Since I’m much into British English these days, due to manifold rationales, here’s some genuine piece of conservative British humour and food for thought for linguists, mass-media writers and speakers, translators and, ultimately, anyone that is interested in languages (not just the English language; some suggestions would be tremendously useful to Romanian journalists and bloggers, as well). I’ve added some comments of my own in red.
Words & phrases:
Agree: things are agreed on, to or about, not just agreed.
Anticipate does not mean expect. Jack and Jill expected to marry; if they anticipated marriage, only Jill might find herself expectant.
Appeal is intransitive nowadays (except in America), so appeal against decisions.
Brokerage is what a stockbroking firm does, not what it is.
Circumstances stand around a thing, so it is in, not under, them.
Critique is a noun. If you want a verb, try criticise.
Epicentre means that point on the earth’s surface above the centre of an earthquake. To say that Mr Putin was at the epicentre of the dispute suggests that the argument took place underground.
Finally: do not use finally when you mean at last. Richard Burton finally marries Liz Taylor would have been all right second time round but not first.
Free is an adjective or an adverb, so you cannot have or do anything for free. Either you have it free or you have it for nothing. (that’s something I didn’t know)
Get: an adaptable verb, but it has its limits. A man does not get sacked or promoted, he is sacked or promoted. (again, something I didn’t quite know)
Homosexual: since this word comes from the Greek word homos(same), not the Latin word homo (man), it applies as much to women as to men. It is therefore as daft to write homosexuals and lesbians as to write people and women.
Only. Put only as close as you can to the words it qualifies. Thus, These animals mate only in June. To say They only mate in June implies that in June they do nothing else.
Protagonist means the chief actor or combatant. If you are referring to several people, they cannot all be protagonists.
Table: avoid it as transitive verb. In Britain to table means to bring something forward to action. In America it means exactly the opposite.
Venerable means worthy of reverence. It is not a synonym for old. (I laughed my head off at that)
Verbal: every agreement, except the nod-and-wink variety, is verbal. If you mean one that was not written down, describe it as oral. (awfully many translators make this mistakes in legal translations).
The American English vs. British English controversy:
Prefer doctors to physicians and lawyers to attorneys. They rest from their labours at weekends, not on them and during the week their children are at school, not in it.
Trains run from railway stations, not train stations. The people in them, and on buses, are passengers, no riders. Cars are hired, not rented. City centres are not central cities. Cricket is a game not a sport. London is the country’s capital, not the nation’s.
In Britain, though cattle and pigs may be raised, children are (or should be) brought up. (brilliant this one)
You may program a computer, but in all other contexts the word is programme.
General style:
Those who disagree with you are not insane or stupid. Nobody needs to be described as silly: let your analysis show that he is. (utter British humour…)
Make sure that plural n0uns have plural verbs. Too often in the pages of The Economist they do not. (laughed my head off at that).
Do your best to be lucid. (priceless pun; lucid may mean clear to understanding, but it also means: having full sense of one’s faculties). (“I see but one rule: to be clear”, Stendhal).
“The paragraph”, according to Fowler, “is essentially a unit of thought not of length.” (and this Fowler could have done the literary world, literature students and keen readers a great service and informed Faulkner of that…)
Computer terms are also usually lower case: the net, the internet, web, website, the world wide web..
It seems that ‘Brits’ are quite against political correctness. Here’s some proof:
Avoid giving offence. This should be your first concern. But also avoid mealy-mouthed euphemisms and terms that have not generally caught on despite promotion by pressure-groups. If and when it becomes plain that American blacks no longer wish to be called black, as some years ago it became plain that they no longer wished to be called coloured, then call them African-American (or whatever). Till then they are blacks.
Avoid, where possible, euphemisms and circumlocutions prompted by interest-groups. In most contexts, hearing-impaired are simply deaf. The underpriviliged may be disadvantaged, but are more likely just poor.
A little something about the British respect:
The overriding principle is to treat people with respect. That usually means giving them the title they themselves adopt. But some titles are ugly (Ms), some misleading (all Italian graduates are Dr), and some tiresomely long (Mr Dr Dr Federal Sanitary-Inspector Schmidt). Do not therefore indulge people’s self-importance unless it would seem insulting not to. Do not use Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms or Dr on first mention even in bodymatter. Plain George Bush, Tony Blair or other appropriate combination of first name and surname will do. But thereafter the names of all living people should be preceded by Mr, Mrs, Miss or some other title. Knights, dames, princes, kings, etc, should be given their title on first and subsequent mentions. Many peers are, however, better known by their old names. Those like Paddy Ashdown, Laurence Olivier and Margaret Thatcher can be given their familiar names on first mention. After that, they should be called by their titles.
Use Dr only for qualified medical people, unless the correct alternative is not known or it would seem perverse to use Mr. And try to keep Professor for those who hold chairs, not just a university job or an inflated ego.
[Credits to: The Economist Style Guide]
Suffice it to say that Oxford University Press also has a style manual. And probably many other such entities…
(Dacă există un astfel de ghid stilistic pentru limba română, scos de decrepiţii de la Academia Română sau de la Institutul ăla, Iorgu Iordan, de vreo editură, de vreun trust de presă sau de vreun blogger din România, vă rog să mă luminaţi şi pe mine … (şi nu, nu vorbesc de doom1 sau 2 şi nici de Gramatica Academiei). Vorbesc despre ceva similar celor de mai sus, adaptat realităţii, cam cum se lupta Alexandru Graur şi cum a mai încercat şi George Pruteanu, fie-le ţărâna uşoară …)
