Academy of English

[Cecily]

The (British) Queen's English Society is to set up an Academy of English to advise on usage in a way that minimises change.

News story: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article7145147.ece

The QES’s website: http://www.queens-english-society.com/pageone.html

Their list of errors is (currently) a very short and odd selection. It has a long way to go before it could be considered a useful resource, so I wonder why they didn't expand and refine their material before making the announcement.

I spent a while perusing the website, but although I love language and endorse the idea of promoting knowledge and understanding of it, I don’t think that is what this site does. There is too much nonsense and even nastiness for my liking.

Know your audience; context is all. Those are rules. Most of the others are guidelines.

They should heed Samuel Johnson's Preface to A Dictionary of the English Language:

"Those who have been persuaded to think well of my design, require that it should fix our language, and put a stop to those alterations which time and chance have hitherto been suffered to make in it without opposition... I flattered myself for a while; but now begin to fear that I have indulged expectation which neither reason nor experience can justify... may the lexicographer be derided, who being able to produce no example of a nation that has preserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his language, and secure it from corruption and decay... Sounds are too volatile and subtile for legal restraints; to enchain syllables, and to lash the wind, are equally the undertakings of pride, unwilling to measure its desires by its strength."

From http://www.lexilogos.com/document/johnson_dictionary_preface.htm

Or does anyone here think this is a viable and worthy idea?

[meatyochre]

It seems like the general consensus of forumites here (at least the ones I've noticed) is that English is a living language and it's going to change whether you like it or not. Already there's an informal movement to make "their" a genderless singular pronoun. And other things that make grammar purists twitch.

Foolhardy endeavor, but whatever makes them happy, I suppose.

[Cecily]

Already there's an informal movement to make "their" a genderless singular pronoun.

Don't get me started on that! The short version is that singular their/they is NOT grammatically incorrect. The "rule" was invented by Anne Fisher, an 18th-century British schoolmistress who wrote a popular grammar book, but oddly, has a stronger hold on AmE than BrE. Chaucer, Austen, Byron, Thackeray, Eliot, Trollope, Dickens and many others have used it routinely. If “you” can be singular or plural, why the objections to “they”? It's not a feminist point about gender-neutral language but a practical acceptance of history and the fact it is useful, widely used and unambiguous.

Debates such as that are exactly why I think an academy is pointless and doomed to fail. It would be especially hard to apply to English because it is such an international language that already has so many variants.

[Lazar]

The (British) Queen's English Society is to set up an Academy of English to advise on usage in a way that minimises change.

I'm aware that several other European countries have got language academies, but I don't see the utility in it. (And without the support of the state, I don't think this endeavor will have anything like the status of the French Academy or the RAE.) It looks like they'll probably just be spouting a bunch of tired prescriptive nonsense.

Don't get me started on that! The short version is that singular their/they is NOT grammatically incorrect. The "rule" was invented by Anne Fisher, an 18th-century British schoolmistress who wrote a popular grammar book, but oddly, has a stronger hold on AmE than BrE. Chaucer, Austen, Byron, Thackeray, Eliot, Trollope, Dickens and many others have used it routinely. If “you” can be singular or plural, why the objections to “they”? It's not a feminist point about gender-neutral language but a practical acceptance of history and the fact it is useful, widely used and unambiguous.

I second this wholeheartedly: singular "they" is well established in English usage, and it serves its purpose just fine. (And you can add Shakespeare to the list of users: "There's not a man I meet but doth salute me / As if I were their well-acquainted friend.")

[meatyochre]

Already there's an informal movement to make "their" a genderless singular pronoun.

Don't get me started on that! The short version is that singular their/they is NOT grammatically incorrect. The "rule" was invented by Anne Fisher, an 18th-century British schoolmistress who wrote a popular grammar book, but oddly, has a stronger hold on AmE than BrE. Chaucer, Austen, Byron, Thackeray, Eliot, Trollope, Dickens and many others have used it routinely. If “you” can be singular or plural, why the objections to “they”? It's not a feminist point about gender-neutral language but a practical acceptance of history and the fact it is useful, widely used and unambiguous.

Debates such as that are exactly why I think an academy is pointless and doomed to fail. It would be especially hard to apply to English because it is such an international language that already has so many variants.

I appreciate the additional information. My English teacher indoctrinated me pretty thoroughly on how it wasn't proper to use "their" in a singular sense (I always used he/she or him/her from that point onward). But she loved Shakespeare, too! So I wonder where the rabid anti-their sentiment comes from.

[goofy]

The (British) Queen's English Society is to set up an Academy of English to advise on usage in a way that minimises change.

Give them an academy if they want, and let them make decrees on whatever areas of usage bother them. It won't make any difference.

[Cecily]

Give them an academy if they want, and let them make decrees on whatever areas of usage bother them. It won't make any difference.

They have it already, but only inasmuch as a group of people set up something with that name. It has no authority of any kind.

The site has a wider and, in my opinion nastier, agenda than mere linguistic presctiptivism.

The founder still insists on using "gay" to mean "happy" (a plea repeated on the website), so I hope he's unlikely to be taken seriously by many. There's also a strange and rather sinister paragraph about homosexuality here: http://queens-english-society.com/gender3.html.

They are predictably arrogant about American English, saying "we can now consider the differences that exist between British and American English, accept those which are acceptable and reject those that are not." (http://queens-english-society.com/britamerican2.html)

[Velifer]

It's not a feminist point about gender-neutral language but a practical acceptance of history and the fact it is useful, widely used and unambiguous.

Something could be accepted in the past, fall out of favor, and be re-instituted for very different reasons. The currently increasing frequency of the use of "they" as singular neutral is from an interest in gender-inclusiveness/feminism.

"A practical acceptance of history" ...what a curious phrase. It assumes people actually know history.

[goofy]

Something could be accepted in the past, fall out of favor, and be re-instituted for very different reasons.

That didn't happen with singular they. It's been used continuously for about six centuries (MWDEU).

[Pez Dispens3r]

From the website layout alone it is obvious these people should have no power to adjudicate on matters of style or taste, but then we get gems in the written content such as "the aim of the QES Academy is not to educate the uneducated but rather to correct the errors of the educated." An academy that has no desire to educate the uneducated? Deary me.

[Cecily]

Anyone who sets themselves up as some sort of authority is bound to come a cropper, but that doesn't spoil one's delight in pointing it out.

Their very brief list of errors (http://www.queens-english-society.com/errors_list.html) doesn't mention prepositions - yet.

The page about the founder mentions "his Mother" (capital M) and has a very inelegant avoidance of a split infinitive: "working out how elegantly to present in English a text originally written (often badly) in another language".

Even where they have a point, the information is not presented in a way that is easy for those most in need of it, whether educated or not. For instance, if you quickly wanted to check me/myself/I, try gleaning a simple rule from this page: http://www.queens-english-society.com/errors_i_me_myself.html.

And can anyone explain this observation about "sanction"?
"Portmanteau words are words that "wrap up" two or more meanings in a single word so that, when they are used, it is not clear which of those meanings is intended. They should be replaced by separate words for each meaning. "Sanction" is one such word."
(http://queens-english-society.com/errors.html)

[goofy]

And can anyone explain this observation about "sanction"?
"Portmanteau words are words that "wrap up" two or more meanings in a single word so that, when they are used, it is not clear which of those meanings is intended. They should be replaced by separate words for each meaning. "Sanction" is one such word."
(http://queens-english-society.com/errors.html)

They're complaining that "sanction" has two opposite meanings. But they've completely misunderstood what a portmanteau word is.

[Cecily]

They're complaining that "sanction" has two opposite meanings. But they've completely misunderstood what a portmanteau word is.

That was my first thought, but I struggled to believe that anyone claiming to be an authority on the English language could be so ignorant of the meaning of a not very obscure word.


Has anyone pressed for an American Academy of English, and would have any more chance of success than this British version? Noah Webster didn't achieve everything he wanted, but he was pretty successful at changing usage. I wonder why he succeeded, and also, how the transition worked.

[goofy]

Has anyone pressed for an American Academy of English, and would have any more chance of success than this British version? Noah Webster didn't achieve everything he wanted, but he was pretty successful at changing usage. I wonder why he succeeded, and also, how the transition worked.

I think Webster influenced spelling because he was lucky enough to be publishing the most popular dictionary. It seems to me that most attempts to change language by decree don't succeed.

[TaintedDeity]

If this group were doing just what their name implies I would be pretty neutral on this but, as it is, that site has some pretty horrible views and ideas. Fuck that.

[Pez Dispens3r]

I think Webster influenced spelling because he was lucky enough to be publishing the most popular dictionary. It seems to me that most attempts to change language by decree don't succeed.

I think Webster was successful for two reasons. Firstly, he compiled his dictionary with an eye for custom and taste. Secondly, there was a nationalistic need for an American English authority.

But, yes, where a language authority is convenient for resolving disputes and helping with standardization, these people are a bunch of pedantic berks who wouldn't know careful considered usage from their own bumhole.

[Velifer]

Has anyone pressed for an American Academy of English?

We have one, but the membership standards are pretty low.

[Cecily]

We have one, but the membership standards are pretty low.

Very good.

The QES Academy of English is now being discussed on Language Log (but remember, you read it here first), where they diverted to discussing the words "jinguistics" or "jingoistics" for "the impulse to grammar police your language for political reasons". I think it's an excellent word and intend to use it when I get a suitable opportunity. See http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2384.

[Lazar]

I love Language Log so much.

[RabbitWho]

Seeing as how there are more non-native speakers speaking English now than native speakers (according to a poster I have from Oxford University Press) we really have no right to dictate to anyone how they can or cannot use the language as long as we can understand them.


Jesus!
http://queens-english-society.com/gender3.html
Subtext: LGBTQ (and especially T) people are invalid.

Nauseated.
The dictionaries are our tools. A lexicographer does not have views. A lexicographer is only interested in things like frequency and and potential longevity etc. A lexicographer does not decide what a word means, she records what it means.
No one unelected person or small group of people have the right to decide that. An election would be meaningless because the dictionaries are diplomatic as the language is diplomatic. The language and the way we use it dictates to the dictionaries, not the other way around.

[Pez Dispens3r]

I have recently been in contact with Mr Estinel, the 71-year-old who founded the society. I started sending an email to the society, mostly full of insults, but then decided to tone it down a little and offer more helpful criticism. He was very polite in his response, and complimented me on my usage (even though I made sure to bait a few pieces of AmE in my letter). He said he did not write the "Errors" section, where most of the site's wall-bangers exist, and in light of the public response to the society going "live" he amended the Academy page to read a little softer.

While many people welcome The Academy and agree with the QES that it is well overdue and that "something must be done" to "preserve" the language, others condemn the initiative, precisely by taking issue with the word "preserve". The detractors, quite rightly, decry any attempt to either "freeze" the language in its present form or to "police" it, that is to say to enforce a particular style of English among the general public.

That's not a bad concession, but then we get this.

Next we have the common curs. They maul and massacre the language at every twist and turn and they "ain't not going to 'ave no smart git tellin' 'em wot they've got to say".

So, jury's out on this society's merits. The people who feel Merriam-Webster and The OED are too permissive aren't going to support a society that's anything less than hypercorrectively pedantic, and the people who would support a descriptive academy already have Merriam-Webster and The OED. So, yeah, boned to failure I would say.

[Velifer]

Nah, all it will take is one department chair in one English department in one stinking little university in the middle of nowhere to say that his freshman comp class has to follow the rules of this group and you'll have another one of these on your hands in no time.

I was expected to purchase a Chicago Manual of Style book and follow its edicts for freshman comp. I just decided to spend the $60 on beer and take a few points off for not formatting my bibliography correctly.

[Pez Dispens3r]

Chicago is god to me because of its currency in the humanities, but I must admit I've never followed from a copy of it, only usage guides which interpret from the beast (I have the sixth edition from Marius & Page's A Short Guide to Writing About History in front of me, which takes all its cues from CMS). I do love the Q&A on their site, though, and I am considering the 35 dollar annual access fee to the online edition.

[vaguelyhumanoid]

This sort of reminds me of Francoist Spain, what with its bizarre mixture of linguistic purism, pedantry, and anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-working class statement.
They aren't the linguistic House of Lords, they're the goddamn linguistic BNP!