# The Decline of Formality in Language



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

on the decline of language.



> Formality matters. It creates a space between us that allows for a measure of independence and freedom. Take it away and that space is open to all manner of intruders, not all of them commercial.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

*Spot On!*

Too bad this didn't appear in the States where "corporate-speak" is endemic. I'm sorry, but it is not good practice to continually change nouns into verbs, concoct elaborate phrases to describe simple concepts or otherwise butcher the language. The educational establishment is the most to blame for the current state of affairs. When I see a paper that says things like: "the distal causes of cognitive development enhancement", I see how this obfuscatory gobbledygook seeps into the language as a whole.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> it is not good practice to continually change nouns into verbs


Oh, I hate that.

The reverse irritates me as well; "impact" is best used as a noun, and in any event is not a substitute for "affect."


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

There are editors who believe they are "guardians of the language." I used to believe that and I was wrong. It's important to strive for accuracy, clarity and brevity, but language is fluid and will change in spite of self-appointed guardians, who will be largely tuned out. My goal is to have the least cumbersome way of stating something, even if rules must be broken like changing a noun into a verb, ending a sentence with a preposition or splitting an infinitive. Good writers recognize that words have sounds even in print; the goal is something that doesn't "sound" balky as the reader tries to digest it.

Even super-fastidious word people acknowledge that some rules were dumb to begin with and that others have become dumb over time. I recommend a book called "Miss Thistlebottom's Hobgoblins/The Careful Writer's Guide to the Taboos, Bugbears and Outmoded Rules of English Usage." The author, Theodore M. Bernstein, was an assistant managing editor of The New York Times when it was still extremely anal-retentive in the 1950s and 1960s. Even he, author of a bunch of books about usage (chiefly "The Careful Writer"), recognized that language will change no matter how hard we try to stop it. Although I imagine Bernstein would draw the line at such Internet shorthand as LOL.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

In English, at least, slanglish has all but replaced language. Slang can be very creative, even somewhat poetic and insightful, but it loses its power when used everywhere and at all times; especially when it is used as nothing more than glue to patch together a string of stale cliches.

As with stylish dress, context and good taste are paramount. It is sad to see such simple errors as a confusion of 'it's' and 'its' made by supposedly educated people who certainly have the intelligence to comprehend such distinctions. Connected closely with the suicide of Western civilisation has been a shake-up of priorities even at the individual level.

Even as the tradesman or factory worker is deprived of his livelihood by sociopathic corporate exportation of jobs to enemy nations, he is further degraded by having been given such a mockery of education and mainstream culture as will not permit him to naturally retain the dignity of a grown and free man. No one wears suits in breadlines anymore; they dress like children.

The basis of a truly egalitarian and democratic society is a culture of education and self-respect. It is not a little ironical that the latter began to vanish in proportion to the rise of the rhetoric of the former.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

My current favorite is "I want to grow my business," or "My plan will grow jobs."

You can grow tomatoes and you can grow weary of stuff like this but dammit, you cannot grow jobs.

Between a regard for clothing and a love of language I feel sometimes that I am building a wall that segregates me from society as effectively as if I lived in an armed compound.

And you best not be coming in or I'll bust a cap in your rear end. (Hind quarters?)


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Oh, I hate that.
> 
> The reverse irritates me as well; "impact" is best used as a noun, and in any event is not a substitute for "affect."


I couldn't agree more about "impact" vs. "affect." But everytime I raise the issue with someone, they treat me as if I am insane. Popular culture has become completely blind to the difference, but this misuse drives me to distraction.

Another thing that really bothers me is the prole habit of introducing a quotation with "quote-unquote," rather than starting the quotation with "quote" and ending it with "unquote." And of course when they add the hand signals for quotation marks, two fingers of each hand scratching at thin air, my stomach actually turns.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Use of the word "impactful" should be grounds for immediate flogging.


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

William Strunk.


----------



## DaveInPhilly (May 16, 2005)

As a young professional just starting out, I realize how poor my command of the English language actually is. I would really like to imporve my grammar and my speech. For the first time I am dealing with folks who really speak and write well and I realize how impressive it can be. I find myself resorting to Wikipedia often to figure out when to use "that" instead of "which" and that sort of thing. Does any one recomend any guides or handbooks out there that might get me going in the right direction?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

As m kielty mentioned, there's always Strunk & White's _Elements of Style_.

But _Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace_ by Joseph Williams is more accessible than Strunk & White. There is also a condensed version, _The Basics of Clarity & Grace_.

I also recommend Bryan Garner's _Legal Writing in Plain English_.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Dictionary of Modern American Usage, Bryan Garner

Modern English Usage, H.G. Fowler (although it isn't current, and many would question some of its applicability in the United States)

I also encourage you to read good writing. For my money John Updike is unequalled, each sentence a jewel. You can also see good, clear writing in the New Yorker every week.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

DaveInPhilly said:


> As a young professional just starting out, I realize how poor my command of the English language actually is. I would really like to imporve my grammar and my speech. For the first time I am dealing with folks who really speak and write well and I realize how impressive it can be. I find myself resorting to Wikipedia often to figure out when to use "that" instead of "which" and that sort of thing. Does any one recomend any guides or handbooks out there that might get me going in the right direction?


For simplicity's sake, you could get an Associated Press stylebook. I believe you can buy an online version that's searchable.

Some grammar maven called it the "wicked which," but its use is simple, although routinely misused. Use "that" for a restrictive (essential) clause, use "which" for an unrestrictive (non-essential) clause. A clause using "which" would be one that is set off by commas.

Restrictive: We ate all the peaches that were ripe. (Only the ripe peaches were eaten).

Unrestrictive: We ate all the peaches, which were ripe. (We ate all the peaches, and they all happened to be ripe.)

Edit: I would recommend William Zinsser's classic, "On Writing Well." It's the most readable. A fourth edition just came out a few months ago.


----------



## Jaguar (Feb 12, 2006)

Liberty Ship said:


> Another thing that really bothers me is the prole habit of introducing a quotation with "quote-unquote," rather than starting the quotation with "quote" and ending it with "unquote." And of course when they add the hand signals for quotation marks, two fingers of each hand scratching at thin air, my stomach actually turns.


Now if that doesn't sound like Wolfe...


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

Phinn said:


> As m kielty mentioned, there's always Strunk & White's _Elements of Style_.
> 
> But _Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace_ by Joseph Williams is more accessible than Strunk & White. There is also a condensed version, _The Basics of Clarity & Grace_.
> 
> I also recommend Bryan Garner's _Legal Writing in Plain English_.


I'm going out and pick up _Ten Lessons._
Posting has shown me how inadequate my skills really are.
Your advice has been most impactful.
Thank you.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Your advice has been most impactful.


A language regulation squad is en route to pay you a visit, kielty. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

DaveInPhilly said:


> As a young professional just starting out, I realize how poor my command of the English language actually is. I would really like to imporve my grammar and my speech. For the first time I am dealing with folks who really speak and write well and I realize how impressive it can be. I find myself resorting to Wikipedia often to figure out when to use "that" instead of "which" and that sort of thing. Does any one recomend any guides or handbooks out there that might get me going in the right direction?


https://www.amazon.com/Kings-English-Oxford-Language-Classics/dp/0198605072

And as for the speech part, buy some audiobooks of literary classics read by competent narrators, and listen to them with the same care as though you were learning a foreign language.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> https://www.amazon.com/Kings-English-Oxford-Language-Classics/dp/0198605072
> 
> And as for the speech part, buy some audiobooks of literary classics read by competent narrators, and listen to them with the same care as though you were learning a foreign language.


One simple technique will help the average American improve his speech, at least his articulation and enunciation, almost instantly: move your mouth when you speak. It works wonders. Watch a BBC announcer deliver the evening news in RP English, and then turn to Jennings - wait, he's gone - or Rather - wait, he's gone, or . . . who the hell are the news anchors on the networks these days? Oh well, watch the BBC announcer and then turn to O'Reilly. Observe the pronounced difference in the use of the organs of speech between the two. This difference is even more striking when you compare run-of-the-mill, educated Americans and educated English speakers from other parts of the world. We Americans often sound as if we're trying to swallow our words, rather than project them.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I also recommend Bryan Garner's _Legal Writing in Plain English_.


Garner's manuals are surprisingly good. His _Dictionary of American Usage and Style_ has a marked legal tone, which some readers may find distasteful; but if one can look past that failing it really is a useful handbook in the tradition of Fowler and Follett. His more specialized legal manuals, such as the one Phinn recommends, are also convenient sources of sound advice and instruction: however, his campaign to remove all case citations to footnotes, while logically unassailable, is doomed by sheer professional inertia. I've seen one brief composed as Garner recommends and it looked clean and crisp and really odd. I wouldn't try it.

There are many style, usage, and composition guides; however, for my money the best remains Graves' and Hodges' _The Reader Over Your Shoulder_. _Not _the revised, abridged edition that was reissued in the 70s, which is good, but the unabridged first edition published during WWII, which is great. When he wasn't summoning The White Goddess to ignite his poetic flame, Graves wrote a very clear, vigorous prose and in TROYS he demonstrates how he did it, and how others can do it as well. A copy of the first edition is probably not that hard to find these days, with the resources now available on the Internet, and it is easily worth any reasonable price.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

One of my pet peeves is the over-use of the word 'community'. Apparently every group of people is a community now: the business community, the industrial community, the military community, the political hack community, the lion tamer community, the healthcare community, _ad naseum_.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

I have found this site useful over ther years:


----------



## DaveInPhilly (May 16, 2005)

Let me ask you all a question that I have been struggling with a little while now.

I was just recently corrected when I wrote in a cover letter "I have enclosed..."

I was told that it is proper to write "I enclose..."

Is this true? It seems so awkward. I can see it makes sense if you follow the logic that the reader is meant to read the letter as if the words were being spoken to him and the enclosure was being handed to him at that present time. I guess I just get hung up on the fact that I _enclosed _the thing several days prior to the letter being read.

Now what if its an email?

"I have attached..." 
"I attach..."
...


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

DaveInPhilly said:


> Let me ask you all a question that I have been struggling with a little while now.
> 
> I was just recently corrected when I wrote in a cover letter "I have enclosed..."
> 
> ...


I agree with you.

When the letter reaches the recipient, the item would have been enclosed. You are not enclosing the item at the time of reading, time has passed.

I assume you would then switch to present tense.

This would be awkward for some, but
I'm thinking in terms of personal correspondence with a conversational tone, not business.

How about, "You'll find enclosed?"

I haven't received my copy of _Ten Lessons _yet.:icon_smile:


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Yes, the formal convention for writings is that one uses the present tense.

Legal documents still adhere to this form -- "I hereby agree ...," "I leave the rest, remainder and residue of my estate to ...," and so on.

"Enclosed please find ..." is another way of phrasing it. This phrase is still in the present tense, even though it is hidden -- it is an abbreviated way of saying, "[X document] *is* enclosed ..."


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

m kielty said:


> I agree with you.
> 
> When the letter reaches the recipient, the item would have been enclosed. You are not enclosing the item at the time of reading, time has passed.
> 
> ...


Where I clerk we insist on "enclosed herewith please find" and "attached herewith please find"


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I hate locutions like "Enclosed please find". It is much more natural to write, "I enclose" or something like that. "Please" means that you are requesting that the person you are addressing do something, whereas this isn't really a request: the document is in the envelope, there is no trick or effort involved in finding it.

There are a lot of similar locutions in legal writing, almost all of which are unnecessary impediments to communications. For instance, "COMES NOW the plaintiff herein, by and through his attorney, and says unto this honorable Court . . ." as opposed to "Plaintiff says . . ." Another example is the use of initial capitals for common nouns in legal writing, such as Plaintiff, Defendant, Court, etc. I try to get all of this out of my writing, and out of the writing of the lawyers I supervise.

You often hear it claimed that some linguistic fomulation is required for the document to be legally effective, but this appears to be universally incorrect.
Here's one of many sites devoted to the plain language movement in legal writing:


----------



## PreppyBoy (Jan 1, 2005)

Lushington said:


> One simple technique will help the average American improve his speech, at least his articulation and enunciation, almost instantly: move your mouth when you speak. It works wonders.


I agree.

I'm always categorized as European, based on my pronunciation and choice of words. In New York, slang & the slurring of words is pretty much standard. Something I choose to do without.

A few years ago a gentlemen visiting from the UK asked me how long I was living in the States when he was asking for directions. When I told him all my life, he was shocked.

Excellent topic!


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I hate locutions like "Enclosed please find". It is much more natural to write, "I enclose" or something like that. "Please" means that you are requesting that the person you are addressing do something, whereas this isn't really a request: the document is in the envelope, there is no trick or effort involved in finding it.
> 
> There are a lot of similar locutions in legal writing, almost all of which are unnecessary impediments to communications. For instance, "COMES NOW the plaintiff herein, by and through his attorney, and says unto this honorable Court . . ." as opposed to "Plaintiff says . . ." Another example is the use of initial capitals for common nouns in legal writing, such as Plaintiff, Defendant, Court, etc. I try to get all of this out of my writing, and out of the writing of the lawyers I supervise.
> 
> ...


I love the formal legal formulations. One of the few things, given negative public perception, that still makes law a profession. I suspect any plain language movement is just the first step in putting lawyers out of business, not unlike the books on avoiding probate, or the UPC.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> You often hear it claimed that some linguistic fomulation is required for the document to be legally effective, but this appears to be universally incorrect.


I have to correct myself. I remembered that the Bureau of Prisons regulation on sending legal mail requires exact language, I think it's "Attorney mail: do not open in mailroom" to be on the outside of envelopes to avoid having mail from an attorney to a prisoner opened. This doesn't seem to fit in the same category as the other language formulas I was talking about.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

DaveInPhilly said:


> As a young professional just starting out, I realize how poor my command of the English language actually is. I would really like to imporve my grammar and my speech. For the first time I am dealing with folks who really speak and write well and I realize how impressive it can be. I find myself resorting to Wikipedia often to figure out when to use "that" instead of "which" and that sort of thing. Does any one recomend any guides or handbooks out there that might get me going in the right direction?


Read. Read everything and anything you can get your hands on.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

fenway said:


> Read. Read everything and anything you can get your hands on.


Well, perhaps. I doubt that reading a lot of bad writing will help someone who is struggling with the mechanics of fluent expression or the mysteries of style.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

If you read enough, you'll be able to quickly discern good from bad. :icon_smile_wink: 

I also find that people who spell well tend to be vociferous readers. They know what the words should look like!


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Coolidge24 said:


> I love the formal legal formulations. One of the few things, given negative public perception, that still makes law a profession.


Hold on there cowpoke! I'm as fond of legalese as I am of all the other "cunning contextures of dark arts and inequitable subterfuges" that go into the practice of law; but it is hardly "one of the few things . . . that still makes law a profession." You'll find that out soon enough.



> I suspect any plain language movement is just the first step in putting lawyers out of business, not unlike the books on avoiding probate, or the UPC.


Lawyers? Out of business? Nonsense. Law is a protean enterprise that shows no sign of decline. The plain language movement provides an excellent example of how this works. The movement purports to demystify legal processes by substituting "plain language" for archaic terms of art, contorted formulations, and other despised tools of the lawyer's trade. Such well-meaning innocence misleads the unwary into believing that they can, let's say, draft a contract just as well as any shyster - and in many cases they can. And in many cases they cannot. In those cases, when the inevitable explosion occurs, the plain-speaking parties learn to their sorrow that "plain language" contains just as many ambiguities and omissions that call for legal construction as the most impenetrable product from the most retrograde attorney's hand. This delightful consequence leads to even more work for those who litigate contract disputes. And so it goes.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

fenway said:


> If you read enough, you'll be able to quickly discern good from bad. :icon_smile_wink:


The bestseller lists would appear to refute this contention weekly. And utterly.


----------

