You may have a point. While people with speech impediments obviously don't write like they speak, it is also true that I don't know how President Bush, who might say, for example, "for he and I" would write that. I'd guess though he would write it as he speaks it. My experience with people who commonly abuse the spoken language is that they don't write at all, or they write only very infrequently.
I'm not making a partisan attack on Mr. Bush. I'm not criticizing his ideas. I'm not saying he doesn't make sense. How'd you come to that conclusion?
You say, "too many people put more emphasis on plastic superficialities than on actual meaning." I agree. And I bet Mr. Bush agrees. So, given that he knows he must speak, that he represents the United States to the world, what might he conclude? I say he concludes-- screw it, it's unimportant, just take me as I am. Whereas, someone else going into public life might conclude differently - that if, "too many people put more emphasis on plastic superficialities", I better make sure I eliminate those superficialities from my speech so that I eliminate this as an issue for those people.
Or perhaps what should occur is what you propose for me--that it is not the speaker, but the listener who ought to change. The speaker botches the language and it's the listener's problem! Yes! |
