Readers' Ombudsman: There's nothing quite like grammar for provoking a response

Published on Sunday 25 January 2009 20:59

THERE are a number of readers who keep a very close eye on our grammar. That is a good thing and we are quite happy, in fact probably a wee bit flattered, to be put under such scrutiny.

In this column, I recently answered a letter from Andrew HN Gray, who took me to task over a grammatical error. I wrote "keen that we are accurate in our usage of words", and he pointed out it should have read "keen that we be accurate in our usage of words". He even used Beyonce's If I were a Boy to point out that correct grammatical usage is possible even in up-to-the-minute hip and trendy pop music world.

I said that the advised usage would render the phrase extremely old-fashioned sounding, and, in what proved to be a doomed attempt at using humour to make a serious point, I likened it to a line from a Pirates of the Caribbean movie.

George Archibald weighs in for Mr Gray. He starts off with an artfully deceptive criticism. "Most of what you say makes sense…" But not all of it, obviously.

"For once, though, you have something wrong (readers of earlier columns will know this is not 'for once']. Andrew HN Gray is absolutely right of course. You may decide to ignore that fact and 'disagree' as you put it, but you remain wrong.

"Fashion has very little to do with it and there is never an excuse for sloppy use of this most wonderful of languages. Your Pirates of the Caribbean analogy is just daft and irrelevant.

"You will probably 'disagree' with me also, and ignore this missive. But that won't change the fact."

No, I don't disagree: you are absolutely right. Under the rules, I was wrong. But in using language, the communication is more than just using the right words, in the right order. It can be about tone and context, and sometimes that can be more important. Sometimes it is about creating the impression you want in the mind of the reader.

So I meant that, in the circumstances, I thought our lapse was excusable. Mr Archibald clearly doesn't. That is where we disagree.

Glen Pride also writes in with a grammatical interjection.

"Sorry to return once again to the subject of your grammar, but the sample on page 2 must be noted. 'The Lea Francis 14 saloon he bought for $130 took he and his wife on their honeymoon'. Perhaps sub-editing with a New Year hangover!"

Whatever the reason, it was just wrong. No disagreement here.

AN INCENSED American living in this country wrote concerning a Barack Obama headline that read "Busy first day for new boy".

He wrote: "I was absolutely shocked to see your front page. In the US, the most derogatory, demeaning and racist name to call a black adult male is 'boy', which dates back to the days of slavery.

"I can only assume that you did not know the meaning of this expression, but you should hastily print an apology, or at least an admission of ignorance of the term. To call the President of the United States a 'boy' is astonishing!!!"

Firstly, if we caused any offence, we sincerely apologise. I wonder if this is one of those things that is a bit of a cultural difference. If you remove the word "new", then it is obvious that there is a problem with using the word "boy" in connection with a black man. But "boy" is not really an insult on this side of the Atlantic, although obviously we are aware of how it can be in the US.

And the expression "new boy" is such a widely used expression, peculiarly British, without any racial or derogatory overtones, and usually conveys a kind of warm affection. I think we looked at the phrase and not really at its component parts, and never thought twice about it. We will in future.

• IF YOU have a complaint about editorial in The Scotsman, contact Ian Stewart at [e-mail], at 108 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AS or on 0131 620 8633.