This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/31/battle-between-british-american-english

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The readers' editor on… the battle between British and American English The readers' editor on… the battle between British and American English
(6 months later)
Sometimes convergence between the two kinds of English, British and American, seems inevitable. However, Guardian readers are not yet ready to run up the white flag despite the apparently relentless march of phrases from the other side of the pond. And it isn't just the Brits who dislike Americanisms in body text and headlines.Sometimes convergence between the two kinds of English, British and American, seems inevitable. However, Guardian readers are not yet ready to run up the white flag despite the apparently relentless march of phrases from the other side of the pond. And it isn't just the Brits who dislike Americanisms in body text and headlines.
"I note that in this Saturday's quiz the American expression 'protested' rather than the more precise British 'protested against' has been used in question 8," writes one reader. "I note that George Orwell objected to the adoption of Americanisms when there was an equal or better British English expression. He could not understand why the British 'intelligentsia' seemed to have some kind of inferiority complex regarding the language of our country."I note that in this Saturday's quiz the American expression 'protested' rather than the more precise British 'protested against' has been used in question 8," writes one reader. "I note that George Orwell objected to the adoption of Americanisms when there was an equal or better British English expression. He could not understand why the British 'intelligentsia' seemed to have some kind of inferiority complex regarding the language of our country.
"Speaking as an Irish person, I too fail to understand why British journalists are only too keen to do down British English. I wish to protest against it so please could you remind your contributors which country they are in?""Speaking as an Irish person, I too fail to understand why British journalists are only too keen to do down British English. I wish to protest against it so please could you remind your contributors which country they are in?"
Complaints about Americanisms are not new. Siobhain Butterworth, my predecessor, tackled the subject six years ago and then David Marsh, who keeps the Guardian's style guide, which states that only British English should be used, returned to the subject three years later in a blog.Complaints about Americanisms are not new. Siobhain Butterworth, my predecessor, tackled the subject six years ago and then David Marsh, who keeps the Guardian's style guide, which states that only British English should be used, returned to the subject three years later in a blog.
The readers' editor's office is no longer able to keep statistics about the kind of issues raised, because the volume of complaints and queries has grown in tandem with the Guardian's online readership. Six years ago there were 600 complaints a year about English language use, including Americanisms. Last month there were half a dozen relating to Americanisms.The readers' editor's office is no longer able to keep statistics about the kind of issues raised, because the volume of complaints and queries has grown in tandem with the Guardian's online readership. Six years ago there were 600 complaints a year about English language use, including Americanisms. Last month there were half a dozen relating to Americanisms.
The complaints about this subject, are overwhelmingly not based on anti-American sentiment. They are nearly always couched in terms of clarity – such as this one: "I try very hard not to write snotty letters about English usage in your or any other paper but I think enough of the Guardian to let you know that I am increasingly exasperated by your deference to US/business jargon.The complaints about this subject, are overwhelmingly not based on anti-American sentiment. They are nearly always couched in terms of clarity – such as this one: "I try very hard not to write snotty letters about English usage in your or any other paper but I think enough of the Guardian to let you know that I am increasingly exasperated by your deference to US/business jargon.
"I read in an article headed 'Treasury committee questions Osborne over role of autumn statement', Larry Elliott's report that 'George Osborne should make good on his pledge' to keep to one budget a year. Please tell me why it is better to 'make good on' a pledge or promise than to merely 'keep' it. This was in the lead par and no quote marks were used. Saddo that I am, I had to read the par three times before I could make my way past this gibberish from a writer I usually regard as a model of erudition and clarity."I read in an article headed 'Treasury committee questions Osborne over role of autumn statement', Larry Elliott's report that 'George Osborne should make good on his pledge' to keep to one budget a year. Please tell me why it is better to 'make good on' a pledge or promise than to merely 'keep' it. This was in the lead par and no quote marks were used. Saddo that I am, I had to read the par three times before I could make my way past this gibberish from a writer I usually regard as a model of erudition and clarity.
"'Keep' seems to be suffering the same fate as 'suffer', now banished in favour of 'lose out' or 'miss out'. This tinny, lazy – because automatic – formulation now pollutes even your headlines. Of course language is always changing, but why tolerate these pallid substitutions if clarity suffers? Until the US decided otherwise, you couldn't 'miss out' without missing something out – so what is the something? Invariably, when someone 'loses out' what the writer really means is that they've lost time, or money. So why not say which it is? Or it may mean that someone feels 'left behind'… Thank you for your patience. No thanks for testing mine.""'Keep' seems to be suffering the same fate as 'suffer', now banished in favour of 'lose out' or 'miss out'. This tinny, lazy – because automatic – formulation now pollutes even your headlines. Of course language is always changing, but why tolerate these pallid substitutions if clarity suffers? Until the US decided otherwise, you couldn't 'miss out' without missing something out – so what is the something? Invariably, when someone 'loses out' what the writer really means is that they've lost time, or money. So why not say which it is? Or it may mean that someone feels 'left behind'… Thank you for your patience. No thanks for testing mine."
And here is another reader who bumped up against something he didn't like: "Just a line to say that the headline on page 41 of the 9 March edition, 'Morrisons' tough choice: embrace online or watch customers walk out the door' jarred somewhat. The phrase 'walk out the door' is an Americanism. We would say 'walk out of the door'. There was space on the line for the preposition to be added. Or is the sub another Bill Bryson [the US-born author, who once worked as a subeditor on the Times in London]?"And here is another reader who bumped up against something he didn't like: "Just a line to say that the headline on page 41 of the 9 March edition, 'Morrisons' tough choice: embrace online or watch customers walk out the door' jarred somewhat. The phrase 'walk out the door' is an Americanism. We would say 'walk out of the door'. There was space on the line for the preposition to be added. Or is the sub another Bill Bryson [the US-born author, who once worked as a subeditor on the Times in London]?"
This is not really about the subediting of copy. It's really about whether the Guardian believes it's a battle worth fighting. I think the readers who argue that there is often a loss of clarity when an Americanism is used have a good point. However, it may be necessary to adopt a sort of linguistic triage. If the rules are to be respected, it may be time to decide which phrases are beyond redemption and withdraw to a position the Guardian will defend.This is not really about the subediting of copy. It's really about whether the Guardian believes it's a battle worth fighting. I think the readers who argue that there is often a loss of clarity when an Americanism is used have a good point. However, it may be necessary to adopt a sort of linguistic triage. If the rules are to be respected, it may be time to decide which phrases are beyond redemption and withdraw to a position the Guardian will defend.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.