The King's (Queen'S) English

Back in the Dark Ages, when I was a kid, there was a word that denoted laughter, joy, happiness; but now that word has come to mean homosexuality or lesbianism, whichever you choose, and has none of the previous connation attached to it. I point this out only to illustrate that what was once the King's English, is still the King's English and has simply undergone a strain, as it does constantly, due to individuals placing their own meanings upon the words and rules of construction. Kind of "When I say a word it means what I mean it to say."

For years I have railed against the use of nouns as verbs and all it has ever gotten me is some relief from Mrs. Sumpter's pronouncement: Thou shall not trifle with the King's English. Use it as you received it and cursed be he that tries to change it (or something like that, ask Dave Peyton, he can tell you.) I have a group of four or five little diatribes I have written regarding the inappropriate usage of nouns for verbs, contractions that aren't, synonyms that never were and so on. Everyone reads them and laughs. Says, "Boy that's the truth." And goes ahead and does it incorectly anyway.

But this is not to say that it will not grate on my nerves and provoke me to shout, "Dammit, say it right or shut up!" I will forever and ever refuse to tolerate sloppily written prose. And sloppily spoken language. If it is part of an act, that might be acceptable, but as a matter of daily ritual, it isn't. I reserve the right to be a cranky old SOB to anyone who makes horrible blunders. I will make them aware of their errors. If they want to use impact as a verb, that only shows their foolishness. If they want to say that gay is a homesexual, I hope they never let Gay know it, because she was as straight as they are not.

So there's another word, straight. How did it ever get to mean heterosexual. It always meant directly ahead or behind, right or left, at a ninety degree angle from the perpendicular, or, in some cases, the perpendicular. If you were a straight guy, you were a regular guy, and the straight meant more about your sense of right and wrong than about what you did with whatever is between your legs. So those of the homosexual , or gay, persuasion just defeated their own damned purpose by calling the opposition, straight. For if you are straight, then you are right by definition, so gay must by definition, be wrong. Nothing biblical about that, chums, just the way it is.

God, I hate it when I go off on a tangent like that. But I digress...

The local newspaper, in apparent adherence to some Associated Press bible has recently been the victim of saying, "on the 1600 block of Some Street." Well-----it ain't. It is "in the 1600 block of..." It may look right in print according to the AP, but try saying it. I live on the fifteen hundred block of... Doesn't that sound stupid. And well it should.

And , while I'm at it, there isn't any such word as "bust" except as a slang devolution of 'burst'. I don't care if there was a drug bust, you cannot refer to it in that manner. Call it as drug raid or whatever, just not a drug bust. The local media as well as national are just as guilty as each other. Monkey see, monkey do.

I'm sick and tired of television, radio and newpaper personnel who do not know geography or history. It seems to me those would be absolute requirements for their jobs, and, if not, should be so.

And, as another digression, I prefer health workers and others to refer to me as Mr. SoandSo, not by my given name. I'm 64 years old and these young turks have not earned the right to call me by my first name, until I tell them to do so. Even when working, my co-workers called me Mr. unless I asked them to use my first name. Why should unknown people be allowed to do so? Ain't gonna happen, I'll correct them in a whipstitch.

Back the the topic at hand--Back in the Dark Ages, when I was a kid, even commercials made sense. Very few featured cartoon characters whipped up by a computer so the development company could save cash by not having to employ actors, cameramen, sound technicians, ad nauseaum. Of course, they now look terribly naive and outdated, but that was the times we lived through and made us what we are today. And what we are today is the richest land in all the world, the strongest land in all the world, and the recognized leaders of the world.

And we got it by being straight. We didn't cheat, lie or coerce our way. We did it the old fashioned way--we earned it. With, as Winston Churchill was wont to say, "...blood sweat, toil and tears..." So why are some in our country now poor-mouthing it? Damitall, they have no backbone for substantive, progressive work. All they want to do is tear down the country our forebears bought for us with their misery and joy. But, unfortunately, the United States government has made a few military blunders of late.

The most recently negotiated 'ceasefire' in Lebanon will come back to haunt the entire world, I'm afraid. The immediate cause of the upset, Hezbollah, was not stripped of their arms and no provision has been made to do so. Verily, I say unto thee, beware the Iranian and Syrian who supplies money and arms and the whole damned world who supplies moral support to Hezbollah, for it places Irsael and the United States into one camp and the rest of the world into another. And, while we might be able to lick'em, I don't like the odds too much.

Again, we stopped short in Iraq. Now I ask you, tell me the truth, did we not confiscate every except ceremonial, weapon the Japanese and Germans had at the end of WWII (add all the AXIS partners.) Why did we not do it in Iraq? Why did we not do it in Afghanistan? And why did we not do it in Iraq in the Gulf War? Anyone with any sense at all knows that if an enemy is allowed to walk around with a gun on his hip, he's likely to use it against someone.

And guess who that someone may be. You got it in one.

Now, what is the tie-in between the beginning of this diatribe and the end? Just this. The way to win the world is through consistent steadfastness to the rules of conduct. Language is only one part of that steadfastness, but the English, in their colonial days, knew it to be an important part, and so they capitalized it and called it THE KING'S ENGLISH. And, as such, it was not to be trifled with. The same is true today, even though two hundred and more years have passed, keep control over the small things and control over the large things will be much more easily accomplished.

The United States kept that control until the late fifties /early sixties saw a breakdown begin or accelerate, perhaps. By that time we had in reality already won the world for the major opposition, communism, was becoming a doddering old man who would fall into his grave within a few years. Only one major country in the world now professes communism and that is Red China--who is rapidly becoming the most capitalistic country on earth, also. Cuba can be disregarded as well as other smaller nations.

But the same internal rot that sent communism into its grave will consume America if allowed to continue. We must keep tight to our forebears and keep straight in our path or we are lost. Not tomorrow, nor within the next few decades, but eventually the house must fall if the termites work long enough.

But you know its hard to stop me when I get started. But I will. Now.

Tanstaafl