🚀 go-pugleaf

In Mark M. Orkins' book, <Speaking Canadian English> (General 
Publishing, 1970), an entertaining language history I have just 
begun, he makes this point:

"Canada has never experienced to any extent the pullulation 
(you have to excuse him; he's a lawyer) of boards, bodies and 
bureaux which characterized the American scene chiefly during 
and after the days of the New Deal....If hard pressed, one 
might work up a handful like CBC, CMHC, NRC, LCBO, but we 
cannot begin to rival the rich alphabet soup of American 
bureaucracy." 

The thread on this topic (which I have lost thanks to cranky 
software) was begun, I believe, by a Swedish poster who noted 
the preponderance of "a & i" in American usage as opposed to 
other languages.

So, perhaps we can blame the New Deal and all the pressure of 
American society at this time for this, seemingly-unique 
American style of government lingo? Or, at least, for its 
all-important start. 

One of the explanations of language development is the 
"launching-pad" theory (as I call it, altho' American historian 
Louis Hartz used something very similar and so does Orkin).

Thus, if the Depression-era was the start of a new and massive 
intervention by government in the American economy (after years 
of swashbuckling capitalism ), then, wordwise, the die was 
cast.

But why would this happen? Some speculation:

Perhaps the decision to use so many "a & i's" was due to the 
confluence of many factors, such as;

   -a "sop" to those "capitalists" with all their disdain (but 
soon to become an addiction to the largesse it implied) for the 
ponderousness and language of this growing bureaucracy;

   -an emulation of  the prohibition/jazz age lingo of the time

   -"a people own the language, therefore keep it simple" 
attitude of Americans, thus allowing them to override the 
correct bureaucratic names with the easier and shortened forms;

   -a shortening and also musical approach much liked by the 
newspapers and the new media-radio

   -the continual creativeness of the American spirit (in not 
only language issues!), which Orkin points out, in contrast to 
the "pedestrian" approach he cites in Canadians.

Since none of these factors occurred in exactly the same 
fashion in other countries, we could expect a different pattern 
of development elsewhere.

Nor have things stayed the same since the publication of 
Orkin's book; I have no evidence at hand, but I suspect that 
here in Canada and elsewhere that there is a growing trend to 
more use of acronynms and initialisms for govt bodies. 

But I doubt if any country will ever match the American style 
to the degree this practice exists there.

Tom Collins
Toronto

PS I notice in his bibliography Orkin cites a book by Mario 
Pei, <The Story of English> (Philadephia, 1952). I wonder if 
anyone here has any comments on this book and its worth to one 
interested in our language?