Skip to main content

Let's Be Like Europe: George Orwell redux (oops, sorry, not supposed to use that elitist term)

From the UK Telegraph [with h/t to The Libertarian Alliance}:

Local authorities have ordered employees to stop using the words and phrases on documents and when communicating with members of the public and to rely on wordier alternatives instead....

Bournemouth Council, which has the Latin motto Pulchritudo et Salubritas, meaning beauty and health, has listed 19 terms it no longer considers acceptable for use.

This includes bona fide, eg (exempli gratia), prima facie, ad lib or ad libitum, etc or et cetera, ie or id est, inter alia, NB or nota bene, per, per se, pro rata, quid pro quo, vis-a-vis, vice versa and even via.

Its list of more verbose alternatives, includes "for this special purpose", in place of ad hoc and "existing condition" or "state of things", instead of status quo.

In instructions to staff, the council said: "Not everyone knows Latin. Many readers do not have English as their first language so using Latin can be particularly difficult."...

Of other local authorities to prohibit the use of Latin, Salisbury Council has asked staff to avoid the phrases ad hoc, ergo and QED (quod erat demonstrandum), while Fife Council has also banned ad hoc as well as ex officio....

...the Plain English Campaign has congratulated the councils for introducing the bans.

Marie Clair, its spokesman, said: "If you look at the diversity of all our communities you have got people for whom English is a second language. They might mistake eg for egg and little things like that can confuse people.

"At the same time it is important to remember that the national literacy level is about 12 years old and the vast majority of people hardly ever use these terms.

"It is far better to use words people understand. Often people in power are using the words because they want to feel self important. It is not right that voters should suffer because of some official's ego."


I particularly like the admission that the national literacy level is about 12 years old as a commentary on the power of a modern Great British education.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Funny, I was emptying the change from my pockets yesterday, and I noticed that I'd gotten a Canadian quarter from somebody. I hadn't got one in a while, and gave it a closer inspection. Right there by the portrait of Queen Bess is the inscription, "D. G. Regina" which stands for Dei Gratia, and translates to "Queen by the Grace of God." (When there's a king on the throne, they change it to D. G. Rex; pure coincidence!)

So anyway, we have kooks like Michael Newdow who want "In God we Trust" taken off our currency, but nobody in the commonwealth has a problem with the Divine Right of Kings? Hicat, sum quid est?

Back to the original topic, the Plain English crowd are engaged in class warfare, plain and simple, in that Latin is taught in public schools in Britain (what we would call private) but not in parochial schools (what we would call public) so a comprehension of Latin is seen as upper class snobbery.
The Last Ephor said…
I think there's something to be said for Plain English laws. I don't mind the odd latin phrase here or there but many laws are written so as to be incomprehensible to anyone w/o a law degree (to some of them don't even get it). IIRC Steve even endorsed this initiative.
Anonymous said…
One more thing; does this mean J.K. Rowling would have to revise all the spells in the Harry Potter books? Expelliaramus!
Duffy
What I argued for is "plain English" in laws; not the elimination of etc., vice versa, and per se....

g rex
Good point=expelliarmus now equals "throw yourself out of his/her hand" which would take just sufficient time for Voldemort to convert you to ashes....

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...