HOW CAN YOU GUARANTEE WRITING WHICH IS FIT FOR PURPOSE AND DOES ITS JOB (OR SHOULD THAT BE WIN PEOPLE OVER / SUCCEED IN CONVINCING THEM)? WHAT IF… WHAT YOU KNOW (IN WRITING AND LANGUAGE MATTERS) AIN’T SO?

No-one likes being told that they can’t write properly, or that they have written in a little-coherent way, especially when the accusing party doesn’t take the time to indicate the supposed errors; and if they are indicated, then they are not the kind of errors that can be checked against anything official. I know that I in particular would find it hard to take mildly any suggestion that I couldn’t write properly (however offhand or casual), not least because I am supposed to be a professional linguist. But everyone with their head screwed on basically knows that “proper writing” is important – I mean, just have a look at this story of someone being wantonly ignorant of it:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3252988/… This is an extreme example, but to me it is undeniably a good example, if you’ll pardon the expression.

But for all that, in my experience, if I’m ever going to truly “specialise” in translating in a certain field (legal, medical, whatever), I will somehow need to acquire a knowledge of far more than what I can take my time reading about in books and the like in the cosy confines of my study or bedroom. What do I mean by this? How can I explain it in concrete terms? I’m talking about non-systematic and by no means static approaches in a given industry which have just ended up adopted often enough that they have become widely recognised and popularised throughout the whole industry and everyone knows it. I’m talking about situations / scenarios / things / concepts which people come to habitually reference as part of their dealings with other situations / scenarios / things / concepts; such situations / scenarios / things / concepts may be referred to indirectly through the highlighting of things related to them – is “metonymy” the right word for it? Either way, in short, what I’m trying to say is that focussing on theory alone i.e. what happens in the classroom won’t cut it. Then again, it’s not unlike the matter of the question of what I was supposed to think when I was expected to read French and German news as far back as in my days of studying these languages at A-level (aged 16-18). You could say it’s a totally different kind of thinking; and it’s certainly one want that I want to master at a high level very soon. For the time being, though, I see no reason why I shouldn’t do all I can to be able to sway even the most staunch and rigid doubt and scepticism of my writing skills; whatever it may be based on, and whether it’s fair or unfair. And a big part of it is the subject of verbal reasoning (once again I think of the old British TV comedy “Mind Your Language”, and more specifically what plenty of the jokes in it are based on: verbal reasoning). Having said that, on a personal note, I certainly remember how enthusiastic I was about asserting that RAC was something other than a term of affection obscene to use casually (see comment dated 25th June 2013) – because I say so, so to speak.

Regarding the spelling and grammar mistakes article in The Sun referenced above: I just know that there was once a time when I would have thought of the headteacher’s being “red-faced” and her apology being motivated more by anger and a feeling of humiliation at the idea of people laughing at the teacher responsible (including the children who attend the school, if you ask me) and, by extension, her and the whole school, rather than by mere awkward embarrassment, which is what it feels like to me today. It’s just the way I am, if that makes sense. I say this because I think that this is worth comparing with the more language-related things I discuss below; but the bottom line is that this is about ME and WHAT I DO.

I was reading, trying to absorb the contents of the latest issue of Chris Cardell’s Business Breakthroughs earlier this week, and while doing this I felt myself questioning myself for my own knowledge / reasoning of the term “competitive industry”. Quote: “…from some not-unusual businesses, in the sense that they are both in competitive markets and so are potentially susceptible to being commoditised on price.” I don’t know about you but I know that I always used to view a “competitive industry” as either or both of the following: one with many competing companies in it; one whose companies tend to make a lot of money selling generally expensive and “flash” goods which people are prone to showing off with, like camcorders or stereo systems and other expensive electrical equipment; and, as far as I was concerned, the manufacture of these goods was something which “takes a lot of doing” and “being smart”, certainly compared to “mere basic low-cost things” like buckets or saucepans – commodity goods. People enhance the products of the former category in all sorts of ingenious (and, not uncommonly, abstruse) ways all the time and everyone knows it, whether or not they buy them. But when reading this issue of Business Breakthroughs I came to see a link between said former category and the threat posed to the average business which is the possibility of it becoming commoditised. It is mostly businesses which sell “generally expensive and ‘flash’ goods” that are the most ambitious in terms of their turnover – consider how much pressure they are under not to look commoditised and only doing well enough to “scrape by” (like a business which sells “mere basic low-cost things”, so to speak), probably in the eyes of their competitors more than their customers. After all, commodity goods fall under “the simple things in life” that everyone wants (and needs): like bread or milk, like buckets or saucepans; not like camcorders or stereo systems, and certainly not like such technological wonders as the Xbox or the Smartphone which were inconceivable only twenty years ago. We can argue that not everyone has what it takes to succeed in a truly “competitive” industry, and assert that, in essence, it’s very much about the approaches and just the fundamental attitude of those involved in the “competitive” industries; but that said, I remember this time when I learned of an article on LinkedIn whose title was, “Are you good, or just good at your job?” I think you know what that hints at. Chris says that, whatever industry you’re in, being commoditised means competing with your competitors on nothing but price… and he says that even buyers don’t want that. But I never thought of it that way i.e. a comprehensive grasp of the position of companies in “competitive industries” and what the life of their employees is really like; and not just their products / services of these companies and the implications thereof.

And now for something completely different. With all this carry-on regarding the possibility of governments intervening in Syria with military force: when I was listening to the radio on Tuesday morning I heard someone talking about how those in power did not want to appear weak or “pusillanimous”. When I heard the word “pusillanimous”, the first thing that struck me was that I knew I’d heard it before, but I just couldn’t remember what it meant! So I looked it up in the dictionary again: it says that it means cowardly / irresolute, as in “a pusillanimous governor”. But one of the synonyms I saw listed for “pusillanimity” was “timidity” – I always thought of “timid” being an adjective for “shy”. Indeed, the French word I learned for “shy” back at school was none other than “timide”. If you regard yourself or someone you know as a “shy” person… as unfair as it may seem – and although I may well not know you or them – what if I suggested that people might have a negative view of you / them on the basis of some idea (which may or may not be tested) that you / they were “pusillanimous” or cowardly or whatever word you want to use? I’m only talking in hypotheticals here, but these claims may be discrete or… well, discreet.

A worthy comment, or a waste of time? Again, I can’t speak for you – but hey, I’ve spoken up again!