[Widow57]

Now I know why the standard of education has dropped and don't tell me that it hasn't. The reason? Well, it seems that you need a poor command of the English language to get a job. It's everywhere, not least in broadcasting. How many broadcasters don't seem to realize that there is no such word as vunerable? (Its vulnerable). Another common gaffe lies with the inability to distinguish singular from plural. Example: Fiona Bruce on The Antiques Roadshow, 'Everyone who lost their life...' Even those who write for the Radio Times are guilty.

I don't want to sound like a pedant (there are some who will doubtless find mistakes in this post. Good on you if you do), but this is the BBC for heaven's sake. Dumbing down? Tell me about it.

[Mikeandhersonq]

Originally Posted by Widow57

Now I know why the standard of education has dropped and don't tell me that it hasn't. The reason? Well, it seems that you need a poor command of the English language to get a job. It's everywhere, not least in broadcasting. How many broadcasters don't seem to realize that there is no such word as vunerable? (Its vulnerable). Another common gaffe lies with the inability to distinguish singular from plural. Example: Fiona Bruce on The Antiques Roadshow, 'Everyone who lost their life...' Even those who write for the Radio Times are guilty.

I don't want to sound like a pedant (there are some who will doubtless find mistakes in this post. Good on you if you do), but this is the BBC for heaven's sake. Dumbing down? Tell me about it.

People only have one life! A person can't loose more than one life. But then again I'm utterly useless at English, my forte is in Maths.

[Inkblot]

There's nothing wrong with being a pedant, but the example you give is a difficult one to correct. Everyone is singular, life is singular, but their is plural - how do you get all the words to be either singular or plural? "Everyone who lost his life" sounds terrible and implies that all those who lost their lives were male. Actually, "all those who lost their lives" is probably the right way to phrase it. But it has become common practice to use "their" as a neuter singular possessive so as to avoid saying "his" or "her" when you don't know the sex of the subject.

[Widow57]

Don't you mean 'my forty is in maths'?

[Widow57]

Originally Posted by Inkblot

There's nothing wrong with being a pedant, but the example you give is a difficult one to correct. Everyone is singular, life is singular, but their is plural - how do you get all the words to be either singular or plural? "Everyone who lost his life" sounds terrible and implies that all those who lost their lives were male. Actually, "all those who lost their lives" is probably the right way to phrase it. But it has become common practice to use "their" as a neuter singular possessive so as to avoid saying "his" or "her" when you don't know the sex of the subject.

Neuter singular possessive? Phew! Your point is an interesting one, especially the part relating to 'common practice'. I accept that language evolves, it needs to, although I do take issue with the textspeak which is finding its way into our language. Oh yeah, and Americanisms. Whoops, that's a can of worms opened.

But in the case that we're speaking about, if Fiona Bruce was talking about airmen (which she may have been), then the use of 'his' would be fine.

And can someone tell me how to get this bloody quote thing to work properly?

[Widow57]

Oh, it has worked properly. Usually it doesn't.

[slow motion]

You mean poor use of language rather than bad language.

I agree, there is a very poor standard of english used on the BBC - we're in a disposable society now and particularly live TV is disposable - I honestly don't think they really care anymore.

[Widow57]

Originally Posted by slow motion

You mean poor use of language rather than bad language.

I agree, there is a very poor standard of english used on the BBC - we're in a disposable society now and particularly live TV is disposable - I honestly don't think they really care anymore.

I do mean poor use of language but as a title 'bad language' is a play on words to get people to read the post.

[Scamps]

Are you American?

[iain]

Originally Posted by slow motion

You mean poor use of language rather than bad language.

I agree, there is a very poor standard of english used on the BBC - we're in a disposable society now and particularly live TV is disposable - I honestly don't think they really care anymore.

would you like to give some examples?

because right now its almost as though you're just doing what you and Elton John seem so very good at... jumping on the nearest bandwagon.

Iain

[Paul02]

Originally Posted by Mikeandhersonq

People only have one life! A person can't loose more than one life. But then again I'm utterly useless at English, my forte is in Maths.

Obviously- I think you mean lose rather than "loose" there.

[Paul02]

Originally Posted by Inkblot

There's nothing wrong with being a pedant, but the example you give is a difficult one to correct. Everyone is singular, life is singular, but their is plural - how do you get all the words to be either singular or plural? "Everyone who lost his life" sounds terrible and implies that all those who lost their lives were male. Actually, "all those who lost their lives" is probably the right way to phrase it. But it has become common practice to use "their" as a neuter singular possessive so as to avoid saying "his" or "her" when you don't know the sex of the subject.

Still pondering this one.

[omnidirectional]

Is it bad use of language or 'progression' of language? Language is constantly evolving, for better or worse.

Try reading the first page of Beowulf - it's English, but not the version we speak today. In 1000 years time, our descendants might have the same trouble when reading our English.

[nate1970]

Originally Posted by Inkblot

But it has become common practice to use "their" as a neuter singular possessive so as to avoid saying "his" or "her" when you don't know the sex of the subject.

I was taught to use 'their' in this way, at a grammar school, over 25 years ago. So it's nothing new (not that you were implying it was).

[mikw]

Originally Posted by slow motion

You mean poor use of language rather than bad language.

I agree, there is a very poor standard of english used on the BBC - we're in a disposable society now and particularly live TV is disposable - I honestly don't think they really care anymore.

So, you've ONLY noticed poor language on the BBC, and no-where else then?

[tellyadict]

There was a bit of bad language during the radio 1 chart show last night. Reggie said to the Sugababes that they has sh*t loads to get through and quickly realised his error. . Bruno Brooks never said that

[mad_dude]

Now I know why the standard of education has dropped and don't tell me that it hasn't. The reason? Well, it seems that you need a poor command of the English language to get a job. It's everywhere, not least in broadcasting. How many broadcasters don't seem to realize that there is no such word as vunerable? (Its vulnerable). Another common gaffe lies with the inability to distinguish singular from plural. Example: Fiona Bruce on The Antiques Roadshow, 'Everyone who lost their life...' Even those who write for the Radio Times are guilty.

I don't want to sound like a pedant (there are some who will doubtless find mistakes in this post. Good on you if you do), but this is the BBC for heaven's sake. Dumbing down? Tell me about it.

'Dumbing' is not a word according to my dictionary.

[carnoch04]

Originally Posted by tellyadict

There was a bit of bad language during the radio 1 chart show last night. Reggie said to the Sugababes that they has sh*t loads to get through and quickly realised his error. . Bruno Brooks never said that

I see what you mean. that should have been "have" or "had" not "has"!

[JCR]

Originally Posted by tellyadict

Bruno Brooks never said that

He did play Killing In The Name by Rage Against The Machine uncut on the show though.

[Strathclyde]

Not many years ago, the BBC was undoubtedly an organisation which set and led high standards in language, grammar and pronunciation. Presenters and announcers generally had "neutral" accents, which some may have felt a bit "posh", but which couldn't be accused of lowering standards. "BBC English" was something to aspire to.

The BBC now has a huge range of regional accents, and many presenters have very sloppy approaches to language and grammar. This has in part come about through a positive policy of 'embracing' all aspects of society and reflecting changes in social attitudes. The question surely has to be whether the BBC has moved too far from leading by example towards frequently reflecting some of the worst aspects of language abuse.

Personally, I cringe when I hear language like " We are gonna do this..." and "Whatya reckon..." Presenters sometimes almost seem to work at 'popularising' their speech.

Yes, it is another symptom of the dumbing down (and that is in my dictionary) that has been happening over recent decades - in programming as well as in speech.

To me, it's a real pity that kids are more likely to be further encouraged to adopt sloppy standards by constantly hearing them on TV and radio. On prime programmes, we suggest to them that criminal and antisocial behaviour is rife anyway, so why not join the trend.... So it is with language, where whatever good work might be attempted by educators is steadily undone.

As several have said... "We don't care any more..." which is, indeed, the problem. It's not cool to be grammatically correct. It's a shame that the BBC would rather be cool, than correct.

[Ginger Daddy]

Originally Posted by Widow57

Don't you mean 'my forty is in maths'?

No, he doesn't.

[iain]

Originally Posted by Strathclyde

Not many years ago, the BBC was undoubtedly an organisation which set and led high standards in language, grammar and pronunciation. Presenters and announcers generally had "neutral" accents, which some may have felt a bit "posh", but which couldn't be accused of lowering standards. "BBC English" was something to aspire to.

The BBC now has a huge range of regional accents, and many presenters have very sloppy approaches to language and grammar. This has in part come about through a positive policy of 'embracing' all aspects of society and reflecting changes in social attitudes. The question surely has to be whether the BBC has moved too far from leading by example towards frequently reflecting some of the worst aspects of language abuse.

Personally, I cringe when I hear language like " We are gonna do this..." and "Whatya reckon..." Presenters sometimes almost seem to work at 'popularising' their speech.

Yes, it is another symptom of the dumbing down (and that is in my dictionary) that has been happening over recent decades - in programming as well as in speech.

To me, it's a real pity that kids are more likely to be further encouraged to adopt sloppy standards by constantly hearing them on TV and radio. On prime programmes, we suggest to them that criminal and antisocial behaviour is rife anyway, so why not join the trend.... So it is with language, where whatever good work might be attempted by educators is steadily undone.

As several have said... "We don't care any more..." which is, indeed, the problem. It's not cool to be grammatically correct. It's a shame that the BBC would rather be cool, than correct.

i guess its a fine line between being proper and being stuck in the 50s.

i guess its also a fine line between the BBC using regional accents to reflect different parts of the nation, and the BBC abandoning proper BBC English (whatever it may be).

i also suspect there's a healthy dose of negativity bias involved in all of this.

Iain

[Strathclyde]

Originally Posted by iain

i guess its a fine line between being proper and being stuck in the 50s.

i guess its also a fine line between the BBC using regional accents to reflect different parts of the nation, and the BBC abandoning proper BBC English (whatever it may be).

i also suspect there's a healthy dose of negativity bias involved in all of this.

Iain

... and an unhealthy dose of obsessive defence-of-the-BBC-against-any-criticism-whatsoever in your response.

I should have known better than to try add a constructive comment into a debate where the sacred cows might be perceived as under attack.

It is pretty widely acknowledged (and reported on the BBC??) that many types of behavioural standards in our society are in general, declining. OK, some may argue that this is OK, and we shouldn't care.

But I do appreciate that if discussing the role or responsibilities of the BBC in such things involves any implied criticism of the BBC- an organisation which I greatly respect in many ways - then I am venturing into the lions' den.

Iain...you win again. The BBC is wonderful, and we should all be immensely greatful to our fantastic government that allows us to watch its broadcasts for a pittance. The BBC can do no wrong, and anyone who dares to question strategy or raise even the mildest criticism of this venerable organisation deserves to be pilloried. Amen.

[Widow57]

Excellent posts, Strathclyde

[iain]

Originally Posted by Strathclyde

... and an unhealthy dose of obsessive defence-of-the-BBC-against-any-criticism-whatsoever in your response.

I should have known better than to try add a constructive comment into a debate where the sacred cows might be perceived as under attack.

It is pretty widely acknowledged (and reported on the BBC??) that many types of behavioural standards in our society are in general, declining. OK, some may argue that this is OK, and we shouldn't care.

But I do appreciate that if discussing the role or responsibilities of the BBC in such things involves any implied criticism of the BBC- an organisation which I greatly respect in many ways - then I am venturing into the lions' den.

Iain...you win again. The BBC is wonderful, and we should all be immensely greatful to our fantastic government that allows us to watch its broadcasts for a pittance. The BBC can do no wrong, and anyone who dares to question strategy or raise even the mildest criticism of this venerable organisation deserves to be pilloried. Amen.

hmm.

my reply was fairly constructive, as it highlighted that perhaps the BBC walks a fine line sometimes. language and culture evolves - in some respects it might be odd if the BBC didn't reflect such evolution.

but IMO i think its a bit of a stretch to suggest the BBC has totally dumbed down, because not every utterance on every programme is immaculately spoken in the Queen's English.

it also mentioned negativity bias which IMO is likely to be a factor here - ie people pay disproportionate attention to a small number of instances.

in your reply, where you could have chosen to add something constructive, chose not to.

instead, you went for some more personal digs at my, rather than the points i was making, topped off by the usual gubbins about how wonderful the BBC is and how it can do no wrong.

not words from my mouth, just words put there by you.

Iain