Comments on: The Language of Officiousness http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2007/06/21/the-language-of-officiousness/ Missives From the Reality-Based World Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:25:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Warren http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2007/06/21/the-language-of-officiousness/#comment-1796 Warren Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:31:35 +0000 http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2007/06/21/the-language-of-officiousness/#comment-1796 Sure, grammar is there to clarify; it's really just the quasi-command tone in the sign that irks me. There's a certain syntax to bullying, and this sign's syntax falls into that tone. At least to my ear it does. The contrast with the French example sort of highlights what I mean. From your description French signage almost sounds polite. US sign grammar, on the other hand, always reads like a veiled threat. Sure, grammar is there to clarify; it’s really just the quasi-command tone in the sign that irks me. There’s a certain syntax to bullying, and this sign’s syntax falls into that tone. At least to my ear it does.

The contrast with the French example sort of highlights what I mean. From your description French signage almost sounds polite. US sign grammar, on the other hand, always reads like a veiled threat.

]]> By: Jen http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2007/06/21/the-language-of-officiousness/#comment-1786 Jen Wed, 11 Jul 2007 01:34:19 +0000 http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2007/06/21/the-language-of-officiousness/#comment-1786 I think this is done pretty commonly. I've seen lots of signs where the verb "to be" is left out. Isn't the purpose of grammar to disambiguate? I don't see how turning "This area under constant surveillance" into "This area is under constant surveillance" removes any ambiguity (I don't see any in the first place). I'd speculate that "to be" is generally left out in these cases because the goal is to get the message across as clearly and as quickly as possible. In this case, speed of comprehension doesn't matter so much, but I think that may be where the authoritative-sign dropping of "to be" comes from. Does the sign "Slow Children Playing" bother you too? Do you think it should read something like "Go slow; children are playing?" In French, signs sometimes are presented like: "Faire attention à ..." which translates literally to "to pay attention to ...". This confused me a lot as a French student. Shouldn't they be using the imperative instead of the infinitive? But that's just the way they do it. It's not wrong. It's just a grammatical convention (which is all grammar really is) used in signs, just like leaving out "to be" in English signs. If the meaning is unambiguous, what's the problem? I think this is done pretty commonly. I’ve seen lots of signs where the verb “to be” is left out. Isn’t the purpose of grammar to disambiguate? I don’t see how turning “This area under constant surveillance” into “This area is under constant surveillance” removes any ambiguity (I don’t see any in the first place). I’d speculate that “to be” is generally left out in these cases because the goal is to get the message across as clearly and as quickly as possible. In this case, speed of comprehension doesn’t matter so much, but I think that may be where the authoritative-sign dropping of “to be” comes from. Does the sign “Slow Children Playing” bother you too? Do you think it should read something like “Go slow; children are playing?”

In French, signs sometimes are presented like: “Faire attention à …” which translates literally to “to pay attention to …”. This confused me a lot as a French student. Shouldn’t they be using the imperative instead of the infinitive? But that’s just the way they do it. It’s not wrong. It’s just a grammatical convention (which is all grammar really is) used in signs, just like leaving out “to be” in English signs. If the meaning is unambiguous, what’s the problem?

]]>