Comments for osirra consulting http://www.osirra.com Precision, insight, delivery. Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:08:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on The Natural History Museum’s em dash faux pas by Simon http://www.osirra.com/2010/03/the-natural-history-museums-em-dash-faux-pas/comment-page-1/#comment-5 Simon Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:08:27 +0000 http://www.osirra.com/?p=373#comment-5 It's a good job that, as of tomorrow, we'll have a man on the inside… It’s a good job that, as of tomorrow, we’ll have a man on the inside…

]]> Comment on Expedia.co.uk and the errant em dash by The Natural History Museum’s em dash faux pas « osirra consulting http://www.osirra.com/2006/11/expedia-co-uk-and-the-errant-em-dash/comment-page-1/#comment-4 The Natural History Museum’s em dash faux pas « osirra consulting Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:31:25 +0000 http://www.osirra.com/?p=111#comment-4 [...] Natural History Museum has followed Expedia’s bad example in their use of the dash to indicate date ranges.  Remember, kids: en dash for ranges, unless the [...] [...] Natural History Museum has followed Expedia’s bad example in their use of the dash to indicate date ranges.  Remember, kids: en dash for ranges, unless the [...]

]]> Comment on A single version of English by Steve Collier http://www.osirra.com/2009/11/a-single-version-of-english/comment-page-1/#comment-1 Steve Collier Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:51:52 +0000 http://www.osirra.com/?p=287#comment-1 I must admit, my initial response was to recoil in horror at the suggestion, but then the pragmatist in me wagged its metaphorical finger and admonished me for being so irrational. Of course, it makes perfect sense to have a standard written English which does away with all the inconsistencies between the UK and the US. It would certainly reduce misunderstanding and also prevent thousands of people trawling through the Help menus of whatever version of Windows they’re running in order in an effort to stop their machines automatically changing "realised" for "realized" (as mine annoyingly just did). But on the other hand, English spelling makes no sense in the first place, which is perhaps precisely why we should keep it exactly as it is and not normalise it. There is the much-quoted fact that there are many ways to pronounce the combination “ou” (as in cough, rough, plough, through etc.) which has arisen as a consequence of the enormously diverse origins of the English language. In modernist Britain phoneticists like George Bernard Shaw clamoured for phonetic spelling to be the norm, promoting an alphabet of 48 letters with each representing a singular sound. If they’d been successful, we’d be living in a world in which “cough” was spelled “cof”, (which ironically isn’t too different from the strange language of texting adolescents). Call me a dinosaur, but I don’t think I’d like that very much... I think we should revel in the differences in English, bloody annoying though they are. Also, no matter how careful you were to avoid ‘taking sides’, such is the scrutiny a single solution would be under that there would be a consensus on which nation (and let's face it, it's either Limeys or Yanks) had emerged victorious. Language, no matter how subtle the differences, is inextricably linked to national pride. I know the suggestion was for a sensible solution that would be of (for the most part) commercial benefit, but I happen to like the difficult nonsensical nuances of English around the world, and for me, art wins over business every time. So after all that I think the reactionary element in me has beaten the pragmatist into submission: I’d rather put up with the peculiarities of stateside spellings (and would encourage them to put up with mine). To adopt a universal standard for written English just wouldn’t be cricket. Or indeed baseball. I must admit, my initial response was to recoil in horror at the suggestion, but then the pragmatist in me wagged its metaphorical finger and admonished me for being so irrational.

Of course, it makes perfect sense to have a standard written English which does away with all the inconsistencies between the UK and the US. It would certainly reduce misunderstanding and also prevent thousands of people trawling through the Help menus of whatever version of Windows they’re running in order in an effort to stop their machines automatically changing “realised” for “realized” (as mine annoyingly just did).

But on the other hand, English spelling makes no sense in the first place, which is perhaps precisely why we should keep it exactly as it is and not normalise it. There is the much-quoted fact that there are many ways to pronounce the combination “ou” (as in cough, rough, plough, through etc.) which has arisen as a consequence of the enormously diverse origins of the English language.

In modernist Britain phoneticists like George Bernard Shaw clamoured for phonetic spelling to be the norm, promoting an alphabet of 48 letters with each representing a singular sound. If they’d been successful, we’d be living in a world in which “cough” was spelled “cof”, (which ironically isn’t too different from the strange language of texting adolescents). Call me a dinosaur, but I don’t think I’d like that very much…

I think we should revel in the differences in English, bloody annoying though they are. Also, no matter how careful you were to avoid ‘taking sides’, such is the scrutiny a single solution would be under that there would be a consensus on which nation (and let’s face it, it’s either Limeys or Yanks) had emerged victorious. Language, no matter how subtle the differences, is inextricably linked to national pride.

I know the suggestion was for a sensible solution that would be of (for the most part) commercial benefit, but I happen to like the difficult nonsensical nuances of English around the world, and for me, art wins over business every time. So after all that I think the reactionary element in me has beaten the pragmatist into submission: I’d rather put up with the peculiarities of stateside spellings (and would encourage them to put up with mine). To adopt a universal standard for written English just wouldn’t be cricket. Or indeed baseball.

]]>