h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Look out, world - there's another 'paradigm shift' in our 'future'. And it's all about quotation marks.

Sigh. I just noticed it last week, and it's already driving me insane. What is?

The placing of unnecessary quotation marks around words that aren't:

1. A direct quotation.
2. Being used ironically, or fictionally, or hypothetically.

I thought we got over this in the 20th Century, people. Up until mid-century, writing was full of quotation marks, mostly used to show that the writer knew that a word was slang, or a colloquialism. The writer used these quotation marks to show that he or she knew better than to talk like that. Call them snobby quotes, like writing:

The newsboy asked me if I had heard of Clara Bow. Apparently, she is 'the bee's knees'.

I find those interesting when I read old magazines and books. The quotation marks tell me that a phrase wasn't completely kosher currency back then. Nowadays, slang changes so much from week to week, as a rule, that those snobby quotation marks are a thing of the past. I'll bet nobody ever bothered writing:

I understand from the young folk that Justin Bieber is no longer 'awesome'. I believe that phrase has replaced 'da bomb'.

You get my drift.

However, British journalists seem to be sliding into a rapid overuse of quotation marks for some reason unfathomable to me.

Are they getting paid by the quotation?

Are they so afraid of being sued they wish to disavow their every statement?

Are they just in love with 'air quotes'?

What GIVES, already?

One place I'm noticing these otiose citation marks is yahoo.uk, and other up-to-the-minute 'news' sources. (Okay, I MEANT that ironically, hence the quotes.) I kept clicking on articles to see why the quotes were there. For example,

Police Find 'Bomb' under Car in Belfast

Now, when I read the article, I expected to find out that the 'bomb' turned out to be something else - like, say, a toaster. But no. It was a bomb. Not a 'bomb'. Back to what you were reading.

At first, I assumed this was less a new development than a sign that school-leavers were getting the content jobs over at Geek City. After all, who knows what goes on in their heads? But now I fear a trend.

A couple of people, Icy North included, have pointed out a link today, where Nick Reynolds of the BBC has been blogging about his h2g2 experiences. Interesting. Now, this gentleman is a professional. And he writes this header:

Notes on the “value” of “user generated content”#1

I can understand putting 'user-generated content' in quotation marks. Maybe he objects to the term. Maybe he thinks the term is demeaning to the content, or inaccurate in some way. He freely admits to a dislike of the word 'user', also correctly placed in quotation marks.

But what's wrong with the word 'value'? Either the content has value, or it doesn't. Value is not a terminus technicus, and it is not a quotation. Reynolds later queries:

Can you put a “value” on “love”?

Can you, indeed? How is 'love' different from love?

So. I'm 'worried' about this 'trend'. Pretty soon, most of our 'words' will be in 'quotation marks', and we won't know what we're 'talking' about.

Or has that already happened?

If we're getting picky about language, I'd like to insist that you correct "What GIVES, already?" to "What has already given?"



(But semi-serious question in there. When was it that "already" changed its meaning?)

I don't know. I can definitely trace that expression back to the 1920s, and I believe it's urban. My guess would be New York City. But I don't know how much further back it goes.

[I've always associated that particular idiom with the Jewish community. Did they bring over an equivalent term in Yiddish?]

Nobody does a pedantic rant as politely as you do, Dmitri

You'd enjoy the 'The Pedant' column in the Times newspaper over here. Not sure it's online, but I'll try to find a few examples.

It drives me potty. BBC News (online) do it all the time, and I have no idea why. This morning:

'Historic' breast cancer drug move
Coco-cola launches 'obesity ad'
Cairo train derailment 'kills 19' (there, at least, I assume it's because they've taken the figure from another source)
Uni applications 'not recovering' (again, I assume it's a quote, but why?)

"in the period up to it’s transfer back to it’s community"

He does seem overfond of inverted commas, doesn't he?

Thanks so much, Dmitri. Now misplaced quotation marks will bother me even more than they did before you're journal entry.

Seriously, these days I'm relieved when folks filling out card applications get their names, with or withour quotation marks, on the correct line.

1. After having w*rked as a sub-editor for 26 years now and being on the verge to retirement I flatly refuse to take part in this discussion - again! (Would have been the umpteenth time )

2. On the same note: The time you start noticing stuff like this is the time you have finally grown up or - to be more specific - you have become old

I try never to "work"



Sorry, couldn't resist

I think it is the second, Pierce. Using you're instead of your, (which I did deliberately, by the way), adding 's to make words plural rather than possessive, misplaced quotation marks, etc. bothers me much more than it did 20 years ago. My cataloger never adds the extra o to too. My children's librarian, who has a college degree, doesn't understand that a singular subject requires a singular verb and a plural subject takes a plural verb. That sort of thing. I can understand making these mistakes if English is a second or third language. But it is the native English speakers who do it most often. I blame texting. All spelling and grammar rules went out the window.

Ahem. I'd like to try to explain why it bothers me.

I don't have OCD, and if someone is communicating with me, I just ignore spelling errors. Who cares? Life is too short to get your drawers in a wad about comma placement.

I only care about errors in two cases:

1. I'm expected to correct them - as in editing. Then I'm supposed to notice them. Fair enough.

2. The error keeps me from understanding what I'm reading. That's why the quotation marks bothered me - I was trying to read them for meaning, and I failed.

Vip has nailed it - all those quotation marks are what's confusing me. In every case she's mentioned, you expect to read the article to find out why 'obesity ad', 'kill 19', or 'not recovering' was in quotes. Or why the breast cancer move is historic.

It's not about the decline of Western civilisation, or duelling English teachers. It's just that it sows confusion among 'net readers.

[Icy: I think you're right - 'already' may be Yiddish. It makes sense, because that's the way German speakers use 'schon', as well.]

Good news, Hypatia: When you reach the next level - ancient - (as I have) you don't bother so much any more

Good as well as bad news: We have the exact same problems in Danish as you have in English even if we don't (or rather shouldn't) use nearly as many apostrophes as you English speaking guys do. I believe it is the same in Germany, but I too seldom use that language these days to give you any details.

Dmitri, I understand and I can't disagree. You know that

Could 'kill 19' mean that the victims were left only half dead?

That's at least a possible explanation.

It's getting bad when the Onion makes more sense than the newspapers.

By the way, this following story is "making the rounds" (sorry, couldn't resist) on Facebook these days:

An English teacher calls the unemployment agency and asks for a different job - preferably in a totally different line of w*rk

- But you have been an English teacher for 16 years, why would you want to give that up?

- Studying Facebook and Twitter for a fortnight has proven to me that teaching English is a Sisyphean task. Complete futile. And not worth my time!

Last week, Happy Nerd shared a page with some of us - I don't have the link, sorry - about autocorrects on mobile phone instant messaging systems. The resulting conversations were rude and strange.

Life gets odder by the technology.

Sort of like this:

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012/sep/21/autocorrect-errors-can-be-funny-and-texting/

I never get tired of reading those auto-"correct"s

Like headlines and bad church signs.

"2. The error keeps me from understanding what I'm reading."

And even when there is no misunderstanding, typos interrupt the flow. So, it really is terribly disappointing that there are so many errors in the *Edited* Guide.... already..... isn't it?

Ah, somebody's volunteering to learn the craft of subediting...

We should be grateful for typos. Surveys have shown that they lower the reliability of whatever we are reading. Many and even more newspapers deserve that