Random First Lines: Ch4The night was the best night of my undead life. The farmer acted as if I was just another one of his guests,... : Science Fiction » Read

Welcome Visitor: Login to the siteJoin the site

Common Use Of English In America

Short Story By: EdwardJBradleySr
Editorial and Opinion


American talk-show host, actor and avid liberal intellectual, Dick Cavett, returned to the public spotlight by writing Op.Ed colums for the N.Y. Times. This was his first published submission. To date, February 24, 2007, there have been 746 blog entries in response to it. Some are quite interesting.

For the sake of this Booksie posting, I am including my blog entry, the blog response of another and my response to it. I would be interested to read the opinions of some Booksie members in critiquing the arguments put forth. If you wish to read the other blog entries the hyperlink address immediately follows:

http://cavett.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/its-only-language-mangled-language/#comments

It’s Only Language. Sunday, February 4,2007 Editorial.

February 4, 2007, 2:22 pm

It’s Only Language

Being the offspring of English teachers is a mixed blessing. When the film star says to you, on the air, “It was a perfect script for she and I,” inside your head you hear, in the sarcastic voice of your late father, “Perfect for she, eh? And perfect for I, also?”
In these days of just about enough perils facing our nation, there is plenty of evidence around to conclude that our grip on our glorious language may be loosening. And the current administration, as in other matters, is not among the good guys. Let’s get everybody’s favorite example out of the way: the leader of the free world’s goofy inability to pronounce what is arguably the most important word in his vocabulary: “nuclear.” What is so hard? A school kid botching it Bush’s way — “nuke-you-lur” — would have to stand in the corner. Fortunately, an oval office has no corners.

(Does Bush’s atom have a nuke-you-luss? Does it work in reverse? Is Bush’s railway a foo-nick-lee-ur? Let’s bet.)
Andy Rooney tried to nail this matter on “60 Minutes”. Andy wondered as I do why the literate Laura doesn’t do something. Every time the president commits this verbal blunder, she must wince along with the rest of the world. Bush’s “the French have no word for ‘entrepreneur’ ” is guaranteed immortality.

The French make fun of him, of course, and by extension, of us. I say let’s irk them back by continuing with our clanging mispronunciations of their sacred tongue, such as: “Vichy-SWA,” “coo-de-GRAH” or “double enten-DRAY” — and best of all what we did to the French “chaise longue,” dyslexically turning longue (long) into “lounge” and chaise (chair) into “chase.” A fox hunter’s chair, perhaps? (Let Froggy puzzle it out.)

I think we’re just stuck with the president’s individualist English. This is the man who gave us, “I know how hard it is to put food on your family,” and who told Brian Williams, regarding his alleged Camus studies, “I have an ‘eckalectic’ reading list.” Until he was nice enough to repeat it, I was sure he had said “epileptic,” which at least would have been a word. I prefer the three-syllable version “eclectic,” but then he is The Decider.

Donald Rumsfeld and about half of his military pals seem to feel that hidden weapons are found in a “cash-AY” [cache: from Fr., hiding place; pron. kash], provoking further giggles from our busy French detractors. The cashiered secretary of defense is equally hard on his own language, as with, “It wasn’t wrong. It was just miss-CHEEVY-us.” “MISS-chuh-vuss” is of course what he was after. Oh, and with all due respect Mr. Erstwhile Secretary, a medal can be called a memento, but not a MO-mento. Princeton, class of what again?

Getting a little thing like words right, is it so important?

The right answer is: Yes. As when poorly worded road signs cause fatalities. Sloppy language leads to sloppy thought, and sloppy thought to sloppy legislation. And why not a sloppy war? What if someone big, issuing an order of earth-shaking potential, made the (tiny) error of confusing the last letters of Iraq and Iran?

Another whole category of language abuse is the stating of untruths which, when shown to be untrue, are repeated. As in Dick Cheney, the man who recently said to Wolf Blitzer, “We’ve had immense successes in Iraq,” adding “and we will have more immense successes.” Blitzer looked, well, blitzed. Instead of lowering a large butterfly net over his guest, he got his breath and, charitably, did not request examples. And what of Condoleezza Rice? The same Condi who was willing to contribute “a mushroom cloud” to the Scare America campaign now insists that an escalation be called an “augmentation.” What, in her new tea-time vocabulary, would she call the W.M.D. that caused the cloud?

An “Instrument of Considerable Inconvenience”? What are the war dead in her sanitized lexicon? “The indisposed”? Or simply “those whose coffins may not be photographed.” Once dead, our brave soldiers are an embarrassment.

Incidentally, are Jews still Semites? Or are they suddenly “Semets”? For years now the boo-boo “anti-se-MET-ic” has gained ground, even among rabbis, as well as TV talking heads, big-name news people and the literati. Where did it come from? Listen for it. Try the Sunday morning shows for a likely catch.

And what about the various distortions of the easy word “heinous.” From lawyers especially you get “hayney-us,” “heeny-us” and even “highness.” Look, guys and gals, it’s easy. It rhymes with a well-known two-syllable word which some might consider not nice, but I guarantee will stick the correct pronunciation in your brain, especially if you compose a silly rhyming couplet. (“His behavior was heinous/ And … etc.” — which, by the way is not pronounced “ECK-cetera.”)

And then there’s the poor little “kudo.” It’s a word Variety has used incorrectly — as in “DeNiro received many kudos for his performance” — for enough decades that it is now forgotten that “kudos” (Greek for praise) was already singular. There never was a kudo. Will Variety eventually take the word “pathos” and extract a “patho”? Stay tuned.

Last week during hearings, at least two of our star-spangled generals spoke of a “dim-you-nition” (diminution, perhaps?) of troops. Does ammunition then become “ama-nyoo-shun”? Let it pass.

It’s gotten so bad for “lie” and “lay” that if a candidate got the votes of only those who don’t know the difference, it would be a landslide. Upon hearing, “He was outside laying on the lawn,” I remember being glad my dad thought I was worldly enough to get it when he asked, “And who was under him on the lawn?” Wouldn’t anybody just know you wouldn’t “lie it on the table”? Try playing it as it lies. It works just as well.

When the flight attendant would say, “We will be landing in Chicago momentarily,” I used to enjoy replying, “Will there be time to get off?” But I see the forces of darkness have prevailed, and this and many wrong uses are now deemed acceptable by the alleged guardians of our language, the too-quickly supine dictionary makers. Are they afraid of being judged “not with it”? What ever happened to, “Everybody does it don’t make it right”?

Certain misquotes are rooted in marble. It would take another act of Creation to restore “gild the lily” to Will Shakespeare’s “paint the lily.” (“To gild refined gold, to paint the lily.”) There are hundreds of these. And there’s, “The senator literally exploded with laughter.” Who cleaned up the mess?

Then there is that common ailment, the tin ear, and its possessor’s knack for rendering sublime quotations drab, often through insensitivity to the music of the words and their proper order. A good example is the great but frequently wounded quote of Mark Twain’s on writing, a quote that causes, when done right, my forearms to horripilate.

Here it is: “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is the difference between lightning bug … and the lightning.”

Recently, an after-dinner speaker botched it. He got all the words in, but not in the master’s order, ending with “the lightning and the lightning bug.” I had to go out and walk around a while. Word order is everything. Anyone who doesn’t hear that it’s imperative to end with the majestic word “lightning” would probably argue that nothing’s wrong with “The Sierra Madre’s Treasure,” Milton’s “Lost Paradise,” “The Opera’s Phantom,” “Music’s Sound,” “The Sea and the Old Man” and, who knows, “The Island of Gilligan.” (Have I beaten the point to death yet?)
(Let us note: the hapless speaker was at the DAY-us — dais — not the DYE-us.)

But let’s be charitable. I soon learned it isn’t necessary to correct. I quickly learned to bite my English teachers’ boy’s tongue and let a lady guest refer to an “elicit” affair. But if I ever find myself once again with the senator who spoke of his “incredulous” experiences, I shall pop him one.

I don’t see the future as bright, language-wise. I see it as a glass half empty — and evaporating quickly. Almost daily irritants, like the dumb cluck’s beloved, “between you and I” will never be expunged, it seems. “Loathe” and “loath” will continue to change places, and “phenomena” and “phenomenon” will still be used interchangeably. But, finally, what the hell? It’s only language. It’s only what we live. View table of contents...

 

Submitted: Feb 24, 2007    Reads: 273    Comments: 14    Likes: 2   


Published:  Wednesday,  February  7, 2007

Blog Entry # 257.

Dick Cavett:

President George W. Bush (# 43)'s limitations in speaking the English language properly has been well known for many years.  Why, then, did it not keep him from being elected to the White House?  Twice!  Most especially, when both of his opponents were so highly articulate?

In 1964, the U.S. population had a literacy rate of 98+%.  It is, now, between 60-65%, if that.

Popularity, the kind which drives election outcomes, always appeals to the "least common denominator" or that which is most common in the society or culture.  With declining literacy rates, how much more likely will well-spoken people, like Al Gore and John Kerry, be able to appeal to the numeric majority.  Not much!  In my estimation.

Many of his malapropisms can be hilarious.  Just not to his detractors and with those who may disagree with him.  Sometime he "presents" as a kind of Norm Crosby clone.  With so much broadcast media being focused on him, sometimes I think, the public just wants to be entertained.

In the end, most people don't like to be constantly exposed to people who do or try to make them feel as though they may be inferior.  Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have this affect on most Americans today.  That would not have been the case in 1964 when more Americans valued and were striving to improve their own language skills.  President Bush is unable to make anyone feel inferior.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  Thereby, revealing the secret of his appeal.

America, most probably, will never have another President like John F. Kennedy.  Where all of his public utterances were thoughtful, spare, original and fresh.  Making them seem to be all the more momentous and memorable.  Gore, Kerry and Hillary Clinton never stop talking and bore the daylights out of everyone who can hear them.  President Bush might do the same but he livens up his speeches with so many verbal "pratfalls".

Edward J. Bradley, Sr.

Albany, New York

 

Blog Entry # 427.

February 7th, 2007  12:03 pm

Dick,
I, too, enjoyed your program every day when I was in my 20s with three toddlers vying for my attention. Since then, I’ve always loved the happy Bernstein Overture to Candide.

I hope you will answer some of our (322 ’till this moment!) posts’ questions and comments, such as

#212 Since when is it pretentious to say ‘an historic . . .’?

#216 She means ‘credible’ instead of ‘incredulous’. (Or maybe she was being facetious.)

#222 Advertising writers for food containers are guilty of such wording as ‘less calories’ instead of ‘fewer calories’.

#275 In the fifth paragraph, shouldn’t the word be ‘effect’, instead of ‘affect’?

[Forgot which comment number] What IS the best way to speak or write a gender-neutral antecedent without sounding awkward or pretentious?

Hope to hear from you again on some of these and other points.

Sally Rose
Seattle

— Posted by Sally Rose Weir

 

 

Blog Entry # 482.

Dick Cavett:

In response to #427's comment on # 275's use of the word "affect" in place of "effect".

It was a struggle, as usual, to decide which of these 2 words was the best and most appropriate to use.

While I may be mistaken, my sense is:

The word "effect" pertains to outwardly observable impact(s) on or outcome(s) from force(s) applied to inanimate object(s).

The word "affect" pertains to an impact on a person's emotions and/or thinking. In response to stimulus. In this case, hearing the way in which another may speak the English language. How the "affected" person may, outwardly, react or respond is the "effect" or "outcome".

Because my reference was to people (and not to inanimate objects), my thought was that use of the word "affect" was more appropriate in this case. In other words, with use of the word "affect", the word "effect" is to be understood as being part of the meaning conveyed. Maybe not.

By the omission of just one word, so many more words must be written! An English language lesson for all of us.

Most probably, it would have been most and more appropriate for me to have used both words to describe both the "affect" and "effect" on voters. With "affect" representing the inner emotional and cognitive reaction(s) of one or more voter(s). With "effect" being the actual vote each voter may cast, in response. Thereby, determining the "outcome" of the election.

Of course, I could be wrong. What do you think?

Happy trails,

Edward J. Bradley, Sr.

Albany, New York


2

Email this story Email this story | Print Story Print Story | Add to reading list

Comments:

Sam Zadgan

never thought about it that way...but it would make sense. His appeal being linked to people not liking people better than themselves is a very apt observation.

I think in general this is the attitude of most people as most people in today's society are not educated. When i say not educated im including people who go to university, as most people only learn for their jobs and not to further their mental capabilities.

This will only get worse in the future as there are no rewards within society for people to strive to better their mind, you only get paid for your job, and not much else. On top of that, in social situations most people will associate with people who have the same or less knowledge. In most cases people are intimidated by people of higher learning.

There are many like myself who are always trying to seek out more knowlegable people, but I believe we are in the minority.

Posted: Feb 25, 2007

Author Comment:

Sam Zadgan:

Thank you for your response. There is a lot more to this topic than easily presents itself. It takes a lot of thought, work and digging to get at it. Waiting to see what responses from others may be.

In my opinion, the lowered level of literacy is more crucial, as a problem, than the lowered levels of education. Literate people can self-educate or, otherwise, keep themselves informed of matters of genuine importance to them. Illiterate people can't even do that much. Making the situation even more ridiculous is when people who are certified as having formal educations(Bachelor degrees, etc.) are, often, functionally illiterate and not truly educated either. Mysteriously! Somehow!

At the same time, many people, without formal educations, are intelligent, knowledgeable, literate and able to exercise good judgement. With respect to complex issues and matters.

Happy trails,

Ed Bradley.

zephyrmail

Thank you !! Someone finally acknowledges the fact that this countries verbal and written language is deplorable. I see so much of it on this site, I want to make comments I dare not post. I've given up submitting, only reading, which can be depressing, some days. Thank you again and again !

Posted: Feb 25, 2007

Author Comment:

zephyrmail:

Thank you for your complimentary remark. I wish it was undeserved because of my being mistaken.

Sometimes, I think, we are not that far from the kind of futuristic world depicted in the Mad Max film series. In terms of the way(s) in which many of the characters spoke English and had lost access to written language.

The single most important thing for young people to realize, today, is that properly spelled and spoken English remains the language of international business and the global economy. For most, without this essential skill, access to it will be denied and impoverishment will face many.

People of Asia, India, Indonesia and Micronesia are mastering English and, as a result, are receiving the economic benefits of being able to participate in this same global economy. While Americans are being phased out. Not a pretty picture!

Happier trails,

Ed Bradley.

Smallwriter

This needs to be said repeatedly. And more.

The split infinitive drives me insane, especially when there are mutiple phrases between the to and the verb. I have seen even 'to not do' when the correct 'not to do' is easier on the tongue.

"Only" and "also" are invariably in the wrong place. See your reviewer above:
"you only get paid for your job"
Does this mean no one else gets paid for his job?
Of course it should have been written 'you get paid only for your job.'

I think it's important for reviewers (like zephyrmail) to keep hounding writers of bad English and drawing attention to poorly constructed sentences. Develop crocodile hide when those who consider their every word a jewel, resort to abusing honest reviewers. We are here to learn the art of story-telling or singing in verse. Other writers can learn from critiques of their fellow writers.

Well done, Edward. I applaud this piece.

Posted: Feb 26, 2007

Author Comment:

Smallwriter:

Thank you! I think.

I must confess to not being the most astute scholar with respect to the English language. My approach and/or aptitude cannot be easily explained or understood. Least of all, by myself. Which is why I don't try to offer an explanation. My time in the U.S. Public School System (1951-63), in Syracuse, N.Y., exposed me to the best teachers ever placed, by God, on planet Earth. Talented and gifted beyond the realms of either of those attributes. Most remarkable, considering the "material" with which they were forced to work.

For some reason(s), at the age of 38, my "gift" (if it can be called a "gift") awakened in me. It was then I began to feel compelled to write for others. With as much entertainment value as the subject matter would, respectfully, permit. This was so my message would, more fully, reach and penetrate the minds of those reading the work.

Many who post on Booksie have their own ideas about how to use English. Rightly or wrongly. A spirit of rebellion against the conventions of English language usage flourishes here with some. Something with which I disagree. For a wide variety of reasons. In the final analysis, some of us will find publishers and some of us will not. Only time will tell who succeeds.

However! It is not my place to criticize too harshly, without tact or diplomacy. My best service is by posting work which is well written for others to read. In other words, I hope to serve and provide all with an example of how the English language is to be properly written, expressed and presented. And, at the same time, make myself most easily understood to the greatest number.

Many Booksie writers are teenagers who are emotionally sensitive and intellectually limber. Adult limits and conventions seem excessively restrictive to them. Sometimes, it seems, they are trying to communicate ideas and concepts without verbally expressing them and which, they believe, should be understood by the reader. They cannot see the sense or wisdom of using proper and well structured English all of the time. With respect to poetry, the idea behind the "exercise of poetic license" has something to do with freer or more "unstructured" forms of verbal expression. Sometimes, by omission. Their minds and emotions may take them along some interesting and unconventional pathways as a result.

Many admit to not being masterful or skillful with respect to the proper use of English or correct spelling. Most important to them: Expressing their own ideas and emotions in a way which is pleasing and satisfying to them and/or their friends or age/peer group. Or so it seems. A few can be quite profane in objecting to this or any kind of criticism. Sometimes, to such an extent, I wonder how far they would have to go for the Booksie people to reprimand or remove them from the Booksie website. To my mind, this is their "right" insofar as their own bills are paid. If not by themselves, then by someone else taking responsibility for them. In their "real" lives.

Happy trails,

Ed Bradley.

J A Morales
J_A_Morales

I am guilty of misusing this language. The movie Idiocracy comfronts this nations decline in education, it is a comedy but it hits too close to home.

Posted: Mar 1, 2007

Author Comment:

J A Morales:

Thank you for your thoughtful remarks. I'll have to find a copy of "Idiocracy" and watch it.

Happy trails,

Ed Bradley.

Annie Legend
Annie_Legend

Ed, I'm really sorry that I missed this when you first posted it, but, at least now I have had the chance to read it and reflect upon it.
As an educator, I cannot agree with your more!! Despite the fact that I teach gifted students (or at least well-above average students), my emphasis with them is basic numeracy and literacy first. In nuumeracy,that means learning tables by rote and knowing the processes behind adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing inside out. With literacy, spelling, punctuation and grammar are number one in my classroom. I teach Latin and Greek roots and parts of speech. My students learn what an infinitive is so they know (as smallwriter pointed out) what they are not supposed to 'split'. If I say, 'start the next sentence with an adverb or preposition', they know what I'm talking about. It was a sad state of affairs in education systems in the USA, Canada and here (we followed the US example unfortunately)that prescribed to the notion of 'whole language' and 'invented spelling' and, in doing so (misguidedly), threw out the teaching of phonics, structured lessons on grammar and punctuation, and spelling correctly. Hence, we have a generation or two of teachers who don't know how to teach these things as they themselves were never taught them. Now we have 'outcome-based education' whose indicators of what to teach in English are so obscure, I defy anyone with any knowledge of English to understand what the heck they are talking about. Unfortunately again, these have been passed on from education 'gurus'/new-age thinkers from the States. Once the old, dyed-in-the-wool teachers and advocates of 'proper' English are no longer around, who will be left to teach the differences between 'affect' and 'effect' and the like? So good on you, Ed for bringing this up. I too find it really hard to read material posted on 'Booksie' that has so many spelling (not just typos)errors. Even, on this site, 'separate" is spelled 'seperate'in various places!!!

Posted: Apr 5, 2007

Author Comment:

Annie:

There must be some malintent with respect to the "dumbing down" phenomenon which has gripped western civilization for the past 40+ years. We are now a civilization in decline. On a number of levels. Social, cultural, educational, civil, spiritual, etc. You apply the criteria and tell me where the "improvement" has taken place. Google "Theodore Clymer" of Stanford and "Nancy Crosby" of Columbia. N.Y. Times Obituaries.

My response to you is most personal but one I am willing to share with all who may choose to read it.

In the summer of 1991, my son was 11 years old, about to enter the 6th grade and could not read. Even at a 1st grade level. I was beside myself with feelings of hopelessness and despair. He displayed normal and, at times, superior IQ in, virtually, every other respect. I just could not understand how this could occur.

Some "conservative/traditional values" social and political groups were advocating for a home teaching product named "Hooked On Phonics". At first and for 2 years, I avoided buying it to use to try to "fix" this problem as it was quite expensive for me at that time. I bought it anyway and used it during my 2 week visitation period that same summer, 1991. Eddie and I worked with it from 2-4 hours every morning during that 2 week period. The fundamentals imparted to him (and which he must have applied for the next 7 years) enabled him to recover and gain sufficient mastery so that he was truly a high school graduate in 1998.

In 1998, he enrolled at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell. Dean's list both semesters.

In 1999, transferred to and enrolled at the S.U.N.Y. at Binghamton. Dean's list both semesters and nearly straight "A"s. Elected dorm council President. He had it made there. Could have entered the "Business" program which admitted "transfer" students with a G.P.A. of 3.85+ only. A level of performance he surpassed.

In 2000, against my wishes, transferred to and enrolled at the Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, the #1 ranked undergraduate program of it's kind in the U.S.A. Made the Dean's List his 1st semester only. Though his grades would have been Dean's List and "Honors" worthy at the universities where he had studied earlier. The faculty was unusual, in that they were, predominantly, lawyers or legally trained as well as Irish or Jewish or both. Well trained and highly disciplined educators who were not given to ambiguity or "free form" renderings. He told me and his professors(at Cornell) that his Cornell professors would not tolerate his "B.S.-ing" them when he did not know the material. Well! Duh!

He is now working, part-time, on a Master of Labor Law degree at the Albany Law School which is part of Union University headquartered in Schenectady, N.Y.

He is employed, full-time, by the Public Employees Federation (PEF), a public employees labor union representing New York State employees and health workers.

At 3:59 A.M., on Monday, April 2, 2007, his wife, Nellie gave birth to their 1st child (my 1st grand-child) who is named William Martin Bradley.

This is a story which, since 1991 and until now, has had happy and successful outcomes only. Though, there were some scary moments along the way. With the Lord's graces, gifts, blessings and protections, these may continue for all the future. We can only pray, hope and work.

Happier trails,

Ed Bradley.

Anaya Roma
Anaya_Roma

Hello Mr. Bradley,
You recently read my old poem The Lady by The Sea. I am sorry I did not encounter your work earlier. You are quite witty and your piece It's Only Language taught me a lot. I intend to peruse the rest of your work.
Best Wishes,
Anaya Roma

Posted: Aug 11, 2007

Author Comment:

Anaya Roma:

Thank you for the compliment. Glad you liked it. Hope you enjoy reading the other postings as well.

Happy trails,

Ed Bradley.

brinsley
brinsley

Dear Mr. Bradley,

I very much enjoyed your highly articulate short story, which shares a disdain for sloppy expression with that wonderful essay by George Orwell 'Politics and the English Language.'
Equally disheartening are the stock phrases, the formulas of ordinary speech, popular culture and bad journalism which have crept into American English and now dominate it.
We now build our language from breeze blocks, were before we could build from an infinite number of shapes. Our thinking, it follows, must inhabit the same straightjacket, and be bound by it.

Posted: Aug 16, 2007

Author Comment:

brinsley:

Thank you for your complimentary remarks. Thank you also for enlightening me about George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" published in


(not registered user)

very interesting read, it mad me laugh more than once. forgive me for being oblivious to your work, you seemed like an intimidating writer, but you saw me and commented me, thank you for that. I live in australia and can say that the exposure we see of george bush is quite "articulate" -lionheart raises a brow- he is a funny man. i do not know how it is there with him as a president but i know that he does make you feel superior, in fact he makes me laugh so hard i have to search on the internet to see him attempt to quote an old saying; "fooled me once shame on you, fool me twice......." hahahahaha. that was one of my favourite conference meetings. thankyou for helping me clarify my effect affect dilema. you are a wise elder and have experienced war like my own father and i believe i have a lot to learn about writing and i believe i can learn a lot from you.

Posted: Aug 25, 2007

Author Comment:

Lionheart:

Thank you for all of your complimentary remarks. It means a lot to me.

President George W. Bush has more than his share of detractors. I think he is more clever and intelligent than his critics are willing to admit or can see. Mainly, as I tell them: "Well! The mouth does not work!".

His main problem with the public now is: He does not get acceptable or good results on a timely basis. Often ignoring, beforehand, the advice of those who are renowned for their knowledge and judgement. Colin Powell, Bush's 1st Secretary of State, a good example, strongly opposed the decision to invade Iraq. Quite publically too. This is receiving some publicity again.

Making matters much worse is the astronomical cost of some of Bush's decisions. There are many compelling and costly domestic needs which are not being met. Partially, as a result. Even if the money was available, this does not mean it would be spent wisely. Perhaps, taxes could be lowered and, thereby, benefit those who earned them.

This has been the nature of American national politics since 1963. Sad to say.

Thank you again!

Happy trails,

Ed Bradley.

Lina Leigh
Lina_Leigh

I once knew a very intelligent man who said that if we elected stupid people, they would pass stupid laws about education and hence we would be stuck with generation after generation of ignorant and intellecually deficient people.

I found this piece highly enlightening (as well as alarming and depressing) and look foward to reading more of your material.

Affectionately,
Lina

Posted: Oct 19, 2007

Author Comment:

Lina Leigh:

Thank you for reading, commenting and the praise. Wish I was wrong about such things! It is good to be well grounded. In reality. It would be better if our cynicism was based only on fantasy and/or delusion. Can't say this is now the case.

If you also gave me a "I Like It" vote, then "Thank you" for that as well. A reader can always revisit a posting to cast such a vote at a later time. If you so wish.

Thank you again.

Happy trails,

Ed Bradley.

jonbautz
jonbautz

Excellent. As a friend of mine once said, "George Bush seems like an awesome guy to have at your barbecue but not in the White House."

Posted: Mar 8, 2008

Author Comment:

jonbautz:

Thank you for reading, commenting and the compliment.

Happy trails,

Ed Bradley.

J.R. Thomas
J.R._Thomas

Mr. Bradley,

This article and the associated responses seem to miss a critical point.

Word choice isn't learned in the schools. It's learned at home from the parents.

The problem is not the different words used to express ourselves. It's the message within the words and how they are received.

The number one bestselling book in all of history is written in several languages and numerous versions of the English language. The real tragedy (not mentioned anywhere in this posting) is that so few people today could tell you the name of that book.

Title: Holy Bible

The words of King James have been drastically changed, but the message remains the same.

Complaints of young people and their literary shortfalls merely add to the growth of the problem. However, if you can write a story that captures their attention and gently seizes their heart, you can teach them anything and learn everything you need to know.



Sincerely,
J.R. Thomas

Posted: Apr 29, 2008

Author Comment:

J.R. Thomas:

Thank you for reading and commenting.

For the sake of my response, I see your choice of the words or phrase "word choice" as being that of "vocabulary". I see both as being, substantially, the same. Words can be seen as symbols. Symbols can have different meanings for different people. So! We may be in agreement about the subjective assignment, by individuals, of meaning attached to words, vocabulary and symbols.

Nevertheless, standardized definitions (or meanings) are assigned by dictionaries and are, widely, accepted across a given society using that same dictionary. This could be called either "external validity" or "objectivity". Meanings assigned by individuals can be called "personal opinions" which have "internal validity" or "subjectivity".

Your reference to the Holy Bible was of interest as well. My own favorite version is the "The Jerusalem Bible"(sometimes, published with the title: "The New Jerusalem Bible")

EdwardJBradleySr
EdwardJBradleySr

J.R. Thomas:

Inadvertently hit the "submit" key when attempting to provide you with the following reference material from Wikipedia. Sorry about that.

Wikipedia excerpt start:

The Jerusalem Bible (JB) is a Catholic translation of the Bible which first was introduced to the English-speaking public in 1966 and published by Darton, Longman & Todd. As a Catholic Bible, it includes the deuterocanonical books along with the sixty-six others included in Protestant Bibles, as well as copious footnotes and introductions.

In 1943 Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical letter, Divino Afflante Spiritu, which encouraged Catholics to translate the Scriptures from the original Hebrew and Greek, rather than from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. As a result, a number of Dominicans and other scholars at the École Biblique in Jerusalem translated the scriptures into French. The product of these efforts was published as La Bible de Jérusalemin 1961.

This French translation served as the basis for an English translation in 1966, the Jerusalem Bible. For the majority of the books, the English translation was an original translation of the Hebrew and Greek; in passages with more than one interpretation, the French is generally followed. For a small number of Old Testament books, the first draft of the English translation was made directly from the French, and then the General Editor produced a revised draft by comparing this word-for-word to the original Hebrew or Aramaic.[1] The footnotes and book introductions are almost literal translations from the French.

The translation itself uses a literal approach that has been admired for its literary qualities, perhaps in part due to its most famous contributor, J.R.R. Tolkien (his primary contribution was the translation of Jonah).[2]. The introductions, footnotes, and even the translation itself, reflect a modern scholarly approach, reflecting the conclusions of scholars who use historical-critical method. For example, the introduction and notes reject Moses's authorship of the Pentateuch.

The Jerusalem Bible was the first widely accepted Catholic English translation of the Bible since the Douay-Rheims Version of the 17th century. It carries the Church's imprimatur as being correct in all matters of faith and doctrine. This means it is an official Catholic Bible. The Jerusalem Bible was considered such a high quality advanced English translation of the Bible that the Holy See used it in the European liturgy and the Mass. This reference for The Jerusalem Bible can be found in the introduction page of the Roman Catholic Missals as the source reference for the readings. It has also been widely praised for an overall very high level of scholarship, and is widely admired and sometimes used by liberal and moderate Protestants. The overall text seems to have somewhat of a "Mid-Atlantic" nature, neither overwhelmingly British nor particularly American, making it acceptable to both groups in most instances. Overall, it has come to be considered as one of the better English translations of the Bible made in the 20th Century.

In 1973, the French translation received an update. A third French edition was produced in 1998.

In 1985, the English translation was completely updated. This new translation — known as the New Jerusalem Bible — was freshly translated from the original languages and not tied to any French translation (except indirectly, as it maintained many of the stylistic and interpretive choices of the French Jerusalem Bible).

Wikipedia excerpt end:

Personnally prefer this translation to the King James as the prose and vocabulary seem to "read and flow" more easily. For me. There is some variability with respect to both meaning and emphasis. I think

Thank you again! For both reading and commenting.

Happy trails,

Ed Bradley.

Posted: Apr 29, 2008

Anthony Lopez
Anthony_Lopez

FINALLY, someone who cares ^__^

Posted: Aug 7, 2008

Author Comment:

Anthony Lopez:

Thank you for reading, commenting and the compliment.

Happy trails,

Ed Bradley.

princess onika auguste
princess__onika_auguste

just found this as a non american and some one who was educated under the british system believe americans have destroyed the english language, no offence to my american friends but it's true come on. i cannot understand half the words you say but i can understand a south african better or an indian from india or an english person. this a good essay

Posted: Oct 22, 2008

Author Comment:

princess onika auguste:

Thank you for reading, commenting and for complimenting my writing. Much appreciated.

Yes! It is a most sad commentary.

For example: Skidmore College, located in Saratoga Springs, New York, is considered to be an "elite" American college. Until the 1980's it was, exclusively, a woman's college. A few years ago it stopped asking applicants for their SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores. As though they were unimportant.

The SATs are considered to be the single most reliable predictor of success in college. In the U.S..

The only other "elite" American college, known to me, to ever do this is the Juilliard School of Music (New York City), where talent in the musical performing arts is the only criteria of importance.

Americans have not destroyed the English language. They just don't read, speak or write it as well as before 1965.

Again! Thank you!

Happier trails,

Ed Bradley.



Add Your Comments:

Your Name:

Spam protection control::

© Copyright 2008 EdwardJBradleySr All rights reserved. EdwardJBradleySr has granted theNextBigWriter, LLC non-exclusive rights to display this work on Booksie.com.

Add to Reading List
Become a fan
Email this story Email this story
Read/Write Reviews Read/Write Reviews
Print Story Print Story



Other writing by EdwardJBradleySr Legislation: Domestic Care-Givers Epitaphs 6 & 7 (Dark Night Of The Soul!) Here To Stay POEMS Friends In Close Harmony More..



Tags

Love, Poetry, Life, Death, Poem, Romance, Pain, Fantasy, Hope, Sad, Sex, God, Hate, Horror, War, Hurt, Humor, Sadness, Loss, Dark, Depression, Fiction, Heart, Family, Faith.

Get Started

Join for free, post your writing, read, comment and more!

Publish

Easily upload your writing to an eager audience.

Read

Read a growling list of novels, short-stories and poems.

Learn More

A bit curious? Find out more about Booksie.

About | News | Contact | Your Account | TheNextBigWriter | Advertise

© 2008 TheNextBigWriter, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Privacy Policy.