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