It’s been a rather cool mid-May morning today. There was a brief moment when I was out running and the sun came out just as I reached a spot sheltered from the rather cold wind. I was tempted to stop and bask for a while, like the blackbirds I have occasionally seen in the garden. Actually, I haven’t seen any sun-bathing blackbirds - down at ground level, wings spread out, basking! - this year so far; they’re all in my memory from last year or the year before.
But then, the world is a cold-hearted place at the moment. Here’s a link to an article about Afghan refugees being given notice by Suella Braverman to leave their temporary refuge accommodation and either accept whatever they’re offered in whatever part of the country that might be or just fend for themselves! So much for promises to be given a safe place to live after working for British government in Afghanistan!
And here’s a selection of letters to the Guardian newspaper about police and protesting:
This one from a retired chief superintendent:
These are worrying times. When I policed protest, across 30 years of service (1986-2016), in a variety of roles that included holding a riot shield myself, the police were simply there to protect life and property. We were the visible safety barrier between the protesters and those they were protesting against. We allowed them both to be heard.
Paul Phillips
Retired chief superintendent
And one which strikes me because of the interconnectedness of names and everything:
Andy Beckett mentions the past suppression of protest by the practice of “kettling” – corralling protesters in a confined space for hours. As a human rights solicitor in 2005, I challenged this practice by means of a judicial review. I instructed Keir Starmer QC (as he then was) to appear for our clients. We lost the case. The judge who decided the case was Mr Justice Tugendhat, father of the MP Tom Tugendhat, who is now security minister.
In 2012, the European court of human rights upheld his decision. There is a long history of suppression of protest in this country.
Louise Christian
London
And one that pulls together immigration, refugees and protesting:
In 1957, when as an 11-year-old I arrived with my parents in this country to find safe haven as refugees from Soviet-occupied Hungary, the sight of a friendly bobby on street corners taught me to not be afraid of authority. Today, at the age of 78, having never knowingly committed a single law infringement in my life, I nevertheless have to fear being arrested if I as much as take part in a peaceful demonstration. My parents would turn in their graves.
Elizabeth Morley
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion
On less serious matters, I’m getting agitated about language again. The Italians and the Spanish occasionally get in a spin about English words creeping into their language. But then they accept the terms and “italianise” or “hispanify” them. Yesterday in our zoom conversation class one of our groups asked how to say ‘to come out’, as in letting people know you are gay, in Italian. It turns out they say: fare un coming-out - to make a coming-out. The French probably get more worked up than most and have long fought a losing battle to keep the language pure - and then they come up with terms like the verb “relooker” - to give a new look to something, neither proper French nor a proper English borrowing.
As for English, it’s sloppy speaking that rattles my cage. I don’t see why intelligent, well-read people can’t pronounce the sound “th” but use “f” or “v” instead: I fink vat’s very annoying! I also think it’s an affectation on some speakers’ part, wanting to be down there with the (down vere wiv ve) cool kids.
Then this morning I saw an article about Martha Stewart, television personality, getting her picture on the cover of Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit edition, their oldest cover model ever, at the age of 81. That’s a bit of success for the older woman! But it’s the use of language I wanted to comment on. She said: “When I heard that I was going to be on the cover of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit, I thought: ‘Oh, well that’s pretty good.’ I’m gonna be the oldest person, I think, ever on the cover of Sports Illustrated.’”
It’s that use of “gonna” instead of “going to”. Even in everyday speech it grates on me, perhaps because it’s an Americanism. But in written language it’s even more annoying.
And then Phil pointed out the similar use of “prolly” for “probably”, a new one for me. I even googled its origin and found it’s been around in the USA for at least a century:
“Writer Hugh Wiley seems to have been using it in dialogue in the 1920's. From his 1924 book The Prowler:
Dese folks is prolly dem bank boys whut buys all de fruit farms and makes dem yaller orange preserve.
He uses it in his 1922 book Lily as well:
"Looks like high tone folks. Visitin' prolly."
"Prolly is. Us goes down dis alley an' in de back way, Demmy.""
The characters using prolly in these books are supposedly speaking in the African-American Vernacular. Depending on how good an ear Wiley had for dialect, this may indicate prolly first arose in Southern or African-American speech”
There you go. If you type “gonna” and “prolly”, spellcheck doesn’t react at all. It does react to “mebbe”, which The internet tells me is North of England slang for “maybe”. Now that smacks of discrimination to me!
Life goes on. Stay safe and well, everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment