swot

[Guest guest]

> > 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.

>

> Thing is, that terms such as "swot" are still localised jargon,

> and the fact that they are British doesn't really help if some

> readers don't understand it. I'm not sure i'd agree that British

> slang be given preference over any other form simply because of

> pedigree.

 

If you're speaking of English, then absolutely the "pedigree" is of

interest. Otherwise it's not "English," is it? It's another language, or a

variation of the root language: American, Australian, New Zealand. The

writer is British, so he uses British words. What on earth is the problem in

an English speaking world?

 

Besides that, in the paragraph above, you seem to have made "slang" and

"localised jargon" interchangeable when they're two quite different words,

or terms I should say. (On a side note, even the term "localised jargon" is

something like double grammar or something, isn't it? Is there a need for

"localised" when the meaning of "jargon" according to American Heritage is

"hybrid language or dialect?" The word "dialect" covers the "local" aspect.)

 

The word "jargon" refers to the nuances of area or culture, whereas the same

dictionary gives the primary meaning of slang as referring to words "that

are deliberately used in place of standard terms for added raciness, humor,

irreverence, or other effect." Sounds like two different things. If you want

to start suggesting or discussing standards, then it would be acceptable to

avoid slang for any kind of devotional publication that is formal, but I

can't see how you can possibly impose a 'standard' that avoids local jargon,

especially when it's just informal, not offensive.

 

Speaking of which, a British slang dictionary lists the word swot as

"informal," as opposed to "offensive." It's simply not an offensive word,

it's jargon, so the only "harm" in using it is that someone who doesn't live

in Britain might not understand it. There are a great number of people in

Britain--or Russia or France or anywhere else for that matter--who don't

understand a great number of words. Are we to rid the world of these words

for their benefit, sterilise the language so everyone understands a

"standard number" or something? Or can we hold a faint hope for education?

Isn't one expected to learn something when they read: including new words?

 

In light of this, I'm not sure that your argument for "localised jargon"

carries much weight logically.

>

> Our main concern is if our readers get it. To that end, American

> slang (if any slang is to be used in an international

> publication) is probably safer, only because it is more widely

> spread.

 

OK, sorry, but that is downright ridiculous. You're accepting that

Hollywood's standard is acceptable, but the root language that we are

referring to is to be ignored because America has it's own version of slang?

That's akin to outlawing the wearing of baseball caps the *right* way

around, just because American street fashion says wear it backwards.

 

> This may not be to my liking, but my sensitivity isn't

> the concern.

 

Nor should America's sensitivity (or lack of it) be the concern either.

We're discussing the use of the English language, with all it's wonderful

local nuances, as opposed to sterilising it in case someone doesn't "get

it." You brought up American slang and its popularity: how did it become

popular if people weren't prepared to embrace the difference? No one

apologised and changed it back when that came up. We all just said to

ourselves, "what the heck does THAT mean?" and relied (usually on someone

from a generation after us to explain it. You're talking about

sterilising a language, not merely being "sensitive" to the use of a word.

Again I ask: must we sterilise a language to meet the needs of the

uneducated and uninformed, or should we hold an ever-decreasing faint hope

in our hearts for education and enlightenment?

 

> > "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

>

> Because he wants to be understood? :-)

 

Oh, please ... if that's the case, then you'd better start rewriting our

scripture, because there's a whole lot of people out there who might not

understand some words, and that's not even the "jargon"---I mean just the

standard English words. Prabhupada used words in a way that most of us

hadn't experienced---his use of English is a science in itself. He also used

jargon: "bloop,falldown," and all those other ISKCON-isms--"spiritual

sky,material world," on and on. I really don't believe this is a valid

argument.

 

Besides all that, it's just way too severe a prohibition to impose upon

writers, especially if you are expecting that it be made a standard. Your

opinion doesn't seem to be based on anything of substance: it's simply an

opinion. That's okay, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but it doesn't

exactly represent the barometer of English understanding internationally,

and I don't accept that the English language should be sterilised on the

whims of fashion or opinion.

 

Your servant

Braja Sevaki dd