And yet the Brits still claim that it's their language...

[Drake Tungsten]

Am I the only one who thinks Rumsfeld's comment makes perfect sense?

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- A comment last year by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was awarded the "Foot in Mouth" prize Monday by Britain's Plain English Campaign.

Rumsfeld, renowned for his uncompromising tough talking, received the prize for the most baffling comment by a public figure.

"Reports that say something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know," Rumsfeld told a news briefing.

"We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

John Lister, spokesman for the campaign, which strives to have public information delivered in clear, straightforward English, said: "We think we know what he means. But we don't know if we really know."

Although Rumsfeld's comments were made at a news briefing in February 2002, they were nominated for this year's award.

Rumsfeld, whose boss, President Bush, is often singled out by language critics for his sometimes unusual use of English, defeated actor-turned-politician Arnold Schwarzenegger for the booby prize.

"I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman," the new California governor said.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe...eut/index.html

So, are the British really too stupid to understand what Rummy was saying? Or are they just using this award to criticize Rumsfeld and his policies? Either way, I think it is pretty clear that American English is the new world standard and the Brits should just do us all a favor (not favour), stop whining (not whinging) and conform already. Discuss...

[Bereta_Eder]

http://www.lyricsdepot.com/morrissey...rous-glue.html

[JohnT]

Are they serious? While it wasn't the most elegant prose in the history of politics, it's pretty obvious what the man said. There are things you know and things you don't know. Of the things you don't know, you can break those into 2 categories:

a. Things you are aware of that you don't know.
b. Things that you don't know, and are unaware that you don't know them.

For example, Laura is aware that I bought her a Xmas present but she doesn't know what it is (a). However, if my father sent us a Christmas package that would fall under (b) as I have no knowledge that he would give us something for Christmas, nor any expectation that he would.

[duke o' york]

American English may well be the new world standard, but the winning example above was a garbled mess. He wasn't the winner because he left the u out of favour, but because he talked tripe.
I fail to see how you could claim that this was a good example of clear public speaking, even if you claim to have understood what was said.

[JohnT]

It isn't an example of good public speaking, but if that is the worst then the "reporters" sure aren't looking very hard.

[JohnT]

To answer your question about whether this is ideologically motivated on the side of the awarding group, this might provide a clue:

Although Rumsfeld's comments were made at a news briefing in February 2002, they were nominated for this year's award.

They actually dug up a 21 month old quote to give it the "worst of 2003" award. And, yes, it is an annual award: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/awards.html

[duke o' york]

Yeah, but how long did it take you to explain what he meant? Obviously this would win over a more incomprehensible but less high-profile quotation, but that doesn't rescue it from the linguistic dunghill.

[JohnT]

Again, it isn't the most clear phrase in political speech but to say that it is incomprehensible is silly. And to drag up a quote from 2002 to use in their 2003 awards is, well, lazy.

[MikeH]

John Lister, spokesman for the campaign, which strives to have public information delivered in clear, straightforward English, said: "We think we know what he means. But we don't know if we really know."

For Americans:

This is what is known as a 'joke'. Based on the number of times he said "known" and variations in a couple of sentences.

The initial comment was very funny and taking the piss out of him for it totally justified. If one of our politicians said something as retarded as that the impressionists would be feasting on it for months.

[JohnT]

Congratulations for clearing that up for us Mike, I don't think we would've understood that if it weren't for your brilliant and penetrating analysis.

If one of our politicians said something as retarded as that the impressionists would be feasting on it for months.

But for 22?

[connorkimbro]

This is what is known as a 'joke'. Based on the number of times he said "known" and variations in a couple of sentences.

You got that too, huh?

[MikeH]

Sorry John and conner, I was clearing it up for Drake who seemed to miss it.

And I wasn't there for the award nominations so I don't know what qualifies as the dates for this years award.

[JohnT]

The first Annual JohnT Dumbest Awards of the Year goes to:

*rips open envelope*

The Plain English Campaign 2003 Worst Quotes of the Year Awards for their use of a February 2002 quote in their "Foot in Mouth" category!

[JohnT]

The only thing that qualifies apparently is when the award is nominated. Theoretically, I could find some old quote from one of the Borgias (15th century Papal family of some small notoriety, for those not in the know) and it would still be appropriate for the "2004 Foot in Mouth" award.

[MikeH]

Except it probably wouldn't be in English.

[JohnT]

Well, they quote Bush don't they?

[MikeH]

And more importantly Arnie. Did Bush arrange that appointment to make him look less dumb?

[JohnT]

[Whaleboy]

NEVER!

I defend my right to use simplistic non-phonetic language not because it is easy, but because it is hard.

[Sandman]

Wee must ol adopt Amerikan rashunalizayshuns.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by JohnT
It isn't an example of good public speaking, but if that is the worst then the "reporters" sure aren't looking very hard.

I'm not sure. Most public speakers are people who are good at public speaking. While I've heard far worse simply chatting to people, for him to have a speach written like that seems more than a bit careless. While it is understood, it could have been made a hell of a lot easier to follow, as your first post shows.

And no, we won't adopt American English, because it's a dialect of English invented by the Americans. Why did the American's feel the need to change our language? Feel free to use your dialect as you wish, and we will continue to use English, as we do. Or you could call it American and consider it a seperate language.

[mrmitchell]

I'm disappointed. While had-too-much-Rum-sfeld's quote was pretty stupid, there must have been far, far worse ones out there.

Ahnold's was better, although it was just a garbled speech. I think Rumsfeld probably meant to say his quote.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
I'm disappointed. While had-too-much-Rum-sfeld's quote was pretty stupid, there must have been far, far worse ones out there.

And more recent. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around a nearly 2 year old quote qualifies for this years award.

[Buck Birdseed]

I think their Golden Bull Awards are better. The foot in Mouth award has had a uniformly low standard over the years, just look at its page, it must have few nominations or something.

[Kropotkin]

Most of us should know what Rumsfelt doesn't know, but I don't know if I know what Tungstens arguments has to do with the article. Neither is it known if Tungsten knows what he does or doesn't know.

[JohnT]

And no, we won't adopt American English, because it's a dialect of English invented by the Americans. Why did the American's feel the need to change our language? Feel free to use your dialect as you wish, and we will continue to use English, as we do. Or you could call it American and consider it a seperate language.

Languages change over time and distance, especially in the centuries (3 or so) that we've been separated without the benefit of mass communications. Did they not teach this in school?

However, if you truly believe that "American" is a separate language or dialect (as the above quote implies), then you too must be irritated at these people because they are awarding their award to people who don't even speak the same language.

[Spiffor]

Is "foot in the mouth" a genuine English expression anyways, or was it invented in the colonies?

[JohnT]

Spiff: http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/bulletin_bo...sages/650.html

[Spiffor]

Too bad
It would have been delicious if these Brits had used an expression originating in the US

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by JohnT


Languages change over time and distance, especially in the centuries (3 or so) that we've been separated without the benefit of mass communications. Did they not teach this in school?

However, if you truly believe that "American" is a separate language or dialect (as the above quote implies), then you too must be irritated at these people because they are awarding their award to people who don't even speak the same language.

A dialect of a language, in this instance, English, is still English. Mr. Rumsfeld's speech, whilst not being on the same level of verbal leadenness as the regulations for the ground nut scheme in Africa, or varieties of management speak in business manuals or government agencies, is still a dense thicket of badly thought through unnecessarily repetitious prose.

Not exactly the lucidity of the Gettysburg Address, is it?
I happen to believe that professional manglers of clear English, such as academics, post modernist culture commentators and politicians all deserve skewering on the lance of their own prolixity.

There is usually a point for repetition in public speaking: incantatory, emphatic use of terms helps put a point across, or clarifies a situation, or helps stir a crowd. Can you truly say that any of these was achieved by Rumsfeld's cloud of unknowing?