Categories
Editor at Large Spoken English

dahl-eye LAH-mah and mah-MOOD ah-BAH-SS: Saying It Right at Voice of America

Here in the United States, there are many recognizable accents. Just ask a native of the Peach state about the former President and he may well tell you about “JIH-mih KAH-tuh” from “JAW-juh. “

That’s Jim Tedder of Voice of America (VOA), the U.S.-funded broadcasting service which merits mention on this blog for its use of Special English alone.

Today, however, the focus is on Tedder’s VOA Pronunciation Guide, a handy little index of over 5,000 place and person names which could give an English speaker difficulty. Wondering about what to call the Dalai Lama and Mahmoud Abbas? Check the title of this post, and then click on over to the Pronunciation Guide where you can download actual mp3s of every name, sometimes even recorded by the name’s very—er—namesake.

Did you notice how I used that awkward construction in the last sentence so I wouldn’t have to say his or her? Yeah, I went there.

Categories
Editor at Large

No, Really, My Friends are Men AND Women

Yesterday I wrote about the English pronoun inclusivity problem—is it really okay to say that your brother and sister each has his own personality? Many, including Jane Austen, prefer to use the singular they in unisex instances such as these.

Countries like Spain and Germany have a bigger problem, though, and they don’t have to go looking for hypothetical brother-sister sentences to come up with an example: because of the use of gender in their word endings, Spanish and German generate non-inclusive language practically all the time.

In a nutshell, nouns in both the Spanish and German language have a male plural and a female plural:
those (female) scientists, those (male) nannies.

Just as in English, where one male pronoun is expected to naturally include the unspoken female members as well, the plural noun friends – amigos – refers to any group of comrades with at least one male. A gaggle with 99 women? Amigas. A crush of 99 men? Amigos. How about 99 women and 1 man? Amigos, again.

That means that if you put out a job advertisement in either language seeking mathematicians (matemáticos in Spanish and Mathematiker in German), you run the risk of professional, qualified women thinking that the position could be open to men only. But because these languages have more grammatical inflexibility, you see different solutions than in English.

How can you have it both ways in Spanish, when the very vowel is different? How can you make sure that German mathematicians who are female understand that your Mathematiker includes Mathematikerinnen?

Linguistic explorers in both countries have hit upon a similar solution: use graphics to make the word exist in two different forms at the same time.

Sylvia, a translator colleague of mine and a woman, has some great examples on her Castilian-language blog of how the Spanish are welcoming women and men into their plural nouns: with the @ sign! The @ looks like an “o” and an “a” coexisting, a grafting of the universal amigos onto the exclusively female amigas. When you write to your amig@s, you’re sending the message that you speak to the women and men in your group of friends equally.

The Germans, who often use the ending -er for their plural nouns and make them female by adding -innen, use a capital I to blend the two plural forms: Mathematiker + Mathematikerinnen becomes the inclusive MathematikerInnen. See for yourself here.

Even the German Foreign Office is getting into the act: I caught a job notice on their web site just the other day for translators (singular Übersetzer, plural Übersetzerin) using the more inclusive solution. The URL? http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/de/AAmt/AusbildungKarriere/Stellenangebote/2008-03-29-UebersetzerIn.html. That’s ÜbersetzerIn, to you.

Categories
Editor at Large Politics Written English

S/he, Zey, Yo…How Do We Get Her Into English?

There has been quite a kerfuffle lately (and I’m only allowed to use that word because of the type of blog this is) over the long search for unmarked ways of expressing gender neutrality in English.

More specifically: when you want to talk about everybody’s hats, do you use the traditional masculine his–Everyone has his hat–or do you adopt the gender-neutral but grammatically dubious their?

I try to avoid the situations altogether, rewording sentences to remove any temptation to choose one way or the other. But, for the record, I think that using “their” is the closest solution we have right now. This is one of the few areas in which I disagree with my gurus Strunk and White–as Geoff Pullum so concisely rebuts them (emphasis mine):

Is it your brother or your sister who can hold his breath for five minutes?

In any case, the quest for a more inclusive pronoun in English pales in comparison to the struggles that countries with more gender-dependent languages must undertake, countries in which the words themselves exclude women by their very nature. And even the folks in these countries are making changes, so this language conservatism in English should go right at the window, as far as I’m concerned. If singular “they” was good enough for Jane Austen, it’s good enough for me.

Tomorrow I’ll talk about the two non-English cultures I’m most familiar with, Spain and Germany, and how their speakers are taking gender inclusion in language into their own hands, clunky though it may be.

Categories
Editor at Large Subject-Specific

Attack of the 77-Foot Weenie

We all know this is a weenie:

frankfurter

But did you know that this is too?

castle

In the More-Useless-Information-I-Learned-From-the-Internet Department, I found out a new definition for this inherently funny word yesterday.

Appearing as both “weenie” and “wienie” on various web sites devoted to Disneyana, the term describes an architectural construction which draws the eye and tempts the visitor to venture further into the diabolical design that is the Disney theme park.

John Hench, author of Designing Disney, and a member of Walt’s original team, spells it wienie. The concept apparently came from Disney’s experience of training dogs with “wienies”—that’s hot dogs, frankfurters or wieners (from wienerwurst, or Vienna sausage), to you. Hench describes the human, theme-park purpose of the wienie in a profile from the NYT archives:

The wienie is really a beckoning finger…It’s kind of a reward. If you have a corridor, at the end there has to be something to justify you going that distance.

The photograph above shows Sleeping Beauty Castle, a wienie that draws the hapless Disneyland visitor down Main Street and toward Fantasyland. And speaking of Fantasyland, one of my favorite things about Disney’s term is its resemblance to the German wie nie, which translates roughly to “as never before.”

Whether or not Walt chose this unorthodox spelling on purpose, the vision it conjures when taken literally in German is perfectly apt: Spaceship Earth, the enormous silver ball that sucks visitors into Disney’s Epcot Center and which Slate’s Seth Stevenson describes as “perhaps the wieniest of all wienies,” is powerful precisely because it is like nothing visitors have ever seen before. The 77-foot Sleeping Beauty Castle, scaled to be a welcoming beacon rather than a forbidding fortress, is something that belongs in the Neverlands that Disney built–a big fat wie nie.

Categories
Editor at Large U.S. vs. U.K. Written English

Ask 100 Million Brits, With One Click

I’m currently working on a British English editing job for a Frankfurt design company. They’ve got a 75-page “Broschüre” (read: glossy booklet), poorly translated from the German, that I am to clean up and prettify (I once described my services as “cosmetic surgery” for saggy, baggy texts).

The trouble is that after 30 pages of dubious English, you begin to doubt your own instincts. For example:

  • Is it okay to use “orchestration” when you’re not talking about music or some massive multi-person heist?
  • Once and for all, is it Majorca or Mallorca?
  • I already know that UK English speakers use “orientated” much more frequently than North Americans, but is it preferred to the extent that I should replace “oriented” with its regularized British counterpart?

That’s where the British National Corpus comes in.

The British National Corpus (BNC) is a 100 million word collection of samples of written and spoken language from a wide range of sources, designed to represent a wide cross-section of current British English, both spoken and written.

In other words, instead of driving your English boyfriend crazy with questions on normativity, you can query the hive mind:

  • The proposed meaning of “orchestration”, as used in the glossy I was editing, showed up exactly NOWHERE in the Corpus. I composed a list of alternatives and left it to the client to decide.
  • The proper English term for that big island off the coast of Spain is Majorca. But I’ve heard the double-ll Catalan/Spanish designation of Mallorca used by British friends so frequently that I had to check which was the most current. The BNC cleared up the confusion: 28 instances of Mallorca, out of 100 million words; 139 uses of Majorca.
  • All those times I’ve seen “orientated” used in the English press, and been supremely freaked out by it, were ameliorated by the results I got when I compared it to “oriented” on the Corpus: “orientated” showed up half as much.

So here it is, y’alls: the big, bad BNC. You can use the new link on the list of References to the right from now on.

I won’t tell you exactly how few uses I found of obligated, so you can enjoy the moment for yourself.

Categories
Booklist Editor at Large Written English

The One Book You Need to Become a Great Writer…

…is this one:


Seriously, that’s it.

Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style was given to me for Christmas when I was thirteen years old. This book is practical, straightforward, and indispensable. I internalized its contents, and by the time I was in college the simple rules in this book had become intuitive standards I applied to my writing by pure habit.

You can devour The Elements of Style in two hours, and that’s the expanded fourth edition. I got a skinnier one in my stocking in 1993 and was through with it in an hour. Then I read it again.

BUY THIS BOOK. You’ll like it. You’ll use it. You’ll treasure this tiny gem of a book, and you won’t pay more than ten dollars if you buy it through the links in this post. This edition is less than five, but lacks the modern updates that you’ll find from Roger Angell in the edition pictured above.

Housekeeping stuff:
Since Friday and Monday are both public holidays here in Germany, the next new Belletra post will be coming on Tuesday of next week.

Why not curl up with some Strunk and White in the meantime?

Categories
Editor at Large Politics

Obama, Ambassadors, and Me

Writing political speeches is a cloak-and-dagger profession that is all cloak and no dagger. Speechwriters are the unsung heroes of the campaign season–propriety prevents them from claiming credit for their work, and they are rarely acknowledged by their august employers.

To me, sitting in Berlin and writing my little English blog, they are as sidereal as celebrities. Someday I hope to join their ranks.

That’s why I dared to speak to a former US Ambassador after he delivered an hourlong assessment of the current situation in Afghanistan. The Iranian Ambassador to Germany presented a retort. The Afghani Minister for Education added his own judgement. I sat on my hands.

At the end of the evening, standing by the door, I found myself face-to-face with the US Ambassador. Cringing, I asked him–no, I couldn’t ask. I complimented his speech.

Then I hedged: “I’m trying to break into speechwriting, and ghostwriting, and I know that you’re now retired as a diplomat, and I know this is an awkward question–”

And then I just came out and said it. I asked if he had written his speech himself.

The former US Ambassador’s answer was cheerful, even generous. He had written the speech himself, and even showed me all of the last-minute changes he’d made as a result of conversations just prior to taking the podium. Green carets and cross-outs blotted the page.

Only as an independent could he have altered his prepared words so freely.”If I were still representing the Department of State,” he said, someone else might have written my speech.”

I make this point because of Barack Obama’s speech this week, called the best this year by NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof. Although the jury is still out, it looks as though his oration Tuesday will work to his campaign’s advantage. In the speech, Senator Obama addressed the controversy over his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah White, whose fiery sermons have been burning up YouTube for a week. The Democratic presidential candidate faced the accusations directly while at the same time reminding the public of the personal racial divides he has transcended in his own life.

Eloquent speeches like this one have played a large role in Obama’s audacious rise, particularly among young people. But it’s not only the quality of Obama’s speeches that stands out: it’s his campaign’s willingness to share the credit for them. I know that his chief speechwriter Jon Favreau is twenty-six years old, thanks to a profile which appeared in the New York Times in January. I know that David Axelrod, Obama’s campaign mastermind, says that “Barack trusts him.” Perhaps the senator’s background as a lawyer, academic and independent author gives him the confidence to acknowledge the support team that most other politicians play down.

Parenthetically: A Cambridge professor of mine first worked at the White House as a speechwriter in the Nixon administration. His worst mistake? Running up to his boss immediately after a speech, in front of the entire Beltway audience, and audibly thanking the official for keeping in a paragraph that the neophyte had written. Kiss. Of. Death.

I’ll get into the substance of Obama’s speech in a later post, as I monitor reactions on and off the web. Today I just want to celebrate the fact that such an excellent speaker can still admit that he gets a little help.

Confidential to editing nerds: yes, the title of this post uses a serial comma. We’ll get into that some other time.

Categories
Editor at Large Politics U.S. vs. U.K.

What’s in a Name? A Jail Sentence, in Germany

Via Language Log:

American Ian Thomas Baldwin, PhD., is a researcher at one of the German Max Planck Institutes, a prestigious network of institutions which carry out cutting-edge research for the public good. Baldwin has been using his “Dr.” title with pride for two decades.

Now he’s facing criminal charges. The Washington Post explains:

Under a little-known Nazi-era law, only people who earn PhDs or medical degrees in Germany are allowed to use “Dr.” as a courtesy title.

The law was modified in 2001 to extend the privilege to degree-holders from any country in the European Union. But docs from the United States and anywhere else outside Europe are still forbidden to use the honorific. Violators can face a year behind bars.

The Post reports that at least seven U.S. citizens, some of whom, like Baldwin, had been using their hard-earned titles for decades, were outed to the German authorities by an anonymous informant.

Germany is title-crazy; anyone who lives and works here can see that soon enough. I recall writing letters to Frau Prof. Dr. So-and-so or Herr Dr. Dr. Something-or-other.

But there is a method behind the madness: only in Germany, for example, does one write a separate dissertation, after the PhD., to qualify for a professorship. And even then, there is debate over whether one can still claim to be a Professor after retirement.

Germany has more restrictive speech laws generally than the United States; the criminalization of Holocaust denial is probably the most well known, but there are stipulations for Internet content as well that apply to this very blog.

Categories
Editor at Large

Leipzig Buchmesse Postmortem

The Leipzig Buchmesse was my first visit to a book industry event of such grand scale. The three-day program and reading schedule alone resembled the guidebook for a small city. I had been looking forward to the book fair, not least because it is one of the biggest events in little Leipzig, the trade center of the former East Germany.

I am pleased to report that I saw no English translation mistakes in the Leipzig Messe itself, a glass-and-steel complex with its own parted Red Sea (a pedestrian path splits the “Messesee” into two lakes) and five exhibition halls. Such error-free English communication gives an air of professionalism to the place that belies its status as a stepchild to the larger Frankfurt book fair that takes place each October.

Then again, there was no real opportunity for English mistakes in the Buchmesse itself: this was a German book fair with German books. Although the Leipzig Book Fair describes itself as international, and featured Croatia this year as their special spotlight country, the Kroatien booth promoting the country and its literature was the only place I heard authors speaking in any other languages. The large stand on Turkish literature featured separate translation booths for German and Turkish translators, but the stage was empty when I looked in.

I stopped by the stand of the US Consulate General in Leipzig when I saw the huge stacks of complimentary copies of the New York Review of Books and Publisher’s Weekly piled on a table I must have missed on my first sweep through the country-specific section. Standing guard was the US Consul for Public Affairs, Mark Wenig, who agreed with me that there were far fewer international exhibitors than last year. Though I passed stands for Greece, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Austria, Spain was nowhere to be seen!

High point: seeing Sylke Tempel, a friend and mentor from my time at the Atlantic Community, and her new book on Israel (German link), still unpublished but on prominent display at publisher Rowohlt’s living room setup in Halle 4.

Categories
Editor at Large

How Do You Measure Up?

I was going to do a booklist entry for today, but this info is just too cool to leave for next week. Consider it a reading assignment of another kind.

While looking up average proofreading speeds for a project I’m doing, I came upon this article.

Everything you ever wanted to know about human interaction speeds–reading, typing, speech comprehension, and more–is all in one place, with citations from the studies used to generate the findings. The usual disclaimers apply since I found it on the web and all, but the information is still really good:

The facts (see here for complete references):

Reading

The average adult reading speed for English prose text in the United States seems to be around 250 to 300 words per minute.

Listening

People comfortably can hear words that are spoken at from 150 to 160 words per minute.

Speaking

People tend to dictate to computers at about 105 words per minute.

Typing

The fastest typists can enter well over 150 words per minute. … However, when actual typing speeds are collected for people that use computers, they are much slower. In one study the typing rates for simple transcription averaged only 33 words per minute, and for composition the average was only 19 words per minute.

Handwriting

On average, people write (handprint) at about 31 words per minute for memorized text, and about 22 words per minute when copying
text (Brown, 1988). It is interesting that the original Remington
typewriter was sold with the promise that it would enable users to
enter information “twice as fast as they could write.”

Article published August 2000–then again, how much do these things really change?