Change in spelling no aberration

Change in spelling no aberration

This letter is in response to opinions conveyed by two readers
(The Jakarta Post, Jan. 5 and 6, 1996), regarding what one termed
"disrespect for the language of England".

But first, I must digress a bit and offer a hearty "welcome
back" to R.B. Sawrey-Cookson, who hadn't written in quite a
while. Sawrey-Cookson, I thought because of criticism from a
fellow Englishman in Central Java you decided to stop writing
altogether. Despite his disapproval of your letters, as an
Indonesian I have never been offended by any critical opinions
you made about life in this country. In fact, you were the one
who taught me that the Letters page was an interactive forum
(back in July 1993).

The debate about American versus British English has been
raging for centuries. The American statesman, Thomas Jefferson,
drew sneers from the British press for coining the "to belittle,"
in the early 19th century. Yet, that Americanism is now part of
worldwide English. So is the American word "magic", instead of
the original British "magick". And so it goes. Is it "flashlight"
or "torch"? "Sneakers" or "trainers"? "Elevator" or "lift"?
"Radio" or "wireless"? "TV" or "telly?"

Yes, there is such a thing as "creeping Americanism", and it
may not be all bad. I would refer the two British gentlemen to a
page-long article in The Guardian Weekly (May 21, 1995), in which
the writer Henry Porter (an Englishman) wrote: "The
Americanization of the English language causes dyspepsia in many
Britons, including Prince Charles. But...we should be grateful."

Pointing out such relatively new words as "learning curve",
"downtime", "upscale", "mindset", "a ballpark figure", "cutting
edge", and "in the loop," Porter adds: "It's the freshness and
the energy that draws us to American English. It provides
vernaculars and jargons that we probably don't have the wit to
invent."

As an informal student of the English language and historical
matters, I will remind our British-educated readers that the
American spelling "labor" and "honor" are hardly aberration at
all. We must remember the Latin expressions "Ora et Labora" and
"Honoris causa," and note their spelling, if we need to go back
to the source. The Norman Conquest of 1066 gave a French
influence to the language, which gave rise to "labour" and
"honour," among other things. And any Indonesian would prefer to
spell "liter" and "gram" the American way, rather than the
British "litre" and "gramme".

So despite protests from "purist", what the French call la
langue du Coca Cola will probably prevail in the world. Radio
Australia already calls Association Football by the U.S. term
"soccer", probably to distinguish it from Australian Rules
football. And many of our neighbors to the south have started to
pronounce "France" and "dance" American-style, just as the
British singers Matt Monro and Cliff Richard used the American
pronunciation of "dance" many times, perhaps to rhyme it with
"romance". If the Brits are doing it, why should the rest of the
world be told to use "proper English English"?

In 1983, the editors of The Jakarta Post made the decision to
use American spelling, just as they chose the London-
headquartered Reuters agency as their main international news
source. I see no reason to tamper with those decisions.

FARID BASKORO

Jakarta