Quote:
Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington
Is there some skulduggery afoot to block the democratic wishes of the electorate?
I really don't know.....but because I am a cynical old baggage these thought come into MY mind.
I don't know about the rest of you....but I feel that we are not OUT until the gates clang shut with us at one side and J.C.Junker on the other.
|
English is a wonderful language, over many centuries it has harvested words from a huge variety of sources and as a result it is probably the most capable language on the planet of expressing the finest distinctions of meaning. However careless use can produce endless confusion such as a request to 'CHOP DOWN that tree and then CHOP UP into firewood'. Its also the case that most trades and professions have found it necessary to have their own subsidiary dictionaries something which those with whom they deal can find infuriating such as house owners who find that ALL RISKS does not quite meet their expectations when their teenagers party has finished.
When dealing with politicians it is very wise to find out precisely which dictionaries are currently being used. If the recent referendum had voted on IN/OUT and the subsidiary dictionary had been cricket then the outcome would have been clear. However the vote was for REMAIN/LEAVE and the subsidiary dictionary was unclear, if the originator of the ballot script was a military person then the LEAVE option could simply mean some short period of time such as 72 hours.
This lack of clarity is unfortunate and should be remedied as soon as possible. In the short term the best solution is probably to speak to politicians slowly and clearly with ANGLO-SAXON as the subsidiary dictionary this appears to be the most probable to be unambiguously understood.