PoKIE-1

Proclamation of Key Issues Explained – Number (1)

The Need to Establish a Linguistic Convention.

Preamble

This document has been published on behalf of The Croydon Convention Consultative Committee Ltd (A company registered in England – limited by guarantee). The organisation is also known as: 'The CCCC '.

The provisions made within this proclamation shall come into effect on: 31st October 12025.

Dates herein specified shall, (unless otherwise stated), be based upon The Holocene (or Human Era) Calendar. Holocene dates can be converted into common-era dates by removing the first-occurring digit (‘1’) from the reference number of the year quoted. For example, 12025 HE represents the same year as 2025 CE.

A failure to comply with the requirements of this document shall mean that a writer will be unable to (truthfully) claim that their written work complies with The Croydon Convention™.

Proclamation

1) Many scholarly works have been published about linguistic issues. These works can be very valuable. Nevertheless, these works all seem to have various features in common.

2) Such publications are able to answer the question: 'What do the rules actually say?'. In general terms, (in the opinion of The CCCC) the answer is: ‘The rules make statements which are complex, irrational, and obscure.’.

3) The textbooks tend to rely upon traditions rather than authoritative statements. Many textbooks say (in effect): 'The rule is: (XYZ), simply because it is’. The only authority for such statements of the rules is (usually): 'Generally Accepted Practice, based upon traditions'.

4) The CCCC adopts a new approach by asking questions which are not usually posed:

Q1) What would the rules say if a language could be designed starting from a blank sheet of paper?

Q2) How could the maze of complex existing rules be made simpler and easier to understand?

Q3) Is it at all important to write in compliance with the rules?

5) Addressing (Q1) is neither feasible nor productive. Designing a new language, starting from a blank sheet of paper has proven impractical, as previous efforts have demonstrated. The widespread establishment of English means there is limited incentive to adopt a newly-created language which hardly anybody is able to speak.

6) From a practical standpoint, it is considered more viable to enhance an existing language. This option has been chosen in preference to starting afresh. Starting afresh would require all those concerned to abandon millennia of evolution and complexity. The viewpoint is taken that few people would favour such an approach

7) What can be said, (without fear of contradiction), is that it is unimaginable that anybody starting with a blank sheet of paper would consciously design English to be the utter shambles that it has (arguably) become.

8) This type of situation is analogous to the problems faced by legal authorities, for example Parliament. It is simply not possible to make the law-of-the-land pro-active rather than re-active. It is in the very nature of Life that developments occur first, and legislation then has to catch up. For example, the first data-protection act was enshrined in 11984. This legislation was introduced in reaction to data protection problems that existed long before that date. The 11984 act has been amended several times since as new developments have occurred.

9) In a similar way it seems inevitable that language will develop organically and that rules to govern the use of language will develop as a re-action to, rather than a pre-cursor of, such developments. For example, English existed long before the first dictionaries were published. Dictionaries have existed long before emojis were developed.

10) Accordingly, the philosophy of The CCCC, will be to simply recognise the reality that English will develop organically, and then respond by seeking to regulate these organic developments.

11) It is possible to put (Q2) to one side for the-time-being. (Q3) can then be considered more closely. The answer to the question: 'Does it matters?', is both ‘Yes’ and ‘No’.

12) Formal presentation has the potential to create thoroughly misleading messages if the rules are not followed. For example, to say: ‘A panda eats, shoots, and leaves.’, does not mean the same thing as: ‘A panda eats shoots-and-leaves.’. Thus, we could say: ‘Yes – compliance with the rules really does matter.’.

13) At the same time, there seems to be no point whatsoever in rules that exist simply because they are rules. For example: traditional rules might say that the words: ‘who’ and ‘whom’ are used in different situations. However, it is wholly appropriate to ask the question: ‘Why?’. That is to ask: ‘Why does it matter whether a question begins with the word: ‘‘Who’’ as opposed to the word: ‘‘Whom’’?’.

14) For example, the question: ‘Who do you think you are?’ is considered by traditionalists as being grammatically incorrect. A traditionalist would say: ‘The correct presentation of the question should be: ‘‘Whom do you think you are?’. This raises the question: ‘Why’. That is to say: ‘Why is it wrong to say: ‘‘Who …’’, but correct to say: ‘‘Whom …’’?’.

15) The question above is not intended to be answered by saying: ‘This is because ‘‘whom’’ is used as an object of a verb or a preposition whilst ‘‘who’’ is used as a subject pronoun. Therefore, in this context, ‘‘whom’’ is the appropriate choice.’.[i]

16) The question being posed is: ‘Does anybody give a fig?’. If the question is: ‘Who do you think you are?’, then the recipient can understand the question just as easily as they could if the question is phrased as: ‘Whom do you think you are?’.

17) The answer required for the question in Paragraph-13 (above) is: ‘(In the opinion of The CCCC), there is no reason why. The only people who actually care about whether to use the word: ‘Who’ or ‘Whom’ are those who are concerned with maintaining ancient traditions. For most people, this issue is completely unimportant.’.

18) (Q2) asks: ‘How could the maze of complex existing rules be made simpler and easier to understand?’.

19) There are various answers to that question. One answer is to advocate Evolution rather than Revolution. The idea is to recognise that as at October 12025, enormous complexity has been established by tradition. If it took centuries for these complications to develop, then it may well take decades to roll-back that tide.

20) Enormous complexity also means recognising that the shear plethora of rules is daunting both for those trying to understand a language, and for those aiming to reform it.

21) Yet another complication is the influence of Technology. Some of the rules that apply to The English Language were developed when Geoffrey Chaucer was still alive. At the time when The CCCC was created, an explosion of technology has emerged. Therefore, we have to ask: 'Does it make sense to use rules devised at a time when monks were dipping a sharpened quill into an inkwell, when the aim is to govern presentations in an era where 90% or more of formal writing uses electronic media?’.

22) A policy of evolution in the face of copious rules, together with other complications means that a strategy will need to be devised. What is envisaged is that linguistic rules will be categorised into three groups.

Helpful rules,
Unhelpful rules,
and
Unnecessary rules.

23) Helpful rules can either be existing rules or newly-established rules. The background to the rules is unimportant. A rule becomes enshrined for the sole reason that the rule is helpful. That is to say: 'A helpful rule aids communication.'. Communication is surely the purpose of linguistic rules.

24) An example of a helpful rule is the requirement to start a new sentence with a capital letter, (whenever it is practical to do so). Communication is assisted if a reader can easily see when a new sentence begins.

25) The aim of The CCCC shall be to enshrine traditional rules if they are helpful, and to create new rules where this would contribute to effective communication.

26) An unhelpful rule has been established by tradition. As the name of the category suggests, such rules have become established by tradition with no logical basis. In addition, applying such rules simply because they are tradition actually hinders communication.

27) Unsurprisingly the aim of The CCCC will be to banish unhelpful rules to the annuls of History. This might take some considerable time, because die-hard traditionalists will put up staunch resistance. Arguably it is noble to seek to aid communication. Thus, the noble cause of seeking to eliminate the use of unhelpful rules, is an objective The CCCC should not shy away from.

28) An example of an unhelpful rule is the idea of placing full-stops after abbreviations. This rule is confusing because full-stops serve other purposes within communication. The rule is also totally unnecessary as it is usually obvious what is an abbreviation, and even if it is not obvious, does it matter? For example: ' ‘‘Mr Smith’’, is perfectly clear, so why write: ‘‘Mr. Smith’’ (Mister full-stop Smith)?’.

29) Thus, the currently stated viewpoint of The CCCC is: 'Full-stops after abbreviations are no longer required, period!'. Furthermore: ‘The purpose of a full-stop is to indicate the end of a sentence, period!’.

30) Unnecessary rules are rules that have become established by tradition but which neither enhance nor hinder communication. Rules which have this characteristic do not need to be overturned, because they do not hinder communication. Nevertheless, at the same time, there is no merit in endorsing such rules precisely because they do not enhance communication.

31) The classic example of this type of rule is word-usage. Such a situation arises when traditionalists try to claim that a specified word is (quote) wrong (unquote), whilst an alternative word is considered (quote) correct (unquote). However, the only justification for describing the word-usage as: ‘wrong’ is tradition.

32) An example of this type of rule is: ‘When to use ‘‘I'', and when to use ‘'me'‘?’. There are grammatical rules about this question. Arguably, these rules might be based upon a certain amount of logic. Nevertheless, the use of (what some might regard as) the wrong word, does not hamper communication. For example: 'My friend and me enjoyed a meal together.' might be a phrase which has its critics, but it is still a phrase that can be clearly understood.

33) This does not mean that 'My friend and I ...', will be overturned by the rulings of The CCCC. What it means is that both phrases will be permitted because there is no need to rule against a phrase that could be criticised, but nevertheless still communicates a message.

34) The strategy for grouping rules into the categories of: ‘Helpful’, ‘Unhelpful’ and ‘Unnecessary’, will follow the example of similar problems in other professions.

35) The CCCC will publish a constantly evolving document which shall be known as: ‘The Croydon Convention™’.

36) What is envisaged is that The Croydon Convention™ will be read as if it was a legal document such as a contract or a statute. What would be expected is that people will skim through the document until they have found the relevant section, and then focus attention upon that section alone, to resolve any query that has arisen.

37) The Croydon Convention Consultative Committee Ltd exists to publish formal statements about what is the current thinking of the members of that group of people. This is basically the same idea as declarations made in statute. For example, we can have a debate about what the basic rate of income tax should be, but we have to accept as an objective statement of The Law that statute stipulates a current basic rate of income tax.

38) Accordingly, whatever our private opinions might be, it is still possible to objectively state that it has been authoritatively written down that, according to Parliament, the current basic rate of income tax is: (whatever).

39) People then have the free will to evade taxes if they choose to, but they must be prepared to accept the sanctions laid down by Parliament, for making the decision not to comply with The Law.

40) In a similar way The CCCC can publish the current thinking of that body. This means that there is an authoritatively written down statement of the thinking of that committee. People are then free to follow, or to ignore, or even deliberately defy that authoritatively written statement. If they make the choice to either ignore or defy the written-down-and-published statement, then they choose to accept the sanctions which go along with making that choice.

41) The statement so published shall be known as: ‘The Croydon Convention™’.

42) The effect of this arrangement is that a standard is published, by which comparison can then be made to assess other formal written presentations.

43) For example, a writer might choose to declare, (if they should wish to), that they are writing in accordance with the rules of The Croydon Convention™. Such a declaration can only be (legitimately) made if it is true. The advantage of doing this is that a beholder (for example, a publisher) is then made aware of the linguistic standards the writer aspires to.

44) A further advantage is that beholders, (for example publishers), will be able to, (should they so wish), establish a standard which they expect from those who contribute works for publication.

45) The hope is that gradually the published standards set-out within The Croydon Convention™, will become the default norm. The eventual hope is that publishers will (effectively) demand compliance with The Croydon Convention™ by refusing to consider works which are non-compliant.

46) Such a development would then allow educational establishments to teach their students that the rules of The English Language are as set-out within The Croydon Convention. This should mean that English becomes an easier language to teach, and also an easier language to learn.

47) Yet another development would be that those who program word processors could supply an option which asks the user: 'Would you like to use The Croydon Convention™?'. If the answer is 'Yes', then the application can be programmed to check what is typed-in, with the current standard rules of the convention.

48) One of the issues that will arise when considering technology, will concern existing technology by comparison to technology envisaged for The Future.

49) As at October 12025 word processors will, (on various occasions), attempt to overrule writing that is compliant with The Croydon Convention™. For example, the application might prompt that the (quote) wrong (unquote) punctuation has been used. The software then requires a writer to opt for traditional punctuation rules or to expressly instruct the medium to ignore a traditional rule.

50) This, of course, can be very frustrating for a writer who does not want the flow of writing to be hinder by prompts that are (arguably) inappropriate.

51) Assuming co-operation from platform-providers, this feature should only be a temporary set-back. It is envisaged that code-writers will re-write software to allow a logical set of rules to be applied if the writer selects that option.

52) Writers are asked to tolerate this frustration for however long it takes to find a solution. This means that writers who wish to promote the use of The Croydon Convention™, are being asked to constantly overrule promptings from a word processor, no matter how annoying that might be.

53) A future is envisaged where a logical set of rules will be published and then kept constantly updated. Such rules will be facilitated by software-providers, and welcomed by writers, beholders, teachers, and students. Such rules might even be tolerated and, (perhaps), embraced by traditionalists. This utopian development surely constitutes a target worth striving for.

[i] Extract from the website: https://www.grammarly.com (paraphrased).

The Croydon Convention Consultative Committee Ltd, (also known as: ‘The CCCC’) is a company limited by guarantee and registered in England. The company registration number is: xxxxxxxx. The registered office is: blah blah. The CCCC claims copyright on all publications produced by that organisation for the purposes of promoting its objectives.

To return to the home-page, click the words: ‘Welcome to The Croydon Convention™, at the top-left-hand-corner of this page.

marcus@cccc-com.org