[english] as pure as the driven snow

The good doc

Wish I knew who had said this:

"The defence of the mother tongue against perceived decline or corruption by foreign terms is a major preoccupation of the French. L'Académie française sets an official standard of language purity of the French language by removing foreign words such as microchip and hamburger from the vocabulary."

Most are familiar with the James D. Nicoll addendum:

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."

I understand but can't be sure that there is an English body which convenes for the purpose of doing just this - rifling other languages for new vocabulary and I'm all for it. While we don't wish to see other languages die out for want of usage, as Johnson said [quoted 1785 by Boswell in reference to the New Hebrides]:

I am always sorry when any language is lost because languages are the pedigree of nations

… nevertheless sometimes the foreign words seem better. For example, the cumbersome "in front of you" when you only need say "devant" [Fr - stress the last syllable]. Or "that is so awful" when all you need to say is "uzhas" [Ru - stress the first syllable].

And in the article on Tingo, Georgina Pattinson of BBC News said, in 2005:

English is a rich and innovative language. But you can't help feeling we're missing out on some words … Of course, the English language has borrowed words for centuries. Khaki and croissant are cases in point.

So perhaps it's time to be thinking about adding others to the lexicon. Malay, for instance, has gigi rongak - the space between the teeth. The Japanese have bakku-shan - a girl who appears pretty from behind but not from the front.

… and so on. The Russians show their fixation with the prescriptive and pedantic rules of their language [which are then abused] by the following exchange in English:

Me: Which of these are correct: "How many brothers and sisters ... ?"

a] have you got b] do you have c] are you having d] have you

Girl: a] have you got

Me: Any others?

Girl: What do you mean? Isn't that the correct answer?

Me: It's one of them.

I then go on to explain that in many multiple choice exercises in English, there are four variants - one clearly incorrect, one unlikely or not in a good form and two possibles - one being the better.

This messes her mind up because her English teachers all insisted she have the correct variant in every case, nothing else being possible and if she put forward, say, variant b] above, then she is wrong, wrong, wrong and loses the marks. End of lesson, see you next week.

I've been fighting this attitude [and in particular the ubiquitous and tyrannical "marking key"] ever since I've been over here. Typical every day:

Him: What's the correct one?

Me: They all are.

Him: [incredulous look on his face].

Then I might say: "If yer want owt fer nowt, alas, do it fer thisen," and ask him what language it is. Or: "I'm gooin oop ont moor." He refuses to accept it is English from 200km north of London. What's more, the Americans don't even speak English [:)] and my evidence for this is Websters - my friend's constant companion is the dictionary of American Language, not American English. It clearly states this on the cover.

Which language for her?

So in the end, which model do you wish to follow - the prescriptive and pure attempt to keep your unchanging language pure or the more rollicking, "all comers welcome" model?