Mind Your Language at Home No.14 Articles about Language

Dear Mind Your Language Colleagues Here we are at Issue No.14. Several more articles to keep your language interests alive during our stay-at- home time! Help me out and send me any articles, jokes, etc that you come across, and I will include them in the next edition! Rodney

What happened to Issue 13, I hear you cry! Now, I considered having a number 13. But read more…….. Why is the number 13 considered unlucky, anyway? Here are 13 possible reasons.

1. THERE WERE 13 PEOPLE AT THE LAST SUPPER. And tradition has held that the 13th to take their seat was either Judas or Jesus himself. 2. MANY BELIEVE EITHER THE LAST SUPPER OR THE CRUCIFIXION OCCURRED ON THE 13TH. One of the great controversies surrounding the Last Supper is whether or not it was a Passover meal. John seems to suggest that the meal was eaten the day before Passover, which has led some scholars to date the Last Supper to the 13th of Nisan (a month on the Jewish calendar), while others say that the crucifixion itself was on the 13th of Nisan. 3. BIBLICAL REFERENCES TO THE NUMBER 13 AREN'T ALL THAT POSITIVE. According to historian Vincent Foster Hopper, one of the people who really pushed 13 as being unlucky was 16th century numerologist Petrus Bungus. Among his reasons? Hopper says that Bungus "records that the Jews murmured 13 times against God in the exodus from Egypt, that the thirteenth psalm concerns wickedness and corruption, that the circumcision of Israel occurred in the thirteenth year." 4. TRADITIONALLY, THERE WERE 13 STEPS TO THE GALLOWS. According to popular lore, there are 13 steps leading up to the gallows. Gallows actually varied wildly, but even then, the number was often brought up to 13. A park ranger at Fort Smith Historic Site once said, "[There were] 13 steps on the gallows—12 up, and one down." 5. THE MASS ARREST AND EXECUTION OF THE KNIGHTS TEMPLAR BEGAN ON FRIDAY THE 13TH. The Knights Templar, who were widely believed to be protecting the Holy Grail (the cup Jesus drank from at the Last Supper) as well as other holy objects, also acted as a bank of sorts to European kings. But after French King Philip IV lost a war with England and became heavily indebted to the Knights, he conspired with Pope Clement V to have all members of the Knights Templar arrested, charged with Satanism and other crimes, and massacred. The roundup of the Knights Templar began in earnest on Friday, October 13, 1307. 6. WOMEN MENSTRUATE ROUGHLY 13 TIMES A YEAR. Some suggest that the association with 13 being unlucky is due to women generally having around 13 menstrual cycles a year (based on a cycle length of 28 days). 7. A WITCHES' COVEN HAS 13 MEMBERS. Although a coven is now considered to be any group of witches (or vampires, in some tellings), it was once believed that a coven was made up of exactly 13 members. 8. 13 LETTERS IN A NAME MEANS THE PERSON IS CURSED. There’s an old superstition that says if you have 13 letters in your name, you’re bound to be cursed. Silly, yes, but slightly more convincing when you consider that a number of notorious murderers' names (Charles Manson, Jack the Ripper, Jeffrey Dahmer, Theodore Bundy, and Albert De Salvo) all contain 13 letters. And, in case you were wondering: Adolf Hitler's baptismal name was Adolfus Hitler [PDF]. 9. SUPERSTITION HAS MADE FRIDAY THE 13TH TOUGH FOR BUSINESSES. Friday the 13th is an expensive day for businesses. One analyst claims that around a billion dollars a year are lost as people choose not to do business of any kind on Friday the 13th. 10. 12 IS A PERFECT NUMBER, SO 13 MUST BE UNLUCKY. In some schools of numerology, the number 12 is considered to be the representation of perfection and completion. It stands to reason, then, that trying to improve upon perfection by adding a digit is a very bad idea indeed—your greed will be rewarded with bad luck. 11. ZOROASTRIAN TRADITION PREDICTS CHAOS IN THE 13TH MILLENNIUM. The ancient Persians divided history into four chunks of 3000 years. And although the exact timeframes can vary, some scholars feel that at the beginning of the 13,000th year there will be chaos as evil mounts a great battle against good (although good will eventually triumph). 12. SPORTS GREATS WITH NUMBER 13 SOMETIMES COME UP SHORT. Dan Marino is a constant fixture at or near the top of any "best quarterbacks to never win a Super Bowl" list. Perhaps his failure to grab the biggest prize in football comes down to his jersey number—13. And he's not the only example: Basketball star Steve Nash was a two-time NBA MVP and is considered one of the all-time great point guards, but he and his #13 jersey never won a championship. 13. SUPER BOWL XIII WAS A HUGE FINANCIAL SETBACK FOR SPORTS BOOKIES. And keeping with sports, 1979's Super Bowl XIII was a particularly bad one for bookies. Called "Black Sunday," it pitted the Dallas Cowboys, the defending champions, against the Pittsburgh Steelers. But as money kept pouring in from Texas and Pennsylvania, the spread kept changing until settling precisely at the game’s actual spread. The losses were legendary. To counter all of this undue hatred of the poor number 13, here's one reason to love it: a baker’s dozen. Mmm, extra doughnut.

Tongue and Talk, The Dialect Poets

On with the Newsletter……….

First of all, a link to the BBC Radio 4 Series exploring Dialect Poetry from different parts of England: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b3m9sh

Secondly, Gill Johns contacted me concerning Polari:

Fabulosa! The Story of Polari, Britain’s Secret Gay Language by Paul Baker

Polari is a more recent spelling. In the past, it was also known as Palari, Palare, Parlaree or a variety of similar spellings. It is mainly a collection of words, derived from a variety of sources but most strongly linked to an older form of slang called Parlyaree that was used by travelling entertainers, beggars and market stall holders. It contains bits of other languages and slangs including rhyming slang, back slang (saying a word as if it’s spelt backwards), Italian, French, Lingua Franca, American air force slang, drug-user slang and Cant (an even older form of slang used by criminals).

It was a secret, informal form of communication, used by relatively powerless groups of people who were often on ‘the wrong side of the law’, so it was not written down or recorded. Nobody owned it and there were few standards so as a result there is little agreement on spellings, pronunciations or even meanings of many of the words. Some speakers developed new words in their own social groups or ad libbed it to make it even more difficult to understand. For those who were very good at it, it resembled a proper language, distinct to English. In 2010, Cambridge University labelled Polari as an “endangered language”.

Who used it?

Mainly gay men, although also lesbians, female impersonators, theatre people, prostitutes and sea-queens (gay men in the merchant navy). It was not limited to gay men, however. Heterosexual people who were connected to the theatre also used it, and there are numerous cases of gay men teaching it to their straight friends. It is still used, albeit in a more limited way in theatrical circles or among older gay men.

The most famous users of Polari were Julian and Sandy (played by Hugh Paddick and Kenneth Williams) in the 1960s BBC radio comedy show, Round The Horne (written by Barry Took and Marty Feldman). It has also been used less extensively in the past by Julian Clary, Larry Grayson, Peter Wyngarde, and even in a Jon Pertwee episode of Dr Who (Carnival of Monsters).

How many words are there?

I have collected around 500 Polari terms, although it’s unlikely that most people would have known or even used that many. During my research I found that people’s individual knowledge of Polari was very different – about 20 core words were known to almost all the people I interviewed, and then there was a much large fringe lexicon, of which most people would only know a small sample.

What words were in it?

There are lots of words for types of people, occupations, body parts, clothing and everyday objects. There were also a lot of evaluative adjectives in it. It was ideal for gossip. Verbs concerned sexual acts, cruising or looking at people. A few words are below. ajax – next to BMQ (black market queen) – closeted gay man, especially in the merchant navy. bona – good cod – awful dish – anus/bum dolly – pretty drag – clothing eek – face Eine – feely – young lally – leg lattie – house lily (law) – the police naff – awful, tasteless nanti – none, no, nothing, don’t, beware omi – man omi-palone – gay man palone – woman Polari – to talk, or the gay language itself riah – hair TBH – to be had The Dilly – Piccadilly Circus, a popular hang-out for male prostitutes in London trade – a sex partner vada – to look

Where and when was it used?

Most commonly, in the 1920s-1960s, in places where gay men congregated or worked, especially in pubs, private bars, cottages, parks, cinemas, tea-shops and cafes. Because it was a secret language, it could also often be used in public spaces like the London Underground. It was especially associated with London, used by dancers, chorus boys in the theatres of the West End, the Dilly Boys who worked their trade around Piccadilly Circus and the docks and music halls of the East End. Large numbers of gay men worked on British Merchant Navy ships (particularly passenger ships owned by P&O) so it was extensively used and developed there too. However, it was not limited to London – it has been heard in many other British cities which have sizeable gay populations.

Why did people use it?

There are numerous reasons: as a form of protection and secrecy – it excluded outsiders who wouldn’t be able to tell what you were talking about, and allowed gay people to conceal their sexuality. It could be used to talk about other people while they were present, and was particularly useful when cruising with friends. However, it could also be used as a form of attack, to insult or humiliate others. It was a form of humour and camp performance, and also a way of initiating people into the gay or theatre subculture. It allowed its users to construct a view of reality based upon their own values, or to give names to things that mainstream culture hadn’t recognised (such as certain forms of gay sex).

Why don’t gay people use it now?

By the late 1960s it was already starting to wane in popularity, and the Julian and Sandy sketches gave it mainstream popularity which spoilt the secret. Then, in the 1970s, some gay liberationists viewed camp as problematic and stereotyping and by this point it was starting to be seen as old-fashioned and politically incorrect. After this point, British gay culture was increasingly led by American trends so Polari was gradually discarded. By 2000, I carried out a survey of 800+ gay men. Half had never heard of it and of those who had, a good number believed it was old fashioned and encouraged men to be camp so should never be brought back. Around the same time, Boyz magazine denounced it as “evil”. In the 20 years since then, attitudes have softened somewhat.

Who does use it now?

Since the 1980s it has cropped up occasionally as a way of giving authenticity to stories about gay life in the 1950s and 1960s e.g. in films (e.g. Love is the Devil and Velvet Goldmine), music (Piccadilly Palare by ) and books (Sucking Sherbet Lemons by Michael Carson and Man’s World by Rupert Smith). In the 1990s the British Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence incorporated Polari into some of their sermons and blessings, using a form that has heavily influenced by Cant. They famously canonised Derek Jarman. Artists and film-makers have also used it in some interesting ways.Some gay businesses have branded themselves using Polari words (particularly the core words like bona and vada). There has been an online gay magazine called Polari, as well as a coffee-shop called the Polari Lounge. Some older gay men, especially those associated with the theatre or drag acts, still use it, although in more reduced circumstances.

The Myth of Proper English, by Oliver Kamm

There is no such thing as “proper English”. Nor is there “correct grammar”. These concepts have no place in the classroom — not because they are reactionary and anachronistic, but because they are false, and children should be taught things that are reliable rather than mythical.

I find it perplexing that this should need saying, though many — perhaps most, or even all — readers of this article will find my comments outlandish. And something is undeniably wrong when a leading educationist says he is “reeling from the knowledge that there are grown adults out there trying to tell teachers that teaching grammar is oppressive”. This remarkable claim was made on social media a few days ago by Tom Bennett, an independent adviser to the Department of Education on behaviour in schools. He’s not alone in his concerns. Katharine Birbalsingh, founder and head teacher of the Michaela Community School in London, tweeted: “Frightening how many academics and teachers think that teaching correct grammar is oppressive and racist.”

What’s genuinely alarming is that these prominent figures in education have made no attempt to find out what genuine experts in language think about grammar teaching. The argument they criticise — that grammar is oppressive — isn’t even a caricature of this debate, for there is not a grain of truth in it. I’m not a teacher or a linguist but I’ve written a book about grammar and I talk often to school groups and teachers. What schoolchildren learn about the English language is, in the main and not the exception, far more extensive and accurate than anything taught to my generation, born in the 1960s and 1970s, let alone in my parents’ and grandparents’ generations. This is a golden age of grammar teaching; conservative ideologues who want to use grammar as a means of fighting their culture wars should pipe down and back off.

The specific target of Bennett and Birbalsingh’s criticism was Ian Cushing, a lecturer in education at Brunel University with a specialism in English linguistics. He argues against the “policing and ‘correction’ of non- standard spoken grammar” in schools, which he says is a “punitive and discriminatory language policy”. I completely agree with Cushing. If I were being generous, I’d say that his critics have misunderstood him and that the fault lies with them. But it’s worse than that.

If a head teacher refused to teach, say, the theory of evolution in science classes (an issue that has arisen, and that I’ve written about, in the case of Charedi Jewish schools), then the state would intervene. Evolution by natural selection and random mutation is a fact, and children should know it. Well, grammar is a sort of science too. It’s an empirical subject, not a matter of opinion. People who study the morphology and syntax of a language variety draw inferences about its grammar from detailed observations of how people speak it.

The notion that radical academics and bien-pensant commentators are hostile to grammatical rules bears no relation to the facts. Linguists are fascinated by grammatical rules. But they have a precise understanding of what a rule is. It’s not some capricious edict like “don’t split infinitives”. It’s an observed regularity of usage, such as word order or inflection for tense.

Here are a couple of examples of genuine rules of Standard English. It’s a rule that attributive adjectives of size usually precede those of colour (native speakers say “little black book”, not “black little book”). It’s also a rule that an independent declarative clause beginning with a preposed negative adjunct must have a tensed auxiliary verb before the subject (so it must be “never have I read such rubbish”, not “never I have read such rubbish”).

Unless you’ve studied linguistics, you probably won’t know the technical terms but you’ll immediately recognise the rules I’ve stated by the examples I’ve given. And, if you’re a native speaker of Standard English, you’ll automatically follow these rules. No one taught them to you — not your parents or your primary school teachers — but you know them anyway. Your grasp of grammar is already faultless, by the mere accident of being a native speaker.

And what’s true of you is also true of children at secondary school. Yes, all of them, without exception. They already know and follow complex grammatical rules without thinking about it, or even being aware that they’re doing so.

Why, then, is there this weird invective against the supposed enemies of grammar teaching? The answer is dispiriting. It is, and can only be, that not all children are speakers of Standard English. This is true of many children in places like my home city of Leicester, or Bradford, or Tower in East London. To take just the last of these locations, Bengali (a world language with some 250 million speakers) is widely spoken and many children at schools in the borough are native speakers. But it’s also true of children throughout the UK, regardless of ethnic or national origin, who are native English speakers but not of Standard English.

This is why I refer to language varieties, rather than languages. There are numerous varieties of English. The most widely recognised around the world, and the variety that is used in all walks of public life including my profession of journalism, is Standard English. Because Standard English is the dominant variant of the language, some people mistakenly regard it as “proper’ English. But it isn’t. It’s just one dialect among many: the variety of the language that developed in London and the East Midlands. Its distinctiveness is that it’s the dialect that got lucky, by the fact that its speakers were wealthy and powerful rather than poor and marginalised.

Because Standard English is the English dialect with worldwide recognition and social cachet, it’s vital that all children (and adults) be fluent in it. I’ve never met an academic linguist who would dispute this. But that’s a sociological judgment, not a linguistic one. It doesn’t make Standard English “proper” or “correct”. It’s no more grammatical, pure or expressive than any other variety of the language, such as Scouse, Brummie or African-American Vernacular (sometimes misleadingly referred to as Ebonics).

These dialects and all other non-Standard varieties of English have extensive systems of grammar and are capable of expressing a full range of meanings. Again, this is not a dogmatic assertion but a finding based on empirical research. One of the great names in modern linguistics, William Labov, wrote a seminal paper titled “The Logic of Non-Standard English”. Responding to a claim that African-American children of pre- school age lack the faculty of language, he demonstrated that they in fact speak a sophisticated dialect of English that enables them to formulate complex arguments.

As far as I’m aware, every scholar of English linguistics working today — not just some or even most of them, but literally all of them — would endorse what I’ve said about the varieties of English. Children need to be fluent in Standard English because it is useful, not because it is the “proper” or “correct” form of the language. The argument made by Cushing and other experts in sociolinguistics (the study of language and society) is that it is linguistically false and socially destructive to treat non-Standard varieties of English as inferior forms of the language. Cushing is simply right. It is an important subject of study in itself how Standard English became the dominant form of the language by socioeconomic accident and not through any intrinsic linguistic qualities.

I have periodically talked to secondary schools about grammar — usually A-level classes in English language but many younger students too. The students are without exception far more knowledgeable about grammar than the voluble campaigners and popular authors who purport to be the subject’s champions. And they’ve acquired the understanding along the way that non-Standard varieties of English are, as a matter of fact rather than opinion, no less “proper” than the form of the language that the Prime Minister speaks and is written in. The task of schools should not be to stigmatise and “correct” non-Standard English but to convey when its use is appropriate and when not. The moral panic about grammar pursued by the supposed upholders of educational standards is an ugly phenomenon. Worse still, it’s ill-informed, intellectually incurious and wilfully ignorant. Let’s please give it a rest.