UK: Meddling with the English language again

Someone's already pointed out the confusion that even Americans, who are (mainly) native English speakers, can feel when dealing with unfamiliar accents and colloquialisms.  It's even more difficult for immigrants who aren't native speakers.  Even if they speak English well, the English they speak is quite often textbook-English.  It covers definitions, but not meanings. 

I don't disagree that English colloquialisms and slang are bound to raise communication problems with somebody who does not speak English as his first language (or even between the British variety of English and the American, as many threads on this forum have demonstrated). 

The fact that many people who have English as a second language know the textbook definitions but not the subtle nuances of words and phrases, especially colloquial speech, is surely an argument against substituting contrived "PC" phrases for everyday words which have been used for years and against using a word for something other than its proper meaning?

Anyone who doubts this, or thinks it's some sort of Liberal plot to destroy civilization, should pull their head out of the sand, hop in their time-machine, and head back to 1955.

Just as soon as I get this flux capacitor working, I'll be on my way.....

Certainly with the case of "youngster" though, that could easily be interpreted differently. Just what is a "youngster"? To some it would be teenager or younger, to others it may mean under-25, to others under-30. So seems fair enough in official circles not to use the term.

So how does "young person," which is stated as the preferred term to use in its place, remove any of that uncertainty?   

Let's put aside 'child' and 'homosexual' since those are your own personal sticking points and lets use for example old people. 

Personal sticking points?  This is the first time I've ever heard of somebody trying to claim that the word "child" might be offensive because it carries connotations of inexperience or even dishonesty.  And you know full well my views on homosexuality, but how does that in any way affect the use of the word as reported in the article?   The quote from the guidelines issued to the police about the meaning of "homosexual" is simply wrong. 

So, let's imagine it's your Mum or your elderly next door neighbour who's fallen or been robbed.  Do you think that the police should go in there and call her an 'old biddy' or an 'old bag'? 

Old biddy or old bag are both derogatory terms and always have been.

Precisely.  None of the other supposedly "bad" words and phrases condemned by the guidelines are derogatory per se (if you want to stop people using any word which could be used as part of a term which has an overall offensive or derogatory tone, then we'd have almost nothing left).

Isn't this a case of taking seemingly innocuous terms and insinuating they're derogatory?

That's what it seems like.  Yet again.

I agree that the stuff about "evening all" and "manning the phones" is stupid.

Wow!  We're in agreement on something at least.    

But I find it incredible that there are still people who actually think that saying "manning the phones" or referring to mankind or the layman is somehow supposed to be demeaning to women.  (Not that I didn't find it incredible when some people were spouting such nonsense 20 years ago.)

But whose definition are you going by that they're innocuous?  Lots of terms were accepted in the past and they're not now.  Things change. Language changes.

The natural progression is for language to evolve slowly over time, and there are plenty of examples of words which mean something subtly different in modern times than they did a couple of hundred years ago, or which have acquired slightly different shades of meaning over a long period (disinterested and uninterested come to mind). 

But it's totally different when some group comes along and suddenly declares that this word or that word is somehow offensive and to be avoided, when the vast majority of people have been using the word quite innocently and innocuously right up until that moment.   Or they declare that this word is now the preferred term, and then rapidly move around to claiming that anyone who does not constantly alter his language to follow their misguided and frequently changing whims is then guilty of some sort of "ism."

I think the people in the UK can still say they "are feeling a little queer" without getting into trouble?

The fact that many people who have English as a second language know the textbook definitions but not the subtle nuances of words and phrases, especially colloquial speech, is surely an argument against substituting contrived "PC" phrases for everyday words which have been used for years and against using a word for something other than its proper meaning?

Not necessarily.

In the first place, those dictionary definitions can get a person into trouble.  I speak Spanish quite well.  When I studied in Spain, I spent an hour telling my host family all about my best friends back home, and how close we all were.  I even checked my pocket dictionary to make sure I was using the right adjective.  It wasn't until I went out with my host sister later that night, that I found out I'd spent all afternoon implying that my friends and I were much closer than I'd intended. :p  I was semi-mortified.

'Real' words mean what it says in the dictionary...but also pick up a lot of connotations that aren't expressed in the OED.  The advantage of 'contrived PC phrases' is that they're invented to mean something specific.  Granted, they pick up their own connotations over time; there are some people who can make even the most neutral phrase sound like a horrible curse-word, just because they're the ones using it.  But the original, intended meaning is still widely known.

I think the people in the UK can still say they "are feeling a little queer" without getting into trouble?

Are you serious? I am presuming so. I am surely stating the obvious when I say that there are many situations in which saying that would be wildly inappropriate, e.g. in the workplace when a known gay person is present (unless they are known to encourage such language) and also many where it wouldn't matter e.g. a bunch of straight guys indulging in "locker room" type banter, (for the sake of the double meaning: a humorous reply might be "Really? I've been feeling a little hoarse myself!") but in general using "queer" to mean "unwell" would be considered decidedly old fashioned and Bertie Woosterish. Or else a deliberate reference to homosexuality. Context and milieu is everything. My wife says that in her social setting in the 1950s it had a fairly specific meaning - the feeling one has when one suspects the onset of a mild "stomach upset".

I agree that the stuff about "evening all" and "manning the phones" is stupid.

Wow!  We're in agreement on something at least.    

Hehehe!  Yeah, we agree on this, and on the MP's taking longer holidays issue, and something else recently I've forgotten.  Pretty soon we'll be starring in a remake of The Odd Couple. 

Here's a good one for you. My friend's mother is called Gay. When she joined Facebook they would not accept that as a name as it was deemed "offensive."  So on FB she is called Gaye.

'Real' words mean what it says in the dictionary...but also pick up a lot of connotations that aren't expressed in the OED. 

Yes, but the connotations and subtle nuances typically depend upon context, which is why trying to issue blanket instructions to avoid this word or that word is silly, except where the word is clearly offensive by itself.

"Stop acting like a child," could cause mild offense because it carries a suggestion that the person you are saying it to is acting stupidly for his age.

"I was just a child when we moved to this town," is a completely neutral statement of fact.

The advantage of 'contrived PC phrases' is that they're invented to mean something specific.  Granted, they pick up their own connotations over time;

So what is gained?   These contrived phrases certainly do carry connotations themselves merely by being used, since in many cases they are an immediate signal that the person using them is going to be somebody who will complain about the use of regular, everyday English as being sexist, racist, ageist, or whatever.

I am surely stating the obvious when I say that there are many situations in which saying that would be wildly inappropriate, e.g. in the workplace when a known gay person is present  {.....}  Context and milieu is everything.

So are you trying to say that you consider it inappropriate to use the word queer when a homosexual person is present regardless of context and intended meaning?   

Here's a good one for you. My friend's mother is called Gay. When she joined Facebook they would not accept that as a name as it was deemed "offensive." 

Like those over-zealous filters which trap words like sex or bastard, even when used in a context which is completely inoffensive.


Edit for typo.

I'm struggling to think of a context in which to use bastard inoffensively.

Yes, but the connotations and subtle nuances typically depend upon context, which is why trying to issue blanket instructions to avoid this word or that word is silly, except where the word is clearly offensive by itself.

"Stop acting like a child," could cause mild offense because it carries a suggestion that the person you are saying it to is acting stupidly for his age.

"I was just a child when we moved to this town," is a completely neutral statement of fact.

I understand that you find some changes in language unnecessary or disturbing, but if you prefer to isolate words from their context or disregard the context, then you will always be angry about this.

You accept that language changes over time. Well, how do you think it changes? By little steps, by documenting how words change and putting them into guides such as this one, which is in no way is binding over anyone. How is the Warwickshire Police’s handbook any different from a variety of English language usage and style guides that instruct us how to speak or write?

The problem here as I see it is the failure to take into account the fact that the label, not the word, ‘child’ or ‘youngster’ can have a negative connotation for some people. Using your example, saying “you’re acting like a child” could either be a negative or a positive depending wholly on who is saying it and how and the person it’s said to.

Most Teenagers do not like to be considered children or to be called a child, even if they are exactly those things, and many adults in their 20s look like they’re in their teens, and the older one gets the more so it seems.

Can you at least see how calling someone a ‘child’ and ‘youngster’ can lead to misunderstanding, when the child in question does not consider him or herself as such, or could possibly even be an adult? Can you at least consider that it could add to the tension when a police officer is interacting with a group of children?

How about calling a 12-year male child a boy, which he most certainly is? Seems innocent enough and correct, right? What if the 12-year-old male is black? Still accurate, but the term could be wholly misconstrued and for good reason.  

‘Child’, ‘kid’, or ‘youngster’ may be nouns, but when they are used to label, they act more like adjectives because they are being used as descriptions.

Using ‘young person’ instead may or may not become the preferred term, but to me it is more accurate. A child may not be a kid or a youngster and vice versa but children, kids and youngsters are all young people, which doesn’t yet have a negative connotation, though maybe in a decade or two it might and the language will evolve again and another term will be thought to be better suited.

So are you trying to say that you consider it inappropriate to use the word queer when a homosexual person is present regardless of context and intended meaning?  

In some situations, using the word wouldn’t be appropriate and it doesn’t matter whether a gay person is present or not. The meaning and the usage of the word has changed over time and it no longer means just ‘odd or strange’. I prefer to use ‘odd’ or ‘strange’ myself, but if you prefer to use it, I won’t think you’re queer.

 

I'm struggling to think of a context in which to use bastard inoffensively.

Although I agree, it is hard to think of a use of the word bastard in ‘everyday’ conversation that would not be used or construed as slang or as an offensive term. However, there are several legitimate usages of the word. In fact the dictionary only lists one of several definitions of the word as offensive/slang. A very bastard of a word, if I may say, since the most widely accepted use of the word is probably the offensive/slang use.

But we could have:

He was a bastard son of Charles II. 

The bastard mahogany is an Australian tree having lance-shaped leaves and furrowed bark 

The bastard file is a proper name for a type of file. It is one of four principal classifications of files which are graded according to coarseness (coarse, bastard, second, smooth).

Because of its design, this sword has no legitimate claim to being classified as either a single-handed or two-handed weapon, hence it is called the bastard sword.

Even in its offensive usage it might sneak through for being unoffensive: He won the lottery. What a jammy bastard.

But within the topic of the thread, I doubt seriously if a copper would have the need to ever use the word bastard. Who knows? Perhaps a conversation like this could take place:

Evenin’ all, Would any of you have a bastard file that I could use? I lost the keys to the cuffs and now I got to let this lucky bastard go since his alibi was found to be true. Now I got to go and find that old biddy who fingered him. Hey what’s that queer thing over in the corner? Is that by chance a bastard sword? Dearie me. You bought that on the black market? Good god now I’m gonna have to come back this afternoon and chat to your old folks about this but right now I must get back and man the station.
(actually he’s on the way back to collect his P45)



In all seriousness, I understand the concerns of the English language being altered. In some quarters it is. In this particular case, it is only advice and given to a small portion of the population. It doesn’t actually state they must follow the guidelines rigidly but I think they are just trying make the coppers be a little more aware.

Although I agree, it is hard to think of a use of the word bastard in ‘everyday’ conversation that would not be used or construed as slang or as an offensive term. However, there are several legitimate usages of the word.

You can add many more examples where it is used with the meaning of some sort of hybrid, mixed thing, with a strong hint of illegitimacy, e.g. "a bastardized system," in which dubious additions or modifications have been made to the original system.

Or examples where it refers to some item which stands apart from the others as a kind of special case, e.g. in power distribution there is a system which as known variously as high-leg delta, wild-leg delta, or bastard-leg delta, because one phase has a higher voltage to ground than the others.

A quick look in the dictionary reveals that there are similarly specialized zoological uses:

bastard, closely resembling another species;  ~ wing, rudimentary extra digit with quill-feathers.

I understand that you find some changes in language unnecessary or disturbing, but if you prefer to isolate words from their context or disregard the context, then you will always be angry about this.

But isolating a word from context and declaring that it's offensive per se is exactly what is happening with these guides, requests in government departments, etc.

In fact you can find plenty of examples on this very forum.  Or you would be able to find them if my perfectly regular, inoffensive uses of normal English had not fallen foul of "PC" censorship, which can't even be consistent.

Obviously the word bastard has been bastardised over the years! But isn't the censorship of swear words more to do with maintaining standards of decency than with being "PC"?

While we're at it, who is "PC" anyway? No-one admits to being politically correct and it's only ever used as a term of derision.

Obviously the word bastard has been bastardised over the years! But isn't the censorship of swear words more to do with maintaining standards of decency than with being "PC"?

While we're at it, who is "PC" anyway? No-one admits to being politically correct and it's only ever used as a term of derision.

Usually it has nothing to do with "politically" either, it's down to general morals and politeness.

In fact you can find plenty of examples on this very forum.  Or you would be able to find them if my perfectly regular, inoffensive uses of normal English had not fallen foul of "PC" censorship, which can't even be consistent.

For anyone wondering, Paul is referring to his use of 'coloured' 'negro' 'queer' 'fag' and 'baby killer'.  All of which are edited out of his posts when he uses them.

If that makes me the inconsistant PC brigade then so be it.

For anyone wondering, Paul is referring to his use of 'coloured' 'negro' 'queer' 'fag' and 'baby killer'.  All of which are edited out of his posts when he uses them.

If that makes me the inconsistant PC brigade then so be it.

 

I had no idea. And all I can say in that case is: Thank goodness for the inconsistent PC brigade.