Debrett's Etiquette on ink colours

[Mudge]

Black remains the most correct and distinguished choice. Blue is very much in second place and is thought more suitable for women than for men. Blue-black is only appropriate for schoolboys. Coloured inks, although more acceptable than before, are still considered very suspect in traditional circles.

 

Interesting, huh?

Well, I always knew I was unacceptable . I was a schoolboy at an institution founded by Elizabeth I, where all of us had to use Real Pens and there were always bulk supplies of Quink blue-black at hand. The only colour that was actively prohibited was purple/violet, since it was associated with the French. I have no idea why that mattered, or whether that prejudice was based on fact. Black was considered a bit subversive, so I (typically) chose to use Indian with dippers.

 

In subsequent hippie years I went for turquoises, which I suppose would have put me further beyond the pale as far as Debrett's was concerned.

 

That would have been reason enough to do it...

 

 

[phe]

Just discovered at the front of the book, in the publishing information:

 

Debrett's Peerage Ltd wishes to make clear that the views expressed in this book are the author's own, and any correspondence should be addressed directly to him, via the publishers.

 

What a cop out! Why put your name to a book and then not stand by what it says!

 

I have half a mind to address correspondence to the author via the publishers, in a particularly suspect and vibrant hue.

[Huffward]

 

While I agree with the general sentiment, you've opened a certain door by correcting the author's grammar, and I can't resist. In the order of appearance in your original post:

 

The pronoun "him" should have been used when referring to the author in question. "Them" is a plural pronoun.

 

Correct can be comparative, it is not only an absolute. When used to indicate degree of conformity with a conventional standard, comparative use is almost unavoidable. A comparative is also acceptable when the word is used to indicate that something is in accordance with truth or fact, as it is quite possible for two statements to be truthful or factual to differing degrees even if neither is false.

 

Your evaluation of style, regarding the use of "very much," is not the only judgment of that particular style which may be made, nor is it the only "accepted" school of thought. Further, this is precisely the sort of criticism for which you have castigated the original author, and thus is itself in poor taste or poor style when part of a critique of another's attempt to enforce rules of style or etiquette.

 

Finally, you end your critique with a dangling participle. You should have written, "To what sort of school could the writer possibly have gone?" Further, this construction is needlessly unwieldy and colloquial, and the use of the definite article is not entirely appropriate. A more correct or more stylistically palatable question would have been, "What sort of school could this writer possibly have attended?"

 

Ordinarily, I'd resist the temptation to correct another's grammar. But when you levy a grammatically incorrect grammatical correction, you leave yourself open to attack by English majors. We're like piranhas, when we smell blood in the water... or lampreys, or leeches, or something.

 

Oh, I do love a duel over grammar and style. Here goes.

 

1) Them/him. Debrett's, not the author, is the antecedent of them. Where have I mentioned the author?

 

2) Correct. Yes, I know that in some circumstances, correct can be comparative, but not in this one. We are not talking about proximity or conformity to an accepted norm or standard: we are talking about a piece of subjective and wholly unsubstantiated claptrap.

 

But that is by the by. Correct here is balanced by very much in second place. Is the author talking about correctness per se, or a trivial poll? If correctness per se, what has very much in second place got to do with anything? If the trivial poll, then correct merely signifies first place, so what purpose does most serve? If the author is suggesting that all places in the poll are correct in varying degrees, correct loses all meaning.

 

3) Very much. Precisely what is this supposed to mean? a poor second? a definite second? in second place? It is not a matter of judgement, but of accuracy. Very much is woolly and imprecise.

 

4) End-of-sentence preposition. I cite three authorities:

 

One of the most persistent myths about prepositions in English is that they properly belong before the word or words they govern, and should not be placed at the end of a clause or sentence [Fowlers Modern English Usage - OUP - 1998]

 

Do not hesitate to end a sentence with a preposition if your ear tells you that that is where the preposition goes best. [sir Ernest Gowers - Plain Words - HMSO - 1986]

 

That is the sort of thing up with which I will not put. [Winston Churchill]

 

5) Where is the dangling participle, as in: chair wanted for old man with adjustable back?

 

 

By the way, although you smugly assume otherwise, I too have an MA in English (if this is what major means?).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Col]

While I agree with the general sentiment, you've opened a certain door by correcting the author's grammar, and I can't resist.

Oh, I do love a duel over grammar and style. Here goes.

You're all missing the point, I fear. The British upper classes have always been deliberately careless with their grammar - it's a fashionable affectation, d'ye see?

 

[BillTheEditor]

While I agree with the general sentiment, you've opened a certain door by correcting the author's grammar, and I can't resist.

Oh, I do love a duel over grammar and style. Here goes.

You're all missing the point, I fear. The British upper classes have always been deliberately careless with their grammar - it's a fashionable affectation, d'ye see?

As in Ian Carmichael's portrayal of Lord Peter Wimsey: dropping "-ing" from words (interestin', makin', lettin' 'em), using "ain't" and common popular expressions ("really most awfully sorry"). Wimsey is at his most informal in the first of Sayers' novels, Whose Body? He becomes more proper in his expression in the later novels. On Masterpiece Theatre, I remember Alistair Cooke saying that Wimsey was trying to show that he was "one of the boys."

 

Perhaps the Debrett's author was trying to show the servants that he knows how to get down. Just as long as none of them presumes to be his equal.

Edited September 13, 2007 by BillTheEditor

[girlieg33k]

I have a "friend" who is male and has a lot of blue ink. Should I be worried about him?

Dare I say that he may now be more worried about you since you felt the need to put the word friend in quotes....

 

[OboeJuan]

I have a "friend" who is male and has a lot of blue ink. Should I be worried about him?

Dare I say that he may now be more worried about you since you felt the need to put the word friend in quotes....

Again with the milk squirting from my nose!

 

Howl!

 

Kath

[Djehuty]

Oh, I do love a duel over grammar and style. Here goes.

 

Whee!

 

1) Whoops, my mistake. You're (ahem) quite correct.

 

2) Perhaps, but it's claptrap which purports to exemplify an accepted norm or standard, so "correct" can be comparative.

 

3) I never said I disagreed on that point, only that you were making the same sort of subjective judgment for which you were giving Debrett's and/or Mr. Morgan a sound drubbing.

 

4) Your citations only show that in the latter half of the 20th Century the trend toward poor understanding and use of grammar had gone so far that it infected even supposedly reliable sources for proper grammar. It's the same trend which has led to incorrect uses of words becoming accepted by lexicographers. If several hundred million people do something the wrong way, that doesn't make it right, only popular. Also, Mr. Churchill hit upon an English idiom which refuses to conform to grammar, but that is hardly surprising when considering idiom. Examine the sentence. "I will not put up with that." The words used do not convey the meaning of the sentence. If I said, "I refuse to place upward with that," no one would understand what I meant. The rules of grammar for a properly constructed sentence cannot be made to apply to an idiom of that sort.

 

5) "Chair wanted for old man with adjustable back" is a sentence fragment. It is also arranged in such a way the syntax is skewed (which I'm sure was intentional). Further, "back" is a noun in this case, not a participle. I'm not sure what you're asking of me.

 

By the way, although you smugly assume otherwise, I too have an MA in English (if this is what major means?).

 

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood me. I thought I was having a bit of harmless fun, and I ended it with a self-deprecating joke to take any residual sting from the post. I assumed nothing about your background. I was merely playing with language. My sincere apologies if I caused offense.

 

[RayMan]

From Debrett's New Guide to Etiquette and Modern Manners, by John Morgan:

 

Black remains the most correct and distinguished choice. Blue is very much in second place and is thought more suitable for women than for men. Blue-black is only appropriate for schoolboys. Coloured inks, although more acceptable than before, are still considered very suspect in traditional circles.

 

Sounds like something written by the Aurora Ink Company.

 

And why no mention of school girls?

 

[amh210]

And why no mention of school girls?

 

You presume those sort of girls:

1. attend school
2. are taught to write

If they are, I imagine their ink of choice would be fluffy pink, burgundy rose, or something similar to those colors. Edited September 13, 2007 by amh210

[OboeJuan]

By the way, although you smugly assume otherwise, I too have an MA in English (if this is what major means?).

 

Hi. I just thought I would clarify that over here someone could be in his or her 2nd week of University working towards a Bachelor of Arts with English as the "major" . Someone with a "MA in English" is someone who has graduated with a Master of the Arts in English. Big difference. For example, I graduated from University with A BA with a Music Performance major, English minor and a Bachelor of Education with a Music major.

 

Please understand that I am not calling into question anyone's academic qualifications, I am merely answering the question about what "major" meant. Cheers.

 

Kath

Edited September 14, 2007 by OboeJuan

[encephalartos]

To get back to the discussion of ink color and "correctness"...

 

And, from an American etiquette book, Miss Manners Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior...

I've always enjoyed her writing as she has a subtly wicked sense of humor.

 

I recollect that Miss Manners suggested that "proper" colors of ink were black or blue on white

or cream colored paper. This was for use in writing letters thanking people for gifts, or when

sending your sympathies for their bereavement. She did mention the Victorian convention of

black-bordered stationery for mourning, too, but that was more of a historical reference.

 

Though I did recently find a box of Cranes notes that were cream-colored with a black ink

border.

 

Other interesting bits from her book were that engraving was originally a substitute for

hand written formal invitations. (from the discussion of "proper" wedding invitations)

 

Nineteen years ago, if you ordered engraved invitations, they gave you the actual copper plate

back with your printed invitations. The technical definition of engraving is intaglio printing

in which the grooves in the plate that hold the ink are CUT with a burin. In intaglio printing

the ink is smeared over the plate, is trapped in the grooves, and the rest of the plate is

wiped clean, or mostly clean. The printing paper is moistened, covered with felt blankets

and run through the press. (Etching means that an acid resistant material is applied all over

the plate, including the back, and the parts where grooves are to go have the resist scratched

away. Then the plate is placed in acid for a few minutes and the grooves are eaten away by

acid where there is no resist.)

 

Of course, I'm afraid I collect inks and write people letters with all sorts of different inks in

the same letter, especially if a pen runs out of ink. I just pick up another pen, with a different

ink in it.

[Shelley]

Not wanting to dip my toes into an argument where the syntax may take my toes off, can someone tell me the date of publishing of th book?

[Viseguy]

As in Ian Carmichael's portrayal of Lord Peter Wimsey: dropping "-ing" from words (interestin', makin', lettin' 'em), using "ain't" and common popular expressions ("really most awfully sorry").

The same thing struck me about the dialogue in The Pallisers, the Masterpiece Theatre series from the 1970s, which Visegal and I revisited earlier this year. High society, but lots of ain'ts and dropped g's. Not sure if the Trollope originals read that way. I'm leafing through Can you forgive her?, and I don't see it.

 

Funny you should mention the Wimsey books -- I'm reading Strong Poison at the moment and am savoring every line. On the small screen, Ian Carmichael was memorable, but, for me, the definitive Wimsey will always be Edward Petherbridge.

 

As for Debrett's, bear in mind that they also publish:

 

ETIQUETTE FOR GIRLS

 

Sassy, metropolitan, chic: the modern girl's guide to good living.

 

Etiquette for Girls explains how to behave with ease and style in every social situation.

 

With advice on all aspects of 16–30-year-old life, this is the need-to-know bible for girls who want to get it right.

 

Essential advice on:

- Man management – from flirting to meeting the parents

- The capsule wardrobe

- Climbing the career ladder

- Special occasions – from festivals to polo and private jets

- Dining out, socialising and entertaining at home

- Modern communications, fundamental rules and social sins

 

Beautifully illustrated and finished with full-colour photography throughout.

 

by Fleur Britten

 

240mm x 200mm£12.99

Published October 2006

ISBN: 978-1-870520-87-4

 

Frightfully sorry, but I just can't bring myself to take anything they say too seriously. Ta!

 

[Pendragon]

Just discovered at the front of the book, in the publishing information:

 

Debrett's Peerage Ltd wishes to make clear that the views expressed in this book are the author's own, and any correspondence should be addressed directly to him, via the publishers.

 

What a cop out! Why put your name to a book and then not stand by what it says!

Maybe because Mr. Morgan's views are not universally held to be true? Here is an etiquette book from 1889. It has a section on letter writing, including ink color, paper size and color, wax seals, etc. Although a little dated, it is still interesting to read. It states that black ink is preferred, but that blue ink is acceptable. It remains so to this day, at least in the opinion of some. Blue or black ink is recommended by both Urban Etiquette and Power Etiquette.

 

I have half a mind to address correspondence to the author via the publishers, in a particularly suspect and vibrant hue.

Unless the goal is to offend him, why not send a very polite letter written in a particularly beautiful dark blue ink?

Edited September 14, 2007 by Pendragon

[Huffward]

While I agree with the general sentiment, you've opened a certain door by correcting the author's grammar, and I can't resist.

Oh, I do love a duel over grammar and style. Here goes.

You're all missing the point, I fear. The British upper classes have always been deliberately careless with their grammar - it's a fashionable affectation, d'ye see?

 

My point wasn't primarily one of grammar, but of sense.

 

He excludes colours other than black/blues.

He says that blue is appropriate for women, implying that it is effeminate.

He says that blue-black is suitable only for schoolboys. (He doesn't deign to prescribe for schoolgirls.)

He says that black is most correct.

 

This leaves the question: more suitable than what? What colour is slightly less correct than black if blue is effeminate, blue-black is juvenile, and other colour are a no-no?

 

I know I was being fatuous. Such abitrary, banal, and petty statements are scarcely worth arguing.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Huffward

[phe]

Just discovered at the front of the book, in the publishing information:

 

Debrett's Peerage Ltd wishes to make clear that the views expressed in this book are the author's own, and any correspondence should be addressed directly to him, via the publishers.

 

What a cop out! Why put your name to a book and then not stand by what it says!

Maybe because Mr. Morgan's views are not universally held to be true? Here is an etiquette book from 1889. It has a section on letter writing, including ink color, paper size and color, wax seals, etc. Although a little dated, it is still interesting to read. It states that black ink is preferred, but that blue ink is acceptable. It remains so to this day, at least in the opinion of some. Blue or black ink is recommended by both Urban Etiquette and Power Etiquette.

 

I have half a mind to address correspondence to the author via the publishers, in a particularly suspect and vibrant hue.

Unless the goal is to offend him, why not send a very polite letter written in a particularly beautiful dark blue ink?

 

I would never write a letter which was anything but polite, but in this instance I would choose a coloured ink to show that such inks are attractive and not at all offensive. In fact I will not write at all as if he believes so strongly in his opinion that he had it printed he is hardly likely to take notice of mine!

 

I picked up on the publisher's note as the book is entitled Debrett's New Guide, not John Morgan's Guide.

 

Thank you for the interesting links! It seems to be a truth universally acknowledged that black ink is best - what a shame.

 

Shelley, the copy I have is from 1996.

 

[Huffward]

Oh, I do love a duel over grammar and style. Here goes.

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood me. I thought I was having a bit of harmless fun, and I ended it with a self-deprecating joke to take any residual sting from the post. I assumed nothing about your background. I was merely playing with language. My sincere apologies if I caused offense.

 

No offence. As I said, I love sparring.

 

My take on Debrett's nuances probably differs from yours. It has a lot to do with British understatement, particularly British upper-class understatement. A top-drawer type might describe reversing back over someone you've just run over as a little uncalled for. Beating to death someone who has accidentally trodden on your foot might be slightly excessive. The assertion that the Sun orbits Earth would be unusual or (most damming of all!) interesting. I remember an Australian woman saying that it took her years to realise that From Australia - how interesting! meant Rack off home you Aussie (bleep)! An American neighbour of mine (she comes from Oregon) tells me that it took her two years to begin to get the hang of the understatement, the unspoken innuendo, and the backhanded humour.

 

Therefore, if Debrett's tell me that blue is more suitable for women than for men (ahem, cough), they're really telling me that if I use blue, people are going to assume that I'm gay. Only schoolboys use blue-black. No one uses other colours. Therefore black is the only aceptable colour for men, therefore the only correct one. They imply that if a man uses anything other than black, he's not quite one of the chaps (a peasant, a (bleep), someone to be ostracised) or batting for the other team (gay).

 

My citations are recent because I have recent copies and revisions of these classics. Fowler's MEU was originally published in 1926. I don't have the 1926 edition beside me but I'm pretty sure that it expressed the same sentiment, though it has been very heavily revised over the years. Plain Words was published in 1954, and subsequent revisions have been light. I have to say that I'm not smitten with Gowers. In the UK, Fowler's Modern English Usage and Hart's Rules (now called The Oxford Manual of Style) are considered the final court of appeal (among traditionalists, at least).

 

I certainly agree that many modern books on the subject are suspect. A few years ago I had a stand-up fight with a senior academic, who had written such a book for university entrants, and seemed unaware of the distinction between informal regional English and standard written English. She also had views on 'relaxed spelling'. Enough said.

 

You are absolutely right about the Churchill quote. His point was that you cannot split a phrasal verb and retain its sense. It must always remain intact. Most people misunderstand this point. If you don't want to put put up with at the end of a sentence, you must use a near synonym like tolerate.

 

My dangling-participle example is one of a series of such examples taken from newspaper small-ads: Wanted - apartment for lady with two bedrooms, instead of Apartment with two bedrooms wanted for lady. The participle is wanted, but because it is marooned rather than attached to for lady, all sorts of problems ensue. The more usual example style is: Crossing the game park, a lion devoured him.

 

Feel free to shoot me down any time you like. But expect a robust defence.

 

[Huffward]

And why no mention of school girls?

 

You presume those sort of girls:

1. attend school
2. are taught to write

If they are, I imagine their ink of choice would be fluffy pink, burgundy rose, or something similar to those colors.

 

 

Yes, I noticed this too. I assume that in Debrett's anachronistic little world, girls are taught flower arranging, deportment, and precious little else. A girl with a pen? That might imply that she has ideas to express. Worrying!

 

 

 

[Huffward]

As in Ian Carmichael's portrayal of Lord Peter Wimsey: dropping "-ing" from words (interestin', makin', lettin' 'em), using "ain't" and common popular expressions ("really most awfully sorry").

The same thing struck me about the dialogue in The Pallisers, the Masterpiece Theatre series from the 1970s, which Visegal and I revisited earlier this year. High society, but lots of ain'ts and dropped g's. Not sure if the Trollope originals read that way. I'm leafing through Can you forgive her?, and I don't see it.

 

This was very much a young drone about town's affectation of the inter-war years. No one, not even the most chinless upper-class milksop, speaks like that now.

 

You might find something similar, but not identical, in Trollope. Try Felix Carbury and his chums in Trollope's The Way We Live Now. It's worth reading anyway, being unquestionably his finest novel.