Skip to main content

A couple of years ago, the British actor and wit Stephen Fry published a podcast titled Don't Mind Your Language, in which he discussed the origins of his own linguistic style. In one segment, the kernel of the argument, I think, he excoriated language pedants - in particular the grumpy, manners-obsessed followers of Lynne Truss and John Humphrys - and made a plea for freedom and sensual play in language as opposed to rules and condescension.

This part of the essay, a few polemical paragraphs about common grammatical peeves - largely inspired by the books of linguists such as Stephen Pinker - was more recently turned into a pretty little animation using moving letters. The animation is something its creator, a young Australian named Matt Rogers, calls kinetic typography.

It was through this video, now posted on YouTube, that I first came across Fry's lecture. The video doesn't add anything to the substance of the piece, but it is a quick way to get to Fry's point.

Story continues below advertisement

It is, as usual for Fry, a wonderfully rambling, eloquent and amusing reflection. It's not terribly original, but it does a great job of popularizing ideas more densely put by French philosophers. The argument is essentially that "there is no right or wrong language any more than there are right or wrong clothes." (A sensitive comparison in the upper classes of Britain, of course, where there are indeed views on right and wrong clothes.)

He wants no part in the campaigns against correct apostrophes in signage, or the use of "less" and "fewer" in newspapers: "Yes, I am aware of the technical distinction between less and fewer and uninterested and disinterested and infer and imply and all the rest of them but none of these are of importance to me."

The use of the plural verb "are" with the singular subject "none" is, he stresses, deliberate - a proud, mature shedding of his former pedantic identity. He is all in favour of "action" as a verb ("He actioned it at the meeting"), since nouns have been verbed since Shakespeare and before. People find "to action" ugly only because it is new.

Of people who insist on conventional grammar, he asks: "But do they bubble and froth and slobber and cream with joy at language? Do they ever let the tripping of their tongues against the tops of their teeth transport them to giddy euphoric bliss?" (He refrains from asking if they ever crib shamelessly from the opening of Lolita.)

Fry has been accused of being disingenuous, because of course it is rare for speakers to be so virtuosic and ludic with language without first knowing the rules they dismiss. Fry's own grammar and punctuation are utterly conventional (even his accent is Received Pronunciation, a.k.a. the Queen's English). Still, he is right about most of the silly obsessions he uses as examples: disinterested has come to mean uninterested, and there is no longer any lack of clarity in its use. Nobody misunderstands when you say "less" instead of "fewer". (I would bet an elbow, however, that he himself would never use these words in their more recent senses.)

But I don't understand why he thinks one can't be punctilious in punctuation and poetic in polemics at the same time. After all, he is.

The dichotomy between the playful and the learned is a false one. Most importantly, it is strange for someone who claims an obsession with the aesthetic to ignore the aesthetic possibilities that come from having the widest possible range of subtly differing words and constructions. For with each of the metamorphoses he describes comes an extinction.

Story continues below advertisement

When "uninterested" and "disinterested" mean the same thing, then we have lost a word: not a necessary word, by any means, but how many words are necessary? I lament every vanishing word, for each minutely differing word adds a colour to our enormous palette, and with that vast palette we can paint the wildest pictures.

Yes, the linguistic landscape changes as does the architectural landscape - but we feel sad when we lose our ancient cathedrals and statues, no matter how irrelevant they are to contemporary values. And we can have it all - we can have "infer" and "imply" and "actioning" too. We don't have to choose between an old language and a new.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

If your comment doesn't appear immediately it has been sent to a member of our moderation team for review

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading…

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.