-
In the British Civil Service (from where much of this language originates) there was (not so much now) a strong culture that a “good chap” did not need to be told what to do - he would just know without having to be told.
So, any instruction had to be delivered in the mildest possible form, as advice or a suggestion, to avoid breaking this convention. Much of this language comes from that context.
This is why saying “this is not a rebuke” is actually perceived as a rebuke - it implies that it’s not out of the question that, one day, you might need to give a rebuke to the person you’re talking to. See “Yes Minister” (the British comedy series) in which Sir Humphrey is told he is not being reprimanded, and perceives this as severe reprimand!
A particularly illuminating comment by @DGHFrost following an Economist article on the joys of euphemistic understatement in British management speak. This is another version of that “What the English say vs. what they mean” document that’s been going around the intertubes in the last couple of months - naturally I’m a native speaker, but I gather it’s baffling and/or hilarious if you’re not.
Also interesting, however, is the tone on the Economist’s comment thread - zero rudeness, and 100% on topic. One or two mild jokes about girlfriends being as indirect as British managers, but no misogyny.
Extraordinary. Round of applause for their mod team. And NB that civility has been achieved alongside anonymous usernames - the two are not incompatible.
Posted on December 6, 2011 with 26 notes ()
Source: economist.com
-
naranzarian liked this
-
hautepop posted this
-
digital culture and social media and privacy & security and social theory and urbanism and architecture and fashion and anthropology and politics and research
