Bye bye to the English pie

Call that a pie? Image from Google

Recent arguments on the radio about what a 'pie' is have proved very entertaining. Apparently there are those who claim something can only be a pie if it is entirely encased in pastry. They should listen to Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty. The character claims words mean whatever he says they mean. He's not quite right - it's not down to a single arbiter. But words in English certainly do mean whatever they are generally used to mean. And those meanings change. A living language evolves. Try to set it in aspic and it becomes a museum piece.

Those who argue for the pastry-surrounded pie are confusing language and branding. It's fine to set rules for the official name for a product or brand. But, in English, a pie means whatever people call a pie. Hence our ability to refer unashamedly to shepherd's pie or cottage pie, neither of which have any pastry whatsoever.

When I give talks on writing, I point out a number of 'errors' that are disappearing because the language is evolving. For example, some pedants object to using 'their' when referring to an individual. But the trouble is, the language doesn't have a singular equivalent. So we end up with the clumsy formation 'A student must learn his or her foundation material in the first year.' Before long, 'their' will have entirely replaced 'his or her' - and good riddance.

Similarly, when I talk to scientists they still unanimously think that 'data' is plural. So they insist on saying 'The data are now ready for processing.' The rest of the world has realised that data is a singular collective noun and we should say the far more elegant 'The data is now ready for processing.' Scientists will catch up eventually, but they tend to be conservative, so it will take a while.

Some changes are truly painful to those who have been brought up with the original version. Remember the outcry over the 'appropriation' of 'gay'. I'm sure when 'a norange' started to transition to 'an orange' there was muttering in the streets. And I share the pain over some language changes. Yet in the end, I accept that evolution is an irresistible force and it's better to go with the flow and enjoy the ride.

So all together now, to a tune by Don Maclean:

'Bye bye to the English pie,
If language don't evolve it is going to die...'

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope

Search This Blog