It was gratifying to see the response to my column last week on the problems of poor spelling. People care. There鈥檚 hope for literacy.
As I finished that column, I cringed a bit. Writing about spelling and grammar invites close scrutiny and presents the potential for considerable embarrassment. How would it be to write such a column and have someone discover in it a misspelled word or a lapse in grammar?
One reader wondered if I had erred in my spelling of resum茅, suggesting it should be r茅sum茅. He conceded the point when I told him my spelling conformed to the Oxford Dictionary, but that鈥檚 still an issue open to debate.
Other readers discovered a definite error in a Times 91原创 article the next day that said 91原创s are inclined to 鈥渉orde鈥� pennies.
鈥淚 was bemused to read about the 鈥榟ordes鈥� of pennies that 91原创s have been hoarding,鈥� wrote Jill Chamberlain. 鈥淧erhaps we will find them swarming like the Mongol armies out of our piggy banks, jars and wallets in an effort to get back into circulation before it鈥檚 too late.鈥�
Ouch. It鈥檚 easy to do 鈥� the fingers fly over the keyboard, the deadline approaches and the brain skips a synapse. And spell-checking doesn鈥檛 recognize the difference between 鈥渉orde鈥� and 鈥渉oard.鈥�
It鈥檚 a reminder to those of us in the word business to slow down and take a second look.
Several readers decried the wholesale abuse of the apostrophe, including one who spelled it 鈥渁postrophy.鈥� (He was right on the mark otherwise.)
Another reader complained that newspapers are at fault in the decline of language, that every page is 鈥渓oaded with poor english.鈥�
There鈥檚 always room for improvement, but that reader was exaggerating, from my perspective. And yet, it鈥檚 an exaggeration I understand 鈥� one misspelling, one incorrect word, one grammatical slip can create a poor impression for a whole page.
This page, for example, contains 2,351 words. If it contains one typographical or grammatical error, it is still 99.957464909 per cent correct, according to my desktop calculator (not to put too fine a point on it). That鈥檚 a gold-star score for any student, but in the newspaper business, it鈥檚 the one wrong word that gets the attention. And so it should.
A language purist can find plenty to criticize in a newspaper, but the newspaper鈥檚 job is to communicate clearly. Sometimes that means using the language informally; sometimes it means breaking the rules.
Sylvia Bowen wrote of her grammar-school experiences, noting that using 鈥渁nd鈥� or 鈥渂ut鈥� to begin a sentence was an unforgivable error.
But I disagree. Rules can be broken effectively to add emphasis or create a certain rhythm. The same with incomplete sentences. The important part is to know that you are breaking the rules and why, and you should be prepared to take the consequences. The problems occur when people break the rules because they don鈥檛 know the rules, and communication suffers. That鈥檚 where I stand firmly with Sylvia. Because we sometimes break the rules doesn鈥檛 mean the rules shouldn鈥檛 exist.
Speaking of communication, I was covering a trial where the judge asked the prosecutor a question.
鈥淚 am not privy to that information, Your Honour,鈥� answered the lawyer.
Absolutely correct grammar, but fuzzy communication, I thought. 鈥淗ell if I know鈥� would have been clearer.
Not necessarily, said a lawyer friend when I told him of the incident, teasing him about his tribe鈥檚 use of hundred-dollar words when 50-cent ones would do.
鈥淭he prosecutor probably knew, but wasn鈥檛 supposed to know,鈥� said my friend. 鈥淗e and the judge were communicating perfectly.鈥�
Lesson learned 鈥� the language should fit the circumstances.
English is a living, evolving language, and we should allow it to grow and change, but that doesn鈥檛 mean letting it deterioriate.
Thanks to all those who cared enough to write about language and spelling, who champion the proper and effective use of English. Enjoyable letters all, but the best, without doubt, was written by an inmate at the William Head Institution. Check it out on Friday鈥檚 letters page.
