is not used by the hearer?
Currently, BBC newsreaders are talking of something like “Ba-kh-rain” with one breath and “Pa-riss” with another. Chacun à son goût!
To say that Parisian French “is the only sort of French I would expect a good QES supporter to care about” has more than a sniff of snobbishness about it.
And the QES doesn’t? LOL!
what is the use of any “standard” dialect if it is not used by the hearer?
Maybe you should ask the QES that question.
@eric hayman
“1 in 5 speakers of English don’t…” is perfectly correct. 1 in 5 of several hundred million is undeniably a plural. Now you may have noticed I use the singular form “is” there. The reason for this is that, as I was writing, I was thinking about a large number which existed independently as the subject of the following verb, whereas when Miss Bell typed her response she was thinking of millions of individuals who were the subject(s) of the following verb.
Your kind of nit-picking pedanterasty* is exactly the reason we should be grateful we don’t have an academy dictating how we should speak, but an army of enthusiasts who listen, take notes, then say “how interesting”. I’ll take the jovial indulgent uncles of the OED over the hypocritical, pompous Victorian dads of the Academie Française any day of the week.
*I also thank God we are able to make up words when we think they sound cool, and are applauded for our inventiveness rather than greeted with howls of outrage from a stuffed shirt nailed to a Second Empire chair.
Leave a reply