Subscribe

free to biz newsletters

Bizcommunity.com - Daily Marketing & Media news
PR & Communications forums

Smith and Pinkett hide themselves in cupboard

26 Oct 2005 15:0524 commentsBizLike
There have been a number of discussions centred on language and its use in the media, but for us whipcrackers even a dying hobbyhorse can do with a bit more flogging.
The general consensus among sensible souls seems to be that we shouldn’t be anal about language and grammar in casual situations, like this for example, but that more care needs to be taken in more formal situations like press releases, newspapers, etc. Fair enough, hey?

So: There was an article in The Star’s Verve section yesterday, a silly little thing about organising romantic getaways with your spouse. Lest we forget, The Star is a popular broadsheet and even its dregs should be edited. However, English was violently assaulted yesterday, as it is most days, in public and through its own mouthpiece. Remember, The Star is an English newspaper.

The article says:

“Smith and Pinkett hide themselves in cupboard and every nook and crane they can find in their house.” And goes on to say, “But for some of us this is impossible: if we tried, not only would the cupboard burst in its seams and fall apart.”

Sadly, that rightly missing apostrophe is just luck. The entire article is a jumble of equally badly expressed things and no doubt the perpetrator will walk away free to do it again. This particular article is a silly example of what is actually a huge problem to do with the sorry state in which communication finds itself, with this culture of laxity in any language. Wake up all you journalists who are supposed to be speaking clearly so that people can listen. Dear Editor: it’s YOUR JOB to see to this, man. The article could so easily have been tweaked to become readable at least, if not particularly interesting.

Yes, this is about English. I cannot comment about other languages since I am embarrassingly monolingual – I can only just get by in Afrikaans since it was forced upon me in school, but it would be foolish of me to try to speak it, never mind write it, in public without a lot of help. I have about twenty words of seSotho, half a dozen of isiZulu, and three of French, none of which I can even spell correctly. So this has to be about English because it’s what I know and what I’m entitled to comment on. Apologies for my poverty, but anyone wanting to take me to task on this will be farting into the wind I’m afraid. Yes, tragic, terrible, sies, all that. But I’d be equally offended to be reading bad (insert favourite language here) if I was (insert favourite cultural group here).

Sometimes you have to laugh instead of cry though. Here’s a laugh. It’s a writing retreat which claims to be “Feeding the marrow of the world with the moss of invisible memories”, and will teach you to see “…the hawk through the eyes of the trembling grass waiting to be murdered by the cow-indigenous listening”.

Eish. Check it out if you’re into nebulous verbiage of the side-splitting kind: http://www.artzone.co.za/scripts/power.dll?subrt=azfndnews&news=12878
 
More options
< Back 
equill
oh yeah-
It is not only the editor's responsibility to make sure that the grammar and spelling are at least acceptable to the reader, it is also the responsibility of the writer to check their article once it has been published to note what changes the subeditor/copy editor (or anyone else for that matter) has made to the original. It's simple: look and learn!
Too many writers don't even bother to read their own published work, let alone the work of other people. And, to top it all, they still want to be paid for their shoddy work. Posted on 27 Oct 2005 20:33
another ed
hear! hear!-
Wouldn't it be lovely to have more writers who take responsibility for their work. I employ the services of many freelancers (I deem that to be a word) and very few bother to read their subbed copy. Needless to say, the ones who do, improve noticeably.
And don't get me started on the ones who are looking for work and who email: Dear Editor, Im (sic) a professional writer looking to perpituate [I kid you not] my base... Posted on 28 Oct 2005 08:33
Uhungu
Oh dear!-
...it is also up to the writer to check HIS/HER article....or, ...it is also up to the writerS to check their articleS....(capitals for effect) Posted on 28 Oct 2005 09:25
APPALLING!-
I read the article and thought the language was absolutely appalling. Something should be done about it, this is not the first time I've noticed it. These are journalists who have supposedly studied to do this for a living!

And this in the most widely read broadsheet in the country!

Where was the Sub-Editor! Posted on 28 Oct 2005 09:39
Why can't the English learn to speak English-
Why is it that we are all being subjected to this phenominum of having people, whose first language is blatently not the one they are trying to communicate in, doing so? Have English people communicate in English, Xhosa in Xhosa, Afrikaans in Afrikaans etc. I don't want to hear James Scholtz butchering English one more time, or anybody else for that matter. Why is this so hard to understand? The brain drain has left a terrible dent is all I can surmise. Use people who speak their own language present or write in that language. Duh! Posted on 28 Oct 2005 12:06
Panicum
English for the English, Xhosa for the Xhosas-
So, I suppose it is back to the days of the Tower of Babel then? Posted on 28 Oct 2005 16:11
What is is point panicum?-
Please explain Posted on 28 Oct 2005 16:23
Observer
Why shouldn't non-English-speakers write in English?-
Some of the greatest English-language writers in the world are writers who are not writing in their first language. VS Naipul and Vladimir Nabokov are two who spring quickly to mind. JM Coetzee, for another. English is a universal language, so it should come as no surprise that millions of people might choose to speak and write it in conjunction with their first language. And why shouldn't they? The language is richer for it. Posted on 28 Oct 2005 17:00
Good point Obsever -
Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with your point and those authors, unfortunately the people we are talking about here haven't bothered to master, and aren't going to master the language the way that VS Naipaul etc have and that is the point. Why should we have torturerd English from non English speakers when there are perfectly capable English presenters. (or tortured Xhosa etc - before you get on that high horse) Posted on 28 Oct 2005 17:14
Small point of fact-
J.M. Coetzee was born in Cape Town in 1940 to German and English parents, and grew up using English as his first language. Posted on 1 Nov 2005 16:42
Rick
English for the English?-
Phenominum? Posted on 31 Oct 2005 14:14
Blu
1st lang for 1st lang-
there is nothing more irritating than people using incorrect grammar or not pronouncing their words properly in ANY language. when it comes to journalism, IT IS YOUR JOB to be able to master the language your are writing or speaking in. if that means hiring 1st language speakers only - or those who are excellent 2nd language speakers- then so be it. In print, the very least i want from a paper in MY language is correct spelling. When I listen to a radio or tv bulletin in MY language, I want to be able to understand what the hell it is the person is saying - pronounciation is key. Posted on 3 Nov 2005 15:07
Xeno
It's like this...-
Journalism studies and literary studies are two different things. Comparing them is like comparing oranges to apples. In journalism schools you're taught ways of getting the story, with a strong focus on heavy news pieces. Journalism isn't only about this, it's also about language use which not many institutions have included in their curriculum. Editors don't know any better either, especially if their come from a journalism background. You may know news but it doesn't mean you know language. I think those who say English for the English should seriously re-think this. Not all english first language speakers, speak or even know the language very well. The Subs should be the ones who correct all grammatical errors, and journalists could learn a thing or two from this (but we all know that not many publications will send any article back to the writer for proofing before publishing). The curriculum is all wrong, journalism is one part of a whole, and the courses should include literary studies as well. And, as much as there's broadcast courses, there should be print courses devided into magazines and newspapers because it's not the same... Posted on 8 Nov 2005 13:08
Blu
journo's and language-
Xeno, i hear you, and cant speak for other institutions but the one i attended. we were taught about literary use. in fact it is a major subject from 1st year thru to the final year. so if you cannot master the language you are writing in, you do not graduate. there are at least three courses i can think of that dealt with the art of language usage...not just in english btw. so saying that they did not have the right training is no excuse. the subs are there to put the final touches on copy, not to re-write it. Posted on 9 Nov 2005 11:37
Rob Dickens
Vacuous crania-
"phenominum" - Holy crap! People lamenting the demise of proper English and they use a word like that? WTF? Posted on 9 Jun 2006 17:08
aussiejoe
Where are the professional subs-
Is the strangling of the language due to Afirmative Action? And please don't blame the Nats - again! Posted on 8 Nov 2005 03:34
hmmm - stop pointing fingers. Charity begins @ home, Mr/Mss READABLE!-
readable - is there such a word? isn't it legible? Posted on 9 Nov 2005 13:55
AR
say what you mean, mean what you say-

Actually, readable was what I meant and so that is what I said.

Oxford: readable, adj 1. pleasant and interesting to read. 2. legible. readability,n. Posted on 10 Nov 2005 08:38
AR
Although…-

Having said that, you’re right in a way. The sentence wasn’t a great one. Let’s see:
“… tweaked to become readable at least, if not particularly interesting.”
‘Readable’ and ‘interesting’ cancel each other out because in order to be readable it would have had to be interesting, by definition, and no amount of grammatical tweaking could have done that.

My god, I’m so sorry. I’ll have to go back to school. Thank heavens I’m not a professional writer of any sort.

In the spirit of things, though, it’s only fair that we have a look at that heading of yours: “hmmm - stop pointing fingers. Charity begins @ home, Mr/Mss READABLE!”
Is @ a word? And did you mean Miss, Ms or Mrs? Posted on 10 Nov 2005 09:06
Tash
Master your grammar...-
I grew up being told to read newspapers to improve my understanding of the English language. "and when I see such terrible use of it,I wonder if my English is good enough!!" Posted on 1 Dec 2005 12:41
Jo
Lovely stuff-
Some really great journos are terrible writers - the subs heads must roll if there howlers make it into print (Eek should that be subs' heads or sub's head's aaaragahh .... )Grammar etc. matters in ALL 11 languages Posted on 10 Feb 2006 09:43
kaf...
maybe blacks and afrikaaners should leave journalism then...-
Unfortunately, English is the language most media institution use in South Africa. Not everyone speaks the language 24/7 and not everyone has English as a first language. They, therefore, will not be as good as the first language speakers. Writing proper English does not make one a good journalist. Spelling and grammar are very important but that is not all there is to journalism. Ability to identify news, story angles and presenting the story or 'good spelling and grammar' are qualities a good journalist should have too. If second or third language speakers of the language are to be judged on only spelling and grammar, then I think only two, if any, blacks and afrikaaners will be journalists in this country. Sub-editors don't have to re-write the story, they can always change 'its to it's'. They'll do it just once, the next time the poor black or afrikaner will know what's right. Please do not judge me on my "grammar and spelling' if you want to respond, just take the facts.

kaf.. Posted on 2 May 2006 13:36
Rob Dickens
Purists unite-
*sigh* It's so sad isn't it. Although as a professional writer the more English gets dragged through the mud, the more rare my skills become and it's simple economics then. Everytime english is murdered in print or whatever medium, my stock goes up. At this rate I'll be charing R100 per word in five years time. :)

I'm sure, after your diatribe, you must have read Lyne Truss' "Eats shoots and leaves". Essential reading for all us purists. However, it's sad that we are even labelled purists, finicky, anal, or elitists. I always find it amusing when I am accused of using "big words". The poor imbeciles that utter this puerile reference, never seem to understand that the accusation is more a reflection on their waxing ignorance than anything else. Posted on 9 Jun 2006 17:15
leon
suits you right, rob - or shall i say purist?-
they should call you those names more often. thay suit you.... Posted on 17 Jun 2006 16:17
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This Message Board accepts no liability of legal consequences that arise from the Message Boards (e.g. libel, slander, or other such crimes). All posted messages are the sole property of their respective authors. The maintainer does retain the right to remove any message posts for whatever reasons. People that post messages to this forum are not to libel/slander nor in any other way depict a company, entity, individual(s), or service in a false light; should they do so, the legal consequences are theirs alone. Bizcommunity.com will disclose authors' IP addresses to authorities if compelled to do so by a court of law.
Follow us:


Subscribe

Receive free email newsletter

Make us your homepageAdd us to your favoritesRSS feedGet biz on your phone

Invite

Tell a friend about us