Unspun

A new breed of English?


MBM Tempo

Is it just me or is the English in the cover story headline in the English version of Tempo a bit off. I would have thought that terrorist needs to be singular as in since we are talking about “a new breed.”Inside the standfirst has an interesting phrase: “A new handbook…is doing the rounds, enabling anyone to foment terror….” Can terror be fomented? I always thought that you could strike terror in someone, or instill terror but I’ve never come across foment terror. Can some English-language maven out there help enlighten us?

unspun

5 responses to “A new breed of English?”

  1. Riccardo Avatar
    Riccardo

    As I understand it, Tempo uses a “mixed” style. They don’t religiously adhere to either US or UK English, but just sorta go with the flow, so to speak. The whole group singular/plural thing can be daunting for non-native speakers, e.g. US=Manchester United sucks; UK=Manchester United suck.

    Languages change, they are dynamic and always on the move; and in this era of the war on terror, many new concepts have been foist upon linguists, who are struggling to catch up.

    Anyway, if Tempo is wrong, they are certainly not alone, rather than dig up chapter and verse from some dusty old grammar book, how about we read the exact wording in these fine publications:

    [b]”new breed of terrorists”[/b]
    Times of London–http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1440917,00.html

    Guardian –http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,550411,00.html

    MSN — http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geupRO9gZF_P0A_PNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2MGMzYm9jBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDNwRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANFMjYxXzg5/SIG=13dbuhrpl/EXP=1158170574/**http%3a//autofeed.msn.co.in/pandorav3/output/News/e2598583-9988-4b18-8940-47799d44a5d8.aspx

    YahooNews –http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geupRO9gZF_P0A9PNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2NTEzanNtBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDNQRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANFMjYxXzg5/SIG=121p9g4a9/EXP=1158170574/**http%3a//in.news.yahoo.com/051115/43/611si.html

    Sydney Morning Herald — http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geupRO9gZF_P0A6fNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2M2MxYXUxBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMgRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANFMjYxXzg5/SIG=13egmfe0a/EXP=1158170574/**http%3a//www.smh.com.au/news/world/uks-new-breed-of-terrorists/2005/07/13/1120934304323.html

    [b]”To Foment Terror”[/b]

    Guardian — http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geutLh9QZFvC8AKm9XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2bW1tc2Q3BGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMwRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANFMjYxXzg5/SIG=12hqvd6j1/EXP=1158170465/**http%3a//www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5303729-103690,00.html

    Yale Univ. — http://www.som.yale.edu/faculty/nok4/files/papers/terror.pdf

    UK Govt — http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geutLh9QZFvC8ANW9XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2NnRoYzZ2BGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDNgRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANFMjYxXzg5/SIG=13bmpsonp/EXP=1158170465/**http%3a//www.gnn.gov.uk/Content/Detail.asp%3fReleaseID=172368%26NewsAreaID=2%26print=true

    Like

    Reply
  2. Jakartass Avatar
    Jakartass

    In this instance, Riccardo is right.

    To foment means to cause, (especially) trouble, disturbances and, by extension, terror.

    Like

    Reply
  3. unspun Avatar
    unspun

    Afraid can’t agree with Riccardo and Jakartass.

    Riccards: Non-native speakers may be daunted but native speakers would be exasperated. I did not manage to check all references you provided but the ones from the Times and Guardian certainly support the contention that you cannot have A (singular) new breed of terrorists (plural). The Times headline is “War will spawn new breed of terrorists” which is correct usage. Guardian’s headline was “a new breed of terror” which is also correct English usage.

    I’m bad in grammatical terms but in both instances there is no “a” to denote singular.

    Jakartass: the question on whether “foment terror” is the right phrase is trickier. My take is that foment, if you look at its origins denotes something slow, as in a warm application; a poultice. So it would be appropriate to apply foment to social conditions which need to be stoked up such as revolutions and unrest.

    But terror is a sudden and immediate state: you are either terrorized or you’re not. As such, I think “strike” would be a more appropriate word.

    Like

    Reply
  4. reuben Avatar
    reuben

    a new breed of terrorist (sing.) implies a new sub-class of the terrorist species. a new breed of terrorists (plural) implies the terrorists from a new sub-class of the terrorist species. so both would be correct for the tempo article, with slightly different implications.

    “foment terror” is a common phrase in the “war on terror” era, as used by bush spokesman tony snow among others. i’m guessing it’s one of those correct but obscure terminologies dug up by someone, somewhere, that has spread around the circles of the bush administration — who are notoriously bad at english — and from thence into public usage.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Riccardo Avatar
    Riccardo

    Unspun, I appreciate your quest for 100% correctness, but that Guardian story you refer to precisely demonstrates how modern English usage bends some “rules” but remains 100% correct. Indeed, the headline states “A New Breed of Terror”, but like any quest, it is wise to dig a tad deeper.

    This is from the body of the story:

    “According to Revell, Yousef and Bin Laden are the first of a new breed of terrorists who are more difficult to deal with.”

    And yes, this is indeed an exasperating exercise — in pedantry.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to reuben Cancel reply