A nice thing about speech freedom is that we get to do things our own way around here.
Sometimes you'll find that NotW mixes Britishisms into the Americanism brew. Case in point:
The form the hospital stems from earlier days when the local newspaper, and locals in general, could only be referring to one local hospital. So these days, technically, it would be better to write, "a hospital," but that sounds lame when two local hospitals exist. After a multi-casualty emergency, the non-local U.S. press often uses the form, were taken to area hospitals.
So why not then, on first reference, simply use the correct name of the hospital in question? The obvious reply is that the writer or speaker does not have that information to hand yet or that the information is of such low value in the context of the conversation as to be irrelevent.
When you hear that "Jenn is in hospital," you may not need further elucidation. You are more likely to ask, "What for?"
In any case, when one uses the Britishism in hospital, the line between one hospital that is unspecified (by the article a) and one that is specified (by the article the), is left handily fuzzy. I don't think the British phrase is used much for plurals, tho I would have no problem with "the victims were rushed to hospitals," which is grammatically orthodox anyway.
Some may quibble that "Jane is in hospital" is better written "Jane is [or "has been"] hospitalized."
Perhaps so. But the gerundization (aagh!!) of hospital with -ized strikes me as a bit barbaric.
Another point: Keep in mind the trend to ax words that these days are often seen as superfluous. The use of the words that and which are examples of this dramatic trend, a trend especially notable among news writers. Ax as many as possible, but not too many.
Similarly, why insist on an article before nouns or noun units (a noun or pronoun modified by one or more words), when sometimes our comprehension is fine without it -- as with in hospital.
Sometimes you'll find that NotW mixes Britishisms into the Americanism brew. Case in point:
The crash victim was rushed to hospital.The lack of an article before hospital is not accepted among American media or Americans in general. The form is regarded as a Britishism. Americans would say,
Adrienne is in hospital.
She was just released from the hospital.These days, the American form isn't very logical, either. In a great many urban centers more than one hospital is available. Even in quite a few rural areas, two urban hospitals may serve different parts of a rural region.
The gunshot victim was transported to the hospital.
The form the hospital stems from earlier days when the local newspaper, and locals in general, could only be referring to one local hospital. So these days, technically, it would be better to write, "a hospital," but that sounds lame when two local hospitals exist. After a multi-casualty emergency, the non-local U.S. press often uses the form, were taken to area hospitals.
So why not then, on first reference, simply use the correct name of the hospital in question? The obvious reply is that the writer or speaker does not have that information to hand yet or that the information is of such low value in the context of the conversation as to be irrelevent.
When you hear that "Jenn is in hospital," you may not need further elucidation. You are more likely to ask, "What for?"
In any case, when one uses the Britishism in hospital, the line between one hospital that is unspecified (by the article a) and one that is specified (by the article the), is left handily fuzzy. I don't think the British phrase is used much for plurals, tho I would have no problem with "the victims were rushed to hospitals," which is grammatically orthodox anyway.
Some may quibble that "Jane is in hospital" is better written "Jane is [or "has been"] hospitalized."
Perhaps so. But the gerundization (aagh!!) of hospital with -ized strikes me as a bit barbaric.
Another point: Keep in mind the trend to ax words that these days are often seen as superfluous. The use of the words that and which are examples of this dramatic trend, a trend especially notable among news writers. Ax as many as possible, but not too many.
Similarly, why insist on an article before nouns or noun units (a noun or pronoun modified by one or more words), when sometimes our comprehension is fine without it -- as with in hospital.
No comments:
Post a Comment