I sympathise with both of you, cris and David; but my sympathies are
slightly more with David - this is more political than linguistic... I
worry about Cris's confidence that he will create space, if he means lasting
space, by writing jargon

It's a jargon I am very familiar with

In GNVQ and NVQ, as it was in subjects I knew and 7/8 years ago, it
sometimes masked that the student was being asked to demonstrate VERY
LITTLE. It used to upset me to see victims of the "and it gives you a
qualification" scam... I do not doubt that is *not what is happening at
Dartington. I've met students from there.

It does to me smack of mystification. If the spirit of the age is
mystification it pays to write mystifyingly. No one wants to rewrite their
proposals. Look like everyone else.

And then there are the real bullshitters. IBM for instance have been at it
for years. I had a list of examples, but now I've forgotten them all. But,
say, a system box might be called a logical unit, a 1 for 1 code; and it was
usually far worse than that, a totally different process to the abbreviating
process of busy professionals

Any minute now I shall provide "evidence of ability to commence the process
of rendering gaseous a common substance" - bring a kettle to the boil

*As *I *recall, it was not always thus, though I doubt criteria were ever
well-written; but somewhere along the line, recently, it has been necessary
to increase the number of qualifications & thus we have qualified personnel
who cannot understand a simple proposition even though their fulfilled
performance criteria outnumber the asteroids. (Some of which can destroy the
Earth) In particular, I.T. elements in other subjects were badly specified.
When I was teaching I.T., other subject lecturers would bring their GNVQ
papers in, asking what the criteria meant - i.e. What is it I have to teach
them? This is without meaning, what the questions meant - I'd guess for
them, and not infrequently, more than one specimen answer was right or no
answer was right

Someone had a job they weren't up to and waffled

This is not to say that all is corrupt, only some of it. Indeed, there is
very little corruption, more a spontaneous growth of a variety of "they
pretend to pay us and we pretend to work" allied with it the survival
instinct to say yes if someone asks "Can you do this?" when times are
competitive

Those who create jargon tend to be those with power and are cunning if not
clever. There are many Stanley Unwins out there, but few are seeking to
entertain us.

The enclosures were a way of creating space. Entryism doesn't work
generally, except as it does in a pitcher plant. (And as a caution to
someone who thinks it has worked for them, many of us have met the
heavy-smoking nonagenarian)

Again, Dartington may well be an exception. Shows every sign of being so.

Ugly words is interesting and I am pleased to see Cris can still spot a
lowered guard. But what Dave is experiencing is reliable. We rely on our
"ears" (what we have processed of what we hear) to tell us that we are using
the language correctly i.e. speaking like everyone else, communicating

Someone with a good ear, quote marks assumed, may well experience wide
variation from their norm as a kind of pain

I suspect this is fairly fixed individually and so an oldish git like me
experiences pain as stress patterns evolve - and severe pain as more and
more utterances go up at the end as if they were questions - even as I
begin to do it myself

Yet that sense is sound, too. It's a smoke alarm

Let's not fall into the trap of thinking that language wch is difficult to
understand is necessarily enshrining wisdom. Language which accretes
syllables deserves special attention

It's much more likely that the person concerned cannot write very well than
that they have something to say.

English is in a period of great change, but not all change will last,
because not all change is beneficial.

Communitifyingly


Lawrence


----- Original Message -----
From: "cris cheek" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 29 January 2002 10:19
Subject: Re: Newbie


| Hi David
|
| well Dom and Chris has filled in the gaps around this one. But 'ugly'
words,
| now there's a thread to conjure. Any takes?
|
| I spend more and more time with people for whom English is not a
'standard'
| and they're ripping into it with gusto - one reason why the language has
| survived and grown. I love all of that 'ugliness' personally - bring it
| on. Now coming, innit:)
|
| love and love
| cris
|