The British trait of being too polite to speak one’s mind has led to a table translating numerous hollow English phrases becoming an internet hit.
…
The table sheds light on just how difficult it can be for a foreigner to understand what the British really mean when they’re speaking ”“ especially for those take every word at face value.
[Telegraph] Translation table explaining the truth behind British politeness becomes internet hit
Posted in * International News & Commentary, England / UK
This is, arguably, the most important document ever published. It should be distributed immediately to all Primates, ACC members, or those listening to speeches by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Note that those Americans, such as TEC bishops, who wish they were British, are at least as bad, if not worse, as they attempt to mimic the English turn of phrase.
The first one explains the listening process, as applied to traditionalists in the Church. How often does one hear from their bishop “I hear what you say”?
Greetings from the UK. When I first read this list a few months ago I hooted with laughter. But I was a tad uncomfortable because it exposed our taste for understatement as a way of communication. A word of warning, though: never underestimate the role of class in the UK. This list is (a) English and would not apply in Scotland where communication is likely to be more robustly straightforward; and (b) it is middle class and upwards and tilted towards conversation with professionals. All in all, though, it’s quite good. A neat piece of work.
When you say that it is quite good, Father Tee, do you mean that it is not bad?
Much of it comes straight out of Yes Minister (which rather confirms Fr. Terry’s point (b))
PM – yes that only goes to show my imperfect grasp of English nuance despite having just read the piece in question. Although born in the UK I lived abroad during the crucial ages of 9-25 and for years after my return had the impression of not understanding linguistic signals. In my comment above I meant in doublespeak to say not bad rather than quite good.
The whole thing becomes a kind of nightmare. For example, the same people will sometimes say that someone has done a workmanlike job. Is this (a) damning with faint praise; or (b) saying that it is OK? The latter could be rendered with another phrase that baffled me for yearshe made a fair first of it. Aiee. There is more nuance in English English than you can shake a stick at.
As you say, Fr Tee, there is a lot of nuance about and sometimes double meanings.
I have come to the conclusion that it originally served an important purpose as a form of politeness. It is all about respecting other people and not wanting to be impolite or crowd their space, and that includes direct criticism, which in former times might have had dire consequences – a duel, or earlier on a fight. So we developed this way of courtesy, of never directly intruding, criticising, or imposing ourselves. The positive side is that one is unlikely to be directly criticised, except by those who do not understand the game and the nuances, and one is expected to pick up on the suggestion gently put.
The downside is that firstly, absense of clarity – there has been at least one case in a battle where a message back to headquarters that it was getting a ‘bit hot’ and asking for a bit of help, was not appreciated as the dire situation it actually was with the position about to be overrun by the enemy.
Secondly, you are never quite sure what people are saying. Was that person really being extremely rude or should I take what he said at face value? The answer is yes, you are correct, you have probably been directly insulted, but it is hard to pin down. Such are the games we play, and why the rest of the world, who do not understand, think we are perfidious.
Then again, when we go to Japan where people can be even more oblique and polite than we are, we are completely lost.
Thanks to all the Brits who have weighed in here, and confirmed that this hilarious little article is no joke.
However, it promots me, perhaps perversely, to add a personal confession that I hope won’t be perceived as insulting by our good friends across the Pond. What follows may be the most unAnglican thing I’ve ever said on this blog.
Drum roll please…
I’m NOT an Anglo-phile. I don’t prefer English culture over my own brash, uncouth American culture. I mean, England is a very nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there. And you couldn’t possibly pay me enough to entice me to be a parish priest in the venerable old CoE.
I mean, I have something of a love/hate relationship with English culture. FWIW, my mother’s maiden name is Braithwaite, and my family ancestory on both sides is almost purely British (English on my mother’s side, Scottish on my father’s). When I left my Presbyterian roots to become an Anglican, I did so IN SPITE of the Englishness of Anglicanism, not because of it. The Englishness of worldwide Anglicanism, even in the 15 Commonwealth countires, was at least as much of an obstacle I had to get over as an attraction, despite my love for C. S. Lewis, G. K Chesterton, J. R. R. Tolkien, John Donne, John Wesley, John Henry Newman, Jane Austen, and not least, those two great Anglican theologians, Gilbert and Sullivan.
David Handy+
#7 Rev Handy
Thanks for your very interesting comment – I only have a few minor comments:-
[blockquote]I’m NOT an Anglo-phile[/blockquote]
This is a little disappointing, but may I suggest that although you may not be an Anglo-phile, at least you are not an Anglo-phobe?
[blockquote]my family ancestory on both sides is almost purely British[/blockquote]
We don’t get to choose our family, but I am sure you are all-American.
[blockquote]When I left my Presbyterian roots to become an Anglican, I did so IN SPITE of the Englishness of Anglicanism, not because of it[/blockquote]
God is gracious
[blockquote]The Englishness of worldwide Anglicanism, even in the 15 Commonwealth countires, was at least as much of an obstacle I had to get over as an attraction[/blockquote]
God is very gracious
[blockquote]…despite my love for … not least, those two great Anglican theologians, Gilbert and Sullivan[/blockquote]
Indeed, as it is written:
But in spite of all temptations,
to belong to other nations,
He remains an Englishman!
PM [Unashamedly Americanophile]
Many thanks, Pageantmaster.
I relished your clever reply, which was in keeping with the playful spirit of my own comment. So let me bow out of this thread with a further light-hearted comment or two.
You are correct that while I’m no Anglo-phile, I’m certainly not an Anglo-phobe either. And yes, despite my British ancestory on both sides, I’m very much “all American,” with all the strengths and weaknesses that implies.
As for a part of my tongue-in-cheek comment that you chose to ignore, let me explain why no one could possibly pay me enough to entice me to serve as an “incumbent” in a CoE parish. That has everything to do with my virtual allergy toward state church religion. As an American, I’ve acquired a profound distrust and suspicion about legally or socially established churches and the inevitable compromises that imposes on the Church.
On a more serious note, however, let me point out that there is a fundamental divide between those Anglicans around the world who view Anglicanism basically as “the (dominant or characteristic) English form of Protestantism,” thereby taking it for granted that Anglicanism is “a wholly owned subsidieary of Protestantism,” and those of us, like me, who see Anglicanism at its best as a genuine Protestant-Catholic hybrid. Or put another way, there is a sort of Continental Divide between those numerous Anglicans who look to the Englsih Reforrmatyion as “the Golden Era” or the definitive period that sets the tone and standard for Anglicanism doctrinally, liturgically, and spiritually, and those of us, myself included, who look on the contrary to the High Church, Laudian period of the Caroline Divines of the mid 17th century as Anglicanism’s “Golden Age,” if there ever was one.
Finally, returning to a more teasing tone, let me close by sharing my own Revised Non-Standard Version of that classic song by Gilbert and Sullivan that you invoked above, Pageantmaster. It comes, of course, from their theoloigical masterpiece, H. M. S. Pinafore. Translated into religious categories, I happily dedicate this adaptation to you, my esteed online friend, Pageantmaster:
[i]He is an Anglican!
For he himself has said it,
(and it’s greatly to his credit),
that he is an Anglican, that he is an Anglican.
For he might have been a Lutheran,
a Baptist, or Presbyterian,
or perhaps a Wesleyan (or [shudder] perhaps a Wesleyan).
But in spite of all temptations,
to juoin other denominations,
he remains an Anglican.
He remains an Annnnnnggglican![/i]
David Handy+