Debrett's Etiquette on ink colours

[Huffward]

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.

 

You might enjoy another book, Lady Addle Remembers, though I don't know if it is still in print. It's wickedly funny. For example, Lady Addle visits her French cousin, The Duchess du Concombre, who always celebrates Bastille Day by evicting a tenant.

 

 

[Djehuty]

No offence. As I said, I love sparring.

 

Oh, good. I was afraid I'd overstepped the bounds of sparring-in-jest and accidentally caused offense. If I'm going to offend someone, I'd much rather do it intentionally.

 

My take on Debrett's nuances probably differs from yours.

 

Not necessarily. I was merely having a bit of fun critiquing the critique.

 

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).

 

Perhaps, but... so what? I'm proud of my peasant ancestry, and my closest friend is gay. So if some narrow-minded twit is going to assume I'm a peasant, or gay, or a gay peasant because of my ink choices, I'll take that as a compliment. I've been compared to much worse things than my grandfather and my best friend, after all.

 

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.

 

:bonk:

 

That's the sort of thing that drives me absolutely mad. It's because of this trend that, as a TA assigning and grading papers for a class on Egyptian history, I wasn't allowed to grade based on spelling, grammar, and style. I wasn't supposed to bruise their poor little egos by suggesting that they make proper and effective use of the English language.

 

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.

 

Ah, I was looking for the wrong sort of dangle. It was a sentence fragment, so I dismissed the "wanted" part as being an improper construction, and didn't look closely enough. That's one of the problems with an American public school / university education; I'm terribly fond of grammar, but still have these gaps in my understanding (worse, they're gaps of which I'm not even aware until I stumble into them).

 

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

 

Absolutely! It wouldn't be any fun otherwise.

 

 

[jbn10161]

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.

Although I often wish that the sentiment you expressed were true, it is not, at least in English. One of the principal characteristics of English is the manner in which it develops. Standard English is full of once-suspect cognates derived from the languages of invaders, as well as once-colloquial terms that have become accepted in all but formal contexts. In America, for example, the noun "impact" has assumed in the last ten years the sense of a transitive verb. It has now supplanted the verbs "influence" and "affect," even in educated writing. It may be ugly, but it's nevertheless real and, really, one of the charms and strengths of the English language IMO. That is not to say that relativism rules; it does not. It is only that mastery of the English language is less an adherence to an official lexicon, as it is in French, than an appreciation of context and development.

 

[Huffward]

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.

Although I often wish that the sentiment you expressed were true, it is not, at least in English. One of the principal characteristics of English is the manner in which it develops. Standard English is full of once-suspect cognates derived from the languages of invaders, as well as once-colloquial terms that have become accepted in all but formal contexts. In America, for example, the noun "impact" has assumed in the last ten years the sense of a transitive verb. It has now supplanted the verbs "influence" and "affect," even in educated writing. It may be ugly, but it's nevertheless real and, really, one of the charms and strengths of the English language IMO. That is not to say that relativism rules; it does not. It is only that mastery of the English language is less an adherence to an official lexicon, as it is in French, than an appreciation of context and development.

 

Absolutely, English changes and it always has, but it is also an international language, and new usages should (I believe) be accepted into standard written English only if they become generally accepted. The problem with usage books that follow every ephemeral trend, is that they change their advice every six months. Try reading a really trendy one that's ten or fifteen years old, and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Djehuty]

Language evolves, but that's no reason to throw the rulebook (and good sense) out the window. Once, English conformed to no particular standard because no standards had been developed. Should we return to this, after a very pleasant interlude in which rules of spelling and grammar were available, and communication was much eased thereby?

 

There's a difference between evolution and degradation. Losing the differentiation between "you" and "thou" was evolution. Switching to "u" is degradation. Descending into a morass of regionalism, idiom, and lazy spelling and grammar is not evolution of language, it is a sign that one is losing the ability to communicate outside one's immediate linguistic circle.

 

Having studied Egyptian, I'm quite familiar with the evolution of language. Changes which were deplored in one century produced some of the most expressive literature in the entire national body of work a few hundred years later. But I'm also quite familiar with the degradation of language. When no one knew how to write in the hieroglyphic script any longer, not even the priests who were trying to record their knowledge on temple walls, the language devolved into a barely comprehensible mishmash of orthographic errors and made-up symbols. I'm in favor of linguistic evolution, opposed to its opposite. I don't expect people to conform to 19th-century standards of spelling and grammar, but I do prefer that some understanding of grammar be acquired and employed, and I do not agree that "because everyone is saying it that way" is sufficient reason to change the dictionaries and textbooks.

 

You can have my grammar when you pry it from my cold, dead neurons!

 

[Huffward]

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).

 

Perhaps, but... so what? I'm proud of my peasant ancestry, and my closest friend is gay. So if some narrow-minded twit is going to assume I'm a peasant, or gay, or a gay peasant because of my ink choices, I'll take that as a compliment. I've been compared to much worse things than my grandfather and my best friend, after all.

 

I'm not expressing my own views but what I deduce to be the writer's. Consider several things:

 

1) As ink approaches black it becomes more masculine - a sexist stereotype. I must confess that my own preferences are for blue-black and indigo (Diamine). What does this make me? Something less than a schoolboy?

 

2) Women are very much an afterthought, and schoolgirls aren't worthy of mention. This despite the fact, I allege, that women do most of the etiquette writing the author is thinking of: invitations, RSPVs, cards, letters, and the like. I say this, not because I think that it is their place to do so, but because men so often tend to leave it to the wife. I have no doubt that the sort of chaps Debrett's have in mind would do so.

 

3) I have no doubt that Debrett's presciptions for men are restricted to chaps who are the right stuff, chaps who frequent officer's messes and clubs. I am not expressing a personal prejudice against such people. My father was an army major and he still attends military reunions at an army club. I am merely second-guessing Debrett's.

 

4) So where does this leave gay men on the Debrett's ink-color scale? Somewhere below the horizon with the schoolgirls and the other ranks?

 

To me, this Debrett's extract and many others, aren't just trivial and silly, but downright nasty, because they seek to perpetuate outmoded sexist and class attitudes - in terms of ink colour, for God's sake! Perhaps this is why the publishers disclaim liability.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Huffward

[Alex728]

hmm - when I was in high school those who used fountain pens either used washable blue (most common, irrespective of gender) - or black.

 

I do use blue-black today (pelikan 4001) as my most common colour, and other more "outlandish" colours (green and red) at work for colour coding purposes.

 

This is in a combined Finance/IT role, where I often have to annotate documents that have already been printed or written on by others, so I quite deliberately pick colours that stand out - blue-black is uncommon here the only other fountain pen user in the office tends to use black).

 

I have to confess that I have not written a "Real Letter" for some time.

 

As for being a "schoolboy", well I spent the bulk of last weekend in a nightclub listening to techno music and stayed up all night afterwards with my friends, so I suppose I am still acting like a 17-18 year old, and I am quite unrepentant about this

 

 

 

[gregoron]

There must be an etiquette on writing etiquette books.

[Djehuty]

I'm not expressing my own views but what I deduce to be the writer's. Consider several things:

 

Understood. I wasn't accusing you of sharing those views.

 

[Titivillus]

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.

 

Interesting, huh?

 

Asinine really. If you have to wait for someone else to tell you what ink color to use well meaybe you need a fleece to join the rest of the flock :roflmho:

 

[saintsimon]

On what etiquette did those folks rely on for international correspondence? One countries "dos" may be other countries "dont's".

[Huffward]

I wonder when the hammer and chisel became the 'incorrect' way of writing a letter, when the quill pen became 'incorrect', and the dip pen. If we took any notice of the Debrett's mentality, we'd still be living in caves or up trees.

[Mudge]

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...

Just to be picky, since everybody else is ...

 

This had nothing to do with Carmichael. The idiom is in the original text of all of Sayers' Wimsey books.

 

 

[acolythe]

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.

 

Interesting, huh?

 

Let's have some fun pulling Debrett's apart. (I do hope you've quoted them verbatim).

 

"Black remains the most correct and distinguished choice." Correct is an absolute. One thing cannot be more correct than another.

"Blue is very much in second place and is thought more suitable for women than for men." Very much: a meaningless intensifier: poor style.

"Blue-black is only appropriate for schoolboys." A terrible grammar gaffe. The writer means: "Blue-black is appropriate only for schoolboys" or "Blue-black is appropriate for schoolboys only".

 

So blue-black ink might be the schoolboy standard, but so is Debrett's grammar and style. Dear me! What sort of school could the writer possibly have gone to?

I love this response

thank you

there is nothing l;ike exposing poor grammar in a stuffy dictator.

Barry

[davidv7]

A fool is a fool and if it is traditionalist and in power to publish such things, the catastrophy is unavoidable.

Edited September 27, 2007 by davidv7

[Izzy]

Now imagine how the world would be if those "traditional circles" would be the only driving force. We would still build Pyramids and worship Egyptian gods.

 

And what's wrong with that, hmm? I can think of worse things for a society to do than build monuments that will last thousands of years. And as gods go, the Egyptian ones were fairly interesting and relatively harmless (unless you happened to be a bird or a cat raised for ceremonial mummification).

 

Let's have some fun pulling Debrett's apart. (I do hope you've quoted them verbatim).

 

"Black remains the most correct and distinguished choice." Correct is an absolute. One thing cannot be more correct than another.

"Blue is very much in second place and is thought more suitable for women than for men." Very much: a meaningless intensifier: poor style.

"Blue-black is only appropriate for schoolboys." A terrible grammar gaffe. The writer means: "Blue-black is appropriate only for schoolboys" or "Blue-black is appropriate for schoolboys only".

 

So blue-black ink might be the schoolboy standard, but so is Debrett's grammar and style. Dear me! What sort of school could the writer possibly have gone to?

 

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.

 

And so say all of us!!

 

[KROWN]

Hi there folks, (I wonder what DeBretts would make of that?!) As someone who has reached that time of life where I value tradition, (mainly my own), may I say how thoroughly I have enjoyed reading this topic.

 

I think that the secret to understanding this "stuffy" approach is to realise that "tradition" is slow to change. In the old days (and no, I don't mean the "good" old days), technology was very limited; the choices available in coloured ink were few and far between and indeed - probably - rather suspect in quality and by implication perhaps, taste. Men were men, ( and you could tell them by the black ink in their Conway Stewart Fountain Pens!) and women - sorry -"Gals" were, well, "Frightfully nice actually!" Of course times change, but if anyone willingly assumes the mantle of being arbiter of good taste and etiquette, they will never be the person to move the wheel of progress at anything other than a slow pace. In other words, do not be surprised that DeBretts takes such a stance as that is what they do naturally, in the same way as a sloth moves slowly and a scorpion stings!

 

I was brought up with the notion that black was the "manly" choice of ink. It was ingrained in me on various occasions throughout my spotty faced years and for many years after I followed what had become my own tradition and adhered to this "accepted wisdom". I must confess in doing so I derived a degree of perverse pleasure, for the irony is that to be traditional is now very often to be different from todays new and "accepted norms"; perhaps each new generation breeds it's own instruments of confinement, it's own "Traditions"?

 

In fact it was in my professional career I changed to blue ink because - as I have said in other threads - I wanted my signature and other personal correspondence to be obviously original as opposed to being thought a photocopy. Of course technology has again moved on and now choice of coloured ink no longer guarantees that your documents are original. Habit, and the chance that on most occasions words in a blue ink will still be accepted as an original piece of penmanship, still keep me signing in blue and now, because of this Network, experimenting in some other colours too for my writing.

 

I take from Tradition what suits me and use it if it makes sense to me to do so; but where it doesn't? Then I am glad to say I have reached that stage in life where, to mis-quote from "Gone with the Wind", "Frankly my dear, I don't give a Damn!"