April 27, 2004

I wanted to write to you about Quibbling over Quotes. This was a great article!

I really enjoyed it, but noted you left out the most misquoted phrase in all of modern history. Most people know it as: "Money is the root of all evil."

Many of us have parents or grandparents who used that against our wishes for bigger, better birthday and Christmas presents or better allowances!

However, the actual text (New International Version) reads: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."

Needless to say, a very major difference!

Thought your other readers might enjoy this.

Paul Kenney
Ottawa

Editor's Note: The Bible is often misquoted, largely because it has been translated and rewritten so many times. For instance, the King James version of the above passage is slightly different. In his 1995 book of misquotations You don't Say!, Barry Phelps points out that the 1948 tune The Money Song featured the refrain "Money is the root of all evil," which may have helped make the shortened phrase popular.

April 27, 2004

I enjoyed this piece. (Quibbling over Quotes)

Well done. Let's have some more. It certainly beat reading the news headlines.

Julaine Palmer
Fredericton, N.B.

April 27, 2004

Thanks for the informative column! I enjoy reading about language and its use. Are there more such articles in the archive?

My father, for whom English was a second language, was determined to rise above his accent. He told us that "the language you use is the yardstick by which others measure your intelligence."

This was our credo and we made sure our children also used the language well. Was this his own, or did he glean this quotation from someone else?

Hendrika Brown
Yellowknife, N.W.T.

April 26, 2004

The column "Quibbling over Quotes" was delightful and informative.

You can quote me. :)

Dennis A. Simonin
Victoria, B.C.

April 23, 2004

Thanks for writing that great piece on quotations, or "quotes," as we call them. (Quibbling over Quotes)

Wonderfully vindicating.

"Judy, Judy, Judy" from the movies is also misquoted often.

Cheers,

Dillan Theckedath
Ottawa

April 23, 2004

I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed your article on "citations" (that's one way of avoiding the quote/quotation debate!) in news journalism.

A number of years ago, before moving on to a career in graphic design, I worked in a pseudo-communications/public relations agency, in a function that very few people know exist: media monitoring. In this agency, I was what is known in that industry as a media researcher.

Simply put, a media researcher is someone who has to wake up at the crack of way-too-early to scan morning newspapers for stories directly or indirectly related to the agency's client based on certain topics, cut the articles out and send the press cuttings to them. Once that is done, the media researcher has to scan broadcast media (at the time, radio and television, though I did use the internet heavily to look for press releases and so on that weren't always necessarily easily available to me through other means), and compile summaries of directly or indirectly related stories, as well as produce full transcripts of broadcast stories on request. That's where it got fun.

One of the standing rules of that agency's transcription policy was to quote people verbatim, regardless of dialects, accents, wonky and colourful use of grammar, et cetera, ad nauseam. While it's certainly ethical journalistic practice, many times this would make things pretty hairy, particularly when transcribing panel discussions on highly contentious subjects where everyone would not only interrupt each other and speak over each other all the time, but would also be simultaneously disfluent and colourful with their grammar. Eventually, after being called on this a number of times, we had to clean up our transcripts to remove the innumerable uhs, ahs, errs and ummmmms, as well as start using the "sic" flag.

Reading your article took me back a few years, and I was glad for the laugh.

Cheers,

Philippe Deniger
Moncton, N.B.

Nov. 3, 2003

Just read the article i for an I, and other capital punishment. It was excellent.

Many years ago, I worked as a typesetter at the University of Guelph and it was pretty difficult keeping track of The Canadian Press Caps and Spelling guides. But I pity anybody trying to do a job like that now.

Considering all the changes you mentioned in your article the publishing area is turning into one big headache. Instead of keeping things simple, "they" have turned publishing into a complicated nightmare.

Good luck!

Susan Barth

Nov. 3, 2003

I very much enjoyed the article "i FOR AN I AND OTHER CAPITAL PUNISHMENT."

It is commonly known that languages evolve over time and that what is considered acceptable also evolves. Maybe that will ultimately be one of the downfalls of the English language.

Because everyone and their dog is trying to learn English, everybody speaks it but not everyone speaks it well. Thus, the desired "consistency" we strive for seems to break down.

When you compare English to say, French, you might say that French is much more exclusive because of the strict rules we must adhere to in order to write in French. I do believe that that somehow acts a quality control measure. Just a thought.

Have a good day.

Tyler Carlson
Ottawa

Nov. 1, 2003

In "i for an I," Blair Shewchuk guides us through some often confusing terrain. I enjoyed the article and found myself nodding my head at most of his conclusions.

However, I cannot buy the rationale for "CBC.ca" given in response to the letter from Mike Boos. We are well aware that CBC is capitalized when written by itself. However, when it is contained in an Internet address it should conform to Internet rules to be correct. Sorry, it's "cbc.ca." No amount of fiddling will get my browser to change that.

By the way, I still use the upper case "I" for Internet. I regard the Internet as a place and since it was so-named by its creators, it should merit a capital. Also, those same creators established the URL, and called it "uniform resource locator." Here's a reference from the World Wide Web Consortium.

There is a great deal of smoke, but it's nice to see someone making their way through it.

Michael Hale
Chilliwack, B.C.

Editor's note: As pointed out in the column, the World Wide Web Consortium is not consistent with its definition of URL. Parts of its website use the term "universal resource locator," including this page.

Oct. 31, 2003

I read your article on the CBC website having to do with the decision to stop capitalizing the word for the network of networks. I would like you and the rest of the CBC word rulers to reconsider your decision.

Your article makes a nice analogy with the reason why it is important to capitalize the Internet: you need to distinguish the giant network of internets from the more ordinary ones, in the same way we distinguish between Earth and earth.

I expect, for instance, that you go to websites hosted on machines outside your office, and that your office itself is in a building of many machines, some of which you cannot reach. When you visit that website, you are traversing (probably several) internets: you go from one network to another, without even knowing it, because that's how TCP/IP works. The website is available on the Internet, because it is available from any of the internets making up the Internet, assuming none of those internets is misconfigured. When the fire happened in the substation on University Avenue some years ago, the Internet was not actually affected, but several internets were broken.

It is true that styles in language come and go, but most style sheets agree that the goal is to improve understanding rather than obscure differences in meaning. The loss of the capital "I" in the case of the Internet will actually serve to obscure an important feature of the construction of the Internet. You should therefore revert to your previous spelling.

Best regards,

Andrew Sullivan
Toronto, Ont.

Oct. 30, 2003

I enjoy articles about our language. I appreciate the advice of those who understand the English language better than I about how I can express myself precisely and efficiently. I did not major in English or grammar at university and, as an amateur, sometimes do not understand the full import of their discussions.

I was, therefore, mystified about the controversy regarding the "Internet" as opposed to the internet.

I do not paddle my canoe on a River, Sea or Lake but rather travel on the appropriate medium without benefit of capital letters. Why then would I surf the Internet? Even my intellectually deficient California beach dude does not surf the Ocean. He surfs the waves, just as I surf the 'net.

Yours on the World Wide Web,

Cameron Dow
Calgary

Oct. 29, 2003

Just a quick note to say that I very much enjoyed your piece on CBC.ca. (i for an I, and other capital punishment)

I've been tearing my hair out for years dealing with issues of caps and punctuation (in English and French), on our union's website as well as in my personal correspondence. It's nice to be reminded that there are other people out there in the big wide world who care too.

Thanks for a terrific piece of work. Or should that be a Terrific Piece of Work? :)

Regards,

Keith Maskell
Toronto

Oct. 27, 2003

I enjoyed your column. Indeed, standard spelling for the words you mention has been, on a few occasions, discussed in my workplace as well.

You may be interested to note, though, that the spelling of "website" is also a one-or-two-words issue. Please look at this page from the Oxford English dictionary folks.

As far as I can tell, one day we will all visit websites to find answers to these and other compelling questions about the universe. :)

Cheers,

Christie Schultz

Edmonton

Oct. 26, 2003

I enjoyed the column about Internet or internet, Web or web. (i for an I, and other capital punishment)

I always thought, however, that one should use the term "capital" or "upper case" and "lower case" rather than "big" and "little." Or, is this another "case" of changing usage?

David McConkey

Editor's note: You're right. Since capital letters could be in small type, the more accurate and formal description would be uppercase not "big" and lowercase not "small." On the other hand, the colloquial terms are readily understood.

It's worth noting that "upper case," "uppercase" and "upper-case" are all used, depending on where you work (i.e., the approach is based on an organization's "house" rules.)

Oct. 26, 2003

I found it quite ironic when you argued that the use of lowercase letters for "internet" was a sign of maturity, while you still clung to the capitalized "CBC.ca" when internet convention (and even the CBC's own advertising) suggests that it would be lowercase.

Both uppercase and lowercase addresses will work in a browser though.

Mike Boos
Waterloo, Ontario

Editor's note: CBC stands for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In news stories, we avoid periods in abbreviations unless they represent geographic locations (e.g., P.E.I. and the U.S. versus RCMP and the FBI). We also do not use lowercase letters for abbreviations formed from the first letters of words that represent a name.

Although our website is often promoted as "cbc.ca," we try to follow standard capitalization guidelines in our news stories (CBC.ca), just as we write eBay in the middle of a sentence and EBay at the start. If we present specific URLs in our journalism, however, lowercase letters may be used (e.g., www.rcmp.ca).

Oct. 24, 2003

In your article "i FOR AN I" on CBC.ca, you seem to present the issue of internet versus Internet as purely a function of a piece of new jargon that is in transition to more general usage. That certainly is the case for E?mail versus e?mail (or email). There are no good arguments for E?mail.

What you do not mention is that the Internet has been around since the late 70s and, at least in the case of this word, correct usage has been long established. It seems the style guide you use still correctly defers to that usage.

Internet, with an I, means the global network we use all the time (not unlike "Earth"). It is a proper noun: the Internet.

However, one should be aware that an internet (defined as any set of two or more networks connected by certain well?defined protocols) need not be connected to the Internet (a bit like "earth"). Buy two network hubs at your favorite computer store, hook one computer to each and then connect the hubs. Voila, you have an internet, which you could, but do not have to, connect to the Internet. That is to say, internet is a common noun.

The newer jargon for a corporation's private internet is, of course, intranet – not capitalized for obvious reasons.

The usage "Internet" is considered to be a short from for "the global internet" (or "the global Internet," capitalization being optional here). Furthermore, intranet usually only refers to an internet that is internal to one company. It doesn't cover all cases of internets, such as research networks, private alternative networks, etc.

In summary, we are distinguishing the Internet (a proper noun – there's only one) from an internet (the common noun).

Alex Boster
(online since 1991)

Editor's note: CBC's Online Language Advisory Committee considered this argument when making its decision. But we decided that when most people refer to the internet today they invariably mean the global network of computers. They might talk about smaller "networks" from time to time, but they do not distinguish between "an internet" and "the internet."

Similarities can be found with other inventions. If someone says "The telephone has changed our lives" or "Let's reach them by phone," they don't mean "a telephone" but "the" technology that has drastically changed the way we communicate.

The term online, by the way, deserves special mention. As with many new terms, it began as two words (on line) and then became attached with a hyphen (on-line) before eventually becoming fused (online).

Oct. 24, 2003

I found your story quite interesting because I was just thinking about this the other day. Being in the IT profession, I can come up with one logical reason as to why Internet should be spelled with a capital I.

In networking when we speak of networks, we often talk about intranets and internets. An intranet is just a network within a company or other institution, while an internet is a network that interconnects intranets (INTERconnection NETwork).

The Internet is just a special and very well known example of an internet. As the world becomes more and more connected, however, these sorts of boundaries are melting away, and all internets are likely part of the Internet anyway.

So I guess the capital 'I' may have once been more important to differentiate between an internet and the Internet, but as all networks are quickly merging into one global network, there is probably less ambiguity to worry about.

That's my take on things!

Cheers,
Aaron Dittrich

Aug. 2, 2003

I just read the article Should 'So-called' be Culled? A very interesting and informative article on something I've noticed being used to death on the news. Not so much on the CBC but other stations.

Your article puts new light on this over used term. I've noticed it used more and more since the 9/11 attacks. It seems to be used (in my opinion) in a lot of cases as a way of absolving them from any connection to any possible demeaning term. For example, "The so-called sex offender, appeared in court today" or "He is accused of planning the so-called "terror network". It seems that the journalist is saying "Hey, don't sue me for using this term. Someone else coined it, and I'm just using it."

Either taken this way or as mentioned, in a cynical sense, it does no justice to the story or the journalist. Definitely in this case less is more.

Thank you for this information, as I now know this wasn't just some figment of my imagination that I kept so-called hearing that term! I also find it interesting that there are style guides for journalistic writing. But that just makes sense, as it makes sense to have style guides for writing manuals.

Don Douglas
Quebec

Aug. 1, 2003

It is little gems like your recent so-called "article" about the use of "so-called" in modern journalism that keeps me hooked on the CBC Web page. Thanks!

Deborah Demers
Victoria

July 31, 2003

After having spent the last few years immersed in my commerce textbooks at the University of Toronto, your "so-called" article was a welcome treat.

I knew it was something special when halfway through the article I realized I had a big smile on my face.

Brian Clow
Toronto

July 31, 2003

I just ran across your web site while checking out the report on "Sarstock."

Your use of the word "wonder" and the explanation reminded me of a night spent on a sandbar on the Niger River in the spring of 1978. A Frenchman and I had purchased a pirogue in a small village north of Niamy, the capital of Niger. We had just met days earlier while travelling across the Sahara Desert. He had the idea of buying the pirogue (the local version of a canoe) and paddling down the Niger River and finding out what we would find out.

His English was better than my French, but my French was the result of 4 years of high school in British Columbia so it was not hard to be better than that standard at your second language.

Our rule for travelling was that we would alternate languages each day - one day we had to speak all French, the next day all English. About 8 days into the trip we came across a sandbar where we built a hut of reeds and we made a huge bonfire. We sat around the bonfire, discussing all subjects of the world - religion, politics, culture. It was a French day and I had a thought in my mind, something along the lines of "I wonder what is out at the end of the universe?" (as we looked out into the wonderful star-encrusted African night). I began to form the sentence in French to tell it to Pierre, and I could not think of the French word for "wonder". I tried and I tried and I could not think of it so I gave up and I told Pierre I needed help - "What is the French word for 'wonder'?"

And Pierre looked at me, with a blank expression and said "One-durr?" "What is this word?" "I don't know this word". And so I tried to explain what I meant by the word "Wonder". And I said it was to question something, but more than that. It was to question something, but also to be amazed by just the possibility of what the answer to the question might be." But it was also to question something and know that you will never really know the answer.

But I have to say, I was not as eloquent as that on that sandbar, 24 years ago. I tried for 1/2 an hour to explain to him, using both the English that he could understand, and the French that I could remember to explain the wonderful concept of the English verb - to wonder. And that was one of the great lessons that I have had in the power of language.

Your preamble reminded me of that moment - now I will go back to your Web page and read the rest of what you have to say. I am looking forward to finding out more about our language.

By the way I think that there is a tremendous need for a style reference for e-mails. With the "To:" and the subject line above the body of the letter it really throws me off. Do you start in the message area of the e-mail with your actual message, or do you begin with a salutation? How do you end? Do you put your name, even though most of the recipients will know who sent it. I guess the answer to these questions can be found with how I react to different styles of e-mails. And I will mimic the ones that appeal to me.

But still the subject of a good reference book.

Thanks for your Web page.

Len Chaston

Vancouver

July 22, 2003

Please allow me to vent on a few vexatious (to me, at least) topics:

1. It has become common for reporters (not just on the CBC) to use the phrase "begs the question" when they really mean "invites" or "provokes the question." Could your staff be made aware that to "beg the question" is to assume the very point that is in dispute?

2. It is obvious that the CBC is falling over backwards to be "gender-neutral" in its terminology. How else does one explain the awful neologism "fishers" for those engaged in piscatorial pursuits? It is not likely that we will hear a reference to "actors and actresses" at Oscar time, and so I find it puzzling that your staff invariably use the phrase "gays and lesbians" in preference to the neutral "homosexuals." Could you explain this lack of consistency?

3. I have written to the Corporation previously asking that those scrolling headlines on Newsworld be banished. They are an annoying distraction: if they are not then why not show them during commercials? Needless to say, I have not received a response. As long as they are there, however, could they not be at least grammatical and correctly spelled? For example, is it not accepted Canadian usage to write the present participle in the form "travelling" rather than with one "l"? I have seen this particular solecism quite frequently of late: one expects better from the guardians of the Canadian identity.

Yours sincerely,

Ian MacKenzie
Hudson Heights, Quebec

June 7, 2003

Your Web site is great.

I have noticed that many drug stores are boasting on huge front signs that they are "open to midnight". But does this make sense? Should it not be "open until midnight" or at least, in the interest of saving space, "open 'til midnight"?

Keep up the good work!

Yours truly,

Joe Bickerstaff

May 24, 2003

I read your excellent column on the debate surrounding the word "mulatto" in January (Mulatto and Malignity), and I've been waiting ever since for the promised decision from the CBC's Online Language Advisory Board to be posted at the bottom of the column.

Was a decision made, and if so, could it be posted? Your column was so thorough and intriguing that I'd like to know what the CBC decided. Yours truly,

Jay N.
Halifax

Editor’s Note: The Online Language Advisory Board recently reviewed use of the word. The ruling has been posted at the bottom of the original column.

top | main index | archived letters | contact us