Horse 2854 - THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE v THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [2021] - Judgement

The Fake Internet Court of Australia

THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE v THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [2021] - Judgement

H2854/1

"We really have everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language."

- Oscar Wilde, The Canterville Ghost, (1882)

It has come to this fake internet court's attention (again) that the American usage of the word 'check' is very very silly. The American usage of the English language is not quite as silly as the Roman usage of the Latin language; which it must be said is pretty lively for a supposedly dead language. Oscan was the most widely spoken Italic language before the spread of Latin; which marched through the Empire, while hanging off the skirt tails of the Roman Army's Tunica. Latin has a nominative, a vocative, accusative, a genitive, a dative and ablative. It is amazing that the Romans got anything done at all with such a silly language.

Judgement Praecido:

Latin, you are dead. Go back to your grave.

Back to the case at hand:

We had a client who visited us recently to have their income tax returns done. Everything went cordially and efficiently but at the end of the meeting they asked the rather odd question:

"Could you send me the check (?) when it is all done?"

My boss looked decidedly confused but I answered that we would include the invoice along with the tax returns and the meeting concluded with the usual flurry of pleasantries and salutations. 

This is where linguists, sociologists, and other people from the humanities department of a university start speaking about intersectionality as though it was some ultra-über hip and happening concept. Yeah, I'm home with the downies; I'm a real hep cat. Speaking as someone who lives in a land of numbers and from my apartment on Pedant Corner, the only thing that I hear whenever I hear the word 'intersectionality' is the ensuing honking of horns from the traffic jam of nonsense which is about to follow.

If we interrogate what this person said, we run into the problem which George Orwell hints at in the appendix to '1984'; which is that when an idea can not be expressed in words, at least so far as thought is dependent on words, then it  should be literally unthinkable and makes all other modes of thought, impossible. Can an idea actually exist if it can not be thought? We have the dual problem of the word 'check' trying to act in places where it really shouldn't and this wouldn't be improved with the written word either because American English makes no distinction between a 'check' and a 'cheque'. Clearly this is an issue which needs to be resolved.

This is different and distinct from this court's opinion on that blackguard and scoundrel Webster Noah whose crimes against the English itself are wanton and deliberate. His deliberate attempts to produce a new language for a new nation represent not an act of negligence but of abject culpability against the flower of English.

This case and dispute is not about mere spelling, or whether or not a dictionary should be prescriptive about how to use spelling or descriptive of how it is actually used but rather it is about the very meanings of words themselves; as distinct units of conveyances of thoughts and concepts.

That great sage Pauline Hanson ('sage' in the sense of that herb) once had her words twisted to say "My language has been murdered; my language has been murdered; my shopping trolley murdered; my groceries just gone." I could make a pretty convincing case that the twisting of those words produced more sense  than the entirety of Ms Hanson's political career but I want to focus on the central message and implications of those words. When we murder language it leads to unfortunate consequences; such as the loss of groceries in this case.

These are the facts as this court sees them:

There are three things which need separate and distinct words because they are separate and distinct things. The prime purpose of language is the presentation of information which is then understood by others. While it is fun to live in the land of ambiguity, it is like living in a permanent fog and is quite unproductive. For clarity, these perfectly cromulent words will embiggen people's understanding.

Bill - in the sense that is relevant here, a bill is a list of demands. Bills of Rights are the official list of demands of rights, that a people group and/or citizenry is claiming. A Bill of Sale, which is what is handed to someone in a restaurant, is a demand for payment which is based upon an itemised list of things provided (which is usually the various components of a succulent meal).

Cheque - a cheque is an instruction to pay. A cheque is usually drawn upon a bank and is an instruction for that bank to pay some other person or their nominated bank account. It is named after the chequered cloth upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would sit; who then pays out the coin/money of the realm from atop a bank of monies.

Note - a note is a statement that a thing exists. Technically a bank note is a promissory note which states that the issuing bank (usually the central bank of the nation) promises to pay a sum specified. A Twenty Dollar Note states that the bank promises to pay the bearer on demand, the sum of twenty dollars. In the past this may have been twenty gold or silver dollars but since the age of fiduciary currency, this promise is merely for the abstract concept of whatever a dollar happens to be at the time.

--

When you go to a restaurant, they hand you a Bill which is a demand that you pay them; based upon a list of things provided. You will then either hand over some Notes which are promises from the central bank that the amount of money stated is good for payment, or you will hand over an instruction for your bank to pay theirs; which is called a cheque.You do not ask for a cheque. You do not hand over a bill; in fact, the bits of paper/plastic that you hand over as payment, will actually state that it is 'note'. 

Judgement:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass (1871)

The problem with this line of thinking and abuse of language is that if language is mangled so that anything can mean everything, then nothing means anything at all. The purpose of language is the conveyance of meaning and while dictionaries are best at being descriptive of how language is used, as opposed to being prescriptive for how it should be used, the underlying language shouldn't be murdered or otherwise everyone's groceries will be just gone.

This court hereby orders that the words 'Bill', 'Cheque', and 'Note' be used properly, and that existing usage of 'check' when you mean 'bill', 'check' when you mean 'cheque' and 'bill' when you mean 'note' be stopped immediately. 

The United States Of America, you are guilty of both conspiracy and deception. You have brought hateration and holleration into this fake internet court and as you have no business mucking with a language that doesn't even bear your name, we order you to cease, desist and stop this egregious pretense. If we ever see you back before this court, the penalities will be severe. Get out; lest you make a mockery of my courtroom. We are already perfectly capable of making a mockery of this fake internet courtroom as it is. You are malevolent and have now ensnared others in your villainy. Can you not see what trouble thou hast wrought? 

- ROLLO75 J

(this case will be reported in FILR as H2854/1 - Ed)