Language War - Part 2

Here is part 2 of the Language War (part 1 is here). I should point out that Aunty I is not an actual relative, but a friend from university.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Kallun
Sent: 19 September 2007 15:57
To: Aunty I
Subject: RE: Language War

Dear Ms. Aunty I,

Pitying you as I do, I made a concerted attempt to 'infect' my email with certain, intentional failings for two reasons:

(1) to test you; and

(2) to give something to comment on, lest you collapse into a crying pile of self-doubt.

As to you first comment, I consulted my copy of the the Macquarie Dictionary to ascertain whether you were correct or woefully, hopelessly incorrect in your assertion that "Ms." was a stylistic practice unique to the United States of America. Sadly, again, you are mistaken. In fact, "Ms." is an honorific employed in Australia.

Unfortunately, you did not 'find' all of the 'Easter eggs' I left for you. This saddens me. It really does.

Additional comments on the erroneous usage of punctuation and grammar in the pigswill of an email you wrote (dated 18 September, 2007) are forthcoming.

This list is too long for me to deal with at this time.

Yours sincerely,

Kallun

P.S. Please note that "Nahni nahni nah nah" is actually spelt "narni narni nar nar". That is all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Kallun
Sent: 19 September 2007 15:57
To: Aunty I
Subject: RE: Language War

Dear Ms. Aunty I,

After having reviewed the substance of your invective-filled email, I feel that it is incumbent upon me to address certain elements raised by you that are inexcusably incorrect.

First, I would like to direct your attention to the 'em-dash' point in which you stated "dashes were used incorrectly in place of em-dashes." This statement is inherently self-conflicting. Were I to perform the mental contortions necessary to understand the flawed logic of this statement, I would have no choice but to conclude that 'dashes' and 'em-dashes' are mutually exclusive concepts. This, I'm sure you'll agree after considered reflection, is not the case. What I suspect you meant to say was that "en-dashes were used incorrectly in place of em-dashes." I reach this conclusion because it is obvious that the em-dash is a type of dash, as is the en-dash.

The basic premise of your argument, however, is incorrect. Please refer to the following website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Em-dash#Em_dash

Of particular note is the following passage:

"The Elements of Typographic Style recommends the more concise spaced en dash – like so – and argues that the length and visual magnitude of an em dash "belongs to the padded and corseted aesthetic of Victorian typography". The spaced en dash is also the house style for certain major publishers (Penguin and Routledge among them). However, some longstanding typographical guides such as The Chicago Manual of Style still recommend unspaced em dashes for this purpose. In practice, there is little consensus, and it is a matter of personal or house taste; the important thing is that usage should be consistent." (sic)

One could thus conclude that the en-dash is preferable to those of us who choose to converse in British English. Given your particular situation in life, I suppose you may be forgiven in your misguided belief that the em-dash should prevail in any and all circumstances.

What is particularly striking, however, is the unrestrained glee with which you articulated your disdain. Were I to diagnose this, I would assume that you suffer from 'premature elation'. I suspect that there may be an ointment to remedy this affliction, and I wish you well in your treatment.

Finally, you inappropriately indicted me as a "pedant who does not appreciate the intricacies of modern English language usage, including the appropriate use of relaxed grammatical standards in informal e-mail correspondence." This is unwarranted, as you were well aware that a formal declaration of language war had been issued prior to the offending e-mails. Accordingly, any "relaxed grammatical standards in informal e-mail correspondence" constitutes a poor tactical move on your part. Needless to say, Napoléon Bonaparte would be appalled.

I await your surrender.

That is all.

Yours sincerely,

Kallun