Scarcely English: An A to Z of Assaults On Our Language

by Simon Heffer

The English language has evolved throughout its history, and usually for good reasons. However, in recent years, egged on by social media and the ubiquity and velocity of the internet, it has been subject to some grave assaults. There appear no longer to be any rules, in an era when, thanks to the web (another word to have changed its meaning) everyone can be a published author, completely unedited and unregulated. This often has dire consequences for the English tongue.

Simon Heffer's A to Z runs though a whole litany of common confusions ('flaunt' and 'flout', 'imply' and 'infer', 'uninterested' and 'disinterested'), unidiomatic English ('fed up of', 'focus around', the use of 'impacted' in such construction as 'the loss impacted him badly'), and lazy expressions (these days every extended activity is an '-athon', every scandal is a 'Something-gate'). It bemoans some truly awful neologisms, 'infotainment' and 'funwashing' among them. And it registers the horror of those of us who do not believe that you can answer the question 'How are you?' with the words 'I'm good'.

Trenchant and sprinkled with dry wit, Scarcely English is both a chamber of horrors of bad and lazy English and a plea for accuracy, clear thinking and elegance.

Genres: Nonfiction, Language, Ebooks

258 pages, Kindle Edition

Published September 19, 2024

About the author

Simon James Heffer is an English historian, journalist, author and political commentator.

Reviews

[James McDougall · Rating 1 out of 5]

Pretentious and a little annoying. I went in expecting it to be fun and maybe learn a couple things, but I ended up with the sour impression that the author is an old man complaining about the younger generation - he sounds like a man who wishes to live in Victorian times.

Ultimately it’s just a test in patience wading through the author arguing that certain phrases are wrong, when in reality, nobody is going to stop using them - just as the words originally evolved, they have evolved again, as all language does.

Not really worth reading. Even English teachers would probably find it tiring.

PS all you really need to know is that the author supports UKIP and has some archaic views - then you’ll understand why this is a waste of time.

[The Usual]

This book is geared to the kind of person who sighs sadly and shakes his or her – but probably not their – head at the ten items or less lane at the supermarket and can spot a misplaced apo’strophe at twenty paces. It’s for the kind of person who can feel the English language writhing and changing under them in uncomfortable ways. It is, in other words, real grumpy old man territory.

Now me, I’ve contrived to break my hip unfashionably early in life, I’m stuck indoors looking longingly at the horrible, wet weather outside, and, since I managed to take out an elbow when I hit the driveway and can’t, therefore, wield a crutch and carry at the same time, I’m learning just how far the few feet from the kettle to the tap can feel. I am, in other words, feeling both grumpy and prematurely old. Oh, and if I’m not a pedant, I’m certainly pedant-adjacent.

That could explain why I found it fun.

If, on the other hand, you can’t see the difference between “its” and “it’s”, think “could of” is perfectly acceptable, and don’t feel the need to learn why “the amount of people” is wrong, I’d probably steer clear.

[Tim · Rating 3 out of 5]

I picked this up without looking closely, and assumed it was an extended polemic rather than a ranting reference book with just an introduction setting out the approach.
It turns out it's just another ill-argued, poorly researched collection of prejudices to be added to the giant heap of such stuff out there.
Also notably badly written: he undermines his own position constantly. His broad theses include these: English is getting worse; this comes from neglect of 'grammar'; bad English impairs thought and communication; knowing 'grammar' in his sense is a good defence against such impairment.
Yet his own writing is awkward, unwieldy, flabby and poorly assembled, with sentences that you can in fact understand, but despite rather than thanks to their construction. Just one example, from the end of the first page:
"If we hear people mangle their grammar or use the wrong word, the consequent assumption may well be that they are stupid, which is not a badge anyone especially wants to wear. Not that long ago, in the last part of the twentieth century, a remark such as that would have passed without comment, its being classed as what was, and perhaps by some still is, regarded as 'a statement of the bleeding obvious'."
What he means is, at face value:
"If people make mistakes in grammar or word use, others may assume they are stupid, an inference nobody wants made about them. Until the late 20th century, this would have been considered obviously true; perhaps it still seems so to some."
(I'm not putting this forward as a piece of great style, just a quick paraphrase cutting some of the fat.)
Under the surface, he means: "I think people who use language in ways I don't like seem stupid, and I bet some others do too. Things were better when I was younger."

But besides that subtextual content, his words undermine his position: what's with, for example, "the consequent assumption may be that...", "a remark such as that would have passed without comment", and "being classed as what was, and perhaps by some still is, regarded as"...? Flannel, and ill-fitting flannel at that. As for the "its" in "its being classed as", we can charitably surmise it's a typo, probably a leftover from an earlier attempt at this passage.

The main body of the book is an alphabetical anthology of Heffer's personal gripes. I share some of his dislikes, such as 'amazeballs', 'iconic', current usage of 'inappropriate' (which, by the way, goes back at least to his lamented late 20th century - I remember curling my shapely lip at it back in the late '80s at least).
The problem is he has nothing useful or interesting to say about any of this - just that it's bad, bad, bad. Honestly, it reads in places like a parody of the Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells mentality. Don't expect scholarship or argument. If you share his preferences and just want to feel you're not alone, you may get something out of this book.
Still, I give it three stars for the helpful collection of topics about which someone else might find something worthwhile to say.

[Marijean Miyar · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tedious!!!