Coercemur coniunctione subiuntiva temporali quae propositum vel intentionem significat…….
I read recently - in the Daily Telegraph, I think - that some Local authorities have ordered employees to stop using Latin words and phrases on documents and when communicating with members of the public. It’s quite staggering how much the careful and sometimes distorted application of words has become such a business, principally, if perhaps pretentiously, to avoid offending someone somewhere about something. The argument about not using Latin phrases, even those in common usage, is, it is argued, so as not to offend or make life more difficult for those in our communities whose first language is not English. This view disregards the fact that Latin is not the first language of the majority either, but has infiltrated nonetheless.
Phrases like ad hoc, ex officio, bona fide, prima facie, inter alia, per se, pro rata, quid pro quo, vis-a-vis, vice versa and via have assumed a recognition of their own, to the extent that many people living here use them, irrespective of their own first language heritage. It seems quite cumbersome to me to obliterate eg, ie, NB and etc, just because they derive from Latin phrases.
I struggle with this linguistic correction on a number of counts. My first reflection is on the irony of the administration of a country, whose predominant population is among the most reluctant people in the world to learn foreign languages, to assert that other peoples living in their midst cannot pickup the meaning of Latin phrases of common usage when inserted into written documents. This strikes me as a pompous, ill-researched presumption that those whose first language is not English are incapable of following the sense of the language when elaborated upon in context. This pomposity is indeed offensive, not the use of Latin. I write as someone who did study languages at university, and so I can identify with living in another country, albeit for a short time, whose first language is not my own. I know first-hand that language is live and dynamic. It is learnt by repeated hearing and imitating, not in accordance with some self-appointed thought-police instruction manual. Words have meaning only in a context, which itself changes organically. According to the Dr Peter Jones, co-founder of the charity Friends of Classics said “This sort of thing sends out the message that language is about nothing more than the communication of very basic information in the manner of a railway timetable.” My thoughts entirely.
It is true that the national literacy level is evidenced as being quite low and public communications should be within the grasp of the general population. It is equally important not to condescend; I believe the phrase “dumbing down” is already well understood.
As a female I understand very well that it is important not to use language which subordinates the one sex to the other. It is important to me also as a social being that words which portray one ethnic or racial groups as inferior to another is completely unacceptable. As a former language student the gender of words in German being linguistically derived as masculine, feminine and neuter does not offend me at all. Nor does it offend me to quote the “man on the Clapham omnibus”. Nor do I believe that Actors are professionally superior to Actresses.
I believe that the label “Paki” intends offense. I recognise that to label people Barbie dolls or Golliwogs is derogatory. I also accept that organisations have a responsibility to forge their own brand and culture and for that reason they may wish to impress upon their employees a specific lexicon and phraseology that beams that out to their audience. However, getting the words right for the different audiences is a tricky business and the risks of getting it wrong, or focusing on the wrong ones, are real. If organisations are serious about being socially in tune, if not politically correct, they need to do more regular research on what is common parlance and what is offensive or difficult language for the different groups they seek not to offend. Moreover they need to keep the penalties for staff who step over this sometimes virtual line proportionate.
*We’re being controlled by a subordinating conjunction of time implying purpose or intent……..