Oh damn, still in this dream.

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/golf/49016675

Now I'm not a player of the Scottish game; golf is, for me, something that other folk do. I have tried it; my ex's family are all golfistes of skill and dexterity, and I played for a term at school as it was a long relaxed bunk-off from other more onerous scholarly pursuits, or worse, other sports or games that weren't cricket, swimming, or table-tennis. (I seem to recall a term with the épée too; the things our childish conceits put us through.)

Anyway, gratuitous history aside, this exchange between Mr Woods and Gavin Andrews shows that British regional accents, no matter how euphonious or otherwise, don't necessary translate into the wider media. I've said before now that some forms of spoken English facilitate greater understanding, whereas others occlude meaning. Mr Woods may well have been in a similar fix if he had been in Tyneside, or Glasgow. Gavin Andrews has a nice voice, and is no doubt a good journalist but in merely asking a question he has highlighted the problem of regional inclusivity when it comes to accents on the Beeb.

It was once the case that "RP" was synonymous with "BBC English". It promoted understanding and comprehensibility by setting the standards from which we were then all free to deviate. But that someone, asking a question of an American (who uses English as his mother-tongue), would do so in an accent that is literally incomprehensible to the interviewee, is slightly bonkers.

There needs to be a middle ground between putting regional accents to the fore and comprehensibility. Obviously I'd prefer a return to old-fashioned RP, because that's my default mode; but I accept that's not going to happen. So instead I'll put my weight behind maximising comprehensibility. I'm sure everyone has a right to their own handwriting, but when it comes to printing, some typefaces are just more legible than others; and when it comes to speaking, some accents are just more intelligible than others.

This debate I've been having about language has got me thinking.
It started from a piece of Hyperbole I'd written, attempting to address what I took to be an irritant.
Hyperbole has a place in classical satire, but my young debater may have a point.
If some writing of mine looks laboured, then it fails the test of its purpose. Context is all, I suppose, and there's no point playing to the bandstand, especially with something as light-hearted as a tease.

The Romans thought Satire was their own invention, with no precursors (though the only ones they would have accepted would have been Greek). The Celts had a tradition of Satire and were around at the same time as the Romans. I often wonder if their concepts of satire happended independently, or if one influenced the other. One problem being a lack of written Gaelic from before CE 6th Century. The other being that Satire was the only thing the Romans didn't appropriate from the Greeks, and of which they were justly proud.
I suppose that we all suit our style according to context: 'twould be inappropriate to address a funeral in jocular terms (but not always); Best man stories about sleeping with the Bride (or Groom) are, in general, in poor taste; P T Barnum like hyperbole doesn't suit...well this is the problem - hyperbole suits the times (O Tempora, O Mores). In fact, monosyllabic hyperbole (if that's not oxymoronic) seems right in tune with present culture. Say it simple and say it loud. With added Emphasis and the magniloquence of jargon. Which is essentially my debater's point, it's just a pity he chose me upon whom to make it plain.
The Greeks had a word for emphasis through understatement: I think it is meiosis or litotes? but my memory of the little Greek I learnt has faded beyond recall.
I think adudeabides is probably allright, actually. But I'll still hold him to explain himself - mainly because I am an old and curmudgeonly and spiteful old Hector.