swot

[Guest guest]

> > Seriously though, it seems that we're embracing an increasingly

> > boring form of speech and expression. At the risk of this

> > sounding *merely* like a "vent", my question is: why must a

> > book, written in English by a British educated author, conform

> > to American standards, or at least, remove words that Americans

> > won't understand? Is this a practice that ISKCON editorial

> > departments will adopt, or are already adopting?

>

> I guess it's all a matter of audience. if he was writing for a

> British newspaper then swot (for example) is fine. If he's

> writing for a global audience then localised jargon (British,

> American, Australian, Indian, or Norswegish) is probably a bad

> idea.

 

I agree with this last point. But I feel uneasy about classifying British

English as "localised jargon," considering that English is the root language

of all the localised jargons.

 

My own experience is as follows: After giving up my native language

(French), I was successively exposed to American jargon, South African

jargon, and finally "Hinglish" jargon. I also had some exposure to

Australian jargon. My observation is that more people are using the British

style than the American style. Bearing in mind that this observation is made

with my imperfect senses, I would suggest that if the book is going to be

published by the BBT, then American standards should apply. Otherwise, I

humbly suggest that Braja Sevaki's salient remark "why must a book, written

in English by a British educated author, conform to American standards, or

at least, remove words that Americans won't understand?" be seriously taken

in consideration. Vive la difference!

 

Thank you. Hare Krishna.

Your servant,

Visakha Priya dasi