Geographic adjectivals

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
Biospace
Posts: 2008
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Geographic adjectivals

Post by Biospace »

horizon wrote: 26 Sep 2022, 3:29pm
This is the page reporting on the Italian election today:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... -far-right

The headlines refer to the Italy Election, the text to the Italian election. Sub-editors obviously make it up as they go along.

BTW, I am genuinely puzzled. My guess is that if both the BBC and the Guardian are attempting to develop a transatlantic, anglo-spheric readership then they will be keen to adopt common usages, mainly American.

My take is that with many readers in the US, they're trying to write in a style which does not feel too British to their American readership, perhaps a mid-Atlantic feel as you say? Trying to 'lever' changes in grammar from within a professional sphere like this is, I feel, a little disingenuous with the faint whiff of a delusions of grandeur in the air.

There are occasions when potential misunderstandings may be reduced for a foreign (US) reader, as with "The Italy Election" in that there will be those who may not fully grasp the meaning of 'Italian' in this context, however bizarre this may seem, in part because of the most common use of the word to describe commodities, food etc coupled with a lack of knowledge of what's going on outside the US. In other situations confusion will be added, not reduced. Some will be confused with this unconventional use of grammar.

The comprehension of grammar improves with rules (overall, not always) so when describing something pertaining to a geographical area or country, we tend to use the adjectival word rather than replacing with a noun and using what we'd consider a grammatically correct phrase. Here, words are being left out of this, possibly in an attempt to create a generic style or feel which the authors feel could be adopted by a mainstream,
User avatar
Audax67
Posts: 6001
Joined: 25 Aug 2011, 9:02am
Location: Alsace, France
Contact:

Re: Geographic adjectivals

Post by Audax67 »

simonineaston wrote: 26 Sep 2022, 2:24pm...
Here's a link to their in-house style guide.
I notice it doesn't tell writers not to use the execrable down to when they mean due to.
Have we got time for another cuppa?
User avatar
simonineaston
Posts: 8003
Joined: 9 May 2007, 1:06pm
Location: ...at a cricket ground

Re: Geographic adjectivals

Post by simonineaston »

Their recommended reference for the straightforward meaning of words or phrases is Collins' dictionary.
screenshot of online dictionary
screenshot of online dictionary
S
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6261
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Geographic adjectivals

Post by Bmblbzzz »

Biospace wrote: 27 Sep 2022, 4:59pm
horizon wrote: 26 Sep 2022, 3:29pm
This is the page reporting on the Italian election today:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... -far-right

The headlines refer to the Italy Election, the text to the Italian election. Sub-editors obviously make it up as they go along.

BTW, I am genuinely puzzled. My guess is that if both the BBC and the Guardian are attempting to develop a transatlantic, anglo-spheric readership then they will be keen to adopt common usages, mainly American.

My take is that with many readers in the US, they're trying to write in a style which does not feel too British to their American readership, perhaps a mid-Atlantic feel as you say? Trying to 'lever' changes in grammar from within a professional sphere like this is, I feel, a little disingenuous with the faint whiff of a delusions of grandeur in the air.

There are occasions when potential misunderstandings may be reduced for a foreign (US) reader, as with "The Italy Election" in that there will be those who may not fully grasp the meaning of 'Italian' in this context, however bizarre this may seem, in part because of the most common use of the word to describe commodities, food etc coupled with a lack of knowledge of what's going on outside the US. In other situations confusion will be added, not reduced. Some will be confused with this unconventional use of grammar.

The comprehension of grammar improves with rules (overall, not always) so when describing something pertaining to a geographical area or country, we tend to use the adjectival word rather than replacing with a noun and using what we'd consider a grammatically correct phrase. Here, words are being left out of this, possibly in an attempt to create a generic style or feel which the authors feel could be adopted by a mainstream,
The Guardian has four "editions": UK, USA, Australia, International – but as far as I can tell the difference is the prominence given to certain stories, not the grammar or style used. They have journalists in all three named countries, probably some others, and of course get stories in from elsewhere (eg AP, AFP). And probably most significantly, they – like most newspapers – are too pressed for time and stretched for money to carry out proper copy-editing, let alone proofreading.
Biospace
Posts: 2008
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Geographic adjectivals

Post by Biospace »

Bmblbzzz wrote: 27 Sep 2022, 8:24pm
The Guardian has four "editions": UK, USA, Australia, International – but as far as I can tell the difference is the prominence given to certain stories, not the grammar or style used. They have journalists in all three named countries, probably some others, and of course get stories in from elsewhere (eg AP, AFP). And probably most significantly, they – like most newspapers – are too pressed for time and stretched for money to carry out proper copy-editing, let alone proofreading.
That's my take on their online publications, too. As for the AP/AFP stories, I once had a customer who worked for Associated Press and he suggested that almost all of most papers beyond pages 2/3 were written by press agencies. I know they had very hard-working teams and at times struggled with the attitude of some of the London-based teams.
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Geographic adjectivals

Post by Mick F »

Heard on R4 Today prog by the main presenter chappy, "One or two times."

What happened to "once or twice"?
Far easier to say.
Mick F. Cornwall
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Geographic adjectivals

Post by Jdsk »

Mick F wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 9:55am Heard on R4 Today prog by the main presenter chappy, "One or two times."

What happened to "once or twice"?
Far easier to say.
Responded in the usage thread:
viewtopic.php?p=1726618#p1726618

Jonathan
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6261
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Geographic adjectivals

Post by Bmblbzzz »

Ask the Commodores.
https://youtu.be/B4dl6JSf-bc
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6261
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Geographic adjectivals

Post by Bmblbzzz »

Mick F wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 9:55am Heard on R4 Today prog by the main presenter chappy, "One or two times."

What happened to "once or twice"?
Far easier to say.
Ask the Commodores.
https://youtu.be/B4dl6JSf-bc
User avatar
horizon
Posts: 11275
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Geographic adjectivals

Post by horizon »

Bmblbzzz wrote: 27 Sep 2022, 3:38pm I think a lot depends on context. And even position in a sentence. "The china factories... " is clear. "China factories..." might be ambiguous. But in practice the rest of the sentence would normally make it clear.
There's lots of leeway in English and of course a language does change and develop. But some of the changes are simply peculiar and belong, say, to a foreign speaker rather than to the Guardian or BBC - these are, after all, fairly mainstream. Another one from the Guardian at the moment is the use of the word "juncture" to describe a railway junction, on this occasion in Ukraine. Even Google struggled to come up with anything. And it starts to lay doubt: is this a special type of railway junction (larger or smaller perhaps)?

This forum relies mainly on the use of written English and I think maintains a very high standard (if there is such a thing). It is of course littered with common mistakes (loose/lose, i.e./e.g. etc) - after all we are not writing in a professional capacity and we're "amongst friends" :) . But "Italy rail juncture" does take things to a new low IMV.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6261
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Geographic adjectivals

Post by Bmblbzzz »

"Juncture" for "junction" sounds like predictive text or a simple typo that's not been picked up at proof stage. Probably because, due to pressures of time and money, for many things there no longer is a proof stage.
ChrisButch
Posts: 1188
Joined: 24 Feb 2009, 12:10pm

Re: Geographic adjectivals

Post by ChrisButch »

Jdsk wrote: 27 Sep 2022, 11:45am
Bmblbzzz wrote: 27 Sep 2022, 10:56am
simonineaston wrote: 26 Sep 2022, 5:22pm Well now you mention it, swede is a good example, as the rutabaga is supposed to have arrived in Scotland from Scandinavia, and was called Swedish turnip, to distinguish it from the smaller similar-tasting Brassica, 'till the longer bits dropped off. Jerusalem artichokes, neither artichokes nor from anywhere in Palestine, is another amusing turn. When Italians first came across them in America, and as their flowers looked like sunflowers, they were dubbed girasole, which got corrupted over time.
Both snippets courtesy BBC's R4, funnily enough.
Gosh. So that's the Jerusalem part but what about the artichoke?
The (globe) artichoke was already known and the taste was similar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem ... #Etymology

Jonathan
Having grown both for many years, I'm happy to assure you that there's not the remotest similarity either in flavour or texture.
rogerzilla
Posts: 2887
Joined: 9 Jun 2008, 8:06pm

Re: Geographic adjectivals

Post by rogerzilla »

There are some sensitivities and possible confusions - "Pakistani" is a bit loaded, "Indian" has the obvious potential for confusion with Native Americans, "Asian" means something different to Americans, by which I mean USians, etc.
Post Reply