THE KING'S ENGLISH

New Zealand Listener, Volume 29, Issue 729, 3 July 1953, Page 5

THE KING'S ENGLISH

Sir-In my view F, K. Tucker and "English I, 1947," are absolutely right in their well-reasoned contention; the verb contact is now "in" the language On the other hand, I do not think the learned judge was wrong in objecting to its use in his court, for in narrative this verb is imprecise and unnecessarily vague. By the same token it is interesting to note that at least one judge has objected to the title Doctor, applied to non-medical men. I think "Via Veritas Vita" has taken "No False Colours" up wrongly. For did the latter not say that whilst some doctors are not technically entitled to the title Dr., he would not think of otherwise addressing them? "Via Veritas Vita" is also wrong to seek a solu. tion in a Latin root meaning. This noun is also verbalised, as may be seen in any standard dictionary. I think Dr, Johnson would have agteed with me and not with Mr. Hyatt. In his day there would have been no confusion, the word not having then acquired its present meaning. Contemporaty literature shows clearly that the term doctor was little used to describe medical men; in those days, not completely removed from the era of "barber surgery," one consulted an apothecary or a surgeon. The usage of the latter term still endures aboard ship, and in neither case is there necessarily any reference to surgery. I think the practice of addressing non-medical graduates as Dr. when they work on or at the subject in which they qualified is quite harmless, on the job But to introduce them socially as doc: tors is incorrect and misleading, for they are not doctors. As for Mr. Hyatt’s contention about the steamroller driver I can only say that in my present occupation, which is not in any way connected to my qualification, I should be grievously embarrassed to be addressed as or introduced as "Dr.’"’ Surely most graduates working outside their field of qualification would agree with me?

I. R. MAXWELL

STEWART

(Wellington).

Sir,-The 1950 reprint of the Shorter Oxford Dictionary gives this item in its supplement: CONTACT, v. trans Get into contact with. (Orie U.S.) 19290

H. P.

HANIFY

JNR. (Wellington).

Sir-wWhile the above subject is being discussed in the correspondence columns of The Listener one wonders why reference has not been made to the glaring examples of the use of the adverbs "awfully" and "terribly." One hears of someone being awfully or terribly thrilled or pleased, or something was awfully or terribly nice or good. Even educated people make use of these terms. The neat little adverb "very" seems to be becoming obsolete.

L.

GERARD

(Christchurch).

Sir,-Surely the subject being discussed under the above heading is to what extent colloquial English should become the English of the NZBS and the BBC. Two colloquialisms have been referred to, the use of the verb "to contact" in place of "to communicate with," and the term "doctor" to denote a person licensed to practise medicine Most correspondents have agreed that these words are now paft of our everyday language. All that is required is a ruling as to whether they are are in fact "the King’s English." It is also necessary to be fair to those men who have obtained doctorates other

than the relatively uncommon degree ot M.D., that is, in faculties other than that of medicine. They usually find after years of post-graduate study, often undertaken overseas at great personal expense, that their status is confused with that of holders of the courtesy title. I wish to thank "A.M." for his letter. Does he imagine that a Doctor of Philosophy is by profession a philosopher? In this country he is much more likely to be an agricultural scientist. As for the diatribe of "Via Veritas Vita," I cannot enter into a discussion of the merits and demerits of general practitioners versus specialists within the medical field. No reference to this was made in my original letter, and I cannot see that it has any possible bearing on the subject.

NO FALSE COLOURS

(Auckland).