Queen's English

Question

Queen’s English

In the past, I used to hear that English were very strict with their own language. And I have always listened how important the so called “Queen’s English” was for them. But this summer, I heard from an English man and his family that things are now changing in that sense. They did not seem to be very happy with this new tendency. I would like to know your opinions about if this is getting in fashion.

• category - Heidita Sep 3, 2009
• Very nice thread Nila, enhorabuena :) - Heidita Sep 4, 2009

Answer 1

Queen Elizabeth's English is not the same as, say, Queen Victoria's English. Language is a living creature and it is constantly changing. You must also consider the differences between colloquial and formal English (the second is rather resistant to changes, especially the rapid ones), as well as different social classes and the language they use; though in today's world, because of numerous globalisation processes, mass- and multimedia, and the permeability and mixing of different cultures the tendency you mentioned is occurring more and more often.

• Good example would be the movie My Fair Lady. - Zoltán Sep 3, 2009

Answer 2

My perception is that you'd be unlikely to hear one English person say about another, "That's not the Queen's English".

English spelling and grammar haven't been taught properly in English schools for about 20-odd years, and it's often possible to gauge someone's age by how well they write - those who get the basics right are likely to be over about 35 years old. My experience is that a great many young people don't know the difference between: your/you're, there/their/they're, to/too/two, here/hear, and what's worse is I don't think many actually care. I doubt many could identify basic parts of speech like verbs, nouns, adjectives and adverbs - principally because they were never taught how to. A teacher friend of mine said they are now no longer allowed to mark down bad spelling because they have to assume the writer is dyslexic. Whilst I'd support some discretion for people who do have that challenge, there's no excuse for those that don't.

A lack of care is endemic nowadays - even big corporations no longer use correct English. I recently saw an advert from a supermarket that said, "Our sauces are to hot to handle!", which of course should have been "..too hot...". How many people must that text have gone past to get from idea to print, without one single person noticing? Similarly when a major bank used 'morgage' on their website instead of 'mortgage'. The announcements on the London Underground reporting a problem on the line say, "There is no service in both directions", instead of, "... in either direction". A recorded announcement used in the building I work in says, "The testing of the public address and fire alarm systems are now complete." - "IS now complete" - and it makes me shudder every time I hear it.

I know a primary school teacher who regularly writes, "I should of" instead of, "I should have" (or "I should've"). He doesn't know better, because he himself is too young to have been taught properly, and if today's teachers don't know, how can we expect the next generation of children to know?

Add to that computers with dictionaries that can tell you whether the word is spelt correctly, but not whether it is the correct word in that context - often I have seen a computer suggest a word that, despite being properly spelt, is nevertheless completely wrong. They're simply not good enough at understanding context, and can't tell you which of three similar words is actually the correct one, but the User will often take the 'advice' of the computer without question because they assume the computer must be right.

I'm not saying that no-one under 35 can spell properly, and everyone over 35 has perfect grammar, but from personal experience I'm aware of this 'age divide', and I thank my lucky stars that I passed through the English education system when grammar, spelling, and well written English were still considered important.

• I have to agree with this. It used to be that the BBC news readers spoke the "Queen's English", but even here standards are dropping. There is a reader who consistantly drops the "a" in Israel, and says "Isrel". - tom5 Sep 4, 2009
• Is it really spelt? Or spelled? - KasiaBasia Sep 4, 2009
• spelt/spelled to find out more (or other examples) search the web for "strong verbs". - samdie Sep 4, 2009

Answer 3

It is not strange what Eric says. According to that English family, Indian people get used to speaking English well.

I think that this can happen because people who know a language speak in a more relaxed way and they do what they want. While the others need to be more strict with the rules because it is more difficult for them.

• I totally agree with you! That's what I always say. Natives of a language don't need to know *why* they use certain grammar in certain situations, they just use what sounds *right* to them. Students of another language are forced to really absorb and - Nick-Cortina Sep 4, 2009
• understand another language's grammar, because it is not so natural to them. - Nick-Cortina Sep 4, 2009

Answer 4

Speaking properly has nothing to do with Class but self respect and caring about how others perceive you from a professional point of view. Who is going to listen to a guy that cannot express himself clearly and concisely, its the same principle as a business calling card. Therefore the need to speak properly will always remain important.

• I can see that you do not change your look as much as Heidita. - nila45 Sep 4, 2009

Answer 5

English is very different in many places, in the part of the United States I live we use slang alot, (Southern United States) We say nanners(Bannanas), taters (Potatoes) and matters (Tomatoes) English is it's own language and it can be used in many different ways. Proper or Inproper

• I just returned from South Carolina (I'm a yankee) and thought it was funny that while sitting at the pool, I understood a conversation between 2 Latino children better than I did an exchange between 2 southerners! - Nicole-B Sep 3, 2009
• I think you meant "Improper"? - tom5 Sep 4, 2009

Answer 6

The way you speak in England can very clearly define what social class you are in. Just think of that movie My Fair Lady with Audrey Hepbrun. Speaking "Queens English" is thought of being more prestige.

Answer 7

I can imagine myself trying to translate the sentence: "Our sauces are to hot to handle!" It would be impossible for me.

I think that language plays an important role in society. Unfortunately, in Spain there are problems with spelling too. And we think that young people are not very careful with the language and use a lot of slangs. But our hope is that they will be able to speak better when they want.

Answer 8

The idea that the misuse of the English language has dragged the language through the muck is in no way a new idea. This concept is likely as old as language itself.

This was the motivation behind the undertaking that launched what would become the paragon of references for the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). It was the desire of the undertakers to finally set forth a definitive and authoritative work on the English language and its proper usage. They believed that the English language had reached its pinnacle and could only deteriorate from that point on. By authoritatively setting down in print the language at its peak, it was believed that this would keep the language pristine and beautiful.

I believe that a similar attitude can likely be found in any generation in history. Language purists usually do not appreciate or accept the evolution (or devolution) of their language.

To some extent, I am a bit of a language purist myself and can understand this attitude. I also understand, however, that language is a tool, and each user utilizes the tool in different ways. Moreover, every time that the tool is used, the user leaves a permanent imprint on that tool. Over time, the tool changes. Some might call it a deterioration; others might call it a modification.

Who is to say which direction evolution will run. If someone from the 16th century were to come here today, would that person recognize that you were speaking proper English; If you were to travel forward in time to the 25th century would the people there recognize your mode of speech as proper English? One word sums up the answer to both of these questions: Doubtful.

We all must share this tool called language, and the key is to understand that not everyone will use the tool as proficiently or in the same fashion as we do.

So the next time you see that guy from the next block using your can opener to beat a nail into the wall or you notice that your neighbor is using your hammer to open that can of beans, just grin and remind yourself: This is progress.

Answer 9

The way you speak in England can very clearly define what social class you are in.

Same here in the United States.

Answer 10

This was the motivation behind the undertaking that launched what would become the paragon of references for the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). It was the desire of the undertakers to finally set forth a definitive and authoritative work on the English language and its proper usage. They believed that the English language had reached its pinnacle and could only deteriorate from that point on. By authoritatively setting down in print the language at its peak, it was believed that this would keep the language pristine and beautiful.

On the contrary, until the OED (and for some time thereafter) most dictionaries were unabashedly prescriptive. A large part of the aim (and value) of the OED lies precisely in it's recording of changes in the uses of words (and with rare exceptions) it does not label as "better"/"worse" the uses that it documents (it does, of course, uses terms such as "archaic", "rare", "dialectical", "American usage", etc. but these are comments on the frequency/distribution of the uses and not endorsements/denigrations.

If they were actually motivated by the desire to preserve the language at it "peak", all of the citations would have reflected the usage of the late 19th and early 20th century

So the next time you see that guy from the next block using your can opener to beat a nail into the wall or you notice that your neighbor is using your hammer to open that can of beans, just grin and remind yourself: This is progress

"change" and "progress" are not synonyms. At best, these are examples of "making do" with the tools at hand. Further, If you are suggesting that some people would (given a choice between a hammer and a can opener to beat a nail into a wall or to open a can of beans) choose the can opener for the former and a hammer for the latter, you are providing an example not of "progress" but of "ignorance of the 'right' (most efficient) tool for the task".

Answer 11

My main point was that the English education system is not providing students with sufficient knowledge to know whether the hammer or the can opener is best, and isn't even training them to care that being able to choose the more appropriate one would improve their lives.

I may have to accept the 'devolution' of my language, but I don't have to like it.

Answer 12

If they were actually motivated by the desire to preserve the language at it "peak", all of the citations would have reflected the usage of the late 19th and early 20th century

Thanks for the input Samdie. I was basing my comments on the several historical accounts that I have read on the subject.

From what I have read on the subject I agree that the OED sought to accomplish the Herculean task of tracing word origins to there inception into the English language.

However, the inception of this project also sought to definitively set the language for all posterity, much as the French had done. In 1635 the French Academy was founded by Cardinal Richelieu to maintain the purity of the language and its literature and to serve as the ultimate judge of approved usage. The goals that led to the creation of the OED were similarly motivated.

They believed that the English language had reached its pinnacle and could only deteriorate from that point on. By authoritatively setting down in print the language at its peak, it was believed that this would keep the language pristine and beautiful.

Let me apologize for these sentences. I see now how the meaning of my words could be ambiguous. I did not mean to imply that the language was at its peak when the undertaking began. What I meant was that those who conceived this (and let me add that it was a century or more, depending on whose account you believe, between conception and birth) also believed that the language could only and was currently deteriorating.

For this undertaking, therefore, correct current word usage, for the most part, was meant to be excerpted from classical sources of literature when the language was at its peak (which was believed, if I remember correctly to be somewhere between the 17th and 18th centuries; however, I could be wrong on this exact period when they believed that the language had begun to slide)

So the next time you see that guy from the next block using your can opener to beat a nail into the wall or you notice that your neighbor is using your hammer to open that can of beans, just grin and remind yourself: This is progress

Samdie...this was meant as a joke. In fact, the entire posting was meant to have a light-hearted rather than authoritative tone. If it came off as such, let me apologize. My own personal opinion on the matter is that, yes, far to few people have an interest in preserving the conventions in usage, spelling and grammar of the English language (I told you that I was somewhat of a purist myself ); however, I was only trying to point out in a light-hearted manner (I guess I fell flat on my face with this one) that it is a very difficult thing to try to "preserve" the purity of a language. In fact, it is probably an undertaking that is doomed to failure.

"change" and "progress" are not synonyms.

I agree, and I can only believe that those who spoke Old English would not have viewed Middle English as an improvement, just as those of the 14th century who spoke English would probably not have been able to appreciate English of the 19th century.

Yet even as the language has changed or progressed or deteriorated (whichever you prefer) it has remained the same. It is a tool. It is a means to an end, and that end is the verbal and sometimes written expression of ideas. And yes, I am implying that the tool has changed shape over history, and with that change in shape, the tool at times has been more precise for the job at hand and at times and, at times, less precise.

Whatever the motivation and whether the change has been a deterioration or a progression, it is an interesting history nonetheless.