Language evolves. You can't stop it so there's no point worrying about it. Some of these Latin "phrases" are so common that they are simply part of the language now anyway. They can try telling someone to not say "via", but I bet 90% of council workers wouldn't even realise it was Latin and wouldn't have a clue what to use instead!
You're missing my point. Language has already evolved so that these phrases just aren't needed. Our language evolved from Latin (among others) so why is it devolution to phase out the bits we don't need? Why would you feel the need to say 'vice versa' when 'the other way around' says the exact same thing and will be understood by a greater number of people (which is the point of the discouragement)? I've always thought that people who used such Latin phrases as 'quid pro quo' sounded like pretentious prats when there are perfectly good English words that say the same thing. Latin is a nice thing to use to occasionally say something, but I'll be the first to admit that I only ever use it because it sometimes sounds more elitist than English, precisely because a lot of people don't understand it (sometimes I too feel the need to sound pretentious!). Hell, I hardly know any! (I looked up the phrase in the previous comment, though it's one I'll remember *grin*)
Some of these 'Latin' words are in such common usage that they are in fact English words and nothing will change that. Like the example I gave of 'via', personally I can't think of an easy and concise way to state what 'via' means using other words. I mean, I can do it, just not in three letters, IYSWIM. But the rest just simply aren't needed any more.
I just don't see it as devolution to discourage the use of a dead language to say something that can be said just as clearly (if not more so) in the modern, in use, language we all speak. You'll note that they say they aren't banning it, just discouraging it. I see it more as devolution to insist on using an ancient language most people don't understand instead of what has evolved over time.
I'd use vice versa because it's shorter than 'the other way around' (and I'm not convinced the meaning is identical either - I think vice versa is more precise for the situations where it is appropriate).
Aye, I suppose vice versa covers a few slight variations on the sentiment of 'the other way around' (such as 'in reverse order from that stated') and so can be more accurate in some situations. I don't mind the use of that one so much if I'm honest, it's so common that there's really very few people who don't know what it means. I only picked on it as it was the first one that came to mind. ;)
The whole problem would be solved if people weren't too bloody lazy, badly educated or uninterested to go and look up words they didn't understand in the dictionary.
Given that a good 50% of English words are derived from Latin in the first place, Latin is hardly dead.
The whole problem would be solved if people weren't too bloody lazy, badly educated or uninterested to go and look up words they didn't understand in the dictionary. That whole statement represents precisely the attitude the councils are trying to avoid. The fact is that some people ARE stupid/lazy/uninterested and yet you still have to deal with them. Being stubborn and using language they don't understand is just going to create more work for yourself or someone else. Why bother? In your own speech, use whatever language you wish, but in an official capacity, be clear, be easily understood by the largest proportion of people. It means less work in the long run.
Latin is dead. Our words are derived from it, they are NOT Latin.
I think the problem is that if you reduce the exposure of people to words that they don't understand then they'll never learn. One hopes that of the people who don't understand these terms, at least *some* of them find out, even if that's just by asking what x means. IMHO, if only 1% of those exposed to it learn something, it's worth exposing them to it.
Oh, I'm totally with you. Why do we have to dumb down the English language? Why should we simplify it? It can be such a richly expressive language integrating aspects of so many other languages - Latin, French, Greek...why restrict it?
Poor classically educated me can manage just fine.
Pro rata - basically is just proportional ratio. quid pro quo - something for something bona fide - good faith, genuine quod erat demonstrandum - doesn't really require a translation as it should only be used in a structured logical proof of a concept or theory, but could be easily changed to "thus the [theory/concept] is proved" or similar.
Latin is not necessary, and isn't as widely understood so in the context of the article I agree it shouldn't be used. Council workers need to be sure they are understood, they can't afford to use different language just because it sounds 'nicer' or is shorter. Again, they state they haven't banned it, just discouraged it.
Latin is nice to use occasionally but is not necessary and in the sort of workplace described (where contact with many cultures/backgrounds is day to day) then it should not be used.
So long as they don't extend it to biological classifications as well, all is well - now that really would get confusing. Though I think it's a shame, I like Latin, it has it's place.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-11-04 10:29 am (UTC)Noli nothis permittere te terere. ;)
no subject
Date: 2008-11-04 10:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-04 11:32 am (UTC)Some of these 'Latin' words are in such common usage that they are in fact English words and nothing will change that. Like the example I gave of 'via', personally I can't think of an easy and concise way to state what 'via' means using other words. I mean, I can do it, just not in three letters, IYSWIM. But the rest just simply aren't needed any more.
I just don't see it as devolution to discourage the use of a dead language to say something that can be said just as clearly (if not more so) in the modern, in use, language we all speak. You'll note that they say they aren't banning it, just discouraging it. I see it more as devolution to insist on using an ancient language most people don't understand instead of what has evolved over time.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-04 11:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-04 11:45 am (UTC)P.S.
Nice hat. :D
no subject
Date: 2008-11-04 01:32 pm (UTC)Given that a good 50% of English words are derived from Latin in the first place, Latin is hardly dead.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-04 01:47 pm (UTC)That whole statement represents precisely the attitude the councils are trying to avoid. The fact is that some people ARE stupid/lazy/uninterested and yet you still have to deal with them. Being stubborn and using language they don't understand is just going to create more work for yourself or someone else. Why bother? In your own speech, use whatever language you wish, but in an official capacity, be clear, be easily understood by the largest proportion of people. It means less work in the long run.
Latin is dead. Our words are derived from it, they are NOT Latin.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-04 08:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-04 11:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-04 12:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-04 01:24 pm (UTC)Ditto QED, quid pro quo, bona fide and many others. Maybe we use Latin so we don't *have* to use the long-winded and rubbish English way. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-11-04 01:44 pm (UTC)Pro rata - basically is just proportional ratio.
quid pro quo - something for something
bona fide - good faith, genuine
quod erat demonstrandum - doesn't really require a translation as it should only be used in a structured logical proof of a concept or theory, but could be easily changed to "thus the [theory/concept] is proved" or similar.
Latin is not necessary, and isn't as widely understood so in the context of the article I agree it shouldn't be used. Council workers need to be sure they are understood, they can't afford to use different language just because it sounds 'nicer' or is shorter. Again, they state they haven't banned it, just discouraged it.
Latin is nice to use occasionally but is not necessary and in the sort of workplace described (where contact with many cultures/backgrounds is day to day) then it should not be used.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-04 03:02 pm (UTC)