Letter from the editor:

I recently took a plane to Madrid: not many Spanish nationals on board. I knew that because there was no spontaneous applause as we landed to wake me from my reverie. It’s fascinating how people communicate … or don’t.

The walkman, I’m told, was devised by a Japanese gentleman keen on listening in public to the music of his choice, yet without imposing it upon those around him. That selfless philosophy then sired its own contradiction. Personal entertainment now withdraws the individual from society, often to the annoyance of those still in earshot. Withdrawal brings its own symptoms.

A recent PM of this country (I refer to TB, not to GB) once suggested that the term ‘common sense’ be banned from the English language. The reasoning behind this was that ‘common sense’, far from being a common attribute, is in such scarce supply these days as to be almost extinct. So, better to outlaw the term, and that means people’s ‘common sense deficit’ immediately disappears. Just like that! Then came the U-turn, presumably recognising that there were so many admirable attributes not shared by the many. And you can’t ban the lot. Where’s the sense in that?

This leads me to ponder on what would be the outcome of teachers banning anything from the curriculum not already held in common by those being trained. Where’s the sense in taking a logical premise to illogical ends?

But one public body, centrally located on Dorset’s coastline, did go on to suggest that any Latin word or word of obvious Latin derivation be outlawed from English on the grounds that Caesar is long since dead and very few people these days understand Latin. The common sense deficit syndrome raises its head. But what effect that ruling would have had on the Catholic rite doesn’t even bear thinking about.

It’s even more interesting to think what would be the outcome of banning all words in English derived from a language not understood by the man, or woman, in the street. I suppose even more among us would be communicating in nothing but monosyllabic grunts and occasional gestures. How cool would that be?

Language, of course, is the only social institution without which none other can function. A breakdown in our ability to use language is therefore a challenge to our social fabric, further weakening the mortar holding the bricks of society together. That’s why many communities, peoples and societies - putting individual human rights to one side for the benefit of the common good - demand its members be competent in a single, all-binding language (I am not at this point championing the Latin rite, if that’s where you think I’m going. I’m merely stating that, as language controls thought and thought controls language, a common language acts as a social bond).

Language is always developing. But not necessarily always as an aid to cohesion. The language we use today is but a remnant, a ghost of that used in the past, merely an indication of what is to come tomorrow. New terms are constantly being created. Some will take root. Others will suffer a quick or even lingering death. My only problem with that is that terms may come on stream unnecessarily - e.g. we have a perfectly good term already - or they may confuse the message, they may even become corrupted or lose their original meaning.

Living as I do at the earth-ocean interface (a NASA expression for ‘on the coast’), in a densely populated urban configuration (Dare I say ‘town’?), where minors are said to suffer extensively from Nature Deficit Disorder (i.e. they don’t get out in the open enough), I am acutely aware of an increasing inability, in no way restricted to my own immediate environment, among members of society in general to communicate effectively with their fellows. So, long live all communicators! Now, please read on.

Dr Jeremy (‘Jay’) Kettle-Williams