IN DEFENCE OF BASIC ENGLISH
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—I write to protest against a sneer at Basic English. It is perhaps excusable that Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch, an older man, should riot- take the trouble to read what Basic English is, or is intended for. But it is shocking to find that Mr. Bonamy Dobree, who reviews Sir Arthur's book in The Spectator of last week and says in his review that " not so many years ago after iv, h.6 sat at his feet, should commit the same fault.
In the first place it is incorrect to say that " prayers " and " sins " are not given in the Basic English dictionary. It gives " prayer—Request to a Higher Being " (page 73) and " sin—crime ; bad (act). Do wrong." But apart from that, who ever suggested that Basic English was supposed to deal with " nymphs " or " orisons " ? In one of the most recent public statements, of its inventor, Mr. C. K. Ogden, reprinted from a broadcast discussion of a fevir months back in Professor Levy's- -book, The Web of Thought and Action
both Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch and his erstwhile pupil Mr. Dobree may read (page.116) " There's- no -;suggestion that Basic is to be used by -an Englishman or-an American in place of normal English; Ti is not - designed for writing verse ; or for the sort of advertisementS which ,get their effect chiefly by ,playing on the feelirl,gs." In fact; Bashi English purports to be British, -American, Scientific, International, and Commercial.. It is.-very generous of its dictionary to give sin and.. is prayer;" however, useful the former may be in commercial life.—Yours Stan-market, Suffolk.
DEACJ.L.
Previous page
