OxBowBusiness

Things From the Economist

Some things in the weeks Economist either caught my eye or got on my nerves.

The Gherkin

Every television programme and film made in and around London these days will include an image of the Gherkin building: that's that sloping and rounded topped building designed by Norman Foster. It's as if this building stands alone for the most modern and excellent of the world's buildings. In the article in the Economist, however, they remind us that its tenants don't all like it and even three years after it opened, there are floors that are still empty.

Now, as you know I travel a bit and strongly recommend that we take a much wider view of modern architecture. Forget those monstrosities such as the Guggenheim that are the equivalent of the Turner Prize winners. Look at the Dubai skyline and you will see doznes and dozens of innovative looking buildings: all of which are miles ahead of Forster's folly. Singapore doesn't have so much to go at because it's relatively small; but it's worth a look there too: no Singapore Stupidity either!

Language use and abuse

There's more moaning about how badly off we are at English and Maths: the rest of the world is better at their own language and maths than we are and it's largely true. We are not at the top of any league table for excellence in these things. Then people worry over why it might be that we are so bad at these things.

It doesn't help that

1 at least one exam board is now prepared to allow its examination candiadtes to answer quewtions in txt spk. Can you inmage the stupidity of this? If all you need to do is to learn how to txt then fine: forget spelling, forget punctuation, forget grammar, forget syntax, forget nuance, forget just about everything. These people will not be able to communicate effectively. What are they destined to achieve, then, if they cannot express themselves in writing properly?
2 journalists, television presenters and newspaper journalists are all developing the language in ways that I for one cannot tolerae. The other day on radio 4's today programme, a presenter who must be well educated and well informed said, following an article on reading to children, concluded by saying that 'We are guilting our parents'. This was from and educated and informed woman. So, her problem you might say. However, we all know the power of the media because, hold your hands up now, how many of you now say these

a movies instead of films
b box office instead of ticket office
c parking lot instead of car park
d sidewalk instead of pavement
e trialled instead of tested

and the rest. We even have people talking about stepping up to the plate (baseball, I think) even when a footballer (soccer not the other sort) gets ready to take a penalty!

Then there is the 'it's about' syndrome. What does it mean when someone says, 'It's about cricket'? or 'It's all about football'? The other day someone on the telly said something like this:

'It's about sport, it's about cricket, it's about the Ashes, it's about passion, it's about England'. See, it's absolutely senseless yet it seems that everyone except me talks like that!!!

I can't stand the way that these inadequates feel the desire to import some appalling changes into our language simply because they can. Then many of us are so weak that we feel the need to copy them. More than that, though, I have been to meetings with teachers who speak the language of the street: they speak like their children and these journalists so they are failing to provide the leadership that they should. I don't see this as anything to do with language evolution either.

Food

There is a long article on ethical shopping and in my opinion they have completely missed the point of parts of the debate. One strange thing they did was to ask that nouveau economist Tim Harford for his opinion on something, as an 'economist'. He gave the expectd fatuous answer. Read the article and see. They talk about how fair trade ruins everything for everybody. Over production has resulted from fair trade. Nestle has become strong: is that because of trickery or because they have doen their work well?

They couldn't resist a dig at 4x4 vehicles either, as if we all own and use them.

They do point out that many of the food miles that are generated come when we drive to the shops and back. They fail to take it at least one step further and say that in the old days, we all lived near the shops as we didn't have super and hypermarkets. So, we would go and do much of our shopping just in time and on foot. Now we do weekly or monthly shopping and have to drive to do it.

They also drone on about the energy content of tomatoes grown in Spain rather then in the UK ... for winter consumption. Excuse me, again in the old days and in some places still, they accept that there aren't any tomatoes to be had out of season so they do without. Seasonality is not necessarily a bad thing.

End of rants for now.

Duncan Williamson

posted by Duncan Williamson @ 10:36 AM