NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/usage/english/9849

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 3.7 KB | 85 lines

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!midway.ecn.uoknor.edu!mmmirash
From: [e-mail] (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Standards
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet Administrator)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:15:06 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Lines: 72

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>>India's independence (or America's, for that matter) doesn't have to
>>do anything with this. This is *precisely* what I am trying to make
>>clear. Your acceptance of this standard doesn't imply that you are
>>*still* a part of the British Empire.
>
>What standard?  Whose?  Where do we find it?  Who speaks it?  The Queen?
>Surely not, because when she dies, what if the next monarch (if there is
>a next monarch) speaks a little differently?

Notice the words "little differently". There isn't likely to be a
significant change in standards of speech. Whatever minor change
occurs, can be accommodated. The new monarch will constitute the
standard. If the British reject the monarch as a standard, then
the BBC will be the standard.

>The BBC?  They have
>forsaken you.  There is no more standard for the news readers.


This argument is similar to : "There is nothing common between birds.
Every bird looks different". Don't you realise that EVERY bird has
standard characteristics? That is why we call it a bird! Similarly,
the standard would be the common grounds between different BBC
newsreaders. When the pronunciation of a word is suspect, the
majority's opinion must be considered.



>Who's
>standard?  Where do we go to hear it?  London?  Where?  Islington?
>Westminster?  Saint James?  What district in the city speaks Mondar's
>ideal standard?
>
If the Queen were no longer to be considered as the standard, then
the BBC would be. The flaw in your argument is that you are trying
to narrow down the standard accent to a single district, city,
suburb, and eventually, individual. Look at it this way : When
countries are considered, the English spoken in England is the
highest standard (now don't say "By whom in England?". I mean the
common characteristics of the English accent.) If the correct
standard *within* England itself were up to debate, then the BBC
standard would be the correct standard. (Again, take the *common*
characteristics and resolve differences in favour of the majority).


>>>The BBC has forsaken you, by the way
>>>
>>In spoken English, well maybe. But a majority of the British still
>>think that the Queen's English is the purest form.
>
>How do you know?  Have you asked them?
>
>

I have met a lot of Britons on IRC. And, *most* of them agree that
the Queen's English is the highest standard of English. Of course,
this doesn't prove that the majority of British believe so; but,
if it were found that the majority reject the Queen as a standard
then the BBC should be considered as the standard.


                                                           Mandar.


--
"Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.