Anyone else think that there is a connection between this:

And this:
If Jade Goody and the other inhabitant of the Big Brother house are examples of how English is "actually spoken", then we can just despair at the corruption of our language.

Of course there can never be a definitive dictionary for the English language as it is constantly evolving, and it certainly is a bastard to learn, but that is no excuse for Jade Goody and constant umming and erring or for using corporate speak. Or even political "newspeak".

Besides, the basics are not hard. Get there/their/they're, your/you're, and it's/its correct and your most of the way there. And for the rest, read this.

The Centre for Policy Studies has produced a lexicon of contemporary "Newspeak", telling us what politicians really mean. Some of the best are below:

Also included are a few which are immensely reminiscent of yes, Minister:

Open Government: letting people see the bits of government of which the Government is not ashamed
Under consideration (the matter is under consideration): we have lost the file.

Required reading, I think! Download it here.

The English language is a bastard to learn. We all know that. With words such as "cough" and "plough" being spelt the same yet pronounced totally differently, and many other examples of this, and many more in written English. There are also, of course, different pronunciations of the same words based on their context. How many of these below can you read correctly the first time [via Theo Spark]? I bet you can't manage them all! I didn't.

1. The bandage was wound around the wound.
2. The farm was used to produce produce.
3. The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4. We must polish the Polish furniture.
5. He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6. The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7. Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
8. A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
9. When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
10. I did not object to the object.
11. The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
12. There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
13. They were too close to the door to close it.
14. The buck does funny things when the does are present.
15. A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
16. To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
17. The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
18. Upon seeing the tear in the painting, I shed a tear.
19. I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
20. How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?

Did you manage it?

If native English speakers can't do it, how can we expect all non-native speakers to?

Can't speak English, can't come in?

If they can speak the language then they can integrate into society better, yes, but should it be a pre-condition of entry?

It is strange that the condition that they must speak English to enter Britain has applied to highly skilled migrants since last December and is soon to also apply to skilled immigrants - but not to low-skilled workers. Surely that's back to front? Skilled and highly-skilled workers are bound to be far more useful to the economy, and be able to do jobs that low-skilled natives can't. Thus wouldn't it make more sense to have low-skilled workers need to be speak English to enter and work rather than those with useful skills?

A willingness to learn the language and to integrate is going to be more important than knowing the language already. Instead of a pre-condition of speaking English before entering, instead it would be better as a condition to remain in the country. Britain needs migrant labour, and reducing the skilled migrant influx by more than a third wouldn't help.

Instead of a condition before entering, speaking [and learning] English, along with a demonstration of a willingness to integrate, should be required in order to settle in Britain. Brits who go abroad to work don't always [or even usually?] know the language of the country they are moving to, so why should we demand it of those who enter Britain to work?

Sources: BBC, The Telegraph

The amount of money spent on providing documents translated into foreign languages should be cut, says Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary. She said that:

"I think speaking the language is absolutely key... [L]ocal authorities can ask really hard questions about whether or not we are providing a crutch and supporting people in their difference, or whether translation is being used in the appropriate circumstances...
I do think translation has been used too frequently and sometimes without thought to the consequences. So, for example, it’s quite possible for someone to come here from Pakistan or elsewhere in the world and find that materials are routinely translated into their mother tongue, and therefore not have the incentive to learn the language."

It is good that she also points out that in some places such translation is essential - such as in casualty wards - and as such translation levels should not be reduced.

Kelly certainly does have a point. Immigrants should be encouraged to learn English of they come to live in the UK. In fact, it should be pretty much a requirement for permanent residence. Without being able to speak the language of the nation, how can they properly live in society as a whole? Not being able to speak English properly means that that person is massively restricted in social and economic means, and cannot act independently outside of a small certain group - and they cannot ever integrate properly without being able to communicate.

An immigrants who makes a choice to come to Britain makes the choice to come here. They are not made to, although they may be directed by economic imperatives - but it is still a choice. I have no problem with immigration to a certain extent, but those who do choose to come must learn our language, as I would if I chose to emigrate to a non-English speaking country.

I know that I suffer from a certain level of linguistic arrogance, as I can't speak another language and I could never really see the point of learning them at school [about all I can remember of my French is that "piscine" means swimming pool, and of my German GCSE that "fahrt" means journey, "gespeilen" is to verb "to play" and I can count to ten]. However, I don't - and won't - move to other countries and expect them to speak my language. Speaking loudly and slowly doesn't work. Those who move to foreign non-English speaking countries and don't learn the language are at least as bad as those who come to Britain and don't learn English. If anything they are worse, as they expect everyone in their new country to speak English as well!

Money that would otherwise be spent on short-term fixes such as translated documents should instead be spent on providing classes for people to learn English in.That is a long-term solution, and helps everyone - especially the immigrant themselves. Britain is a linguistically homogeneous country - certainly there are no significant linguistic minorities, such as the Spanish speakers in the US - and so English really must be learnt to at least a certain extent by immigrants. Without it, how can they function in general British society?

Source: BBC, The Times

Language is as language does. It is not possible to have a definitive dictionary because language is a product of society and culture, and thus changes and adapts. The row over the Big Brother contestant being evicted for using a "racially offensive word". The word she used was "nigger", and provoked no offended response from the black housemate to whom she had spoken. She said that the word was "a friendly term" where she came from and that "I really didn't mean it offensively." And she almost certainly didn't. The problem is that language adapts, the way in which language - and specifically that word - has changed massively.

Language is also defined by context - the sentence in which words are used, the way in which the word is spoken, to whom it is being said, the time, and the place. Words have different meanings to different people. A prime example of the problem is language can be shown in the use of the word "gay". What does it mean: Happy? Homosexual? "Bad" or "lame"? It means all of the above. How do you know which meaning is intended? Through the context. Let's take another example - the word "liberal". If someone told you "I'm a liberal" what would they mean? Would they mean that they are a classic liberal, a social liberal, a libertarian, or an American "liberal"? There is no way of knowing except through the context.

The way in which language is used also changes very very fast - even at just 22, I use words and meanings in a vastly different way to secondary school children now. I even use words and meanings differently to my younger brother, who is 19. Only a three year age difference, yet the interpretations of language has shifted slightly. So just think how huge the difference is between people who decide which words are "acceptable", who are mostly in their 40s and 50s, and the teenagers who are expected to follow the rules that they have no part in making. If you think this isn't right, just look [or think back to] a generation or two above you. Think how your parents and grandparents talk or talked, and compare it with your own. There will be big differences.

Thus no dictionary can ever be definitive, and no definition of a word can ever be completely static, as language evolves constantly. The reason we have areas where one word is completely unacceptable and another where it is a "friendly term" is because society is divided along age lines. So what can we do? Nothing, except look at the context of word usage before handing out condemnations.

Dizzy also has an excellent piece on language here.