The language of scandal

We don’t encourage interest in scandal. We ourselves only follow these sordid affairs so you don’t have to. SL at its post.

But in view of recent NY events, we offer a tip of the SL hat to Mandy Rice-Davies for her contribution to strong, clear language.

________________________________________

It was 1961, pre Beatles and civil rights. JFK was in full rut, and the cold war was hotting up.

And in Britain a young noble named William Astor hosted weekend parties on the grounds of his estate at Cliveden. When John Profumo, the British Secretary for War, strolled by the pool, he met a naked young woman named Christine Keeler.

It is not recorded whether this surprised him. In any case, they partied.

Moral issues were less complicated then. A Crown Minister had a right in those days to denounce vice in the morning and rent a love interest for the afternoon, without fuss. Two if he wanted.

Yet in this instance fuss was made.

Why? Because Ms. Keeler had another, shall we say . . . suitor. He was a Russian named Yevgeny Ivanov — part naval attaché, part KGB, all rascal.

(To cast the matter in current U.S. terms: Imagine Kristen had been trading not with Spitzer but with Rumsfeld — and with a Chinese spy on off-nights.)

In 1963 Ms. Keeler’s roommate, Mandy Rice-Davies, was dragged into the Old Bailey to testify to her affair with Lord Astor. For such as her, the witness stand of a British courtroom is an unfriendly place, with hyenas snarling on every side.

One such — a Crown Prosecutor — told Ms. Rice-Davies that Lord Astor’s testimony had conflicted with her own. In fact, said the wig, the noble Lord had denied ever meeting her.

The Bailey was silent. The prostitute stared back at power, and then spoke eloquently about the Majesty of Justice and the Honor of Great Men.

“Well, he would, wouldn’t he?”

Email etiquette, bub

Best practices for business email. If that’s not a dead horse, we’d like to see one.

But still, the time has come for us to lay out the rules — the SL rules.

Rule 1:
Respond to questions unless someone higher than you on the food chain (boss, client) responds first. Then do nothing.

Rule 2:
Learn to use f Few words.

More to come.

Inflammable. Irregardless.

A debate recently broke out at DontCallMeTina, a technical communications blog, over the use of “irregardless.” The blogger says the word’s not acceptable, and cites the Chicago Manual of Style for support.

But then come others who say Everybody knows what it means! Chicago is just a self-appointed gatekeeper. Go ahead and use it!

The same logic applies for words like “ain’t.” Or, more ominously, for words like “inflammable.”

Of course it means not flammable! Except it doesn’t. And pity the poor soul who thinks it does, and uses an “inflammable” liquid to douse a fire. There will be burns. And lawsuits.

Language evolves! they say.

That’s not in question. But as it evolves, writers must decide when and where to introduce less-than-standard words. SL, for our part, prizes the opinions of CMOS, AP and, yes, even Microsoft.

We prize the vernacular too. And we know a perfectly good sales pitch to teenagers might be incomprehensible to an adult. But at present we don’t think it’s a good idea to sprinkle your next Fortune 500 piece — whether it’s a newsletter or a technical manual — with “whatever.” Or “ain’t.” Or “irregardless.”

SL at its post.