A presumptuous guardian of language

RM

The Twittersphere has been having great fun with The Minister for the 18th Century‘s recent directive on language, presumably inscribed with quill on parchment—the latest stage in his patronizing mission to bestow his patrician values upon the plebs, or should I say hoi polloi.

Now, we all have our little linguistic peeves (here’s one of mine). It’s not that people don’t believe in stylistic guidelines; more that we don’t want them delivered by pompous fogeys. This is the best critique I’ve read so far; and here‘s a more general demolition of language pedants.

@NewsDumpUK asks

Should bellend be hyphenated or not?

One among many of his fatuous rules—no comma after “and”—is perplexing. Since no-one appears to do this anyway, commentators have surmised that he was trying to ban the Oxford comma, which occurs before the “and”. To the wonderful examples here showing its necessity, we can now add:

JRM

Moreover,

JRM

Or indeed

JRM 2

On a sartorial note, @SirRoyES commented:

JRM

and @Scarlett_Pebble observed that

Jacob Rees-Mogg looks like two underaged people wearing one suit to try and sneak into a wine bar.

Plenty more to explore on Twitter, via #JacobReesMoggGuide.

The Haunted Pencil’s popular touch (“a scarcely believable public-school comedy sketch”) has already been encapsulated in his classic description of Teresa May’s Brexit plan as

 the greatest vassalage since King John paid homage to Phillip II at Le Goulet in 1200.

All business should henceforth be conducted in Latin. I’m like, WTF?

Of course, it may merely be the Tree-Frog’s Cunning Plan to divert us from the iniquity of his sinister wider agenda—tellingly exposed here by Rachel Parris, and here by James Meek.

 

 

 

 

7 thoughts on “A presumptuous guardian of language

  1. Pingback: Breaking news | Stephen Jones: a blog

  2. Evidently, you, and the other critiques of JRM, have too much time on your hands. Or, your occupations as editors compel you to search for faults in others over minutiae.

    Like

  3. Dear Stephen: I read your attached link with attention. I don’t understand what Rees-Mogg has against “very”? If it was good enough for Spenser (where it is clearly related to MF “truly”), it should be good enough for him. Although I could see why R-M might object to the participle Spenser uses in that very same passage.

    Like

  4. . . . that should have been ‘MF FOR “truly” (verrai = very)’. Apologies for hastily putting in my alternate e-address. Please simply retain the address with which I began my sub. — V.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s